I have some basic guidelines about conversations with anyone. Personal comments are inappropriate to anyone but close friends so that would solve this problem regardless of race or ethnicity - don’t say anything about their personal appearance. An exception is if you really like an article of clothes and would like to buy it yourself - then you can say to anyone “I really like your jacket. Do you mind if I ask where you got it because I’d like to buy if it is still available.” Or where do you get your hair done - I’d like to try that salon. Treat everyone as if they are your favorite people. If someone takes your comment the wrong way, that is their problem not yours and don’t make it your problem. If someone makes a comment to you don’t second guess them. Take it in the most positive way you can. Give lots of grace to everyone. When I grew up I was taught to be polite to everyone regardless of how they treat me. I’m over 70 and it has worked out for me.
For a very long time I have been reading about the need to overturn school appearance codes because they do not allow Blacks to wear their hair as they would like. I have read arguments about how for Black people, hair can define them. Some even incorporate memories of their ancestors into their hair style. I recently read that black people were leaving New Hampshire because hair salons didn’t “cater to their curls.” My hair stylist told me, she makes all her money on coloring, straightening, and applying and designing styles using hair extensions for her black clients. Over the past days I watched the NCAA track meets. White female runners have their hair pulled back with a hair tie. For most African American female runners, it’s impossible not to notice how much attention is paid to their hair style. This is why I find this whole question of how can a white person compliment a black person on their hair without being seen as racist, insane. For a white person to admire the attention that a black person gives to their hair is a nice thing to do. For anyone to see it as racist is a testament to a nation amid racism insanity.
In one of my favorite Substack essays thus far, I write about curiosity and hair. I was on a tropical island thousands of miles away from home. The views were spectacular. The beaches were heavenly. Everyone on the island looked like me, except for our fellow tourists:
"A few moments ago and quite by chance, I witnessed a racial moment through my American eyes. A local waiter with grace and tenderness caressed the bright red hair of a white toddler. The toddler was around three years old and unaware of her striking hair color and texture from the perspective of the waiter. The moment only lasted for two or three seconds. No self-consciousness, pure curiosity on the waiter’s part.
Reverse this racial moment…imagine a resort in the United States where a white waiter mindlessly ran her fingers through the tightly curled hair of a black toddler…without Mom’s permission. The foreseeable consequence might be a Twitter mob, a Tik Tok meltdown." — https://twyman.substack.com/p/the-souls-of-black-folks
In a recent clip titled The Conundrum of Colorblindness, Professor Glenn Loury reflects upon a story my co-author Jennifer Richmond had about black hair. Jen wanted to compliment a black woman on her hair. Jen lost her nerve due to…race. Professor Loury properly sizes up the situation as the unavoidability of race. “Jennifer’s innocuous intent on its own is not sufficient to exempt her from the constraints imposed by the enormously complex web of racialized meanings which American social history has, over centuries, bequeath to us.” So sayeth Glenn.
Jen is white which I guess makes all the difference in these here states. Sigh.
I get where Glenn is coming from. For the same flow of history reasons, I kept my distance from South Boston while a law student at Harvard. I hold my tongue when critiquing Kwanzaa due to the web of culture in my beloved close family. I try to show Theory of the Mind at times/smile.
But if I am honest, I am rooting for Jen and a better country where we are as wise about race as the black waiter was on the tropical island. It is human to be curious. One should feel joy upon a hair compliment. It is not to confuse the desire to change our society reality on matters of race for reality itself that causes Jen and I to see the world as we see it.
Beautiful non-conforming minds always see beyond the horizon of reality itself into the promised land of color indifference. We usher in the coming of a better time one individual at a time. https://twyman.substack.com/p/a-beautiful-mind
Professor Glenn Loury on Hair Compliments and Reality of Race
In this part of my conversation with Jennifer Richmond and Winkfield Twyman Jr, Jennifer tells a story that I imagine is quite common. A black woman at her church has beautiful hair, and Jennifer wants to compliment her. After all, the woman has probably gone out of her way to make her hair look beautiful. Why shouldn’t she be complimented? But Jennifer, a white woman, fears that her compliment on the beauty of the woman’s hair will be misinterpreted as a disguised comment on the woman’s race, and awkwardness (or worse) may ensue. My first thought is to tell Jennifer that, since her motives are pure, she needn’t worry about how her words will be interpreted. But that is naive advice, for such a compliment coming from a white woman does indeed risk giving unintended offense, no matter how much we all might wish it didn’t.
