Let's look at history by asking, "What were the experiences of groups during this period in our country's history and how were these experiences similar or different to each other? What could explain these similarities or differences?"

 Look at this paragraph

Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes “normalized,” along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.

Let's look at some of these sentences

Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life

Let's start with household wealth and household income.

Let's look at 1000 college graduates. Find out what their ancestors held in 1900 (great grandparents) and compare each graduate's current wealth. What do you suppose you will find?

Are there differences between household income and what property was held 

Find out the amount of wealthy held by the parents of the graduates at the birth of each graduate

Find out the amount of wealthy held by the ancestors of today's population (in 1900)?

Find out how large a mortgage the parents and ancestors of today's graduates obtained.

Compare those results by race. You might get results found by the Brookings Institution.

an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization."

Yes...that's what happens to my students. I teach at "an urban school" where 95% of the students qualify for free lunch. They have stories about the divisions in their neighborhoods. "There is a difference between home values and that difference is not a result of interior choices. The Brookings Institute's report compares median wealth of whites to median wealth of blacks...surprise: the median amount for whites is around $180,000 and Black homeowners.

White adults tend to be older (median age of 55) than African Americans (49 years old), and older people tend to have more wealth, but figure 2 shows that the wealth gap remains when looking within age groups. The typical young adult (18–34 years old) of either race has little wealth, but the gap rises quickly with age, and for 65–74-year-olds accumulates to $302,500 in median white wealth and $46,890 in median Black wealth.  BROOKINGS

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/

So, how did this gap happen?sdvxc         

Individual bank managers (not all managers are racists)

or

Was there a system that excluded a group of potential homeowners?

IF you chose B, then you used Critical Race Theory to observe your findings.

GROUPS that were victims: 

a) Claifonria: There was a group of 120,000 residents of California who were taken from their homes and placed in isolated places. That soulds like a group that had claims to being victims. And 40 yearss later the US government paid each of the sruvivers $20,000 and apologixed for the government's action.  

b) Rosewood: Did you hear about the payment of $15,000 to each of the survivors of the 1923 event that destroyed the town of Rosewood, Fla.? More than 10 people died, a fellow was nearly lynched and the 13 survivors got an apology. Scholarships were established and the FLorida state government made thse payments to "repari" part of the wrong that was done. Can we call the $2.4 millon "reparations"?

Time magazine article

Wikipedia link

Rosewood:

Florida's consideration of a bill to compensate victims of racial violence was the first by any U.S. state. Opponents argued that the bill set a dangerous precedent and put the onus of paying survivors and descendants on Floridians who had nothing to do with the incident in Rosewood. James Peters, who represented the State of Florida, argued that the statute of limitations applied because the law enforcement officials named in the lawsuit—Sheriff Walker and Governor Hardee—had died many years before. He also called into question the shortcomings of the report: although the historians were instructed not to write it with compensation in mind, they offered conclusions about the actions of Sheriff Walker and Governor Hardee. The report was based on investigations led by historians as opposed to legal experts; they relied in cases on information that was hearsay from witnesses who had since died. Critics thought that some of the report's writers asked leading questions in their interviews.

Even legislators who agreed with the sentiment of the bill asserted that the events in Rosewood were typical of the era. One survivor interviewed by Gary Moore said that to single out Rosewood as an exception, as if the entire world was not a Rosewood, would be "vile". Florida Representatives Al Lawson and Miguel De Grandy argued that, unlike Native Americans or slaves who had suffered atrocities at the hands of whites, the residents of Rosewood were tax-paying, self-sufficient citizens who deserved the protection of local and state law enforcement. While mob lynchings of black people around the same time tended to be spontaneous and quickly concluded, the incident at Rosewood was prolonged over a period of several days.^[46] Some legislators began to receive hate mail, including some claiming to be from Ku Klux Klan members. One legislator remarked that his office received an unprecedented response to the bill, with a proportion of ten constituents to one opposing it.

In 1994, the state legislature held a hearing to discuss the merits of the bill. Lee Ruth Davis died a few months before testimony began, but Minnie Lee Langley, Arnett Goins, Wilson Hall, Willie Evans, and several descendants from Rosewood testified. Other witnesses were a clinical psychologist from the University of Florida, who testified that survivors had suffered post-traumatic stress, and experts who offered testimony about the scale of property damages. Langley spoke first; the hearing room was packed with journalists and onlookers who were reportedly mesmerized by her statement. Ernest Parham also testified about what he saw. When asked specifically when he was contacted by law enforcement regarding the death of Sam Carter, Parham replied that he had been contacted for the first time on Carter's death two weeks before testifying. The coroner's inquest for Sam Carter had taken place the day after he was shot in January 1923; he concluded that Carter had been killed "by Unknown Party".

After hearing all the evidence, the Special Master Richard Hixson, who presided over the testimony for the Florida Legislature, declared that the state had a "moral obligation" to make restitution to the former residents of Rosewood. He said, "I truly don't think they cared about compensation. I think they simply wanted the truth to be known about what happened to them ... whether they got fifty cents or a hundred and fifty million dollars. It didn't matter."

Black and Hispanic legislators in Florida took on the Rosewood compensation bill as a cause, and refused to support Governor Lawton Chiles' healthcare plan until he put pressure on House Democrats to vote for the bill. Chiles was offended, as he had supported the compensation bill from its early days, and the legislative caucuses had previously promised their support for his healthcare plan. The legislature passed the bill, and Governor Chiles signed the Rosewood Compensation Bill, a $2.1 million package to compensate survivors and their descendants. Seven survivors and their family members were present at the signing to hear Chiles say,

Because of the strength and commitment of these survivors and their families, the long silence has finally been broken and the shadow has been lifted ... Instead of being forgotten, because of their testimony, the Rosewood story is known across our state and across our nation. This legislation assures that the tragedy of Rosewood will never be forgotten by the generations to come.

Originally, the compensation total offered to survivors was $7 million, which aroused controversy. The legislature eventually settled on $1.5 million: this would enable payment of $150,000 to each person who could prove he or she lived in Rosewood during 1923, and provide a $500,000 pool for people who could apply for the funds after demonstrating that they had an ancestor who owned property in Rosewood during the same time.

According to the Daily Wire

There is nothing wrong with looking critically at American history with regard to racial inequality. It would be dishonest to study America without learning about the brutality and evil of the Jim Crow era, slavery, treatment of Native Americans, and more, just as it would be wrong to learn about U.S. history without praising the civil rights movement and all of the good that has come from it. But “addressing racial inequality” is a broad goal and has no definitive outcome.

 In Rosewood, $150,000 per survivor appears to be an outcome. 

Some CRT critics point out that a person is not a racist just because of the color of his skin. CRT points out that it is a system, not individuals, that leads to unfair treatment of the victims.

Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

Comment: Yes, a division of "oppressed" and "oppressor" is how the survivors of Rosewood were able to get an apology and some compensation.

Critical Race Theorists reject the idea that people should be judged based on their character, insisting they be judged instead only on their identities, rejecting the Civil Rights-era notion of colorblindness. They developed the notion of “intersectionality,” where you can identify with more than one group to claim additional social benefits. Further, theorists say that the U.S. Constitution and system of laws cannot be neutral, giving rise to the idea of “systemic racism.”

https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/criticalracetheory/.  

Comment: Yes, the US Constitution was not neutral in how it has been applied before 1900 (Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, etc.). It was set up to support slavery. So the idea of a system being racist appears to make sense.

LINK for edweek

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.

Comment: The banking system appears to have caused victims.

We began this post with this paragraph:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life—and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization. In entertainment, as well as the education and workforce sectors of society, CRT is well-established, driving decision-making according to skin color—not individual value and talent. As Critical Theory ideas become more familiar to the viewing public in everyday life, CRT’s intolerance becomes “normalized,” along with the idea of systemic racism for Americans, weakening public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.

the idea of systemic racism for Americans,

That might be a good thing for more people to look at the system as being racist in addition to individuals as prejudiced.

These are some of the possible ways to interpret the paragraph at the beginning of this blogpost. You are invited to submit additional comments (below and by email to myNewMethods@gmail.com).