What do you think?
Rate this book
When Colorblindness Isn't the Answer: Humanism and the Challenge of Race
The future of the United States rests in many ways on how the ongoing challenge of racial injustice in the country is addressed. Yet, humanists remain divided over what if any agenda should guide humanist thought and action toward questions of race. In this volume, Anthony B. Pinn makes a clear case for why humanism should embrace racial justice as part of its commitment to the well-being of life in general and human flourishing in particular. As a first step, humanists should stop asking why so many racial minorities remain committed to religious traditions that have destroyed lives, perverted justice, and justified racial discrimination. Rather, Pinn argues, humanists must first confront a more pertinent and pressing why has humanism failed to provide a more compelling alternative to theism for so many minority groups? For only with a bit of humility and perspective—and a recognition of the various ways in which we each contribute to racial injustice—can we truly fight for justice.
145 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 15, 2017
17 people are currently reading
154 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 29, 2022
Compelling case for why humanists should advocate for racial justice, plus helpful recommendations for further reading. I didn't find all arguments properly substantiated. For someone unfamiliar with the US based humanists and their arguments, I found author's claims about humanists not always intuitive and properly explained. Claim that Christian theology promotes sameness / opposes diversity seemed simplistic. Wasn't convinced that hip-hop (didn't expect to read about this!) offers a good example of how to approach and appreciate diversity, given its homophobia, misogyny and materialism, which the author acknowledges, but then ignores. Think we can, and must do better. Nevertheless happy I read this; great prompt to centring racial justice in humanist advocacy.
May 4, 2018
(Somehow my review for this didn't save the first time I posted it, so this is a re-write. Which never seems to come out as well the second time as it did the first. Oh well.)
This book contains some important perspectives on how and why religious humanists should engage with issues of systemic racism. That being said, there were parts of it that troubled me, specifically Pinn's explicit anti-theism and anti-Americanism. While I certainly think that both Christian churches and other religious institutions on the one hand, and the "American ideal" on the other, have historically played a key role in engendering structures of racism and oppression in America, I don't see either concept as an unmitigated bad as Pinn does, and I think his "with us or against us" mentality belies the complex ways that people of all backgrounds have interpreted both faith and national identity as it relates to race.
Regarding the anti-theism, it's pretty overt. An example from the text: "Theism is the fundamental problem destroying not only the United States but the world more generally." I'd agree that there are characteristics of theistic thought and institutions that can reinforce bad power structures, moral codes, etc. But to view the history of theistic religion in humanity as an unmitigated bad, as Pinn seems to do, is a very ungenerous perspective. Religions certainly have taught people to hate on the basis of belief, or given comfort to people who did not want to justify their moral, scientific or other positions on the basis of merit. But religions have also harnessed (and I would argue, elicited) significantly good outcomes for humanity, from individuals and as groups. In addition to that, the idea of a higher power, however defined, is one of the most fundamental lenses through which people have always experienced the world. If humanists want to make a difference in that world full of theists, dismissing theistic beliefs out of hand is a guaranteed way to seal themselves into a very small echo chamber.
Pinn goes further than that - in addition to attacking theism, he calls out American culture as being inherently damaging to racial and ethnic minorities, by establishing a monocultural version of what it means to be an American. I won't deny that strain exists - the Americanism that demands that immigrants "learn to speak English properly", that bristles at the perceived encroachment of non-Judeo-Christian religious traditions, that views the world as we "true Americans" against them, however-so defined. It has always existed, most ironically in the treatment of native populations by all European settlers, but also in the treatment of Irish, Italians, Poles, and many other European groups, as well as Chinese, Japanese and other Asian immigrants as well. It has existed (and will continue to exist) toward Latino and Hispanic immigrants. It's experienced by other kinds of "outsiders" as well - people with non-traditional family structures, or non-binary gender identities, etc. etc.
To some degree these in-group/out-group distinctions characterize all countries and cultures. But I have a hard time with Pinn's single-lensed view of what it has meant, and now means, to be American. I think that, as strong as the pressure for outsider groups to normalize is, there's another facet of what it means to be "American" which goes beyond identity borders. It's one of the reasons that America retains such a strong pull for people all around the world - there is a strong belief, among foreigners, but among Americans as well, that the "thing" that makes us unique is not our religious beliefs, or our wealth, or the color of our skin or any other identity feature. Those two currents conflict with each other and generate tensions at the individual and social levels. But he's too narrow I think to focus exclusively on the first to the detriment of the second.
