It's also far less racist than any alternative provided by modern progressives, which tend to be paternalistic (e.g. it's "racist" to expect black people to show up to meetings on time) and/or bigoted (white people are inherently morally deficient)
Here’s a secret that isn’t supposed to be shared or spoken: the people that say a colorblind ideal is racist- I mean the people that have thousands of followers, work at places like NYT, the sociology dept. at Harvard, probably your Congressperson et al, and were formerly critically thinking academics, they all know it’s not racist. They also know that “power + prejudice” doesn’t = racism. There’s already a word for that definition and it is discrimination.
Here’s some other things that they also know and are pretending not to:
•Not all white people and cops are racist.
•Black people aren’t being hunted by the police.
•Biological sex isn’t a spectrum or a social construct.
•Children shouldn’t be allowed to choose their gender and go on hormone blockers without the consent of their parents.
•Test scores matter
•Culture- specifically subcultures nestled within a larger culture, upbringing, and environment are chief predictors of engagement in violent criminal behavior and abysmal academic performance.
•Words are not violence.
The list goes on and on. They know the goddamned historical record as well as any of us- likely better. This is especially true for people that were alive in the 60s and 70s- people like Al Sharpton or anybody that engages in such contemporarily nonsensical assertions.
Sure, it needs to be stated outright; that a colorblind ideal was once the cornerstone of an anti racist social agenda, the most successful one in American history, I might add. Who better to do it than the always cogent and eloquently spoken stoic philosopher Coleman Hughes?
But what this essay doesn’t address is why so many prominent figures engage in such easily falsifiable rhetoric. Do we really believe stop and frisk led to a crime wave? Do we really believe black Georgians are systematically being denied the right to vote? Do we really believe that simply by “virtue” of less melanin, that Jethro and his wife Jolene from Fayette County, West Virginia, who earn 58k collectively and annually, are more privileged than let’s say, Malia Obama?
Fuck no. No one actually believes this bullshit. So why do so many people pretend like they do? Why are people allowed to spew rhetorical, illogical, divisive drivel like this with impunity? Sure, some people are calling it out- just like some poor lost souls just trying to be liked and trying to fit in might have actually convinced themselves that these things are true.
Most people aren’t stupid though. Most people know that these people with decades of education at the highest level- these elites, don’t believe the things they’re saying. Most people know that even a couple years post George Floyd that it is still unsafe to espouse heterodox views in all but the most unique circumstances and only to trusted, like-minded friends. That is, if you’d like to keep a steady income and be able to provide for your family.
Furthermore, we should all be asking ourselves not only why this tsunami of socially destructive newspeak lingers and still has so much influence and social currency, but also what the long-term consequences and outcomes might be as the by product of the ire, indignation and resentment of those that suffer the negative effects of not affirming this twisted ideology. What damaging, irreparable effects that having to nod in agreement against one’s values in order to subsist and hold down a job might inspire.
The families of the old Christian ladies that politely asked if they could abstain from wearing the pride flag at a Kroger grocery store in a rural location and were fired for it are to whom I refer.
The owners and employees of a rock climbing gym that had activists protest, lodge social media campaigns against and who attempted to damage the business, only to have to allow those same people back in like nothing ever happened after they tried to destroy the business (simply for not using the word “black” in their pledge to be inclusive in a social media post in summer of 2020) lest they suffer that consequence again is to whom I refer.
The people that have moved out of urban centers en masse because of unstoppable violent and property crime are to whom I refer.
The people that had their shops and markets burned down by rioters who were largely pardoned and not prosecuted by Democrat legislators are to whom I refer.
The man who was fired for inadvertently making the “white supremacist hand signal ok sign” as he hung his arm out of his work truck window in Yascha Mounk’s article Stop Firing the Innocent is to whom I refer.
The people that watched their restaurants and livelihoods close because of Covid while politicians and debutants enjoyed meals inside in public unmasked are to whom I refer.
The people that use social media to help make their living as independent journalists and were banned from speaking at the behest of the FBI, the Biden campaign, and others for “misinformation” are to whom I refer.
Do we really believe this won’t have any negative consequence? What happens when people get fed up with double standards? What will our society look like when people look to populists and bad actors like DJT who will inevitably tap into this clandestine fury- a fury that eagerly awaits a vessel to deliver it to the country?
The erosion and attempted removal of logical, fact and evidence-based debates on impactful public policy issues will certainly have a price- how high that price will be remains to be seen.
I fear what is lurking under the surface of this growing resentment that is motivated and catalyzed by social tyranny. I think we all should. I think one would be a fool not to.
