When you become what you are fighting against you become the problem.

If the issue is not using a person's race to make blanket judgements against them then using someone's race to to counterbalance historical is equally as wrong.

The message you are telling everyone is you should use someone's race to judge them. The people in power changes but the racism never goes away.

You end up with foolish ideas like reparations where the people demanding money are a product of a union between a slave and slave owner where half of you should pay the other half.

Or quota systems that exclude minorities because they aren't the right race.

The racism you want to keep needs to be let go. You can't say racism is bad but then use it to enrich yourself.

Nothing in my post mentioned reparations, nor did it imply that all efforts are equal or even valid.

The foolish idea is that you can't do anything about racism because it'd require helping some people while not helping others.

Which is a bit like thinking you can't feed the hungry because you're not giving food to the obese.

You can do a lot about racism from education to fairness laws but the one thing you can't do is use racism to stop racism. That's my core message.

That's my point. Why not give food to all? You just want to give food to who you think is hungry based on great grandparents being hungry. Everyone should eat even the obese.

The entire issue is that, despite the law, some people refuse to feed everyone. And not a small handful of people, but a sizable enough population that their actions mean millions aren't fed.

That's my point.

Your "solution" only works if racism is eliminated. It is not eliminated, despite eduction and fairness laws.

So we can either chose to feed the hungry or let them starve in the name of a false, ignorant, and naive position of neutrality.

Golly

People have been getting the message "you should use someone's race to judge them" in my country for over a hundred years

In the USA since the seventeenth century

Here Māori property is confiscated with gay abandon, laws written specifically for that purpose

In the USA there was slavery. It has cast a long shadow, and still politicians are moving mountains to corral the black vote so it does not threaten entrenched privileges

Golly!

Are you talking about:

"A significant portions of Māori land were confiscated by the New Zealand government, primarily after the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s through legislation like the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. This process, known as raupatu, resulted in the seizure of over a million hectares of land from various iwi"

Wasn't there a Waitangi Tribunal investing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi? Isn't there a Māori land court setup to deal with those issues?

Are there specific instances you want to refer to? We would like to understand a little more.

No one is trying to corral the black vote in the US. It generally goes to one party. It does not threaten the powerful. Black vs rich powerful isn't really an issue as many powerful people are black. Working class vs rich powerful is more of the classic stereotype.