On the public Right, it has become popular to bemoan how critical race theory, or the egalitarian reasoning that rationalizes from our supposed equality to deduce that the only explanation for third-world lower wealth is first-world racism, “divides us” by “focusing on skin color.”
Consider this cheeseburger-with-fries bog standard take on the division within CRT:
And the CRT agenda is a version of the same thing. It says. ‘why can’t we talk about problematizing whiteness? Who are you to object to that, you bigot?’ It’s meant to divide.
And so parents are right to call this out, they are right to say that you cannot talk about, for instance, white children as if they are a problem anymore than you should be able to talk about black children as if they are a problem. The people pushing this stuff have been trying to divide America and it’s absolutely right that American parents should take any opportunity they can to say, ‘no, we will not allow you to do this.’
This falls back on the old conservative misunderstanding of “equality” (spoiler: it and equity are the same, since they justify one another): to conservatives, “equality” means that everyone gets given a chance to earn a muffin; to Leftists, it means that everyone ends up with the same number of muffins.
That explains why conservatives slept through the Constitution-destroying 14A and related civil rights acts, all of which were designed to push toward the ultimate evolution of egalitarianism, namely anarchy with subsidies which take from the strong to give to the weak.
Consequently, we can see that critical race theory is being used as a guilt-weapon to force revolution, and is only incidentally concerned with justice or race. The Left did the same thing when they organized in defense of starving incompetent peasants for the French and Bolshevik revolutions, too.
This leads us to ask what is really dividing us, critical race theory, the revolution, or diversity itself?
As Americans have sought to understand critical race theory, they have discovered that it has divided Americans into racial categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed” and promotes radical concepts such as “spirit murder” (what public schools supposedly do to black children) and “abolishing whiteness” (a purported precondition for social justice). In the classroom, critical race theory-inspired lessons have often devolved into race-based struggle sessions, with public schools forcing children to rank themselves according to a racial hierarchy, subjecting white teachers to “antiracist therapy,” and encouraging parents to become “white traitors.”
It’s a radical ideology that seeks to use race as a means of moral, social and political revolution. The left-leaning media has sought to portray it as a “lens” for examining the history of racism in the U.S., but this soft framing obscures the nature of the theory, which maintains that America is an irredeemably racist nation and that the constitutional principles of freedom and equality are mere “camouflages,” in the words of scholar William F. Tate IV, for white supremacy.
Consider that to a member of a minority group, it will always be clear that they are the lesser group living in the system created by a greater group, unless the minority group is able to take over and erase history, replacing it with its own version.
Rather than take critical race theory seriously, or bloviate on like GOPe cucks about how it “divides” us, we should acknowledge that diversity divides us and is being used as a weapon by those who want the revolution. It’s all class warfare, all the way down.
The Hart-Celler Act revoked the 1924 immigration act that limited the third world, following America’s reckoning with its own racial bias after the defeat of Hitler and Company in 1945.
This makes America permanently divided, critical race theory or not. The heritage American majority wants to keep doing what made America functional, but this offends minority groups, and they want to obliterate it.
Such things are inherent to diversity. When you contain many cultures, you can have no overriding culture; you have, at best, a “cultural envelope” to contain those cultures, which means that you revert to the lowest common denominator of economics, politics, sports, and shopping (including for ethnic food).
Even more, diversity produces the same tribal conflicts as international politics, but now it happens within the nation, as we see from such diverse places as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Northern Ireland, and Ethiopia.
In that context, any assertion of majority culture will offend and provoke the restive minorities, who will then attack. The French found this out recently when French cuisine (archive) became the latest thing to be deemed “racist” (“racist” means, roughly, “anti-multiculture” or “non-pluralist”):
In an academic paper that formed part of her Sciences Po seminar, Cohen, a former research fellow at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, claims that France’s “eating culture … has been the central means of racial and ethnic identity formation through slavery, colonialism, and immigration. The whiteness of French food is all the more powerful in that it is unnamed, enabling the racial majority to benefit from food privileges without having to acknowledge their racial origin.”
If you have a multiculture, having French food means that you are asserting a majority culture, which is anti-multicultural and reveals that the pluralism, or many contradictory ideas existing simultaneously, of the society is in doubt.
Conservatives saw diversity this way. Rich nations let in people from poor nations so those could work and have better lives than they would at home. They misunderstood equality; equality means destroying whatever is strong so that whatever is weak can feel safe and validated.
Republicans today blame critical race theory because it is a convenient scapegoat and a proximate cause, but what really divides us is diversity itself. We will not survive as a nation or even a nation-state without ending diversity.