Goes off the rails right off the bat. It's not remotely about what is stated, neither is it a national impetus much less a directive from the federal government.
The numerous, hyperbolic, anecdotes are unsupported by actual evidence.....links
To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism.
"What critical race theory is really about" - I like blackhawks balked at the "To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism."
Of course we understand that rule #1 these days in the conservative 'How to Discredit Whatever...' handbook is to label whatever as having a communist/Marxist background, so it wasn't surprising to see your author proud of his appearance on the Fucker Tucker show:
Damn, you people really dislike anything that looks at your culture in a critical manner, don't you.
This article, from a non-political sphere, suggests it's far from settled that CRT has Marxist roots as you conservatives like to claim. - Why the critical race theory concept of ‘White supremacy’ should not be dismissed by neo-Marxists: Lessons from contemporary Black radicalism
Since entering the field of education studies, critical race theory has had an uneasy relationship with Marxism. One particular point of disagreement between Marxists and critical race theory scholars centres on the critical race theory concept of ‘White supremacy’. Some Marxist scholars suggest that, because of its reliance on ‘White supremacy’, critical race theory is unable to explain the prevalence of racism in Western, capitalist societies. These Marxists also argue that ‘White supremacy’ as understood within CRT is actively damaging to radical, emancipatory movements because the concept misrepresents the position of the White working class as the beneficiaries of racism, and in doing so, it alienates White workers from their Black counterparts. Some neo-Marxist thinkers have sought to replace the concept of ‘White supremacy’ with ‘racialisation’, a concept which is grounded in capitalist modes of production and has a historical, political and economic basis. Drawing on arguments from critical race theory, Marxism and Black radicalism, this paper argues that the critical race theory concept of ‘White supremacy’ is itself grounded in historical, political and economic reality and should not be dismissed by neo-Marxists. Incorporating ‘White supremacy’ into a neo-Marxist account of racism makes it more appealing to a broader (Black) radical audience.
Introduction
A long-running argument between neo-Marxists and critical race theory (CRT) scholars has centred on the CRT concept of ‘White supremacy’. From a neo-Marxist perspective, it has been suggested that ‘White supremacy’ cannot explain the nature of racism in contemporary, Western, capitalist societies, nor is it suitable to act as a rallying point and motivator for positive, radical action for oppressed groups (particularly the White working class). Some neo-Marxist thinkers have sought to replace the CRT concept of White supremacy with that of ‘racialisation’ which links the construction of race and racism to capitalist modes of production, thus providing an explanation of racism that is grounded in the historical, political and economic realities of capitalist societies. Drawing on recent developments from within Black radicalism, this paper defends the use of the CRT concept of ‘White supremacy’ but argues that this is an idea that is complimentary to the neo-Marxist notion of racialisation. ‘White supremacy’ when grounded in a Black radical understanding connecting it to the history of imperialism, colonialism and the unjust social, political and economic systems they have created, makes a useful, theoretical addition to neo-Marxist ontology, potentially making neo-Marxism more appealing to a wider, radical audience.
There have been many criticisms of CRT from a Marxist perspective, including those that suggest that the significance of race as a variable in explaining educational attainment disparities has been exaggerated by CRT scholars (Hill 2009), to those suggesting that the theoretical constructs used within CRT are flawed (Cole, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Cole and Maisuria 2007; Darder and Torres 2004). Replies from CRT scholars to these criticisms (including Gillborn 2009) have tended to focus on more general matters of the interpretation of CRT and its mischaracterisation by scholars from outside of the CRT paradigm without directly dealing with issues of the veracity of the concepts that are central to CRT. This paper seeks to directly address these issues.
Critical race theory
CRT has its origins in the critical legal studies (CLS) movement in the United States of America of the late 1970s (Cole, 2009a, 2012, 2017a, 2017b; Crenshaw et al., 1995). CLS was the product of a group of left-leaning legal scholars, including neo-Marxists, who shared a concern that the practice of North American law, and how law was taught in American universities, was perpetuating class (and economic) inequalities and hierarchies. Scholars who aligned themselves with CLS maintained that the inherently political nature of the law was responsible for this perpetuation of inequalities and that legal structures in the USA were both the product of, and mechanisms to maintain, the dominant right-wing political ideology of the times. That this political nature of existing legal structures was unacknowledged by contemporary law scholarship was perhaps the biggest barrier to the law’s ability to sufficiently deal with the prevalent social injustices of the time (Crenshaw et al., 1995).
