Beyond Black and White: Why Simplifying by Race Makes Us Go Backward

The Legacy of an Obsolete Classification

In the 17th century, European naturalists attempted to classify humanity into five "races" according to skin color: white, black, red, yellow, and brown. This theory, now recognized as scientifically unfounded, primarily reflected the prejudices and political needs of the colonial era, serving to justify slavery, colonization, and the hierarchization of peoples.

Modern genetics has demonstrated that genetic variations are greater within each so-called "racial" group than between these groups. In other words, two people of sub-Saharan African origin may be genetically more different from each other than an African-origin person and a European-origin person.

The Trap of Modern Binarity

Paradoxically, while science has buried these classifications, American social debate has trapped itself in an even more simplistic vision: black versus white. This binary reduction ignores the reality of a multiethnic society where Latino Americans, Asians, Indigenous peoples, Arabs, and countless mixed heritages live.

This simplification poses three major problems:

The invisibilization of other groups. When everything comes down to "black or white," discrimination suffered by other communities disappears from the radar. Anti-Asian violence, marginalization of Indigenous peoples, or anti-Latino prejudices become secondary issues.

The creation of false hierarchies. By establishing a binary opposition, we implicitly suggest that some discriminations are more legitimate than others. This logic divides communities instead of uniting them against common injustices.

The erasure of complex identities. In a society where 20% of marriages are interracial, how do we classify their children? This binary vision denies the very existence of mixed-race people, forcing them to choose a "side" like the Indian Act does in Canada.

The Mechanisms of Regression

This regression can be explained by several factors. First, the simplicity of binarity facilitates political and media mobilization. It's easier to build a narrative around two opposing "camps" than to explain the complexity of multiple experiences.

Next, this approach unconsciously reproduces colonial logic: defining groups in opposition to the dominant white group. Instead of recognizing the richness of identities, we maintain white as the central reference.

Finally, this binary vision paradoxically serves the interests of those who refuse any change. By dividing non-white communities, it weakens their collective power for social transformation.

Toward an Inclusive Approach

Recognizing the complexity of identities does not mean denying the existence of racism. On the contrary, it allows us to better fight it by understanding its multiple faces. Anti-black racism differs from anti-Asian racism, which itself differs from Islamophobia or anti-Latino prejudices.

A truly progressive approach must:

• Recognize the specificities of each experience without hierarchizing them

• Build cross-cutting solidarities between all communities

• Value diversity as richness rather than as a problem to solve

• Develop public policies adapted to this complexity

Conclusion

Reducing the racial question to a black-white opposition means applying 17th-century thought patterns to the 21st century. This intellectual regression harms social justice by dividing those who should unite and by ignoring the richness of our mixed societies.

The future of human rights will not be built on simplification, but on recognizing our common humanity beyond all categories. Because in the end, we are neither black, nor white, nor yellow: we are human, in all our magnificent diversity.