The guilty white man and the black victim
This is about critical race theory, an influential global movement that wants to put an end to racial oppression once and for all. What drives these activists in their fight against inequality?
An anthropology professor who states that white Europeans are by definition racist, even if they don't think so, because white people have a so-called 'cultural archive' in their heads. That archive contains four hundred years of colonial thinking, which assumes that white is superior to black. No matter how hard you try, you will never lose that archive.
Feminist students and LGBTQ activists causing destruction to demonstrate their support for the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, not exactly a bastion of feminist ideals and queer-friendliness.
A professor family science that calls marriage an institution built on white heteropatriarchal supremacy that systematically marginalises Black, Indigenous, immigrant, mother-headed, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) families.
An intersectional feminist who calls Newton's mechanics biopolitical oppression.
You may laugh at that silliness, but this is a serious, global movement with enormous influence and millions of followers. They will not rest until all intersectional inequality is eliminated and all perpetrators are silenced.
The movement has influence in the world's largest companies and in progressive Western governments. Google launched Gemini AI in 2023, which uses artificial intelligence to generate images based on text commands. The makers had an agenda: racial and gender bias had to be actively combated, so that fictional characters were no longer stereotyped as male and white. But the software went a bit crazy. When asked for a picture of a pope, you were given a picture of a female pope of colour. When you asked for an image of German soldiers in the Second World War, you got an Asian woman in a German uniform and a black soldier with a kind of swastika. Google now has admitted that was a bit over the top, and the project was withdrawn from the market.
In the Netflix series Queen Charlotte: a Bridgerton story (2023), the wife of King George III of England is fictionally presented as a black woman with a black court. Not historically accurate, but with the aim of getting the public used to the idea of black people in the highest elites.
The Canadian government has launched a bill that would severely restrict expressions of disgust toward ethnic groups, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, genetic characteristics and disability. The restrictions can go so far that even criminal prosecution is in place for possible intention to offensive expressions, accompanied by censorship on social media. Critics speak of it as an Orwellian 'thought police’.
We are talking about critical race theory which is actively involved in racism and discrimination. In this article we’ll take a closer look at this movement: what do they want, and why? And: do they have a point? I do this on the basis of the influential book Critical race theory (2001) by the American lawyers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. The central question is: are racism and discrimination the main cause of the disadvantage of minorities?
The background of the book and of the movement is unambiguously in the United States, and cannot be separated from the structural socio-economic disadvantage of the African-American minority in that country. This disadvantage is undeniable and persistent.
In this article you can read how these ‘Crits’ think about redistribution, namely on the basis of equal outcomes. Racism is everywhere, they say, often we are not even aware of it. The white, masculine heterosexual colonial culture is so dominant that minorities are systematically oppressed without us realising it. Only with radical solutions can this pattern be combated. They have a point, I argue. Racism and discrimination are everywhere. But we do not agree on the solutions. Where the Crits are inspired by Marxist theory, I think that integration and care for the underclass is the only way out. In this respect I will dwell on the position of minorities in Europe and North America. Critical race theory arose because of the structural disadvantage of African Americans in the United States. But there is something special going on there, I explain, and you cannot simply roll out that diagnosis to the rest of the world.
Redistribution
As I wrote in the previous episode, there are different ways of redistribution:
Formal equal treatment: no distinction is made based on differences such as origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation.
The free market and social forces are given free rein (under the rules of formal equal treatment), but the outcomes are compensated: at the bottom line the balance is drawn up: the winners pay the losers. For example, in the form of a progressive income tax; those who are rich and successful contribute to collective facilities and redistribution according to their ability to pay.
Redistribution on the basis of equal opportunities. Those who, through no fault of their own, have a smaller chance of success will be compensated in advance. For example, by setting up smaller classes in schools with many disadvantaged groups, or by setting lower requirements for minorities so that they are proportionately represented in schools and professions.
Redistribution based on equal outcomes. Outcomes are by definition unjust if they are detrimental to minorities, so institutions must be tinkered with so that the outcomes are equal for everyone.