So in the end I feel like there are two-star and four-star aspects of this book. I have to say I didn't totally get some of the arguments he puts forth - for example, in a chapter on what hip-hop music has to teach the humanist movement he asserts that hip-hop has valued difference as a source of strength and not as a threat. I probably have a somewhat higher-than-average level of experience with hip-hop than the typical (white, middle-aged) humanist reader of Pinn's book, and I have to say I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. Hip-hop certainly does make room for diversity on some dimensions, in a way that is really important and laudable--the most important I think are the challenges it poses implicitly to white-centered cultural power, and explicitly to white-centered political and social power.
But the vast majority of the hip-hop I'm familiar with stresses adherence to a very tightly construed set of norms (regarding sexuality, gender identity, sexual prowess, physical prowess, ruthlessness and aggression, and accumulation of wealth). Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but it's a very noticeable rule nonetheless. I would strongly agree that hip-hop has very important lessons to share with people who want to think seriously about systemic racism and oppression in the United States: for example, the unflinching characterization of the effects of those systems of oppression, the ethos of self-emancipation and self-realization through the process of struggle, and the explicit rejection of white-centered measures of success. There are good reasons why hip-hop resonates so strongly with white kids just as much as it does with black kids (in addition to the music itself, which is frequently groundbreaking)--it speaks truth in a way that much of "insider" musical traditions do not. But to me, holding hip-hop up because of its respect for difference just doesn't ring true.
I'm highlighting areas where I disagreed with this book, but that's not really a fair way to write a review. (I find that, regardless of the book, I tend to write twice as much, at least, about the parts I disagreed with/disliked than the parts that I agreed with. Which is a pretty poor way to engage with someone's ideas. I'll have to work on that.) I spent 70 percent of this book nodding my head and saying, "Huh." when something really hit me as especially true and insightful. Readers may not agree with everything in this book, regardless of who you are. But that's a poor reason to not read something. This is a highly worthwhile book that will make you think. And the things you'll think about are ones that we (white Americans) frequently find it convenient to elide, and which have real, important impacts. If you look around your friend group, or your church, or your book club, or your social organization, or whatever, and think to yourself, "Why are there no (or one, or two) people of minority groups represented?", reading this book could be a good way to ask that question in a fruitful manner, rather than in a shoulder-shrugging, "What can you do?" way. Well worth your time.
Note - Dr. Pinn came to speak at a meeting of the Washington Ethical Society, where I belong, recently. His talk was outstanding, and I highly recommend going to see him if you have the opportunity.
This book contains some important perspectives on how and why religious humanists should engage with issues of systemic racism. That being said, there were parts of it that troubled me, specifically Pinn's explicit anti-theism and anti-Americanism. While I certainly think that both Christian churches and other religious institutions on the one hand, and the "American ideal" on the other, have historically played a key role in engendering structures of racism and oppression in America, I don't see either concept as an unmitigated bad as Pinn does, and I think his "with us or against us" mentality belies the complex ways that people of all backgrounds have interpreted both faith and national identity as it relates to race.
Regarding the anti-theism, it's pretty overt. An example from the text: "Theism is the fundamental problem destroying not only the United States but the world more generally." I'd agree that there are characteristics of theistic thought and institutions that can reinforce bad power structures, moral codes, etc. But to view the history of theistic religion in humanity as an unmitigated bad, as Pinn seems to do, is a very ungenerous perspective. Religions certainly have taught people to hate on the basis of belief, or given comfort to people who did not want to justify their moral, scientific or other positions on the basis of merit. But religions have also harnessed (and I would argue, elicited) significantly good outcomes for humanity, from individuals and as groups. In addition to that, the idea of a higher power, however defined, is one of the most fundamental lenses through which people have always experienced the world. If humanists want to make a difference in that world full of theists, dismissing theistic beliefs out of hand is a guaranteed way to seal themselves into a very small echo chamber.
Pinn goes further than that - in addition to attacking theism, he calls out American culture as being inherently damaging to racial and ethnic minorities, by establishing a monocultural version of what it means to be an American. I won't deny that strain exists - the Americanism that demands that immigrants "learn to speak English properly", that bristles at the perceived encroachment of non-Judeo-Christian religious traditions, that views the world as we "true Americans" against them, however-so defined. It has always existed, most ironically in the treatment of native populations by all European settlers, but also in the treatment of Irish, Italians, Poles, and many other European groups, as well as Chinese, Japanese and other Asian immigrants as well. It has existed (and will continue to exist) toward Latino and Hispanic immigrants. It's experienced by other kinds of "outsiders" as well - people with non-traditional family structures, or non-binary gender identities, etc. etc.
