On the Absence of Systemic Racism

According to Critical Race Theory, “racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country” (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001, p. 7). Its advocates call this belief “systemic racism,” and Critical Race Theory is the “study” of this so-called systemic racism, if by “study” we mean “treasure hunt to find racism in everything.”

Consequently, according to Critical Race Theorists, virtually everything anyone can imagine is racist. The names of some birds and fish are racist, according to Critical Race Theory. Math is racist, especially if we care about getting the right answers, according to Critical Race Theory. A rock on University of Wisconsin, Madison, campus property is racist, according to Critical Race Theory. Schools, government institutions, businesses, classical music, Beethoven specifically, art, hiking, going outside, the pandemic, rock climbing, jogging, conservatism and all conservatives, the curriculum in any school and its books, black people who don’t agree with Critical Race Theory, logic, loyalty, punctuality, hard work, merit—these are all part of the “system” of racism that this neo-Marxian Theory “interrogates” for its hidden racism. Even being “less racist” or “not racist” and desegregating schools via Brown v. Board of Education is racist, according to Critical Race Theory. In fact, it was in those two phenomena that Critical Race Theory started.

In that it’s a neo-Marxist Theory that demands to be understood only in its own predefined terms, however, perhaps it is best to consider what Critical Race Theory is really all about by taking the advice of some of its philosophical forebears. In One-Dimensional Man (1964), the neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse explains, presaging the poststructuralist Jackie Derrida, that the motivating energy for a movement rooted in (Hegelian) “negative thinking” comes from what isn’t there more than what is. The absence haunts the movement and, ultimately, gives it its motivating energy and will. He, of course, meant the (absence of the) liberated Utopia—Communism, when it finally works—that “specter of Marx” that also animated Derrida, though less manically, in the 1990s. Thus, perhaps we can learn more about what “systemic racism” is about by taking some examples of what isn’t systemically racist, even though it plainly is (by their definition).

A glaring example of systemic racism-that-isn’t arises in the willful discrimination against meritorious Asian-Americans in American colleges and universities and other schools. This blatant exception to the rule of systemic racism not only exists but was defended against termination by nearly every Senate Democrat in a party-line vote in April when Ted Cruz attempted to add a provision in the “Stop Asian Hate” bill that would finally prohibit it. But, of course, Asian-Americans are a paradoxical minority. They’re white-adjacent, which is systemically racist.

Belaboring the obvious.

Of course, every time one human sees another they notice physical features. To not do that would be deliberate blindness. Which is stupid.
So, yes, you notice if the other is of a different race.
SO BLOODY WHAT!?

That is not racism. And, if you think it is YOU are the racist!

To act on it, adversely, is racism. To ignore is to show the mark of having been civilized. And, that is what ID’s the racist, the hater. Their parents never civilized them.

CRT is really an explanation of why minorities as a group, principally blacks, do not excel economically in the society of American opportunity. Economic failure results in a host of other societal ills, such as criminal activity. CRT believes that all racial groups are equally capable on an even playing field and should perform equally to whites. They equate an uneven playing field to “white privilege”.

Upon examining the premise of equality of capability and the societal construct of the playing field, there are two possible conclusions, either the premise of equality of capability is false, or indeed the economic playing field is biased in favor of whites.

The elephant in the room says that much has been studied regarding the lesser innate intelligence of American blacks. The “Bell Curve” and other studied around the world have come to this conclusion. It does not mean the black Americans are less human or less valuable in the eyes of God. So I pose that the premise of equality of capability is false. Why should this not be possible? White men can’t jump.

The minority standing on the sideline only see the outcome of the creativity, dedication and hard work of those that choose to compete. He assumes that all those people have succeeded with capabilities similar to his. This is an error. But his conclusion is that the playing field must be tipped in favor of the whites. What to do?

The best revenge for minorities against White Privilege is to compete and succeed. If you believe that the "playing field" is not level then you have two choices, compete anyway and work even harder to succeed, or go find another playing field.

The other playing field would be to succeed within your own minority community. Black owned businesses in Black neighborhoods, buying from Black distributors and producers.

Minorities will never find a solution in expecting whites to tip the playing field in their direction. The two groups have a completely different view of the field of competition. I think that whites go about their lives competing on the field of life and don't even see the blacks on the sidelines. Blacks stand on the sidelines and have no idea how to get on the field. For some reason they think they need to ask permission of the whites to play?

Just step on the field and compete! Or don't. It’s up to you. But don't blame it on whites if you can't.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.