The War on the West

I'm trying, really trying to see the points from multiple sides.

This book uses anecdotal and inflammatory language to rile up the reader and cause them to believe everything that he puts down on paper. On more than one occasion while reading, the author was making a point about a given topic and then made a logical leap that, as far as I could tell, had little to do with the point that he was originally making.

My primary complaint with this book is that he didn't actually give any solutions or thoughts on the actual premise. Why is the west worthy of being defended? Why shouldn't individuals look at historical figures or moments and critique them? Why is the United States not worthy of critique and criticism on its historical treatment of marginalized groups and people of color?
Does the author believe that these points or experiences of others don't exist and are not worth analyzing? Okay, that's fine. You don't want or believe that CRT is good. You think that we shouldn't disavow “the West”. It is the same complaint I have against other conservative ideas. So, you don't like [insert thing here]. However, your belief doesn't change what others are going through. There are people who are saying that they experience things differently... In my understanding, it comes down to not believing or not caring about the experiences of others, for if we did, maybe we wouldn't agree on how to solve the issues, however, we would talk and be more open to actually fixing the situation and making progress in some regard.

I want to learn more and I want to see the world from the other side, but I am struggling to get there.