Race colorblindness vs Race consciousness.

It is without irony that the race theorists have panned and even ridiculed the principle of racial colorblindness as racist.

To them, judging someone by their character and not the color of their skin erases or otherwise ignores someone’s experience. Instead of promoting “racial harmony”, it can only ever permit those who enjoy “racial privilege” (white people) to close their eyes to the experience of others.

These claims, all of them made without example or evidence, helps to close the minds of those who preach them. They contend that racial colorblindness has a pernicious effect on members of certain racial groups, while benefitting other ones. For “people of color” (not white) in particular, colorblindness “denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives”. Even though the proponents of racial colourblindness are diverse and of many shade and backgrounds, the approach is only beneficial to whites, giving them a reason to “ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society”. What’s worse, teaching colorblindness in education leads to shame and guilt: “instead of nurturing children’s natural curiosity about differences, it teaches them to be wary and to feel ashamed if they even notice their friends’ skin color”.

These and other misrepresentations are myriad.

“Colorblindness” is an awful word to begin with given it’s clinical application in other fields. Race conscious thinkers use this confusion to erect strawmen. For example, phrases such as “I don’t see race”, which though figurative, is taken literally. One should probably refrain from using these words—not because they are untrue mind you, but because from a race conscious perspective, they are unable to articulate enough the underlying principles.

As a principle, Racial colorblindness (in philosophy, race skepticism) isn’t about being blind to skin colors, to differences, to experience, but to see these as qualities of individuals, not racial groups. In fact, it is to see an individual better, to re-humanize them, absent the mental baggage and identity politics of whatever categories they or others put themselves within. It doesn’t deny experience, but simply notes race isn’t a necessary condition of experience, nor an indicator of it. It is to refuse “racializing” people, classifying them like insects into this or that taxonomy, for the selfish purpose of making them easier to define, or worse, to define ourselves. It is to deny essentialism, that old platonic idealism, to avoid the fundamental error of believing groups are individuals, and treating them as such. It is the reassertion that the individual is primary to his abstract classifications. Most of all, it’s the point that we cannot ever banish racism by continually applying it in our thinking.

What is racism? Racism is, essentially, the belief in race (race-ism), to premise one’s thinking on the principle that human beings can be partitioned into racial categories, color-coated taxonomies, each with their intrinsic qualities and characteristics. Francois Bernier first articulated this taxonomy in 1674, in what he called “A New Division of Earth”. Whether this new division was better than the old ones is debatable, but it no less became popular among natural philosophers. The question of whether each race of man was its own distinct species became a heated debate in this and the eras following.

Essentialism assumes a distinction, a division of human beings into groups and mental artifacts and abstract objects of thought, to which intrinsic attributes, essences (“whiteness”, “blackness”), characteristics, behavior patterns, and names can be applied. This form of platonic idealism leads, inevitably, to hierarchical thinking, to origin myths: Group A is never equal to group B, born of different mud and timber, and so on. That they make the eternal mistake of considering and speaking of groups as if they were individuals should raise numerous red flags.

To subscribe to essentialist thought is one thing, but to do it upon a foundation of race is quite another. Like all species of categorization, thinking upon racial lines assumes a tenuous relationship between the objects under consideration, in this case human beings without relationship, save that maybe their distant ancestors came from the same continent. Race could only ever reference a relationship so distant, so disparate, so abstract, not to mention superficial, that its application appears useless even in common parlance, let alone in scientific analysis.

Besides, we know where it all leads: to accepting the animating principles that once justified Nazism, Jim Crow and Apartheid. We’ve played this game before, and in zero cases has it led to fruitful outcomes. The mental apartheid and segregation of race-conscious thinking tends towards real apartheid and real segregation.

Race skeptics should recognize that racism is not in decline. Racism hasn’t disappeared; it has only become more mainstream and ubiquitous. That race theory is taught in institutes of higher learning, and that looking at the world through a “a lens of race” is sold as a viable principle, is evidence of this. The attempted refutation of colorblindness in both common periodicals and the voices of the most obscure race nationalists, attests to its scope. Racism is used to articulate voting blocs in elections: “the white vote” or the “black vote” for instance. More pernicious is the race identity politics now permeating through the larger culture: in movies, in music, in literature, and education.

