Our Shared Shelf discussion

621 views
JanFeb 18: Why I'm: R Eddo-Lodge > Is colour-blindness enough to fight racism ?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 71 (71 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 26, 2018 04:10PM) (new)

I'm mid book now and a question rose in my mind since the second chapter.

Is colour-blindness enough to fight racism ?

During all my life, I interacted with people, friends and so on without caring about their skin color and I thought if everyone acted like me, it was enough to put an end to racism.

Now, I realise that colour-blindness is not the best way to fight racism. We must see race to figure out the issues people of color are facing and try to fix these issues.

I have to admit I'm a little bit lost now, so I really want to have your point of view on this topic.


message 2: by Pam (new)

Pam | 785 comments I follow Lewis. I was taught not to acknowledge someone's differences. This very much played across the board: Race, Gender, or Disabilities.

I believe the theory behind these lessons was good intention ed. That my parents were trying to quell some awkward childhood curiosity and tactlessness so as to not make anyone on the receiving end uncomfortable.

My sister is disabled. And it would become grating to my family to have to answer "What's wrong with her?" from people. Once or twice was fine. But it got to the point where after explaining so many times the short hand would become "Nothing is wrong with her." Which isn't the wrong answer. My parents were in solidarity with her, trying to honor her dignity and to make sure no one treated her like she was less than a person.

But there are stark cognitive and mobility differences between her and the rest of my family. To NOT see those differences just means that as a family we could fail to incorporate her feelings or needs into consideration in things like family meals or activities.

And I think that was the lesson that was never officially given. As in, no one sat me down and said "we don't notice differences, but we do acknowledge and incorporate them as respectfully as we can."


message 3: by Ashna (new)

Ashna Gulati (goodreadscomashna_gulati2609) | 205 comments Hi Lewis,

It is a very interesting question really.This question can't really have a white or black answer.But I'll give an opinion for what it's worth.

Is it enough to be gender-blind to fight sexism?
or
Is it enough to be blind to things to fight them?

I don't think so.Not appreciating difference is called ignorance and that is what racism is sprouting from in the first place.

I think we are all different in our own ways and that is what makes us unique.I might have a friend who might has really pretty eyes,but I might also have a friend who has really pretty hair.The point is that I will appreciate the difference in a good way.I won't mean to put them down by that difference.
For example,I might not tell my friend with pretty eyes that she has her mother's eyes and her mother was not a good woman,so she can't be either.You get me?

One doesn't have to be colour blind to be anti-racist.You just have to be stereotype and prejudice-blind for that.I think I love my brown skin but at the same time,I would hate if anyone would attach specific qualities or traits to that brown skin,like untrustworthiness or illiteracy or not-as-good-as qualities.You know?

My argument is along similar lines as defined by Pam.

I don't know if other people will agree,because seems like I had already put many people at an edge with my thread a few weeks back.

Hope this helps,Lewis.
:)


message 4: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 27, 2018 01:57PM) (new)

@Pam and @Ashna, thank you for your concrete explanations.

I think I get both of your points of view.

It's necessary to acknowledge and appreciate differences to share and understand people feelings and avoid to fall in indifference which is the worst possible behavior, indeed.


message 5: by Angie (last edited Jan 27, 2018 07:13PM) (new)

Angie Feliz | 9 comments Hi Lewis, it’s so interesting you’re asking this question, I was actually thinking the same thing when I was reading that chapter. While reading this book, many times I had to stop reading and think. Just like you, I thought that by not talking about race I could make the world better: I was guilty of color-blindness and I am not a white privileged person! Anyways, just wanted to let you know that you are not alone. I am glad we have pieces like this to challenge our views on society and change for the better.


message 6: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments I was also taught not to acknowledge other people's differences (race, gender, disabilities, weight/appearance, wealth, etc). I've come to realize that it can just muddy things up, and it really contributes to blindness of the realities of racism/sexism/ableism/ageism/etc.


message 7: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 28, 2018 11:54AM) (new)

@Angie and @Emma, it seems I'm not the only one person who asked himself this question.