Jennifer’s dilemma illustrates the core conundrum of colorblindness in miniature. That is, she wants "race" not to matter when complimenting a black woman on her beauty (or intelligence, or punctuality, or discipline, etc.) And yet, the racial subtext of such a remark is unavoidable. Jennifer's innocuous intent on its own is not sufficient to exempt her from the constraints imposed by the enormously complex web of racialized meanings which American social history has, over centuries, bequeath to us. Neither can personal declarations of racial self-definition circumvent the subtleties of perception and interpretation that attend even our most casual social interactions.
A “white” woman expressing wide-eyed wonder at the beauty of a black woman's hair runs the risk of becoming a fraught encounter. If Jennifer could communicate her intentions unfreighted by the weight of our racial history, she would have nothing to fear. But she cannot speak outside of the flow of history and the web of culture. None of us can. In theory, I might try to “absolve” her of any wrongdoing, as a black man, by confirming that she is not a racist. In reality, the so-called “black card” is non-transferable. There is little that any one person can do to change this state of affairs. That should not stop those who wish for a different racial reality from working to bring it into being. But we should not confuse the desire to change our social reality on matters of race for reality itself.
And if that's too harsh, let's just say 'silly stuff'...or normal stuff....or 'what else is new' stuff.
What we are talking about here is simple human frailty...the natural tendency of human beings to err, to misunderstand, or misinterpret what it is they see or hear as what they sense is passed, inevitably, through their own idiosyncratic filters. Those filters color outcomes. They nudge our understanding left or right, good or bad, according to our own fears, desires, and biases. We see through a glass darkly.
And if, what we see, offends us – and we’re 5 -- we cry & complain: "Charlie 'bit' me!", or "Charlie hurt my feelings"! But then Mom shows-up...gives us a hug & kiss, and makes it all better! We laugh, and return to the Sandbox to play some more with that villain, Charlie.
In the Hyper-Sensitive Now, though.... If we're 25...or 35....or more... and our feelings are hurt by some grown-up Charlie (playing in a totally different sandbox) .... we pout, & point & yell, "Microaggression!" Or sometimes, "Racism!" Or sometimes "Sexism....or Classism....or Ableism... or Misogyny!" And in this down-the-rabbit-hole, World of Woke there is no ‘kissing it & making it better’, there’s only outrage, retribution, cancellation, apology tours, punishment, and – if we’re lucky – the chance to go to ReEducation Camps, make confession, and ask for forgiveness from a roomful of Charlies.
The fear of the New Gestapo, knocking at our door, keeps us all silent.
“I was so afraid to tell her that her hair was beautiful, because then it would be seen as a white-black thing.” So what?
The question is: Are we all 5 again?
Or do we simply assume that the Other is always 5...and will cry and complain and demand retribution if – in any particular sandbox – their feelings are hurt by some invisible something they’ve imagined?
Do we really want to live in a world in which everything we say or do must be second-guessed, avoided, or muted for fear of tender toes?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment.
And sometimes we really should grant to the Other the very real possibility that they, too, are an adult and long past the outraged tantrum stage.
What then are we to do?
Speak honestly. Speak forthrightly. Exercise some common sense. Be courteous. Act like a gentleman. Act like a lady. Expect to be treated accordingly. Avoid conniption fits. Treat people with dignity (as you yourself would like to be treated). Be kind. Be generous. And please feel free to grant the Other the benefit of the doubt, as you would hope they equally grant you.
And if some idiot, in a huff, then decides to attach some abstruse & insulting meaning to a compliment....a phrase...a look...a gesture...a question... If some idiot insists that your words contain a meaning that is not there, that was not intended....then that is their idiot problem, not yours. Laugh, shake your head, ignore them and walk away.
