Awesome clarity. I see I have another brother in the devotion to the brilliance and deeply humanistic insight of Dr. Sheena Mason. You are building on her work and extending the conversation to help us all grapple with the current wave of DEI ensconced in the D'Angelo/Kendi ideology. Thank you for writing this so well and thank you FBT for publishing.
Absolutely and thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.
Dr. Mason has been an amazing person in my life for the last two years and has spent countless hours helping me understand her ideas. She is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant among us.
Yes, I believe she has a huge breakthrough place in this discussion in the coming years. She is in another league altogether and I support her every step of the way. And you have done so much to extend this kind of thinking into the levels where it can go.
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 25, 2023Liked by Free Black Thought
Can we dare to agree if we’re “white” (as he appears to be)? And if we agree with anyone, white, black, or other, who says we’re not allowed to weigh in on the question of “race-lining” because we’re “white,” are we exercising race-lining too?
Remember, this is only a diagnostic conception for us to be able to identify how racism functions in a specific aspect of our daily lives.
You absolutely have the right to an opinion. Racelining isn't about whether or not you disagree with something, more so it's about seeing how race(ism) interacts in the parts of our lives we may not always see or realize we're doing.
Keep in mind, as I argue from a skeptic eliminativist position, "White", "Black", etc... Do not exist except in the conceptual framework of modern race invented 500 years ago. You start out human, race puts you in a box. Racelining allows us to see the box and deal with it accordingly.
Thank you for reading the article and for taking the time to comment and challenge me!
I should’ve set up my comment with a “Right on!” Because I think this is a valid idea. I was anticipating objections, by racial essentialists, of all colors, to it on the basis of your and my supposed “white identity.” That might not have been clear.
It is now! Thank you very much for the clarification!
And yes, I imagine there will be push back by then regarding this concept, but that's ok. I support the free market of ideas and the critics that come with it.
In terms of what makes us human the color of our skin is no more relevant than the color of our hair or eyes. What is fundamental to all humans is the capacity to reason. Having the capacity does not guarantee that individuals will use it, but if they did the problem of 'race' would disappear.
is resolved we can definitively say that ownership of land should not be based on race. Like the disgraceful way some of the Los Angeles city council members seemed to be acting.
But it is a matter of the priorities of the problems. Malcolm X and MLK could have suggested mandatory accounting/finance in the schools for Black kids. What effect would that have had?
The Economic Power Game is more important than racism in my opinion. What does consumerism do for that?
Valid. One could argue that combatting racism should be a lower priority than combatting economic/financial illiteracy. I guess I shouldn’t have said one problem at a time, as that implies one problem is something that can be addressed at any given time. But I think it is reasonable to address the problem of racism and the problem of economic/financial literacy simultaneously. Given that the the latter is something people may have more control over than the former, the latter may have arguably more priority , specifically when it comes to improving the economic conditions of more black people. But, still we needn’t ignore racism, nor does it mean that racism wasn’t or isn’t a problem. Personally I’m glad there were civil rights activists decades ago; they overall had a positive impact. Can’t be so optimistic about the civil rights activists today though. Their impact is arguably mostly negative.
I think if we use our reason, the concept of race is still valid. Racism might disappear, but not race. Unfortunately, perhaps more fundamental to humans than the capacity to reason is our need for love and honor, which racial tribalism superficially provides a lot of people. It’s something reason alone cannot provide us.
I disagree. Contrary to thousands of years of philosophy, we do not love with our hearts, we love with our minds. It is our reasoning mind that tells us that something or somebody is worth loving and honoring. Imagine how much damage you can do to your life , if you simply love or honor at random with no thought as to the consequences. Only reason, properly executed, can bring us the greatest value to our lives and keep the disasters at bay. This is why I claim that if everyone used reason the problem of 'race' would disappear. There is nothing in a person's skin color just as there is nothing in their hair color that fundamentally makes them who they are. It is your reasoning mind that allows you to understand that fact. All those years ago Dr. Martin Luther King got it right in his famous speech. He was advocating using your mind to judge a man's character, while dismissing the irrelevancy of his skin color. If everyone followed that prescription, the different races would still exist, but they would be irrelevant to the very serious matter of judging and interacting and loving and honoring our fellow human beings. Nothing has changed.
“Contrary to thousands of years of philosophy, we do not love with our hearts, we love with our minds. “
I said nothing about hearts and minds. And my view is not at all any sort of consensus view of thousands of years of philosophy. There is little if any consensus in thousands of years of philosophy.
“It is our reasoning mind that tells us that something or somebody is worth loving and honoring. “
It is both our reason and and our emotion that are necessary to determine what is worth loving and honoring. Reason can only make inferences about sensual data, determine logical validity and soundness of symbolic abstractions, and construct models based on that sensual data and symbolic abstractions. It can’t determine whether any of that stuff is beautiful, good, noble, sad, tragic, triumphant, or anything else in the realm of emotion. That all comes from our emotion. Reason can give us a gray scale map of our world, but emotion fills it with color and provides us with direction.
“Imagine how much damage you can do to your life , if you simply love or honor at random with no thought as to the consequences.”
I didn’t write anything of the sort. I just wrote that our need for love and honor was more fundamental than our reason. I didn’t say that our reason wasn’t important. I think our reasoning is extremely important, but it is impotent without our emotion. And more specifically, the needs for honor and love often shape how we reason more than the way we reason shapes our needs of honor and love. It’s a two way street, but the power of emotions often can lead us down some bizarre paths of reasoning if we are not vigilant with our rational integrity.
“This is why I claim that if everyone used reason the problem of 'race' would disappear. There is nothing in a person's skin color just as there is nothing in their hair color that fundamentally makes them who they are. “
The author of the essay is not only arguing that the problems of race would disappear if we reasoned different, they are arguing that the concept of race is irrational. I do think that for many people the problems of race would disappear if they applied their reasoning better, but unfortunately many people are very adept at using their reasoning poorly on particular topics, race being one of them. And the reason people can often poorly apply their powers of reason on the topic of race is because it is so intensely emotional.
“He was advocating using your mind to judge a man's character, while dismissing the irrelevancy of his skin color.”
He was advocating judging people based on some characteristics rather than others. He and we cannot judge others without our emotion and our reasoning, regardless of the characteristics we judge them on.
