I came to the same conclusion myself - but it's difficult to practise. The scenario is that you're describing a person of colour to a third party, and you don't want to use "race"/skin colour descriptors. You've suggested describing physical characteristics. (Unlike other contributors, I'm happy to imply that you obviously meant characteristics other than skin colour.) The question arises: how important is it that the third party can recognise the described person. The UK police, out of necessity rather than racism, use numbered "race" categories. I'll continue to struggle with this one. I don't like to say, "black", but sometimes I have to. "African" isn't always appropriate. Same with "brown" and "South Asian". "Mixed race" sounds wrong to me. Is "mixed ethnicity" any better? I'm with the OP - lets do it! — Chris Hughes

Being color-blind doesn't entail ignoring skin color all the time - only in those times where it isn't applicable - like when you're an employer hiring someone, or as a citizen voting for someone. It only make sense to talk about skin-color and race in biological/medical contexts - and yes, when describing someone so that they can locate them in a crowd when the crowd is made up of both blacks and whites. You wouldn't need to point out skin color in a crowd when everyone's skin color is the same.

I mean, this is all pretty basic, logical stuff. I don't get why people are so hypersensitive about it.

What racial discrimination in 2 isn't actually 1? — frank

Emergent statistical effects like this. In terms of race, these largely come from past geopolitical strategy (genocide, slavery--colonialism/imperialism, usually economically motivated) on the colonised community, which are then reintegrated into the society in the lower classes (cheap labour) and impoverished areas (cheap areas, ghettoisation); as well as a nationalist/racist propaganda to legitimise mistreatment of the colonised group and stymie collaborations between workers. The story of the Irish in the US is instructive on the latter point, as is the UK's struggle with Pakistani and Indian immigration after WW2 (both colonies were invited to come in here and take our jobs and then demonised for doing so).

Edit: if you wanna talk about people being prejudiced, you always gotta ask: why here? Why now? Why so many? Where does all this "individual sentiment" come from?

I don’t doubt that there are racists who use color-blindness as a cloak to hide their racism. But we should also remember that people like MLK and Nelson Mandela expressed color-blind principles. I don’t think we should abandon color blindness because some have exploited it for their own ends, anymore than we would abandon kindness because a murderer pretended to be kind.

Any example of these “(white) racists who boast about their "colour-blindness" while continuing to blithely practise personal and institutional racism”? — NOS4A2

Oh, yes. How about:

My father... is color-blind — Ivanka Trump"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/the-myth-of-trumps-colorblindness/594124/

It's not kind to deny that racism and race privilege continue to exist.

It’s obvious racism exists. I’m just surprised it’s being used in the spirit of ending racism.

I'm racist, but not because of the language I use. I try to avoid talking about any racial issues for fear of revealing how racist I am.

You should be ashamed of yourself. To be racist is to indulge in bullying, based on a redundant anti-stranger instinct. Pseudo-scientific racism is even worse, like a drunk trying to act sober.

No, evidence that the U.S. is already an equal-treatment country. — Harry Hindu

Prior to this, you wrote: "the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries." Assuming this claim is true, it's still not evidence that the USA is an "equal-treatment country."

???

I am ashamed Chris.

I am ashamed Chris — Bert1

Are you being ironic or genuine? Presumably one or the other. If genuine, I apologise. I think we humans are all racist. Or rather, we're all instinctively wary of strangers. (The instinct probably evolved as protection against communicable disease.) Racism as such is probably a modern European colonial cultural twist on that instinct. If we're aware of that, it's easy enough to choose to live above it (as with other twisted antisocial monsters from the id).

No need to apologise Chris. I definitely am racist. I don't like it. I don't like to say 'we're all racist', because that might make me feel better about it. Although if I did feel better about my racism because everyone else was racist too, then that would make me a dick as well as a racist.

MLK and Nelson Mandela expressed color-blind principles — NOS4A2

King said he didn't want his children judged by the colour of their skin. He never said he wanted the colour of their skin to be ignored.

O... K...

Christ. Here we go again. :sad:

:yawn: Just Saying ... — 180 Proof

Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..."

Once you have established that someone heavily relies upon bad faith as an argument strategy, you don't play that game with them any more. — fdrake

In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on. :victory:

@Chris Hughes :up:
@praxis :up:

:100:

The op is a racist by his own definition. Suggest ban.

King said he didn't want his children judged by the colour of their skin. He never said he wanted the colour of their skin to be ignored.

That’s the essential point of colorblindness, to refuse to judge by the color of another’s skin.

That’s the essential point of colorblindness, to refuse to judge by the color of another’s skin. — NOS4A2

That's true. However, googling produces many articles about conservatives misusing King's "Dream" speech to justify ignoring racism. Eg:

White conservatives use King's words as cover for rebutting affirmative action. When confronted with any program that targets assistance at blacks and other minorities from college admissions to corporate hiring, conservatives say: "But Dr King said to be colorblind". When dismantling voter protections for blacks in the south, the say: "But Dr. King said to be colorblind". When defending racial profiling and stop-and-frisk policies, they say: "Hey, look, we're trying to be colorblind here, but we can't help it if young black men commit all this crime." — Guardian, UK, August 2013

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/martin-luther-king-dream-speech-misunderstand

The point about affirmative action is true. We cannot favor races in policy while discriminating against others, especially at the institutional level. It’s institutional racism.

We cannot favor races in policy while discriminating against others, especially at the institutional level. It’s institutional racism. — NOS4A2

That sounds remarkably like alt-rightism.

In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on. :victory: — 180 Proof

I wish that they were just trolls. Trolls are nihilistic, just doing what they can to get a rise. This is a performance that's been picked up because it works; it looks like putting people in their place with witty comments to uninformed readers and passers by, it's easier to come up with than any rebuttals (the truth is complex) because it doesn't need research or fact checking, and it is more compressed, so travels further. It's a groupthink meme that propagates groupthink memes; an emergent conservative propaganda machine.

If it's done intentionally, it's dangerous, if it's not, they're a useful idiot for dominant (racist-colonialist/imperialist-capitalist-patriarchal) ideology. The same patterns of argument have been used for a long time.

Selectively invoked free speech arguments (yes this is horrible but people have a right to say it... I disagree but want people to say it due to a higher principle...), personal responsibility narratives (yes but not all are effected by... if only these people would stop complaining then...), accusing opponents of acting on mere sentiment rather than reason ("triggered!" "snowflake!" "cuck!" for some modern ones).

Framing tactics like:

Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race?

When, in fact, they do. And this has been shown repeatedly. Higher arrest rates, conviction rates, poverty rates, education differentials, based on (socially constructed) race demographics. The current law evidently isn't enough (at least in the UK and US) to allow equality of opportunity for all; hence cultural and economic change is necessary, hence state involved action is necessary (they have all the of the easy to pull systemic levers), hence political pressure is necessary. This is what 'amplifying voices' most often looks like; turning pain into empowerment (as Lowkey puts it).

There are always stories to make the facts go away. But as they like to say, "facts don't care about your feelings".

That sounds remarkably like alt-rightism.

Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race?

Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race? — NOS4A2

Given the history of slavery, yes.

He's not the OP.

Slavery was also state discrimination against citizens on the basis of their race, as was segregation, apartheid, programs and genocides.

"Reparations for slavery discriminate based on race - therefore they're just as bad as slavery" - this is the level they'll stoop to to maintain their sordid worldviews.

Except no one said that. All this talk of bad faith and this is the result?