We’re all so wrapped up in the vocal minority that we are, to our country’s detriment, ignoring a silent majority.
Fantastic article Coleman. It should be a sobering reminder to all those that are caught up in the insidious alternatives that are being peddled by the likes of Kendi, D'Angelo and countless others. I must admit though, in my most cynical of moments I see the incredible momentum racially divisive idealogies have achieved in our day and age and I dismay. I can only hope that younger voices such as yourself will cut through the morass and find a strong footing to shine a light for the misguided masses. Cheers my friend and welcome to Substack!
Coleman's discussion of the roots of colorblindness provides a much-needed correction to the historical record as portrayed by many leading critical race theorists. I look forward to his book on this issue.
I identify as a woman who checks the Caucasian box and and CIS box. If I were to write this piece, I would be considered racist because folks believe working towards colorblindness would result in racist-blindness.
I can assure the world that I KNOW that white supremacist racism exists. Can't we still fight against racism and strive towards treating everyone fairly? AM I really so naive?
Love Coleman’s podcast. Found him here. Glad he joined the Stack community too. Great, powerful article. I think he nailed it. The fringe woke left has gone so far left they’re now holding hands with the fringe right; two sides, same coin. Their ideology is totally insane at this point. They’re essentially using racism to ‘fight’ racism. White woke academics get to mock black thinkers who happen to have a different view. Black people are considered too stupid to figure things out on their own; they need Whitey to think for them. It’s disgusting. I’m no fan of Republicans either. They’ve both lost their minds. Though some conservatives seem to be coming slowly back to some version of centrist sanity. Maybe.
The thing about the music and the camera is a perfect example of the pathology of Wokeism and identity politics: If a camera on its own happened to catch more people of one race doing A B or C, and that number was more than said group represents in terms of population, then it’s somehow racist and immoral and cannot be. What???? This isn’t how reality works. But the fringe left doesn’t care about
reality. They care about power. Narrative control.
I enjoyed the historical context Coleman added. Yes: We all notice race. How can we not? But the notion that we should care as much as possible about race--and what that says about you as a human being--instead of noticing it and not really caring, seems nuts to me. Race is skin pigmentation. Sure, there may be some similarities between people in broad groups, but ultimately we’re all unique individuals. Being white doesn’t make you ‘like white people.’ Being black doesn’t make you ‘like black people.’ We’re all just people.
The class comment is true: I think we all identify more with people of our class versus difference in race. Coleman and I have much more in common, say, though I’m white, versus myself and a working-class white dude from Boston or something.
Amen, brother. Reprising Sowell, one can either ensure that a *process* is equitable or that an *outcome* is a certain way. If you have a color-blind process, you cannot ensure there will be a certain distribution of skin tones and genders as an output. And if you demand a certain output, the process will be rotten. It is no more complex than that. Great work on using the 1996 California example - this so-called brand of modern activists has a very short and selective memory. Like you I found it preposterous that blind auditions for orchestras were "racist". How could that even be possible? We need to dissolve race in favor of ethnicity and heritage as soon as possible but, failing that, at least we can agree not to wield it in pernicious ways for a multi-ethnic society.
Coleman, I have a question that is slightly off topic. It's re: your conversation with Richard Reeves. It was a great conversation that led me to purchase his book. In it, as on your podcast, he makes a very strong case that boys and men face unique challenges that we're largely oblivious to. But among his proposed solutions are what you referred to as something like "affirmative action for men." I agree with that assessment, which is why I don't love his proposed solutions. I don't hate them, either, though. So I land somewhere in the middle, heavily conflicted. Broadly speaking, I have a hard time accepting solutions to problems related to race, sex, and gender disparities that rely on so-called "positive discrimination" (or affirmative action) based on race, sex, and gender. What do you think about Reeves' proposed solutions? Is it discriminatory to offer scholarships only to men, for example? If yes, is that discrimination justified? How do you differentiate between what is acceptable positive discrimination/affirmative action versus what is unacceptable? Like I mentioned, I'm genuinely conflicted about this, so I'm actually asking, not arguing anything one way or the other.
"To paint color-blindness as a reactionary or racist idea—rather than a key goal of the Civil Rights Movement—requires ignoring the historical record." Perfectly stated. Excellent article over all.
It's also far less racist than any alternative provided by modern progressives, which tend to be paternalistic (e.g. it's "racist" to expect black people to show up to meetings on time) and/or bigoted (white people are inherently morally deficient)
a brilliantly consise argument I shall point to when the topic surfaces amongst my contemporaries, keep up the great work!