Critical race theory is on that last track. As long as minorities are not proportionally represented in desirable positions, and there is socio-economic inequality between groups, this must mean that the system is flawed. Formal equal treatment, rules that apply to everyone, and the absence of discrimination, are not enough to solve the disadvantage of population groups. If everyone is assessed on the same criteria to qualify for training, a job or a promotion, this often does not lead to a proportional representation of minorities at the better schools or in the more desirable social positions. As long as minorities are not proportionally represented in, for example, academic positions, high-profile professions, business leaders, or in parliament, or as long as ethnic minorities are overrepresented in prisons, this must mean that society is somehow disadvantaging minorities.
Unconscious discrimination
Critical race theory looks for the causes of unequal outcomes, which are often subtle. Open racism and discrimination still occur, but are no longer socially accepted. But what is still common is subtle and invisible discrimination and racism that the perpetrators are often not even aware of. Critical race theory aims to identify and expose it.
Anyone who claims to be colour blind is distrusted in critical race theory. First of all, no one is really colour blind: consciously or unconsciously we always make distinctions between people with a different colour. I have previously referred to the Implicit Association Test, which mercilessly confronts us with our unconsciously ingrained racism. White innocence is what anthropologist Gloria Wekker calls it. People who are used to always being seen and understood have no idea in what privileged position they find themselves, argued the anthropologist Joris Luyendijk in his book about his seven ticks (male, white, straight, pre-university diploma, university diploma, at least one highly educated and/or affluent parent, at least one parent born in the home country). Only when you experience what it is like when you cannot connect, when you are subtly excluded or distrusted, can you empathise with the situation that immigrants, women, sexual, ethnic or religious minorities or the poorly educated have to deal with on a daily basis.
Microaggression
As mentioned, most people are of good will, they do not see themselves as racists, often even have an aversion to discrimination, and they are open to treating everyone equally. But at the same time, minorities are constantly being put in their place in a subtle way, and they are made to notice that they do not quite belong after all. Most people do it unintentionally, not out of ill will, but if it happens to you often as a member of a minority, it gets under your skin.
The list of examples is endless.
A fellow countryman with a different colour, born and raised in Greenwich, is asked: "Where are you from?" Or receives a compliment: “You speak English so well!” This one is also nice: “When I see you, I don't see a colour, but a person.”
As a minority you experience hidden distrust. People holding their bags or keeping their hands on their pockets as you walk by. Being followed by the security guard as you walk through the store. Someone who will take the next elevator when you are in it. Being checked more often at traffic or security checks.
Being skipped when you raise your hand when it's your turn in the store. As a customer or guest, being mistaken for service staff. People who jokingly imitate your accent. Friends who make bad jokes about faggots, blacks or Jews, just to show that they are above it all. And woe if you don't laugh along.
Activist Peggy McIntosh listed 47 examples of how she experiences social benefits that ethnic minorities did not experience: from the fact that skin-coloured band-aids were only available for people with a white skin colour, to having the feeling that you can never settle in as a new resident of a white middle class residential area. Even the chemicals in colour film were optimised for fair skin: in dark skin the facial features were much less visible. As a result, dark-skinned people looked less sympathetic on TV and film, in newspapers and in magazines than people with a lighter skin colour.
Intersectionality
Another common theme in critical race theory is intersectionality: the phenomenon that you can also be part of different minorities, which doubles the disadvantage and makes you actually feel completely at home nowhere.
Delgado and Stefancic provide an example. A black woman gets a new manager who makes no secret of the fact that he hates black women: he calls them lazy and unreliable. He systematically gives her the shitty jobs, gets on her skin and denies her a promotion. She of course sues him for discrimination. The man defends himself. He doesn't hate blacks at all. He gets along well with black male employees, they get promotions and he is good friends with some of them. The woman is now taking a different tack: the man is sexist. But that is also not the case, he says. He has a female boss, many female colleagues, and they are all full of praise for his friendliness to women; he actually calls himself a feminist! The woman is discriminated against but does not fit into the box; she falls through the cracks.