I feel less alone now, thank you. : )


message 8: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments Lewis wrote: "@Angie and @Emma, it seems I'm not the only one person who asked himself this question.

I feel less alone now, thank you. : )"


You're in good company, here on OSS :)


message 9: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2379 comments To weigh in on this myself, I too was taught to ignore people's "characteristics" (for want of a better word)...
but I came to realise that it is wrong and doesn't change that much actually, or at least is bad in the sense that you don't acknowledge the whole person.

Please don't say "colour-blind" as there are people who actually cannot see certain colours, and it is ableist to misuse the term in this way.
If we're neglecting the color of one's skin, we do get some issues, as it, for instance, completely erases the impacts that racism has had on our societies and how we still treat people as a society. (I really mean on the macro-level here, not on the individual level)
Also, another issue I have is: I don't think it is a bad thing to state one's skin colour... as there are stories related to it, and it may help to understand why people have the view they have on certain issues. (This again, is related to racism) It is problematic tho of course, when we ascribe qualities to a person based on their skin colour... simply because people share characteristics doesn't mean they share others as well...

Coming back to the "acknowledging the whole person" thing:
I know a lot of people who are, shall I say, "disadvantaged" by society in many different ways. Society has certain views on certain characteristics of them, that are seen as negative, mostly because the "extraordinary" (either the perceived or the actual) is seen as a negative in comparison to the ordinary. To neglect a part of a person's identity, and yes I do say identity here as there are many parts of what constitutes identity for a person, is, in my humble opinion, a bad thing. Whether that is skin colour, disability, or something else, I always have an issue with the following: Oh, but you're okay/wonderful etc. despite xyz...
What does that tell? It tells that xyz is bad or it would be better not to have it... why can't a person be proud of xyz, for whatever reasons? It also tells us that a person can't feel comfortable because of xyz... I can't really articulate why it bothers me, but it just gives me the itchies...

So yes, I don't think "colour-blindness" does get us anywhere. I also think it does more harm than good, as it doesn't acknowledge the reality that people are still judged based on the colour of their skin/their ethnicity rather than their deeds... and it also doesn't acknowledge the person as a whole person, as in that a certain aspect of the person is simply rushed over/not talked about/erased.

That are just my two cents, I am looking forward to hear more!


message 10: by Florian (last edited Jan 29, 2018 07:30AM) (new)

Florian | 133 comments Lewis wrote: "@Angie and @Emma, it seems I'm not the only one person who asked himself this question.

I feel less alone now, thank you. : )"


No you are not the only one who is asking those type questions :) Sometime we do not even think about discussing a specific topic. You thought about that one, so I am grateful you created a thread about it. I will try to reply as soon as possible on this thread, hopefully I will be able to make time.


message 11: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments I also thought about this point while reading the book (I'm just about 3/4 of the way done with it now).

Growing up, I, too, was raised not to acknowledge differences. As I became more independent and formed my own opinions of things, I continued to outwardly ignore aspects of others as I was raised to do, but it didn't sit well with me. I didn't understand why I couldn't say "he was black" as a factual statement, but I also knew it wasn't viewed by society as appropriate. I found myself constantly trying to be politically correct, saying "Native American" instead of "Indian" or "African American" instead of "black." While I still am in the habit of saying "Native American" instead of "Indian" for the confusion between "American Indian" and for lack of a better phrase "true" Indian, I have gotten out of the habit of saying "African American" but still tried to avoid the term "black." Instead, I have gotten into the habit of saying "darker skinned." This came about when I did a cultural research essay on Jamaican Americans and had my eyes opened to the fact that not all black Americans ancestry lead back to Africa. This book is helping me see that the term "black" isn't entirely wrong to use.

Back on point, as I am finishing up schooling to be a teacher, I want to address the "blindness" topic from a teacher's perspective. If a teacher were to be ignorant of the differences of the students, no one would learn everything. We have to be aware, by law, of anyone with an IEP (individual education plan given and made for students with cognitive disabilities) and 504 plans (individual education plans given and made for students with physical disabilities). These plans have specified accommodations we must make for the students by law. But it goes beyond that. As a teacher, we must identify differences in our students' learning abilities and styles and make accommodations and differentiate our lessons for all students and all the differences of those students.

