The Man Behind Critical Race Theory
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
I think CRT has done quite a lot of good by helping expose how much influence racism has had on society as well as in individuals.
I think it’s now doing harm, because it seems to be about forcing us to remain in the same racial categories forever.
We can’t ‘dismantle’ racism unless we dismantle race.
I also think it’s tragic that “CRT” has been turned into an ideology. It’s a useful lens for looking at any given problem, institution, system. But it’s NOT the gospel of truth. The net result is that we can’t use it to help us because either you can’t question the religion, or you refuse to engage with it entirely.
“Racialist” criticism is almost exclusively a universalist French concept. It isn’t entertained outside continental Europe, and is already being challenged within by the children of African & Caribbean immigrants who were previously kept at arms length in the colonies.
Anti racialism/color blindness has been tried before, that was the general progressive approach for decades and decades here. It didn’t work out, and the most vocal opponents were themselves “black”.
By its very nature, it is deeply unaligned with the interests of the group it’s trying to help. 5 wolves and 2 sheep deciding how to share dinner, but all of the wolves have agreed to wear little blindfolds. Or, even worse, they’re all deciding in the dark with the lights turned off! Not only can the predatory wolves still wolf, but they can do it under the cover of darkness.
To compete, the sheep must become wolves. This is okay, even encouraged in assimilationist societies. This is absolutely not an option anymore in eg the US. We have a generation of older black men with names like Reginald and Eustace to remember its utter failure by.
Strained analogy that also completely ignores structural racism, please consider discussing racialism with fellow countrymen who happen to be of a different “race” <- shorthand!, as that cultural divide can be quite wide to reach across.
Dealing with that problem isn't easy, for a long of reasons. There's a long history of racism that has left a lot of people distrustful. And there's a shorter history under which "racism got fixed in the 1960s and therefore any remaining problems must be your own fault". Together, that makes it almost impossible to talk cogently about racism.
Race-the-concept doesn't get discussed because racism is the issue. There is talk about what criteria racists use to decide who belongs to what race, and that's useful, but mostly in an academic way because it doesn't seem clear how to make use of it.
Listening to other people and engaging in debate used to be the standard. Somewhere about when Twitter became popular we quite lost that value as a culture.
One of my issues today with CRT is that questioning it as a narrative is now "aggression". I generally regard all unquestionable narratives the same.
Critical racial theory (CRT) is a Marxist based theory that views everything as a racial conflict that can't be (fundamentally) resolved. White people will always be racist against non-Whites, anything and everything is entrenched in racial conflict, and even innocuous actions and conversations are a part of that racial conflict. CRT specifically is guilty of a literal black and white viewpoint.
I find the theory illiberal, poorly supported and a mess of badly defined unclear terms including it's basis of racial identities.
The narrative says:
- all unequal outcomes are necessarily because of racism - that racism is at the foundation of every aspect of American culture and economy - that America is irredeemably racist and any evidence to the contrary is only given by racists - that no culture can have problems in of themselves, even if they intersect with systemic racism and oppression, without them being wholly laid at the feet of racism. African American criminals murder asian americans in the street? Blame the racism of white people.
Framing CRT merely as a movement against racism is
A. Complete b.s. and is missing just how far it's extending the debate and moving the goalpost so far that the only thing someone part of a "privileged" skin-tone can do is self-flagellate, while asking for forgiveness as if their whiteness is akin to some religious "original sin" they must atone for, forever.
B. Ignoring the racism that CRT itself perpetuates through it's increased push for segregated ceremonies, separate national anthems, etc.. Not to mention it's continued racism of low expectations in lowering academic standards .
The irony of downvoting this...
When we were exposed to opposing ideas, there's a better chance than not that it was in a defanged and castrated form published with the ascent of corporate gatekeepers.
It's easy for a liberal to have a debate with a conservative when they values have a 98% overlap, and their disputes are largely inconsequential questions of cultural aesthetic which demand only minute changes.
I do think one difference is the chance of repeat engagements. If you and I are neighbors and debate over dinner, well, I'm going to see you frequently. We both need to be kind enough to continue that relationship.
Online, we may debate and never bump into each other again. We can block and ignore. It's to my interest to behave greedily and "dunk" on you, insult you, etc to try and score fake internet points since it's a single engagement with spectators.