“If everyone followed that prescription, the different races would still exist, but they would be irrelevant to the very serious matter of judging and interacting and loving and honoring our fellow human beings. “
Yes I agree, if we judged people simply based on their character (and personality) , we would be honoring and loving people and race would be irrelevant to it. Race would still exist, but not matter. But why do people judge people on their race? Probably because they have reasoned that peoples’ race controls their character and personality. And why have they reasoned that? Probably because they are emotionally invested in some way--e.g., love, honor, safety. I believe their reasoning is technically flawed; nonetheless it also satisfies some of their needs that often take precedence over the raw truth. Perhaps they *shouldnt* take precedence in this circumstance, but that judgement cannot be evoked without emotion -- and reason. And if people are going to find another source of love and honor, it isn’t going to be pure reason. It’s going to be in their relationships with other people.
“Nothing has changed.”
Well, the author of this original essay is not arguing simply to judge people based on their character, he is arguing that the concept of race itself is an impediment to judging people based on their character. He is arguing that believing in the concept of race and acknowledging race to exist at all is a form of racism.
The problem with your argument is you lay blame on the victims of racial ideation for the persuasion of a shitstem they have NO CHOICE but function within, if they remain part of the shitstem.
For instance, I had taught my son from toddler days that his race is human. You know who beat that out of him? The school system. He had to choose a “race” as defined by the shitstem, i.e. by White Power. And “human” was not an option.
And from that forced identification comes all the “racelining” you suggest exists. Why? @Because if I’m FORCED into a racialized slot against my will, then I’m damn sure gonna set standards of my own, to give me SOME modicum of say within the prison to which I’ve been confined.”
The other choice, & choice I follow, is to withdraw from the shitstem and have as little reason as possible to ever declare a “race” that conforms to the standards established by white power.
I lay no intentional blame on anyone. I'm unsure where this idea came across but if you can provide the evidences I'd be happy to request a revisement.
Racelining does not require a "victim" per se.
It does however, ask us to look at how race(ism) is used to place individuals into boxes.
It sounds to me from your examples, that you're confirming you or your son were racelined and you chose to fight against that.
I'm not sure if you misread the intent of the article, but I can assure you there is no "victim" requirement but instead an understanding of how race(ism) was used on your son.
It also sounds like you and I may agree on much more than you give me credit for.
I appreciate your engagement. And maybe indeed I misread. I can concede that too.
Yes, he was racelined. But there was no fighting back. If you’re in the system, you check the box & all that comes with it.
Now, with another go a parenthood we are homeschooling. We understand what Carter G. Woodson means when he speaks of the “miseducation of the Negro.” And the main miseducation is thinking the system that never truly freed you would provide an education that would lead to your freedom.
I think it quite possible we’d agree as well. It may take exploration of nuance, but agreement is always available to those who submit to the Truth & Life. 🙏🏾
I will. Not familiar with him. But that’s an effort that’s been pursued & blocked for quite some time. No one really wants to do away with it because everyone (of society’s overseers) profits from a system of racialized division.
Lots of people do not benefit from the current division but are trying to survive it.
What can "Jews" for example do? If "Jews" are labeled as "Jews" in statistics; the outsized socio-economic performance of Jews becomes evident in statistics. Which the US woke and globalized woke will weaponize and use against Jews. And which will generate a lot of violence against Jews inside the USA or world.
Ergo, Jews might benefit from being part of a larger "group" and allied with other groups that can protect Jews from persecution and violence.
Is the problem today less the multiplicity, nonbinary, diversity and difference but rather the weaponization of the same by hostile actors. (In practice many of these identify as "woke" or are identified by others as "woke." But they are far from the only ones.)
Elly, many would argue that Canada and France have done precisely that.
How well has it worked out in Canada and France?
Many say that France and Canada are more bigoted and prejudiced than the USA.
+++++++++++++++++++
Elly, what does Dr. Hoyt propose? Only having ethnic classifications? Would "latino" be allowed? Would "asian" be allowed for those who prefer it? Would everyone be allowed to have many (more than a dozen) classifications?
Technically the vast majority of Mexicans and Latinos have immigrant ancestors. Ergo someone might be a Greek, Assyiryan, Armenian, Yoruba Nigerian ancestry Mexican American. Or a Greek Sistan Iranian Cuban American. Etc.
Asians also often have ancestry from many asian countries at the same time because of mass movement of people within Asia. Why force a Chinese Vietnamese Thai (many Chinese Vietnamese were forced to flee to other asian countries) to choose specific asian countries? Many asians in asia like "asian" identification.
Similarly pan Africanism is a thing in Africa. Many Africans would prefer to be identified as "Africans" versus specific African countries.
Yes, I have heard that about France, but not Canada. Dr. Hoyt has broken down the census in a way that is hard to describe, but seems to override the problems they had in France. Go to his website or Google him.
1. You should look deeply into the Friston “Free Energy Principle” and Autopoesis, both of which touch on some ideas you reference - like “uncertainty avoidance”. Self-perpetuating systems depend on identifying uncertainty (Friston “Surprise”) and expending energy to maintain homeostasis, a kind of “temperature”, or predictability. The most effective systems at minimizing surprise (the average of “surprise” over time is “disorder” or entropy) are the most energy-efficient and durable. The mathematics behind it, statistical thermodynamics, are rigorous and amazing. It gives the actual ability to quantify the outrageous cost, for instance, of maintaining a nonsensical state of racism in a society, through the same mathematics that drives quantum gravity. Love to chat sometime.
2. I think I was 6 or 7 when my parents tried to explain racism to me. I remember it in high detail as why calling an adult man “boy” was inappropriate in any situation (it involved a strange tense moment I didn’t understand in a TV show with Flip Wilson) and particularly if they were of African ancestry. That was 50 years ago when I grasped that race wasn’t real in the same way that “Santa Claus” was a fiction. I decided people who believed in it were deluded. I subsequently learned the history of racist pseudoscience along with “physiognomy” and “phrenology” - attempting to assign human behavioral traits based on observed superficial physical features or “phenotypes”. I’m completely in alignment with Dr. Sheena Mason.
3. About the same time as this I realized that many people had supernaturalist beliefs - gods, ghosts, and superstitions - which I also found to be a deluded way of explaining the universe. At the same I decided I was not atheist, or agnostic, but rather “anti-supernaturalist”, and tried to learn ways of coping with people who were.
