Critical Race Theory

[Spongebob]

@Irreligious Atheist

I'm responding mainly to IA here, but having finally read the entire thing, I have included a review of the book below for those interested.  This is the first book in the series; I haven't read the others.

I don't totally disagree with your (IA's) overall assessment of the book.  It's not classic literature for sure.  I think it is a good book but not great.  But its definitely not dangerous to the sensitivities of white people.  In fact, those who complain that liberals are trying too hard to protect minorities should also apply that reasoning to the criticism of the book and CRT in general.  Who is being the over protective ones here?  Remember, they had this book banned because it would "injure" their poor little white kids.  As I kind of expected, the book is basically a light version of "Everybody hates Chris", which was critically well received and very popular.  EHC was much funnier and I think that's where the book falls short; it's just not that entertaining.  Maybe this book is a little redundant?  My apologies to the author.

---

It has stereotypes and clichés, although some of those are intentional to make a point.  And that might be its biggest flaw; it sometimes tries too hard to make all the right points instead of allowing them to flow more naturally.  Keep in mind that the target audience for this book is middle school children, so that's party the reason.  But all of the things mentioned are real things that people deal with.  I think when someone criticizes things like a black student getting angry because a teacher repeatedly calls him by the name of a different black kid, that is a misunderstanding of the book.  Describing this as being overly sensitive demonstrates that you haven't had his experience and don't understand the full ramifications of it. I'm certain that everyone had been offended at some point by something that lots of other people would just shrug off, saying it's no big deal.  They didn't live your experience, so they don't get it.

I liked that the book included people from just about every angle you could imagine, black and white, rich and poor, jerks, nice people, overly-sensitive people, ignorant people...etc.  There's a black kid who's dad is a CEO and quite wealthy, so his experiences are often awkward but very different from Jordan's.  There's a weird white girl who experiences similar isolation because of her personality, and Jordan is among those who isolate her.  I liked that it showed how black people can make problems worse by applying pressure to other black people because they make an effort to fit into white culture.  Overall, I think the book is a very honest and accurate depiction of how race intersects with culture, at least in the settings depicted.  It can be very different in other settings.

Regarding the basketball shaped cookies, KFC gift cert. and chocolate santa, Drew received these gifts from his secret santa and was annoyed by them because to him they represented stereotypes of black people.  This sort of thing can have the appearance of pandering and no one wants to be pandered to.  I could be depicting a person who isn't making much effort to get to know someone enough to know what things they like, so they just guess and make some award choices because they are kind of ignorant of race.  It is commendable that the author depicts Jordan as downplaying the awkwardness of these gifts while Drew is the more annoyed one.  So, again, he's providing multiple angles and that is exactly what real life is like.  When it is revealed that Ashley is Drew's secret santa and that she went to great effort to make those gifts, even drawing from visual cues about his preferences such as a Knicks poster on his locker, it makes Drew look like the one who is making bad assumptions about people and their intentions.  So, in this case the author is actually demonstrating that black people can also assume the wrong thing about white people, not the other way around.  Also, SHE loves KFC and chocolate, so those gifts was based more on her preference, not his. She just thought if she loved them, then so would Drew.  So clearly, in this case, it was Drew who was misfiring and if you didn't get that then you didn't pay attention to the book.

Another interesting angle is Liam, a kid who's parents are rich and live in a big mansion, but his dad is never around.  Liam is also isolated because of his family's wealth and he envies Jordan, who has a very invested father.  That's another turn of the stereotype.  Its common to depict black children with an absentee father, not rich white kids.  But then, very successful people can sometimes be poor parents, so this is getting into territory that has nothing to do with race.

When Ms Rawls find Jordan's sketch book and describes Jordan as "angry", I think that's interesting because Jordan clearly isn't an angry kid.  He's annoyed and bored and lots of other emotions, but angry is just not accurate. Rawls's reaction is just like these angry parents in Texas who see a comic book about a black kid as dangerous to their security.  Its a vast overreaction based on too little understanding and patience.  Those same people would hate it if their own children were judged so hastily.

So this book not only depicts the varied experiences of black kids but white kids as well and how their class and race often work against their desire to fit in.  It's a book about how we are judged in society and he we judge in return.  Boiling down this book to just being about CRT is doing it a great disservice.  Its actually quite ambitious for a comic book.

I think that the core problem with this book and its content is that we have some uncomfortable truths about this country that some people simply can't or won't accept as true and don't want anyone to speak about them.  Basically they are just triggered by the fact that the US has an extremely racist past and that legacy has not vanished.  That is an incredibly sad thing and it shows weakness and in many ways it contributes to a crumbling of society.  When a society can't be honest about its problems, it can't solve those problems and they have a tendency to make everything worse.

---

---

general offended-ness is rarely warranted, IMO. People should realize that their freedom comes at the cost of joining a social contract. I don't go outside of my doors without the idea that something could be offensive to me, and often is. When it's personal, then it's an attack, but easily diffused with clear communication.

This is a very good point and perhaps its a great idea for a topic that kids get in school.  Being offended by people is a way of life for most people.  However, there is a point where those offenses cross a line and become something much worse.  Banning a book because it contains information that is uncomfortable, though absolutely true, is way over that line.