A colorblind society is inevitable. All we have to do is get out of the way.
It won't happen overnight; it may take several more generations (probably more than any of us might hope) ...but it is inevitable. And it is inevitable because skin color is, ultimately, so genetically malleable and so utterly trivial. As trivial, in fact, as shoe size, height, freckles, hair color, and nose shape. Weight, actually, is less amenable to indifference than skin color. As any of the obese might testify, it's far easier to be accepted as an averaged-sized black man or woman than someone who tips the scales at 400 lbs. Far easier to be accepted when our skin color is 'diverse' than to be someone who is significantly ugly/unsightly or repulsive.
For better or worse, the institutional support for the fat & ugly is severely lacking; their media presence, unsurprisingly, is minimal. No crowds are chanting, "Ugly Fat Lives Matter".
Glenn references substantive blindness...he agrees than on an individual level, colorblindness is the ideal...that color should have nothing to do with admissions, qualifications, hurdle rates, or recognitions (and he's absolutely right)...but still he struggles with the notion that such colorblindness might lead us to a general population-wide unawareness, or an indifference to substantive differences in demographic color balance when it comes to things like incarceration rates, or poverty rates, etc.
But the truth is, it's all individual. Politics, as they say, is personal. We don't rise or fall as group reps; we do so individually. If we push to become colorblind for the person, then we must be equally colorblind for the people. There is no other way.
Does that mean we must then blind ourselves to demographics? Does that mean we ignore or lose track of population counts (be they prison tallies, med school totals, high school graduation rates, criminal conviction rates, out of wedlock births, whatever? No, of course not. We'll probably never stop counting this stuff or sending troops of academicians to study the differences so revealed.
But when we can say, with surety, that as a society -- at an individual level -- we are essentially colorblind. When we know that there is no baked-in institutional or organizational bias driving firing, promotion, salary, or admission decisions because of skin color ....and that all such individual outcome choices are made on the basis of merit (as best we can identify it).... then we equally know that demographic imbalances in group outcomes can only be due to equivalent demographic imbalances in the group's behavior, as evidenced at an individual level...and those behavioral choices are rooted in culture.
I recently read an article about Business Strategy, and the author made the point (as emphasized by Satya Nadella (of Microsoft fame)) that "culture eats strategy for breakfast". He's absolutely right. We might equally equally paraphrase Breitbart and say, not just politics, but demographic outcomes are themselves also downstream from Culture. Of course they are.
We behave the way we behave because the social constructs, the parental influences, the peer pressures which surround us tell us to behave in exactly that fashion. And, at least short-term, we are consistently rewarded for our broadly demonstrated cultural behaviors by acceptance within the culture which preaches it.
Glenn himself tells us this in his brilliant analysis, "Why Does Racial Inequality Persist": "The 21st-century failures of too many African-Americans to take advantage of the opportunities created by the civil rights revolution are palpable, yet they are denied at every turn. This position is untenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of equal rights for blacks were game changers. A half-century later, the deep disparities that remain are shameful and are due in large part to the behaviors of black people."
And how do we trace the antecedents for that behavior? What is its source? Where is this counter-productive, self-destructive, anti-social behavior demonstrated & imitated, over and over again? As ugly and unpalatable as the answer may be, it remains: Black Culture as created & reinforced within the Black Community.
Sadly it is a set of cultural influences which are now not just tolerated but actively reinforced by the broader media, the law, and national institutional practice as we normalize low expectations by reducing performance standards. Behaviors must have consequences, good & bad...and if we want bad behaviors to change they can't be protected by the elimination of the consequence that should logically follow
And this stopping....this consequence giving... begins by embracing colorblindness.
I've heard references to "black culture." By contrast, what is "white culture"? I am skeptical that a separate culture exists for any racial group. But it depends on the definition of culture.
I just ordered Coleman's book and plan to read it, but I'm in agreement with Glenn regarding the feasibility of moving to a completely colorblind society. Glenn has argued in the past for the benefits of racial identity and affirmation in pushing back against Kmele's notion of racial abolitionism, citing for example the uniqueness of the African American experience. I seem to recall Glenn also pointing out that it might simply be too naive to believe that human beings can shed any sort of tribal affiliation altogether and see themselves merely as interchangeable cogs in a larger homogenous whole. Plus, as Glenn articulated to John in their most recent conversation, America has yet to fully grapple with the contradictions of its racial history. Thus, we haven't yet arrived at a place where we could in theory dispense with our national racial consciousness.