4. Being an unusually bright child who was also astonishingly argumentative and arrogant (I call it my inner Sheldon), I made sure to tell anyone within earshot that racism was a pseudoscience; that belief in supernatural entities and forces was hokum, and anyone who believed in either was not very smart. Being a gay child in the Deep South, the Buckle of the Bible Belt, the general effect of all this this did not go well over time with the general public within earshot.
5. Today, our culture keeps dishing it out - from things like the mathematically dubious pseudo-science of “intersectionality” to the radically corrupt supernaturality of “trans” and “gender” sex fetishism imposed on children, my only hope is that over time more and more people adopt the stance that when something becomes a cult that seeks to impose a cult will on a group of people, that we run from it as fast as possible.
I am going to be a jerk, and possibly an asshole, and jerk this in a slightly different direction.
I searched this essay for 'science', 'technology' and 'economics'. The only result was a couple of occurrences of 'socio-economics'. The current state of the world is the result of Europeans developing some "useful" technologies before anyone else. For more than 300 years Europeans had the oceans to themselves and only had to compete with other Europeans. I think this went to their heads and many, if not most, chose to believe their own delusions. One white man with some real brains figures out something great and a thousand white morons jump up and shout, "See how intelligent WE are." Of course any idiot can shoot a machine gun.
See, I told you I might be an asshole.
My perspective of reality is unquestionably an effect of my starting to read science fiction in 4th grade. The other kids in The Projects called me "Goofus". Some nun told me, "You will get into a good high school but you won't do well." She was mad because I refused to be a patrol boy. If I had to fight with the stupid bitch then that was what was going to happen but she didn't push it that far. Maybe she was correct if seen in a certain light. I got straight D's in religion my freshman year to go along with my straight A's in mathematics. That science fiction influence again.
I decided that I was an agnostic in 7th grade and stopped going to the Catholic church right after grade school graduation. The concepts of atheism and agnosticism were in a number of SF books. A certain percentage of white people consider a rather large percentage of white people to be dummies. They also know that they are outnumbered. Two short stories to check:
The first story is from the 1950s and a lot like the movie Idiocracy. Heinlein was more subtle with a colony on the Moon. It even turned up later with NASA. Every one of the Mercury astronauts had an IQ score of at least 130. Sending people into space will be very expensive for a long time to come. Mistakes could get people killed and destroy a lot of equipment that cost a lot just to get into space. Governments and corporations are not going to send people up who are less than very smart. So a Moon colony will be filled with only those people.
So why have I gone on for what has already been to long? I just came back from a break in fact.
The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about Black people!
The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about
White people!
They do not give a damn about the Human Race!
We could all go the way of the dinosaurs and they would be incapable of noticing.
But there is cobalt in the Congo. I just learned recently that there is more cobalt in Africa than in the rest of the world. That brings us back to socio-economics and technology. I do not know how much cobalt is in this Samsung smartphone that I am typing on right now. Was it dug by Black children who will never get to own anything like it? What has Oprah Winfrey said about it? LOL
I swear these smartphones are science fiction.
Beam me up Scotty. There is no intelligent life down here.
I think pretending race does not exist is like pretending that I cannot tell the difference between a Dalmatian, a Collie and a German Shepherd. I do consider some dogs to be better looking than other dogs. I'm a dog racist. So sue me!
But our global socio-economic power games are wrapped up with technology. The sociologogists, psychologists and literary intellectuals are not going to psychologize this away. Notice that economists do not talk about planned obsolescence of the technology or the depreciation thereof.
When Black People get their act together with technology and economics there can be some progress.
By the way, you white guys going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete is nothing but consumer slavery to me. Try finding an economist who can tell you the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik.
Just encountered this 3/30/23:
A HISTORY OF COMMERCE
BY CLIVE DAY, Ph.D.
KNOX PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN YALE UNIVERSITY 1925
Android is built on Linux. You think everyone with an Android phone is good at STEM? You can insert absurdities into what I actually say if you want. I am not interested in following them.
I have no nationalistic feelings about the US to address your earlier comment.
Nothing less than expected, until we recognize the damage this illusory categorization of race has caused humanity, we will keep repeating the mistakes. This is a first step towards abolish race. Well done Steve
This comment is addressing this essay and the prior essay recently published by FBT by Tabia Lee that discussed the theory of racelessness that this essay references.
I appreciate the desire to challenge the dominant race ideology that currently asserts authoritarian control over many of our institutions, and I think it would be fruitful to introduce people to various race ideologies that exist. According to the classification of ideologies that is discussed I am somewhere between a “race naturalist” and a “race constructionist.” I think exposing students and teachers to race elimitivism would be a good thing though even if I don’t think it is the most accurate way we can understand race and racism.
Personally I think that race can quite comfortably and rationally be viewed as a a biological phenomenon while also accepting that the folk categories of race, such as black, white, asian, etc, are “social constructions” -- basically erroneous and arbitrary abstractions that only vaguely adhere to what would be rationally valid and they have served to delineate the boundaries of various socially constructed tribes of people.
I find it not at all complicated to conceive of the fact that people have biological lineages wider than our family lineages, and at a certain width of those lineages, when it gets quite vast, that is understandably called a “race.” At the most vast point is the human “race.” Where any “race” begins and ends though is somewhat arbitrary, but there may be more sensible points of division than others, such as points of greater or lesser random inter geographical mating. Since we have such biological lineages, regardless of what they mean about any individuals within those lineages, race exists. To say that race doesn’t exist is not compelling to me given the fact that such an empirically sound concept of race, at least somewhat analogous in contour, can be found all the way back to the ancient Greeks and around the globe historically and anthropologically. To say race doesn’t exist requires an unjustified amount of linguistic and conceptual contortion.
As for the idea of racism, from its earliest usages it has referred to the categorization of races and value judgements toward a race or people perceived to be part of a race, and as it has developed through history, has to my knowledge had a negative connotation. Regardless of what racism may be, it is immoral. The connotation of it as being immoral is now lodged into the conscience of most people I suspect and it isnt going to budge. Nor do I think we should budge it. It’s fine as something immoral. But if it’s going to be immoral, it certainly shouldn’t point to something that is okay.
