>less racist
Prevent scientific racism from developing, or make it weaker.
The problem is that Scientific Racism is pretty much a logical progress from the moment you work out the Theory of Evolution, as Darwin did. If animals are biologically different from each other, having species and sub-species and different breeds... why not people?
You do realize that people were aware that different species existed before Darwin, right? Right?
No, Scientific Racism does not progress inevitably or logically from the Theory of Evolution. "Scientific Racism" is a deliberate
twisting of science. Nothing in actual biology supports racism, which is based on minor cosmetic differences and generalizations. There is no scientific basis for the idea of different races whatsoever- all of the "races" blend together and overlap to some extent, and the differences between individuals within a "race" are greater than those between "races". Saying "Scientific Racism" is a logical progression of the Theory of Evolution is like saying Nazism is a logical progression of religion.
The Theory of Evolution is not a moral guide- it just says: this is how things work in nature, and it doesn't claim that evolution always leads to a "superior" outcome. Literally all evolution is, when you get down to it, is random mutations, with the ones that help a species survive long enough to reproduce in its current environment being the most likely to be passed on. That's it.
Darwinism leading to racism is just an old lie trotted out by Creationists to try to ad hominem the Theory of Evolution and try to pretend that all prejudice would magically vanish if everyone was Christian (HAH!).
One specific thing that could help, at least with blacks, is butterflying away the Arab Slave trade (or Islam). The Arabs practically created all the old racist cannards. Go look at any ancient description of Arabs (or Ottomans) about Blacks, and its incredible how they seem pretty much like modern racist tirades.
Right, racism and slavery are all the fault of Muslims and Arabs. Where did you get that from, Brietbart? Do you really not see the contradiction in "Racism is all the fault of those dirty Arabs" as an argument? Or do you just think that
we're too stupid to see it?
Something else that might help, is spread of Christianity to West Africa before 1500s. If much of Africa is already christianized, then the African Black might be less Othered by westerners. However, they will be more othered by the others. Having a more prosperous Africa might help. If the massive slave trade is butterflied away, even better.
Racists don't
care what black people believe, and they've had no trouble condemning majority-Christian populations at numerous times- see the historical prejudice against the Irish or the Polish (which still lingers to some extent in places). And Christianity was
explicitly used to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War South. Of course, that does not mean all Christians are racist. Christians are diverse individuals who should be judged as individuals, like all people. But by the same token, Christianity is not a magic anti-racism button.
>sexist
This one is harder, because unlike races, the sexes are not equal.
Also, a lot of what we call equality was very much abeited and helped by technological advancements.
Bull. Shit.
"Different" is not the same as "not equal". I am objectively distinct from every other person on the planet. I am still their equal.
Here, I'll make this simple: "5+3" is a different equation than "6+2". They both equal the same amount. They are different. They are equal.
Technology
has helped to improve conditions for women in certain respects, yes (lower infant mortality rates and fewer deaths in child birth are the obvious ones, as they mean that there is no longer a need for most women to spend the bulk of their lives having as many babies as possible to make sure one or two make it to adulthood). This is the one semi-valid point that you have made thus far.
>homophobic
Hard, because people seem to be straight-out repelled to homosexual activity. I once read up an study where seeing men kissing is as repellent to hetero men as maggots.
That is a hell of a generalization. In any case, its easy to skew a study to get the result that you want, and it sounds like that "study" was designed by someone trying desperately to justify their own bigotry via an Appeal to Nature fallacy. In the absence of a source or confirmation of peer review, I'm not going to give this "study" any weight whatsoever. But even if it were valid, it would not follow that homophobia is an inevitable or unchangeable part of human nature. The whole point of being self-aware beings is that we can be aware of our biases and consciously choose to reject them when they cause more harm than good- that we can be more than our base natures.