My pov is that CRT (critical race theory) and related policies, like DEI, put an undue emphasis on race instead of on poverty, and the resulting effect is that policies which are aimed at helping minorities seem like “favoritism” (and called as such by political opponents), which makes a growing population of poor whites (due to the adverse effects of wealth inequality) polarized against minorities.
Separately, the polarization is used by others who want to weaken a democratic nation. For democracies, a growing immigrant population of more poor people will cause further polarization because the growing poor white population believes that “they’re taking our jobs”. This happened during Brexit, this happened with Trump, and this is happening now in Germany and other western democracies.
I know that there are racist groups who have an agenda of their own, and what I am saying is that instead of focusing on what are painted as culture war issues, leftists are better off focusing on alleviating systemic poverty. Like, bringing the Nordic model to the U.S. should be their agenda.
So, maybe I am wrong about CRT and DEI and how it’s well-meaning intentions are being abused by people who have other goals, but I want to hear from others about why they think CRT and DEI help. I want to listen, so I am not going to respond at all.
— Added definitions —
CRT: an academic field used to understand how systems and processes favor white people despite anti-discrimination policies. Analysis coming out of CRT is often used to make public policy.
DEI: a framework for increasing diversity, equity and inclusion; DEI isn’t focused on race or gender only, but also includes disability and other factors (pregnancy for example) which affect a person.
— —
Okay , so end note: I appreciate the people who commented. I questioned the relevancy of CRT/DEI previously out of an alarmed perspective of how aspects that highlight group differences can be used by others to create divisions and increase polarization. But I get the point everyone is making about the historical significance of these tools.
proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation
conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality
Is it “Welcoming to Immigrants” -> higher education, income, productivity or the other way round?
Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:
The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.
That might make sense, except that numbers of migrants is miniscule compared to the existing population in almost every case.
For example, Australia has ~200k permanent migrants per year. With a population of 26m. In order for the migrants to become a majority, it would take 130 years to import 26m people. (This is obviously grossly simplified).
There is basically no real risk that we will drown in migrants.
You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).
Mandatory voting is the answer there, it might be annoying at times, but it seems a lot better than a system that allows voters to opt out, or worse, be disenfranchised out.