Believing in race and races is okay; there shouldn’t be a moral taint to that. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and such beliefs, alone, don’t automatically guide a person down the road of racial bigotry. Yes one could say it is necessary, but so is rationality itself, but I suspect a race elimitivist isn’t going to disparage reasoning. Racial bigotry only comes from rigid, irrationally held prejudices toward individuals because of their conceived race. That I consider the most basic and fundamental form of “racism”. That I think is immoral. We should disparage it. And I think there are other things we could reasonably classify as racism, and think we should. For example, I consider racial tribalism immoral — and by racial tribalism I mean shame, blame, praise, hate, or love toward other people based on their conceived race or toward ourselves based on our own conceived race. I’m alright with calling that racism. What you term “racelining” stems from racial tribalism. And likewise, I’m alright with calling that racism. I’m not alright with calling the belief in races racism. That is erroneous, as it implies believing in race is immoral, which I feel it certainly isn’t. If anything, since I think believing in a concept of race is the most rationally sound approach that I have thus far encountered, it is right, not simply okay, to believe in race.
In practice is "racelessness" really the promotion of a type of either:
---positive hyper ethno-nationalist patriotism
---positive global transhumanism (which in its worse forms conforms to "we are all the same around the world")
I think in practice what most "racelessness" advocates mean is positive hyper ethno-nationalist patriotism for ones' own country. For example:
--for people who live in the USA they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist USA patriotism
--for people who live in Canada they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist Canadian patriotism
--for people who live in England they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist English or British patriotism
--for people who live in Ireland they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist Irish patriotism
Don't see what else can be meant. There is a vast nonbinary multiplicity and diversity of global surface culture, deep culture and shared global consciousness. Wonder if the desire to impose sameness versus celebrating and respecting multiplicity originated from churchianity and extreme islamism?
"And it hurt. I'm Dominican, but was constantly told I didn't act Dominican. And in response to these insults, I made a clown of myself trying to get the “right” clothes and force-feeding myself the “right” music so that “my people” would accept and include me."
What does this have to do with "race" or "racism"? "Dominican" is an ethnicity and for those who identify as "Dominicans" to work out. Why should non Dominicans but in except in extremis? [An example of extremis would be if it is resulting in mass violence, assault, rape, murder.]
If someone who lives outside of the Dominican Republic is not accepted as "Dominican", can't they identify with the culture of the country they moved to? For example a Domincan American can choose to simply identify as "American." Why is this a big deal of not being accepted as ethnically Dominican?
Many young Americans are soft and easily triggered/offended. This is an existential threat to the survival of the USA at a time when the USA's share of global wealth and income are dropping fast and America's enemies are closing in.
What is wrong with telling American children . . . others have freedom of art, thought and speech. They have the right to think bigoted and prejudiced things about you. They have the right to disrespect you, despise you and dislike you. Just because they think them does not make them true. Be strong and succeed anyway. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot harm me."
The concept of ethnicity is simply a euphemism for race. It provides no conceptual benefit over more distinct concepts such as race, culture, and nationality. In fact, it tends to muddle them together. It’s primarily function today is for racial tribalists to encourage pride or affinity for a race without invoking the language of race.
“Be strong and succeed anyway. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot harm me."
The reality is that words do harm people. We are social beings, and what some people say to us or about us can cause pain. The only people exempt from this law are sociopaths and solipsists. Neither of which is something a person should be proud of.
That doesn’t mean society should treat what people say like daggers and guns, but it is absurd and mean to hold the expectation that people are never hurt by what some people say.
People may have the legal right to be bigots, but it doesn’t follow that they have the moral right.
"redlining, which is an illegal discriminatory practice in which a mortgage lender denies loans or an insurance provider restricts services to certain areas of a community, often because of the racial characteristics of the applicants.
Redlining was formalized and codified by law in the Jim Crow era. It first originated during chattel slavery in the U.S. as the practice of placing enslaved Americans in the least desirable areas of plantations. This later became the blueprint for redlining. Under Jim Crow, maps were outlined with red ink (hence the term “redlining”) thereby “filtering” entire groups of Americans into or out of specific residential areas based on racialization, ethnicity, and class. "
Redlining was an early attempt at giving credit scores to potential borrowers and business partners based on incomplete information. Because of insufficient information there were credit "market failures." The lending institutions lost money by losing higher credit higher interest rate paying borrowers. The largest victims of "redlining" were the institutions who engaged in it because it lowered their risk adjusted NPV profits.
The best way to deal with challenges like this is to deregulate the financial industry, allow in foreign financial institutions and make "redlining" legal.
Competition in the financial industry and spreadsheets/databases killed redlining. Competition because there was a high incentive for financial institutions (domestic or foreign) to get as much profitable business as they could in redlined areas.
And secondly new technology made more accurate credit assessment cheaper.
"Racism" is incompatible with capitalism. Why would businesses leave profits on the table because they are "racist"? If they are "racist" they will be less profitable than non "racist" businesses and be driven out of business.
Trust in people. Trust in allowing people the freedom to make their own choices however they please.
Using the legal system to deal with "racism" has generally been economically harmful wherever in the world it has been used. And greatly harmed the people against whom "racism" was directed. It is far better to give people freedom and work on surface culture, deep culture and shared consciousness. And work on maximizing real GDP per capita growth (or long term total factor productivity + high savings rates).
I suspect much of the widening in socio-economic gaps between ADOS and non ADOS inside the USA since the 1970s has been because of "racism" laws and regulation. Another large cause has probably been the psychological war directed against ADOS by the European Intelligentsia. One of the main valences along which this psychological war is directed since the 1960s is "Afro pessimism."
The way to discuss racism inside the USA is to speak the truth. The US share of global income and global wealth is dropping fast. The USA's enemies are becoming stronger and dismantling the USA. The only way the USA survives is if African ancestry Americans embody excellence, perfection and merit and save the USA. And if the USA can attract a lot of talented African ancestry immigrants.
Awesome clarity. I see I have another brother in the devotion to the brilliance and deeply humanistic insight of Dr. Sheena Mason. You are building on her work and extending the conversation to help us all grapple with the current wave of DEI ensconced in the D'Angelo/Kendi ideology. Thank you for writing this so well and thank you FBT for publishing.
Absolutely and thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.
Dr. Mason has been an amazing person in my life for the last two years and has spent countless hours helping me understand her ideas. She is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant among us.
Yes, I believe she has a huge breakthrough place in this discussion in the coming years. She is in another league altogether and I support her every step of the way. And you have done so much to extend this kind of thinking into the levels where it can go.
See you on the other side, Steve!
Thank you for reading and I'll see you there as well!
Can we dare to agree if we’re “white” (as he appears to be)? And if we agree with anyone, white, black, or other, who says we’re not allowed to weigh in on the question of “race-lining” because we’re “white,” are we exercising race-lining too?