CRT emerged shortly after the shift in legal theorising brought about by CLS (Cole, 2009a, 2017a). Because of CLS’s narrow focus on issues of class and economic structures combined with the worrying slowing of civil rights advances, scholars adopting a CRT perspective sought to close the gap in CLS thinking by shifting their critical attention onto the persistent and deep-seated racial inequalities in American society (West, 1995). Although it is difficult to pinpoint the birth of the movement precisely, the name ‘critical race theory’ was first used at a workshop in 1989 (Cole, 2017b; Crenshaw et al., 1995). By expanding and critiquing CLS thinking, CRT scholars sought to create a theoretical base from which to understand the ways in which the law operates to construct and maintain racial inequalities in the USA. The emergence of CRT was the birth of a sophisticated, postmodern, critical, intellectual and political project organised around the concept of race. As part of this project, CRT has developed a range of powerful theoretical tools, including a re-conceptualising of ‘White supremacy’, through which to analyse and confront racism.
The application of CRT to areas outside of legal scholarship became obvious to the progenitors of the movement shortly after its creation. It was around the mid-1990s when CRT entered educational theory in the United States (notably with the publication of Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995) but it was not until a decade later when it became established in the scholarship of education in the UK (Cole, 2009a, 2017a). The most comprehensive introduction to CRT in the UK, a discussion of its uses as an analytical framework in the context of education, and an application of such an analysis to the UK educational system is presented by Gillborn (2008). Today, CRT is used extensively in analyses of educational issues concerning race and racism in both the UK and USA.
Although CRT was influenced to some degree in its development by leftist thought (including neo-Marxism), because of the Marxist foregrounding of class, and the CRT focus on race, a tension has developed between CRT scholars and critical educators drawing primarily on the Marxist tradition. Marxism and CRT are not necessarily antagonistic: Mills (2009) argues that CRT and Marxism are compatible theories, and Leonardo (2009) argues that a Marxist analysis of racial inequalities is useful to race-centric critiques of educational inequality (including CRT) as it acts as a brake on such approaches tendencies to reify and essentialise race. Nevertheless, Cole and Maisuria (2007), and Cole (2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017a, 2017b) have presented arguments to the effect that CRT analyses of racial inequalities are inferior to those that can be offered via a neo-Marxist analysis and maintain that CRT is ineffective in bringing about emancipatory change for oppressed groups. Many of these arguments centre on the concept of ‘White Supremacy’ as employed by CRT as being theoretically flawed and ineffective for motivating action against racism.
White supremacy
In CRT, the concept of White supremacy is invoked to describe a process and persistent state of affairs that is prevalent in the Western world where the interests of White-identified people are given precedence over the interests of other groups through political, social, economic and cultural structures and practices that have evolved over centuries and are maintained and continually recreated by these structures and through individual actors and actions (conscious and unconscious). These structures and practices are generally taken for granted and ‘invisible’ in the normal, day-to-day operation of western societies, particularly to White people. Thus conceived, ‘White supremacy’ takes on a more nuanced and wide-ranging meaning than it is ascribed in everyday parlance where it is usually reserved only to describe the attitudes and actions of extreme racist and right-wing groups and individuals such as the Ku Klux Klan, British National Party, National Action and their respective members (Gillborn, 2006).
In an often-quoted passage, Ansley (1997) offers the following description of the CRT concept of White supremacy:
-- [By] ‘White supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic, and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings. (Ansley, 1997: 592) --
Even though CRT is a broad church, with a diverse array of CRT scholars using different concepts in their efforts to analyse and challenge racial inequalities, the above characterisation of White supremacy is perhaps the most fundamental and widely accepted concept within the doctrine. And, while this contemporary idea of White supremacy is not exclusive to CRT (similar conceptions of White supremacy have been voiced by, for example, Gilroy (1992) and hooks (1989) writing from different theoretical perspectives) it is within CRT where the concept has been most fully expounded and has gained most currency. Gillborn (2008) asserts that amongst critical race theorists, White Supremacy is a concept that is indispensable to their doctrine: ‘Some critical race scholars argue that White Supremacy… is as central to CRT as the notion of capitalism is to Marxist theory and patriarchy to Feminism’ (Gillborn, 2008: 36).