Against oppression
If there are no equal outcomes, then there must be oppression, that’s what the ‘Crits’ believe. Oppression occurs when people are prevented from flourishing and developing. This brings us back to the Marxist formulation of our human moral duty, which I included in the previous episode:
We should support everyone’s autonomous pursuit of a flourishing life by affirming both negative duties not to destroy or block their valuable human capacities and positive duties to protect and enable their development and exercise.
— Pablo Gilabert, Kantian dignity and Marxian socialism, in: Kantian Review (2017)
When there are unequal outcomes, it means oppression. It doesn't matter much who is oppressing. It concerns all forms of oppression, not only of ethnic or religious groups and genders, but climate change is also a form of oppression. In the words of the anthropologist Younes Saramifar:
Injustice in terms of climate, gender, colonialism and practices of genocide: it is all connected. For example, as long as there is no justice for Palestine, there can be no climate justice.
— Younes Saramifar, quoted in: Andreas Kouwenhoven, Kees Versteegh, Een allegaartje van actiegroepen en 'tool kits' uit de VS: zo kwam het studentenprotest in Amsterdam tot stand, NRC (2024)
Ethnic consciousness
Supporters of critical race theory are the opposite of colour blind: they are constantly aware of ethnic differences. Only when we explicitly identify the differences can we strive for equal outcomes for everyone. On the one hand, the movement seeks a 'deconstruction of race', but on the other hand, this can only be achieved by being constantly aware of the fundamental disadvantage of (often ethnic) minorities. Many supporters believe that only minorities themselves can express how deep the problem lies and where the solution can be sought. White heterosexual men who traditionally dominate social and academic debate are culturally and mentally incapable of approaching the problem properly.
A related problem is cultural appropriation. White, often progressive people who adopt stereotypical elements of a foreign culture. For example, wearing dreadlocks or exotic clothing, language use, religious practices, and culinary excursions. Some proponents of critical race theory see this as cultural theft, an expression of dominance, or a superficial use of stereotypes. Knorr and Maggi, hold your breath. Another thing: can I make Jewish jokes? Does it matter whether I am Jewish or not?
Schwartz to Goldman: 'I have a golden tip for you! If you become Catholic, at the church around the corner, you will receive a thousand bucks, cash in hand!' A day later, Goldman accosts Schwartz: 'You were right! I've never earned money this easily before.' Schwartz: 'To be fair, you got that tip from me, so I'll get some tip money from you, right? Hundred quid seems reasonable to me.' Goldman answers resignedly: 'You see, that is exactly why we Catholics hate Jews so much.'
Polarisation and hate speech
The movement evokes strong reactions and does not shy away from confrontation. Well meaning white citizens do not accept to be labelled racist and refuse to feel guilty for the slavery past of their fellow countrymen from centuries ago. The movement is also often accused of not being open to reason: criticism of the movement is quickly framed as prejudiced undermining by the guilty white man and his lackeys.
It is ironic that the polarising movement simultaneously speaks out against polarisation and hate speech. In particular, hate speech, to which I will devote another article later, is combated fanatically, almost to the point of absurdity that anyone who is critical of the movement is already suspected of spewing hate. For example, criticism of questionable aspects of Islam can quickly become hate speech, as can criticism of claims by transgender people or if you point out uncomfortable statistics about minority groups. See also the Canadian bill I wrote about above.
The solutions of the movement
Not every critical race warrior has solutions in mind. In the words of Wekker: “I notice a problem. Why do I have to come up with a solution?” But where solutions are suggested, they are quite radical. Society must come up with staggering amounts of money to compensate oppressed minorities for hundreds of years of oppression. Criticism of the movement and its minorities is addressed with censorship and criminal law. Whoever expresses himself critically gets cancelled: ignored and silenced. Academia and journalism might face Maoist purges. Training and entry requirements must be designed in such a way that minorities have just as good a chance of success as others. And entry requirements must also take into account the difficulties that candidates have had to overcome. Anyone who grew up in a single-parent family on social assistance level deserves more favourable treatment than a child from the elite who has been prepared for the best possible education all her life.
The principle of proportional representation (one man, one vote) may also need to be overhauled. Because minorities must be adequately politically represented, and that is not possible as long as they are a minority. The perspective of minorities must carry more weight: the effect on the position of minorities must be taken into account in every decision.
