CRT is about groups, specifically racial groups hence the 'R' in CRT. The way the leading authors say race essentialism has been incorporated into CRT is the way they say it is. It is all their words because I think the whole thing is faux intellectualism stated in purposely vague terms so as not to cause offence. I know better than to argue what CRT is or isn't because it is or isn't practically anything.
You quoted a passage discussion "essentialism" ion the sense of the essential characteristics of oppression. You did not quote anything that discussed "race essentialism", which, again, is a type of thinking quite contrary to CRT. There are no leading authors in CRT incorporating race essentialism into CRT, because CRT is fundamentally opposed to the notion. You could easily disprove this by bringing in a quote on "race essentialism" from CRT authors. I won't hold my breath.
I mean, if you want to go on lying that CRT features race essentialism, you can keep doing so. However, you've seen enough now to know it is a lie. If you keep going on about it, your own words will condemn you as a liar.
That passage I quoted does lead into intersectionality because in CRT essentialism and anti-essentialism have an uneasy coexistance. CRT is about social systems of power that fits with intersectionality for the uniqueness of everyone lived experience. As a proponent of CRT, White Fragility author Ribin DiAngelo admits she is a racist in her book but she is an anti-racist. CRT is the thing and the anti-thing and nothing and everything.
Again, deeply, deeply ignorant. Being racist comes from being raised in and participating in the racist poser structure. Being anti-racist comes from fighting the racist aspects of that power structure. You can fight against aspects of a power structure you participate in, and the is nothing contradictory about it.
If you want to argue that you know the true CRT and I'm all wrong then go on with your bad self.
That's like arguing you know the true interpretation of Shakespeare. You can interpret Cordelia's role in King Lear in many ways, but if you claim Cordelia is alive at the end of the play, you're just wrong. Like any interesting theory, CRT gets interpreted in a lot of ways, but your way is just wrong.
I know some of the history and have read some of the foundational pieces but I know better than to get involved in arguing over the holy dogma of this ideological garbage pile.
For someone who is so well-read, you show every sign of not understanding it at all. Is that deliberate?
So, can you provide a quote from a prominent CRT proponent supporting some altered notion of race essentialism, or not? Again, 1) not banal ("people have different colored skin"), 2) essentialist (i.e., that is, based intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic properties), and 3) held by leading authors in Critical Race Theory.
