I have no reason to believe that physicians will reach your ideal. I want studies using racial information to continue. Books like “Medical Apartheid” and Dayna Bowen Matthew’s “Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care” point out the biases that lead to adverse health outcomes. How do we approach the problem in a colorblind system?
I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families.
“Let our choices be for life, for protecting our women, our children, keeping our brothers free of drugs, free of crime,” Schmoke told the crowd, which assembled on the Mall. It was reported that in response to the march some 1.7 million African American men registered to vote.
To clarify, when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race. A colorblind system indicates not looking for evidence of implicit bias.
"when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race"
I'll respond to this point. It is important.
In my case, you are hearing me dead wrong.
The bottom line for me: When race is relevant, we should talk about it. When it's not, we shouldn't. At the end of the day, I want a world that deems race--and particularly racial categories--as a crude primitive fundamentally bs concept created centuries ago for a litany of social, political and economic purposes.
Humankind needs to flush race down the toilet. That is my basic unvarnished view.
But this is not easy to do. We haven't even taken the dump yet. We are still constipated. (Frankly, some of us seem to prefer constipation.) While the ultimate goal remains the same, first things first. (Sorry about the analogy. It works.)
Recognizing differences among people doesn't bother me. But doing it via the prism of race--as the world defines it today--is dumb and deleterious for society. I think of colorblindness as a catch-all synonym for this general point of view. Like many terms, colorblindness is subject to interpretation.
*I* think it exists on a spectrum. Case in point: I like Black excellence. I hate Black ignorance and stupidity. But at the end of the day, terms like "Black" and "White" are bullsh** to me. So why do I use them?
Well, it's not because they mean s*** to me personally. It's because they mean a lot to the society I live in, and pragmatically, I cannot operate outside of society.
But I draw the lines according to my principles.
A racial issue that used to (and still does) concern me in a big way is beauty standards: Colorism. Light skin versus dark skin. "White"/"Asian" hair versus "Black" hair. Eurocentrism, etc.
When the natural hair movement took root among African-American women, I was quite pleased, simply because something had to counter the perpetual disgusting message to Black females and other darker-skinned females throughout the globe.
It was not an issue we could address by not talking about race. I would have to be a fool to think otherwise, and I am anything but that.
But at the end of the day, race is still bullsh** and colorblind is the proper direction. I remain clear about that and will not veer from that.
MY desire for a colorblind society starts on the ground. On the individual level. It is a process. It is not about flipping a switch. You will never hear me say, "Just stop talking about race!" with zero qualifiers. But I WILL say stop talking about race when it's not the issue.
Example: You will never see me date a woman because she belongs to a certain racial category, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do. You will never see me pick friends or associates based on race, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do.
You will never see me mistrust a person because they do or don't fit a certain racial category; etc.
I am somewhat different from, say, Kmele, who is a self-described race abolitionist. Kmele refuses to use racial terms to describe anybody.
I get his thought process. I honestly respect it. But it's not practical enough for my life. But Kmele and I still share the same goal.
But even Kmele is not oblivious to the world around him, nor does he pretend to be. He openly and unapologetically criticizes both the so-called "race realist" elements on the right as well as the race essentialist elements on the left. He knows the society he lives in isn't about race abolitionism. But as far as HIS life, he is committed to a colorblind point of view. And I see no contradictions in either of us.
Or in Glenn Loury, who is definitely not a race abolitionist. To the contrary, Glenn is very aware of his "race", and takes a certain amount of pride in it. But at the end of the day, Glenn agrees with people like me and Kmele about the ultimate goal.
That is my last word on that. But I had to touch on this:
"I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families."
A lot of speakers conveyed that message that day. That was the central theme of the event. I never suggested it wasn't. That said, a lot of the rhetoric contained a lot of nonsense as well.
"Did you pay any attention to the events?"
LOL
Do I sound like somebody who didn't?
This is what I mean when I say I don't always get what you are responding to. You appear to read things into what I write instead of just reading what I write. I tend to mean what I say, RR.
But to answer your question, yes. I saw the whole thing from start to finish live on C-SPAN. Not to mention a few pregame activities the night before.
The Fearless Fund provided grants to Black female entrepreneurs. The program was halted after a Conservative group complained that the program was not colorblind. I don’t see the upside of colorblind.
One thing that stands in your commentary about color blindness and the Million Man March is that you don’t have the votes. The thousands of men who attended the Million Man March were peaceful, they still were not respected. There is no guarantee that being colorblind will change anything. The caste system will still survive. The female entrepreneurs who received grants from the Fearless Fund likely disagree with your willingness to force your standard on them.