This is a little different than the "color-blindness" we are discussing here as skin color itself does not determine academic differences, but it goes along the lines of ignoring characteristic differences of people.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you ignore the differences of those around us, we cannot make progress or changes in the areas we are trying to affect.

This is something I am continuing to learn and continuing to work on, myself. It sounds like most of us were raise to ignore differences, especially those of skin color. So I'm guessing it has formed into a habit for most of us to do so, myself included. If you look at research done on breaking habits, it is no easy task and is something you must work on every day to overcome.


message 12: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 29, 2018 01:32PM) (new)

@Meerder :

I took "colour-blindness" 'cause it's the word used in the book to talk about the way to ignore skin color of people. I'm agree with you it's not the best word for that 'cause we can mingle it. It might be "skin-blindness" maybe ? I don't know...

I'm agree with your whole point of view though.

@Ashley :

Indeed, it's a change of our habits and like every habits, it requires time and efforts to change them.


message 13: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2379 comments Lewis wrote: "@Meerder :

I took "colour-blindness" 'cause it's the word used in the book to talk about the way to ignore skin color of people. I'm agree with you it's not the best word for that 'cause we can mi..."


Someone will have to come up with a better word.
Actually it was @DelSchilling on Twitter who in one of her threads covers the issue and that's how I first got to know about it and made me think about it.


message 14: by Tamar (new)

Tamar | 25 comments I'm not american but i understand that the term "people of color" refers to anyone who is not white!

And i ask why? is it bc white is not a color or is it bc white is default?!

why not say white, black, brown And so forth - of course only when it's necessary to describe a person for specific reason!

As long as people still use those words racism will carry on.


message 15: by Ashna (new)

Ashna Gulati (goodreadscomashna_gulati2609) | 205 comments Hi Tamar,

That is actually something to think about,
"Is white not a colour?"
Sometimes even simple things like colour are turned complicated for convenience.phew!


message 16: by Pam (new)

Pam | 785 comments More so because white is currently the default. And instead of saying individuals groups or colors (red, yellow, black, brown) poc is used as the short hand..


message 17: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments Tamar wrote: "I'm not american but i understand that the term "people of color" refers to anyone who is not white!

And i ask why? is it bc white is not a color or is it bc white is default?!

why not say white,..."


Referring to your question is white a color, it is a very thought-provoking question. When looking at pigments as in paint, white is the absence of color. If you look at the light spectrum though and how our eyes perceive white, white is the presence of all colors. I've never been comfortable with the color of my skin being refereed to as "white" because it is not in fact the color white. Same goes for "black" skin is not actually the color black and how we call those of Asian decent "yellow," the skin color is not yellow. I've never quite liked the terms we've used to describe skin colors, because they've never made that much sense to me when comparing the skin pigment to the generic color they are associated with.

But Pam is correct. "People of color" is used to encompass everyone who is not "white" because white is seen as the default in society currently.


message 18: by Leslie (new)

Leslie (lesliejean43) | 84 comments As a white woman, I was once accused of racial prejudice by a black woman. I was a 20-year old graduate nurse, and charge nurse of a busy surgical ward. All the staff was white except for one black nurses' aide. When I asked her to do something, she accused me of picking on her because she was black. I was floored! It was the first thing I had asked her to do, and would have made the same request of a white nurses' aide if one had been available. I later thought that the disparity in our ages may have been her real problem, since I was so young at the time. It was the early 1960s in Montreal when this happened. I always treated all staff politely and with respect, so that truly shocked me!


message 19: by Pam (new)

Pam | 785 comments Sorry Leslie.

For our discussion purposes, that is an excellent example of why this is such a complicated topic. Individually who wronged who or Who is in the Right and who is in the wrong are perfectly legitimate questions.

