Well skin colour is a genetic difference so Im not sure what you are getting at.

It is an extremely minor one - an evolutionary development to suit particular climates.

Every human being has an original genetic code or sequence unique to him.

Ok

Ok.

Accuse me of being a racist and then tells me he loves me. That is essentially the logic you have displayed in this thread. — Harry Hindu

That's brilliant, Harry. So erudite.

Odd, that genetics is seen as relevant here. I guess it's a bias carried over from the predominance of Americans.

Going back to the OP,

...by refusing to consider race as a valid categorization I “deny the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history” and “deny the individual as a racial/cultural being”, which I suppose causes her pain. — NOS4A2

That's a neat summation of the issue, yet does not include talk of genetics.

This is the challenge to liberalism. In denying the significance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, liberals deny aspects that are central to an individual's identity.

I described it as a conceit for the privileged. The ascendency can afford to ignore race, ethnicity, gender and disability because their race, their gender, their ethnicity and their norms are taken as the default; they are the background against which others may be seen as different. So in claiming to be blind to those differences, the ascendency denies what makes those individuals who they are, and reasserts its dominance.

"Your skin colour, you aboriginality, your gender preferences, your disability, mean nothing to me."

That is offensive.

Actual color blindness happens when you forget that your friend is of a particular race until it comes up somehow.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

...and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character.

It would be nice if skin colour didn't matter the way ear size doesn't matter. One would not need to be colour-blind any more than one needs to be ear-size-blind, because in seeing colour, one would see only colour.

Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in; it is a fantasy.

So in claiming to be blind to those differences, the ascendency denies what makes those individuals who they are, and reasserts its dominance. — Banno

I agree; the old ideological sleight of hand, wizardry. I want to add that the elites are essentially sociopathic--little to no conscience or empathy, primarily driven by greed and desire for power--which has always made it easy for them to utterly disregard those below them in power and wealth. Any sociopath can pretend to be blind to differences.

Nations are founded on racism (read ethnic genocide and slavery in the case of the usa).

It would be nice if skin colour didn't matter the way ear size doesn't matter. — unenlightened

Earist.

..and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character. — Banno

So...the colour of someones skin comes along with certain immutable character traits? So MLK had it wrong?
Thats amazing to me, that anyone claiming to not be racist would be so focused on the colour of someones skin.
I guess it all depends on how one defines racism. How do you define it sir?

.the colour of someones skin comes along with certain immutable character traits? — DingoJones

Immutable?

Philosophically what is of interest is the classic criticism of liberalism: that in claiming neutrality on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or ability, it belittles them. It claims that they do not matter. — Banno

I can follow this as European liberalism not as American liberalism. Could confirm it's European. Do liberals on either side of the Atlantic really say that they are neutral on ability? It seems like both are fairly meritocratic.

...and yet the colour of this skin is part of the content of their character. — Banno

No, it really isn't.

Maybe the wrong word, the colour of someones skin dictates the character of that person...in part, you said in part. Which part? For example lets use black Americans. What can we tell from their skin colour about their character? Is it their experience on the receiving end of racism that you mean? That all or most blacks carry that burden and you din’t want that to be forgotten or ignored?
What about white people? What can you tell me about a white persons character, based on the fact they are White?
And as a follow up if you are so inclined, would you say that race or nationality is the bigger factor?
For example, if I present to you a frenchman and a black guy, whose character do you have a more clear picture of?

Which part? What do I learn about someone's character from their color? What should I assume I know?

Yeah, it is.

ability — Coben

As in ablest, not meritocracy.

SO literal.

The left finger.

Noticing someone's ethnicity makes a huge difference to how one ought act towards them.

Noticing someone's ethnicity makes a huge difference to how one ought act towards them. — Banno

What
the
fuck?

what specifically would you have people do differently in what circumstances to avoid doing the bad thing you’re against? — Pfhorrest

Acknowledge and accept differences rather than denying that they exist. — Banno

I expected an answer like this, but it's still not clear to me what you actually want people to do to do that.

Like, I meet two new friends, one of them black and one of them white. What should I do to "acknowledge and accept differences", besides simply not "denying that they exist", which I already wouldn't be doing just by treating them the same. I presume you don't want me to awkwardly announce my perception of what race they are and the presumptions I have about the difficulties or privileges I expect they have likely faced on account of their race?

If one of them tells me about hardships they've faced, I'll believe them (within reasonable limits of course), sure... but that's true of either of them, the black one or the white one. If one of them asks for some kind of help on account of those hardships, I'll do what I reasonably can... but that's true of either of them, the black one or the white one. Maybe the black one is statistically more likely to have accounts of such hardships and request such help, sure, but if I'm already believing those accounts and helping as I can without discrimination in either case, then I'm still treating them the same.

Or, take the example of being colourblind to disability: treating a wheelchair user as if they did not require ramps...? — Banno

A general policy of accommodating all people equally based on their needs covers this. People who have greater needs get greater accommodation. There's an important difference between divisions between people along lines of physical, mental, or financial ability (so recognizing people's disabilities or poverty), that make a practical difference in the kind of treatment someone needs, and things like skin color that don't.

There's nothing a black person needs on direct account of their being black that a white person doesn't, or vice versa, only indirect correlations between skin color and things that do need direct accommodation like income. So long as you directly address those correlates (so be accommodating of people who are poor, for example), there is no need to address the irrelevant features that correlate with them directly; you'll automatically be accommodating of, for example, black people's greater statistical poverty, just by being accommodating poverty in general.

Ok, could you expand on that more? Im a fan of brevity but thats too brief, Im not clear on your stance here.
Like I asked, is it the experiences of racism that your worried about forgetting/ignoring?
And if its too literal to take you as saying you can make judgements about character based on skin colour/race, what exactly do you mean? You look at a person, identify their race by their skin colour and that indicates...what exactly? Youre saying nothing about their character directly but what their character is based on...history of racism or slavery?
Is it specific to the race?

Why would you find that surprising? Don't put your feet on the table in a Maori household.

Dont ask Japanese people personal questions.

That's culture, not ethnicity. You can ask a Japanese American anything you want.

but it's still not clear to me what you actually want people to do to do that. — Pfhorrest

You want me to tell you what to do in every case?

It's a bit of an unfair question.

You want a general rule of thumb?

Acknowledge the difference and be respectful.

A general policy of accommodating all people equally based on their needs covers this. People who have greater needs get greater accommodation. — Pfhorrest

Yep. The answer is not to ignore, so much as to rejoice in it.

SO the criticism presented here of liberalism can be answered in a fairly straight forward way. Differences of cultural, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability and so on might be accommodated in capabilities approach; that is, they might be recognised and encouraged to flourish within a liberal framework.

And of course there would be many issues involved in doing so, but it seems preferable to ignoring such differences or rendering them inconsequential.

So...?

Well, race is one thing and ethnicity, gender, disability, etc. are quite another. Though it is possible, I am unaware of anyone, liberal or otherwise, who says anything like this:

Your skin colour, you aboriginality, your gender preferences, your disability, mean nothing to me.

Perhaps it boils down to the misinterpretation of the arguments. Perhaps color-blindness is a poor term given its clinical application elsewhere and metaphorical usage here. I’ve mentioned this many times but it is not about not seeing color, at least for me, but to affirm and accept the individual on his own terms, refusing to racialize him into this or that taxonomy.

You want me to tell you what to do in every case? — Banno

More of just an example or two, because I'm just trying to imagine a scenario where treating people equally is bad, and what would be the better alternative to that.