An uptick in U.S. White Americans’ structural understanding of racism alongside opposition to critical race theory (CRT) and acknowledgement of the historical and pervasiveness of racism reflects a social paradox. How is it that the U.S. White Americans can seemingly acknowledge structural racism without supporting its logical corollary arguments? CRT itself might have the answer in the form of interest convergence. CRT posits that U.S. White Americans only support aspects of anti-racist ideology that benefit their group, suggesting that something about supporting structural racism is beneficial. In two studies (N = 968), we test whether differences in the construal of structural racism in concrete versus abstract ways can help explain this paradox, assuming that construing structural racism in more abstract ways absolves the self, and one’s group, from racial wrongdoing. Across multiple operationalizations of abstraction (i.e.., the use of “I”, “we”, Brysbaert Concreteness Index, and a concreteness manipulation) we find partial evidence that abstraction leads to a reduction in support for the historic and endemic nature of racism for U.S. White but not Black Americans. We discuss the implications of our findings for the future of CRT and the fight for justice.