Remember, this is only a diagnostic conception for us to be able to identify how racism functions in a specific aspect of our daily lives.
You absolutely have the right to an opinion. Racelining isn't about whether or not you disagree with something, more so it's about seeing how race(ism) interacts in the parts of our lives we may not always see or realize we're doing.
Keep in mind, as I argue from a skeptic eliminativist position, "White", "Black", etc... Do not exist except in the conceptual framework of modern race invented 500 years ago. You start out human, race puts you in a box. Racelining allows us to see the box and deal with it accordingly.
Thank you for reading the article and for taking the time to comment and challenge me!
I should’ve set up my comment with a “Right on!” Because I think this is a valid idea. I was anticipating objections, by racial essentialists, of all colors, to it on the basis of your and my supposed “white identity.” That might not have been clear.
It is now! Thank you very much for the clarification!
And yes, I imagine there will be push back by then regarding this concept, but that's ok. I support the free market of ideas and the critics that come with it.
In terms of what makes us human the color of our skin is no more relevant than the color of our hair or eyes. What is fundamental to all humans is the capacity to reason. Having the capacity does not guarantee that individuals will use it, but if they did the problem of 'race' would disappear.
I wholeheartedly agree sir.
If the "problem of race" disappeared wouldn't that still leave the problems of who "owns what land" and who has to "pay to live" on the planet?
One problem at a time. At least when that problem
is resolved we can definitively say that ownership of land should not be based on race. Like the disgraceful way some of the Los Angeles city council members seemed to be acting.
But it is a matter of the priorities of the problems. Malcolm X and MLK could have suggested mandatory accounting/finance in the schools for Black kids. What effect would that have had?
The Economic Power Game is more important than racism in my opinion. What does consumerism do for that?
Valid. One could argue that combatting racism should be a lower priority than combatting economic/financial illiteracy. I guess I shouldn’t have said one problem at a time, as that implies one problem is something that can be addressed at any given time. But I think it is reasonable to address the problem of racism and the problem of economic/financial literacy simultaneously. Given that the the latter is something people may have more control over than the former, the latter may have arguably more priority , specifically when it comes to improving the economic conditions of more black people. But, still we needn’t ignore racism, nor does it mean that racism wasn’t or isn’t a problem. Personally I’m glad there were civil rights activists decades ago; they overall had a positive impact. Can’t be so optimistic about the civil rights activists today though. Their impact is arguably mostly negative.
I think if we use our reason, the concept of race is still valid. Racism might disappear, but not race. Unfortunately, perhaps more fundamental to humans than the capacity to reason is our need for love and honor, which racial tribalism superficially provides a lot of people. It’s something reason alone cannot provide us.
I disagree. Contrary to thousands of years of philosophy, we do not love with our hearts, we love with our minds. It is our reasoning mind that tells us that something or somebody is worth loving and honoring. Imagine how much damage you can do to your life , if you simply love or honor at random with no thought as to the consequences. Only reason, properly executed, can bring us the greatest value to our lives and keep the disasters at bay. This is why I claim that if everyone used reason the problem of 'race' would disappear. There is nothing in a person's skin color just as there is nothing in their hair color that fundamentally makes them who they are. It is your reasoning mind that allows you to understand that fact. All those years ago Dr. Martin Luther King got it right in his famous speech. He was advocating using your mind to judge a man's character, while dismissing the irrelevancy of his skin color. If everyone followed that prescription, the different races would still exist, but they would be irrelevant to the very serious matter of judging and interacting and loving and honoring our fellow human beings. Nothing has changed.
“Contrary to thousands of years of philosophy, we do not love with our hearts, we love with our minds. “
I said nothing about hearts and minds. And my view is not at all any sort of consensus view of thousands of years of philosophy. There is little if any consensus in thousands of years of philosophy.
“It is our reasoning mind that tells us that something or somebody is worth loving and honoring. “
It is both our reason and and our emotion that are necessary to determine what is worth loving and honoring. Reason can only make inferences about sensual data, determine logical validity and soundness of symbolic abstractions, and construct models based on that sensual data and symbolic abstractions. It can’t determine whether any of that stuff is beautiful, good, noble, sad, tragic, triumphant, or anything else in the realm of emotion. That all comes from our emotion. Reason can give us a gray scale map of our world, but emotion fills it with color and provides us with direction.
“Imagine how much damage you can do to your life , if you simply love or honor at random with no thought as to the consequences.”
I didn’t write anything of the sort. I just wrote that our need for love and honor was more fundamental than our reason. I didn’t say that our reason wasn’t important. I think our reasoning is extremely important, but it is impotent without our emotion. And more specifically, the needs for honor and love often shape how we reason more than the way we reason shapes our needs of honor and love. It’s a two way street, but the power of emotions often can lead us down some bizarre paths of reasoning if we are not vigilant with our rational integrity.
“This is why I claim that if everyone used reason the problem of 'race' would disappear. There is nothing in a person's skin color just as there is nothing in their hair color that fundamentally makes them who they are. “
The author of the essay is not only arguing that the problems of race would disappear if we reasoned different, they are arguing that the concept of race is irrational. I do think that for many people the problems of race would disappear if they applied their reasoning better, but unfortunately many people are very adept at using their reasoning poorly on particular topics, race being one of them. And the reason people can often poorly apply their powers of reason on the topic of race is because it is so intensely emotional.
“He was advocating using your mind to judge a man's character, while dismissing the irrelevancy of his skin color.”
He was advocating judging people based on some characteristics rather than others. He and we cannot judge others without our emotion and our reasoning, regardless of the characteristics we judge them on.
“If everyone followed that prescription, the different races would still exist, but they would be irrelevant to the very serious matter of judging and interacting and loving and honoring our fellow human beings. “
Yes I agree, if we judged people simply based on their character (and personality) , we would be honoring and loving people and race would be irrelevant to it. Race would still exist, but not matter. But why do people judge people on their race? Probably because they have reasoned that peoples’ race controls their character and personality. And why have they reasoned that? Probably because they are emotionally invested in some way--e.g., love, honor, safety. I believe their reasoning is technically flawed; nonetheless it also satisfies some of their needs that often take precedence over the raw truth. Perhaps they *shouldnt* take precedence in this circumstance, but that judgement cannot be evoked without emotion -- and reason. And if people are going to find another source of love and honor, it isn’t going to be pure reason. It’s going to be in their relationships with other people.
