CRT is not History. CRT is an Ideologial Historiography
The other red pill
You can read the full article here.
The confusion about Critical Race Theory which accompanies almost every public debate on the issue in the American market of knockoff ideas is possibly a reflection of a collective lack of rudimentary knowledge concerning not only history but its practice and scope.
CRT is often presented by its accolytes as unmediated and uninterpreted fact and by its detractors as lies. History is no longer interpretation, back to medieval historizicing: history is gospel and moral lesson.
This is not merely the type of historical illiteracy that one has come to expect from the American public. More alarmingly, this debate exposes a lack of intellectual literacy that comes from loosing sight of the suspension of disbelief that all forms of narrative demand of the reader. In perhaps words that even those I am attacking here can understand, the American public seems to have lost all sense that all that we know about history is the product of various interpretations and thus various biases and their mutual comparison. All of it. Even the one narrative wefavour. And it is indeed that one whose presumptions are the most important to keep in sight so as to avoid lapsing into dogma.
You can read the full article here: https://medium.com/@martin_6311/crt-is-not-history-crt-is-an-ideologial-historiography-745280c30bdf