Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Ryan Chapman"
channel.
-
@joshualovelace3375 Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT.
He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video.
His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice.
Here are 2 obvious examples:
1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states.
The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference.
CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased.
Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious.
Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing.
2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says.
The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce.
Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different.
The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
15
-
@sevynn3970 Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT.
He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video.
His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice.
Here are 2 obvious examples:
1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states.
The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference.
CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased.
Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious.
Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing.
2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says.
The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce.
Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different.
The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
4
-
Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT.
He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video.
His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice.
Here are 2 obvious examples:
1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states.
The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference.
CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased.
Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious.
Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing.
2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says.
The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce.
Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different.
The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
3
-
@leirex_1 1) " the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present."
NO. You are misreading the text. The sentence does not say "this differential treatment continues into the present". It says "the effect of this differential treatment continues into the present". In other words, color-blind policymaking would make no sense in a society where historical racism caused problems whose effects persist into today.
This is very different from saying that the historical racism itself persists.
That's the entire point of this section of the text and your interpretation is literally the opposite of what it says. The entire idea is that even with the best intentions, even in a society where no one is racist, colorblind policies would typically work to reinforce historical racism.
2) "that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political."
The text doesn't say that at all. It literally doesn't say that or anything close to that anywhere. The text says 3 things:
a) It is impossible to be objective often it is more harmful to pretend to be objective than to admit your own biases.
b) The default bias in most historical academic scholarship produced in the US has been slanted towards reinforcing white biases.
c) If you are doing critical race theory you should not pretend to attack this white bias from a neutral position, but admit and embrace the fact that your position is also biased.
That last one is pretty important. It's not prescribing this to all academia. Or telling you that you should always do this. It's saying that when you're doing CRT you should act like this.
This actually has less to do with Critical Race Theory itself, and more to do with Critical Theory in general. Critical Theory in general is a field of study that requires us to explore the hidden biases and assumptions in our traditional beliefs. So if you do it without being open about your own bias, you're doing it poorly. Critical Race Theory applies that same idea to race.
But that doesn't mean that ALL academia should be biased.
The goal of all academia is to arrive at real objective truth. When you're doing orthodox academic study, its ok to adopt the default "neutral objective voice", even if you know it's a lie. But when you do critical theory you have to reject this voice and speak from your own "authentic" and biased position.
Then, when you combine the two, you're able to get closer to the real truth. Because your own openly biased position may help you see the hidden biases in the supposedly "objective" work you usdd to look at as neutral.
This is not really a controversial position and it's a pretty old idea in academia. And the text excepts explain this reasonably well. It's very different from any of the crazy garbage this imbecile Chapman was saying.
3) "You're overreacting here"
No. You're underreacting. I simply chose a small representative sample. but lIterally every single thing Chapman said about CRT in this video was wrong. You would literally be better off having heard nothing.
Most of the time, he interpreted the text to mean he opposite of what was written. He quoted sentence fragments out of context and read out loud something different than what was written.
And the absolute worst part is that he did it while pretending to present an unbiased, neutral view of the topic.
This is SO much worst than an open racist simply admitting that he hates colored people and attacking CRT for an hour. He is literally committing the very sin the text warns against. He is purposely lying and smearing the study of CRT as a result of his own prejudices and adopting a fake objective and neutral voice.
This is the worst kind of racist.
3
-
Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT.
He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video.
His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice.
Here are 2 obvious examples:
1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states.
The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference.
CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased.
Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious.
Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing.
2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says.
The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce.
Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different.
The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1