“Nothing has changed.”
Well, the author of this original essay is not arguing simply to judge people based on their character, he is arguing that the concept of race itself is an impediment to judging people based on their character. He is arguing that believing in the concept of race and acknowledging race to exist at all is a form of racism.
The problem with your argument is you lay blame on the victims of racial ideation for the persuasion of a shitstem they have NO CHOICE but function within, if they remain part of the shitstem.
For instance, I had taught my son from toddler days that his race is human. You know who beat that out of him? The school system. He had to choose a “race” as defined by the shitstem, i.e. by White Power. And “human” was not an option.
And from that forced identification comes all the “racelining” you suggest exists. Why? @Because if I’m FORCED into a racialized slot against my will, then I’m damn sure gonna set standards of my own, to give me SOME modicum of say within the prison to which I’ve been confined.”
The other choice, & choice I follow, is to withdraw from the shitstem and have as little reason as possible to ever declare a “race” that conforms to the standards established by white power.
I lay no intentional blame on anyone. I'm unsure where this idea came across but if you can provide the evidences I'd be happy to request a revisement.
Racelining does not require a "victim" per se.
It does however, ask us to look at how race(ism) is used to place individuals into boxes.
It sounds to me from your examples, that you're confirming you or your son were racelined and you chose to fight against that.
I'm not sure if you misread the intent of the article, but I can assure you there is no "victim" requirement but instead an understanding of how race(ism) was used on your son.
It also sounds like you and I may agree on much more than you give me credit for.
Thank you for reading and challenging my ideas!
I appreciate your engagement. And maybe indeed I misread. I can concede that too.
Yes, he was racelined. But there was no fighting back. If you’re in the system, you check the box & all that comes with it.
Now, with another go a parenthood we are homeschooling. We understand what Carter G. Woodson means when he speaks of the “miseducation of the Negro.” And the main miseducation is thinking the system that never truly freed you would provide an education that would lead to your freedom.
I think it quite possible we’d agree as well. It may take exploration of nuance, but agreement is always available to those who submit to the Truth & Life. 🙏🏾
🙏🙏🙏
Look up the work of Dr. Carlos Hoyt. He is proposing removing racial categories from the US Census.
I will. Not familiar with him. But that’s an effort that’s been pursued & blocked for quite some time. No one really wants to do away with it because everyone (of society’s overseers) profits from a system of racialized division.
Lots of people do not benefit from the current division but are trying to survive it.
What can "Jews" for example do? If "Jews" are labeled as "Jews" in statistics; the outsized socio-economic performance of Jews becomes evident in statistics. Which the US woke and globalized woke will weaponize and use against Jews. And which will generate a lot of violence against Jews inside the USA or world.
Ergo, Jews might benefit from being part of a larger "group" and allied with other groups that can protect Jews from persecution and violence.
Is the problem today less the multiplicity, nonbinary, diversity and difference but rather the weaponization of the same by hostile actors. (In practice many of these identify as "woke" or are identified by others as "woke." But they are far from the only ones.)
Elly, many would argue that Canada and France have done precisely that.
How well has it worked out in Canada and France?
Many say that France and Canada are more bigoted and prejudiced than the USA.
+++++++++++++++++++
Elly, what does Dr. Hoyt propose? Only having ethnic classifications? Would "latino" be allowed? Would "asian" be allowed for those who prefer it? Would everyone be allowed to have many (more than a dozen) classifications?
Technically the vast majority of Mexicans and Latinos have immigrant ancestors. Ergo someone might be a Greek, Assyiryan, Armenian, Yoruba Nigerian ancestry Mexican American. Or a Greek Sistan Iranian Cuban American. Etc.
Asians also often have ancestry from many asian countries at the same time because of mass movement of people within Asia. Why force a Chinese Vietnamese Thai (many Chinese Vietnamese were forced to flee to other asian countries) to choose specific asian countries? Many asians in asia like "asian" identification.
Similarly pan Africanism is a thing in Africa. Many Africans would prefer to be identified as "Africans" versus specific African countries.
Yes, I have heard that about France, but not Canada. Dr. Hoyt has broken down the census in a way that is hard to describe, but seems to override the problems they had in France. Go to his website or Google him.
1. You should look deeply into the Friston “Free Energy Principle” and Autopoesis, both of which touch on some ideas you reference - like “uncertainty avoidance”. Self-perpetuating systems depend on identifying uncertainty (Friston “Surprise”) and expending energy to maintain homeostasis, a kind of “temperature”, or predictability. The most effective systems at minimizing surprise (the average of “surprise” over time is “disorder” or entropy) are the most energy-efficient and durable. The mathematics behind it, statistical thermodynamics, are rigorous and amazing. It gives the actual ability to quantify the outrageous cost, for instance, of maintaining a nonsensical state of racism in a society, through the same mathematics that drives quantum gravity. Love to chat sometime.
2. I think I was 6 or 7 when my parents tried to explain racism to me. I remember it in high detail as why calling an adult man “boy” was inappropriate in any situation (it involved a strange tense moment I didn’t understand in a TV show with Flip Wilson) and particularly if they were of African ancestry. That was 50 years ago when I grasped that race wasn’t real in the same way that “Santa Claus” was a fiction. I decided people who believed in it were deluded. I subsequently learned the history of racist pseudoscience along with “physiognomy” and “phrenology” - attempting to assign human behavioral traits based on observed superficial physical features or “phenotypes”. I’m completely in alignment with Dr. Sheena Mason.
3. About the same time as this I realized that many people had supernaturalist beliefs - gods, ghosts, and superstitions - which I also found to be a deluded way of explaining the universe. At the same I decided I was not atheist, or agnostic, but rather “anti-supernaturalist”, and tried to learn ways of coping with people who were.
4. Being an unusually bright child who was also astonishingly argumentative and arrogant (I call it my inner Sheldon), I made sure to tell anyone within earshot that racism was a pseudoscience; that belief in supernatural entities and forces was hokum, and anyone who believed in either was not very smart. Being a gay child in the Deep South, the Buckle of the Bible Belt, the general effect of all this this did not go well over time with the general public within earshot.
5. Today, our culture keeps dishing it out - from things like the mathematically dubious pseudo-science of “intersectionality” to the radically corrupt supernaturality of “trans” and “gender” sex fetishism imposed on children, my only hope is that over time more and more people adopt the stance that when something becomes a cult that seeks to impose a cult will on a group of people, that we run from it as fast as possible.
