[wpietri]

I love this as an exploration, but I think it doesn't go quite far enough. Are (socially defined) racial categories ridiculous from a biological lens? Sure. Does that mean they are not real? No.

Humans are primates for whom social power structures are deeply important. (And not the only ones; see de Waal's "Chimpanzee Politics" for how it plays out in our nearest relatives.) As a species we are extremely good at building eusocial power systems, and we use that to get a lot done. But those can depend on a lot of effectively arbitrary markers to do that. Look at the British class system. What outsiders would call slight shifts in accent, clothing, and manners mark major division in social power.

The US wasn't nearly as classist, but it undeniably started out as a racialized and gendered power system. (E.g., 1700+ members of congress owned slaves [1], with slaveholders being in the majority for the first 30 years. It wasn't until 1870 we saw a black person in a federal elected seat, and the first woman was in 1917.) So it's not a shock that state and federal bureaucracies would be extremely interested in which box a person fits into.

These categories aren't biological, they're social, standing waves in our interactions. As a white man, there are many, many situations in the US where I get treated better just because of that. It's that lasting differential in social power that is what really defines racial categories. If we want to eliminate the categories, we first have to eliminate the power differential. Then the categories will go away on their own, the same way a lot of ancestry questions have become moot among white people (e.g., having ancestors of English vs German vs Irish vs Italian ancestry used to matter a fair bit). But as with the English class system, that power differential will not go away on its own; it has to be studied, recognized, and actively dismantled.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2022/cong...

[xg15]

But are you actively dismantling it by making race a core part of everyone's identity?

Seems to me, the outcome of the current movements might as well be that one group will have unfair privileges in one area while another group might have unfair privileges in another area. In the end, that seems as it would lead to embedding racial divides even deeper into society.

[wpietri]

I didn't make race a core part of everyone's identity. America did that long ago. What I am doing is pointing out that system still exists and how much trouble it still causes.

I understand why "ignore it and it will go away" is appealing to people. It sounds like way less work! But part of the way racism and sexism operate is by discouraging examination of those systems. By making the empowered group the default, the norm, and refusing to look at the differential treatment. For example, look at Mitch McConnell's recent division of "Americans" vs "African-Americans": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2022/jan/21/mitch-...

And that's just one example of a very widespread phenomenon. Here's another https://xkcd.com/385/

So ignoring the problem ends up supporting the problem. However much we would like to pretend that this problem will get better on its own, history tells power systems rarely if ever just give up on their own: https://thenib.com/great-moments-in-peaceful-protest-history...

[xg15]

Good points - also, to be clear, that was supposed to be a plural "you", apologies for the ambiguity.

I think (as a white non-american) that there is a difference between seeing race-blindness as the ultimate goal - which is not yet archieved and won't be for the foreseeable future - or seeing race-blindness as an explicit non-goal.

I think the OP is arguing for the first variant. My impression is, current anti-racism/identity movements are more advocating the second variant and are emphasizing blacks and whites as fundamentally separate groups, which cannot and should not be reconciled.

If this is really the case, I believe this is some major shift of objective - and I'm honestly puzzled what the "ideal society" that we should work towards would actually be in the second case.

There is also a difference between past atrocities which must be made up in some form and discrimination that continues in the present. I agree that the history of slavery and genocide in the history of american settlers is far from being appropriately processed. This is something that must be taught in schools and attempts to make up for the evils must be made - maybe even as some form of reparations, though I have no idea how that could work in practice.

However, it's also clear you cannot punish persons that live today and had no choice about whether or not those atrocities took place.

I think more talk between black and white people about some kind of positive vision of the future that all could work towards for would be more constructive - if it's possible at all to build such a vision.

[wpietri]

I think what you're missing is that arguing prematurely for race blindness is a important and frequently used tool in preserving America's white supremacy. A major way white men practice identity politics is by complaining about "identity politics". You can see that going on nakedly in our fight over the next Supreme Court justice.

Do I think race blindness is a good goal for 200 years from now? Yes. Do I think race blindness should be an explicit non-goal for the next 50? Also yes.

I agree that more talk about positive visions for the future is useful. But I think you're placing that in false contrast with frank and explicit discussion of current problems and of the necessary awareness needed to make visions real. And I think you should read MLK about how this sort of "can't we all just get along" thinking is a barrier to solving problems: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

[mistrial9]

good start but...

Successful slave traders at the time of the Age of Expansion (1500s) used race mercilessly to define most trading of human captives. However, slave traders have been hated and banned by others at the same time. All 13 colonies of North America had their own laws from the beginning. Essentially, it was the Virginia colonies and similar that fit your description. The northern group forbid slavery, preached against it, and had strict laws to protect people of all races. This fundemental difference is more important than many people realize now, and eventually was the context for the US Civil War.

source: a yankee

[wpietri]

I believe you were told that. But I believe that's pretty ahistorical. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_S...

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-new-england-rhode-islan...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-black-people-a...

And that's just the basic legal stuff, like not being property. When you look at actual attitudes, Northerners were quite racist. You could read, for example, Foner's "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery". It covers quite well how even Lincoln was quite racist in a way typical of the time.

You might also read Loewen's "Sundown Towns" which shows these attitudes not just persisting, but leading to ethnic cleansing across the US during the Nadir (circa 1870-1920). That includes New England: https://thenewpress.com/books/sundown-towns

There were of course excellent abolitionists and activists from New England, and there were pockets of goodness. But you can't paint New England as a magic exception.

[mistrial9]

ok, you got me. I am rethinking this a bit.. but, may I suggest changing "Northerners were quite racist" to be "Northerners were quite tribal" ? I think the survival of communities in those harsh days required more immediate survival interactions, and very importantly more cooperation in healthy child-rearing. Humans act in groups.

[wpietri]

It's a plausible question. But to show that you'd have to demonstrate that Northerners were not only less hostile to non-white people (especially Black and Native residents) than was common in America, but also equally hostile to their neighbors from other European countries. Given the high levels of immigration, the US definitely had intra-white hostility between different European ethnic and linguistic groups. But I have seen no evidence that was nearly as bad as anti-Black sentiment or action.

So I think "Northerners were quite racist" is a pretty reasonable statement from the historical evidence. Tribal too, as that's a common human characteristic. But when you look at things like America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver, it's pretty clear there's something more going on than garden-variety cooperative healthy child-rearing.

[mistrial9]

> America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver

but there you go .. from a reasonable observation of very real tensions among certain people and groups, you then "mix" all of that into the worst, and call it American. It is at the least unfair to those that stayed true to teachings of real liberty for all people.

[wpietri]

What would you think of somebody who refused to look at bug reports because they thought it was unfair to those that stayed true to the teachings of building high-quality software?

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose like that. Does America have a history of high ideals? Sure. Did America always live up to them? Obviously not. All non-Indians live on stolen land. All white people have benefited from the exploitation and suppression of black people. All men have benefited from the exploitation and suppression of women. Whether we meant to or not, and whether we like it or not.

If you really want to stay "true to teachings of real liberty for all people", then you have to look at where and how we've fallen short. Otherwise we'll never live up to the goals.