"Rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" is a bit of a confusing statement, but I don't think it's fair to say that it implies not acknowledging race. What it does imply is enacting policies that are not solely based upon race.
I agree with Zepto. You can't just easily quantify the effects of all of the past injustices against different groups of people. Imagine if today the federal government decided to pay reparations for slavery. How would you decide who receives the money? Do you have to be 1/2 black? 1/4? Do you receive less money if you're less black? What about other minorities? How much are they entitled to?
It becomes messy very quickly. This is a simplified example, but this is why it's best to take enact policies that help those who struggle today regardless of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
However, it is still important to acknowledge, teach about, and remember racism and other inequalities from years past (and some which continue today)
I agree with Zepto. You can't just easily quantify the effects of all of the past injustices against different groups of people. Imagine if today the federal government decided to pay reparations for slavery. How would you decide who receives the money? Do you have to be 1/2 black? 1/4? Do you receive less money if you're less black? What about other minorities? How much are they entitled to?
It becomes messy very quickly. This is a simplified example, but this is why it's best to take enact policies that help those who struggle today regardless of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
However, it is still important to acknowledge, teach about, and remember racism and other inequalities from years past (and some which continue today)