I appreciate the perspective, but I don't think you're adequately reflecting the natural inferential structure. If race is a meaningful category, then you are judged by your race, not just by what you do. So if some members of race X make things better for race X and worse for race Y, then people of race Y will naturally blame people of race X for it, including the ones who were not involved.

If, in contrast, race is inessential, and actions and character are primary, as classical liberalism says, then sure--you blame the people who set up the unfair system, and everyone, X and Y alike, tries to fix it. But that's classic liberalism of the sort CRT seems to reject.

I agree with your bolded statement. I would also add: benefiting from an unjust system does not relieve you of the responsibility to work to change it. But I am not convinced that your bolded statement is consistent with the central tenets of CRT as applied through ordinary people.

Do I need more evidence than Wikpedia for this (regarding the tenets of CRT)?

Also, I have been providing evidence for my position which, I think, has been adequate for the strength of the claims I've been making. So in general, I absolutely agree--it's pointless debating for long with someone who won't provide evidence. But in this particular case, to the extent we disagree (which I think actually is not much), if I haven't supported something adequately, just ask, and I'll do better or retract the point.

To clarify, I am arguing both that (1) CRT is now getting used as a broader umbrella term for ideas rooted in but not limited to CRT as a legal approach; and (2) under the broader definition in use, Nathan's criticisms are plausible, which means that to engage with them, evidence or solid argumentation is required, not merely "you got the definition wrong".