Antiracism is driven by a need to settle the score–to overtly penalize whiteness because it is whiteness, alone, which created the conditions for the social relations between white and non-white people. Yet, just as a king is not inherently royal, but appointed as such via social construction, so, too, is whiteness not inherently oppressive. This ideology, which asserts that it is such, is a social construction, imposing dynamics onto relationships between people, asserting a misrecognition as absolute truth.
For starters, the more good, ethical people push back against my critique of Critical Race Theory, the more invested I am in its study. Not because I wish to prove these good folks wrong, but because I am really trying to find the good in the framework, to see what it is they must know, which I am missing. The cycle, then, persists, because the more I investigate the theory and its practice, the more suspicious I become of its widespread acceptance and use across disciplines and social communities. After engaging in dialogue with a few individuals about the Voice of Color Thesis, I discovered an analogy for said thesis, which I would like to present to you today. It will take the shape of a metaphor, or a parable.
I oppose Critical Race Theory. Well, I cannot say if I oppose the text, Critical Race Theory, or its academic study because I’ve absolutely no experience with either, but I absolutely oppose the practical application of Critical Race Theory (CRT) as it is increasingly absorbed by culture and social communities (particularly online advocacy spaces). Whether it is CRT in truth, or a conflation of CRT with Robin De Angelo’s White Fragility cult, the CRT I’ve encountered in online social communities has been nothing short of toxic.