Yeah absolutely. That's what I'm saying. the labels don't matter. One of the biggest problems we face in discussing these issues is that so many people are so worried about what people call them regardelss of whether it's true.

Speaking of which, I'd argue that anybody who sees talking about MLK in a civil rights context as "pitting one black person against another" is at least as deserving of an accusation of "racist". as anybody else.

MLK was a civil rights leader. And an incredible human being. He achieved great things for racial equality without the doctrine of CRT. That's the point. You could make the same arguement if he were green.

The "anti-whiteness" of CRT? That's a tricky one that I think would take far more than a comment thread to get into. I mean CRT is definitely used to justify anti-white racism. No argumernt. And it's an almost laughably imprecise way of looking at the world. But I'd stop short of saying that CRT's purpose is the promotion of anti-white racism.

CRT is essentially Marxism applied to race. Only "poor" or even "worker" is a far more precise category than "black" in 2021. All poor people are poor all the time. By definition. But not all black people are oppressed. And certainly not all the time.

CRT made a lot more sense in the 70s (when "black" was a much more homogenous category) than it does today. Today, it's basically a way of validating and fomenting a victim mentality in black people and bashing white people (and black people), who don't buy into it.