a response to “critical race theory is an inversion of history” (no it isn’t)

1.8.25

The following is in response to an op-ed written by John Ellis for the Wall Street Journal, published on 1/5/2025

You can read it here.

Mr. Ellis,

Congratulations on writing the finest satire I’ve read in years. Not since Voltaire have we seen such agonizingly sharp societal commentary. Part Candide, part Jonathan Swift, with a sprinkling of the finest essays of The New Yorker, your brilliant and scathing critique of the insecure white man’s response to Critical Race Theory may well receive a Pulitzer for commentary.

My favorite detail, if I may, was the lack of cited sources or other supporting documents. You really captured how the ego of a white man usurps the need for facts or context; that a certain kind of white guy can just go on and on about any given topic, projecting their lived experience as the Ultimate Truth.

My second favorite detail may have been purporting to be a Professor of German Literature. Incredible! Who else would write a tone deaf diatribe asserting the superiority of the Anglosphere whilst clutching his pearls at the very notion that he might be racist? I’m not sure everyone noticed the joke, but I did, and I appreciate it.

As a new fan of your work and a student of comedy, I’d like to analyze your piece paragraph by paragraph. I’m sure you get this all the time and it’s become boring for you, but please indulge me in an analysis, as I seek to learn from the masters.

“The Biden administration had quietly implemented policies throughout the federal government based on [critical race theory].”

What a way to start! The phrase “quietly implemented policies” plays on the deep paranoia of the character you’re writing. A true academic would have given at least three examples of what he’s referring to, and the lack of evidence to support his theory only makes his statement more absurd. Biden wasn’t quiet about repealing Trump’s ban on CRT training for federal employees, as we all know, and of course repealing a ban isn’t the same as implementing policies. Delightful!

The next part, the last sentence of the first paragraph, is where you really distill the caustic lack of self-awareness that this man must possess:

“The accusations made in closed training sessions are astonishingly venomous: Arrogant white supremacy is ubiquitous; white rage results when that supremacy is challenged; whites hold money and power because they stole it from other races; systemic racism and capitalism keep the injustices going.”

Living for this. “Closed training sessions” is brilliant; it again heightens the sense of paranoia, making a required employee training sound like a covert CIA operation. The use of “accusations” had me rolling– you beautifully summarize the abject facts of racial inequity in America, then have your character claim that the paraphrased history is “astonishingly venomous.” Incredible! Who would think to have someone write from the perspective of a person refuting the prevalence and existence of systematic racism whilst pointing to the obvious and insidious ways it permeates society? 

It’s as if the character is completely ignorant of the history of the United States; or perhaps more cleverly, he ignores it.

If this amalgamation of the prideful white man archetype were instead a real person with these views, this is what I would say to them:

Pre-1776

Hop into my time machine as we go back to the early days of the ol’ US of A, won’t you? Picture this: settlers come from all over Europe (how exotic) and over the course of about 100 years, kill around 56 million Native Americans. They felt that European culture was superior and that the Native Americans were, in fact, savages. So they murdered all of them. That’s an early example of white supremacy.

1776/American Revolution

Turn that dial to 1776, because revolution is in the air, baby! The Constitution of the United States is written and signed by a group of entirely white men who feel that the people that they own, most of whom are Black, are only three-fifths of a person. This increases the political power of the heavily slave-operated Southern states. Only white property-owning men could vote. That’s an example of white supremacy.

Civil War Era

On to the Civil War! About 620,000 Americans die because white men in a position of power do not want to give up their money and power to Black people, whom they feel are better fit for chains, abuse, and assault than equality.

Thankfully, the Yanks win! The Yankees Win! Call Giancarlo Stanton, stat! 

The Reconstruction

Here we start the Reconstruction. About two thousand Black leaders are elected in Congress, the Senate, State Legislators, and local offices. For a few years, things are looking like they are improving towards a more equal and just society. But white Southerners find the Reconstruction humiliating (sad!) and make as many laws as possible to create social, economic, and cultural separation between Black and white people. These are called Jim Crow laws. They also try to prevent Black people from voting by removing the federal troops meant to protect them at the voting booths, replacing those troops with folks like the KKK, America’s premiere white nationalist organization, meant to terrorize non-whites from voting. As much as I love community organizing, I think we can all agree that this is a prime example of white rage invoked when the power dynamic tips even slightly towards “equality.” It’s also– wait for it– white supremacy.