6. Thanks for a sharp article.
I am going to be a jerk, and possibly an asshole, and jerk this in a slightly different direction.
I searched this essay for 'science', 'technology' and 'economics'. The only result was a couple of occurrences of 'socio-economics'. The current state of the world is the result of Europeans developing some "useful" technologies before anyone else. For more than 300 years Europeans had the oceans to themselves and only had to compete with other Europeans. I think this went to their heads and many, if not most, chose to believe their own delusions. One white man with some real brains figures out something great and a thousand white morons jump up and shout, "See how intelligent WE are." Of course any idiot can shoot a machine gun.
See, I told you I might be an asshole.
My perspective of reality is unquestionably an effect of my starting to read science fiction in 4th grade. The other kids in The Projects called me "Goofus". Some nun told me, "You will get into a good high school but you won't do well." She was mad because I refused to be a patrol boy. If I had to fight with the stupid bitch then that was what was going to happen but she didn't push it that far. Maybe she was correct if seen in a certain light. I got straight D's in religion my freshman year to go along with my straight A's in mathematics. That science fiction influence again.
I decided that I was an agnostic in 7th grade and stopped going to the Catholic church right after grade school graduation. The concepts of atheism and agnosticism were in a number of SF books. A certain percentage of white people consider a rather large percentage of white people to be dummies. They also know that they are outnumbered. Two short stories to check:
Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth
https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/51233/pg51233-images.html
It's Great to be Back (1947) by Robert Heinlein
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Great_to_Be_Back!
The first story is from the 1950s and a lot like the movie Idiocracy. Heinlein was more subtle with a colony on the Moon. It even turned up later with NASA. Every one of the Mercury astronauts had an IQ score of at least 130. Sending people into space will be very expensive for a long time to come. Mistakes could get people killed and destroy a lot of equipment that cost a lot just to get into space. Governments and corporations are not going to send people up who are less than very smart. So a Moon colony will be filled with only those people.
So why have I gone on for what has already been to long? I just came back from a break in fact.
The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about Black people!
The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about
White people!
They do not give a damn about the Human Race!
We could all go the way of the dinosaurs and they would be incapable of noticing.
But there is cobalt in the Congo. I just learned recently that there is more cobalt in Africa than in the rest of the world. That brings us back to socio-economics and technology. I do not know how much cobalt is in this Samsung smartphone that I am typing on right now. Was it dug by Black children who will never get to own anything like it? What has Oprah Winfrey said about it? LOL
I swear these smartphones are science fiction.
Beam me up Scotty. There is no intelligent life down here.
I think pretending race does not exist is like pretending that I cannot tell the difference between a Dalmatian, a Collie and a German Shepherd. I do consider some dogs to be better looking than other dogs. I'm a dog racist. So sue me!
But our global socio-economic power games are wrapped up with technology. The sociologogists, psychologists and literary intellectuals are not going to psychologize this away. Notice that economists do not talk about planned obsolescence of the technology or the depreciation thereof.
When Black People get their act together with technology and economics there can be some progress.
When Africa Awakes by Hubert Henry Harrison
https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/69712/pg69712-images.html
Gotta have some Science Fiction:
Black Man's Burden (1961) by Mack Reynolds http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/08/mack-reynolds-on-africa-islam-utopia-and-progress.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32390/32390-h/32390-h.htm
Border, Breed Nor Birth (1963) by Mack Reynolds http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30639/30639-h/30639-h.htm
By the way, you white guys going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete is nothing but consumer slavery to me. Try finding an economist who can tell you the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik.
Just encountered this 3/30/23:
A HISTORY OF COMMERCE
BY CLIVE DAY, Ph.D.
KNOX PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN YALE UNIVERSITY 1925
https://gutenberg.org/files/70410/70410-h/70410-h.htm
Before planned obsolescence & WWII & Global Warming. Lots of talk about COAL.
"When Black People get their act together with technology and economics there can be some progress.
When Africa Awakes by Hubert Henry Harrison"
Can you please elaborate on what you mean?
I would say that "When American People get their act together with technology and economics there can be some progress."
Do you agree?
Back around 2000 I suggested on a couple of Black websites that Black people worldwide standardize on Linux.
I didn't think there was a hope in hell of it happening but I was very curious about responses. I think I got 3.
Most of the supercomputers around the world today have Linux running them.
https://itsfoss.com/linux-runs-top-supercomputers/
Are you saying that all sub-saharan African ancestry people in the world should focus on becoming very good at STEM?
If so, you have a point. Would you say the same about all other people in the world in the world?
Android is built on Linux. You think everyone with an Android phone is good at STEM? You can insert absurdities into what I actually say if you want. I am not interested in following them.
I have no nationalistic feelings about the US to address your earlier comment.
Nothing less than expected, until we recognize the damage this illusory categorization of race has caused humanity, we will keep repeating the mistakes. This is a first step towards abolish race. Well done Steve
This comment is addressing this essay and the prior essay recently published by FBT by Tabia Lee that discussed the theory of racelessness that this essay references.
I appreciate the desire to challenge the dominant race ideology that currently asserts authoritarian control over many of our institutions, and I think it would be fruitful to introduce people to various race ideologies that exist. According to the classification of ideologies that is discussed I am somewhere between a “race naturalist” and a “race constructionist.” I think exposing students and teachers to race elimitivism would be a good thing though even if I don’t think it is the most accurate way we can understand race and racism.
Personally I think that race can quite comfortably and rationally be viewed as a a biological phenomenon while also accepting that the folk categories of race, such as black, white, asian, etc, are “social constructions” -- basically erroneous and arbitrary abstractions that only vaguely adhere to what would be rationally valid and they have served to delineate the boundaries of various socially constructed tribes of people.
I find it not at all complicated to conceive of the fact that people have biological lineages wider than our family lineages, and at a certain width of those lineages, when it gets quite vast, that is understandably called a “race.” At the most vast point is the human “race.” Where any “race” begins and ends though is somewhat arbitrary, but there may be more sensible points of division than others, such as points of greater or lesser random inter geographical mating. Since we have such biological lineages, regardless of what they mean about any individuals within those lineages, race exists. To say that race doesn’t exist is not compelling to me given the fact that such an empirically sound concept of race, at least somewhat analogous in contour, can be found all the way back to the ancient Greeks and around the globe historically and anthropologically. To say race doesn’t exist requires an unjustified amount of linguistic and conceptual contortion.
