The most newly contentious formerly 'commonplace view' is the position that 'we should treat people for who they are, not for their race, gender' etc..
This is actually the fault line between classical progressives and newer groups. CRT hinges on the notion that groups are marginalized in a million unseen ways, in which case, one simply cannot ignore anothers race, rather one must make assumptions about that person's group characteristics to inform one's judgement, presumably, empathetically.
So MLK's famous proclamation: "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" ... is now effectively a 'problematic' signal for one group, it's now 'out group behaviour' in their view.
I don't have a problem at all with those seeking to think they are actively helping, but am very opposed to the intolerance and absolution implied by those groups who can no longer accept those abiding by MLK's virtues.
It's very odd because most people over a certain age have spent their life being told about those virtues, and are now told that it's 'unacceptable'.
Edit: I should add, the degree of intolerance of these views is expressed by the sanctioning of certain kinds of workplace diversity programs (CRT), which are of course 'required training' in many companies and government sectors. [1]
Somehow the legacy of MLK has been reduced to just that one quote, even though he wrote a a book ("Why We Can't Wait") that advocated for affirmative action programs for black people. His legacy has effectively been sanitized and "abridged" to be less challenging to persistent and harmful power structures.
Agreed. He was very clear that solving the existing problems involved directly confronting them. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" makes very clear that however uncomfortable white people are with being forced to look at what's going on, that discomfort is a necessary precondition to progress: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth."
This is actually the fault line between classical progressives and newer groups. CRT hinges on the notion that groups are marginalized in a million unseen ways, in which case, one simply cannot ignore anothers race, rather one must make assumptions about that person's group characteristics to inform one's judgement, presumably, empathetically.
So MLK's famous proclamation: "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" ... is now effectively a 'problematic' signal for one group, it's now 'out group behaviour' in their view.
I don't have a problem at all with those seeking to think they are actively helping, but am very opposed to the intolerance and absolution implied by those groups who can no longer accept those abiding by MLK's virtues.
It's very odd because most people over a certain age have spent their life being told about those virtues, and are now told that it's 'unacceptable'.
Edit: I should add, the degree of intolerance of these views is expressed by the sanctioning of certain kinds of workplace diversity programs (CRT), which are of course 'required training' in many companies and government sectors. [1]
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/only-white-people-can-b...