Yes, race is not a biological concept. But it is a social construction. People are treated differently based on the color of their skin. That different treatment is a problem for society, and does not vanish just because we tell people that race is not biological reality.

Dealing with that problem isn't easy, for a long of reasons. There's a long history of racism that has left a lot of people distrustful. And there's a shorter history under which "racism got fixed in the 1960s and therefore any remaining problems must be your own fault". Together, that makes it almost impossible to talk cogently about racism.

Race-the-concept doesn't get discussed because racism is the issue. There is talk about what criteria racists use to decide who belongs to what race, and that's useful, but mostly in an academic way because it doesn't seem clear how to make use of it.

“Race” is a shorthand unmoored from its pseudo scientific origins with plenty of people discussing the usages & meanings of it and how people & identities, self imposed or not, relate to it. You may have heard of things like eg “intersectionality”.

“Racialist” criticism is almost exclusively a universalist French concept. It isn’t entertained outside continental Europe, and is already being challenged within by the children of African & Caribbean immigrants who were previously kept at arms length in the colonies.

There is massive overwhelming consensus among biologists that human "race" isn't a thing beyond the abstract concept itself. From what you write it sounds like you don't dispute this, but claim there's even more made-up context to it now. That may be so... it only further aids cementing an idea that was flawed from the start. Keeping racist thinking alive is the opposite of being anti-racist.

I don’t dispute that at all, but this “made up context” is the attempted exploration of the actual, human, lived in reality that was flawed from the start.

Anti racialism/color blindness has been tried before, that was the general progressive approach for decades and decades here. It didn’t work out, and the most vocal opponents were themselves “black”.

By its very nature, it is deeply unaligned with the interests of the group it’s trying to help. 5 wolves and 2 sheep deciding how to share dinner, but all of the wolves have agreed to wear little blindfolds. Or, even worse, they’re all deciding in the dark with the lights turned off! Not only can the predatory wolves still wolf, but they can do it under the cover of darkness.

To compete, the sheep must become wolves. This is okay, even encouraged in assimilationist societies. This is absolutely not an option anymore in eg the US. We have a generation of older black men with names like Reginald and Eustace to remember its utter failure by.

Strained analogy that also completely ignores structural racism, please consider discussing racialism with fellow countrymen who happen to be of a different “race” <- shorthand!, as that cultural divide can be quite wide to reach across.

I like how you unabashedly write people have to become more racist to fight racism. And this is exactly what's happening at the moment. Meanwhile MLK is turning in his grave.

This is a crucial point. A lot of these discussions of the concepts of CRT would be a lot better if it was recognized that ‘race’ itself is a category that was made up to justify racism.

I think CRT has done quite a lot of good by helping expose how much influence racism has had on society as well as in individuals.

I think it’s now doing harm, because it seems to be about forcing us to remain in the same racial categories forever.

We can’t ‘dismantle’ racism unless we dismantle race.

I can’t agree with this more.

I also think it’s tragic that “CRT” has been turned into an ideology. It’s a useful lens for looking at any given problem, institution, system. But it’s NOT the gospel of truth. The net result is that we can’t use it to help us because either you can’t question the religion, or you refuse to engage with it entirely.