In discussions like this I always try to remember about the suffering anger causes, like a virus. Her anger (justified or not) caused her to lash out leaving you with this prominent memory all these years later. And that was one instance! Who knows what caused that anger in her or what anger she inspired in others afterwards.


message 20: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments Pam wrote: "Sorry Leslie.

For our discussion purposes, that is an excellent example of why this is such a complicated topic. Individually who wronged who or Who is in the Right and who is in the wrong are pe..."


This is a very good point. I'd also like to point out how no matter how you look at the situation, it did not help in the fight against racism.

Reni talks about how racism isn't a two-way street because she defines it as something that can only come from someone in a position of power over the victim. However, the dictionary defines racism as prejudice against a person on the basis of race. Leslie's experience is one of racism against her for being white. I'm not trying to say colored people are racist or that they don't have reason to hold prejudices against white people. The point I'mt trying to get at is that racism of any form does not help the fight. It does not help eliminate racism. Just as we question how a feminist can fight for gender equality if they claim women are superior to men (or men superior to women), how can someone claim to be fighting racism if they partake in acts of racism?

Anger blinds us to the consequences of our actions. Yes, there are legitimate cases where a nurse in Leslie's position might have been racist to the nurse' aid, but she herself was not. The nurse's aid became blinded by her anger and jumped to a conclusion based on her racism.

Honestly, though, I can't say there is a "person in the right" or "person in the wrong." There was miscommunication, misunderstanding, anger... We are the embodiment of our experiences, and the nurse' aid was acting from her experiences.

This makes it a hard fight. We're not just fighting racism, we're fighting our own experiences that can misinform a situation as a racist act when it's not. Or can cause us to partake in racist acts without realizing it. This is where I think Reni's communication gap really comes into play. How can we avoid these situations?


message 21: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 31, 2018 12:15PM) (new)

Tamar wrote: "I'm not american but i understand that the term "people of color" refers to anyone who is not white!

And i ask why? is it bc white is not a color or is it bc white is default?!

why not say white,..."


I though the same thing while reading the book, Tamar.

We know "people of color" refers to people who are not white. According to the dictionary, white is a color like every other colors we can see with our eyes. I know it's for simplification reasons but I find that kinda racist to say whites and others...

I think we should use "priviledged people" and "unpriviledged people" instead maybe. It's already very less racist according to me.


message 22: by James (new)

James Corprew | 577 comments Ashley wrote: "However, the dictionary defines racism as prejudice against a person on the basis of race. Leslie's experience is one of racism against her for being white.."

Agreed.

Racism and prejudice is bad no matter whom its coming from and no matter the color of their skin.


message 23: by Taylor (new)

Taylor | 2 comments I would say not only is color blindness not enough to fight racism but it gives racism room to grow. Ignoring race, or claiming to, doesn't help. According to Reni Eddo-Lodge, in order to fight racism, race needs to be acknowledged.

and Lewis, in reference to your more recent comment from Jan 30, I hope you're not concluding that referring to white people as white is racist... that sounds a lot like reverse racism to me; which we all know (if you've finished the book) doesn't exist. White people cannot be the victims of racism because the system of structural racism benefits white people. I don't believe that anyone can be a victim of a system that directly benefits them. Just like men can't be victims of sexism-- sexism benefits them.


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

Taylor wrote: "I would say not only is color blindness not enough to fight racism but it gives racism room to grow. Ignoring race, or claiming to, doesn't help. According to Reni Eddo-Lodge, in order to fight rac..."

That's not what I meant. It's even the opposite.

I think saying "people of color" and "white" is kinda racist for "people of color" because we don't acknowledge every race by saying that.


message 25: by Taylor (new)

Taylor | 2 comments Lewis wrote: "Taylor wrote: "I would say not only is color blindness not enough to fight racism but it gives racism room to grow. Ignoring race, or claiming to, doesn't help. According to Reni Eddo-Lodge, in ord..."

Oh! Thanks for clearing that up!

