Third, our U.S. history of law should promote a dissatisfaction with the civil rights discourse we’ve had thus far, because we’ve settled for minor wins instead of reconstruction.
Fourth, these minor, perceived “wins” for racial justice actually led to the reconceptualization of racism into de facto racism and the rise of the “colorblind” mentality, which swept race issues under the rug instead of actually solving them.
Finally, this reconceptualization of racism encouraged “social forgetting” or rewriting of history that paints a meritocracy as the solution to racism, relying on exceptionalism to prove racism is gone instead of asking why it was so difficult for that person to reach success in the first place. As a reminder, please read his three-part series on the subject here.
Cartagena is also writing a book on the subject with IVP Academic. In the meantime, you may read more of his thoughts on CRT on his blog.
These brief definitions only give a birdseye view of all that CRT is, and does not even begin to address the various intersections which CRT scholars study (like gender and sexuality), though I hope that it will provide helpful context as we embark on our conversation here. For those who are interested in learning more about CRT, I highly encourage you to explore the following resources:
- “What Christians Get Wrong About Critical Race Theory” by Dr. Nathan Cartagena: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
- “A Lesson on Critical Race Theory,” from the American Bar Association
- Race, Racism and Law by Derrick Bell
- Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movementby Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, and Thomas
- Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic
Read the Complete Critical Race Theory Series
Part 1: Framing Critical Race Theory