Or hows about both or neither? Why does everything require a binary answer?

Skin colour/race don't actually have anything to do with being a criminal.

Socio-economic situation tends to have the largest influences on who turns out to be a criminal.
I.E. You grow up in the slums, with family who are bogans... Chances are you are going down a certain path statistically.

By that same extension, those who are of colour tend to be in poor socio-economic areas due to in part... Discrimination or lack of opportunities, educational, work or otherwise... Arguably those of colour in poor socio-economic areas tend to have stronger family ties which keeps family units together.

Another issue is those migrating (Illegal or legal) from Mexico (Or anywhere for that matter) fall into the trap of lacking nationally qualified skills to take up anything more than low-paid unskilled work.
Same issue exists here, one of my old trainers migrated from Britain and she had 10+ years of experience as a teacher, sadly it meant squat in Australia and she had to go back to University to gain the degrees she was already competent in, in the meantime she was doing minimum wage work.

Here for example Aboriginals also tend to suffer at the hands of systemic discrimination.
For example years ago I went for a job interview and one of the other guys who I have known for a long time was Aboriginal and had qualifications in health that easily surpassed my own and he put on a strong (Arguably stronger) showing in the group interview, yet wasn't selected for some unknown reason, could be more to it, but really said allot about the employer at the time.

As for police... I can only talk about police officers I have worked with... So strictly limited to anecdotal. - And generally, they don't give a shit what your skin colour is, they are trained to protect themselves first and foremost, then protect their fellow crew, then protect the general public.

For example at any structure fire, police are always on scene and if an officer is near me, they will always keep a hand on the gun, doesn't matter if my job involves saving lives or not, doesn't matter if I know them or not.

"Or hows about both or neither? Why does everything require a binary answer?"

>Sadly, some people see everything as black or white and ignore all the many shades of gray in between.

Half of this thread has been devoted to the question of whether it is valid to attribute some degree of blame to white supremacy over some of the recent violence against the Asian community, including attacks with African American actors. If you wish this point to be explained to you, all you really need to do is read through this thread.

I did not assert that "all todays problems [are] white peoples faults", nor that you are a "'White Supremacist' for having the point of few you cant blame everything on whites". Perhaps you should read through the thread again, taking care not to let your own personal biases color your interpretations. You seem to be reading what you want to read, and no amount of explanation can overcome such a barrier.

To understand, you must first seek to understand...

So where does this leave us? I secretly hired only white workers even though government has put in place laws forbidding such actions. Is it white supremacy?

I would say so, government backing or not. In a previous post, you stated:

I don't like your definition. This definition means Dylann Roof's murder spree was not an act of white supremacy...

Erm, nevermind. Sorry, misread the context I was responding to, but can't find a button that lets me delete this post.

[3] To judge by people's replies so far, I suspect you and I are the only two people here who have any real knowledge of CRT at all, which tells me that many people don't even realize how they've likely been influenced by elements thereof without grasping the simplistic crux of it.

[4] Our remaining disagreement here comes down to what we perceive as "feasible". It comes down, in other words, to a fiscal dispute over what society can and cannot afford, and especially in that context there is, to me, just an intractably neo-liberal sounding logic and essence to the whole "de-fund the police" argument wherein public budgets must be balanced and yet also cannot be balanced by those who can afford to pay like they used to be all the time and thus we must choose between public safety and public welfare, as we just metaphysically cannot have both. Much of the talk around budget reductions for police forces, I've observed, likewise involves a discussion of union-busting strategies because policing is, proponents often contend, an illegitimate occupation and officers aren't really workers. I dunno about that logic.

I just want to jump in here and say that one of my university finals papers (UK terminology, probably the same in the US) was Political Theory, for which I had diligently been studying the standout thinkers in modern political theory. Rawls, Oakeshott, Nozick, Dworkin etc. but also feminists like Nussbaum, Okin, etc. This includes, by the way, modern marxist thinkers and critical theorists too. 

The exam comes along and the feminism question which I had prepared heavily had shifted tack and decided to be about critical race theory. (The link between the two ideologies, and presumably why the convenors thought that the question could be swapped in, is not that they're both considered "progressive" or anything like that, but because they both take issue with liberal conceptions of where the realm of political justice ends; ie. feminists argue justice is required within the family to have a just society). The trouble with a question about critical race theory is a problem with language. The question was "Does the pursuit of racial justice require political action beyond the reform of the basic structure of society". It might seem at first that the question is just about a Rawlsian basic structure and whether it is sufficient to secure justice in light of potential sources of injustice (racism) which may exist outside the formal basic structure. 

But in reality it's a totally different toolset. Either it requires that individuals are the subjects of justice, rather than the state, which is bizarre because we describe good or bad individual behaviour as good or bad (morality) rather than just or unjust. Or it requires a conflict-based understanding of the state (and hence of justice) and then we're talking about Marxism (or fascism, like Carl Schmitt - politics of "friend vs. enemy") and, in this example, critial race theory. The liberal language we use to talk about politics, eg. "equality", "basic structure" is sometimes reused by Marxists, fascists, critical race theorists, republican (small-r) theorists, but doesn't mean the same thing. Cynically, one might think that anti-liberal theorists at large love to repurpose liberal ideals "independence, liberty, freedom, equality" to mean siginificantly different things, but command support from (some) liberals nonetheless because of their purportedly aiming for the same goals. 

I didn't answer this question. I was vindicated by the examiner's report which, quite rightly, pointed out that a liberal approach to the question was not sufficient, and that you needed to respond to critical race theory. But in "normal" language this seems like a question that liberal society should be able to respond to. By the way, I use liberal in its true sense (sorry, America) as meaning part of the liberal tradition from Hobbes and Locke as in "western liberal society", not the sense in which people in the USA seem to call left-wingers (and sometimes by extension, critical race theorists!) "gosh darn liberals".  

The point is that Marxist ideologies, fascist ideologies, and even more palatable ideologies like republicanism (again, French kind, not big-R Republicanism) all use words which we, in the anglophone west, understand in their liberal sense, in a profoundly different way. It's like when people read Plato and say "that's not justice", scarcely realising they're talking about completely different ideas which through two millennia of Roman, medieval and enlightenment reinterpretation came to use the same word. 

Enter critical race theory, parasitizing in this way off two centuries of liberal tradition to promote an idea of justice which completely abandons distinctions between individuals and groups. Then you get high-minded liberals paying $5,000 for something they not only don't want to hear, but which clashes fundamentally with their all their political conceptions. They thought, "hey, I'm not conservative, how come I think she's totally mad?". The answer is because she's masquerading as a liberal. 

Can you provide some examples (sourced) of where the KKK and their supports did this? 

man, america and west have gone crazy with this woke nonsense and political correctness.