Critical Race Theory

 Just what the hell is Critical Race Theory?

That's a good question because almost everyone, proponents and detractors, seems to have different ideas about it.

First a little history (as I understand it).

Marxists in the 1920s were trying to explain why the worker revolutions predicted by Marx didn't happen. After the Russian Revolution Marxists expected other dominoes, including Germany and Italy, to fall. But they didn't. So the question became why not? 

An Italian, Antonio Gramsci, came up with the idea of a Cultural Hegemony whereby the ruling classes used cultural institutions to maintain power rather then force. 

In the 1930s Marxist academics and intellectuals in Frankfurt Germany began to consider how the ideas of Marx applied in societies of increasing affluence. They developed the idea that the primary obstruction to human liberation were societal structures and cultural assumptions.

In other words, the "oppressors" convince the "oppressed" that the way things were are they way they're supposed to be.

These ideas influenced the development of Critical Legal Theory in the United States which hypothesized that the law is intertwined with social issues and must have inherent social biases. Subgroups that sprung from Critical Legal Theory include Critical Feminist Theory and Critical Race Theory.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) was developed in the 1970s by several legal scholars including Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Richard Delgado and Patricia Williams.

OK, so much for history. I still haven't answered the question. Different people list different basic tenets of CRT. I suppose it depends upon what they want to emphasize but I think they're as follows:

1) Race is a social construct rather than a biological fact - This is true in that the differences between humans at the genetic level are almost negligible at about 0.1%. But there are differences. People tend to underestimate the impact of a few genes. The difference between men and chimpanzees is about 250 genes.

2) Racism is normal in society and is the rule rather than the exception. - I don't buy this one but the response would be since I'm not a member of an "oppressed" race I don't understand.

3) Racism is embedded within systems and institutions including schools and the legal system. Saying something is true doesn't make it so. Institutions don't have volition. Whatever characteristics they have are either purposely or inadvertently implemented by people. 

4) Liberalism, especially the concepts of colorblindness and meritocracy, are rejected. This makes no sense to me. Isn't "equality" and judging people on the merits what we're supposed to do? Apparently not according to CRT.

5) The experiences of "oppressed" people and their stories should be relied upon even over empirical and statistical evidence. Essentially we should promote anecdotal evidence over logic and empirical evidence. I'm an engineer; I can't do this.

6) Intersectionality. - This is the idea that different combinations play out differently. In other words the experiences of a black female will be different from the experiences of a white female or a black male.

7) Interest Conversion, - This states that blacks only make civil rights gains when white and black interests converge. This is almost a tautology. Would you expect the majority to sacrifice its interests for the minority othe than in very minor instances?

So who are the "oppressed" and the "oppressors?"

Apparently blacks, Asians and Latinos are "oppressed" by whites and women are oppressed by men. Members of any other religion are "oppressed" by Christians; Gays and trans people are "oppressed" by those who are straight and cisgender.

Note that the same person can be both "oppressed" and an "oppressor." 

This is just bat shit crazy. I've even seen some people throw in handicapped are "oppressed" by the physically able and either the young are "oppressed" by the old or the old are "oppressed" by the young depending upon the situation.

But CRT focuses mostly on race. Apparently racism is rampant and nothing has helped. In fact, according to some CRT proponents, white people were the primary beneficiaries of things like Brown v. Board of Education, the 1965 Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Well, actually it was only white women who supposedly benefitted the most from Affirmative Action.

Like I said, bat shit crazy.

My biggest problem however is that it is unfalsifiable. No matter what you do you're wrong. If a white person disagrees with CRT then they're just trying to protect their privilege. If a black person disagrees with CRT then they've been fooled by those trying to protect their privilege.

Any situation can be interpreted as racist if that's the way you want to see it. For example, you own a store. Two people, one white and other black, enter at exactly the same time. Which one do you serve first? If you say the black person then you're being racist because you don't trust the black person to be alone in your store. If you say the white person then you're being racist because you're giving the white person priority (thanks to PragerU for the example).

I saw woman on a video advancing the idea of CRT talk about because blacks are pulled over more often by police they're far more likely to get caught with illegal drugs in their car. I wanted to ask this woman if she thought that driving around with illegal drugs in your car was normal behavior.

Like I said, bat shit crazy.

I think the whole thing is total nonsense and just another excuse to blame your problems and shortcomings on someone else.