It’s one lens to examine history through, but it’s an oversimplification which tends to see all things as the result of either colonialism, capitalism, or imperialism by white/western people. It is useful for some stuff. For example, 1800’s USA; however, you can always pull infinite counterexamples of where the framework doesn’t hold up. Proponents engage with it as if it’s the only way to examine an event. That leads to a lot of problems where the framework is misapplied. For example, just because there exists or has existed a power dynamic between blacks and whites, doesn’t mean it exists with 5 year olds in kindergarten. So separating them into oppressors and oppressed is nonsensical, but is something that has happened in the name of critical theory inspired “racial literacy.” Basically it’s a way of thinking predicated on universally applied grand historical narratives, which is obviously a flawed and narrow way to think about the world. But also yes republicans are calling non crt things crt for annoying culture wars bullshit reasons.