For what it's worth, I find that people like Kmele and Coleman may ultimately be missing the forest for the trees. As Glenn alluded to in his defense of nationalism in a prior conversation with Kmele, human societies function most effectively when individuals believe that they belong to something larger than themselves. Historically nations and cultures have been most clearly defined along racial lines and as people like Mearsheimer argue, biology and culture cast a long shadow that's simply too hard to ignore. I'm glad that Glenn mentioned The End of History because prior to affirmations of the end of race, we had an affirmation that History had essentially come to an end and that global values were converging towards essentially Western liberal democratic values.
The rise of China, possibly the most momentous event of the 21st century, has cast into significant doubt Fukuyama's thesis that humanity is comprised of essentially interchangeable parts in a larger homogenous whole. Rather Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations seems like the far more prescient analysis in light of the events of the past 30 years. More than ever cultural differences rooted along civilizational fault lines are coming to the geopolitical fore.
It may make sense for a multi-racial society to push for colorblindness as a procedural principle at the national level, but at the level of international geopolitics this simply isn't feasible. As Mearsheimer argued in The Great Delusion, democracy may be a viable system for any individual nation, but the international realm is essentially anarchic. Likewise, colorblindness may be something worth striving for to ensure that societies function more effectively at the level of the nation-state. But it may ultimately be lacking at the global level, where nations that are the most racially and culturally homogenous may ultimately triumph over countries that are less so in the Clash of Civilizations.
At a procedural level it certainly make senses to de-emphasize race in advocating for equality of treatment irrespective of race, gender or creed. On a more substantive level though, the idea that race and culture have no relevance in our understanding of the modern world seems to me to be deeply flawed.
I am so tired of hearing /talking about race. Ever since Floyd that’s all we hear and see- you should have heard that idiot Charlemagne aka Leonard trying to explain the black national anthem - the race hustlers will never stop - if so they’d have no jobs ! Can’t stand it
One thing that is important to recall is how Coleman uses "colorblindness." In his Ted conversation with Jamelle Bouie, at the end of their convo, he describes colorblindness as a "method" for erasing racism, no matter how much or little a society has. In other words, it's a verb not a noun for him, yet in most all discussions of his book, including this one, colorblindness is seemingly interpreted as a noun; as an end goal, as a state of being, a state of mind. But the real question is how effective it is as a method for overcoming racism and negative forms of race consciousness. A future conversation, with Coleman on, should address this by starting out from this question overtly. It may be that he wasn't clear enough on this point in the book, and that his second book could address it. In any case it is more than worthy of a future episode of this show, with all three (Glenn, John, Coleman) present.
This was a fantastic episode Glenn. It will go viral because of the Chauvin discussion but this particular clip has more enduring value. Treating people as individuals is perfectly consistent with a concern about group inequality, and a desire to understand the mechanisms that perpetuate it. In fact, you accomplish both, just as I have tried to do in my life and work.
Personally I find that a lot of discussions of colorblindness focus primarily on the level of the micro, that is the nation-state. But what's good for America and Americans may not be particularly effective when it comes to grappling with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. Do people in India or China believe that race and culture don't matter and that humanity is comprised of essentially fungible individuals converging towards some globally homogenous whole? This is more or less the idea underlying the universalist sentiments of people as diverse as Francis Fukuyama, Kmele and Coleman Hughes. I refer to this as the great delusion of the modern day West. It's one of the reasons I'm less enamored with the West today than are people like Glenn or John.
I fear that our diminution of the reality of race and culture will leave us less equipped to compete against other countries that have a less starry-eyed view of such matters. Treating people as individuals is certainly important, but I don't believe this means that we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. One can ascribe to the principle of equality of treatment irrespective of race, gender or creed without necessarily disregarding the importance of culture and race in our understanding of the modern world.
Opening lines to Coleman Hughes’ book: “I’ve always found race boring. Sure, it can be good source material for jokes at a comedy club. But in most real-life situations, a person's race tells you next to nothing about them. It doesn't tell whether they're kind or selfish, whether their opinions are right or wrong, whether they'll become your best friend or your worst enemy. Of all the qualities you could list about somebody—their personality, beliefs, sense of humor, and so forth—their race is just about the least interesting you could name.” Awesome. Certainly we make too big a deal of race. Coleman is right.
