Critical Race Theory: Too good for us

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Apr 22

RE: Why some are more equal than others.  Op-ed by Andrew Hunter, a “A Hamilton born free-lance author, artist, curator, and educator. The Hamilton Spectator 29 Apr 22.

When it comes to modern education, ignorance is bliss.  And few are more highly educated in Critical Race Theory than Andrew Hunter.  In his diatribe against white people, Hunter calls attention to Ahona Medhi being discriminated against by Carole Paikin Miller because Medhi is a coloured person, or ‘person of colour’ if you prefer the French style, and Miller is white.

Except that Miller is Semitic and Medhi is Egyptian, neither being classic Swedish, Irish, Scottish white.  Mediterranean is the most apt description of the looks of both.  What makes Semitic white and Egyptian coloured, Andrew Hunter doesn’t say, perhaps because addressing that issue would blow a gaping hole in his thesis.  And like every ideologue, if the facts don’t fit the theory, ignore the facts.

(On the off-chance that Medhi claims to be Iranian, well, Iranian is consider Aryan, which is regarded as the parent race of many European races; so there’s no escaping the point that Medhi isn’t the coloured person that Hunter makes her out to be.)

Regardless, the poison in CRT should be evident to all.  Constructing the world on the basis of hate, in this case hatred of whiteness, can never account for the facts.  Hunter talks about “white privilege” but never explains what it is and why not ever white enjoys it.  Nor does he explain why it exists only in parts of the world.  It doesn’t exist, for example, in the Congo, Communist China, North Korea, or India.  Between Russia and the Ukraine, one would be hard-pressed to find white privilege.

He also fails to explain why white women don’t seem to enjoy white privilege in the presence of men.  So between men and women, and among Russians, Ukrainians, Polish, German, French, English, Irish, and Swedish, there must be gradations of privilege, white Hunter fails to explain, explore, or even acknowledge.  Reading his litany of complaints, I get the impression I’m listening to a dyspeptic, post-modernist Marxist adapt his theory of proletariat being oppressed by the bourgeoisie to the 21^st century.

He incorrectly states that Queen Victoria and United Empire Loyalists are symbols of a society founded on chattel slavery and indigenous genocide.  British society never had chattel slavery, and the British Empire abolished slavery and suppressed the slave trade before Victoria became queen.  The UE’s were Americans escaping the newly created country after the American Revolution.  Upper Canada abolished slavery in 1793.  They were escaping the country that had chattel slavery.  As for aboriginal genocide, well they’re still around and there are no accounts of mass slaughter of Indians by Canadian colonists.  The falsehoods and calumnies here are coming so thick and fast that keep up the thread is hard.  Once again, when you’re an ideologue pushing your theory, facts don’t matter.

Anyhow, being a progressive, Hunter thinks he holds the monopoly on intelligence and morality.  Otherwise, it’s hard to fathom how he can tolerate his own existence, being a white man and all.

I’ve said enough to destroy Hunter’s entire thesis.  His ideology of CRT is poisonous and self-contradictory.  His facts are totally false calumnies, and he fails to confront inconvenient facts.

I don’t know about Hunter, but my masculinity is off the charts toxic.

-30-