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.
Don't worry I wouldn't have thought you were arguing, I'm glad you asked.
Woman's rights required huge societal reform, from being a mans property to being one's own self. I know we aren't all the way there in terms of woman's rights, but we have come a long way. (let's not go backwards now)
I was also thinking that the current capitalistic system is also much better than a system where power is based on bloodline like in many old Monarchy's but then I realised that if money is power, and money is inherited its not much different.
However one of our main societal reforms is using reason, logic and ethics over the supposed word of god. I have nothing against the notion of god (other than that it is objective truth), what I do take issue with is using God to manipulate people, people who think they must have faith in the word of god for them to be good people.
This puppetering of god by those in power and the blind trust of those below caused thousands of atrocities; the burning of witches, the rape of people, hundreds of conquests in the name of spreading gods word, and so, so many wars.
This again is not fully resolved in many countries. Such as Israel, were blind faith in the twisted words of god, twisted by a corrupt pollitition, has caused tens-of-thousands of innocent deaths.
But for the most part, developed countries have left gods word as secondary advice, and have not tried to manipulate the people by puppeteering their creator.
This is (imo) a crucial step for a more transperant society. Were you don't feel you are challenging your creators ideals, but just the ideals of a snob in a suit.
You've got a point. Thanks for the encouraging take!