JMA-PSOS

[...] I will (try) not (to) debate the merits and foibles of political correctness, but I will skewer and even ridicule those that I think deserve it. I will expand mostly on what I think CRT is and what is not. I will try to answer some of your explicit questions, comment on your references and present my general POV on these matters (and others quite related IMO):

1. You ask about CRT: "Why a theory that states race is a social construct is so eager to blame an entire group based on biological coordinates; wouldn't it be more logically consistent to argue for the abolition of race rather than for demonizing an entire group based on light skin color?"
Short Answer: While CRT correctly identifies race as a made-up social construct, its existence (in the mind of the majority) and pernicious effects (past, present and future) can't be simply erased by striking race from our vocabulary and our way forward in dealing with it. The alleged part of CRT about demonizing whiteness is more nuanced than you imply. I will try to address this further below.
Long Answer: I think your question caricatures CRT and distorts the race dimension in CRT. Let's see if we can agree first on some unavoidable, embarrassing and painful truths:
a. Some white people (and few non-whites) have treated most non-white people (and some whites as well) horribly in the past (and to some extent they are still doing it today). See CRT definition further below from Crenshaw et al.
b. Most white people today (to various extents) are benefiting from this dynamic. Note: This is a direct corollary of the above point.
c. The past wrongs mentioned above have not been fully redressed. Note: If I am wrong, please correct me, but AFAIK, the US legal machinery is slow to acknowledge this reality. Perfect examples of recently redressed wrongs (that are also evidence of what some call structural racism):
i. As recently as 1999, SCOTUS found against the US Govt and awarded $1B damages for overt racial discrimination against tens of thousands of black farmers that covered only for wrongs done from 1983 to 1997 (see Pigford v. Glickman). In 2010, the settlement was already doubled by Congress. In 2019, there were claims published that USDA still did not get its act together vis-a-vis racial discrimination as late as 2016.
ii. In 2010, US Congress finally redressed an egregious and largely racial legal injustice that will impact minorities for generations still (i.e. the Fair Sentencing Act). This ties in with Alexander's critique in New Jim Crow.
d. To fully redress the past, white people (mostly) need to first accept the above statements and second, make meaningful reparations (to be paid in proportion to one's means, i.e. the rich to shoulder most of it as they profited the most).
Do we both agree that the above are true? If we can agree on these points, I think we can at least establish common ground in this dialogue. Let me know if you would like me to provide more data to back them up.

2. One of your sources, the one about CRT origins from culturavietii.ro is merely a translation of a polemic and one-sided article from David Galland. The original article (in English) is referenced in the link you provided, but the website is defunct and yet it can be found in the Internet Archive. My comments are based on the original article in English.
I find Mr. Galland's article overreaching (jumping without reason to Orwell and Huxley the way progressives and lefties often jump to fascism and Hitler). It is not backed by any valid scientific data (beyond some subjective temporal correlations), so I will not even try to dissect it further. Let's reset instead and try to agree first on what CRT actually is. Here is a CRT summary in two sentences (as defined by a professor specializing in CRT):

• Crenshaw et al. 1995, p. xiii: "The first [common interest] is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America, and, in particular, to examine the relationship between the social structure and professed ideals such as 'the rule of law' and 'equal protection'."
  
• Crenshaw et al. 1995, p. xiii: "The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it."

Do we both agree that the above defines CRT at a high level? The first sentence identifies the problem (as harsh as it seems) and the second sentence tries to present a solution (as wrong-headed as it might be). Generally (or even specifically to Berry and Gross' book which I have not read), I would not be too quick to link Marxism (or other related -isms) and CRT. While some of the original Critical Theory proponents do have a lefty pedigree, what CRT critiques only tangentially touches on Marxism (via their well-intentioned and wrong-headed attempts at proposing solutions). IMO, CRT raises very valid questions (that unfortunately some of its supporters tried to present as solvable via Marxist solutions). Let's treat separately what CRT identifies as problems and what some of its supporters present as solutions. Sounds fair?

3. White fragility and diversity training. [...] I consider this topic mostly a side show that detracts and distracts from much more serious societal problems (e.g. just reparations). Diversity training is just a corporate white-washing, face-saving and PR mechanism IMO. Despite disagreeing with some of DiAngelo's thesis and methodology (e.g. lack of proper references, over-relying on anecdotal evidence, employing many logical fallacies), I still take issue with the whole baggage packed in the beloved conservative phrase "virtue signaling". Without mincing words, I find this particular accusation divisive and cynical (at a minimum) most of the time.

