Troy

Lisa, There seems to me a tension between your claims about race and the present-day policies you seem to be supporting. At the beginning of the piece you say that the notion of race was a 17th century invention used to perpetuate injustice; but if I understand correctly the kinds of things the government needs to do about present-day problems, many would involve an emphasis of race. I realize that you haven't given us detailed policy prescriptions here, but measures such as reparations, affirmative action, and the like are all irreducibly tied to special treatment for certain races, albeit for allegedly altruistic motives. How can one at the same time hold that race is not real but that some races ought to be treated differently by the state?

One might reply that we can use (self-identified?) race as a proxy for who has been hurt by historical injustice and who needs more of our help now. But it seems to me that, in addition to being a *very* inexact proxy (the blacks who are already well enough off to benefit from affirmative action, for example, are probably not the ones who most need help), this emphasis on race will have many negative effects as well -- for example, whites will tend to resent affirmative action measures, and blacks will be more likely to blame problems on whites and not confront problems within the African-American community.

This isn't to say that the state can't do anything to combat racism, but it seems to me that the measures it can take that would actually be effective and not cause more problems are primarily negative -- e.g., ending or reforming policies that have actively discriminated against blacks, something many people claim about the War on Drugs, for instance.