I disagree. I think that failing to recognise humanity as a choice leads to greater dehumanisation of marginalised humans. The white supremacist's argument is always "They are less than human, intrinsically. It is their nature. It is reality." When we accept that humanity is a feature of nature and not of society, we cede ground to white supremacists. We should not be arguing whether people of colour meet some criteria that make them human. We should be arguing that white supremacists' dehumanisation is a choice, a choice to be evil, not an inevitable reality.
A core theme of soulist philosophy is responsibility. The white supremacist denies responsibility, saying that the essential nature of those they oppress is not their doing. They wield power irresponsibly. The power to control reality will always exist in the hands of the powerful. And a people who deny this power will not be able to see their oppression clearly. There have always been people of colour who knew their deserved rights and knew their oppression is wrong, but there have also historically been people of colour who bought into the propaganda, and accepted they were less than human. Such a belief can only be the result of realism, of ignoring society's responsibility in all this. The soulists say "this reality we find ourselves in, where people are separated by class and race, was built. It is not natural, and it is not inevitable. It is our choice. All of our choice. And we must choose to be better to each other. Or I'm going to bash some white supremacist heads in."
We should be arguing that white supremacists’ dehumanisation is a choice, a choice to be evil, not an inevitable reality.
So then would You say that the choice is not 'seeing others as human', but rather 'denying other's humanity'?
Admittedly I have a tenuous grasp on Soulism as an ideology so far, as my only real exposure to it has been through a very confrontational individual. I do feel like I agree with most of what I do understand of Soulism. The thing is I don't fully get the idea of denying what You call reality versus, for example, recognizing that certain things enforced by those in power and popular society are simply social constructs (i.e. the gender binary and racial science and relations) and as such may be, and should be, torn down or dismantled but do exist as an actual tangible threat to those who are marginalized by said social constructs.
Basically what i'm asking is: Is Your stance of "denying reality" a way to circumvent and fight back or even simply exist without acknowledging or giving power to (playing around as opposed to playing within the rules of) oppressive socially constructed systems?