It really depends on the reason to prefer to date a particular race.
A: If it's aesthetic, sure (though one might ponder to what extent euro-centric beauty standards are indicative of inherent attractiveness vs a desire to fit into the current dominant culture: fair skin is now very popular world-wide, skin lightening is a big thing in Asia, the most popular plastic surgery tends to try to replicate european features, etc)
B: if it's because you think someone else's genes are inferior to yours... that might be the actual definition of racism. In his final book Where Do We Go From Here, MLK calls this out:
> Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices. A while ago I ran into a white woman who was anxious to discuss the race problem with me. She said: “I am
very liberal. I have no prejudices toward Negroes. I believe
Negroes should have the right to vote, the right to a good
job, the right to a decent home and the right to have access
to public accommodations. Of course, I must confess that I
would not want my daughter to marry a Negro.” This lady
could not see that her failure to accept intermarriage negated
her claim to genuine liberalism. She failed to see that implicit
in her rejection was the feeling that her daughter had some
pure, superior nature that should not be contaminated by
the impure, inferior nature of the Negro. It is the Teutonic
Origins theory warmed over. The question of intermarriage
is never raised in a society cured of the disease of racism.
I originally didn't respond to this because you had a pretty good point and I didn't really have anything to add to it. You're apparently getting hammered, though, so I feel like I should say something, so... you're spot on here.
In defense of humankinds' innate fairness, though, I feel I should point out that all the reasoning about genetics and demographics and 'those people' in the world will not overrule someone's intrinsic assessment of a potential partner's attractiveness. The young lads and lasses will go out and shack up with whoever tickles their fancy. The older generation will tut-tut and justify their disapproval, but who ever listens to them?
> This lady could not see that her failure to accept intermarriage negated her claim to genuine liberalism.
No true Scotsman. Also, maybe she didn't want her daughter to suffer the cost of how society treated mixed race couples at the time. That's society's racism on display, not hers. I think we should all just be a little more charitable.
A: If it's aesthetic, sure (though one might ponder to what extent euro-centric beauty standards are indicative of inherent attractiveness vs a desire to fit into the current dominant culture: fair skin is now very popular world-wide, skin lightening is a big thing in Asia, the most popular plastic surgery tends to try to replicate european features, etc)
B: if it's because you think someone else's genes are inferior to yours... that might be the actual definition of racism. In his final book Where Do We Go From Here, MLK calls this out:
> Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices. A while ago I ran into a white woman who was anxious to discuss the race problem with me. She said: “I am very liberal. I have no prejudices toward Negroes. I believe Negroes should have the right to vote, the right to a good job, the right to a decent home and the right to have access to public accommodations. Of course, I must confess that I would not want my daughter to marry a Negro.” This lady could not see that her failure to accept intermarriage negated her claim to genuine liberalism. She failed to see that implicit in her rejection was the feeling that her daughter had some pure, superior nature that should not be contaminated by the impure, inferior nature of the Negro. It is the Teutonic Origins theory warmed over. The question of intermarriage is never raised in a society cured of the disease of racism.