I can't see that happening. Race is a valuable tool in capital's toolbox of divisiveness.

> While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

If race has no biological meaning, why isn't Rachel Dolezal (who was raised with multiple adopted black brothers) allowed to identify as black?

Isn't it seen as lying purely because of her ... genetics?

Since Wikipedia has been run by ultra liberals lately take everything you read there with a grain of salt when it is related to the culture war.

That doesn't really matter for the purposes of the comment you are replying to.

The only thing holding this back is the economic dominance of white people. There's nothing inherently favorable about being white except that, in most cases of human history, white groups have been the dominant economic actors throughout the world. I could easily see this being shifted to another race, i.e. East Asian, should the economic balance of the world substantially change.

> There's nothing inherently favorable about being white except that, in most cases of human history, white groups have been the dominant economic actors throughout the world.

Citation needed. South and East Asia have arguably been economic powerhouses for most of humanity. What we generally identify as white or western civilization has dominated economically during the past few hundred years, and arguably during the Roman Empire.

> It may come as some surprise to learn that, based on studies by the renowned economic historian, Professor Angus Maddison, the Asian economy accounted for nearly 60 percent of the global GDP before the Industrial Revolution which began in the late 18th century

From: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/press/koen_2015/data/...

> What we generally identify as white or western civilization has dominated economically during the past few hundred years, and arguably during the Roman Empire.

"Most cases of human history" was too broad. I was referencing since the age of exploration. The European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and some parts of Asia was the economic dominance I was referring to. My point is that it's actually fairly recent and aside from a maybe a few hundred more years of riding that wave, there's no reason to think white people will continue to be a dominant group.