Critical race theory also wants international solidarity, but it is not entirely clear how far this should go. In any case, capitalist exploitation of the underclass in poor countries is a bone of contention: perhaps the free trade agreements should be overhauled. This also applies to restrictions on immigration from poor countries. We should not hinder anyone who seeks refuge in a rich country in Europe or North America: they are victims of neo-colonial Western policy. Unhindered immigration naturally creates more competition on the labour market, so the position of the trade union movement must improve in order to maintain employment conditions for every worker. Which brings me to the 'economic democracy' that is advocated. Companies must be transformed into socially controlled organisations, with the highest authority for a 'business parliament' in which all stakeholders are represented: not only the capital providers, but also employees, consumers, local residents, the environmental movement and of course representatives of minorities.
In short: a Marxist agenda lurks beneath critical race theory.
As is the case in the polarised United States, critical race theory is highly controversial and politicised. It is difficult to find information online that is not coloured in some way. If you want more depth, watch the video below, in which Ryan Chapman neatly and impartially explains the ideas of critical race theory.
Wildfire
Critical race theory emerged in the United States in response to the structural disadvantage of African Americans.
Worldwide there are many disadvantaged groups, often mainly ethnic minorities and women in particular. Critical race theory, intersectionality, and identity politics spread like wildfire and now operate worldwide. Conscious or unconscious discrimination, microaggressions, hidden racism are identified here and there, as are the aftereffects of European colonialism, and usually the predominantly white, male elite did it.
There is no denying discrimination
There is indeed discrimination everywhere in the world. There is ample scientific research that proves it. The studies mainly focus on Europe and North America. On both continents it is clear that the white population is favoured. In North America, African Americans and Latin Americans in particular are discriminated against. In Europe, mainly people of Middle Eastern and African descent, but there is also discrimination is against Southern and Eastern Europeans in Northern and Central Europe. Discrimination against and by Asians is much less investigated.
On job applications, minority groups are up to two times less likely to be invited for a job interview.
In private residential rental, minorities receive up to about forty percent less response, especially if the potential tenant is a man.
There are indications of discrimination in all kinds of private sectors. Minorities receive less advantageous outcomes in car price negotiations. As a member of a minority you have to wait longer for a taxi. Minorities pay on average a higher interest on a mortgage, even if you adjust for socio-economic position. And so on.
Fight discrimination and the problem will solve itself, one would say. But it turns out not to be that simple.
Integration
The recorded discrimination appears to decrease as the minorities integrate more. Language skills and networking in particular appear to have a major influence. Those who speak the national language fluently and without an accent face much less discrimination. This also applies if you 'know the way': if your cultural connection is greater, if you have a better local network. Don't forget that many more people get a job through their network than through an application: about one and a half times as often. This may also apply to a rental property. Job seekers who mainly have friends and acquaintances in their own ethnic network therefore have a smaller chance of getting the job and home they want. But don't forget that employers from minority groups also discriminate, but the other way around: they also have an above-average preference for 'their own people'. This encourages segregation; minorities are more likely to have an employer from their own circle and go to live in neighbourhoods where they have their ethnic network. The only way out is to broaden the network, in which schools in particular can play a good role.
The labour market position of minorities in Europe is weaker than average. Wages are lower and unemployment is higher. This is partly due to discrimination, but we should not overestimate that effect. The socio-economic disadvantage of immigrants with an Islamic background in Europe appears to be largely explainable by social and cultural factors. We have already mentioned language deficiency and networking: those are the biggest factors, but there is more. For example, married women are often expected to care for children at home, no matter how well educated they are. If you correct for these types of factors, Europeans with a migration background do not have significantly lower chances of finding work. Although there is demonstrable discrimination at an individual level, it has less effect on their position in the labour market than you might think.
Ethnic newcomers almost always have a socio-economic disadvantage. This gap is usually made up within one or two generations. This process slows down as the group of newcomers is larger, the average education and wealth level of the newcomers is lower, and the cultural differences are greater. If you've ever made your own mayonnaise, you know that one egg yolk can mix with huge amounts of oil. But then you don't want any temperature differences, and you have to mix the oil drop by drop. If you ignore that, the emulsion will curdle.