It’s long past time we all grow up.
And being grown-up, if someone tells us, “Your hair is beautiful!”, just say “Thank-you!”. It’s really pretty simple.
Excellent comment. I would say that I am getting to the point if someone was put-out by a genuine compliment or friendly question I would be tempted to tell them to bugger off. Laughing and walking away is more polite, maybe.
But you bring up an idea that someone well-known and regarded once said-"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Regardless of all the hullabaloo about who's oppressed and who's privileged, I don't see how you can go wrong with this credo.
The 'there is no free speech' is an interesting argument. But only from the perspective of the evangelical. Which is to say whether or not I care if my Godless speech affects evangelical Christians, to say that I am inextricably bound in that narrative economy suggests that I cannot be a rational actor with my own agency. Yes I can understand that people discount my colorblind speech, like people discounted Galileo's speech. But the problem here is that the racialists cannot explain racially retrograde motion because they think that race is the most massive object in our system and that the heavens must revolve around that.
What do we do with the miscegenated? Is it possible that their love can be true, despite the racialists that control the narrative? I put it this way because I think Glenn is suggesting that the One Drop Rule is absolute and that a conceptual counternarrative has no ultimate weight until we all look the same. That people will always consider themselves to be essentially racial, and nothing can counter that. A colorblind principle is pie in the sky unless you make the commitment to miscegenate - and then you are in a particularly committed jeopardy.
Think the point Glenn makes here in "the long and short of it is there's no such thing as free speech..." paragraph is a really wise one. I had never quite thought of it that way before, and I think Glenn's formulation is really elegant and powerful. Thank you.
But the idea that "(we) cannot speak outside of the flow of history and the web of culture" is an old one. As John Donne put it in 1624: "No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main." Nothing we say or do is said or done within a perfect vacuum. It can't be. Rather it is filled, or so we hope, with the meanings we intend...that we ourselves have spent our lives learning, as a function of our full-immersion in that flow of history, that web of culture.
Equally we hope that those meanings survive their interpretation by the Other, who also is caught in that same web of understanding.
And yet, we still can communicate; we still can understand. And always we can ask for clarification.
The point is, of course, our speech still is free. We can say whatever it is we wish to say. But our speech, like everything else, is not without consequence. And by speaking, we are essentially agreeing to deal with that consequence, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable that consequence may be.
I have been a Glenn follower (fan) for many years because I wanted to understand black African-American thinking. Once or twice I nearly gave up the quest, I began to think that it was a fools errend and hopeless. I am caucasion (ex-Rhodesian), I can see Glenn guffawing, and I can understand why. He doesn't know what he does nort know, enpough said. Mixing with blacks in Central Africa is generally speaking a far more honest, open and genuine set of sentiments. There is no pretence, we accept without reservation, that we have differences. The things that bind us and enable bonding to occur are our committment to the principles of 'loyalty' and 'honour'. We don't want to fail in those regards. The African-American white/black dilemma with disparities, is a psychological sickness. One is born with lemons, some get more lemons that others, so what? It is the quality of the lemonade not the quantity. The Jennifer situation should be put down to sensitivity. We can all be sensitive, so what?
This really isn't complicated, and I would give myself an ulcer if I went around worrying about possible twisted perceptions of any compliment I give, no matter the race, sex or other factor of the other person. As a woman (pale), in my younger days I've had a few males believe a smile and friendliness was a pass, but I still try to be pleasant. I can't control the perception of the other person and I've given compliments to other women of various hues with no negative reaction.
Well and concisely said: "This really isn't complicated." The core issue is not the definition of colorblindness or of whether "it" can exist. Rather it is whether the government should have authority to require us to identify, using government defined racial categories, with one (or more) of them. It is an immoral, unscientific, and divisive act for the government to make that request -- or to select a category for us if we silently object. This puts no limits on what individuals may call themselves or others. But it is unclear whether Glenn agrees or disagrees with this idea. Seems a "yes" or "no" question.
