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.
It’s in the OP.
No, that is not what you think those things are. That's your position on them. In order to tell if you actually understand what they are, I need you to explain them. If you can't explain something then you don't actually understand it.
That's the only way I can get a real baseline for where you are coming from and where you potentially went wrong.
Okay, I’ll add those.
Ok, now that you've added those very basic descriptions. Be honest, could you have done that without looking it up?
Now that you presumably know that both of these things are primarily educational, and not actual favoritism. What is it about them that you think makes poor white people so angry? I'm also curious why you think it's just poor people that take issue with this? The biggest public detractors are all quite wealthy.
Edit: I'm sorry but this process is going to involve a lot of questions. That's just how this works if we're both trying to be constructive.
I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.
The problem is that systemic racism is a large part of why minority groups are in poverty in the first place.
You can't address poverty in minority groups without addressing the racism.
You're also falling for the fallacy that this is an either or situation. You can fight systemic racism and other underlying causes of poverty at the same.
There's nothing wrong with educating people on specific issues related to specific demographics. That's why BLM existing isn't saying that other races don't matter.
Would you say that the New Deal policies are the types of policies that you are talking about. The ones enacted by the US government during the recovery from the depression?
I didn't say you were angry, I was asking why you think it makes poor white people angry.
I think policies in the Nordic model are more along those lines, tbh.
Ok, but Critical Race Theory is specifically referring to US policy and the history of racism and it's affect on public policy.
I'm curious where you think critical race theory is taught and why poor why people are so upset about it?
Do you know that the New Deal era policies enacted by the US government were inherently racist? That they were constructed to favor white people, and jobs that were traditionally given to white people?
For example jobs that were held primarily by black men and women were straight up excluded by social security.
You’re right, that’s why Title VII and VIII were written to address those aspects
Ok, but I think you are missing the point. Critical Race Theory is education. Who is hostile to education, to history, to the reality of how he got where we are?
How can we construct new race blind legislation if we completely ignore the history of racial inequity and its direct affects on legislation?
Those same people who angrily oppose the education initiatives that are CRT and DEI just as angrily oppose any program even resembling the Nordic approach to poverty reduction.
I think you are asking the wrong questions. Why are these people opposed to both education and economic and racial justice?
Do you think that if leftists completely dropped any support for DEI and CRT that their opponents would suddenly support programs that aggressively attack wealth inequality?
No, but US wealth inequality is going to worsen now because of the US Dept. of Education being gutted, which is worse than DEI going away. I think education and welfare programs will make easier policies for majority of voters to vote for. More of the US population is poor than a minority of some kind. The danger I was alarmed by (admittedly a knee jerk reaction) is that increasing polarization is going to be used by authoritarians to win and install their own preferred systems. Poverty reducing efforts like in the Nordic model will be popular, but also something some types of politicians cannot favor because of their prior party stance.
Why do you think one is a direct result of the other? Also no they are very not popular. The same people fuming about DEI are very much against any social programs.
Reading this as a third party... Someone came to learn and you're being unnecessarily hostile.
This isn't "why is it my responsibility to tell you, the offender, how to be decent" - it's strangers opting in to inform strangers. Just prefix with your assumptions about definitions, and answer.
You familiar w flies, honey, vinegar, etc?
Fun fact: flies actually prefer vinegar.
Feel free to take time out of your day to enact your preferred approach.
Should be a salaried position^ 🫡
No it is not. You have complaints against DEI and CRT, but you don't have a definition. Write your own definition as if you were trying to write a dictionary entry.
I added it.
Wow, you actually did.
There are two major problems with focusing only on wealth or income inequality. First, you need to have a degree of racial consciousness in addition to class consciousness if you want any hope of addressing wealth and income inequality. If you don't, it's far, far too easy for those opposed to economic inequality to use racial divisions to tank efforts at economic reform. That's ultimately what killed the New Deal and the Great Society. We had enough class consciousness to get major economic reforms passed. But then the opponents of economic reform used racial divisions to grind these reforms to a halt. See "welfare queen." If you can convince the poorest white man he is being held down by a black man, it is trivial for the rich to rob him blind.
Second, often times wealth and race are inseparable. Wealth and income are correlated with race. Imagine tomorrow you waived a magic wand and completely reset the national wealth. You literally take every single asset in the country and divide ownership equally among all citizens. Come back 20 years later, and you would still observe massive disparities in wealth and income due to systematic racism.
The real point of DEI is to make it so meritocracy is more than just a slogan. You design hiring and promotion procedures so as to remove bias of as many forms as possible. The problem is that even if people aren't overtly or intentionally racist, they will inevitably hire and promote people with subconscious biases. A company full of white men will inevitably just end up hiring and promoting people most like themselves, unless active measures are made to remove bias from the hiring process.
Economic justice is impossible without racial justice.