To some degree these in-group/out-group distinctions characterize all countries and cultures. But I have a hard time with Pinn's single-lensed view of what it has meant, and now means, to be American. I think that, as strong as the pressure for outsider groups to normalize is, there's another facet of what it means to be "American" which goes beyond identity borders. It's one of the reasons that America retains such a strong pull for people all around the world - there is a strong belief, among foreigners, but among Americans as well, that the "thing" that makes us unique is not our religious beliefs, or our wealth, or the color of our skin or any other identity feature. Those two currents conflict with each other and generate tensions at the individual and social levels. But he's too narrow I think to focus exclusively on the first to the detriment of the second.
So in the end I feel like there are two-star and four-star aspects of this book. I have to say I didn't totally get some of the arguments he puts forth - for example, in a chapter on what hip-hop music has to teach the humanist movement he asserts that hip-hop has valued difference as a source of strength and not as a threat. I probably have a somewhat higher-than-average level of experience with hip-hop than the typical (white, middle-aged) humanist reader of Pinn's book, and I have to say I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. Hip-hop certainly does make room for diversity on some dimensions, in a way that is really important and laudable--the most important I think are the challenges it poses implicitly to white-centered cultural power, and explicitly to white-centered political and social power.
But the vast majority of the hip-hop I'm familiar with stresses adherence to a very tightly construed set of norms (regarding sexuality, gender identity, sexual prowess, physical prowess, ruthlessness and aggression, and accumulation of wealth). Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but it's a very noticeable rule nonetheless. I would strongly agree that hip-hop has very important lessons to share with people who want to think seriously about systemic racism and oppression in the United States: for example, the unflinching characterization of the effects of those systems of oppression, the ethos of self-emancipation and self-realization through the process of struggle, and the explicit rejection of white-centered measures of success. There are good reasons why hip-hop resonates so strongly with white kids just as much as it does with black kids (in addition to the music itself, which is frequently groundbreaking)--it speaks truth in a way that much of "insider" musical traditions do not. But to me, holding hip-hop up because of its respect for difference just doesn't ring true.
I'm highlighting areas where I disagreed with this book, but that's not really a fair way to write a review. (I find that, regardless of the book, I tend to write twice as much, at least, about the parts I disagreed with/disliked than the parts that I agreed with. Which is a pretty poor way to engage with someone's ideas. I'll have to work on that.) I spent 70 percent of this book nodding my head and saying, "Huh." when something really hit me as especially true and insightful. Readers may not agree with everything in this book, regardless of who you are. But that's a poor reason to not read something. This is a highly worthwhile book that will make you think. And the things you'll think about are ones that we (white Americans) frequently find it convenient to elide, and which have real, important impacts. If you look around your friend group, or your church, or your book club, or your social organization, or whatever, and think to yourself, "Why are there no (or one, or two) people of minority groups represented?", reading this book could be a good way to ask that question in a fruitful manner, rather than in a shoulder-shrugging, "What can you do?" way. Well worth your time.
Note - Dr. Pinn came to speak at a meeting of the Washington Ethical Society, where I belong, recently. His talk was outstanding, and I highly recommend going to see him if you have the opportunity.
April 1, 2018
The author's prose took some getting used to - it was stream-of-conscious-esque - but I appreciated the central point which was about how humanism deals with (or doesn't deal with) racism and racial injustice. It was a good look at the ever-elusive topic of white privilege from a non-theistic perspective and how theism has played a historical role in things like Manifest Destiny and establishing that "different" is undesirable.
Pinn makes some great points about humanism's role in breaking down historic barriers, but I'd have appreciated more concrete examples for how to move forward. He speaks of what we can learn from something as unlikely as hip hop culture, but doesn't offer any real examples of what he means.
Good read, but it left me wanting more.
Pinn makes some great points about humanism's role in breaking down historic barriers, but I'd have appreciated more concrete examples for how to move forward. He speaks of what we can learn from something as unlikely as hip hop culture, but doesn't offer any real examples of what he means.
Good read, but it left me wanting more.
April 15, 2024
I felt this Book title was misleading. It DID have a few good, basic, points racism and the problem with "color blindness". However, to me ot seemed to be mostly focused on how Humanists could better "recruit" minorities. So was seemingly less focused on racism than on how to change the culture of Humanism to be more diverse. While diversity is a noble goal, I was not particularly interested in a book focusing on the virtues of Humanism vs Theism.
Read
July 5, 2020A powerful humanist presentation in the center of racial-ethnic division!
September 22, 2020
Excellent book. As a Humanist, I appreciated the commentary about how humanism relates to racism and our attitudes toward all humans.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews