When "Race Isn't Real" Becomes a Cover for Racism

Someone sent me a video that claims Charlie Kirk wasn't racist because he argued that race doesn't exist biologically. The video shows Michael White*, a Black creator defending Kirk, saying that since Kirk rejected race as a biological reality, he couldn't possibly be a white supremacist.

*Correction, 2025-09-16: The page Michael White posted the video, however that is not the creator. I've yet to find who the actual creator is.

This argument is designed to confuse you. Let me break down exactly how this trick works, step by step.

Proposition 1: Social Constructs Are Still Real and Powerful

Definition: A social construct is something humans created that isn't found in nature, but still shapes how our society works.

Examples of social constructs that have real power:

Money: Dollar bills are just paper with ink, but try paying your rent with monopoly money. The fact that we "made up" currency doesn't make poverty less real or bank accounts meaningless.

Marriage: It's a human invention, but it affects your taxes, hospital visiting rights, inheritance, and custody of children. Ask any divorced person if marriage is "just a social construct."

Countries and borders: The line between the United States and Canada is invisible from space, but try crossing it without the right passport. Those imaginary lines come with very real consequences.

Job titles: "CEO" and "janitor" are made-up categories, but they come with vastly different salaries, power, and respect. The person cleaning the office isn't less valuable as a human being, but society treats these roles very differently.

Property ownership: There's nothing in nature that says "this land belongs to that person," but property laws determine where you can live, build, or even walk.

The key insight: Just because humans invented something doesn't mean it lacks real-world effects. Social constructs become real through laws, customs, and shared agreements about how society works.

Race works exactly the same way. Scientists agree that racial categories aren't biological facts—there's more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them. But for 400 years, these invented categories have determined who could own property, vote, get loans, attend certain schools, live in certain neighborhoods, and even which water fountains they could use.

Those effects didn't magically disappear when scientists proved race isn't genetic. The wealth that some families built, the neighborhoods that were destroyed, the opportunities that were denied—all of that is still with us.

Proposition 2: You Can Understand Race Is Constructed AND Still Be Racist

The video's flawed logic: If someone says "race isn't biological," they can't be racist.

Why this doesn't work: Understanding how a system works doesn't mean you oppose that system.

Historical Examples

Slave owners in the 1700s: Many plantation owners knew they were creating racial categories to justify slavery. Thomas Jefferson wrote about human equality while owning hundreds of enslaved people. These men understood that racial hierarchy was artificial—they needed it to be artificial so they could design it to benefit themselves.

Apartheid architects in South Africa: The white officials who created South Africa's racial classification system knew it was arbitrary. They literally held court hearings to decide which racial box mixed-race people belonged in. They understood it was made-up because they were actively making it up.

Corporate executives today: A CEO might know that racial profiling in hiring is a social construct, but still systematically avoid hiring Black candidates. Understanding the system doesn't equal opposing it.

Why Understanding Can Make Racism More Effective

Think about it this way: If you want to rig a game, it helps to understand the rules. Someone who knows exactly how racial systems work can be more effective at manipulating them.

Modern example: A landlord might know that racial profiling is socially constructed, but still use coded language ("looking for someone who fits the neighborhood culture") to exclude Black renters while avoiding legal trouble.

The pattern: Smart racists often understand that race is constructed. That knowledge helps them build systems that maintain racial inequality while appearing neutral or even progressive.

The bottom line: Saying "race isn't biological" while perpetuating racial harm is like saying "money is just paper" while still hoarding wealth. The academic observation doesn't change the real-world behavior.

Proposition 3: Kirk's Actions Contradict His Words

What the video wants you to focus on: Kirk saying race isn't biological.

What the video ignores: Everything else Kirk said and did.

Here's what Charlie Kirk actually said when he thought people were listening:

About Black professionals: "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified." He wondered if Black women in customer service were there "because of excellence, or because of affirmative action."

About prominent Black women: He said Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and others "had to go steal a white person's slot" because "You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously."

About Black Americans generally: He claimed "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people."

About immigration: He promoted "great replacement" conspiracy theories, saying there's a strategy to "replace white rural America with something different."

Pattern recognition: These aren't random comments. They're a consistent pattern of suggesting that white people deserve better treatment than people of color—which is the definition of white supremacy.

Proposition 4: The "Race Isn't Real So Let's Ignore Racism" Trick

How the argument works:

1. Race isn't biological (true)
2. Therefore, race isn't real (false)
3. Therefore, we shouldn't address racial problems (harmful)
4. Anyone who talks about race is the real problem (backwards)

Why this is dangerous: It uses a scientific fact to justify ignoring real-world harm.

The Poverty Analogy

Imagine someone argued: "Poverty isn't biological—it's just a social construct based on made-up concepts like 'money' and 'property.' Rich and poor people have the same DNA. So anyone trying to help poor people is actually keeping poverty alive by talking about economic classes. We should just treat everyone the same and poverty will disappear."

You'd immediately see the problems:

• Yes, economic systems are human inventions
• But hunger, homelessness, and lack of healthcare are still real
• Ignoring economic inequality doesn't make it go away
• Programs that help poor people respond to real problems; they don't create poverty

The Marriage Analogy

Or imagine: "Marriage isn't biological—it's just a social construct. Married and single people have identical DNA. So divorce lawyers and marriage counselors are keeping the concept of marriage alive. We should stop recognizing marriage entirely and relationship problems will disappear."

Again, you'd spot the flaw:

• Marriage is indeed a human invention
• But it comes with real legal rights, financial benefits, and social expectations
• Ignoring marriage laws doesn't make divorce less messy
• Marriage counselors respond to relationship problems; they don't create them

Why This Trick Is So Effective

It sounds sophisticated: Using scientific language about biology makes the argument seem smart and objective.

