Back to the topic - critical race theory. I will try to present the argument raised by that theory and respond. I do not claim expertise in the topic of critical race theory, so accept that fact from the start. Borrowing from Wikipedia (sue me), critical race theory as a concept holds as follows:
Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that
white supremacy, with its
societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;
[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial
emancipation and
anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.
[7]
Critics of critical race theory argue that it relies on
social constructionism, elevates
storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit.
en.wikipedia.org
Another site defined CRT this way:
Critical race theory (CRT),
intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the
premise that
race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently
racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially
African Americans.
Critical race theory, intellectual and social movement and framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is a socially constructed category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color. Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of...
www.britannica.com
That definition seems inherently flawed, since it seems to argue that race is a mere social construct, not something of biology, used by one race to subjugate other races. So race is not real, and is used by one race against another. Okaaaay ...
One key here is that CRT takes the position that whites founded America, made rules to benefit white people, those rules remain in place, and that as a result, white people are benefited in every social construct imaginable, from education to housing to social standing to entertainment. The theory that "social constructionism" promotes story-telling over evidence lies in the fact that since all "evidence" is viewed via a white prism, then "evidence" becomes malleable, unfixed, a mere construct. That is why CRT proponents argue that "story-telling" has greater weight than actual evidence.
Also, a key concept of CRT is something called "white privilege." White privilege is defined - once again, using Wiki - as "the set of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race (i.e. white people). For example, a shop attendant not following a white person around in a store because of assumption of shoplifting is viewed as white privilege. Another example would be people not crossing the street at night to avoid a white person."
For me, a fundamentally important concept in analyzing theories that I might at first blush find repugnant is to learn about the theory, study it dispassionately and with as much objectivity as I can muster. I read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and Marx's "Das Kapital" in college as part of my economics classes. I studied the economic theories behind Marx's communist manifesto, and studied the concepts. I think that others who have done the same - Ron for example - will concur when I say Marx is about 10% economics and 90% philosophy. The problem with Marx's theory - called the "labor value" theory - is that he never examined the theory in practice. He relied instead on his philosophy.
The same holds true for CRT. In particular, the fundamental precepts of CRT - laws are enacted to protect whites, race is the inherent motivation behind social norms and laws, whites benefit from their race while blacks suffer due to theirs - are simply not valid. Let's take a look at a few:
- The 14th Amendment was not adopted to benefit and protect white people. If white people make the laws to protect white people, why would white people need to implement a law to protect citizens from discrimination based on race? Wouldn't that already be in place to protect whites, so why would another law be needed to protect whites?
- The civil rights laws of 1964, and state laws dating back even further, once again did not benefit white people.
- The literally thousands of laws in the United States protecting minorities - in employment, education, transportation, medical care, banking, real estate - were not adopted to benefit white people. In fact, that theory makes no sense.
- Specifically, if white people had advantages in education, employment, etc., then why would they need such laws? And why would the laws specifically protect the interest of non-whites?
- Also, the concept of white privilege makes no sense. If every black person left America, would whites still have "white privilege"? If not, then how does adding a minority population benefit the majority?
- Iceland has basically zero minorities. The nation is 97% white.
- Would bringing in 5,000 Somalis make the lives of the 97% better? How? Would not the 97% now have greater "white privilege"?
- If not, then white privilege is a fiction.
- If white privilege exists, then are Asians "extra white"?
In short, "white privilege" is basically non-existent, CRT has fundamental logical flaws. However, one point is valid and bears discussion - denigrating a race for something they don't control, like skin color, for decades, treating that race with hostility, is damaging to members of that race. The hostility creates anger, anger creates bad decisions, bad decisions create bad results. It was true as it pertained to blacks in 1921 and is now true as it pertains to whites in 2021.