Only racists claim to be non-racists and the only way not to be a racist is to admit you are a racist. Someone needs to tell liberals that 1984 was not an instruction manual.
I always thought people who say “I don’t see color” just mean they treat everyone equally. I’m pretty sure those who say it really do mean it that way. It does come off a bit hokey, but offensive?
If there’s an ongoing social problem, you can’t talk about it without drawing attention to the category of people it applies to. Once that social problem has been spoken of, people may aspire to treating people within and outside of the category equally, instead of subjecting those within the category to different attitudes and standards and expectations that perpetuate the social problem. That’s not a bad thing to aspire to.
But let’s say that the social problem continues to persist nevertheless. That there are still a few (or a few dozen) situations and phenomena where being in the category subjects you to experiences that those not in the category don’t have to put up with. So, being an activist, you continue to speak out about the social problem. You’re trying to draw attention to these still-existing situations. And some people reply back, blithely, “Oh, I have successfully reached the point that I never notice whether people are or are not in that category!” Pisses off the activist, who says “Some of us don’t have the luxury of not ‘seeing’ the goddam category, asshole!”
People should not oversimplify and turn complex politics into babytalk. It’s unfortunate that so many do. But long complex analyses don’t fit on protest signs, don’t fit an evening news soundbite, you can’t Tweet it, and you can’t shut down some annoying jerk at a social problem speakout with a four-paragraph reply.
It’s weird how so many self-professed religious people who are perfectly comfortable with postulating these sorts of self-awareness issues in discussions of sin in general become so resentful and dismissive of them when the sin in question happens to be racism.
It has *“You ____ pretty well for a __” *connotations. Like, “You play football pretty well for an Asian,” “You rap pretty well for a white musician,” etc. The “articulate” thing is seen as, “You seem pretty educated and learned for a black person” - that’s how it can come across.
Off to room 101 with you.
Disingenuous? Not at all. I’m not sure you know what these words mean. Are you telling me you know why people are using a particular phrase? And I don’t think blacks or other minorities actually appreciate white liberal condescension.
When I’ve heard people use that phrase it basically meant they try their best to treat people as individual people. And there is nothing wrong with that.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “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.”
Now the funny thing is some people want the dichotomy of being seen and treated as an individual when it suits them and being treated as a member of pet group when it suits them. That’s disingenuous.
Why is it weird? Perhaps those people know themselves better than you know them? Plus don’t you think it’s counterproductive to label everyone racist or bigoted or sexist? The attack loses a bit of sting if it applies to everyone. What good would that do in internet debates?
Because if it’s considered morally/theologically reasonable to assert that only sinners claim to be free from sin, and the only way to overcome sin is to start out by admitting you’re a sinner, then why does using the same sort of reasoning about the sin of racism suddenly get dismissed as mere Orwellian obfuscation? That double standard seems weird to me.
(My hunch is that when people use that double standard to dismiss discussions of racism, it’s often because they don’t want to examine the extent to which they themselves may be racist.)
It’s weird because people are supposed to react to accusations of racism with horror.
“I don’t see color.”
“That’s racist.”
“No, it’s not.”
“Why are you so defensive and resentful?”
It’s upsetting to use your big guns, and get snickered at.
One of the symptoms of alcoholism is denial. Therefore, if you say you aren’t an alcoholic, you must be in denial. Likewise for racism.
It’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Regards,
Shodan

It’s weird because people are supposed to react to accusations of racism with horror.
I think you’re misinterpreting what it is that I was describing as “weird”. To make it absolutely clear, here’s the double standard that seems weird to me:
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 1: “Only sinners claim to be free from sin, and the only way to overcome sin is to start out by admitting you’re a sinner.”
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 2: “Claiming that only racists claim to be non-racists and the only way not to be a racist is to admit you are a racist is ridiculously absurd Orwellian doublethink! Ha ha those dumb liberals!”
In other words, it seems weird to me that so many self-professed religious people think that their routine moral/theological reasoning about sin suddenly stops making sense if the sin in question happens to be racism.

Because if it’s considered morally/theologically reasonable to assert that only sinners claim to be free from sin, and the only way to overcome sin is to start out by admitting you’re a sinner, then why does using the same sort of reasoning about the sin of racism suddenly get dismissed as mere Orwellian obfuscation? That double standard seems weird to me.
(My hunch is that when people use that double standard to dismiss discussions of racism, it’s often because they don’t want to examine the extent to which they themselves may be racist.)
Well, the only reason that that line of reasoning works is because in many religions there is the concept that everyone is born sinful. Which I think is a stupid concept but I didn’t write the book.
So the assertion that only sinners claim to be free from sin is not quite accurate. People who are ignorant of the concept of original sin or do not believe in the concept of original sin are the ones who may make the claim to be free of sin. Making the claim is not sufficient to prove one is sinful in an environment that does not believe in original sin and it’s irrelevant in an environment that does.
Additionally, I don’t automatically assign any additional weight to what the religious do or don’t do.