As for the idea of racism, from its earliest usages it has referred to the categorization of races and value judgements toward a race or people perceived to be part of a race, and as it has developed through history, has to my knowledge had a negative connotation. Regardless of what racism may be, it is immoral. The connotation of it as being immoral is now lodged into the conscience of most people I suspect and it isnt going to budge. Nor do I think we should budge it. It’s fine as something immoral. But if it’s going to be immoral, it certainly shouldn’t point to something that is okay.
Believing in race and races is okay; there shouldn’t be a moral taint to that. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and such beliefs, alone, don’t automatically guide a person down the road of racial bigotry. Yes one could say it is necessary, but so is rationality itself, but I suspect a race elimitivist isn’t going to disparage reasoning. Racial bigotry only comes from rigid, irrationally held prejudices toward individuals because of their conceived race. That I consider the most basic and fundamental form of “racism”. That I think is immoral. We should disparage it. And I think there are other things we could reasonably classify as racism, and think we should. For example, I consider racial tribalism immoral — and by racial tribalism I mean shame, blame, praise, hate, or love toward other people based on their conceived race or toward ourselves based on our own conceived race. I’m alright with calling that racism. What you term “racelining” stems from racial tribalism. And likewise, I’m alright with calling that racism. I’m not alright with calling the belief in races racism. That is erroneous, as it implies believing in race is immoral, which I feel it certainly isn’t. If anything, since I think believing in a concept of race is the most rationally sound approach that I have thus far encountered, it is right, not simply okay, to believe in race.
In practice is "racelessness" really the promotion of a type of either:
---positive hyper ethno-nationalist patriotism
---positive global transhumanism (which in its worse forms conforms to "we are all the same around the world")
I think in practice what most "racelessness" advocates mean is positive hyper ethno-nationalist patriotism for ones' own country. For example:
--for people who live in the USA they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist USA patriotism
--for people who live in Canada they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist Canadian patriotism
--for people who live in England they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist English or British patriotism
--for people who live in Ireland they mean positive hyper ethno-nationalist Irish patriotism
Don't see what else can be meant. There is a vast nonbinary multiplicity and diversity of global surface culture, deep culture and shared global consciousness. Wonder if the desire to impose sameness versus celebrating and respecting multiplicity originated from churchianity and extreme islamism?
"And it hurt. I'm Dominican, but was constantly told I didn't act Dominican. And in response to these insults, I made a clown of myself trying to get the “right” clothes and force-feeding myself the “right” music so that “my people” would accept and include me."
What does this have to do with "race" or "racism"? "Dominican" is an ethnicity and for those who identify as "Dominicans" to work out. Why should non Dominicans but in except in extremis? [An example of extremis would be if it is resulting in mass violence, assault, rape, murder.]
If someone who lives outside of the Dominican Republic is not accepted as "Dominican", can't they identify with the culture of the country they moved to? For example a Domincan American can choose to simply identify as "American." Why is this a big deal of not being accepted as ethnically Dominican?
Many young Americans are soft and easily triggered/offended. This is an existential threat to the survival of the USA at a time when the USA's share of global wealth and income are dropping fast and America's enemies are closing in.
What is wrong with telling American children . . . others have freedom of art, thought and speech. They have the right to think bigoted and prejudiced things about you. They have the right to disrespect you, despise you and dislike you. Just because they think them does not make them true. Be strong and succeed anyway. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot harm me."
The concept of ethnicity is simply a euphemism for race. It provides no conceptual benefit over more distinct concepts such as race, culture, and nationality. In fact, it tends to muddle them together. It’s primarily function today is for racial tribalists to encourage pride or affinity for a race without invoking the language of race.
“Be strong and succeed anyway. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot harm me."
The reality is that words do harm people. We are social beings, and what some people say to us or about us can cause pain. The only people exempt from this law are sociopaths and solipsists. Neither of which is something a person should be proud of.
That doesn’t mean society should treat what people say like daggers and guns, but it is absurd and mean to hold the expectation that people are never hurt by what some people say.
People may have the legal right to be bigots, but it doesn’t follow that they have the moral right.
"redlining, which is an illegal discriminatory practice in which a mortgage lender denies loans or an insurance provider restricts services to certain areas of a community, often because of the racial characteristics of the applicants.
Redlining was formalized and codified by law in the Jim Crow era. It first originated during chattel slavery in the U.S. as the practice of placing enslaved Americans in the least desirable areas of plantations. This later became the blueprint for redlining. Under Jim Crow, maps were outlined with red ink (hence the term “redlining”) thereby “filtering” entire groups of Americans into or out of specific residential areas based on racialization, ethnicity, and class. "
Redlining was an early attempt at giving credit scores to potential borrowers and business partners based on incomplete information. Because of insufficient information there were credit "market failures." The lending institutions lost money by losing higher credit higher interest rate paying borrowers. The largest victims of "redlining" were the institutions who engaged in it because it lowered their risk adjusted NPV profits.
The best way to deal with challenges like this is to deregulate the financial industry, allow in foreign financial institutions and make "redlining" legal.
Competition in the financial industry and spreadsheets/databases killed redlining. Competition because there was a high incentive for financial institutions (domestic or foreign) to get as much profitable business as they could in redlined areas.
And secondly new technology made more accurate credit assessment cheaper.
"Racism" is incompatible with capitalism. Why would businesses leave profits on the table because they are "racist"? If they are "racist" they will be less profitable than non "racist" businesses and be driven out of business.
Trust in people. Trust in allowing people the freedom to make their own choices however they please.
Using the legal system to deal with "racism" has generally been economically harmful wherever in the world it has been used. And greatly harmed the people against whom "racism" was directed. It is far better to give people freedom and work on surface culture, deep culture and shared consciousness. And work on maximizing real GDP per capita growth (or long term total factor productivity + high savings rates).
I suspect much of the widening in socio-economic gaps between ADOS and non ADOS inside the USA since the 1970s has been because of "racism" laws and regulation. Another large cause has probably been the psychological war directed against ADOS by the European Intelligentsia. One of the main valences along which this psychological war is directed since the 1960s is "Afro pessimism."
The way to discuss racism inside the USA is to speak the truth. The US share of global income and global wealth is dropping fast. The USA's enemies are becoming stronger and dismantling the USA. The only way the USA survives is if African ancestry Americans embody excellence, perfection and merit and save the USA. And if the USA can attract a lot of talented African ancestry immigrants.