Coleman Hughes argues that Martin Luther Jr.was colorblind, he was not. Hughes points us to “Why We Can’t Wait” as proof. When we go to King’s book, we find the following:
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
And
Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner. Several years ago, Prime Minister Nehru was telling me how his nation is handling the difficult problem of the untouchables, a problem not unrelated to the American Negro dilemma.… The Indian government spends millions of rupees annually developing housing and job opportunities in villages heavily inhabited by untouchables. Moreover, the prime minister said, if two applicants compete for entrance into a college or university, one of the applicants being an untouchable and the other of high caste, the school is required to accept the untouchable. Professor Lawrence Reddick, who was with me during the interview, asked: “But isn’t that discrimination?” “Well, it may be,” the prime minister answered. “But this is our way of atoning for the centuries of injustices we have inflicted upon these people.”
Forgive me for not remembering all the details of our conversations.
#1, when did I ever suggest that I wanted to "force" my vision of colorblindness on anybody? Answer: Never.
#2, if you recall our discussion many months ago, I applauded Fearless Fund for taking control and making the market work for them. I was critical of their adversaries, not them; and unequivocally so.
#3, yes, the thousands of men who attended the Million Man March were indeed peaceful, as I emphasized in my original post. What do you mean they were not respected? Some folks respected them, some didn't; some will never respect them. So what?
Nobody is respected by "everybody".
#4, I favor reparations for living victims of Jim Crow. (So does Coleman Hughes, by the way.) I have stated this multiple times in this forum and elsewhere. And guess what? I don't have the votes for that either. But I think it is the right thing to do.
A lot of things seem (and sometimes are) unattainable in this lifetime. But that doesn't mean we discard the goal or the effort.
"There is no guarantee that being colorblind will change anything"
I don't know what your point was here. There's no guarantee the Buffalo Bills will find nirvana if they win a Super Bowl.
What does a guarantee have to do with this? Since when did guarantees begin dictating where humanity goes next?
It's okay for a person--or an organization, or a society--to have goals that are unachievable in this lifetime. Ever heard of abolition? Gay marriage? The dismantling of Jim Crow?
I have no reason to believe that physicians will reach your ideal. I want studies using racial information to continue. Books like “Medical Apartheid” and Dayna Bowen Matthew’s “Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care” point out the biases that lead to adverse health outcomes. How do we approach the problem in a colorblind system?
I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families.
http://www.orondeamiller.com/archives/4736
Did you pay any attention to the events?
Edit to add:
From then Baltimore MayorKurt Schmoke
“Let our choices be for life, for protecting our women, our children, keeping our brothers free of drugs, free of crime,” Schmoke told the crowd, which assembled on the Mall. It was reported that in response to the march some 1.7 million African American men registered to vote.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Million-Man-March
Edit to add:
To clarify, when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race. A colorblind system indicates not looking for evidence of implicit bias.
"when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race"
I'll respond to this point. It is important.
In my case, you are hearing me dead wrong.
The bottom line for me: When race is relevant, we should talk about it. When it's not, we shouldn't. At the end of the day, I want a world that deems race--and particularly racial categories--as a crude primitive fundamentally bs concept created centuries ago for a litany of social, political and economic purposes.
Humankind needs to flush race down the toilet. That is my basic unvarnished view.
But this is not easy to do. We haven't even taken the dump yet. We are still constipated. (Frankly, some of us seem to prefer constipation.) While the ultimate goal remains the same, first things first. (Sorry about the analogy. It works.)
Recognizing differences among people doesn't bother me. But doing it via the prism of race--as the world defines it today--is dumb and deleterious for society. I think of colorblindness as a catch-all synonym for this general point of view. Like many terms, colorblindness is subject to interpretation.
*I* think it exists on a spectrum. Case in point: I like Black excellence. I hate Black ignorance and stupidity. But at the end of the day, terms like "Black" and "White" are bullsh** to me. So why do I use them?
Well, it's not because they mean s*** to me personally. It's because they mean a lot to the society I live in, and pragmatically, I cannot operate outside of society.
But I draw the lines according to my principles.
A racial issue that used to (and still does) concern me in a big way is beauty standards: Colorism. Light skin versus dark skin. "White"/"Asian" hair versus "Black" hair. Eurocentrism, etc.
When the natural hair movement took root among African-American women, I was quite pleased, simply because something had to counter the perpetual disgusting message to Black females and other darker-skinned females throughout the globe.
It was not an issue we could address by not talking about race. I would have to be a fool to think otherwise, and I am anything but that.
But at the end of the day, race is still bullsh** and colorblind is the proper direction. I remain clear about that and will not veer from that.