Well, the only reason that that line of reasoning works is because in many religions there is the concept that everyone is born sinful. Which I think is a stupid concept but I didn’t write the book.
I think a reasonable secular analogy in this case would be the concept “Nobody’s perfect.” That is, if you’re an innately fallible human being living in the real world, you can’t help screwing up sometimes, no matter how much you might like to be perfect.
Similarly, if you’re part of a historically racist society which still has a whole lot of persistent racism in its culture and expectations, you can’t help being somewhat affected by racist beliefs, no matter how much you consciously want or strive to not be a racist.
Neither of those positions seems to me in any way Orwellian or illogical.

I think you’re misinterpreting what it is that I was describing as “weird”. To make it absolutely clear, here’s the double standard that seems weird to me:
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 1: “Only sinners claim to be free from sin, and the only way to overcome sin is to start out by admitting you’re a sinner.”
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 2: “Claiming that only racists claim to be non-racists and the only way not to be a racist is to admit you are a racist is ridiculously absurd Orwellian doublethink! Ha ha those dumb liberals!”
In other words, it seems weird to me that so many self-professed religious people think that their routine moral/theological reasoning about sin suddenly stops making sense if the sin in question happens to be racism.
Are you saying the reasoning is valid, or not?
Either everyone is a sinner and a racist, and so the reasoning is valid when you use it as well as when religious people use it, or the reasoning is not valid, and so both religious people and you are wrong.
The only way it could be valid is if you could prove that whoever said “I’m not a sinner” was really sinful, and if you could prove that whoever said “I don’t see color” is really racist. You can’t assume it any more than a religious person can assume that everyone is sinful.
So, have at it. Let’s see your proof.
Regards,
Shodan
When I hear someone say “I don’t see color”, it sounds like “Don’t bother me with all that colored bullshit.” Some people don’t have a choice to “not see” color because it’s thrown in their face all day.
I used to think I didn’t see color, until I found myself actually making assumptions about people because of color. Chances are, we all have unconscious biases, so while not offensive, it’s probably not being very self aware either.
That being said, our goal should be to be as color blind as possible. Race consciousness can lead nowhere good. Anything that emphasizes race is going to increase racism. Anything that deemphasizes it should reduce it.
If everyone’s a racist, and racists should be harassed on Twitter until they’re infamous and lose their job, that’s a frightening syllogism. We should be more forgiving of racists if we’re no better ourselves.

I think you’re misinterpreting what it is that I was describing as “weird”. To make it absolutely clear, here’s the double standard that seems weird to me:
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 1: “Only sinners claim to be free from sin, and the only way to overcome sin is to start out by admitting you’re a sinner.”
Frequently encountered religious-person reasoning, part 2: “Claiming that only racists claim to be non-racists and the only way not to be a racist is to admit you are a racist is ridiculously absurd Orwellian doublethink! Ha ha those dumb liberals!”
In other words, it seems weird to me that so many self-professed religious people think that their routine moral/theological reasoning about sin suddenly stops making sense if the sin in question happens to be racism.
Would it help if you replaced racism with other sins? Only drunks claim not to be drunks, only thieves claim not to be thieves, only rapists claim not to be rapists. etc.
Someone who claims they are without sin is saying they are perfect, someone who claims not to be a racist is saying they don’t have the one sin. Since no religion claims that every person has every sin there is no contradiction.

Either everyone is a sinner and a racist, and so the reasoning is valid when you use it as well as when religious people use it, or the reasoning is not valid, and so both religious people and you are wrong.
Sure, but my point was about the weirdness of the folks who seem to think the reasoning is valid about sin in general but invalid about racism in particular. Logically speaking, that sounds rather weird, as you appear to agree.
Some sins are so broad though that a case can be made that nearly 100% of people sin in those regards. One good example is vice. Almost all of us have a vice. Likewise, almost all of us make assumptions about people based on how they look. We’re wired that way.

Would it help if you replaced racism with other sins? Only drunks claim not to be drunks, only thieves claim not to be thieves, only rapists claim not to be rapists. etc.
Hmm, that’s an interesting perspective. By that analogy, you seem to be arguing that racism is only manifested in actions that one deliberately chooses to do, in the same way that thieves choose to steal and rapists choose to rape. You’re putting racism on the same footing with crimes in which intent is a crucial part of the deed.
Do you in fact believe that it’s impossible to be unintentionally racist?

I follow a lot of people on Facebook and Twitter from all across the political spectrum and over the last year I’ve seen a big rise in the number of POC who consider the phrase ‘I don’t see color’ to be offensive
If, as I strongly suspect, most people who say ‘I don’t see color’ simply mean ‘I try to treat everyone as an individual’, is it really right to consider it offensive?
I dont think it is offensive in any way.