Depending on who you ask, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is potentially one of the biggest threats to society that the West has ever faced. It’s being fed to our children and making them grow up to become beta cucks who are unable to properly defend their country against all the Alphas in China and Russia, or even worse, grow up to become women. With a nation of self-hating, over-educated snowflakes, the West is sure to crumble under the weight of its own wokeness. And this shit is starting in our schools! Our babies! If they start teaching our babies about CRT, what’s next? That gay people exist!?

If children are exposed to non-derogatory images of homosexuality at a young age, they might grow up thinking that it’s normal! Heavens to Betsy!

Of course, we all know about gay people because we’ve had such an thorough and well-balanced exploration of homosexuality in our publicly-funded sexual education previously to now. But what is CRT? How can a race be critical when it doesn’t even have a mouth? Unfortunately, I didn’t grow up in the United States so I didn’t have CRT shoved down my young throat when I went to elementary school. I had to wait until my Master’s degree to learn about it, so my education came much too late.

What I learned is that one can frame racism beyond personal prejudice. CRT asks us to imagine a world where interpersonal racism evaporated overnight, and wonder whether racial disparities would still exist. Given that it’s easy enough to see that they would, CRT opens up a conversation as to what contributes to racial disparities beyond subjective attitudes.

It turns out that holding hands was not enough to end the stratification created by centuries of injustice

CRT is a legal lens in that it focuses primarily on how laws that can appear neutral on their face represent a history of laws that originated in more overt forms of discrimination. The case I’m most familiar with, since that’s what I did my studies on, are drug laws that seemingly apply to everyone equally (they don’t use the n-word in the legal code, for instance), but in their history and implementation primarily target people of colour. Drug laws, in both the United States and Canada, were implemented entirely to control immigrant populations and prevent the mixing of races. Famously, in 1907, there was a massive race riot in Vancouver’s Chinatown because White people believed that Asian men were seducing White women using that sweet, sweet opium. Future Prime Ministry William Lyon Mackenzie King went and “investigated” the riot, and when he returned to Ottawa, criminalized opium because that was clearly the issue. Today, even though racial minorities are generally harassed by the legal system disproportionately to their White counterparts, the criminalization actually surges when the excuse being used for that harassment is drugs. Politicians will use the dog whistle “tough on crime” to stoke racialized fears without actually saying the n-word repeatedly, and that’s because crime and in particular drug crime have been so embedded into our cultural psyche as being linked to dangerous racial minorities that we can’t escape it. Therefore, the enforcement of drug laws is inherently racist even if there are a few good apples in the police force with open and progressive values.

And that, my friends, is what I learned CRT to be. It’s the deconstruction of seemingly neutral laws through a historical lens to ascertain why their outcome today disproportionately beleaguers people of colour. There’s more to it than that, such as a look at the impotence of current civil rights laws to address the so-called neutral laws adjacent to them in the legal code that are harming the people the civil rights laws are ostensibly there to protect, but that’s the most simplistic way of understanding CRT.

Ban the questioning of why things are the way they are! You were supposed to stop asking “why” when you turned three!

What does the historical deconstruction of laws have to do with elementary school kids? It would be bizarre to teach a postmodern philosophy of law to a child who doesn’t even have an understanding of how a bill becomes a law yet. In my ignorance, I only learned about CRT from the academic journals exploring the topic. Little did I know that social media and television pundits have different sources for their understanding of CRT; namely, from all the way up their own ass.

So what is CRT, really? Well, according to timeless sage and general polymath Tucker Carlson, CRT teaches us, “if you’re a straight White American, even if you’re a very small child, you’re guilty. It’s your fault. You’re a bad person.” This is the greatest threat to American society, and “everything’s at stake” because “[CRT is] civilization-ending poison.” The group Moms for Liberty, famous for putting out a $500 reward for catching teachers daring to educate their students on CRT, describe it as categorizing people into a binary of “oppressors” and “victim” based exclusively on the colour of that person’s skin. “That means the two million union soldiers who fought in the civil war to end slavery were also oppressors!” These people must be the experts to address it with such civilization-ending gravitas to put bounties on school teachers.

How do they know this is happening? Well they can point to facts like the National Education Association wanting to include in its curriculum the “truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history” and “the continued impact this history has on our current society.” Our Moms for Liberty heroines cite school assignments that ask their kids to reflect on what privileges they might have within their social standing.

If your university library didn’t have major budget cuts, that makes you an oppressor!

But hold on, my fancy university degree is tingling. How does acknowledging say, slavery, categorize White children today into an oppressor class? Should we not be teaching kids about slavery? Or do they disagree that history has an on-going influence on modern society, and perhaps have different beliefs as to why racial disparities still exist? Will acknowledging where we might have benefited from our station in life truly be the end of civilization as we know it? Seems pretty… hyperbolic, to say the least. It’s also not CRT. If you’ll recall, CRT is the postmodern deconstruction of laws to disentangle them from their colour-blind neutrality to show how racist origins influence the structure of society today. Very little to do with privilege, nor is there any categorization of people within that perspective. Its entire deal is to look away from people to look at the theory of law – remember how it said nobody had to be personally racist for these problems to continue? Frankly, it’s barely a history lesson and more of a lens through which to view a history lesson, and my guess is that school kids aren’t deconstructing drug laws in their grade 10 social studies classes even if they’re carrying forward historical events to see their influence today.

If CRT isn’t actually CRT, then what is CRT? Well, if we listen to how CRT is being described, it’s an attack on White children, bullying them into self-effacing beliefs. The threat isn’t to civilization, it’s a threat to White civilization. There does not appear to be any concern for Black children learning CRT. Presumably Black children are benefiting from this new narrative since they are now the social victors while their White peers exist only under their woke boots.

Bow before your new king!

You know how when a politician is asked a question they don’t want to answer, they don’t answer it, and respond instead to an imagined question that allows them to answer in the way they want? That’s what’s happening with CRT. No one is actually responding to CRT, they’re creating a strawman of CRT that allows them to tell susceptible White folks that they are under threat from the woke mob. What will never be discussed is the demographics of that mob: logically, in order for CRT to make sense as a threat, it has to be made up of people of colour and their allies, or, n______ and n_____-lovers. Truly a civilization-ending threat to put those people in charge!

The pandering to White Fright is not even subtle! It’s those coloureds and those coloured-lovers (that’s probably safer, right?) coming to brainwash our precious White darlings! It’s so obviously race-baiting that CRT literally has “race” in the name. Florida, known for being vociferously against censorship and cancel culture, is now banning math textbooks for things like CRT and social-emotional learning (because building a relationship toward a subject rather than embodying a stoic disinterest in rigorous scholarship at six years old is for pussies – and only pussies care about racial relations). It must only be the speech of certain types of people that is worth protecting.

Don’t worry, it’s only the books that talk about White Supremacy as a bad thing that are being burned because that’s divisive!

Racism never went away. The Southern Strategy may have changed racist language from repeatedly using the n-word to dog whistles with plausible deniability like “tough on crime”, but it was always there. The backlash to CRT shows a regression away from the dog whistle. Today’s Lee Atwater is probably out there now wondering whether political speech can start using the n-word again. If demagogues are already comfortable raising a racial panic over the threat to all of the White babies, and this becomes normalized, it’s not like racism is going to content itself with eliminating the discussion of race in schools.

Dog whistles exist for terrible people to raise the specter of what ought to be obsolete ideologies. As we see the dog whistles get put away to allow room for the more overt integration of those terrible ideologies into the mainstream, it really ought to be a wake-up call that something much worse is coming.

After a certain age, we tend to valourize our tribulations as badges of pride. Our struggle needs to matter, and so we glorify it. When we walked to school, it was through five feet of snow, and it was uphill both ways. Now these lazy fucking kids with their global warming barely have to deal with a frosted sidewalk, and they even shifted the laws of the universe so that our proud Escher-like unidirectional hills have become laughable fantasies.

Of course, it goes beyond the gentle facetiousness of a school commute. You may have heard it said that, “I got beaten as a child, and I turned out okay!” This type of language is used to dismiss corporal punishment in this example, but often is applied more broadly to dismiss criticisms against the status quo more generally.

What does it mean to “turn out okay”? This of course varies. Our protagonist could hold bitter resentment against their father and still claim that enduring corporal punishment was a net “okay”. Is the PTSD overwhelmingly debilitating? No? Then it’s fine. To be fair, the majority of children who receive corporal punishment do not suffer long-lasting psychological trauma because of it, but how many of them maintain the belief that it’s okay to use violence on children to socialize behaviour? How many take it one small step further to believe that violence is justified on anyone in the assertion of legitimate authority?

We are nothing if not topical here at Blog for Chumps!

I think we have a better understanding of the phenomenon of “turning out okay” if we replace the word “okay” with the word “normal”. It was “normal” back in the day to whoop misbehaving children, and this normalcy carries forward in its defenders today. This is where we can see the generalizability of this attitude. “Every older woman was a homemaker when I was a kid, and I don’t hate women today, therefore it’s normal for women to maintain domesticity.” We are basically defending our socialization when we say we turned out okay, in whatever form our “okay” looks like.

If corporal punishment is normal, its socialization is what you could call systemic corporal punishment-ism. I’m using such awkward language to draw a parallel to the systemic socialization of female domesticity which has its own fancy name: patriarchy. You may have heard of it. Our attitudes toward corporal punishment, toward women, toward racialized groups, toward the LGBT community, etc., are all socialized from a young age, and we don’t see the systematization of this process for one, because we’re children, and two, because it’s “normal”. Normalcy may have its problems, and that’s why we don’t say we turned out “amazing”, but it’s at least “okay.” And “okay” is tolerable, so all these whiny progressives are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

What they have in common? Neither of them wear shirts, apparently…

Normal works out okay for some people. It even works out wonderfully for others! Unfortunately, there are those who actually suffer greatly under it. The young girl who grows up believing that abuse is the “normal” way to receive love, or the young boy who grows up to mete it out. Our relationship toward violence is traditionally gendered because our roles within it are just as socialized as the violence itself: men typically commit abuse against women. It doesn’t always happen that way, but society as a whole functions in broad terms.

Our personal experiences aren’t universalizable. You may well have turned out okay! Congratulations! That doesn’t mean that everyone who endured similar experiences did too. Nostalgia is not a suitable justification for an ongoing social practice. Luckily, we have this thing called science now, and you can actually study the impacts of certain behaviours, and it turns out, physical punishment increases the risk of antisocial behaviour, depression, and substance use. A person can smoke cigarettes their whole lives and never get cancer, but it’s generally agreed upon now that promoting cigarette use in teenagers is kinda evil. Similarly, harmful attitudes, behaviours, and social policies toward marginalized groups have an abundance of literature explaining why they’re bad. Using “normal” to dictate how we organize our society really only benefits those who were benefitting from it already.

Inequity Shmim-Shmeck-Shmitty!

As easy as it is to say that our personal experiences are obviously not universalizable or that we should use peer-reviewed studies to guide our social decisions, it’s quite unlikely that my argument is going to be all that compelling to the defenders of normalcy. I’ve hinted at why already. Firstly, there’s the belief that socialization should be brutal and unforgiving. These shirtless, whiny liberals just need to toughen up! A diamond can only be formed under intense pressure after all; just look at Michael Jackson and the well-adjusted adult that he became! Everyone in the world is a pussy except for me!

This is the hazing mentality, and no matter how many freshman literally die from the experience, it is a proud tradition and it’s a fine way to purge the weak from our midst. Meritocratic survival, right? Except that if the winner of the race is the only one that’s allowed to survive, and the starting conditions differ for each participant, it’s a bit rigged, isn’t it? “Oh, but I started the race in this condition, and I turned out okay!” Again, it’s not universalizable, and we can see from science where the inequities lie. It’s not that hard to see where we can add a bit more fairness to society, and the logic used to justify why it always seems to be certain groups that lose at the race contorts itself pretty hard to avoid being overtly oppressive.

Ah yes, the production of the finest merit! And yet, it was Bluto who became president…

My personal belief is that what we consider normalcy is embedded so deeply within our psyche that it becomes a part of who we are. If we criticize the sausage-making process, we’re criticizing the sausage. The social value of “toughness” is vague to the point of irrelevancy, but being “tough” can be a huge part of who we are as individuals. I am what made me, and if I can’t point to anything concrete, that doesn’t matter because I need to feel as though my life has meaning.

If the left wants to abolish student debt, or stop corporal punishment, or give women the space to develop their own meaningful lives, and I had to pay back my student loans, got properly whooped, and Mother certainly never complained, then I might take it personally that others might not want to endure what I had to go through. Humans are very sensitive creatures, and we’re all pretty whiny when you get down to it. Again though, it’s the process and not the person. No one “has” to go through anything, and society can change to become more equitable, and maybe the suffering that has been endured in the past can be less so in the future.

Virtue ethics has been a thing for a long time. It’s about embodying certain characteristics that make someone a good person. Aristotle, who coined the whole system, advocated admiring the virtuous sage and copying their behaviour; the sage being someone who embodies characteristics that ought to be copied. It’s a bit of a circular process that certainly deserves some criticism, but it’s hard to shake the notion that there are certain characteristics that make a person more virtuous. Aristotle gave out a list, but I’m not going to focus on every single one because some of them are dumb.

I mean, you can have a look… try to figure out the dumb ones!

The thing about virtues is that they require personal sacrifice. Courage is the best example, because courage without risk to the self is incoherent. It no longer functions as a concept. Honesty, for instance, is certainly not incoherent when there isn’t any risk, but lying about something benign would usually typify some kind of pathology. Honesty is only a virtue when the sage has something to lose by being honest (we’ll call “something to gain” the loss of an opportunity to gain to keep our sacrificial theme simple). Patience is only a virtue when it would feel real good to lose our shit on someone. Temperance is literally the sacrifice of indulgence, which, if you’ve ever indulged, is a lot of fun. While loyalty is not on Aristotle’s list, it is a common sense virtue that only has value during instances of temptation; its value coming from the sacrifice associated with it. Aristotle liked to think of virtues as the perfect balance of moral homeostasis, but it is very easy to frame them instead as the subjugation of the self for the sake of a higher purpose.

Ask yourself: is this a better depiction of virtue than a soldier throwing themselves on a grenade to save their peers?

To be virtuous then, is to act for the benefit beyond oneself. What this means is that individualism is inherently an unethical philosophy, and systems built on individualism are by definition immoral. By focusing entirely on ourselves, we limit the risks we are willing to absorb for others. We may want to think of the tenets proselytized by individualism such as efficiency and productivity as virtues, but we would be sacrificing the core of virtue ethics. Personal sacrifice for the boss’s profit may seem virtuous to admirer’s of “good work ethic“, but where is the reciprocity necessary in an ethical system? Do bosses exist outside of that system? Probably wouldn’t be great if they did! What’s good for General Motors is not good for the group; I mean, unless General Motors became a collective… *cough*.

Hm. This collective may be a bit problematic.

Again, there are problems with virtue ethics. For one, they’re very tribal. Loyalty to the group may detract from perfectly good or better alternatives, for instance. Friendliness literally points to a circle of friends, and no one can tell me that the same level of friendliness extends outside of that group. For those wondering about which of Aristotle’s virtues are dumb, they’re the ones only attainable by rich people like liberality, magnificence, and magnanimity (listed as great-souledness in that weird list I found on Google). Dude made a living selling philosophy lectures to those with the means to pay for fucking philosophy lectures; he had to play to his audience. However, this illustrates very well the problems of virtue ethics as a system. Virtues develop within the tribe for the benefit of that tribe, giving them a degree of subjectivity as well as a parochialism that I certainly reject.

Our virtuous ethics; their dishonourable sinfulness

I may not be a virtue ethicist, but despite my reservations, I can’t argue with the fundamental principle that ethics require a vision beyond oneself. If we recognize this truth, then we become much more resilient to socially destructive propaganda trying to pass itself off as virtues: independence, self-interest, etc. If a character trait seems designed to prevent unionization, it probably is!