Rethinking Subtext
In the second full TAP Weekly article, I discussed critical race theory at length. From its origin to debunking myths about the concept, I did my best to provide a comprehensive overview of what the theory both is and isn’t.
There’s something I didn’t get to discuss then, however, that I’m going to delve into now.
A pervasive line of thought coming from those who oppose critical race theory is that utilizing it will harm white children. The fear that viewing history through the lens of CRT will cause white people to feel bad about themselves is a big reason why only 37% of white parents would support their child’s school teaching critical race theory, in contrast to 83% of Black parents. No one wants their children to have self-image issues, and that instinct has now been used to fuel opposition to teaching history through a racial lens. (To be clear, critical race theory isn't taught in K-12 schools whatsoever.)
Thought patterns like these are what I want to discuss in more detail, because while they’re very obviously misguided (to be clear once more, critical race theory is not being taught in K-12 schools whatsoever), they’re also incredibly revealing. Critical race theory, if taught, would show that history is not colorblind. It would reveal that biases and prejudice are built into legal systems and policies at the core of this country. It would give past context that would lead to present understandings of current-day issues. If white parents believe that teaching history through that lens would be harmful to their child’s self-esteem, there must be a reason why they believe that. That reason is that real history is not the American mythology that has been fed to them and their children, and real history shows white people in a light that is nowhere near as positive. There is no reason for accuracy to be to the detriment of someone unless that accuracy shows that their actions were harmful.
That in-between is such a crucial thing to pay attention to. The layers beneath statements will often belie true intentions and true understandings. The above example with CRT was never about the children; it’s about continuing to suppress true history from being taught to said children. The goal is to keep the status quo, which is against the best interests of the children that are being used as a prop. Statements that feign concern about the link between CRT and the self-image of white children don’t just reveal the general role of white people throughout history, but they often reveal the character of the person parroting such statements.
(Often is the operative word in that last sentence. I believe there are truly parents that just want the best for their kids and don’t know any better, who haven’t thought very deeply into this and how their kids will be affected. The group of people I’m mainly addressing are those who know that such fears are both prominent and effective and use them to achieve a goal that benefits them. They’re manipulative grifters preying on genuine intentions.)
With all of this in mind, there’s one more statement loaded with subtext that I want to look at. It’s used commonly as a rebuttal when reparations are discussed, something else that may seem benign on the surface to some people but has serious implications when given more thought.
That statement is something to the effect of, “our nation already suffers from disunity; would a reparations policy be too divisive?”
This statement draws on truth to shroud what lies underneath it. We are an undoubtedly polarized nation, to an extent not seen anywhere else. We can’t seem to agree on anything, from how to deal with racial issues to combatting economic concerns. Our disunity is well documented, so when a group tries to add something that is widely opposed to the mix it can seem to lend credence to the above statement. The thing about this is once one takes a minute to step back and reflect on the question, another one pops up that’s even more interesting.
Why are reparations so divisive?
If the racial wealth gap were closed tomorrow, everyone in America would benefit. It has been reported that the racial wealth gap “will cost the US economy between $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion between 2019 and 2028; in other words, closing the racial wealth gap could increase the projected GDP in 2028 by 4-6%.” Black people being disproportionately and negatively affected when it comes to money is holding our economy back from being the best it can be. Closing this gap means more money available for consumption, more cash flowing and changing hands, more disposable income being used for purchases. We cannot contribute with what we do not have. From an economic perspective, reparations not only make sense, but they are something we are in dire need of. This doesn’t even delve into the moral implications of such an achievement or the cultural divides that could start to be healed.
With that in mind, a statement like “our nation already suffers from disunity; would a reparations policy be too divisive?” gains a much darker subtext. If we are too divided to agree on someone that all of us will benefit from, then what does that say about who we are as people? If we are so committed to inaccurate mythology that we refuse to let go of it even to our detriment, what does that say about us? If we can’t unite over shared economic prosperity, then will we fully unite at all?
These are questions I don’t have concrete answers to. They’re simply ones I think should be pondered and taken seriously. Above all, they’re ones that were only brought up after reading between the lines to think about what goes unsaid when certain statements are made.
There’s plenty more to talk about, plenty more dots to connect, plenty more context to give. We’ll continue doing so next week at 2 PM.