The disadvantage of minorities is not only caused by discrimination, but also by cultural preferences, language proficiency, social networks and education level. As these differences become smaller over time, the disadvantage in the labour market of Europeans with a migrant background will gradually disappear.
These are important nuances. Yes, there is discrimination, and newcomers and ethnic minorities suffer as a result. Also, don't forget the psychological effect. On the other hand, if you are constantly told that you are a victim, that will leave its mark too. Everyone has an interest in knowing the realistic story. If you belong to a migrant group, you are rarely welcomed with open arms. People have prejudices, are suspicious, it is difficult to connect and there will be cultural differences. Even if you do your best as an immigrant, language disadvantages, differences in educational level, cultural differences and a poor network often cannot be erased in one generation. Above all, invest in the integration of your children and grandchildren.
Adherents of critical race theory probably don't like hearing this. What remains of a critical theory that wants to test the outcomes of all policies against the effects for minorities? Who declares racism, discrimination and oppression to be the overriding theme?
It is not without reason that critical race theory is an export product of the United States. Because the ethnic situation in that country is special: the disadvantage of the African-American population is more persistent than one would expect.
The socio-economic position of African Americans
The position of African Americans in the United States is (still) not going well. Slavery was abolished in 1865. In 1964, making racial distinctions was banned. A year later, affirmative action was made mandatory for governments and employers in the United States, so that women and minorities would be equally represented. Now, sixty years later, there is still a huge gap between white and black in the United States.
There are relatively four times as many African Americans in prison as white Americans. If you are black, the chance that you live below the poverty line is about two and a half times greater. Blacks are significantly less educated than whites. On average, white families earn almost twice as much as black families. Unemployment among blacks is structurally about one and a half times as high. If you are white, your life expectancy is three years longer. In political representation, the picture is mixed: black members are approximately equally represented in Congress, but the Senate is only three percent black, while the population is more than twelve percent black. 63 percent of black children grow up in single-parent families, compared to 24 percent white.
Equal rights, equal treatment, even affirmative action do not appear to be effective enough to close the gap. No wonder scientists are looking for other explanations and solutions.
Is the disadvantage of African Americans due to discrimination?
If you look at the elements in which black people are clearly disadvantaged socio-economically, lower prosperity and poverty are the common thread. Lower education, lower earnings, higher crime, higher unemployment, single-parent families, lower life expectancy: these are elements that correlate with each other. Black disadvantage appears to be a class problem rather than a race problem. But why are there so many blacks in the underclass?
Of course there is discrimination in the United States, as everywhere. Although overt racism and undisguised discrimination are no longer as common as before, discrimination still occurs, especially if the chance of being caught is small. And don't forget that discrimination doesn't have to be based solely on ethnicity: there is also such a thing as class discrimination. If you are part of a socio-economic underclass, you will also have to deal with prejudices that are not necessarily based on ethnicity.
There are good indications that there is more to the disadvantaged position of African Americans. Jewish and Asian Americans also face some degree of discrimination, but their socio-economic position is, on average, even better than that of the average North American.
The role of intelligence
One controversial indication is that many black Americans score below average on IQ and cognitive tests. That statistic is indisputable, but we have to be careful with conclusions. First, of course, you're making a serious mistake if you assume that every African-American you meet is less smart than average. The spectrum is broad: there are black Nobel Prize winners; there are countless amazing black scientists, doctors, philosophers, writers and CEOs. The country even had a black president. We are talking about statistics here, not generalisations. With the IQ of a single individual you can hardly say anything meaningful about their skills and perspectives. But if you know the average IQ of a group, things are different: then you can make statistical predictions with reasonable certainty.
The fact that there is a statistical relationship between hereditary ethnicity and IQ was a striking finding. Many, including serious scientists, refuse to believe it. The book in which this was stated, The bell curve (1994), has been attacked from all sides because of that controversial position. But apart from countless nuances and comments, no one has yet managed to eradicate the fundamental (statistical) analysis of the book. In another episode I will discuss the sense and nonsense of racial distinctions.
Additionally, we should ask ourselves:
Can cognitive ability really be expressed in just one number?
