God bless you, Coleman - you are paying the price for speaking honestly, as deeply unfair and unreasonable as that is. If there is a consolation, it is that your dectractors have to "cheat" intellectually and rhetorically to respond to your arguments, because refuting your arguments on the merits is not possible (and because you are protected by Kmele's "melanin force field" so they can't just dismiss you as racist). The whole TED talk incident was bad enough - I am sorry that you have this do deal with as well. You have a lot of people rooting for you, if that helps!
Most epic line: "Having acquired a taste for public displays of hypocrisy, Robinson has apparently returned to the buffet line for a second helping."
I do think it is a distraction to go down the rabbit hole of what past civil rights heroes did or did not support (this came up in the Jemelle Bouie debate too).
Current arguments for colorblindness should--and can--stand on their own merits. They don't need the imprimatur of Rustin (or anyone else).
The remarks on traffic cameras brings to mind the same sort of stupidity from the Seattle city council. In response to black bicyclists being disproportionally ticketed for riding without a helmet, the council repealed their helmet law.
Hey Coleman, in the same spirit, Radley Balko (whom I generally like) wrote a pretty scathing response to your George Floyd piece. Not sure if you saw it but I’d be very curious to get your thoughts.
If racism is abhorrent, surely it must be so no matter who is the practitioner. To deny this is so is simply to allow the justification of racist practices by some group. The problem is racism, not by whom racism is practiced. Any argument against a colorblind society is just an argument in support of racism.
Stick to your definition of color-blindness. All of us adhering to it is the only thing that can lead us to racial harmony. The racist "anti-racist" rhetoric is having the opposite effect and should be vehemently opposed; and you do so with an unparalleled and uncompromising intellect and grace. Please do not feel down about the criticism you may receive. You are on the right side of history. If he was alive today, MLK would be at your side on this.
It takes a lot of time to prepare these rebuttals. Sadly, those who would most benefit from a careful reading of this piece, and Coleman's work in general, are content to just take the woke party line as gospel. Their self esteem depends upon it. In their minds they are one of the good people standing up for justice. In fact, the Progressive worldview is mired in reactionary hostility. Their movement can be summarized as "believe or be despised."
I love your writing. I discovered you on the Joe Rogan podcast and am so grateful that I did. When I was watching that podcast, one of the kids who partially grew up at my house, Alexandre, stopped by to visit. He's a kid (26, but I call them all kids) of African American and Filipino ethnicity. So heartbreakingly, he noted how very well-spoken you are for a black man. Sigh. I gently interjected - so very well-spoken period, Sweetie.
Don't let this miscreant get you down. You join esteemed company in getting a dishonest book review from a fool. For example, see this piece that answers libels against Steven Pinker and Jonathan Gottschall:
Don’t get too beat down by the haters... They gonna do what they gonna do(to paraphrase) . Let your work speak for itself. You’ve got a long road ahead.
I just read Coleman’s book and found it a compelling and brilliantly written contribution. It deserves a lot of attention. Reading it, I thought, what argument would one possibly put forth to refute Coleman’s thesis?? So I read the Robinson article. My takeaway is that Robinson could find no way to substantively refute Coleman’s analysis. So instead he did 2 things: (1) seemingly deliberate refusal to frame Coleman’s definition of colorblindness accurately (instead referring to ‘ignoring race’ ‘not talking about it’ etc.)- and (2) a nosedive into alternate readings of King, Rustin, etc. as a lame way to discredit the book. Tactic #1 is sloppy and depends on his reader not checking the actual text. Tactic #2 is equally lame. BUT, even if he were right on this, the argument for color blindness still stands on its merits. Robinson does nothing to dismantle the argument. (And of course, he is NOT right about the alternate readings, as Coleman painstakingly documents.)
This probably a pipe dream,but could you & Mr. Robinson debate your book on CNN, MSNBC or any of the C-SPAN book shows which tend to have audiences of a more "woke" persuasion, then post them on this site? I would expect it would be similar to your most cogent response on reparations given in front of Congress. Looking forward to my signed copy! Thanks for all you do.
God bless you, Coleman - you are paying the price for speaking honestly, as deeply unfair and unreasonable as that is. If there is a consolation, it is that your dectractors have to "cheat" intellectually and rhetorically to respond to your arguments, because refuting your arguments on the merits is not possible (and because you are protected by Kmele's "melanin force field" so they can't just dismiss you as racist). The whole TED talk incident was bad enough - I am sorry that you have this do deal with as well. You have a lot of people rooting for you, if that helps!