Here’s a secret that isn’t supposed to be shared or spoken: the people that say a colorblind ideal is racist- I mean the people that have thousands of followers, work at places like NYT, the sociology dept. at Harvard, probably your Congressperson et al, and were formerly critically thinking academics, they all know it’s not racist. They also know that “power + prejudice” doesn’t = racism. There’s already a word for that definition and it is discrimination.
Here’s some other things that they also know and are pretending not to:
•Not all white people and cops are racist.
•Black people aren’t being hunted by the police.
•Biological sex isn’t a spectrum or a social construct.
•Children shouldn’t be allowed to choose their gender and go on hormone blockers without the consent of their parents.
•Test scores matter
•Culture- specifically subcultures nestled within a larger culture, upbringing, and environment are chief predictors of engagement in violent criminal behavior and abysmal academic performance.
•Words are not violence.
The list goes on and on. They know the goddamned historical record as well as any of us- likely better. This is especially true for people that were alive in the 60s and 70s- people like Al Sharpton or anybody that engages in such contemporarily nonsensical assertions.
Sure, it needs to be stated outright; that a colorblind ideal was once the cornerstone of an anti racist social agenda, the most successful one in American history, I might add. Who better to do it than the always cogent and eloquently spoken stoic philosopher Coleman Hughes?
But what this essay doesn’t address is why so many prominent figures engage in such easily falsifiable rhetoric. Do we really believe stop and frisk led to a crime wave? Do we really believe black Georgians are systematically being denied the right to vote? Do we really believe that simply by “virtue” of less melanin, that Jethro and his wife Jolene from Fayette County, West Virginia, who earn 58k collectively and annually, are more privileged than let’s say, Malia Obama?
Fuck no. No one actually believes this bullshit. So why do so many people pretend like they do? Why are people allowed to spew rhetorical, illogical, divisive drivel like this with impunity? Sure, some people are calling it out- just like some poor lost souls just trying to be liked and trying to fit in might have actually convinced themselves that these things are true.
Most people aren’t stupid though. Most people know that these people with decades of education at the highest level- these elites, don’t believe the things they’re saying. Most people know that even a couple years post George Floyd that it is still unsafe to espouse heterodox views in all but the most unique circumstances and only to trusted, like-minded friends. That is, if you’d like to keep a steady income and be able to provide for your family.
Furthermore, we should all be asking ourselves not only why this tsunami of socially destructive newspeak lingers and still has so much influence and social currency, but also what the long-term consequences and outcomes might be as the by product of the ire, indignation and resentment of those that suffer the negative effects of not affirming this twisted ideology. What damaging, irreparable effects that having to nod in agreement against one’s values in order to subsist and hold down a job might inspire.
The families of the old Christian ladies that politely asked if they could abstain from wearing the pride flag at a Kroger grocery store in a rural location and were fired for it are to whom I refer.
The owners and employees of a rock climbing gym that had activists protest, lodge social media campaigns against and who attempted to damage the business, only to have to allow those same people back in like nothing ever happened after they tried to destroy the business (simply for not using the word “black” in their pledge to be inclusive in a social media post in summer of 2020) lest they suffer that consequence again is to whom I refer.
The people that have moved out of urban centers en masse because of unstoppable violent and property crime are to whom I refer.
The people that had their shops and markets burned down by rioters who were largely pardoned and not prosecuted by Democrat legislators are to whom I refer.
The man who was fired for inadvertently making the “white supremacist hand signal ok sign” as he hung his arm out of his work truck window in Yascha Mounk’s article Stop Firing the Innocent is to whom I refer.
The people that watched their restaurants and livelihoods close because of Covid while politicians and debutants enjoyed meals inside in public unmasked are to whom I refer.
The people that use social media to help make their living as independent journalists and were banned from speaking at the behest of the FBI, the Biden campaign, and others for “misinformation” are to whom I refer.
Do we really believe this won’t have any negative consequence? What happens when people get fed up with double standards? What will our society look like when people look to populists and bad actors like DJT who will inevitably tap into this clandestine fury- a fury that eagerly awaits a vessel to deliver it to the country?
The erosion and attempted removal of logical, fact and evidence-based debates on impactful public policy issues will certainly have a price- how high that price will be remains to be seen.
I fear what is lurking under the surface of this growing resentment that is motivated and catalyzed by social tyranny. I think we all should. I think one would be a fool not to.
We’re all so wrapped up in the vocal minority that we are, to our country’s detriment, ignoring a silent majority.