Characterised in this way, the concept of White supremacy performs an important, triple function within CRT theorising. Firstly, it foregrounds and emphasises the prevalence and insidiousness of racism in Western societies. In doing so, ‘White supremacy’ captures both the structural element and the features of racism that manifest through individual and group actions, attitudes and beliefs. Secondly, it highlights the nature of an important power relationship in the Western world: racism is overwhelmingly detrimental to people who are identified as non-White (and particularly to those identified as Black). Conversely, being White (i.e. being perceived to possess Whiteness) confers a plethora of privileges on individuals and groups that fall under this label (McIntosh, 1992). White supremacy is responsible for the benefits associated with its correlate, ‘White privilege’ and denotes a one-way flow of power, whereby benefits accrue to White people, to the detriment of non-White people.
Finally, the concept of ‘White supremacy’ captures the idea that racism in Western societies is a form of domination, by one racially identified group (Whites) over others. As such, White supremacy captures the reality that racism operates, in part, as a process that is constantly re-established by White agents (consciously and unconsciously), acting within societal frameworks that encourage and facilitate this re-enforcement of an unequal, racist status quo. Leonardo describes this feature of White supremacy like so:
-- [W]hite domination is never settled once and for all; it is constantly re-established and reconstructed by whites from all walks of life. It is not a relation of power secured by slavery, Jim Crow, or job discrimination alone. It is not a process with a clear beginning or a foreseeable end (Bell, 1992). Last, it is not solely the domain of white supremacist groups. It is rather the domain of average, tolerant people, of lovers of diversity, and of believers in justice. (Leonardo, 2004: 143) --
In other words, White people are complicit in the construction and recreation of their own racial supremacy (from which they benefit in a number of ways), sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly.
This final component of ‘White supremacy’ that captures racism as a form of domination is an important one because it highlights a crucial dimension of racism that is often overlooked in narratives that emphasise contemporary racist inequality as a form of dominance, where racial dominance is characterised as a state of being rather than as a process, for example, in discourses that primarily dwell on ‘White privilege’ (Leonardo, 2004). While racist structures and behaviours certainly do engender dominance, discourses that foreground racist states of affairs, at the expense of the processes that create these states of affairs, often present racist societies in a way that minimises or even obliterates the role that actors play in perpetuating racism (through, e.g. presenting the benefits of White privilege as being passively received by White people (Leonardo, 2004)). Although there may be some heuristic value (particularly when discussing racism with White audiences) in focussing on the ways in which racial dominance manifests it is vital that we also ultimately deal with how White dominance is reproduced and sustained, and why it persists. Racist structures do not exist only through historical precedents, divorced from contemporary agents. Leonardo explains:
-- If racist relations were created only by people in the past, then racism would not be as formidable as it is today. It could be regarded as part of the historical dustbin and a relic of a cruel society. If racism were only problems promulgated by ‘bad whites’, then bad Whites today either outnumber ‘good whites’ or overpower them. The question becomes: Who are these bad whites? It must be the position of a good white person to declare that racism is always about ‘other whites’, perhaps ‘those working class whites’. This is a general alibi to create the ‘racist’ as always other, the self being an exception. Since very few whites exist who actually believe they are racist, then basically no one is racist and racism disappears more quickly than we can describe it. We live in a condition where racism thrives absent of racists (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). There must be an alternative explanation: in general, whites recreate their own racial supremacy, despite good intentions. (Leonardo, 2004: 143–144) --
So, the concept of ‘White supremacy’ as understood by CRT scholars, encapsulates racism as it exists in Western societies as normal and persistent, benefiting Whites to the detriment of non-Whites, and as being sustained, in part, through the actions of individuals and groups who gain a range of benefits from its continued existence.
A Marxist critique of ‘White supremacy’
Despite the theoretical utility of the concept of ‘White supremacy’ employed by CRT as described above, it has been repeatedly criticised from a Marxist perspective (Cole, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Cole and Maisuria, 2007).1 The Marxist critique offered is wide ranging and comprehensive. Cole (2016, 2017b) identifies seven substantial problems with ‘White supremacy’ as utilised by CRT scholars. According to Cole, White supremacy:
1. Diverts attention from modes of production.
2. Homogenises all White people.
3. Cannot explain non-colour-coded racism.
4. Cannot explain newer forms of racism such as hybridist racism (e.g. Islamophobia, where ‘traditional’ racism based on skin colour is combined with attitudes of religious intolerance).
5. Cannot explain racism that involves non-White actors discriminating against other non-White actors.
6. Has a historical usage that does not refer to the everyday racism described by CRT scholars and, in this usage, is associated with such things as fascism and other extreme right-wing ideologies. A comprehensive account of racism should maintain a theoretical distinction between fascism and racism.
7. Is damaging in motivating action against racism (particularly for White people). (Adapted from Cole, 2017b).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
