Critical Race Theory Is All About Revenge

OPINION | The opinions expressed in this article are that of the writer, and may not necessarily reflect those of Tatum Report LLC

By now, you probably all know about the vile, racist comments delivered during a lecture at Yale School of Medicine by NYC-based psychiatrist Dr. Aruna Khilanani. She told the students she fantasized about shooting a white person.

So, rather than move forward from institutional racism as America had been doing remarkably well before the election of Barack Obama, he and people like Doctor Khilanani don’t want to end racism. Instead, they want to restructure racism. They aim to reverse historical institutional racism against blacks, which used to exist in America, and which they pretend still exists, and replace it with contemporary racism against whites.

It seems the radical left is aiming for a sort of, “You did this to us, now, you see how it feels.” There may be some logic to this argument, but not in the present context. It’s only logical if you’re talking about currently oppressed people against existing oppressors, which is not occurring. The fact folks like BLM, Antifa, and other leftist radicals are using the term anti-racist to describe a form of literal racism betrays their true racist/Marxist intentions.

They are attempting to make innocent people responsible for the “sins of their fathers.” Not that this lunacy should be engaged, but there are many practical arguments against this notion; here’s just one. How many white people today have American ancestors who owned slaves? Not many.

The number of white slaveholders in the U.S. was tiny when compared to the national population. And, of course, the vast majority of black slaves were held in the South. We can extrapolate the relative rarity of white slaveholders, without getting lost in the percentage weeds, from this passage at (University of Houston):

“Large slaveholders were extremely rare. In 1860 only 11,000 Southerners three-quarters of one percent [.75%] of the white population [in the South] owned more than 50 slaves; a mere 2,358 owned as many as 100 slaves. However, although large slaveholders were few in number, they owned most of the South’s slaves. Over half of all slaves lived on plantations with 20 or more slaves and a quarter lived on plantations with more than 50 slaves.”

The white population of the entire U.S. in 1860 was about 27 million. The national black population was about 4 ½ million people. There are now some 330 million people, all of whom have zero liability for either side of slavery.

This is not to diminish the atrocious evils of slavery but to put it into historical context concerning any “reparations” argument. The above quote means the percentage of Americans who have slaveholding ancestors is minuscule. Not to mention all the white immigrants who flooded into the U.S. during the late 19th Century and the white European, Hispanic, black African, and Asian immigrants during the 20th Century. Yet, the CRT crowd is pushing for reparations, as if the circumstances were (pardon the pun) simply black and white. As if all whites came from American slaveholders and all blacks descended from American slaves.

But it’s not that simple; there are many reasons why the push for historical reparations is dangerous for our nation. For example, justification. During the BLM/Antifa riots in Chicago, one young black woman described looting as “reparations.” It’s an insult to think any black parents would teach their children that stealing from a Macy’s or Target, taking other people’s stuff, is a form of reparations. No, it’s a form of criminal behavior. I think there may even be a commandment against stealing—if I recall correctly.

Then you have some black scholars, such as Duke University economics Professor William “Sandy” Darity, who argues for more limited and targeted reparations. He argues that reparations should be paid only to those blacks who can trace their ancestry back to slavery in the United States of America.

For example, Professor Darity writes, “So, basically, Michelle Obama, who can trace her lineage to people forced to toil for free in these United States, yes. Barack Obama, whose African father immigrated to the U.S. in the late 1950s, no.” He also draws a distinction between descendants of African slaves in the U.S. and black Africans who have chosen to emigrate here. Immigrants, by the way, especially the women, who have a higher average income than white Americans.

The professor seems to be trying to build a legal case, which I can respect. He says he wants to “craft a case that is specific to the United States government as perpetrator.” The problem with a legal case is that the leftist radicals won’t blame “all” white people for oppressing “all” black people. In other words, a legal case would make revenge impossible.

Rather than pretending that racism is anti-racism, that equity is equality, and that upside down is right side up if their political views are so correct, why can’t the radical left be honest? After all, that CRT teaches racism, no matter what people like Khilanani or Obama say, is obvious. You don’t like white people because they’re white. Even if you justify it (revenge), it’s still racism, regardless of the reason.

What else do you call excluding white reporters from interviewing a black mayor? What else do you call offering farm loans to black, Asian, and Hispanic farmers but not to White farmers? And what else do you call a Boston hospital putting white people last in line for medical care? The hospital specifically refers to this as “reparations.”

So, what else do you call these forms of “reparations?” Revenge.


Follow Steve Pomper and Tatum Report on Twitter

Join The Discussion

Related Posts