I can't not point this out, even though it's about the orangest thing I can write here: Fanon died roughly 30 years before CRT was a thing, and, moreover, CRT is an offshoot of Critical Legal Studies (which in turn is an offshoot of critical theory), and Fanon wasn't a legal scholar. He's a race-oriented critical theorist (I can't believe I'm writing this), right, not a critical race theorist?
Again, just back to Crenshaw, who wrote at length about how Critical Legal Studies loses the plot about racism in its zeal to reconsider the entire liberal legal structure.
I promise I'm just writing this because, like many HN comments, it is a sort of rhetorical burp I just have to get out.
More seriously: it is somewhat frustrating that any serious analysis of oppressor/oppressed systems can be dismissed as "Marxist" because of Gramsci and hegemony, because oppression is obviously a real thing (ask any evangelical Christian) but neo-Marxism is principally trotted out when the oppressed are disfavored. But then, lots of academics who pretty clearly aren't Marxist are happy to use Gramscian neo-Marxism as a tool, so, sure, maybe you're just right about this.
Again, just back to Crenshaw, who wrote at length about how Critical Legal Studies loses the plot about racism in its zeal to reconsider the entire liberal legal structure.
I promise I'm just writing this because, like many HN comments, it is a sort of rhetorical burp I just have to get out.
More seriously: it is somewhat frustrating that any serious analysis of oppressor/oppressed systems can be dismissed as "Marxist" because of Gramsci and hegemony, because oppression is obviously a real thing (ask any evangelical Christian) but neo-Marxism is principally trotted out when the oppressed are disfavored. But then, lots of academics who pretty clearly aren't Marxist are happy to use Gramscian neo-Marxism as a tool, so, sure, maybe you're just right about this.