Early 20th Century

Let’s scootch forward to 1921, to Tulsa, Oklahoma. There’s an affluent Black neighborhood known as the Greenwood District, also known as “Black Wall Street.” Things are going great and the American Dream is actually achievable. That is, until white folks burn down no less than 35 blocks of Greenwood, with hundreds injured or dead. Again, white rage is the response to a whisper of equality. Let’s move on, just like the country did after the Tulsa riots.

Look out your window as we pass World War II. Black veterans are excluded from the GI bill, giving white soldiers the financial opportunities therein and Black soldiers none. This is often cited as a contributing factor to intergenerational poverty and lack of accumulated wealth in Black communities. This is white supremacy.

Latter Part of the 20th Century

Let’s get off here, in the Civil Rights Era. On your left, you’ll see Black folks being hosed down on the Pettus Bridge and on your right, a bomb going off in a Baptist church, killing four young girls. Over here, you’ll see the face of Emmett Till, completely disfigured and killed by a white man for allegedly whistling at a white woman. He was 14. What’s that sound? Gunshots? Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, and other civil rights activists are assassinated. Truly peak white rage as a result of… (echo effect) white supremacy.

Hurry, back inside the time machine before Attica State!

Whew, safe. We’ll fly over the turmoil of the 1970s and the “welfare queen” racism of Regan (the OG MAGA), past the PC 1990s where colorblindness was cool and not dismissive, and land in 2008, where we elected a Black president yet somehow did not cure racism.

These twenty or thirty years are a great example of covering up racism by pretending it doesn’t exist. It turns out when you ask white folks to face the past and then hold a mirror to themselves and admit that while they’re not actively, explicitly racist, perhaps they have implicit biases that impact how they interact with people of color, some white folks get upset.

Just over yonder, you can see the imprint of the white ego on America. While fragile, it has the remarkable ability to regenerate.

21st Century (aka the Zenon Era)

As we return to the present day, please read your inflight leaflet, a guide to redling in America and how it results in intergenerational poverty, deprivation from health, financial resources, and diminished opportunities for BIPOC populations. You’ll want to keep your window shade open as we get closer– you’ll see police brutality up close, with names you won’t recognize but some of us certainly will: George Floyd, Breeona Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and of course Linden Cameron, the autistic 13-year old boy shot by the cops. Here’s a throwback: remember George W. Bush? Yeah, well, he said that white nationalism is blasphemous and that domestic terrorism is the new Al Qaeda. He’s talking about white supremacy, baby.

Now out of the time machine, I will continue to breakdown the POV of the character in Mr. Ellis’ humorist essay as well as compliment some of Ellis’ finest linguistic achievements.

“All of this is based on categorically false assumptions about the past. We need only look at how the modern idea of our common humanity originated and developed to see that critical race theory has everything backward.”

This part is clever to the point of tears! To reflect on all of the places we went in my time machine and then gaslight us into thinking we’ve been making “categorically false assumptions about the past” is truly, truly, genius. 

The academic field of Critical Race Theory is defined here as a rejection of “the idea of colorblindness or legal neutrality and argues that race and racism have always played a major role in the formulation of American laws and the practices of American institutions.” By implying that any of that definition is anything less than factual, you twist the reader into questioning the very existence of reliable historical facts. I mean, if we weren’t there, did it really happen? Or are we making... categorically false assumptions? I adore the way you did this– it truly exposes how frightening white supremacists are and the danger of their mental gymnastics.

“A realistic history tells us that the thinkers and engineers of the Anglosphere, principally England and the U.S., are the heroes, not the villains, of this story, while the rest were laggards, not leaders.”

Honestly, I felt this was a little on the nose. Is it realistic to think someone trying to hide their racism would just come out and say directly “the [people] of the Anglosphere are heroes… of this story, while the rest were laggards, not leaders.” I think perhaps an editor gave you the note to make the character’s perspective more blatant for those who don’t normally read, but for me, it was a little heavy-handed.

It assumes we don’t know the history of British colonization and how the British government used systematic violence guised as democracy to rule the world. The post-WWII ideals of Britain were shiny on the surface, proliferating the myth of freedom, while enforcing said freedom with tactics that were decidedly barbarian at best. Britain justified their domination over “lesser” races, ethnicities, nationalities, and economic dispositions as a means to an end– the full length velvet glove hides the fist, as they say. I do like the way you set it up to make the reader question the legitimacy of history and then alley-oop, having the character literally compare ethnicities and have the whites come out… supreme.