Are the tests culturally neutral?
Is a low IQ the cause, and not the consequence, of socio-economic disadvantage?
Does a low IQ lead to poverty and disadvantage?
The answer to the last question is clear: in the US, fixated on tests, those who have high scores have a better chance of a good education, a higher chance of successfully finishing the curriculum, of a high income and access to a prosperous class. Over the last sixty years, the United States has become increasingly meritocratic. Prosperity depends less on origins and more on cognitive and academic performance. An academic degree from one of the better universities is almost a guarantee of a prosperous life.
But what is less clear is to what extent a high test score is self-fulfilling. Let me give an absurd example to illustrate this point. Imagine a culture fixated on musicality. Whoever can sing the best gets the best-paid job. The best singers rule the roost, creating an elite of great singers who also marry each other and have children. These children not only have a hereditary talent for musicality, but they are also exposed to music all day long at home, they are encouraged to sing beautifully from an early age, and they go to the best possible music school. These schools select their students based on tests: whoever has the greatest musical talent is accepted. It is logical that children who score high on those tests also have the greatest chance of completing school with high grades. Those who successfully complete school get the best job, and this is how the system sustains itself, regardless of the question of whether musicality makes the best contribution to society.
IQ is a way to statistically predict how well people can solve cognitive problems. I readily admit that solving cognitive problems will probably make you more successful in stock trading, designing a bridge, leading a government agency, or conducting scientific research. Musicality won't get you very far with that. On average, intelligent people are more productive in complex tasks. But the example hopefully shows that the emphasis on measured intelligence has an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy in it.
But this was about people with an above-average IQ, where I argue that their social success is partly due to a system that attaches high value to the ability to deal with cognitive problems and thus partly maintains itself.
For the opposite, a low IQ, things are different. On average, people with an IQ of, say, 85 or lower, make a mess of their lives more often. They are less able to establish a relationship between their behaviour and the consequences, and to tailor their behaviour to those consequences. They may be fantastic knitters, or they may be very caring, sweet people. But as educators they often fall short, and they can only perform simple tasks at work that require a lot of guidance. They cannot keep up well at school, which means their income is low and the risk of unemployment is high. Of all conceivable factors that can predict unemployment, poverty and crime, a low IQ counts the most — much more than, for example, the social class of the parents. This does not say everything about the vast majority of people with a low IQ. Most of them have decent jobs, are kind parents and good citizens. But statistically speaking, a low IQ is an important risk factor.
Unfortunately, it has been conclusively shown that in the United States, the black population is heavily overrepresented among the group of people with an IQ of 85 or lower. There are approximately equal numbers of black and white North Americans with an IQ of 80, while only one in eight of the entire population is African American. There are more than twenty million African Americans in the United States with an IQ of 85 or lower, in a population of more than 330 million.
It is an important explanation for the statistical socio-economic disadvantage of the black population. And of course there are also environmental factors. And if you grow up in a dysfunctional family, or in an environment where crime is the norm, or school dropouts, then this can certainly influence your own life course.
An important part of your IQ is already fixed at birth, but environmental factors can also influence your IQ. The current consensus is that IQ is like body height: your genes determine your predisposition to be tall or short. But environmental factors have an important influence. If you are genetically predisposed to be short, your height can be somewhat influenced with diet and health care while you grow up, but you will never become a giant. It is estimated that your IQ is determined for about sixty percent by hereditary predisposition; the rest by environmental factors.
The IQ of the African-American population is increasing very gradually. It is a very small, but measurable increase. The main causes are probably efforts in education, health care and social work in deprived areas, and the labour market position of workers with a lower IQ. There is still a lot of gain to be made there.
Conclusion
Proponents of critical race theory have a lot of explaining to do. They make wild accusations, polarise, place minorities in the role of victim and come up with Marxist-inspired solutions. While the underlying assumptions are not based on verifiable facts, but on storytelling and unscientific theory.
Critical race theory has many adherents in countries with a native European population. The origins of critical race theory lie in the United States, and owe its origins to the structural disadvantage of the African-American population.
