I guess it's safe to say that most people over the age of thirtyish were brought up understanding racism as an individual bias and active discrimination against people because of their race.
I still stand by that definition - individual racism.
The Crenshaw, Kendi, DiAngelo, etc. basically define it as any systems that produce disparities in equity among groups.
I won't accept that definition.
Still, if there's one thing on which I'll agree with Kendi, it's that we're both pessimistic about "ending racism" of either definition.
The frustrating thing is that the collectivists still operate under both definitions. When an individual pops up shouting the "N-word" at a black person in anger, that can be useful in fueling their narrative. It shouldn't be. It's fallacious to see a handful of condemnable stories a year and attribute it to a larger narrative. That's what Crenshaw and Kendi seem to be trying to do - find hard proof of racism (which can only be found in individual acts) and use that to show that tax policy must be racist.
The collectivists also aren't hiding the fact that their terms are hard to define and abstract. Crenshaw said, "CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice." So, let's stop making fun of people for not understanding specifically what it is when the person who founded the "theory" can still only define it in abstract terms.
There's a strategy in operating under abstract terms, especially when dealing with a word like "race" rather than using a well defined word like, "communism" which is the ultimate goal.