Mass media and educational institutions bounded our collective capacity for political thought through their selective exposition of certain ideas, meaning people in the era were less likely to have mutually unintelligible or incompatible beliefs about the ordering of society, and that they were similarly incapable of conceiving of such a political enemy (communists notwithstanding)
As a result, we never collectively developed the rhetorical tools or emotional capacity to consume or have reasoned discussions that tackled the fundamental aspects of our culture or its organization that conflicted with our preconceived notions, because we never truly had to.
Social media has given air to ideas that would have historically been suffocated in the cradle or domesticated long before we were ever exposed to them, and as a result I don't think it'd so much degraded our capacity for political dialogue inasmuch as it has how sheltered we've collectively been, and how much less refined and rational we actually were.
One hypothesis is this is largely explained by prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment. What is the evidence that refutes this given the population level changes in attitudes and revealed preferences since the 1960's?
Indeed.
Every minority group in the US is initially seen as "the other". After some point, however, employers that hire "the other" usually find that they can pay them less because there is less demand to hire them, and thus benefit financially, they hire more. As other employers follow suit, over time the salaries go up until they match that of other groups. Similarly, even if landlords initially hesitate to rent to "the other", some will; assuming that there are no unusual problems, over time other housing stock will be made available to them as landlords do not wish to turn away paying tenants.
Their children benefit. The first generation of manual laborers and farmworkers begets the second generation of policemen, nurses, and soldiers begets the third generation of doctors and lawyers and professors.
In the US this has happened to Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, Jews, Asians, Indians, and Latinos. This natural process has not organically happened to blacks (or has happened in substantially less numbers), despite the latter having the benefit of US citizenship and command of the English language from birth.
* The FHA and redlining * the backlash to Reconstruction (Jim Crow segregation) * no compensation for harms of slavery, discrimination, etc (despite other groups getting financial compensation; eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988) * lack of protection of suffrage until the VRA in 1965 (despite the 15th amendment)
just to name a few.
Ah yes. We all know that Japanese Americans were universally underperforming compared to other ethnicities in terms of economic, educational, and civic success until the few tens of thousands of dollars some of them received in 1988 *completely changed the situation*.
Japanese Americans are a great example of the process that I described in my previous comment: Initial ostracism and persecution gradually went away (with the notable exception of WW2) as Japanese put their heads down, worked hard, and went from farm workers to farmers, gardeners and houseboys to doctors and lawyers. All while affirmative action was never in their favor and despite East Asians immigrants legally forbidden from obtaining citizenship after arrival.
Their story of gradual progress is one that almost every other ethnic group in the US has seen told in its own histories. Let me repeat: Why hasn't this happened to black Americans, despite their all possessing US citizenship, command of English, and an increasing panoply of legal and societal strictures designed specifically for their benefit?
Here is what frustrates me about your argument: it completely reduces any and all African American achievements to nothing and ignores all the extra help (or lack of hindrance) non-African Americans received, while also minimizing the marginalization other ethnic minorities faced at the same time. I see that you are trying to lean toward "Black people are inherently lazy by nature", and that is ignorant of the incredible amount of work they have put in, beginning even before the end of slavery, only to be crushed, time and time again. In addition, it ignores the many very successful, and even moderately successful African Americans today. You're reducing all African Americans to lazy do-nothings, and that is simply not true.
Since we're focusing on Asian Americans, they came to America by choice, and certainly suffered discrimination and marginalization, both legal and social, but their situations are so different as to be incomparable. This is relying on the 'model minority' trope, which was begun and pushed in 1966 in the media and by politicians to try to downplay African Americans' struggle for equity. "The Asians work hard, so why can't you just shut up and work hard, too? Who cares if you can't vote? Why would you need to vote?" The argument was literally used to tell African Americans they could grin and bear segregation, disenfranchisement, etc. It's more than just discrimination, not being able to be a citizen, and no affirmative action. African Americans, especially in the South, may as well not have been citizens, as they were effectively barred from voting by the tests, intimidation, and violence. But also: "model minority" is a myth. Asian Americans even formed their own Civil Rights movement shortly thereafter, patterned after that of the African Americans' movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#United_States And that's an awfully large group of people to lump all together. When you break it down farther, not all Asian Americans are doing well, because of discrimination and other struggles. https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/stop-pointing-asian-...