It reverses blame: Instead of focusing on the people maintaining racial inequality, it blames the people trying to fix it.

It promises an easy solution: "Just stop talking about race" sounds simpler than addressing centuries of systemic problems.

It appeals to fairness: "Treat everyone the same" sounds more fair than programs that acknowledge different starting points.

The Real-World Test

Here's how to spot this trick: Ask what happens if we follow the logic.

If we stop all programs addressing racial inequality:

• Does the $841,900 wealth gap disappear?
• Do Black mortgage applicants suddenly get approved at the same rates as whites?
• Do Black neighborhoods suddenly get the same school funding as white suburbs?
• Does police brutality end?

The answer: No. Ignoring racial problems doesn't solve them any more than ignoring cancer cures it.

Proposition 5: DEI Responds to Existing Problems; It Doesn't Create Them

The video's claim: DEI and affirmative action "keep race alive."

The reality: These programs respond to racial disparities that already exist—disparities created by centuries of government policy.

The Numbers Don't Lie

Current wealth gap: The average white household has $841,900 more wealth than the average Black household. That's not a typo—nearly a million dollars more per family.

What this looks like:

• 25% of white families have wealth above $1 million
• Only 4% of Black families have wealth above $1 million
• Even the poorest 20% of white households have more wealth than all Black households combined
• A Black college graduate typically has less wealth than a white high school dropout

How Did This Gap Get So Huge?

The government created it through policy:

1800s - The Homestead Act: The government gave 1.5 million white families free land—160 acres each. Black families were promised "40 acres and a mule" but never received it. That free land became generational wealth for white families.

Early 1900s - Land theft and violence: Nearly 100 white-led massacres destroyed Black communities and businesses. In Tulsa, white residents bombed and burned the Greenwood District ("Black Wall Street"), erasing millions in Black wealth overnight.

1930s-40s - New Deal and GI Bill: These programs built the white middle class by subsidizing homes and college education. Black families were largely excluded due to redlining and local racist administration.

1950s-60s - Highway construction: The Interstate Highway System was deliberately routed through thriving Black neighborhoods in cities like Nashville, New Orleans, Birmingham, Miami, and Charlotte. This destroyed Black business districts and displaced families.

The Running Race Analogy (With Real Numbers)

Imagine two families in 1862:

Family A (white): Gets 160 free acres from the government, worth about $3,200 then. With normal growth, that becomes $200,000+ today, not counting what they built on the land.

Family B (Black): Promises of land are broken. Instead, they face violence, exclusion from government programs, and neighborhoods deliberately destroyed by highway construction.

By 2019, Family A's descendants have an average of $970,000 in wealth. Family B's descendants have an average of $138,000.

Now imagine someone saying: "Family A worked hard for their success! Why should we help Family B catch up? That's not fair to Family A!"

Other Examples of Government Making Things Right

The U.S. government has paid reparations before:

• Japanese Americans: Compensated for internment during WWII
• 9/11 families: $7 billion Victims Compensation Fund
• Iran hostage families: $10,000 per day of captivity (some received $4.4 million per person)
• Holocaust survivors: Germany paid direct reparations
• Tuskegee experiment victims: Up to $178,000 plus lifelong healthcare

Why DEI and Affirmative Action Make Sense

These aren't "reverse racism." They're small-scale attempts to address massive, government-created disparities.

Think of it like inheritance: White families, on average, inherited wealth from government policy. Black families inherited exclusion and debt.

Another analogy - the rigged game: If you discovered that one team in a football game had been secretly given 50 points for three quarters, you wouldn't just say "okay, fair game from now on" in the fourth quarter. You'd try to balance the score.

Current reality check: Even today, Black mortgage applicants are denied loans at 80% higher rates than whites with identical credit profiles. The playing field still isn't level.

Proposition 6: The Video Uses Sophisticated Misdirection

Technique 1: Focus on biology, ignore society
The video spends lots of time on whether race is genetic, but never addresses whether racial systems cause real harm.

Technique 2: Blame the solutions, not the problems
Instead of discussing centuries of discrimination, it blames modern efforts to address that discrimination.

Technique 3: Use a Black spokesperson
Having a Black creator make these arguments gives viewers permission to think, "See? Even Black people agree Kirk wasn't racist!"

Why this matters: Someone's race doesn't make their arguments automatically correct. Ideas should be judged by logic and evidence, not by who's saying them.

Proposition 7: What This Pattern Reveals

Historical context: Throughout American history, racist ideas have dressed themselves up in reasonable-sounding language:

• Slavery was defended as "economic necessity" and "natural order"
• Segregation was called "separate but equal"
• Housing discrimination was labeled "protecting property values"

Modern version: "Race isn't real, so addressing racism is the real racism."

The consistent goal: Find sophisticated ways to maintain racial inequality while sounding reasonable and even progressive.

Conclusion: What We Should Do Instead

Acknowledge reality: Race is a social construct that has created real, measurable disparities in wealth, health, education, and opportunity.

Address root causes: Instead of blaming programs that try to fix inequality, focus on systems that maintain inequality.

Judge by actions, not words: When someone's actions consistently harm people of color, their academic-sounding explanations don't change what they're actually doing.

Work toward actual fairness: This means creating systems where your opportunities aren't limited by the racial category you were assigned at birth.

The goal isn't to talk about race forever. The goal is to fix the real problems that racial thinking created. But we can't fix problems by pretending they don't exist or by using clever arguments to avoid the hard work of making things right.

Charlie Kirk's actual record shows someone committed to maintaining white advantage, regardless of what he said about biology. Don't let sophisticated-sounding reasoning distract you from looking at what people actually do.