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.
The analogy would be more accurate if everyone started at a random time, but darker-skinned runners started later on average. Then, the event organizers decide to deduct an hour from every dark-skinned runner’s time regardless of when they actually started.
Yes, they started an average hour later meaning when an hour is deducted from the darker skinned People’s times, the results are more fair overall.
And even though for some indivules it is unfair, the starting situation is allready unfair and this alteration is a net positive for fairness.
It is not just skin colour that has effects on the starting time of course.
Sure, it may be more fair on average, but it would be even more fair if thay instead deducted the actual starting time from everyone.
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)