The concept of race is a social construct
It has been determined by the top scientists studying genetics and anthropology that race is definitely a social construct. Race has no basis in genetics and it exists to divide people by superficial traits. It is my current belief that to be racist is to believe race is not socially determined (not merely a social construct) and to internalize a racial identity. If you internallly see yourself as "white" or as "black" then you've internalized race ideology and by this definition you are racist.
Society brainwashes us into accepting a coerced racial identity. I call i coerced because there is a distinction to make. "Black" does have a meaning but it's socially determined. To give an example, how do we even determine who falls on the black side or the white side? Does Obama fall in the black side? Does Tiger Woods fall on the black side? Do we determine how black a person is based on the percentage of their genes which come from Africa or do we determine it merely by their superficial traits such as facial features, hair, and skin tones?
These superficial traits unfortunately do not reveal genetically how African a person is. For example in Africa certain tribes have exceptionally dark skin tones but other tribes have lighter skin. So skin tone really isn't a defining African trait. The only truly defining African trait is Afro or African hair. Do we determine how black a person is by their hair?
From what we can see in US history the concept of black has changed over time. The 1% rule for example said that anyone mixed would ultimately fall under black. As a result we don't really know if black or white for that matter as categories determine anything genetically if it ever did.
In 2018 we now have a deep enough understanding of genetics to know these racial categories are irrelevant. If the average person gets their genes tested then the genetic test will tell you with a degree of precision where your genes came from geographically. When most people take these tests they usually don't test 100% European or 100% African even in the best case. In some cases there may be exceptions of course:
Example1
Example2
Example3
Example4
Now, if a person has "100% European" or "100% African DNA" does it mean race is scientifically valid? I would say no. It simply means all of their genes when traced back on the test found that their ancestry is from those locations. It is then narrowed down to specific tribes in those locations where the majority of their genes come from. In my opinion more people should take these tests to find out where their genes come from.
At the end of the day most of humanity are genetically very very similar. Because humans are so similar the genetics tell us that the only race which matters is the human race. The benefit of genetic testing is it can help detect certain diseases which may be more common in certain tribes or in certain parts of the world. Race alone isn't going to tell you if a person has a certain genetic vulnerability because it's not specific enough but genetic testing will rule out definitively. So for something like sickle cell or lactose intolerance it would be a mistake to simply group 100% of black people in as having these vulnerabilities. The only thing the science says is that these traits are more common in people categorized as black.
Conclusion
If you believe in genetics, in science, in sociology, in anthropology, then of course you're not racist. If you get your genetics tested and find out that some percentage of you is from a certain part of the world then it's not racist to believe that part of you is from there.
My point is descriptors like "white" and "black" are non specific and are inherently racist. Africa is a continent, and within Africa are different countries with tribes. Europe is a continent and within Europe are different countries with tribes. The history, the ancestry, all of that is real, but you can't know any of that from "white" and "black". As a result you don't get any of the true benefits from learning about your ancestors because it collectivizes people by superficial traits rather than encouraging people to learn where their ancestors came from or their genes came from.
I also want to make it clear I do not believe it is racist for people who have been historically oppressed to fight to improve their conditions. Anyone who has been a victim of racism, or any other kind of systemic oppression is not racist if they form allegiances to combat that oppression. In my opinion that is a reaction to racism rather than to be inherently racist or to actively promote racism.
Anyone who truly believes in civil rights, human rights, would still be willing to fight for those beliefs even if race doesn't exist. If the only race is the human race then oppression is still oppression. If people with big noses of the same race are mistreated or if short people are being bullied then it's the same problem and it's not wrong to combat that problem.