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.
Imagine a hundred runners entering an insanely long footrace. Before the race starts, the official says that due to his complexion, one runner will start running at the second gunshot, and the other runners will begin at the first gunshot. The darker skinned runner contests, but those are the rules and if he wants to race, he must follow them.
BLAM
The palest runners are off and running while the other one anticipates the second gunshot. He patiently waits, but it doesn't come. After ten minutes, the runner complains to the official, but he repeats that these are the rules, and if you just wait patiently, it'll be your turn. After an hour the crowd is outraged by the injustice and begin to protest.
BLAM
The official fires the second shot in order to deescalate the situation and prevent the stadium from being torn apart. The runner is off and he is determined to gain as much ground as possible as the other runners.
At the end of the day, the runners meet up at a checkpoint to rest before the next section of the race. When they announce the official times, the darker skinned man is 50 minutes behind the other runners. He mentions to the officials that he had to wait an hour to start, and that he would have had a better time than many of them if they had started at the same time.
Fine, they say, not wanting another scene like they had at the starting line, "from now on, all runners start at the same time." That's great! So, can I deduct an hour from my time?
WHAT!? WE ALREADY CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT EQUAL. EVERYBODY STARTS AT THE SAME TIME! AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? THE OTHER RUNNERS DIDN'T NEED ANY TIME DEDUCTIONS!
I now see I went too heavy on the caps, but I'm not typing it again.
Anyway, DEI is the one hour time deduction. It's making up for holding them back for so long while everyone else was sprinting ahead. But, those other runners, they were so busy running that they don't know how long it took for that second gunshot to go off. All they see is a runner with a mediocre time getting a 1 hour deduction which moves him to the top 3. The guy getting bumped to fourth is REALLY going to feel cheated, and resent the system that gave that guy an hour just because of his skin color.
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.
Or instead of focusing on skin color, you could just try to balance out the times so that the next leg of the race is more even for everyone who had a disadvantage.
Ideally yes, but in the real world this would be infeasible. Things can't be tailored to one person specifically. there are so many countless factors that could lead to a headstart and it would be impossible to account for all of them.
Instead we find the ones that are the biggest factors and focus on them. Race is a big factor. But race is not the only big factor, and ideally all the biggest factors should be accounted for.
Race is a poor proxy metric. Economic status would be a more accurate metric as well as helping people who weren't necessarily systemically disadvantaged, just really unlucky. It'd be sort of like declaring the whole race unfair and giving everyone who did poorly some bonus time.
In this theoretical, we already know the dark skinned runners were forced into a later start. That's easily documented and confirmed.
So we enact policies that correct for late start times. That's equitable.
But we measure the diversity of skin tone of when people cross the finish line. If we don't see diversity there matching the race entrants, we can take that as evidence that the race officials are still corrupt.
Corrupt race officials hate this approach.
Having racial diversity at all levels of performance doesn't mean that you've made it fair, just that the unlucky late-start white racers got absolutely screwed and the lucky early-start black racers got an even bigger advantage. The whole event should just be declared unfair and breaking the analogy, economically struggling people of any race should receive equal support, while wealthy people of any race don't need to be further propped up based on the color of their skin.
Agreed. Having diversity in winners is not proof that the game is fair.
I'm asserting that lacking diversity in winners is absolutely proof that the game is rigged.
And more importantly, I'm asserting that the people being loudly angry at measuring diversity are usually the same people rigging the game - and that they are specifically rigging the game against all of the rest of us, not just against any one minority.
The people rigging the game love to make a big loud vocal deal about our differences, because they know that united we can and will systemically dispose of them. They're terrified of our power if we stand together.
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.