Race identity politics is not a reaction to a history of systemic racism, marginalization, and race nationalism, but its necessary, logical conclusion. Racial quotas, affirmative action, appeals for race diversity, differential treatment for different races, are not protections against racism, but the continuation and application of racism. The same words, the same identities, and the same mental furniture persists throughout it all. The belief in the theory of race grounds it, keeps the nonsense arising from it afloat. And because they refuse to repudiate the race-based categorization of human beings altogether, and in fact cling to them, identity politicians have simply adopted racism and used it to serve their own purposes, just as their racist forefathers and the men with the whips did before them.

Since racism is best defined as the belief in race, colorblindness and race scepticism is the antithesis of racism. We should not let the racists attack colorblindness, and reverse the steps anti racists have made towards the colorblind society.

Sources:

www.theguardian.com...
www.nbcnews.com...
www.tolerance.org...
www.psychologytoday.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

WE don't have many black people around here, of the ones I do know of here, most are really good people. I do know some bad ones though. The Indians around here are pretty good people but of course they have some bad ones too, just like the white people here. All of the Asians here I know are decent people too, but I am sure there are some around here that are not the best. I know lots of good white people and quite a few that are not good too. I am sure that the percentage of bad whites here is bigger than the percentage of bad blacks. Just because most of the people that are black around here came here to get away from the turmoil in the big cities. Our percentage of good blacks here is better than in the cities I feel, our percentage of whites is about the same, or maybe even a little worse as of late, lots of the young winding up on drugs now here. Drugs do not make a person bad, needing money to supply their habit can make them steal though.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I truly enjoy your posts because you often times "speak my mind" with far greater clarity and authority than I ever could.

I myself have made much the same observations about the proponents of critical race theory as it has been adopted and introduced into University curricula to the point that today it is being inserted into every course subject from mathematics to geography and has taken on the provenance of settled theory much the way Evolution and Global Warming have been accepted as settled science.

While having entertained thoughts similar to yours, I have largely refrained from expressing them because, upon calm reflection I have come to realize that such viewpoints are actually those appropriate for a past era. Put another way, the adoption of racial identity politics by the elites and their MSM, and Colleges and Universities and now, by many of the leaders of major Corporations means that for all practical purposes, the "America" many feared would emerge is indeed, upon us. Its here and its real and white America will doubtless suffer the consequences.

You concluded:

Since racism is best defined as the belief in race, colorblindness and race scepticism is the antithesis of racism. We should not let the racists attack colorblindness, and reverse the steps anti racists have made towards the colorblind society.

That ship has sailed. In a sense white America will wake up 20 years from now and realize, "We're all white Afrikkaners now". Put another way, you can pursue colorblindness but to do so reminds me of the saying, "You can ignore politics, but thats not to say politics will ignore YOU"!

You're either cool or you ain't.
Not so many words are necessary.

originally posted by: skunkape23
You're either cool or you ain't.
Not so many words are necessary.

That’s the gist of it, yes, but according to race theorists, if you don’t consider someone’s race, you deny their experiences.

a reply to: TonyS

While having entertained thoughts similar to yours, I have largely refrained from expressing them because, upon calm reflection I have come to realize that such viewpoints are actually those appropriate for a past era. Put another way, the adoption of racial identity politics by the elites and their MSM, and Colleges and Universities and now, by many of the leaders of major Corporations means that for all practical purposes, the "America" many feared would emerge is indeed, upon us. Its here and its real and white America will doubtless suffer the consequences.

Everyone will suffer the consequences. I wager it will affect anyone who doesn’t describe to this or that race theory.

Do you notice the difference between a horse or a zebra, or a lion from a panther.... There is no 'not' noticing differences. If their is, you need help. It's how you act on that difference. You are going to act different in Huntsville Alabama than you are in Bozeman Montana, or Katmandu or Saudi Arabia. It's how you behave to that difference.... arrogant or kind.

CRT is like a modern phrenology where instead of telling your fortune or ability by reading the bumps on your head, you are now doing it by looking at the ethnic features you possess.

Star and Flag Les

I have nothing to add of the topic as the mental conception of colour is something foreign to me. I see conscious-sentient beings before I see biology.

Mental behaviors, thought processes, emotional stability, experience ... this is to me, what define a human person.

Yet, I really have grown fond of your writing style. Your mental thought processes and patterns reflect in your words, you are an intelligent and firm man.

I respect that, cheers

originally posted by: Plotus
Do you notice the difference between a horse or a zebra, or a lion from a panther.... There is no 'not' noticing differences. If their is, you need help. It's how you act on that difference. You are going to act different in Huntsville Alabama than you are in Bozeman Montana, or Katmandu or Saudi Arabia. It's how you behave to that difference.... arrogant or kind.

It's a bad analogy.

You would be a fool not to notice the difference between a zebra and a lion because they are different species, but various different skin colored humans are not different species, not like a lion and a zebra are.

What you would be going for is something more akin to whether or not you notice the differences in a palimino horse and a bay or a chestnut and think they will have radically different abilities, experiences, personalities, etc., based solely on the coat color alone.

It's not always so obvious. Often it is, but we have native/indigenous/Indians who look like Asians, we have black people who look Hawaiian, or even middle eastern, we have white people tanning darker than some of our native Indians. I have a friend who I thought was Native Indian, turns out she's Finnish!

If someone has dark skin, I don't know where their ancestry came from.
Same with light skin, could come from anywhere.
My sister in law was native Indian and she was a redhead with green eyes. And freckles. She's not even mixed blood, her Granpa was the Chief.
My son is dark skin and eyes, but he could pass for middle eastern or Asian..he's only half Indian/Aboriginal/Native/First Nation (at this point no one has figured out the political correctness on the name)

I don't deny their experience, it's part of the conversations when we ask questions.

a reply to: snowspirit

It's used to be why asking someone where they were from originally was not racism as much as a sign of curiosity and wanting to know the other person better.

I used to assume you could ask anyone, even vanilla folks, that question because we all have our ancestral stories to tell and that's part of how we became who we are.

But, much like it's a mistake to assign too much importance to your hair color or eye color in assigning overall influence in your life, it's also a mistake to do the same with skin color. "Blondes have more fun" and "gingers have no soul" are simply sayings, not truth. And having a red headed child does not mean you should worry that he or she is doomed to a soulless existence by a quirk of genetics.

a reply to: Plotus

A better analogy.....my does my german shepherd mix see the chihuahua mix as something other than simply another dog?

Id say no. Because he is far far larger and stronger than her, yet submits to her dominance. To the point of sucking up to her.

If a taxonomy with as much physical variability as dogs dont see themselves as different i dont know why we would.

This video deals with intersectionality which is an offshoot of critical race theory, but it's a panel discussion on whether or not intersectionality functions much as a religion for all practical intents and purposes.

It's very long, but the panelists are three liberal atheists for all that they were sponsored to have this panel by conservative student groups.

Another good examination of this subject by Andrew Klavan. In this piece he uses Shakespeare to attempt to illustrate his point. Two plays - Merchant of Venice and Othello - in which characters are from minorities - Shylock and Othello, and he talks about to what extent they are bound by their ethnicity, culture, religion to be who they are as characters and how much Shakespeare's own prejudices may or may not have shaped them.

Andrew Klavan himself was born Jewish, went through much of life agnostic, and converted to Christianity and discusses how much and to what extent his Jewish roots exerted pressure on him to remain Jewish.

It's a fascinating piece in the context of this thread.

originally posted by: skunkape23
You're either cool or you ain't.
Not so many words are necessary.

No way... First off, you're Hip. Once you become Hip, then you can rise up a notch to the status of Cool. You become one of the "Cool Cats". And when you're a "Cool Cat" you can progress to the stage of Groovy. This is where everything is "Groovy Man", Groovy, Ya dig? But if you take being Groovy too far, you end up being a Square. So you have to stay Groovy Man, no one wants to be a Square.

originally posted by: Plotus
Do you notice the difference between a horse or a zebra, or a lion from a panther.... There is no 'not' noticing differences. If their is, you need help. It's how you act on that difference. You are going to act different in Huntsville Alabama than you are in Bozeman Montana, or Katmandu or Saudi Arabia. It's how you behave to that difference.... arrogant or kind.

I used to argue this very thing in usenet back in the 90's... No one gets it.. I was still called a racist at the time for simply acknowledging the difference in people.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's not a bad analogy. Or do you see everyone as a hue of grey with no distinct characteristics?

Who said anything about abilities or being radically different?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is milk racist?

Sounds like a silly question however lactose intolerance is one of many actual examples of differences in race.
milk.procon.org...

Do we just ignore this because it's inconvenient?