Fantastic article Coleman. It should be a sobering reminder to all those that are caught up in the insidious alternatives that are being peddled by the likes of Kendi, D'Angelo and countless others. I must admit though, in my most cynical of moments I see the incredible momentum racially divisive idealogies have achieved in our day and age and I dismay. I can only hope that younger voices such as yourself will cut through the morass and find a strong footing to shine a light for the misguided masses. Cheers my friend and welcome to Substack!
Great to see you starting a 'stack, Coleman. You have been assimilated!
Any chance of a discount for those who already subscribe to your podcast?
Coleman's discussion of the roots of colorblindness provides a much-needed correction to the historical record as portrayed by many leading critical race theorists. I look forward to his book on this issue.
Incredibly well written. Thomas Sowell would approve.
Coleman is a brilliant writer and it's no wonder they hesitate to debate him.
I identify as a woman who checks the Caucasian box and and CIS box. If I were to write this piece, I would be considered racist because folks believe working towards colorblindness would result in racist-blindness.
I can assure the world that I KNOW that white supremacist racism exists. Can't we still fight against racism and strive towards treating everyone fairly? AM I really so naive?
Love Coleman’s podcast. Found him here. Glad he joined the Stack community too. Great, powerful article. I think he nailed it. The fringe woke left has gone so far left they’re now holding hands with the fringe right; two sides, same coin. Their ideology is totally insane at this point. They’re essentially using racism to ‘fight’ racism. White woke academics get to mock black thinkers who happen to have a different view. Black people are considered too stupid to figure things out on their own; they need Whitey to think for them. It’s disgusting. I’m no fan of Republicans either. They’ve both lost their minds. Though some conservatives seem to be coming slowly back to some version of centrist sanity. Maybe.
The thing about the music and the camera is a perfect example of the pathology of Wokeism and identity politics: If a camera on its own happened to catch more people of one race doing A B or C, and that number was more than said group represents in terms of population, then it’s somehow racist and immoral and cannot be. What???? This isn’t how reality works. But the fringe left doesn’t care about
reality. They care about power. Narrative control.
I enjoyed the historical context Coleman added. Yes: We all notice race. How can we not? But the notion that we should care as much as possible about race--and what that says about you as a human being--instead of noticing it and not really caring, seems nuts to me. Race is skin pigmentation. Sure, there may be some similarities between people in broad groups, but ultimately we’re all unique individuals. Being white doesn’t make you ‘like white people.’ Being black doesn’t make you ‘like black people.’ We’re all just people.
The class comment is true: I think we all identify more with people of our class versus difference in race. Coleman and I have much more in common, say, though I’m white, versus myself and a working-class white dude from Boston or something.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
You're consistently the best writer on this topic.
Amen, brother. Reprising Sowell, one can either ensure that a *process* is equitable or that an *outcome* is a certain way. If you have a color-blind process, you cannot ensure there will be a certain distribution of skin tones and genders as an output. And if you demand a certain output, the process will be rotten. It is no more complex than that. Great work on using the 1996 California example - this so-called brand of modern activists has a very short and selective memory. Like you I found it preposterous that blind auditions for orchestras were "racist". How could that even be possible? We need to dissolve race in favor of ethnicity and heritage as soon as possible but, failing that, at least we can agree not to wield it in pernicious ways for a multi-ethnic society.
Amen.
Great piece. Keep writing.
Coleman, I have a question that is slightly off topic. It's re: your conversation with Richard Reeves. It was a great conversation that led me to purchase his book. In it, as on your podcast, he makes a very strong case that boys and men face unique challenges that we're largely oblivious to. But among his proposed solutions are what you referred to as something like "affirmative action for men." I agree with that assessment, which is why I don't love his proposed solutions. I don't hate them, either, though. So I land somewhere in the middle, heavily conflicted. Broadly speaking, I have a hard time accepting solutions to problems related to race, sex, and gender disparities that rely on so-called "positive discrimination" (or affirmative action) based on race, sex, and gender. What do you think about Reeves' proposed solutions? Is it discriminatory to offer scholarships only to men, for example? If yes, is that discrimination justified? How do you differentiate between what is acceptable positive discrimination/affirmative action versus what is unacceptable? Like I mentioned, I'm genuinely conflicted about this, so I'm actually asking, not arguing anything one way or the other.
SLGeorge
13 min ago
"To paint color-blindness as a reactionary or racist idea—rather than a key goal of the Civil Rights Movement—requires ignoring the historical record." Perfectly stated. Excellent article over all.