Yes. There is a huge difference between being 'colorblind' or 'color indifferent' as an individual....and having the state mandate demographic parsing by color/race/ethnicity in an entirely delusional / ill-conceived attempt to guarantee Diversity/Inclusivity/Equity.
The answer, as you say should be Yes or No. And the rational, and morally responsible answer must always be a NO: it is wrong, wrong, wrong to discriminate (treat people unfairly) on the basis of color/race/ethnicity. Always.
OK Glenn. I get where you're coming from, but it seems to me that we can't move forward towards a society in which "race" and the weight of history don't limit our ability to trust in each other's good intentions unless we are willing to risk potentially fraught encounters. Perhaps it's corny, but I don't see any other way to build a better future except through one genuine conversation at a time even when it is difficult and when our good intentions may be called into question. It isn't so much a matter of color blindness as it is committing ourselves to look at the person in front of us at the moment as they are and sharing with them our honest thoughts, emotions, experiences, etc. while remaining open to theirs. Someone needs to walk across the aisle, offer their hand and make a joke risking that it will fall flat or even cause unintended offense. The hope is that more often than not we will manage to connect on a basic level and walk away from the encounter feeling good about ourselves and our new aquantance. What else is there that we can all do?
In fact I think, in most cases, we do "connect on a basic level" more often than not....but the radical, hyper-sensitive outliers -- who thrive on microaggressions, 'hurt feelings' and invisible slights -- are much louder.
We may open a door for a woman 100 times in a row...and 99 times we'll be thanked....but post-radical-feminism, that 100th time we'll be berated. The question, of course, becomes: what do we do on the 101st occasion? A reasonable man still opens the door.
Agreed. But the aggrieved WANT to remain aggrieved so as to not lose the power that comes with aggrievement. Silly, really. And psychologically perverse.
I have some basic guidelines about conversations with anyone. Personal comments are inappropriate to anyone but close friends so that would solve this problem regardless of race or ethnicity - don’t say anything about their personal appearance. An exception is if you really like an article of clothes and would like to buy it yourself - then you can say to anyone “I really like your jacket. Do you mind if I ask where you got it because I’d like to buy if it is still available.” Or where do you get your hair done - I’d like to try that salon. Treat everyone as if they are your favorite people. If someone takes your comment the wrong way, that is their problem not yours and don’t make it your problem. If someone makes a comment to you don’t second guess them. Take it in the most positive way you can. Give lots of grace to everyone. When I grew up I was taught to be polite to everyone regardless of how they treat me. I’m over 70 and it has worked out for me.
For a very long time I have been reading about the need to overturn school appearance codes because they do not allow Blacks to wear their hair as they would like. I have read arguments about how for Black people, hair can define them. Some even incorporate memories of their ancestors into their hair style. I recently read that black people were leaving New Hampshire because hair salons didn’t “cater to their curls.” My hair stylist told me, she makes all her money on coloring, straightening, and applying and designing styles using hair extensions for her black clients. Over the past days I watched the NCAA track meets. White female runners have their hair pulled back with a hair tie. For most African American female runners, it’s impossible not to notice how much attention is paid to their hair style. This is why I find this whole question of how can a white person compliment a black person on their hair without being seen as racist, insane. For a white person to admire the attention that a black person gives to their hair is a nice thing to do. For anyone to see it as racist is a testament to a nation amid racism insanity.
The Conundrum of Colorblindness
(A Response from W. F. Twyman, Jr.)
In one of my favorite Substack essays thus far, I write about curiosity and hair. I was on a tropical island thousands of miles away from home. The views were spectacular. The beaches were heavenly. Everyone on the island looked like me, except for our fellow tourists:
"A few moments ago and quite by chance, I witnessed a racial moment through my American eyes. A local waiter with grace and tenderness caressed the bright red hair of a white toddler. The toddler was around three years old and unaware of her striking hair color and texture from the perspective of the waiter. The moment only lasted for two or three seconds. No self-consciousness, pure curiosity on the waiter’s part.
Reverse this racial moment…imagine a resort in the United States where a white waiter mindlessly ran her fingers through the tightly curled hair of a black toddler…without Mom’s permission. The foreseeable consequence might be a Twitter mob, a Tik Tok meltdown." — https://twyman.substack.com/p/the-souls-of-black-folks
In a recent clip titled The Conundrum of Colorblindness, Professor Glenn Loury reflects upon a story my co-author Jennifer Richmond had about black hair. Jen wanted to compliment a black woman on her hair. Jen lost her nerve due to…race. Professor Loury properly sizes up the situation as the unavoidability of race. “Jennifer’s innocuous intent on its own is not sufficient to exempt her from the constraints imposed by the enormously complex web of racialized meanings which American social history has, over centuries, bequeath to us.” So sayeth Glenn.
Jen is white which I guess makes all the difference in these here states. Sigh.
I get where Glenn is coming from. For the same flow of history reasons, I kept my distance from South Boston while a law student at Harvard. I hold my tongue when critiquing Kwanzaa due to the web of culture in my beloved close family. I try to show Theory of the Mind at times/smile.
But if I am honest, I am rooting for Jen and a better country where we are as wise about race as the black waiter was on the tropical island. It is human to be curious. One should feel joy upon a hair compliment. It is not to confuse the desire to change our society reality on matters of race for reality itself that causes Jen and I to see the world as we see it.
Beautiful non-conforming minds always see beyond the horizon of reality itself into the promised land of color indifference. We usher in the coming of a better time one individual at a time. https://twyman.substack.com/p/a-beautiful-mind
https://www.moon.com/travel/trip-ideas/10-reasons-to-go-to-fiji/
=========
Professor Glenn Loury on Hair Compliments and Reality of Race
In this part of my conversation with Jennifer Richmond and Winkfield Twyman Jr, Jennifer tells a story that I imagine is quite common. A black woman at her church has beautiful hair, and Jennifer wants to compliment her. After all, the woman has probably gone out of her way to make her hair look beautiful. Why shouldn’t she be complimented? But Jennifer, a white woman, fears that her compliment on the beauty of the woman’s hair will be misinterpreted as a disguised comment on the woman’s race, and awkwardness (or worse) may ensue. My first thought is to tell Jennifer that, since her motives are pure, she needn’t worry about how her words will be interpreted. But that is naive advice, for such a compliment coming from a white woman does indeed risk giving unintended offense, no matter how much we all might wish it didn’t.
Jennifer’s dilemma illustrates the core conundrum of colorblindness in miniature. That is, she wants "race" not to matter when complimenting a black woman on her beauty (or intelligence, or punctuality, or discipline, etc.) And yet, the racial subtext of such a remark is unavoidable. Jennifer's innocuous intent on its own is not sufficient to exempt her from the constraints imposed by the enormously complex web of racialized meanings which American social history has, over centuries, bequeath to us. Neither can personal declarations of racial self-definition circumvent the subtleties of perception and interpretation that attend even our most casual social interactions.
A “white” woman expressing wide-eyed wonder at the beauty of a black woman's hair runs the risk of becoming a fraught encounter. If Jennifer could communicate her intentions unfreighted by the weight of our racial history, she would have nothing to fear. But she cannot speak outside of the flow of history and the web of culture. None of us can. In theory, I might try to “absolve” her of any wrongdoing, as a black man, by confirming that she is not a racist. In reality, the so-called “black card” is non-transferable. There is little that any one person can do to change this state of affairs. That should not stop those who wish for a different racial reality from working to bring it into being. But we should not confuse the desire to change our social reality on matters of race for reality itself.
"Terence, this is stupid stuff".
And if that's too harsh, let's just say 'silly stuff'...or normal stuff....or 'what else is new' stuff.
What we are talking about here is simple human frailty...the natural tendency of human beings to err, to misunderstand, or misinterpret what it is they see or hear as what they sense is passed, inevitably, through their own idiosyncratic filters. Those filters color outcomes. They nudge our understanding left or right, good or bad, according to our own fears, desires, and biases. We see through a glass darkly.
And if, what we see, offends us – and we’re 5 -- we cry & complain: "Charlie 'bit' me!", or "Charlie hurt my feelings"! But then Mom shows-up...gives us a hug & kiss, and makes it all better! We laugh, and return to the Sandbox to play some more with that villain, Charlie.
In the Hyper-Sensitive Now, though.... If we're 25...or 35....or more... and our feelings are hurt by some grown-up Charlie (playing in a totally different sandbox) .... we pout, & point & yell, "Microaggression!" Or sometimes, "Racism!" Or sometimes "Sexism....or Classism....or Ableism... or Misogyny!" And in this down-the-rabbit-hole, World of Woke there is no ‘kissing it & making it better’, there’s only outrage, retribution, cancellation, apology tours, punishment, and – if we’re lucky – the chance to go to ReEducation Camps, make confession, and ask for forgiveness from a roomful of Charlies.
The fear of the New Gestapo, knocking at our door, keeps us all silent.
“I was so afraid to tell her that her hair was beautiful, because then it would be seen as a white-black thing.” So what?
The question is: Are we all 5 again?
Or do we simply assume that the Other is always 5...and will cry and complain and demand retribution if – in any particular sandbox – their feelings are hurt by some invisible something they’ve imagined?
Do we really want to live in a world in which everything we say or do must be second-guessed, avoided, or muted for fear of tender toes?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment.
And sometimes we really should grant to the Other the very real possibility that they, too, are an adult and long past the outraged tantrum stage.
What then are we to do?
Speak honestly. Speak forthrightly. Exercise some common sense. Be courteous. Act like a gentleman. Act like a lady. Expect to be treated accordingly. Avoid conniption fits. Treat people with dignity (as you yourself would like to be treated). Be kind. Be generous. And please feel free to grant the Other the benefit of the doubt, as you would hope they equally grant you.
And if some idiot, in a huff, then decides to attach some abstruse & insulting meaning to a compliment....a phrase...a look...a gesture...a question... If some idiot insists that your words contain a meaning that is not there, that was not intended....then that is their idiot problem, not yours. Laugh, shake your head, ignore them and walk away.
It’s long past time we all grow up.
And being grown-up, if someone tells us, “Your hair is beautiful!”, just say “Thank-you!”. It’s really pretty simple.
Excellent comment. I would say that I am getting to the point if someone was put-out by a genuine compliment or friendly question I would be tempted to tell them to bugger off. Laughing and walking away is more polite, maybe.
But you bring up an idea that someone well-known and regarded once said-"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Regardless of all the hullabaloo about who's oppressed and who's privileged, I don't see how you can go wrong with this credo.
The 'there is no free speech' is an interesting argument. But only from the perspective of the evangelical. Which is to say whether or not I care if my Godless speech affects evangelical Christians, to say that I am inextricably bound in that narrative economy suggests that I cannot be a rational actor with my own agency. Yes I can understand that people discount my colorblind speech, like people discounted Galileo's speech. But the problem here is that the racialists cannot explain racially retrograde motion because they think that race is the most massive object in our system and that the heavens must revolve around that.
What do we do with the miscegenated? Is it possible that their love can be true, despite the racialists that control the narrative? I put it this way because I think Glenn is suggesting that the One Drop Rule is absolute and that a conceptual counternarrative has no ultimate weight until we all look the same. That people will always consider themselves to be essentially racial, and nothing can counter that. A colorblind principle is pie in the sky unless you make the commitment to miscegenate - and then you are in a particularly committed jeopardy.
Think the point Glenn makes here in "the long and short of it is there's no such thing as free speech..." paragraph is a really wise one. I had never quite thought of it that way before, and I think Glenn's formulation is really elegant and powerful. Thank you.
Indeed.
But the idea that "(we) cannot speak outside of the flow of history and the web of culture" is an old one. As John Donne put it in 1624: "No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main." Nothing we say or do is said or done within a perfect vacuum. It can't be. Rather it is filled, or so we hope, with the meanings we intend...that we ourselves have spent our lives learning, as a function of our full-immersion in that flow of history, that web of culture.
Equally we hope that those meanings survive their interpretation by the Other, who also is caught in that same web of understanding.
And yet, we still can communicate; we still can understand. And always we can ask for clarification.
The point is, of course, our speech still is free. We can say whatever it is we wish to say. But our speech, like everything else, is not without consequence. And by speaking, we are essentially agreeing to deal with that consequence, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable that consequence may be.
Reminds me of that old poem, "Gods Gifts"?
When God gave out chins
I thought he said gins
So I ordered a double.
When God gave out noses
I thought he said roses
So I ordered a large red one.
I have been a Glenn follower (fan) for many years because I wanted to understand black African-American thinking. Once or twice I nearly gave up the quest, I began to think that it was a fools errend and hopeless. I am caucasion (ex-Rhodesian), I can see Glenn guffawing, and I can understand why. He doesn't know what he does nort know, enpough said. Mixing with blacks in Central Africa is generally speaking a far more honest, open and genuine set of sentiments. There is no pretence, we accept without reservation, that we have differences. The things that bind us and enable bonding to occur are our committment to the principles of 'loyalty' and 'honour'. We don't want to fail in those regards. The African-American white/black dilemma with disparities, is a psychological sickness. One is born with lemons, some get more lemons that others, so what? It is the quality of the lemonade not the quantity. The Jennifer situation should be put down to sensitivity. We can all be sensitive, so what?
This really isn't complicated, and I would give myself an ulcer if I went around worrying about possible twisted perceptions of any compliment I give, no matter the race, sex or other factor of the other person. As a woman (pale), in my younger days I've had a few males believe a smile and friendliness was a pass, but I still try to be pleasant. I can't control the perception of the other person and I've given compliments to other women of various hues with no negative reaction.
Well and concisely said: "This really isn't complicated." The core issue is not the definition of colorblindness or of whether "it" can exist. Rather it is whether the government should have authority to require us to identify, using government defined racial categories, with one (or more) of them. It is an immoral, unscientific, and divisive act for the government to make that request -- or to select a category for us if we silently object. This puts no limits on what individuals may call themselves or others. But it is unclear whether Glenn agrees or disagrees with this idea. Seems a "yes" or "no" question.
Yes. There is a huge difference between being 'colorblind' or 'color indifferent' as an individual....and having the state mandate demographic parsing by color/race/ethnicity in an entirely delusional / ill-conceived attempt to guarantee Diversity/Inclusivity/Equity.
The answer, as you say should be Yes or No. And the rational, and morally responsible answer must always be a NO: it is wrong, wrong, wrong to discriminate (treat people unfairly) on the basis of color/race/ethnicity. Always.
OK Glenn. I get where you're coming from, but it seems to me that we can't move forward towards a society in which "race" and the weight of history don't limit our ability to trust in each other's good intentions unless we are willing to risk potentially fraught encounters. Perhaps it's corny, but I don't see any other way to build a better future except through one genuine conversation at a time even when it is difficult and when our good intentions may be called into question. It isn't so much a matter of color blindness as it is committing ourselves to look at the person in front of us at the moment as they are and sharing with them our honest thoughts, emotions, experiences, etc. while remaining open to theirs. Someone needs to walk across the aisle, offer their hand and make a joke risking that it will fall flat or even cause unintended offense. The hope is that more often than not we will manage to connect on a basic level and walk away from the encounter feeling good about ourselves and our new aquantance. What else is there that we can all do?
Very true. Nicely said.
In fact I think, in most cases, we do "connect on a basic level" more often than not....but the radical, hyper-sensitive outliers -- who thrive on microaggressions, 'hurt feelings' and invisible slights -- are much louder.
We may open a door for a woman 100 times in a row...and 99 times we'll be thanked....but post-radical-feminism, that 100th time we'll be berated. The question, of course, becomes: what do we do on the 101st occasion? A reasonable man still opens the door.
Agreed. But the aggrieved WANT to remain aggrieved so as to not lose the power that comes with aggrievement. Silly, really. And psychologically perverse.
Good point, and as soon as you identify that type, avoid them. There are lots of folk interested in building human connections.
Easy. Go to a white church. You won't be yelled at, attacked or have your car broken into.
Next.