This is a fantastic rebuttal on all points.
Most epic line: "Having acquired a taste for public displays of hypocrisy, Robinson has apparently returned to the buffet line for a second helping."
I do think it is a distraction to go down the rabbit hole of what past civil rights heroes did or did not support (this came up in the Jemelle Bouie debate too).
Current arguments for colorblindness should--and can--stand on their own merits. They don't need the imprimatur of Rustin (or anyone else).
Sad that Coleman had to expend his time and effort to refute a fairly obvious ideologue.
The remarks on traffic cameras brings to mind the same sort of stupidity from the Seattle city council. In response to black bicyclists being disproportionally ticketed for riding without a helmet, the council repealed their helmet law.
Hey Coleman, in the same spirit, Radley Balko (whom I generally like) wrote a pretty scathing response to your George Floyd piece. Not sure if you saw it but I’d be very curious to get your thoughts.
https://open.substack.com/pub/radleybalko/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
I assume that's supposed to be "a mile wide" at the top?
If racism is abhorrent, surely it must be so no matter who is the practitioner. To deny this is so is simply to allow the justification of racist practices by some group. The problem is racism, not by whom racism is practiced. Any argument against a colorblind society is just an argument in support of racism.
Coleman,
Stick to your definition of color-blindness. All of us adhering to it is the only thing that can lead us to racial harmony. The racist "anti-racist" rhetoric is having the opposite effect and should be vehemently opposed; and you do so with an unparalleled and uncompromising intellect and grace. Please do not feel down about the criticism you may receive. You are on the right side of history. If he was alive today, MLK would be at your side on this.
The review convinced me to buy a couple of extra copies of your book for our university library.
Great rebuttal! I bought your book The End of Race Politics.
It takes a lot of time to prepare these rebuttals. Sadly, those who would most benefit from a careful reading of this piece, and Coleman's work in general, are content to just take the woke party line as gospel. Their self esteem depends upon it. In their minds they are one of the good people standing up for justice. In fact, the Progressive worldview is mired in reactionary hostility. Their movement can be summarized as "believe or be despised."
I love your writing. I discovered you on the Joe Rogan podcast and am so grateful that I did. When I was watching that podcast, one of the kids who partially grew up at my house, Alexandre, stopped by to visit. He's a kid (26, but I call them all kids) of African American and Filipino ethnicity. So heartbreakingly, he noted how very well-spoken you are for a black man. Sigh. I gently interjected - so very well-spoken period, Sweetie.
Don't let this miscreant get you down. You join esteemed company in getting a dishonest book review from a fool. For example, see this piece that answers libels against Steven Pinker and Jonathan Gottschall:
https://www.dennisjunk.com/the-storytelling-ape-blog/2022/4/9/why-timothy-snyder-lied-about-jonathan-gottschall-and-steven-pinker-innbspthe-new-york-times.
Robinson can join Timothy Snyder in the corner with a dunce cap of his own.
Don’t get too beat down by the haters... They gonna do what they gonna do(to paraphrase) . Let your work speak for itself. You’ve got a long road ahead.
I just read Coleman’s book and found it a compelling and brilliantly written contribution. It deserves a lot of attention. Reading it, I thought, what argument would one possibly put forth to refute Coleman’s thesis?? So I read the Robinson article. My takeaway is that Robinson could find no way to substantively refute Coleman’s analysis. So instead he did 2 things: (1) seemingly deliberate refusal to frame Coleman’s definition of colorblindness accurately (instead referring to ‘ignoring race’ ‘not talking about it’ etc.)- and (2) a nosedive into alternate readings of King, Rustin, etc. as a lame way to discredit the book. Tactic #1 is sloppy and depends on his reader not checking the actual text. Tactic #2 is equally lame. BUT, even if he were right on this, the argument for color blindness still stands on its merits. Robinson does nothing to dismantle the argument. (And of course, he is NOT right about the alternate readings, as Coleman painstakingly documents.)
This probably a pipe dream,but could you & Mr. Robinson debate your book on CNN, MSNBC or any of the C-SPAN book shows which tend to have audiences of a more "woke" persuasion, then post them on this site? I would expect it would be similar to your most cogent response on reparations given in front of Congress. Looking forward to my signed copy! Thanks for all you do.