I'm going to hold off on commenting more thoroughly until I've actually read Coleman's book, but I think Glenn is definitely onto something in his contrast between the procedural and the substantive. It can certainly be the case that as a matter of procedure we should aspire to treat everyone the same irrespective of race, gender or creed. However, this doesn't imply at all that therefore race and culture are uninteresting, irrelevant or uninformative when it comes to grappling with and understanding the modern world. I think it's this latter dismissal by people like Coleman and Kmele that I find to be somewhat misguided.
You are absolutely right. And that is the insidious part about affirmative action/DEI, it forces us to expect that any black person in any position is a token or quota and likely unqualified. It is unconscionable. But, there is a lot of money in it so we expect it to continue.
Exactly! Let’s cut the funding by first discussing the fact that racism and anti-racism are both religions in the context of the First Amendment. I suggest the following improvement to the First.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or edification, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
But discrimination is a religion and form of expression, and by enforcing prohibitions on discrimination, the government will define what discrimination is and censor everything critical of government. That leads to totalitarianism. So problem not solved. Much bigger problem.
Discrimination is an action driven by bigotry. Actions can be proscribed by law. Bigotry is a motivation, a problem of the heart, not appropriate for law. Not seeing a religious connection unless the the definition of religion includes everything.
Religion is a way of learning and a set of beliefs and habits. For example, “John grew up in the Church. John believes in God. He prays to God. He reads the Bible. He attends Church. His beliefs, habits and practices were learned in church. He persecutes those in other religions. He discriminates against those in other religions.”
Now discrimination, “Bob grew up on a plantation. Bobby believes that Blacks are…. Bobby owns other people called slaves.. Bobby supports separate but equal. Bobby favors Jim Crow. Bobby believes Blacks are…”
Both are learned. Both are sets of beliefs and habits. Both involve practices and actions.
Any religion can be good, bad or anything in between. Any discrimination can be good, bad or neither. Discrimination also includes one’s taste for clothing, friends, art, language, everything pretty much. Any religion or discrimination can be dogmatic or not.
But if I can’t convince you that religion and discrimination are siblings. The I suggest the following change to the First.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, discrimination or edification, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
A colorblind society is inevitable. All we have to do is get out of the way.
It won't happen overnight; it may take several more generations (probably more than any of us might hope) ...but it is inevitable. And it is inevitable because skin color is, ultimately, so genetically malleable and so utterly trivial. As trivial, in fact, as shoe size, height, freckles, hair color, and nose shape. Weight, actually, is less amenable to indifference than skin color. As any of the obese might testify, it's far easier to be accepted as an averaged-sized black man or woman than someone who tips the scales at 400 lbs. Far easier to be accepted when our skin color is 'diverse' than to be someone who is significantly ugly/unsightly or repulsive.
For better or worse, the institutional support for the fat & ugly is severely lacking; their media presence, unsurprisingly, is minimal. No crowds are chanting, "Ugly Fat Lives Matter".
Glenn references substantive blindness...he agrees than on an individual level, colorblindness is the ideal...that color should have nothing to do with admissions, qualifications, hurdle rates, or recognitions (and he's absolutely right)...but still he struggles with the notion that such colorblindness might lead us to a general population-wide unawareness, or an indifference to substantive differences in demographic color balance when it comes to things like incarceration rates, or poverty rates, etc.
But the truth is, it's all individual. Politics, as they say, is personal. We don't rise or fall as group reps; we do so individually. If we push to become colorblind for the person, then we must be equally colorblind for the people. There is no other way.
Does that mean we must then blind ourselves to demographics? Does that mean we ignore or lose track of population counts (be they prison tallies, med school totals, high school graduation rates, criminal conviction rates, out of wedlock births, whatever? No, of course not. We'll probably never stop counting this stuff or sending troops of academicians to study the differences so revealed.
But when we can say, with surety, that as a society -- at an individual level -- we are essentially colorblind. When we know that there is no baked-in institutional or organizational bias driving firing, promotion, salary, or admission decisions because of skin color ....and that all such individual outcome choices are made on the basis of merit (as best we can identify it).... then we equally know that demographic imbalances in group outcomes can only be due to equivalent demographic imbalances in the group's behavior, as evidenced at an individual level...and those behavioral choices are rooted in culture.
I recently read an article about Business Strategy, and the author made the point (as emphasized by Satya Nadella (of Microsoft fame)) that "culture eats strategy for breakfast". He's absolutely right. We might equally equally paraphrase Breitbart and say, not just politics, but demographic outcomes are themselves also downstream from Culture. Of course they are.
