Thomas, I enjoyed learning more about your family's history.

I do agree with your core point that ancestry SHOULDN'T matter, and through racial labeling we're sort of creating a newly-coerced system of forced-identification. On the other hand, I see a practical reason for creating racial and cultural descriptors, if only to allow an avenue of pride and self-celebration for those who are proud of their cultural/ethnic heritage. It also helps us distinguish crimes and offenses that are indeed racially-motivated. So how do we reconcile the two schools-of-thought?

Where many (not all) academics of Critical Race Theory fail is by cherrypicking the use of "racism" when evaluating transgressions or practices. For example, insisting that racism is ONLY related to power structures. Or holding the belief that all White people are inherently racist (or can never experience racism), or that BIPOC can never practice racism toward others. They base these fallacies on the involuntary categorization of racial groups, which is a form of classification that you appear to reject as part of your thesis. Of course, not even all academics who teach/formulate Critical Race Theory are always 100% in agreement with EACH OTHER on these definitions.

I think one starting point could be to define and specify when classifications of people based on their race (or perceived race/ethnicity) is SYSTEMIC, but also acknowledge and remedy the cases where racist behavior is social or cultural. Of course, this would require many Critical Race Theorists to surrender their overuse of the term "prejudice," which we all know they are pitifully loathe to do.