In my experience, I have seen people use "people of color" as a descriptor when talking about more than one group of people, which I think can be good especially in conversations about racism as a whole because some people view racism as a black and white issue, not a Latinx, Asian, indigenous peoples', etc. issue. You know what I mean? When talking about a specific case, like the treatment of indigenous peoples in America it totally makes sense to use that term, but I think it also makes sense to use 'people of color' when it fits the situation.

But ultimately, this isn't up to me as a white person. I'd leave it up to non-white people to decide their own terminology you know?


message 26: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 04, 2018 01:48PM) (new)

Taylor wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Taylor wrote: "I would say not only is color blindness not enough to fight racism but it gives racism room to grow. Ignoring race, or claiming to, doesn't help. According to Reni Eddo..."


I understand your point of view but I can image my thought by my own experience.

We get out of racism and skin color just for my example. My grandparents are Italians and they live in France since a while. They really hate when French call them "the strangers" instead of "the italians".

I think it's the same thing when we call "people of color" black or asian people for example. I think they want to be recognised by their true identity and not as a whole.

I'm agree with your last sentence but who did create the term "people of color" ?


message 27: by Joanna (new)

Joanna Abillama | 6 comments Saying people of color is just a useful and practical way to refer to all people who are not white and therefore do not benefit from white privilege. Instead of referring to them as Non- whites, which would be defining them by the absence of something, we use people of color.

I do not think that it is racist. It sort of ties in with your initial question. Should we just ignore people’s differences/ be “color-blind”? No. Acknowledging these differences helps us better understand people and know how to support them. Ignoring someone’s race will not make all the things they have to face because of structural racism disappear. Race is just a concept but it is a concept that strongly affects people’s life outcomes so there is no use ignoring it. How will we fight racism if we pretend we are all the same?


message 28: by Florian (new)

Florian | 133 comments Joanna wrote: "Saying people of color is just a useful and practical way to refer to all people who are not white and therefore do not benefit from white privilege. Instead of referring to them as Non- whites, wh..."

good point.


message 29: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2379 comments Joanna wrote: "Saying people of color is just a useful and practical way to refer to all people who are not white and therefore do not benefit from white privilege. Instead of referring to them as Non- whites, wh..."

What is important to remember tho when using the term "people of color" is the fact that they are not a homogenous group of people, but hugely diverse. We tend to lump them all together, same with the term "Indigenous"...


message 30: by Malobee (new)

Malobee Silvertongue | 76 comments Ashley wrote: "Pam wrote: "Sorry Leslie.

For our discussion purposes, that is an excellent example of why this is such a complicated topic. Individually who wronged who or Who is in the Right and who is in the ..."


I disagree with that qualification of racism, and the author goes into detail about the differences between prejudice and racism. Since racism has structural implications of power and advantage, acts of prejudice do not have that weight of influence. While acts of prejudice are definitely negative, a black person expressing prejudice toward a white person is not in a position of power to negatively impact that person's life in a broader sense. The author, and many others that are writing on this subject, are trying to craft very specific language to reduce ambiguity when talking about racism to negate misunderstanding and belief in "reverse-racism".

But I do agree with you in that we are all approaching things through the filters of our own lived experiences and that definitely can make things more complicated. I also think that it is important, when learning to acknowledge privilege and respond to the reactions of members of oppressed groups, to do as Eddo-Loge suggests--take a moment to reflect. If upon further reflection you do not feel that what that person said applies, let it go and remember that trans-generational trauma, systemic racism, and years of lived experience have created this response. Accept it with compassion. Remember that the onus of the emotional labor in this area does not fall on the oppressed person. To hold onto this event with discomfort so many years later (as was described in Leslie's post) seems to me to hold onto defensiveness. It is an opportunity to ask ourselves "Why do these events still hold so much weight for me now?"


message 31: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments MeerderWörter wrote: "Joanna wrote: "Saying people of color is just a useful and practical way to refer to all people who are not white and therefore do not benefit from white privilege. Instead of referring to them as ..."

It is important to remember not to generalize any group of people - we are all so different and diverse and grouping people (while it is important to allow people to conceptualize and organize things in their brains and lives) can be really harmful if taken too far.


message 32: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments Malobee wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Pam wrote: "Sorry Leslie.

