When and where has race not been a defining characteristic?
Not that they didn't find other reasons to dislike their fellow humans.
For example: Hutu/Tutsi, Serbians/Croatians
When the individual doesn't want to make it their defining characteristic. Same thing with other "characteristics". Not all gay people make it their defining characteristic, maybe they are parents, athletes, engineers etc who happen to be gay. Same with immigrants (I am one) and so on.
Assuming otherwise and forcing "defining characteristics" onto others is the problem here and what the article at hand is about.
How do you not make the color of your skin a "defining characteristic"? People see you and make a judgement based on that. Are you denying that racial discrimination exists?
What kind of judgment. I think you mean it in a discriminatory sense with prejudices and stereotypes. Not just oh look someone has different shade of brown than me.
> Are you denying that racial discrimination exists?
Are you sure everyone automatically makes judgments based on that? What if the person is a woman also? What if they are gay? Which characteristic is the defining one?
Should we assume and write a story about that or let them tell us what defines them? Maybe they want to be a parent first who happens to be black and not a black parent. Or they don't know any better and need a journalist to come and interpret that for them.
I do. That's what this whole discussion is about.
> Are you sure everyone automatically makes judgments based on that? What if the person is a woman also? What if they are gay? Which characteristic is the defining one?
We don't have to hypothesize here: there's a theory called intersectionality that specifically examines how these things interact. There doesn't have to be just one "defining characteristic".
I don't.
EDIT: I guess I meant we kept it a defining characteristic, just changed the definition