4. Shelby Steele: He presents some thought-provoking ideas for dealing with race relations, but he makes the grave mistake of generalizing based on anecdotal evidence (just like DiAngelo). He effectively built his career and name on being provocative and profits handsomely from writing books and producing documentaries on polarizing events (e.g. Obama, Ferguson). His exhortation for blacks to get over it, try harder and exert some individual agency over their lives does work up to some degree as many black Americans have succeeded despite all barriers (himself included), but the gravest mistake would be to say that blacks (in general) do not need any help or should not be offered any help despite evidence that structural racism exists today and is negatively affecting present and future generations. In short, Mr Steele exhibits survivorship bias and incorrectly diagnoses what ails US racial relations and what the best path forward is. Some might even argue that his central argument (that US is more color blind than ever) was soundly invalidated by the events in the past five years (i.e. the vigorous stirring of the racist pond bottom by a certain creamsicle). But, don't take my word for Mr Steele's erroneous prognosis, and instead read Dr McNeely's 1995 excellent review of Steele's first book (which reflects his philosophy, largely unchanged to the present). If the review seems too long (amply annotated BTW), read at least the reviewer's conclusion:

First, I do not like the fact that one profound result of an analysis such as Steele's is that it provides an intellectual basis for federal and state policies of benign neglect. As noted by Steele, who believes that "preferential" programs result from the magnanimity of white guilt: "The point.., is that the implication of inferiority that racial preferences (such as affirmative action) engender in both the white and black minds expands rather than contracts doubt" about Black competence (p.117). Can Steele not see that policies such as affirmative action result less from the largesse of whites than from the recognition by whites that such policies help to promote social stability by creating and expanding a Black middle class, of which Steele, himself, is a member?

Second, Steele cannot be dismissed out of hand as there appears to be much substance to what he is saying. (One point, to buttress his contentions, he likely would make were he speaking to me is that I witnessed, as a child growing up, the values of individual hard work and perseverance in my own home.) Too, he seems earnestly engaged in a search for truth, regardless of where that search may lead. Because of this, and because his remarks should serve as a call to arms on the part of those not active in their own interests, we must embrace Steele, regardless of whether we agree with him. At the very least he is opening up issues for discussion and analysis that may lead some disillusioned Blacks to act affirmatively (no pun intended) in their own behalf. For this, I applaud him.

5. Claude Steele: Self-motivation is a very powerful tool and it works wonders for many, but it is not enough IMO. See above points on structural racism. I do think that he adds positive contributions to race relations and to individual self-improvement in general, yet again, I find his Whistling Vivaldi idea a circumspect method of integrating society (by effectively asking victims of prejudice to try harder to meld better and assuage the [dwindling] white majority around him).

6a. Patapievici: I am circumspect of any man that makes his living printing and selling provocative words (and I always trust more actual scientific, legal and scholarly exegesis as you might suspect). To elevate a private discussion to a whole thesis about what is wrong with the US academia and to conflate PC and communism (in his own words: "Corectitudinea politică este, în fond, comunismul american") is quite inflammatory, irresponsible, disingenuous and above all false (unless those were exactly his aims for obvious reasons).

6b. Baconschi: He spouts similar hyperbolae based on one incident, a quasi-existential 24-hr ban from FB incident which he majestically grafts unto an universal Western anti-Christian conspiracy template (diagnosis: white [binary cismale] fragility monetized with aplomb).

6c. Ungureanu (1, 2): I managed to read 1/2 of his first "article". Conclusion: He is Patapievici+Baconschi squared. Attacks on Greek-Latin works are wrong headed and destined to fail miserably. Those that claim otherwise or that keep sounding the alarm, need to get off their horse and stop fighting the windmills.

6d. "All whites are racist": I find this declaration hyperbolic, sensationalist and highly unproductive (whether hurled from the left or equally from the right as a boomerang). If some white people take this declaration seriously as either an unforgiveable affront and as a magical shield to block any attempts at social justice or to shut down conversations, no wonder the silent majority is surprised when a #BLM event (or riot) pops up, or it collectively shrugs when another non-white person gets shot in the back while holding a toy gun, a cellphone or fails to play dead on command.

6e. Klaus: The ease with which he transitions from and conflates communism, socialism and social-democracy is exemplary. He makes one valid point: intellectuals have a natural bias towards the left. Bravo! Let's give him an award. Ed. note: hyperbolae will always be met with hyperbolae by yours truly.

6f. The West's slide towards socialism and communism (and its susceptibility to propaganda): I will concede that the YouGov survey on this topic is quite illuminating and right on the money on these trends, but it entirely misses the forest for the trees it sees. I would like to add that this trend is highly predictable. The two original fountainheads of "successful" communism in the world (China and Russia) were preceded by highly unequal and unstable societies (both empires with very corrupt leadership, poor, easily manipulated and largely uneducated peasantry and very uneven distribution of wealth). Say what you will about the West's backslide towards authoritarianism (via communism, a false egalitarianism) or its increasingly tabula rasa cultural and historical upbringing of the masses (as any liberal arts education clearly interferes with its mercantilist excesses towards ever more glorious, productive and record profit quarters, entirely driven downward by the top 1%, I would stress), but it is not a coincidence that this is highly correlated to an increasingly more uneven distribution of wealth around the world (as amply documented and researched by Mr Piketty). Ironically, telling the masses to eat cake does not cut it and it turns out that some top/down wealth redistribution and enhanced socialist (gasp!) programs did temper leftist leanings in the past (e.g. FDR's New Deal) and might do so again if allowed to (e.g. M4A, heavier taxation for the rich, minimum livable wages). Mind you, I think this trend is quite reversible and increasingly likely, save for a GOP coup that could ironically accelerate the trend towards authoritarianism (equally to the right or left). I am highly open to contrarian ideas and even a side conversation on this topic alone as I consider it a more natural subject of discussion for the two of us.

7. Somewhat related to the above topics (and somewhat more confrontational than the above criticism):
a. I never understood why many conservatives see any US attempts for more wealth sharing (e.g. Obamacare, M4A) or redistribution (e.g. higher taxes for the rich) as inevitably leading to communism (as developed in the former Eastern bloc, North Korea or China). Isn't a middle of the road, the current Western European style social-democracy a more believable path (which I can attest to as a very noble goal, as a proud card carrying lefty that admires both Bernie and AOC and who has moved to a country that is closer to a Western Europe social-democratic mentality than the US)? Doesn't the US already offer some very socialist programs (e.g. social security, medicare for the elderly, the military and Congress) which work quite well for the less wealthy and the more or even less deserving as well?
b. Why must we always fear that Russian-style communism (imposed with cruelty in very unique circumstances and pushed down the throat of Eastern Europe at the end of the bayonet), is what will inevitably happen in America (or the West) if we try to build a more egalitarian society?
c. Even more perplexing to me is most American protestant Christians' unwavering support for a very non-Jesus-like laissez-faire capitalist society and for a few quite (morally) corrupt politicians (a particular one comes to mind). Don't you think that this aversion to socialism/communism is quite the opposite of what Jesus advocated? Shouldn't the meek and the downtrodden get a helping hand (i.e. the blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, illegal immigrants, etc)?
d. Does this (Progressive Democratic) AOC platform seem that outrageous from either a humane and/or Christian values POV? Is there any reason not to take Progressive Democrats at their word? Why so much cynicism for these Democrats and only horse blinders for temple money-changers GOP-ers (e.g. McConnell, Cruz, 45)?
e. Must the Red Menace taint our outlook so much that everything is upside down and we keep finding excuses to shore up whiteness above long overdue justice? Are we (white people) that insecure about a future in which whites will become a minority and the previously oppressed might become oppressors that we are willing to lie to ourselves about what basic human decency looks like?

8. I just stumbled upon a recent CNN article that attempts to put in context the growing anti-CRT push. While it might seem quite biased and unfair to many white conservatives, I personally think that it is a fair assessment and that there are some valid points made within it regardless of one's political leanings (at least from a POV of providing a historical framework for CRT and its more recent critiques).

9. On the subject of a color-blind society, I also stumbled upon an interesting study. Three of the four key findings show the opposite of a color-blind society (to support my previous points):
• Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied. The differences in sentence length remained relatively unchanged compared to the Post-Gall period.
• Non-government sponsored departures and variances appear to contribute significantly to the difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders. Black male offenders were 21.2 percent less likely than White male offenders to receive a non-government sponsored downward departure or variance during the Post-Report period. Furthermore, when Black male offenders did receive a non-government sponsored departure or variance, they received sentences 16.8 percent longer than White male offenders who received a non-government sponsored departure or variance. In contrast, there was a 7.9 percent difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders who received sentences within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, and there was no statistically significant difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders who received a substantial assistance departure.
• Violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to account for any of the demographic differences in sentencing. Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders, accounting for violence in an offender’s past in fiscal year 2016, the only year for which such data is available. This figure is almost the same as the 20.7 percent difference without accounting for past violence. Thus, violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed to any extent beyond its contribution to the offender’s criminal history score determined under the sentencing guidelines.

