Probably not any time soon. The current trend among the woke crowd seems to be emphasizing importance of race, rather than trying to get past it.

Worst racists of today are ones who divide people to privileged and underprivileged simply based on their skin colour, when the reality is way more complicated.

I like that you recognise that reality is complicated.

However your comment underestimates racism. It may not have happened in front of your eyes, but in this world there are people who will for example:

- be willing to verbally _or physically_ assault a person because of their skin colour (yes, to the point of serious injury or death)

- deliberately undermine a good candidate's chances of getting a job or promotion _because of their skin colour_

- deliberately undermine a good tenant's chances of finding a place to live close to work or a good school

Most people (including myself) are shocked to learn of situations like this once presented with evidence of it. I'm honestly talking about something as straightforward and undeniably racist as: a landlord asking a real estate startup to screen out any black tenants.

There's also a huge range of experiences where the above happen across lines of race but more accidentally. Racist outcomes without racist intentions. All the kids who can afford to live near the good schools are white, all the informal mentorship happens to people who are similar in background to the founder, etc.

The reason "emphasising importance of race" happens is because there's no chance of avoiding or preventing these situations if we pretend/hope that they don't happen. I might have misinterpreted you, but "trying to get past it" feels like pretend/hope rather than a willingness to fix things.

"The reason "emphasising importance of race" happens is because there's no chance of avoiding or preventing these situations if we pretend/hope that they don't happen."

How can we move past the racial thing, when we focus so much of racial things?

I think it just reinforces the racial thinking, when with every decision concerning other people, the race factor has to be taken into account.

I want to treat humans as humans and this is my solution towards a world without racism. I don't want to have to be nicer to a person because he or she is of black skin color. Or give special reasons in case of other skincolor, why this person did not qualify for a job. Or actually having to employ people because of their skin color. That would be racism to me, even if it might be well intentioned one.

I do not think there is such a thing as "positive discrimination". Discrimination remains discrimination.

I would ask when you ignore a problem does it go away? In my experience the answer is always no. You have to face a problem head on. The fact of the matter is people still experience racism all the time to this day.

No one should be asking you to hire someone simply because they’re of a different skin color. Most of the time in my experience people ask you to be more aware of you and how you feel, and to ask yourself am I doing this perhaps because of some unconscious bias I have?

"I would ask when you ignore a problem does it go away?"

Where did I say, I am ignoring it? For personal reasons, I am very aware it exists.

I said my personal solution is simply to not treat people different based on race. I rather change the world by giving a good example, than trying to impose my fix onto the world.

"No one should be asking you to hire someone simply because they’re of a different skin color. "

But people are promoting the idea to push positive discrimination - meaning exactly this, employing persons based on their skin color to meet a percentage of minorities - and not on their qualifications. And I believe this is very wrong and not helping the cause.

> No one should be asking you to hire someone simply because they’re of a different skin color.

this is very much what is happening. There are quotas that need to be filled, and it is tied to performance numbers too.

Also, not just for race, for all diversity - like gender, etc.

> I want to treat humans as humans and this is my solution towards a world without racism. I don't want to have to be nicer to a person because he or she is of black skin color. Or give special reasons in case of other skincolor, why this person did not qualify for a job. Or actually having to employ people because of their skin color. That would be racism to me, even if it might be well intentioned one.

But right now, you actually object to people saying "racism exists and affects how things turn out".

No, I object to people trying to fix racism by wanting to implement laws, that in fact are cementing racism.

Except that comment you are responding to does not call for any laws. Neither thread nor original article is not about implementing any laws.

Your own comment is literally against talking about race or focusing on it. While it does have final note about positive discrimination, the majority is not about positive discrimination.

"Except that comment you are responding to does not call for any laws. "

The applied context in this thread, does.

"The current trend among the woke crowd seems to be emphasizing importance of race, rather than trying to get past it."

I mean why are there laws getting implemented against racism in the shape of "positive discrimination" if various activists would not support it?

I didn't read GP is underestimating racism, but as sharing your goal but disagreeing with the means. The problem with the race-focussed approach to end racism is you can't change race.

But most racist problems actually manifest themselves as socioeconomic problems. And you can tackle those. And when doing so you can even gain allies, because poverty, bad schools and so on affect people regardless of skin color, which means fighting for better schools, higher wages etc. unites people regardless of skin color.

> deliberately undermine a good candidate's chances of getting a job or promotion _because of their skin colour_

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. How do you feel about affirmative action?

