The only person talking about ‘ignoring race’ is you.
> This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause.
> By definition, that's what "rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" does.
No it doesn’t not ‘by definition’ or by any other reason. Your arguments don’t suddenly become true just because you say ‘by definition’.
You can acknowledge race as a cause, while not enshrining it as a solution.
Your solution requires that we must continue to be identified by the racial categories created by historical slave owners.
Not good.
I agree with Zepto. You can't just easily quantify the effects of all of the past injustices against different groups of people. Imagine if today the federal government decided to pay reparations for slavery. How would you decide who receives the money? Do you have to be 1/2 black? 1/4? Do you receive less money if you're less black? What about other minorities? How much are they entitled to?
It becomes messy very quickly. This is a simplified example, but this is why it's best to take enact policies that help those who struggle today regardless of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
However, it is still important to acknowledge, teach about, and remember racism and other inequalities from years past (and some which continue today)
But by definition, that's not what ignoring race does.
> This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause.
By definition, that's what "rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" does.
> However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others.
> A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents.
Agreed, that's why I said: "We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation."