There are differences in eye and hair color as well, but most people seem to be focused on skin color. Why? Probably because of how you were raised. — Harry Hindu

Exactly the same reason I value those particular bits of paper with the complicated design that say "£20" on them. What a munchkin eh? Good job there are some rational folk around that just throw them away.

Amazing how we can recognize social realities without necessarily condoning their effects. Mind. Blown.

And if we were all just socially blind, nothing ever happened. :cheer:

Racial colour-blindness (sic.) is a conceit for the privileged.

Exactly

That’s nonsense.

Why? It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability.

“Cis” is not an acronym, it’s just the Latin antonym of “trans”.

cheers

:up: :up:

:shade:

Why? It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability.

But you can see their inability to see in all of them? How does that work?

I've no idea what you are asking.

I imagine a lot of opposition and confusion on either side of whatever this thread is is rooted in the fact that ‘race’ (in the context given) is merely a phenotype that is generally ignored once a person/people are within a culture. People’s attitudes (extensions of culture - to some degree) are what they are irrespective of their eye, hair or skin colour. It just so happens that certain phenotypes are more readily to hand (or rather ‘to eye’), so humans - being the simple being we are - have a useful, but often counter intuitive, habit of lumping common features together into categories to better navigate the world.

Layer onto this the diversity of human language, specific languages and the politics of individual and group diplomacy, and you’ll find ‘race’ is a term that carries weight due to its broad application outside of the scientific definition. Essentially ‘racial’ differences are ‘cultural’ differences - which are often encapsulated by physical features (phenotypes).

I think it was Charles Dickens who protested against ‘pity’? I may be completely wrong? Some guy way back any hows! He basically said that if you walk past a homeless person on the street not to have ‘pity’ but to understand that under other circumstances that person could just as easily have been you. This was not meant to induce ‘guilt’ or ‘pity’, merely a regard for the other person as a fellow human being rather than as someone in ‘unfortunate’ circumstances to be treated as ‘lesser’ - by patronising them or feeling personally responsible for their circumstances. They are there. Treat them with respect not ‘pity’, ‘shame’ or ‘guilt’ - be charitable with your words, time and attitude towards fellow humans.

We all carry biases and attending to them won’t make them magically disappear. Pointing out the faults of others should be muted compared to how we point the finger at ourselves. People are far more similar than different.

Was it Dickens? People let me know who it was. Thanks :)

It's potentially worse. Depending on intent, it can be a strategy for a dominant group, after ensuring a dominated group has been pushed to the bottom of society, to claim moral brownie points for doing nothing to right the wrong.

:rofl: For some reason that (accidental) pun blew my darjeeling out of both nostrils! (glad it's barely lukewarm.)

Nietzsche's a 19th century candidate - he rages against 'pity' for being akin to a contagion of Xtian sickness (or herd resentment/decadence). Yeah, blame Freddy the Pitiless ...

:lol: Here's an alternative metaphor: it's like stepping on someone's face and then demanding no-one recognize footprints.

I am an interesting reality relevant to this thread as my culture does not align with my racial appearance. I have a unique appearance that is difficult to classify into conventional categories. I will often be asked "what is your background?". I will answer referring to my culture, but people often walk away puzzled because my appearance does not align with the normal parameters of physical appearance for that particular culture.

As others have pointed out, it is in fact culture that gives you the most interesting information about who someone is. But people don't actually care as much about that as race, since it is not as simple and accessible. I will sometimes reply "are you interested in my culture or race?", which leaves the asker quite puzzled indeed and usually serves to alienate me from the asker.

For quite some time I rallied against the forces and tried to promote a new world where in fact we did not refer to people using color descriptors, but rather advocated for more accurate descriptions based on culture. It;s a tough fight though, trying to navigate the world describing people physically and culturally without linking the two.

So it was practically speaking somewhat draining. The other causal factor in my abandoning this approach was the deconstruction at the macro level of my ethical compass (due to a dislodged theistic belief system), The question that arises in my head now, is why should the privileged give up their privilege? Are not the less privileged simply advocating for their own self interest such that they can become more privileged? Why shouldn't the privileged do the same?

The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

If "Europeans" aren't/weren't seeing color, then an argument that they are or were a culturally dominant group exhibiting racism wouldn't make any sense. The only way that racism from Europeans would make any sense is if they are/were seeing color and making decisions based on that.

Similar comments go for the other examples.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/race-east-jackson-ohio-appalachia-white-black

I’m wondering how you could know any of the following:

It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability.

It sounds more like an admission of guilt or projection than of fact. Could I hazard a guess that you are an able-bodied European cis male?

Why? It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

It seems like something slid to something else here. The male, for example, who does not see sex/gender when hiring for a position traditionally held by men - iow judges on merits and does not discriminate against a woman - is a good thing, and also not the same thing as an employer who does not see the need for feminism. Being sex/color blind is generally a good thing and a good thing for the privilledged to be.

This going back to the OP....

At any rate, when I judge someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin, to the critic, I’m being racist.

I cannot understand it. Judging someone by the content of her character and not the color of her skin never once involves remaining ignorant of racism, or denying anyone’s experience or history. It never once involves literal color-blindness. It’s only about affirming another as an individual, without the need of dubious racial classifications. — NOS4A2

Exactly the same reason I value those particular bits of paper with the complicated design that say "£20" on them. What a munchkin eh? Good job there are some rational folk around that just throw them away. — unenlightened

You didn't give a reason (in other words - you aren't reasoning). You just gave another example of bandwagoning.

Amazing how we can recognize social realities without necessarily condoning their effects. Mind. Blown. — Baden

LOL. What is the point in recognizing differences when there is no purpose in recognizing them? Seems like a category error.

It seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying that blacks and whites are more different than the color of their skin regardless of where they live. So it seems to me that you both are saying it is biological, not social.

Maybe if you'd both supply some reasoning behind your claims instead of trying to get a gold medal for mental gymnastics, we could get somewhere.

And if we were all just socially blind, nothing ever happened. — Baden

No, it's about being blind to the differences that don't matter. Eye color has no effect on your behavior. But it seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying being black or white has an effect on you behavior regardless of where you live - where blacks are majority and white are a minority. What is the difference - other than the color of our skins - that you are referring to?

Racial colour-blindness (sic.) is a conceit for the privileged. — Banno

Minorities can be privileged. Define "privileged".

None of you seem to realize the difference between racism promoted by some government (The U.S. in 1800) and racism that isn't promoted by the government (the U.S. today). The minority has gone from not having any freedom to participate in the system to being part of the system , that you claim is still racist. It's irrational. In not recognizing the difference, you are playing down the moral error that existed in the U.S. prior to the 1860's.

It wasn’t Nietzsche. I have a feeling it wasn’t a philosopher.

Racial colour-blindness (sic.) is a conceit for the privileged. — Banno

What is your point - that whites recognize the color of skin and then do what - treat others with different color skin equally? I don't see how one is suppose to recognize someone as different yet treat them equally. What is the point in recognizing the differences? Is it just to recognize a difference in the color of one's skin or something more? I keep asking that question, but you all keep avoiding it. It seems pointless to be forced to recognize the difference in the color of our skins when they all come in different shades, yet ignore the other differences that we have. What makes a difference in skin color more special than a difference in eye color? What about our similarities that we share? We have more in common than we don't because we are all part of the same race - the human race. Why are we focusing on one difference that doesn't really matter? Or does it? I say it doesn't. You say it does. So you must think that blacks are more different than whites beyond the color of their skin.

What does "different but equal" mean other than the fact that the differences don't matter when it comes to how you treat people? Is that not what color-blindness means?

Why? It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

But you can see their inability to see in all of them? How does that work? — NOS4A2

I've no idea what you are asking. — Banno

And no interest either to understand the question, obviously. As obviously NOS4A2 is a troll, right?

Here's the problem (if I in my stupidity understand it): you two are simply talking about separate issues and presume some meta-narrative in the other one's argument.

NOS4A2: Colorblindness, means that we should judge people on their individual merits and not on the color of their skin and this is a good thing. Yet woke people are against this!

BANNO: Colorblindness, means that white people ignore the minority status of others and think racism doesn't exist anymore when they don't "see color". Colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics and gives refuge to white racism.

Feel free to correct me, if I've missunderstood.

Yes, I think you got it exactly. Nice observation.

It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

Yeah, I don't see a need for reform when reform has already happened, or that there are rules in the books for treating people equally. When there are already rules for treating people equally or else you get punished, what else could you want - special treatment instead of equal treatment? It seems to me that you don't need more rules - just enforce the rules you already have. Good luck with that. How can you prove that someone rejected another person for a job because of the color of their skin or that someone doesn't want to associate with you because of the color of your skin?

Do you accept the possibility that someone can be falsely accused of racism - that racism is applied when it isn't applicable? If so, then shouldn't it be it be the responsibility of the accuser to prove racism happened instead of the other way around, especially in a country where "you are innocent until proven guilty"?

BANNO: Colorblindness, means that white people ignore the minority status of others and think racism doesn't exist anymore when they don't "see color". Colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics and gives refuge to white racism. — ssu

That could be what he's essentially saying, but if so, I don't see how that makes any sense. If people are colorblind, how would racism arise? No one would even see race.

That could be what he's essentially saying, but if so, I don't see how that makes any sense. If people are colorblind, how would racism arise? No one would even see race. — Terrapin Station

Of course Banno can talk for himself. I'm just trying understand the idea.

Naturally you would have to follow American public discourse about the issue in order to understand the 'dog whistles' and intensions and beliefs people have about colorblindness. Without that context it might be difficult to understand. Basically it's about evading racial issues:

Refusing to acknowledge obvious social differences creates an impression of suppressed dislike, and studies have shown that whites who studiously avoid mentioning race even when it is clearly relevant are perceived as more bigoted

Perhaps the idea is easier to understand with gender/sex. Assume a sought after managerial job position would be open for everybody, males or females, but the requirements would be besides managerial qualities also that the person has to qualify at least two of the three demands: has to be 180cm or over tall, able to lift 100 kg and run 3000m in 12 minutes. Now of course there can be women that fill those requirements, but those are few, hence it's obvious that the selection prefers males. Naturally this doesn't mean that the requirements are indeed there to discriminate women, there can perhaps be a practical and logical reason for the height requirement etc. But if there aren't good reasons for it, then it is this kind selection is hidden discrimination.

Colorblindness, not speaking and thinking about race at all, can perhaps be used to hide or simply forget discrimination and racial problems. Yet I think it is quite a long stretch to go there. And then the term is simply abused in a way that forgets totally the intension.

Yet I don't think anybody here is against the idea that people should be judged of their actions, not based on the color of their skin.

I don't see a need for reform when reform has already happened, or that there are rules in the books for treating people equally. When there are already rules for treating people equally or else you get punished, what else could you want - special treatment instead of equal treatment? It seems to me that you don't need more rules - just enforce the rules you already have. Good luck with that. — Harry Hindu

An oddly self-negating construct: "all we need is the rules we already have, but they don't work".