I think a rather obvious interpretation of 'power structures' is things like - red lining; unequal eligibility for WW II benefits; etc, - ie 'structural inequalities' that were implemented by those in power, where perhaps the beneficiaries aren't necessarily racist; but often racist motivations were used in deriving and implementing the policies.
No, no, you are (inadvertantly, I think) looking at power structures in the wrong way in this case. Obviously everyone in the world agrees that
power structures exist, you can file that under duh, and that likewise these are rarely equitable structures. Not's not the thesis of CT. Its special claim, and again why it's compared to Marx's thinking, is that power structure is the main, or even sole, explanation for the workings of a society and of interactions between people. You are thinking of obviously degenerate social systems, things that are flawed by mere inspection. CT discusses how all structures, flawed or otherwise (within a given context) is nevertheless riddled with unequal power relationships and that these dictate the course of events. So just for example, you work for someone, that person is your boss. In the Marx framework, they have power over you; but moreover, the relationship is fundamentally defined by this power imbalance, rather than in other ways, such as the idea that a fair division of labor requires organization and division of tasks, one of which is to be in charge. This type of way of looking at it is at odds with Marx, and as well with CT (i.e. to view a potential power imbalance as being both necessary and even virtuous/positive). I could give other examples of what sets CT aside from what you're talking about.
I don't much care for the term privilege, but the idea that particular groups have relative advantages due to their group membership long predates CRT.
CRT by itself is irrelevant, you need to look at CT as a whole. CRT is just a branch-off using the same set of logic and assumptions. CT goes back way further than you think. From Wiki:
Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy
[my bold]
This is pretty self-explanatory regarding the history of this line of thinking. It's also why the 'anti-fascism' stream runs in parallel with CT and CRT lines of thinking, because historically the Marxist stream has usually branded itself as anti-fascist.
-People inhabiting 'oppressed' categories have innate disadvantages, and moreover, are therefore entitled to increase privileges to compensate
You realize that this idea is rather ancient and long predates CRT? We provide assistance to the poor that we don't provide to the wealthy.
Again, this is a motte/bailey no-brainer version of what CT and CRT really claim. What you are takling about is
actual privilege which everyone always acknowledged. This is NOT what CT is talking about when it uses the term "privilege", and I would hope you would know that. In fact one of the anti-woke responses to talk of 'privilege' is to bring up the topic of
being privileged in the classic sense, like being born into a rich family, growing up in a good neighborhood, even in a good country. These are not additions to, but actually repudiations of, the manner of using the term 'privilege' in the CT school.
I'd suggest the vast majority of CRT proponents wouldn't agree that race is even a real concept, but rather it is a social construct.
Don't mistake some dude sitting in an office in a race studies department from the vast, vast majority of 'foot soldiers', bloggers, and other academics that hold racial identity as being a critically important reality requiring acknowledgment. The genetic complexity of 'race' is far from the radar of the woke movement and from most analysis of power disparity. But yes, you are right in one sense, that some of these people are theoretically social constructivists, but this isn't particular to their understanding of genetitcs; they actually think
all aspects of humanity are social constructs too, including behavior and preferences. This, too, is a highly Marxist (but really Soviet) belief system. But on a practical level most 'normal believers' absolutely adhere to the idea that race is a real thing.
-It is understood in the milieu in which CT is taught that oppressed people have more 'right' to express their concepts of their own category than others do
Again this isn't a CRT related thing. Most people in general believe that those with more experience in anything have greater expertise and their expertise is more 'valid'.
No, man, that's not what it's saying at all. Are you trying to bend things so that you won't agree with me or do you really not know these things? If the latter, I am happy to engage with you on it. The issue is not
knowledge and expertise, but lived experience. It is an entire different axis of interpretation of what someone brings to the table. If it was about expertise then you wouldn't have situations where male doctors are told they're 'mansplaining' facts about the female body to women. Because they don't have the lived experience of being a woman, the doctor has an inferior position in a discussion about women's issues (including physiological). Of course this is not an everyday type of occurance, but is just an example of how you are not looking at the correct axis of 'rightness' if you are thinking in the old-fashioned way you outlined above.
Most of these ideas are from the 1960's and earlier, CRT originated in 1989. How do you come to the idea that those are CRT?
Already answered above, CRT is an offshoot of the CT stream of thinking. The former cannot be understood without the latter's framework. And also, according to Wiki CRT goes back to the 70's, but anyhow that doesn't really matter that much. Employing CT's framework to examine race is an obvious next-step for a general theory that began more as an issue of social power structures, money, and government. The newest iteration of this, sometimes called 'wokeism' is also an employment of CT, but bringing it further into other areas such as sexual identity. It's all just a continuation of the original intellectual tradition.
