I'm not being patient, I'm genuinely enjoying hearing your point of view, even if, or perhaps especially because, we disagree. Thanks for taking the time.

I agree with you, it doesn't take a large majority to wreak havoc. But you missed an important point. The minority can only suceed in destroying a society if the majority do nothing. We're seeing clearly that the majority of people of all colours aren't willing to do that. When George Floyd was murdered, we saw people of all colours marching. People care. This is what I think you're not seeing. Many more care who didn't come out onto the streets and protest.

I wasn't trying to claim that homosexuals aren't murdered, of course these things stull tragically happen. As I said, I'm well aware there's still work to do on many issues. But the bar for success can't reasonably be set at: "everything is terrible until there is no more evil ever, anywhere in the world." The point I was making is that the attitudes to these evils have changed enormously, and while there might have been a majority view of indifference even sixty or seventy years ago, today people think differently. To fail to see that is, I think, a tragedy.

I see you've been reading your Ibram X Kendi with your comment about whiteness only having meaning in juxtaposition to blackness, but I think my point still stands. After all, tallness only has meaning in juxtaposition to shortness, attractiveness only has meaning in juxtaposition to ugliness. Certainly attractiveness is a social construct, but it affects people's lives nonetheless. My point is that attractive people aren't choosing to diminish ugly people. They don't control how society views them and can't "lay claim" to attractiveness. They simply are viewed that way by society. The unfairness of a society can't be placed at the feet of everyone who benefits solely becuase they benefit. The dynamics are more complex than that.

When the Hutu slaughtered the Tutsi, they weren't against blacks either. But what difference does it make? People have been finding stupid reasons to hate and kill each other since time immemorial. Skin colour is actually a relatively recent stupid reason to do so.

I didn't realise that Finns weren't considered white until 1903, but I hope you're not trying to claim that the Italians or Irish or Poles were treated as equals because of their paler skin. They faced horrific oppression, and were treated terribly, facing enormous discrimination during the early 20th Century. And what about the Jews? Many of them have white skin, but it didn't spare them the same oppression. You're conflating whiteness with power but there's a difference between the two. Many white people have very little power. Many of the white people who do couldn't care less about the suffering of other people, white or otherwise.

And yes, of course it's a biological designation. If not, can they opt-out? Do they opt-in? Can they strip themselves of their whiteness and shed the "power" it gives them? Again, to use my height analogy, I didn't choose to be tall, but I do profit from being tall in many ways. What should I do about the power this gives me to prove I'm not against short people?

I'm not faulting the author. I just think her fears are overblown, and I think that broadly speaking she's the only person who suffers as a result. I would rather she didn't suffer unnecessarily which is why I tried to put her mind at rest. I'm the last person who would try to deny that there is still racism in the world or that there are still racist people. I just don't think it's reasonable or helpful to continually reference the darkest times in our history when talking about how we should treat the situation today. I'm not suggesting we forget, I'm just suggesting we look forward too.