They possess racial epistemic insight that arises from being members of the oppressed group.
They are entitled to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have validity and are worth observing. In this view, it is inherently racist and it has built a life of its own that revolves around newer oppressions.Ī logical derivative of this premise, according to CRT, is that it is unjust to offer allegiance to such a system and that members of “oppressed” racial groups have an obligation to be selective in terms of what they choose to accept as law. It tirelessly offers a litany of oppressions with the a priori belief that every aspect of the law is tainted with racism, even if it seems to be balanced and race-blind. They are not valid and must be replaced.Īs Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” By design, the legal structure of the nation is racist and CRT consists of finding the multiple tentacles of that monster. Consequently, America’s political, social, and legal systems are by definition racist and unjust. Race, not class, gave rise to class stratification and the alienation of “inferior” races. In the contention of CRT, America is an inherently and permanently racist society, whose very foundation is based on racial oppression. We must remember that the notion of a united front comes from Lenin, who understood the importance of a war against capitalism that encompasses various struggles against the multiple expressions of oppression birthed from the antagonisms of class. This language can only make sense if both race and gender oppressions arise from more foundational realities.
For its founders, gender is yet another front. That is why some of its founders present the struggle of race as a “front” among other fronts. Although it is not completely clear, Black Lives Matter seems to reject the notion that race is not reducible to class. They might focus on class as a particularly powerful oppressive phenomenon arising from the struggles of race but they remain committed to the basic classical Marxist reading of history. Thus, alienation, antagonism, and oppression are presented within various basic models that supplant social class.Īgain, not all CRT advocates understand race as a substitute for class.
In the racialist neo-Marxist framework of CRT, however, race is not reducible to class, although some CRT identifies the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines.
To understand oppression, classic Marxism enjoins the use of no other reality but social class. The difference is that classic Marxist analysis focuses on social class as the foundational unit for social hierarchies, with other elements forming a superstructure of epiphenomena that includes race. Hegel and further developed by Karl Marx. As such, it follows the framework of dialectical analysis struggle created by G. The basic premise of the theory is that society is divided between oppressors (whites) and victims (blacks). As an academic discipline, it is rather new, but it is similar to prior assessments of race in America. Derrick Bell can be said to be the creator of critical race theory (CRT).
0 kommentar(er)
