Just a reminder that the concept of race was invented to justify colonialisation, to de-humanise the colonialised populations so that Europeans could slaughter them without feeling guilty, and to divide the working class/serfs/slaves.
'White' is not a race, because a 'white' Dutch person is different than a 'white' Ukrainian person. Same way 'black' is a ridiculous label because 'black' people from Kenya are different than the 'black' people from Morocco. When you laugh at Zig Forumsyps and tell them "you're not white haha" you are conceding their argument and admitting they're right. We need to outright reject the concept of 'race'.
I know critiques of this don't have to come from the right, but can come from liberals and from the left. I'm sure they would argue that even though 'race' may be a construct, it has been used to oppress certain racial groups and that makes it real and worthy of tackling. To that I'd say that while problems with 'race' need to be tackled, and I do not want to minimise or diminish what has happened in the past, we have to tackle these issues within a different framework, not the framework given to us by the racists/colonisers. We can admit that 'African-Americans' in the US are generally worse of than the 'Whites' in the US, but that has to do with their historical position in the US society, giving them a shittier 'start' in post-1960s America. Some point to 'Asians' as being successful in the US. Again, it has to do with the material conditions they left at home and to which they arrived. 'African-Americans' were brought as slaves and had nothing, while 'Asian' immigrants came as workers and were able to afford to pay for their way to the US (as far as I know even the Chinese workers that were worked to death on the US's railroads weren't slaves, were paid and could own things as well as travel, someone correct this if I am wrong).
Those who wish to argue that 'race' is actually a real, observable feature in nature have to answer a few questions:
1) How do we decide who belongs to which 'race'?
2) How do you account for variations within 'races'?
2a) If you have variations within 'races', then how can you make conclusions and generalisations about the 'race'?
3) What insight and information can we gain through racial analysis, that we can't get from cultural/material/sociological analysis?
Please don't fall for linguistic traps and don't get into silly arguments about race. We need to be adamant about class and material analysis. Let them call us 'class reductionists' for not wanting to perpetuate racism.