We behave the way we behave because the social constructs, the parental influences, the peer pressures which surround us tell us to behave in exactly that fashion. And, at least short-term, we are consistently rewarded for our broadly demonstrated cultural behaviors by acceptance within the culture which preaches it.
Glenn himself tells us this in his brilliant analysis, "Why Does Racial Inequality Persist": "The 21st-century failures of too many African-Americans to take advantage of the opportunities created by the civil rights revolution are palpable, yet they are denied at every turn. This position is untenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of equal rights for blacks were game changers. A half-century later, the deep disparities that remain are shameful and are due in large part to the behaviors of black people."
And how do we trace the antecedents for that behavior? What is its source? Where is this counter-productive, self-destructive, anti-social behavior demonstrated & imitated, over and over again? As ugly and unpalatable as the answer may be, it remains: Black Culture as created & reinforced within the Black Community.
Sadly it is a set of cultural influences which are now not just tolerated but actively reinforced by the broader media, the law, and national institutional practice as we normalize low expectations by reducing performance standards. Behaviors must have consequences, good & bad...and if we want bad behaviors to change they can't be protected by the elimination of the consequence that should logically follow
And this stopping....this consequence giving... begins by embracing colorblindness.
I've heard references to "black culture." By contrast, what is "white culture"? I am skeptical that a separate culture exists for any racial group. But it depends on the definition of culture.
You should have Coleman on the show........
I just ordered Coleman's book and plan to read it, but I'm in agreement with Glenn regarding the feasibility of moving to a completely colorblind society. Glenn has argued in the past for the benefits of racial identity and affirmation in pushing back against Kmele's notion of racial abolitionism, citing for example the uniqueness of the African American experience. I seem to recall Glenn also pointing out that it might simply be too naive to believe that human beings can shed any sort of tribal affiliation altogether and see themselves merely as interchangeable cogs in a larger homogenous whole. Plus, as Glenn articulated to John in their most recent conversation, America has yet to fully grapple with the contradictions of its racial history. Thus, we haven't yet arrived at a place where we could in theory dispense with our national racial consciousness.
For what it's worth, I find that people like Kmele and Coleman may ultimately be missing the forest for the trees. As Glenn alluded to in his defense of nationalism in a prior conversation with Kmele, human societies function most effectively when individuals believe that they belong to something larger than themselves. Historically nations and cultures have been most clearly defined along racial lines and as people like Mearsheimer argue, biology and culture cast a long shadow that's simply too hard to ignore. I'm glad that Glenn mentioned The End of History because prior to affirmations of the end of race, we had an affirmation that History had essentially come to an end and that global values were converging towards essentially Western liberal democratic values.
The rise of China, possibly the most momentous event of the 21st century, has cast into significant doubt Fukuyama's thesis that humanity is comprised of essentially interchangeable parts in a larger homogenous whole. Rather Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations seems like the far more prescient analysis in light of the events of the past 30 years. More than ever cultural differences rooted along civilizational fault lines are coming to the geopolitical fore.
It may make sense for a multi-racial society to push for colorblindness as a procedural principle at the national level, but at the level of international geopolitics this simply isn't feasible. As Mearsheimer argued in The Great Delusion, democracy may be a viable system for any individual nation, but the international realm is essentially anarchic. Likewise, colorblindness may be something worth striving for to ensure that societies function more effectively at the level of the nation-state. But it may ultimately be lacking at the global level, where nations that are the most racially and culturally homogenous may ultimately triumph over countries that are less so in the Clash of Civilizations.
At a procedural level it certainly make senses to de-emphasize race in advocating for equality of treatment irrespective of race, gender or creed. On a more substantive level though, the idea that race and culture have no relevance in our understanding of the modern world seems to me to be deeply flawed.
I am so tired of hearing /talking about race. Ever since Floyd that’s all we hear and see- you should have heard that idiot Charlemagne aka Leonard trying to explain the black national anthem - the race hustlers will never stop - if so they’d have no jobs ! Can’t stand it
One thing that is important to recall is how Coleman uses "colorblindness." In his Ted conversation with Jamelle Bouie, at the end of their convo, he describes colorblindness as a "method" for erasing racism, no matter how much or little a society has. In other words, it's a verb not a noun for him, yet in most all discussions of his book, including this one, colorblindness is seemingly interpreted as a noun; as an end goal, as a state of being, a state of mind. But the real question is how effective it is as a method for overcoming racism and negative forms of race consciousness. A future conversation, with Coleman on, should address this by starting out from this question overtly. It may be that he wasn't clear enough on this point in the book, and that his second book could address it. In any case it is more than worthy of a future episode of this show, with all three (Glenn, John, Coleman) present.
