Colourblindness is what you pretended to in saying "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!"

So all people from all countries are colourblind, and that's racist and supremacist? — counterpunch

How do you think this follows from anything else said here? Willow was saying that other cultures, besides the West, are justifiably proud of their achievements. It doesn't follow that they are racist, until they add the pretence that they cannot see any difference between other cultures and their own - as you did.

Here's your inconsistency: You distinguish your own culture and you are proud of you it as it suits you; but when black folk talk of their own distinctiveness, you seek to deny its very existence by saying it "ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!"

It's such a small issue for you that you had to capitalise it.

Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals.
— counterpunch

You spent too much time listening to Thatcher. — Banno

That was the first line of an argument that explains why it's necessary to treat people as individuals. You just took me to task for being dismissive of Willow - who is a lovely person, but seems to be expressing a sentimental truth, rather than a logical one - by stringing together some happy words in a fairly random order. (See the Sokal Affair.)

And the next words your, I'm guessing one finger - punches out on the keyboard, is "You spent too much time listening to Thatcher." And you call me trite?

I can quote passages from Hobbes Leviathan from memory. I've read Rawls - A Theory of Justice cover to cover. Don't judge me by your standards.

Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
— counterpunch

The question is, was he treated differently because he was black. — Banno

Oh, well then, yes, he most certainly was - but only after he was dead.

But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you. — Banno

No, it's not. Because if he were a white junkie criminal, who fought four police officers to prevent being put in a car, and was restrained - and died waiting for a van, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I'd be saying he created the need to restrain him, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You are saying something different because of his skin colour. If you're saying his skin colour was an issue - what evidence do you have for that?

I was addressing assertions about the need to be pro Western and how it related to supremacy.

There are "colourblind" people in all countries no doubt, and it is indeed racist, as doesn't recognise the need to recognise a person of a race as part of the community,
but I was not answering that question. (and its definitely not all people on each society. Some people are not "colourblind" ).

Definitely not sentimental, I'm talking objective material conditions of society: what is entailed in one's social existence and how it relatest others.

"Colourblindess" is akin to a empirical error. It's refusal to observe how the bodies we talk about (sometimes in terms of racial identity) occur in specific relations.

I'm closing this.