All racial classification schemes in the Western world are running against the wind of interracial marriage. Mixed kids of the "25 per cent Lithuanian, 25 per cent Arab, 25 per cent Mexican and 25 per cent Japanese" type are becoming ever more common and the narrow racial classification into old fashioned racial boxes is unable to categorize them with any kind of precision.

In that case, either you revert to the "one drop rule" of the Old South and start classifying anyone with any non-white ancestor as a minority, or run into untenable contradictions.

That's one way to look at it, if you want to radically oversimplify the problem.

Another way to look at it is there currently exists very clear discrimination practices based other vectors (income, geography, history). System racism is intersectional.

Arguing that it is "all or nothing" is another tactic to erase the existence of discrimination. This fallacy is often deployed intentionally.

Of the things you mentioned, income and geography is actually much easier to classify objectively than history and race. As an added bonus, income-based social policies would not throw poor people with certain ethnic backgrounds onto the "won't help, are privileged" pile. Poverty is crushing for everyone.

> By not identifying the distribution of various discriminated-against groups, they are rendered invisible, or nonexistant when it comes to policy making. THis is fine if you are in the majority, because that is the de facto policy making consideration, but not so good if you are not represented.

It's not a majority/minority concern. The concern is whether people are counting you in order to help you or hurt you. Jews aren't so vigorously opposed to Jew-counting because they're a majority.