10. I finally realized that at a higher meta level of discourse, the whole discussion (around racism, CRT, policing, violent crime, white fragility, white guilt, etc), is a poorly framed discussion (i.e. on racial, political or individual values instead of less visible but more impactful invisible economic fault lines) and, intentionally or not, coincidentally also a divide-and-conquer and stalling strategy that benefits mostly the super-rich in maintaining the (self-serving) status quo (if we can all agree that the super-rich are by and large the main beneficiaries of the current situation and the main parties that should be ultimately billed with the cleanup). All one (or more billionaires such as Koch or Murdoch or Soros) had to do is create and maintain the appropriate echo chamber system (e.g. fund heavily right AND even left leaning media and characters) such that enough people convince themselves to throw stinky rotten fish at each other and indiscriminately into the crowds and then let the plebes fight over how to divide it (or worse, fight over who threw it and how to punish the culprits). While we (sometimes even family members) gouge our eyes over who deserves or does not deserve justice for criminal human behavior in the distant or recent past, or whether the attempts to redress are overshooting or whether these attempts are a slippery slope into authoritarianism, the multi-billionaires keep amassing more wealth and chuckle amongst themselves at the Hunger Games below that they keep fomenting with their (mostly) unchecked greed. I realize that this is quite a lefty, light on personal responsibility, ironic and maybe cynical view of the human experience (especially in the US), but I also could not help notice how strongly the (overall societal) debate on these topics reminds me of Plato's cave (especially the larger context in which the debates are held). My only conclusion and (self-validating) exhortation is: run, run as far as you can from the insane asylum of a highly uneven society that you personally have no direct responsibility, yet are (at least morally) burdened with fixing, tasked to contribute, choosing to internalize, explain away and maybe even largely ignore, or having to decide how to fix long past due bills for centuries of injustice. There are many other Western countries that have a less checkered past, have done better to atone for it and that are welcoming highly educated and still-young immigrants (to various degrees). I know that the instinct is to stay and fight, but to be fair to self, you have to at least ask yourself these two questions:

• Am I fighting my own battles or some long-dead strangers' battles (that have been simmering for many generations and which I inherited by the simple act of immigrating to this country)? I know there are no perfect Western countries (e.g. Canada, Australia and NZ have their own checkered and unresolved past with their Aboriginal populations, Western Europe is often quite xenophobic and is behind most of the past colonization of the world), but from the POV of humane treatment of its own lower classes, the general level of violence (gun related, poverty driven or otherwise) and a national-self-check-in-the-mirror stance, I think one can do better than the US (in spite of its generally (white) immigrant-friendly attitude, its more recent and quite valiant WWII and Cold War efforts which unfortunately might also be blinding a self-congratulatory national self from doing a fair self-examination of its darker past and present, in comparison with, say, its more selfish, more homogenous and more well-adjusted Western siblings).
  
• What can I do to help improve the current situation? IMO, too many USians are not ready yet to have a frank discussion about race, poverty and wealth inequality (and won't be for generations). The best one can do is to educate self, others and/or simply wait for others to catch up. Neither requires an actual physical presence in the US (presence which I think is, at a minimum, detrimental to one's and her family's present and future mental health and well being). BTW, many Americans have moved overseas by choice, have not lost any of the rights all Americans enjoy and are quite happy with their choices.
  

Summary conclusion: I get the idea behind personal responsibility and that is bad to play the victim or to attempt to guilt others into making concessions via the race card, yet I fail to see how (mostly whites) engaging in these ironically fragile PC or CRT criticisms (effectively playing the victim card in reverse) is helping those most in need. Maybe some whites need to take heed to their own (conservative) advice: stop blaming the other, be more self-reliant and grow a thicker skin (or to paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be [white]" and accept that the [white people's] birthday lottery privilege always comes with some obligations if nothing else). I will close with the words of a much better man (which I hope most people will eventually take to heart regardless of their creed and that I hope you personally do not find too presumptuous for being quoted back to you by someone like me):

'Whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'