If you changed your points 1, 2, and 3 to identify the "some people" as racial groups, then it could described A, B, or C. Although it is still too broad to nail it down to just one of them.
Right, it is too broad to nail down just one of those ideas. If I wanted to though, I think it would be easy to take some specific indicators of race....and shape either 1 or 2 into the concepts of "white privilege" or more generally speaking just privilege....or the concept of "systemic racism".
It really just depends on whose viewpoint I'm describing. If I'm talking about the people who have faced struggles and obstacles or "oppression" I can racialize the idea that more or less describes "systemic racism".
If I'm talking about the people who have benefited from 1 and 2....I could racialize it into a description that pretty well describes the concept of "white privilege".
The interesting thing to me is that without that racialization...to anyone who hasn't been exposed to these ideas, it just kind of broadly looks like "history" or "society"....or perhaps more generally an aspect of society that describes a power dynamic in history.
Obviously I was making the point that this worldview is pretty malleable. If I were to add indicators of class based on wealth, and used terms like bourgeois or proletariat to describe the oppressed and oppressors...I'd sound basically like an early 1900s Russian Communist.
In fact, I'd say that if you wanted to take the general ideas of 1 and 2 apply them to any society anywhere at any time....you could. You might need to describe those who have benefited from society and those who haven't along different lines like religion or access to resources...but you could do it.
There's really no social system that has ever been created that some people have not been able to gain advantage from.
To elaborate,
A. Systemic racism.
B. White privilege
C. Critical Race Theory
All describe something about the condition of society. In their purest form they do not include admonitions of what ought to be done about those conditions, like "should pursue justice" and "move to a level playing field".
I not only have to disagree here, but I'm going to make a truth claim. CRT does contain an admonition. It does contain a call to action. We can argue about whether or not it's an accusation of guilt in a sense of justice, or whether it is a more moral accusation of behavior regardless of whether or not its conscious behavior...but it does describe the relationship between 1 and 2 this way and it does describe the necessity of action in resolving the admonition. The call for action is a defining aspect of CRT and if you want....I can pull any number of college level definitions of CRT and point it out. For example...
What is Critical Race Theory?
Another component to CRT is the commitment to Social justice and active role scholars take in working toward “eliminating racial oppression as a broad goal of ending all forms of oppression”. [4] This is the eventual goal of CRT and the work that most CRT scholars pursue as academics and activists.
The idea that its "just an analytical tool" or a "lens that provides a way to analyze race relationships"....is clearly false. It's also a call to action.
One could argue that it's both....but the idea that it's just one is false. I'd go as far as saying that the whole idea of it being an analytical tool is entirely false....it doesn't do analysis whatsoever. It's a worldview with a narrative that tells people to see race relationship a certain way. I can show you how it does this...and I can show you how it describes people who disagree.
The point though, is that it definitely contains an element of necessary action. That could be either spreading the worldview or marching in protest...but it doesn't allow for just "believing the worldview". Generally speaking, if you were to tell people you agree with this worldview but don't want to engage in the corrective actions, you'll be accused of being "complicit" in oppression or more specifically "systemic racism". Silence is violence and etc.
So if your points 1, 2, 3, and especially 4 are meant to describe one of A, B, or C, they would fail to do so because point 4 calls for a remedy and A, B, and C do not.
C definitely does contain all call to action. You described a necessary admonition...and it is a part of the theory. Nobody who believes that the worldview would describe 1 or 2 as just history or the nature of humanity...it's described as a power dynamic that places people in a role of either oppressed or oppressors. There is no nuetral position...and it doesn't really matter whether or not you think that the accusation is a moral one or one about justice and injustice.
Of course if a person accepts the truth of A, B, or C that person would most likely feel the need to call for a remedy. Said another way, the only people that do not think any remedy of that sort is needed are people would reject the truth A, B, and C.
I'm glad you can recognize that it is a truth claim....it doesn't just say it's possible to view things the way it does...it says its necessary to view things that way to understand reality.
That's how you can see it isn't an analytical tool or lens for viewing race relationships. It's a truth claim about reality.
How do you understand the truth? I'm an atheist so I require evidence. I can't just ignore evidence that disproves a worldview. I was never able to actually accept the truth claims because they require me to accept the word of some people as truth...and ignore the word of others because they either are part of the "oppressor" group trying to preserve their privilege or whatever.
I understand that such broad worldviews don't always have evidence. I think debate can be a good method for comparing subjective claims. Unfortunately, no CRT believer or adherent will debate. I have to think it's because the whole thing falls apart pretty quickly if they do.
I don't think that is quite right. I can't imagine a scholarly investigation into the development of racially-motivated power structures that did not at least attempt both understand and explain those power structures. CRT is after all a scholarly investigation.
If I quoted one of the "scholars" who developed the concept of critical theory describing it as I just did...
Would you admit you were wrong?
I have seen enough to know that Marxism is all too frequently invoked as a boogy man to incite irrational fear of all sorts of things, much like "communism" as invoked to great effect during the McCarthy era. And yes, I do know what Marxism means well enough to know that your points 1, 2, and 3 are not it. And point 4 is vague enough that is could be used to justify Marxism, or it could be used to justify responses that have nothing to do with Marxism.
If I asked you to describe dialectical models as Marxists see them....would you be able to do that?
I'm not asking if you understand Hegelian dialectics....I barely understand the concept and I certainly can't put it into a practical application, I think most scholars don't really understand the concept.....
I do know how Marx saw the concept and I know how it influenced Marxists since then.
Would you be able to tell me if Kendi's concept of Antiracism fits a modern Marxist dialectical model?
