CRT is more generally “for the longest time, non-white people have been excluded from civic participation which has led to laws and structures that implicitly benefit white people”.
That is, it’s a concept about political and legal power in the US.
And what’s more disturbing is what the right ACTUALLY means by CRT. They are mad about civil rights AND the historical facts about racism BEING TAUGHT AT ALL. Literally “we don’t want kids taught that slavery and segregation existed and/or that it was morally wrong”.
I think correctly defining CRT somewhat misses the more disturbing problem of “wait, what DO you mean by CRT”.
Are you saying that systematic generational poverty imposed on black people via discriminatory policy and law is not a component of CRT
As far as I understand, no. Related for sure but not really what CRT is about.
The important thing about CRT, in my understanding, is that it takes a view that even with non-racist intent, racist laws are setup due to the lack of participation.
For example, let’s say a city wants to build out a mass transit system, however, nobody on the board lives in neighborhoods where POC live. As a result, when placing the lines they don’t consider the problems with running them through those neighborhoods or not having enough stops in those neighborhoods. A racist outcome even though the people making the decisions may have never considered race while making those decisions. It’s simply the fact that nobody affected by those decisions had representation.
The critical in CRT refers to critical theory, which posits that problems in society can generally be attributed to social structures more than anything else.
Another example would be in policing. Consider what may seem to be a good policy “Let’s send police to areas with high rates of crime.” The issue is, crime rates are a result of policing so a natural consequence of sending police to where crimes are found is police will find more crimes which creates a feedback loop. Add in just a few cops with racial biases (even unconscious) and now this seemingly benign policy has racist enforcement.
What CRT would posit is that getting more POC into positions of power would ultimately limit the effects of legal racism. A failure of the CRT notion is that while race is related, so is socioeconomic status. The issue with just seating a black person is black people like Clarence Thomas exist. Further, the black people you would seat are highly likely to have participated in the education and social situations that have caused the issues of systemic racism in the first place. You can’t just pick the person from the same neighborhood as the rest of the board that has melanin and think “This solves racism”.
In otherwords, America is broken on more than just race, class is a major issue. Which is what you touch on. People of color have by and large historically been forced into a lower class and that’s where a lot (not all) of the racism problems stem.
Hope that makes sense. This is mostly just my understanding though so feel free to correct it if you’ve got good resources on it. I’m not an expert, just interested in the rantings of my political enemies.
No problem. It’s such a mellow concept that it’s hard not to overstate what it’s about. The fact that racists took it to mean “stuff that makes white people feel bad” and the stuff that makes them feel bad is rather telling. But then that’s the power of propaganda.
To be blunt, even this isn’t CRT.
CRT is more generally “for the longest time, non-white people have been excluded from civic participation which has led to laws and structures that implicitly benefit white people”.
That is, it’s a concept about political and legal power in the US.
And what’s more disturbing is what the right ACTUALLY means by CRT. They are mad about civil rights AND the historical facts about racism BEING TAUGHT AT ALL. Literally “we don’t want kids taught that slavery and segregation existed and/or that it was morally wrong”.
I think correctly defining CRT somewhat misses the more disturbing problem of “wait, what DO you mean by CRT”.
Are you saying that systematic generational poverty imposed on black people via discriminatory policy and law is not a component of CRT?
Good point though… what the far right means when they say/hear the term CRT is as disturbing as it it incorrect.
As far as I understand, no. Related for sure but not really what CRT is about.
The important thing about CRT, in my understanding, is that it takes a view that even with non-racist intent, racist laws are setup due to the lack of participation.
For example, let’s say a city wants to build out a mass transit system, however, nobody on the board lives in neighborhoods where POC live. As a result, when placing the lines they don’t consider the problems with running them through those neighborhoods or not having enough stops in those neighborhoods. A racist outcome even though the people making the decisions may have never considered race while making those decisions. It’s simply the fact that nobody affected by those decisions had representation.
The critical in CRT refers to critical theory, which posits that problems in society can generally be attributed to social structures more than anything else.
Another example would be in policing. Consider what may seem to be a good policy “Let’s send police to areas with high rates of crime.” The issue is, crime rates are a result of policing so a natural consequence of sending police to where crimes are found is police will find more crimes which creates a feedback loop. Add in just a few cops with racial biases (even unconscious) and now this seemingly benign policy has racist enforcement.
What CRT would posit is that getting more POC into positions of power would ultimately limit the effects of legal racism. A failure of the CRT notion is that while race is related, so is socioeconomic status. The issue with just seating a black person is black people like Clarence Thomas exist. Further, the black people you would seat are highly likely to have participated in the education and social situations that have caused the issues of systemic racism in the first place. You can’t just pick the person from the same neighborhood as the rest of the board that has melanin and think “This solves racism”.
In otherwords, America is broken on more than just race, class is a major issue. Which is what you touch on. People of color have by and large historically been forced into a lower class and that’s where a lot (not all) of the racism problems stem.
Hope that makes sense. This is mostly just my understanding though so feel free to correct it if you’ve got good resources on it. I’m not an expert, just interested in the rantings of my political enemies.
This is great insight, thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
No problem. It’s such a mellow concept that it’s hard not to overstate what it’s about. The fact that racists took it to mean “stuff that makes white people feel bad” and the stuff that makes them feel bad is rather telling. But then that’s the power of propaganda.
The far right is jerks.