“For most of recorded history, neighboring peoples regarded each other with apprehension if not outright fear and loathing. Tribal and racial attitudes were universal. That’s a long way from the orthodoxy of our own time, which holds that we are all one human family. Before that consensus arose, a charge of racism made no sense. By today’s standards, everyone was racist.”

This is the thing cult leaders do really, really well, and I can tell you’ve studied their work in crafting this piece. You have the character take one piece of truth– that for most of recorded history, humans were tribal creatures and warring factions were prevalent. But then the guy in the story stretches it out, claiming “fear and loathing” were universal, unlike today where we all accept that we are one human family. Well, all of us except the white Anglo-Saxton telling the story, who has already stated that whites are leaders and all other laggards. May I also say, the idea that early humans were “racist” implies they had an understanding of race and ethnicity, concepts that weren’t invented until the 18th Century. A tribe could be suspicious of a tribe and play well with another tribe; but race was not a part of the conversation.

“It’s not hard to understand why tribalism once reigned everywhere. Without modern transportation and communication, most people knew nothing about other societies. What contact there was between different peoples often involved warfare, and that made everyone fear strangers. The insecurity of life in earlier times added to this anxiety. Protections we now enjoy didn’t exist: policing, banking, competent medical care, social safety nets. The supply of food was uncertain before trucks and refrigeration. In a dangerous world people clung to their own kind for safety, and that was a natural and even necessary attitude.“

This one is rich– it’s great how you make this guy blame lack of modern technology for the existence of tribalism. Humans, like other social primates, initially traveled in packs. And then, through evolution, became pro-social creatures that rewarded behaviors that helped and learned from others. Technology, our inability to fly internationally or text our homies, did not, in fact, inhibit humans from connecting and growing together. I do love the part where it says “in a dangerous world people clung to their own kind for safety, and that was a natural and even necessary attitude.” This shows that the character has the privilege to not be even vaguely aware that America is ranked as the 132nd safest country in the world out of 164. I know that you know a return to tribalism has been percolating in the US, but the characters’ lack of awareness is very telling.

“How did we get from this mindset to the idea of a common humanity? The practical impediments to the world’s peoples getting to know and eventually respect each other were largely removed by British and American engineers. They invented the steam engine, then used it to develop the first railways. They followed this by inventing and mass-producing cars, trucks and finally airplanes. They pioneered radio, television, films, newspapers and the internet. The result was that ignorance of other peoples was turned around.”

Wow, this is wild! It wasn’t a “mindset,” we just had underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes.

Then there’s the alleged correlation between British and American engineering and the peaceful coexistence of races and nationalities. If this hypothesis were in the realm of reality, or even somewhere close to believable, would it not imply that as technology has rapidly advanced in the last 30 years, that we should be closer to unity and not farther away? If all we needed to understand and respect one another was JetBlue and Twitter, there would be world peace. If communication technology and ease of travel led to a lack of ignorance about other cultures and peoples, we wouldn’t be reverting to the “us versus them” mentality that dominates American politics. We would truly be a country wherein all are created equal. There wouldn’t be legislation aimed at harming transgender people, or racially motivated hate crimes, or demonizing anyone by inferring that they are “un-American.” Because accusing someone of lacking patriotism is some creepy Nationalist talk. I like this part because I feel like I’m really starting to understand how your protagonist justifies his strange mental jungle gym of convoluted thought.

Let’s also unpack the idea that railways, cars, trucks, airplanes, radio, television, film, newspaper, and the internet were all invented by white people, because that’s a real doozy. That’s just insane. Who built the railroads? Who worked in the factories that made cars and trucks? What about the black women that worked for NASA and were responsible for early spacecraft technology? Also, since this character has white privilege they refuse to acknowledge, they don’t discuss why so many engineers were white: Black people had a different level of access to education than white people. Schools were segregated until 1954. The University of Mississippi didn’t let a Black man enroll until 1962. That’s what white privilege is– it’s not a blaming concept, it’s just acknowledging reality.

May I also say, the technologies we are familiar with are Western because we are Western. The dismissal of the cultures of entire continents and their innovations is stunning. Implying the engineering advances in the last two-hundred years somehow usurps the entire history of the human race, in every faction/village/city/country/culture is a truly, truly insane notion.

Also, lest we forget, algebra was invented in Babylonia (notably, not white!).