MY desire for a colorblind society starts on the ground. On the individual level. It is a process. It is not about flipping a switch. You will never hear me say, "Just stop talking about race!" with zero qualifiers. But I WILL say stop talking about race when it's not the issue.
Example: You will never see me date a woman because she belongs to a certain racial category, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do. You will never see me pick friends or associates based on race, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do.
You will never see me mistrust a person because they do or don't fit a certain racial category; etc.
I am somewhat different from, say, Kmele, who is a self-described race abolitionist. Kmele refuses to use racial terms to describe anybody.
I get his thought process. I honestly respect it. But it's not practical enough for my life. But Kmele and I still share the same goal.
But even Kmele is not oblivious to the world around him, nor does he pretend to be. He openly and unapologetically criticizes both the so-called "race realist" elements on the right as well as the race essentialist elements on the left. He knows the society he lives in isn't about race abolitionism. But as far as HIS life, he is committed to a colorblind point of view. And I see no contradictions in either of us.
Or in Glenn Loury, who is definitely not a race abolitionist. To the contrary, Glenn is very aware of his "race", and takes a certain amount of pride in it. But at the end of the day, Glenn agrees with people like me and Kmele about the ultimate goal.
That is my last word on that. But I had to touch on this:
"I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families."
A lot of speakers conveyed that message that day. That was the central theme of the event. I never suggested it wasn't. That said, a lot of the rhetoric contained a lot of nonsense as well.
"Did you pay any attention to the events?"
LOL
Do I sound like somebody who didn't?
This is what I mean when I say I don't always get what you are responding to. You appear to read things into what I write instead of just reading what I write. I tend to mean what I say, RR.
But to answer your question, yes. I saw the whole thing from start to finish live on C-SPAN. Not to mention a few pregame activities the night before.
The Fearless Fund provided grants to Black female entrepreneurs. The program was halted after a Conservative group complained that the program was not colorblind. I don’t see the upside of colorblind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/30/injunction-fearless-fund-black-women/
Yeah, we discussed that story at length many months ago. I wrote about it before you brought it up to me.
I don't see the upside of forever clinging to a silly taxonomy like "race".
One thing that stands in your commentary about color blindness and the Million Man March is that you don’t have the votes. The thousands of men who attended the Million Man March were peaceful, they still were not respected. There is no guarantee that being colorblind will change anything. The caste system will still survive. The female entrepreneurs who received grants from the Fearless Fund likely disagree with your willingness to force your standard on them.
Coleman Hughes argues that Martin Luther Jr.was colorblind, he was not. Hughes points us to “Why We Can’t Wait” as proof. When we go to King’s book, we find the following:
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
And
Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner. Several years ago, Prime Minister Nehru was telling me how his nation is handling the difficult problem of the untouchables, a problem not unrelated to the American Negro dilemma.… The Indian government spends millions of rupees annually developing housing and job opportunities in villages heavily inhabited by untouchables. Moreover, the prime minister said, if two applicants compete for entrance into a college or university, one of the applicants being an untouchable and the other of high caste, the school is required to accept the untouchable. Professor Lawrence Reddick, who was with me during the interview, asked: “But isn’t that discrimination?” “Well, it may be,” the prime minister answered. “But this is our way of atoning for the centuries of injustices we have inflicted upon these people.”
Forgive me for not remembering all the details of our conversations.
#1, when did I ever suggest that I wanted to "force" my vision of colorblindness on anybody? Answer: Never.
#2, if you recall our discussion many months ago, I applauded Fearless Fund for taking control and making the market work for them. I was critical of their adversaries, not them; and unequivocally so.
#3, yes, the thousands of men who attended the Million Man March were indeed peaceful, as I emphasized in my original post. What do you mean they were not respected? Some folks respected them, some didn't; some will never respect them. So what?
Nobody is respected by "everybody".
#4, I favor reparations for living victims of Jim Crow. (So does Coleman Hughes, by the way.) I have stated this multiple times in this forum and elsewhere. And guess what? I don't have the votes for that either. But I think it is the right thing to do.
A lot of things seem (and sometimes are) unattainable in this lifetime. But that doesn't mean we discard the goal or the effort.
"There is no guarantee that being colorblind will change anything"
I don't know what your point was here. There's no guarantee the Buffalo Bills will find nirvana if they win a Super Bowl.
What does a guarantee have to do with this? Since when did guarantees begin dictating where humanity goes next?
It's okay for a person--or an organization, or a society--to have goals that are unachievable in this lifetime. Ever heard of abolition? Gay marriage? The dismantling of Jim Crow?
How does the Fearless Fund not violate colorblindness?
(I’ll track down the earlier conversation)