My pov is that CRT (critical race theory) and related policies, like DEI, put an undue emphasis on race instead of on poverty, and the resulting effect is that policies which are aimed at helping minorities seem like “favoritism” (and called as such by political opponents), which makes a growing population of poor whites (due to the adverse effects of wealth inequality) polarized against minorities.
Separately, the polarization is used by others who want to weaken a democratic nation. For democracies, a growing immigrant population of more poor people will cause further polarization because the growing poor white population believes that “they’re taking our jobs”. This happened during Brexit, this happened with Trump, and this is happening now in Germany and other western democracies.
I know that there are racist groups who have an agenda of their own, and what I am saying is that instead of focusing on what are painted as culture war issues, leftists are better off focusing on alleviating systemic poverty. Like, bringing the Nordic model to the U.S. should be their agenda.
So, maybe I am wrong about CRT and DEI and how it’s well-meaning intentions are being abused by people who have other goals, but I want to hear from others about why they think CRT and DEI help. I want to listen, so I am not going to respond at all.
— Added definitions —
CRT: an academic field used to understand how systems and processes favor white people despite anti-discrimination policies. Analysis coming out of CRT is often used to make public policy.
DEI: a framework for increasing diversity, equity and inclusion; DEI isn’t focused on race or gender only, but also includes disability and other factors (pregnancy for example) which affect a person.
— —
Okay , so end note: I appreciate the people who commented. I questioned the relevancy of CRT/DEI previously out of an alarmed perspective of how aspects that highlight group differences can be used by others to create divisions and increase polarization. But I get the point everyone is making about the historical significance of these tools.
I don’t think this is wrong, but it doesn’t force the perspective of “That guy got screwed.” The point of it all is to get people who are unconsciously doing/supporting racist things, say, “I never thought about it like that”
Those same people reading your version will immediately turn it into, “Some of those minorities are getting an unfair advantage!” Or “I was one of the white men who didn’t get an advantage”, (those don’t exist)
So you disagree with my more accurate analogy because it leads to a conclusion that doesn’t fit your agenda? Rich black people and poor white people exist. Not sure why you’re trying to say they don’t. I don’t know why people are so obsessed with dividing things up by race. The us vs them split is not about race or any other demographic except wealth and ownership. It’s the ruling class vs the rest of us and only propping up some poor people depending on the color of their skin is racist and vile.
This will be my last response to you, as you’re not listening to my responses and pretty much just trying to talk over me to make your point that is tangentially related to mine.
I didn’t say I disagree. And on the bigger scale it IS rich vs poor, but one group of people got a head start on getting rich and the others didn’t.
If you can convince all the rich people to give up their money to the poor, by all means, go for it! I fully support that! But, until then, let’s not shit on minorities who are more likely to be poor in a system designed to keep them that way.