I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons).
Anyway, it really comes down to backing up a little to consider why race became a factor. Else, if we simply start the clock at the inception of these groups, then I suppose it should be unsettling.
Interestingly, there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness. If nothing else, this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged.
Like what?
> this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged
Because it's been a tool of social division. As a result, we've been attuned to it culturally from both sides (separation and integration).
The Disability Alliance Network (DA)?
I'm assuming that's a good example, because I've yet to see an outcry around disabled people getting unfair advantages.
But, it's really down to any group that has not been socially or politically charged. So, I'd also say things like women's groups, given their historic underrepresentation in tech. However, that's also become charged recently.
So, what we have is this thing of defining what's OK by how people react to it or, maybe more accurately, how people are encouraged to react. That seems potentially unhealthy and infinitely abusable.
>Because it's been a tool of social division.
Exactly. But, it's not just division in the sense of splitting people in half. There's also a historic inequity that corresponds with one side.
Some make the argument that you can't heal division by "dividing further". But, I think it's a little unfair to simply not acknowledge those who have been negatively impacted. The other part is that the existence of a group doesn't have to be divisive in itself. In fact, seeking to understand and support them can be quite the opposite.
