this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
56 points (73.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

28054 readers
1540 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WagyuSneakers@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

CRT and DEI are misrepresented by both the left and right. They make more sense when you look at them without the point of view of 14 year old Redditors or 400 year old dinosaurs.

[–] reliv3@lemmy.world 23 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It's actually a bit ironic, because CRT is viewed by many White Americans as a theory which demonizes them; but CRT also defines how racism has harmed poor white people in the past and continues to do so today.

CRT defines the biggest winners of Racism in America as being wealthy white folks. According to CRT, Racism as we know it today, was created as a means to take advantage of poor whites. Rich plantation owners recognized slavery caused great economic harm to poorer whites who did not own slaves. So a solution to stop revolt was to create this system of Race so that poor whites would remain divided from black slaves, and not work together to retaliate.

CRT also claims that this is still occuring today. Racism continues to divide poor white people from poor people of color so that they don't work together to fight against Injustice.

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 13 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

This is a great question to ask in a .ml community as I think they will be able to contextualize this a bit better for you, and I would be interested in what they say too. Cause I agree, I think identity politics (which I think is what you're getting at here) is used especially by the ruling class as a way to look nominally progressive (or anti-progressive) and make people feel like they have a real choice in politics, but is ultimately damaging both to its own goals and to the overall political consciousness, in the ways you noted, by divorcing them from the material realities that create and perpetuate these divisions for all people in society. I think that in either direction, they are pushed as a means to distract from the root causes of those issues (which is all the better for a ruling class that benefits from this social order), which if addressed would be a much more equitable way of dealing with them and far more difficult for criticism to take hold.

I think people would see that we have far more in common than not if we weren't constantly pitted against each other to compete for resources that are only made scarce for the sake of profit and austerity.

CRT though, in actuality, is precisely what you are talking about. It is a school of thought that analyzes racial inequalities in the context of history and critiqueing the ways that they are perpetuated in our society. It became a buzzword because conservative media made it into one totally divorced from its original context.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The facts are that black Americans are worse off than other groups in almost every way we can measure. There are two competing theories to explain this.

1-the systems of our society are biased against black people. That's Systemic-Racism. 2-black people are inferior to everyone else. That's racism, original recipe.

How are these systems biased against black people? That's what the field of CRT seeks to answer.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago
  1. A culture was developed during a period of racism that discouraged activities beneficial a thriving community, because they were denied in a racist era. That culture hasn't adapted to a less racist era.
[–] gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

What makes me really curious is, is it really the skin-tone that is the significant variable, or is it a very closely related confounding variable?

It seems so very weird to me that the tone of your skin can have such a significant impact.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 4 points 11 hours ago

Like the comment you're replying to said, it kind of has to go back to either one race is generically inferior, or one race is disadvantaged for other reasons. Any other confounding variables, like income level, go directly back to the same point: If black people have less money, is that because there's something inherent in them that makes them less capable of making money, or have they been disadvantaged by a system that prevents them from making money?

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 61 points 23 hours ago (15 children)

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.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

I like how you made all about a race. Nice touch.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'm thinking of starting a whole philosophy based around this analogy. We can call it race-ism. 🤔 Or... maybe not.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You're definitely my favourite race-ist.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Thanks. I hope I never hear anyone say that to me again. 😂

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

There's a video I watched that explains the concept very similarly here: https://youtu.be/4K5fbQ1-zps

What's interesting is that in the video, none of the questions even mention race, but you can see how the racial minorities are affected more than the rest.

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] nettle@mander.xyz 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The analogy would be more accurate if everyone started at a random time, but darker-skinned runners started later on average.

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.

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nettle@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 21 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Good on OP for seeking challenges to their existing view points and being open to changing them upon compelling enough thoughts. In a genuine way no less.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 11 points 19 hours ago

Yeah I was prepared for another change my mind post where the OP obviously is never gonna change their mind. Glad I was wrong.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation

conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

So like that environmental justice database musk just shut down, that analyzes things like pollution, asthma and other health impacts, death rates, etc? So environmental cleanup efforts can focus on those who are most affected? Apparent it’s crt or DEI or woke or something since those most affected tend to be disproportionately non-white. It can’t be the “merit” of being most impacted by pollution

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

You’re writing as if CRT were a set of policies instead of an academic discipline—that’s why everyone is asking you to clarify what you think it is before they reply. It’s like trying to respond to someone criticizing “quantum theory” who only talks about the economic effects of nuclear power plants.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 21 hours ago

There's Fox News CRT which scare mongered our grandparents into thinking that liberals were trying to brainwash children into hating grandma and grandpa. Then there's actual CRT, which teaches kids that Grandma and Grandpa didn't want black people drinking out of the same water fountain.

Two very very different concepts. One is just telling history as it happened. The other one is fear that kids might learn history as it actually happened.

[–] ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what Cathode Ray Tubes have to do with any of this.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose they're both highly charged and make specific points with the goal of providing illuminated information

[–] Buildout@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

Damn, nice.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First off, CRT is a red herring. It's an extremely niche framework for historical analysis and egalitarianism which is irrelevant outside academic contexts and only gained ground due to a racist asshole.

When it comes to DEI I think that your heart is in the right place - this is all about economic justice and if there were better ways to account for that it'd be an excellent thing to correct for (though, imo, the better correction would be to ensure all children had a genuinely equal chance at success). Unfortunately, because America has a long history of racism, race and poverty are strongly correlated.

The other half of DEI is that people tend to hire like. It's a deep social flaw but we need to acknowledge it - white men will tend to hire white men, a company composed entirely of black women will tend to hire black women... we have studies. Most entrenched wealth is held by white men and so white men have an inherent advantage in employment.

The last thing I'd highlight is that a rising tide raises all ships - your assumption that immigration causes an expansion of poverty usually hasn't been born out. In capitalism more people means more labor means more innovation means more wealth - there are some limits around resources but we're not near any hard limits in that regard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not USAian enough to understand all this, but let me just say, the problem is the rich. Them stealing all the money leaves little for the rest, and due to the lack of education, the rest fights each other over what's left instead of uniting against rich fucks. Painting CRT, DEI, feminism, trans-rights, anti-immigration, etc. as the issue are just ways to divide the have-nots.

Divide and conquer.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Actually, you understand it TOO WELL to be USAian.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 2 points 13 hours ago

Class solidarity my friend. Fuck the rich.

Prof Wolff just released a great video about this yesterday, although it's more about debunking the myth of a meritocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILljYRz_G-I

load more comments
view more: next ›