Africans were brought to America against their will and forced to work until they died, with nothing to pass on to their children. In contrast, the Irish and English and other European immigrants of the same time were indentured servants whose terms ended, at which point they could begin to attempt to build capitol. The Irish et al have both a lot more time and skin color on their side at moving up the social ladder. Despite the fact Irish and Italian immigrants were at one point not considered 'white', that became increasingly difficult to tell as they assimilated into society with each generation, because they aren't brown-skinned.
If we start the clock in the year 1619 (first slave ship arrives), then all of those European immigrants have at the very least 249 years head start on the Africans and their descendants. (I have used 1868 for that calculation because that is when the last enslaved people were actually freed). And that's only if we ignore the rest of the history to come.
But that's not where it ended for formerly enslaved people, there are repeated injustices that add years to this calculation.
It takes a lot of work and courage to escape slavery and many tried and failed, with mortal consequences. But those who did went on to become great orators and advocates for the enslaved men, women, and children in America (Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, to name a few).
After the war, during the Reconstruction period, African Americans participated in government, built and attended schools, attained advanced degrees, became lawyers, provided charity, were business owners. And then they were crushed again in what the Southerners called "Redemption". Those who could got tf out. The KKK assassinated people. Any African Americans who tried to vote were threatened or killed, and later tested with unpassable tests. Those who were trying to become farmers were yoked with another form of slavery in sharecropping, where the landholder got to decide how much they paid the farmer for their goods, to the point where they had to take their children out of school just to have enough hands to make ends meet. They were made second class citizens because of Jim Crow laws and distinct criminal codes for African Americans, putting them in prison at higher rates and, again, putting them back into slavery in the form of chain gangs.
Even with all that adversity, some African Americans managed to thrive. You may have heard of 'Black Wallstreet', the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The land was bought through a "legal stricture designed specifically for [African Americans'] benefit" by O. W. Gurley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_District,_Tulsa#O._W...). He bought 40 acres that were "only to be sold to colored", so that's kind of a handout, but he still had to pay for it. He made the best of the situation in Jim Crow by building a rooming house and attracted other African American entrepreneurs and workers. African American-owned businesses followed to serve the community of people who could not patronize white businesses. White residents of Tulsa also patronized these businesses (especially the jazz clubs). Much of the neighborhood's inhabitants were very wealthy. Just before the race massacre, Gurley's estimated net worth would have been as much as $13.6 million in 2018 dollars.
And then the people of Tulsa massacred the neighborhood. They shot its residents and burned down all the buildings. The police did nothing, or actively participated (because African Americans couldn't become police officers in the South). No one was compensated. The town literally tried to scrub the event from memory by threatening or killing anyone who talked about it. So you can't say African Americans haven't made gradual progress. That was incredibly quick progress. Gurley's wealth increased $10M in a matter of 7 years, to have it all burned to the ground in a matter of hours. Think of where the descendants of Greenwood could have been today, but for that.
And then came the New Deal. Nice for some, but not for African Americans nationwide, and especially not in the South. The New Deal made carve-outs to placate the Southern Democrats. People in domestic service and farming weren't covered under minimum wage and it exempted child labor for agriculture, largely hurting African Americans who weren't allowed to get better jobs in the South. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150...
So for those who couldn't manage to make it out of the South, that puts the setback timer at 1965 ish, because even into the 1960's, men, women, and children in the South were being killed when they tried to climb the success ladder.
That's 1965 - 1619 = 346 years behind other ethnic groups who had the benefit of being able to build generational wealth during those years.
What about the people who managed to escape the South? They still faced discrimination in jobs, couldn't buy houses in the same neighborhoods, which meant they and their children were exposed to pollution, negative influence, poor schooling (remember, this was still before Brown v. Board of Ed), crimes of opportunity. The GI Bill didn't cover African Americans. The list goes on.
AND YET, there are many, many African Americans today who are successful. They and their ancestors have had to literally fight tooth and nail to get where they are. They didn't just have to go from farm workers etc to doctors and lawyers. They had to do that repeatedly, over, and over, and over, every time they got crushed again.