It's funny how the rest of the World is suddenly expected to adhere to U.S. cultural boundaries even though they simply don't apply. All of a sudden I've somehow changed ethnicity to "White". Simultaneously, people of African, Middle-Eastern and Indian origin -- some of the most ethnically diverse areas on the entire planet -- are just considered "Black" and thought of as a single group.

It's outright ridiculous.

"Racism" is a fancy word for "Tribalism".

Yes, I 100% agree that reality is complicated and not everything is about race, but some things are still about race and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it.

Racists aren't idiots, most of them know they can't openly spout racial slurs any more and still be taken seriously, so they use proxy issues framed in ways that do more harm to the groups they hate than to middle class white Americans.

You can't simultaneously solve every single social problem in existence out of fear of being called the real bigots, and making it all about whichever example of bigotry or injustice you're talking about in the moment. Sometimes you have to zoom in on a particular sub problem, be it income, education, crime, pollution, housing, disability, race, class, homelessness, or whatever.

So no, in short I don't think the worst racists of today are the ones who talk about the privileges or difficulties that come with being born into one race or another. The worst racists are still the same people they've always been, the people who try to hurt or kill the racial groups they don't like using every tool at their disposal, be it he media, the police, the law or whatever.

Science absolutely does not claim biological human races exist. Almost all of the major anthropological societies have a statement somewhere like this:

https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statemen...

Or this:

https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I...

Those statements also explain why being post-race is more difficult than it should be.

I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'.

> "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies."

The use of the term "European colonial contexts" betrays its intent immediately. I say this as a non-white person, of non-European origin.

> "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations"

Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Regardless of to what extent you believe the concept of 'race' explains population differences, there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology...

You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology.

Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513

> Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility.

Notions of race (either at the high level of what race in general is, or at the lower level of what defines specific races) are not, even approximately, consistent across either space or time. I mean, I get that it makes building arguments much easier if you can start with your conclusion and just invent whatever premises are convenient to support it, but...

RE: ... there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology

  This point falls apart with "mixed-race" individuals. People have mixed since the dawn of man. The real conflict is cultural.

No, I disagree. Colors can be mixed together, so does that mean that the color blue does not exists? Can you point me where exactly blue starts and ends on a rainbow? Let's go even further, and take two mixed colors - purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow) - they're both mixed, so does that mean that there is no difference between those two? This is a fallacy. People might've mixed, but it doesn't make everyone the same. This is blatantly false. In the actual reality you just inherit some traits from one parent and some from the other. I'm not denying cultural differences obviously, but it does not contradict anything, it's just how genetics work. Race is just a superset of ethnicity, and it's more fuzzy around the edges.

Respectfully, mixing colors in lifeforms is not as binary as "purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow)". A black rose and a white rose does not produce a gray rose. A black cat and a white cat will not give gray cat. Two black dogs can give you a gray dog with blue eyes.

If each color represents a particular heritable trait then it's more or less like that.

> I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'.

On what basis do you state that?

I think that statements like this are usually written more for political than for scientific reasons. Yes, "races do not exist" is true in the sense that 19th century classifications made by racist Europeans do not do a good job of mapping the reality of human genetic diversity. However, race does exist in the sense that, for example, two randomly selected people from China are likely to be closer to each other genetically than either is to a randomly selected person from England - and not only that, but it is also likely that the average person or, for that matter, computer algorithm will do a fairly good job of guessing people's genetic distance based on their visual appearance, at least for relatively large genetic distances.

I feel that too often, politically motivated people pick up on such academic statements and use them to justify implying that the very concept of racial difference is inherently empty or wrong and perhaps should even be tabooed. It is a bit of a motte and bailey technique: you first say, "Look at these statements - see, science rejects the very concept of race - any discussion of racial difference is thus unscientific and in any case what are you, some sort of bigot?" And if anyone pushes you more closely on the matter you can just retreat to the actually justifiable position, "Oh well of course I did not mean that there are no identifiable patterns in human genetic diversity, that would be absurd, I just meant that old European racial classifications are inaccurate."

The problem is that scientific "race" doesn't quite work that way.

To be scientific about it, you have to be willing to conclude things like that a diverse looking group of people are actually all the same race because they happen to share common genetics, or that what looks like an all white group is really 5 distinct genetic groups that just happen to look similar.

To really find what scientifically accurate genetic group a given person falls into you'd have to be scientific about it, and look at the genetics or at the very least their detailed ancestry. Simply looking at them doesn't cut it. Science is all about precision and eliminating biases.

At that point, what is even the point? You know enough about them to treat them as an individual regardless of what they happen to look like.