For our discussion purposes, that is an excellent example of why this is such a complicated topic. Individually who wronged who or Who is in the Right and..."


My argument about the definition of racism is based on the dictionary definition of racism which is "prejudice on the basis of race." I see where Eddo-Lodge is coming from with her perspective, but the structural racism is not the only kind of racism and eliminates a lot of cases on racism, both toward colored people and toward white people. There is no such thing as "reverse-racism" because racism is racism no matter who it is coming from or who it is directed at.

If we were to accepted structural racism as the only form of racism, Incidents of racial slurs would not be considered racist as they do not affect the social structure of the people involved. To take a reverse example of Eddo-Lodge's restaurant example, a white restaurant owner saving the best cuts of meat for white people and withholding those cuts from their colored customers would not be considered racist, as it does not affect the social structure of the customer or of the owner (Eddo-Lodge's own argument why her example was not racist toward the white customers). Taking from Leslie's experience, if Leslie had been being choosing to ask that particular nurse aid for assistance because she was black, that would not be racist because that is her job, regardless of the intentions, therefore would not be affecting the social structure.

Trump's slurs as in this article: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-...
would not be considered racism as the slur does not affect the social structure.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
There is a case in the above article where a mix-race couple is harassed by a group of black men. The men called out to them "What color is your baby going to be?" When the couple didn't respond, the men followed them, shouting the question at them. If we are to say racism is only structural racism, this case would not be considered one of racism.

Saying structural racism is the only form of racism is saying a black person murdering a Mexican person on the basis of race is not racism. It is saying a colored person murdering a white person on the basis of race is not racism. It says that only a white person killing a colored person on the basis of race is racism. It says the only hate crimes from a white person onto a colored person is racism. Hate crimes of a colored person onto another colored person of a different race is not considered racism in structural racism. Hate crimes of a colored person onto a white person is not considered racism in structural racism.

I understand most cases of racism are structural, but that is not the only form and should not be viewed as the only form of racism. It is the form that causes the most damage, but it is not the only form of racism.


message 33: by James (new)

James Corprew | 577 comments great post Ashley I agree 100%


message 34: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 16, 2018 12:28PM) (new)

Ashley wrote: "Malobee wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Pam wrote: "Sorry Leslie.

For our discussion purposes, that is an excellent example of why this is such a complicated topic. Individually who wronged who or Who is ..."



Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another (a part of the definition we can find on Wikipedia : ) ).

Based on this definition, I think "racism" toward whites is indeed called "prejudice" 'cause people in position of power are mostly whites today.

I know Reni Eddo-Lodge talk mainly about structural racism in her book but I never read in it it's the only one kind of racism. I think structural racism is the most powerful sort of racism which feed other sorts of racism.


message 35: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments Source the Merriam-webster Dictionary.

The definition of racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles 

b : a political or social system foundedon racism

3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

if we're going to be saying something is or isn't racist, we can't pick and choose pur definitions. also, Wikipedia is not the most accredited source, so I don't suggest using it in a debate.


message 36: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments Ashley wrote: "Source the Merriam-webster Dictionary.

The definition of racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent ..."


Good point - Wikipedia is often not super reliable. I agree with that definition from Merriam-Webster, because it has many components that seem to cover everything. It could go more in-depth for 2b and 3, but it covers the basics.


message 37: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 16, 2018 01:18PM) (new)

Ashley wrote: "Source the Merriam-webster Dictionary.

The definition of racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent ..."


Thanks for this more complete definition. : )

The definition I referred to in my previous comment seems to be the first meaning of the definition you wrote in your comment, isn't it ?

So, if I'm right, it seems to be one of the definition. I think it's that meaning of racism which Reni Eddo-Lodge refers to in her book.

