Having spent quite a lot of time with “woke” people, they would take pains to point out that while Clint had never owned slaves and they had personally never picked cotton, that their races had respectively benefitted from that imbalance. A fair point in its own way, but I doubt many CRT theorists have thought through the implications of their philosophy.
so you've basically just admitted to the legitimacy of CRT. Thanks for your honesty.
As I understand it, the whites now owe the oppressed BAME folk “equity” and reparations. The first and most obvious question is what that looks like, what’s the bill? How is it to be paid? Positive discrimination etc etc?
any time a wrong is carried out it is FIXED. On a micro scale If I rob you, then I pay the price. I serve a punishment, and you can also be recompensated for what was stolen. Yet for some reason on a Macro scale people think its just acceptible to forget everything and have no compensation. Does that make any sense ? I dont know what the bill looks like, its a very complicated process, but it should be discussed, and I would assume those who dont want to discuss it or try to right the wrongs of the past, have no problem with the wrongs of the past.
Imagine the world where that as happened. Every white person has paid the new CRT tax and have downsized out of shame for the events of the past.
But I dont think every white person would pay a CRT tax. I think it would be mostly corporations, and private wealth of families who had ties to slavery and exploitation. The average white person would not pay a hypothetical "CRT tax"
A new movement emerges…
For a long time, it has been known that certain products are presently made by people in semi-slavery conditions (when compared to the affluent west). It might be cloths made in Bangladesh, Indian stone employing child labour in the quarries or electronic items pushed out at low cost through chain stores. These products have been made at the expense of one person’s standard of living over another’s.
To take the the new redressive “equity” trend to its conclusion would have a class action from the poor workers invoicing the recipient of the goods for the difference between what they were paid and the minimum wage in the recipient country.
you are comparing apples to oranges
1) People in Bangladesh were not kidnapped from their families, brought to a far land and forced into slavery, and made to live in a society that discriminated against them for over 100 years AFTER being released from slavery.
2) CRT addresses society in an American context. It asks America to deal with American issues. Bangladesh is a foreign issue, although I would be for making the global capitalist interests to pay reparations to all nations they have exploited and stolen from. I would not be opposed to that but its a completely different and seperate issue to what CRT is trying to address.
If you believe in CRT and logic, you must follow the idea to where it leads.
It doesn't lead anywhere other than holding the powerful elites and their lower class minions accountable.
Why would anybody oppose that ?