“Why Britain? Liberalizing political developments beginning with the Magna Carta and the first representative Parliament, called by Simon de Montfort, fostered greater liberty for the British subject. Liberty led to increasing prosperity, and prosperity to a rapid increase in literacy. Widespread literacy created the first large reading public: By the beginning of the 18th century, dozens of newspapers and periodicals were being published in Britain. An extensive reading public allowed public opinion to become a powerful force, and that set the stage for manifestos and petitions, even campaigns about matters that offended the public’s conscience.”

Oh, a fan of the Enlightenment! Look at you, Fancy Boy! As wonderful as some elements of the Enlightenment were (science rules, as per Bill Nye), it is revisionist history to leave out that it also spawned the concept of race. Immanuel Kant, as I’m assuming the protagonist is aware, was responsible for a “scientific” approach to race, writing “Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race … The yellow Indians have a smaller amount of Talent. The Negroes are lower and the lowest are a part of the American peoples.” Not terribly enlightened, but then again, that’s the point you're trying to make via irony. Right? Right?

“A series of British writers began to promote ideas about the conduct of life and the role of government. Among the most important was John Locke, who argued that every human life had its own rationale, none being created for the use of another. Another was David Hume, who wrote that all men are nearly equal “in their mental power and faculties, till cultivated by education.” These and many others were launching what would become the modern consensus that we are all one human family. The idea gained ground so quickly that in Britain, and there alone, a powerful campaign to abolish slavery arose. By the end of the 18th century that campaign was leading to prohibitions in many parts of the Anglosphere, while Africa and Asia remained as tribalist and racist as ever.”

So as your narrator tells it, Britain was crushing it in the “racism doesn’t make sense” area and then– and I love how you did this– he calls Africa and Asia (which, by the way, are entire continents)– tribalist and racist. That lack of self-awareness is stunning. You really drive your point home with that one. 

Also, for what it’s worth, John Locke wrote “no Slave shall hereby be exempted from that civil dominion his Master has over him, but be in all other things in the same State and condition he was in before.” Totally, totally contributing to the “one human family” theory. Or so the character thinks.

“As this idea took hold it made the British see their empire differently. Like other European countries, Britain had initially sought empire to strengthen its position in the world—others would add territory if Britain didn’t, and Britain would be weakened. But if the peoples of the British Empire were one human family, how could some be subordinate to others? The British began to consider themselves responsible for the welfare and development of their subject peoples, and for giving them competent administration before they had learned to provide it themselves. That change inevitably led to the dissolution of empire, and to a consensus that the time for empires (of which there had been hundreds) was over. The world’s most influential anti-imperialists were British.”

It’s pretty cool how your character does this, the thing where it looks like the Good Guys feel “responsible for the welfare and development of their… peoples.” Isn’t that just the Nordic model? But this is why you are clever, as the writer/satirist– the Nordic people are by and large the most homogeneously white population there is. But most Americans see Scandinavian policies as… Socialist. The twists, the turns, the burns of this essay! 

“The idea of a common humanity spread across the globe as the power and influence of the Anglosphere grew. First, this new ideology spread throughout the quarter of the globe’s peoples that were in the British Empire, where different races were learning to live and work together. Next, the Anglosphere’s cultural influence went worldwide as Britain’s industrial revolution set off a culture of innovation that resulted in a universal civilization—that is, modernity. As that way of life spread throughout the world, it carried with it the idea of a common humanity.”

You jumped the shark, bud. It's just not believable that anyone would say this.

“There’s a simple explanation for what critical race theory calls 'white privilege.' Because the Anglosphere developed prosperous modernity and gave it to the world, English-speakers were naturally the first to enjoy it. People initially outside that culture of innovation are still catching up. Asians and Asian-Americans have done this with great success, but critical race theory impedes the progress of other groups by persuading them to demonize the people who created the modern values they have adopted. It betrays those values by stoking racial hatred. Critical race theory tells us that all was racial harmony until racist Europeans disturbed it, but the truth is rather that all was tribal hostility until the Anglosphere rescued us. “

I mean, no? CRT doesn't claim that at all. CRT looks through American history with the understanding that this nation has, since its inception, had a complicated and often shameful relationship to Black people. It's only controversial because it makes white people uncomfortable and have to reflect on their thoughts and actions in a meaningful way. No one in this field of research is claiming things were great until racist Europeans. It's specifically related to American history. I do wish this essay ended with the protagonist opening his heart and mind, but I suppose this depressing ending is more realistic. And, of course, an excellent example of white supremacy.

with love,

angry open letters