3 ms·
>Race blindness isn’t the end goal, the goal is racial equality. Says you. The whole concept of race is an aritifical construction, a barbaric vestige of the
by StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>Race blindness isn’t the end goal, the goal is racial equality.
Says you. The whole concept of race is an aritifical construction, a barbaric vestige of the past that should be rightfully recognized for what it is, and cast off.
>Today, black people on average make 1/3 less income than white people. Even if society were totally race blind, some of that disparity would remain—it would be the legacy of when society wasn’t race blind. You can’t fix that injustice by ignoring race.
Of course you can. The issue is economic equality, not race. In your paradigm, just making a whole bunch of white people a lot poorer would be a fine solution, as there would be no economic disparity between "races". We need to strive towards a society where everyone has economic security and prosperity regardless of the tone of their skin or any historical prejudices their ancestors may have suffered at any time.
>I think history will remember “race blindness” with derision.
I think history will remember those who clung to the barbaric vestiges of the past with derision and as an impediment to social progess. We need a society that aims to lift all people out of poverty and powerlessness, not just the ones whose ancestors were discriminated against. Clinging to the injustices of the past and codifying racial polarization into law is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to evolve as a society.
- anon23423532 8y agoDo you believe in evolution and genetics? Different races have various different afflictions, sickle-cell, tay-sachs, cancer rates, etc. Different facial structure, average height, body fat distribution, muscle mass, limb length, etc. You would have to deny evolution and genetic inheritance to think that different groups of people living apart for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments didn't result in selection via external forces to better survive in those environments. Just look at the body type difference between an eskimo and a sub-Saharan african.
- olalonde 8y agoThat's true but the idea that we can create distinct categories based on skin colour is incredibly misguided. Also, we haven't been living apart for quite a while now. See this article: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
- bruthafez 8y ago>The idea that we can create distinct categories based on skin colour is incredibly misguided. Yet the "idea" that we can create distinct categories based on geographical heritage is not only not-misguided, it's obvious. You're making a straw man argument because you're the only one isolating skin color alone as the sole determinant in race — albinos exist so obviously you're right. But geographical heritage (ie whether your parents came from Asia or Africa) not only creates distinct categories between people, but it's dishonest to say they don't. You really telling me that the racial makeup of the NBA has nothing to do with geographical heritage? FOH lmaooo