PS : I checked on the Oxford dictionary before posted my comment to verify the Wikipedia definition. : ) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/def...


message 38: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments I never said your definition was incorrect. I said Wikipedia is a poor source to site. It is ONE OF the definitions, but so is prejudice on the basis of race. By saying prejudice against any race (including white people) is not racism is disregarding that definition. I never said the definition you sited was incorrect. I said you can't disregard the other parts of the definition, which you did in that post.


message 39: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 16, 2018 01:44PM) (new)

Ashley wrote: "I never said your definition was incorrect. I said Wikipedia is a poor source to site. It is ONE OF the definitions, but so is prejudice on the basis of race. By saying prejudice against any race (..."

No problem, I'll take the Merriam-webster Dictionary as a reference then. : )

According to this dictionary, I'm agree with you obviously.


message 40: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments Glad we got that cleared up. Sorry for the misunderstanding


message 41: by [deleted user] (new)

Ashley wrote: "Glad we got that cleared up. Sorry for the misunderstanding"

I'm glad too. : )

It's my fault, sorry.


message 42: by Ashley (new)

Ashley | 180 comments No there was misunderstandings on both parts. no worries :)


message 43: by Joshua (new)

Joshua | 1 comments I personally think that "color-blondness" doesn't erradicate racism. if someone is blind, that just means, they are unable to perceive the world around them through sight. that doesn't mean that they dont discriminate against anyone or anything based on how it looks. Even if that blind person doesn't know, with absolute certainty, that they're discriminating against a specific thing, the still might. It's the same with being "color-blind". if I'm just ignoring the fact that someone has a different skin tone than me, I'm not actually accepting them for who they are, at their entirety. I'd be accepting them, for who they are on the inside, which is great, but I wouldn't be accepting the fact that they are black or white, or Hispanic, or Indian, or anything else. I'd just be ignoring that. just because something is ignored, doesn't mean it goes away.


message 44: by Winda (new)

Winda Juliawati | 3 comments I think pretending that it is not there is not a solution. We must accept what we are and being able to talk about it with out it being an issue. I'm an Asian. I'm fat. Im on a diet to get myself healthier. In an ideal world(in my mind) people should be comfortable to talk about it without insulting some one race/ gender/ etc, without it being something abnormal/ special, without it being something that has generalisations (?) in it.
We must see the diversity, because we are different. and it's okay.


message 45: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments Winda wrote: "I think pretending that it is not there is not a solution. We must accept what we are and being able to talk about it with out it being an issue. I'm an Asian. I'm fat. Im on a diet to get myself h..."

I really like how you put that - it really resonates. I agree with you.


message 46: by [deleted user] (new)

Winda wrote: "I think pretending that it is not there is not a solution. We must accept what we are and being able to talk about it with out it being an issue. I'm an Asian. I'm fat. Im on a diet to get myself h..."

I'm agree. All our differences must be acknowledged 'cause they're our identity.


message 47: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2379 comments When you don't acknowledge that there is a problem you can't fight the problem.


message 48: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1858 comments MeerderWörter wrote: "When you don't acknowledge that there is a problem you can't fight the problem."

Exactly!


message 49: by Mercy (new)

Mercy Sakes (SaraThomsen) | 7 comments Color blindness is, first a lie, second, a blatant admission of racism. It's to be invisible, and rejecting the world as it is. I say embrace our differences, it is what makes us unique and diverse. In conclusion, color blindness is "fake news" and the bigger issue of a bold-face, HUGE, lie


message 50: by Frida (new)

Frida Vermehren | 4 comments We all have different backgrounds and we all have issues. But most importantly we are all human. No matter who you meet, you will always have a common ground. If you ask me, life is about beeing happy - and helping others (which helps leed to happiness according my experience.) Racism and such issues, only makes life more complecated for everyone. Things like colour shouldn't define who we are. We are who we are and that is more than okay. We have to acknowledge the issue to do something about it. No matter who you are, you should be able to look at yourself from a distance and ask yourself - is it okay what I am saying and doing? We have to accept that we all make mistakes as long as we are able to realise them and put things right. We are all humans, we are all unique and we all have an equal right to be here as long as accept each other for who we are.


« previous 1
back to top