Racial relations are a complicated and controversial topic, so many are uncomfortable and even afraid to discuss it. I consider myself an exception, given my "suitable background": I am a European-American, based on my geographical place of birth; I am a Middle Eastern American, based on my historical homeland; and I am also an African-American, based on the origin of my species, Homo sapiens sapiens! I came from a third-world country where I experienced racist hostility toward my ethnicity and fought back in various ways until I immigrated to the United States. Therefore, the issue of race relations is not at all alien to me.
Recently, reading a seminal book on Critical Race Theory (CRT) gave me a long forgotten and unpleasant feeling from my student days in the ex–Soviet Union. It was a feeling that I was wasting time and effort in studying inherently wrong subjects that were ideologically driven and lacking in any practical validation and usefulness. (These subjects were scientific communism, Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and political economy of socialism). Studying these subjects and experiencing firsthand their practical implementation had expanded my knowledge about the development of human society only to the extent that socialism is a dead end of societal evolution.
My first impression of the book was that CRT is a shining example of politically and ideologically driven yet illogical pseudoscience. As the title suggests, the subject of this "critical" study is race and the relationship between people of different races, while at the same time, one of its pillars is the assertion that races are artificial, human-invented categories that do not have any biological and genetic basis.
This assertion does not constitute a fact since the question of the existence or non-existence of the biological nature of races has not yet been settled by science. Instead, it reflects the penchant of some modern anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and sociologists who question traditional race-based human taxonomy and propose to classify people by geographic origins or ethnic groups. But their proposals are no better than the taxonomy of races, primarily because the categorizing of people is not eliminated once and for all, but is replaced with other concepts that still intersect with the traditional race-based ones.
The theory postulates that although "racism" is real, there are no genetically based races, but instead, populations divided by geographical principles. As such, geography wickedly affected the consciousness of Europeans, leading them to invent an artificial social category of races, thereby establishing dominance over the rest of humanity. Thus, according to CRT, racism represents a one-way vector of negative thoughts that arise in the minds of whites — in relation to everyone else and their collective actions, in order to maintain their perceived elitist positions in economics and politics.
Postulating that the concept of race is not based on objective reality, this theory, nevertheless, continues to reference it. CRT theorists ("Crits") reject the conciliatory "colorblindness" approach, as it does not fit their purpose of ultimate revenge against whites. They are not even interested in merely using the so-called "race card" as a pretext for some incremental social change; they are after complete domination in racial relations. The Crits' goal is to unite minorities to fight for power on the side of the left. Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that CRT is racist on its face and in its rhetoric. The Crits' claim that whites are inherently privileged is as foolish and racist as the white supremacists' claim that blacks are intrinsically backward. This is a primitive doctrine of jealousy and revenge that is as racist in its essence as eugenics, also a pseudoscience espoused by...
