It strikes me that much of the anti-CRT pieces that charge Black Christians with being CRT proponents go to great lengths to root CRT in European philosophical streams of thought. This despite actual proponents rooting their thoughts elsewhere in the Black intellectual trad.
/1

So one has to ask the question: Why this tendency? Why press a movement often self-consciously located in one tradition into a tradition it sees as foreign to its thinking?

I'm sure there are many answers. But one answer seems to me to be it's an attempt to control the debate./2
A lot of the historical and philosophical excursus, insofar as it overlooks what the actual proponents claim, is simply another effort at colonizing thought, of insisting on a certain philosophical priority, and of demeaning the constructive thoughts of a group being rejected.
/3
This is partly why so little progress is made or can be hoped for in these discussions. The critics aren't willing to take justice proponents at their word and engage their actual arguments and tradition.

/4
Some need to "other" justice advocates both by (a) alienating the advocate from their own philosophical and theological resources and (b) positioning them within rejected and anathematized streams of thought in western society. It's a double-alienation that rigs the convo.

/5
Disguised as intellectual history, little of it is really about understanding justice claims on their own terms. It's about power to control the discourse. Whoever frames the discussion wins. But, of course, winning a discussion so framed only ends in losing bros/sis's and truth.
My honest recommendation, though as someone who has engaged a lot of debates for a lot of years it saddens me to make it:

Simply ignore the think pieces and invitations to debate CRT, etc. Move on from voices seeking control of discussion by misrepresenting you. Go do the work.
So when @JawnO takes a hard pass on Carl Trueman's take by saying, "He ain't talking about me," John is, in fact, responding in the only way that makes sense if you care about the *actual* problems and can see the intellectual sleight of hand that's repositioning you.

/8
@JawnO Well done, big fella. May all the rest of us follow suit. Ignore the distractions and the power plays in the garb of intellectual histories that aren't your history or your theological/intellectual starting points. Ignore the distractions and do the work. Neh. 6:3.

/end

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like

Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9


Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9