In this article I have tried to explain that the situation in the United States is exceptional due to the persistent disadvantage of the black population, whereby the position of the cognitive and socio-economic underclass in particular deserves special attention. Critical race theory ignores that, offers no solutions to this particular problem, and even makes the problem worse by defining it in terms of perpetrators and victims.
Ethnic minorities and immigrants are also discriminated against in the rest of the world. I have tried to explain that the problem is not as black and white as it is often presented. Where everyone would like to see a hospitable, open-minded reception in receiving societies, the reality is often different. People are naturally suspicious and fearful of foreign cultures. Especially when the cultural differences are great, the socio-economic position of the immigrants is poor, and the numbers are large, then resistance is inevitable. First generation immigrants are generally not welcomed with open arms, you have to be realistic about that; they will rarely integrate fully. Their education is often not a perfect fit, their language skills will never be perfect, cultural differences are difficult to overcome, and their networks are often inadequate. The best thing immigrants can do is invest in the integration of their children and grandchildren. Usually it turns out fine.
Critical race theory ignores this. You cannot define social justice solely in ideals of equality, let alone equal outcomes. It is nonsensical and harmful to reduce all social inequality to oppression of minorities, especially in continents struggling with mass immigration.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.
— Abraham Maslow, The psychology of science (1966)
We encounter racism and discrimination everywhere in the world. Racism is certainly not a white specialty: racism can be found among all population groups. We have to be aware of it, and it is okay to critically question ourselves and others about it. Authors such as McIntosh and Luyendijk deserve praise because they invite us to put ourselves in the shoes of others.
At the beginning of this article I referred to the Netflix series Queen Charlotte: a Bridgerton story, in which the viewer comes to believe that people of African descent were ensconced in the English royal court of the 18th century. Although the series ignores history, I can also appreciate it. There is nothing wrong with people getting used to the idea that the black minority easily mingled with upper class centuries ago. Just like the (now disgraced) Cosby Show made us get used to the idea of a sympathetic, close-knit black American family of doctors and lawyers. Any effort that reduces our innate fear of the unknown deserves praise. But that is a compliment that critical race theory does not deserve. It stirs up anger and turns people against each other.
For further reading
Peggy McIntosh, White privilege and male privilege. A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. In: Monica McGoldrick, Kenneth Hardy (ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Addressing diversity in clinical practice (1993)
Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, The bell curve. Intelligence and class structure in American life (1994)
Christine Ma, Michael Schapira, An analysis of Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The bell curve — Intelligence and class structure in American life (2017)
Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic, Critical race theory (2001)
Cressida Heyes, Identity politics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002/2020)
Sonia Kruks, Retrieving experience: subjectivity and recognition in feminist politics (2001)
Devah Pager, Hana Shepherd, The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets, Annual Review of Sociology (2008)
Gloria Wekker, White innocence: paradoxes of colonialism and race (2016)
Sietske Bergsma, Wetenschap op een eenwieler – kritische theorie over Gloria Wekker, TPO (2017)
Samuel L. Myers, Jr., Inhyuck “Steve” Ha, Race neutrality. Rationalizing remedies to racial inequality (2018)
Lucas Drouhot, Victor Nee, Assimilation and the second generation in Europe and America: blending and segregating social dynamics between immigrants and natives, Annual Review of Sociology (2019)
Ruud Koopmans, Does assimilation work? Sociocultural determinants of labour market participation of European Muslims, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (2015)
Ruud Koopmans, Decomposing discrimination: why a holistic approach to racism hides more than it reveals, WZB Discussion Paper (2021)
Joris Luyendijk, De zeven vinkjes. Hoe mannen zoals ik de baas spelen (2022)
Richard Fry c.s., Racial and ethnic gaps in the U.S. persist on key demographic indicators, Pew Research Center (2021)
Lex Thijssen c.s., Discrimination of black and muslim minority groups in Western societies: evidence from a meta-analysis of field experiments, International Migration Review (2022)
Lincoln Quillian, John J. Lee, Trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring in six Western countries, PNAS (2023)
This was the second episode in a series about equality, redistribution and toleration. Here you’ll find an overview of all articles in this series. The next article will be about redistribution.