This was a fantastic episode Glenn. It will go viral because of the Chauvin discussion but this particular clip has more enduring value. Treating people as individuals is perfectly consistent with a concern about group inequality, and a desire to understand the mechanisms that perpetuate it. In fact, you accomplish both, just as I have tried to do in my life and work.
Personally I find that a lot of discussions of colorblindness focus primarily on the level of the micro, that is the nation-state. But what's good for America and Americans may not be particularly effective when it comes to grappling with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. Do people in India or China believe that race and culture don't matter and that humanity is comprised of essentially fungible individuals converging towards some globally homogenous whole? This is more or less the idea underlying the universalist sentiments of people as diverse as Francis Fukuyama, Kmele and Coleman Hughes. I refer to this as the great delusion of the modern day West. It's one of the reasons I'm less enamored with the West today than are people like Glenn or John.
I fear that our diminution of the reality of race and culture will leave us less equipped to compete against other countries that have a less starry-eyed view of such matters. Treating people as individuals is certainly important, but I don't believe this means that we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. One can ascribe to the principle of equality of treatment irrespective of race, gender or creed without necessarily disregarding the importance of culture and race in our understanding of the modern world.
Opening lines to Coleman Hughes’ book: “I’ve always found race boring. Sure, it can be good source material for jokes at a comedy club. But in most real-life situations, a person's race tells you next to nothing about them. It doesn't tell whether they're kind or selfish, whether their opinions are right or wrong, whether they'll become your best friend or your worst enemy. Of all the qualities you could list about somebody—their personality, beliefs, sense of humor, and so forth—their race is just about the least interesting you could name.” Awesome. Certainly we make too big a deal of race. Coleman is right.
I'm going to hold off on commenting more thoroughly until I've actually read Coleman's book, but I think Glenn is definitely onto something in his contrast between the procedural and the substantive. It can certainly be the case that as a matter of procedure we should aspire to treat everyone the same irrespective of race, gender or creed. However, this doesn't imply at all that therefore race and culture are uninteresting, irrelevant or uninformative when it comes to grappling with and understanding the modern world. I think it's this latter dismissal by people like Coleman and Kmele that I find to be somewhat misguided.
Yep, let’s read the book and comment later. I agree.
You are absolutely right. And that is the insidious part about affirmative action/DEI, it forces us to expect that any black person in any position is a token or quota and likely unqualified. It is unconscionable. But, there is a lot of money in it so we expect it to continue.
Exactly! Let’s cut the funding by first discussing the fact that racism and anti-racism are both religions in the context of the First Amendment. I suggest the following improvement to the First.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or edification, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
See more here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/the-end-of-race-politics?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Or just cut the obsession with racism and enforce prohibitions against discrimination. Problem solved.
But discrimination is a religion and form of expression, and by enforcing prohibitions on discrimination, the government will define what discrimination is and censor everything critical of government. That leads to totalitarianism. So problem not solved. Much bigger problem.
Discrimination is an action driven by bigotry. Actions can be proscribed by law. Bigotry is a motivation, a problem of the heart, not appropriate for law. Not seeing a religious connection unless the the definition of religion includes everything.
And yes, religion includes everything.
Religion is a way of learning and a set of beliefs and habits. For example, “John grew up in the Church. John believes in God. He prays to God. He reads the Bible. He attends Church. His beliefs, habits and practices were learned in church. He persecutes those in other religions. He discriminates against those in other religions.”
Now discrimination, “Bob grew up on a plantation. Bobby believes that Blacks are…. Bobby owns other people called slaves.. Bobby supports separate but equal. Bobby favors Jim Crow. Bobby believes Blacks are…”
Both are learned. Both are sets of beliefs and habits. Both involve practices and actions.
Any religion can be good, bad or anything in between. Any discrimination can be good, bad or neither. Discrimination also includes one’s taste for clothing, friends, art, language, everything pretty much. Any religion or discrimination can be dogmatic or not.
But if I can’t convince you that religion and discrimination are siblings. The I suggest the following change to the First.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, discrimination or edification, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Does that work for you?