There is little that reveals the moral confusion of the left as much as its labelling the term
“colorblind” racist.
Here are just a few examples:
The University of California publishes a list of terms and ideas it considers racist. The
list includes the term “colorblindness.”
Psychology Today published an article by a psychology professor titled, “Colorblind
Ideology Is a Form of Racism.”
HuffPost published a piece titled, “How Colorblindness Is Actually Racist,” in which
the author gives three examples of statements whites make that are allegedly racist:
"I am colorblind.”
“I see people, not color.”
“We are all the same.”
The Disney Company recommends that its white employees atone for their racism by “challeng[ing]
colorblind ideologies and rhetoric” such as . . . “I don’t see color.”
Even the U.S. Army has gotten into the act. It sent an email to personnel saying that
the word colorblind is evidence of white supremacy.
I could give dozens of examples of the left’s Orwellian definition of “colorblind” as
“racist.”
Why Orwellian?
Because becoming colorblind is precisely what people opposed to racism should aspire to.
That is why Martin Luther King’s most famous quote, from his most famous speech, is “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.”
The left’s position is that Martin Luther King was wrong.
But it’s the left that’s wrong. The colorblind person is the very definition of a non-racist
person.
Here’s one obvious proof: The worst racists—defenders of slavery, supporters of Jim Crow laws, the
Ku Klux Klan, just to cite American examples—were the least colorblind people. Color is the
one thing they and all racists see. Precisely because they defined people by their color,
they justified subjugation of blacks.
Colorblind means one does not believe a person’s color is in any way significant.
Isn’t that the ideal? Shouldn’t we define a person by their heart, mind, personality,
and, as Martin Luther King said, above all, character?
Does anyone look into a mirror and see color? No, they don’t. They see a human being.
When a white person looks into a mirror does he or she think, “Look, a white person!”
When a black person looks into a mirror, does he or she think, “Look, a black person!”
Of course not. When we look at ourselves, we see John, or Jessica, or Tameka, or Jose.
We see ourselves—not color. Why isn’t that how we would want everyone to see us?
The left’s insistence that color is important is one of the most racist and anti-human doctrines
of our time. It was precisely when America was most racist that people’s color was
deemed most important. Why would we want to return to that time?
Why is your skin color any more important than your hair color or, for that matter,
the color of your shoes?
Name one important thing your color tells others about you. You can’t.
Does your color tell us if you’re kind, or smart, or what foods or music you like,
or what you do for a living? Does it tell us anything about the most important thing
about you—your values?
No. Your color tells us nothing about you.
So, why should anyone not be colorblind? To be colorblind means one ignores the least
important thing about you. Isn’t that a good thing? And isn’t the opposite position—that
your race is important—racist?
Those who revere the Bible must be colorblind. The only thing the Bible tells us about Adam
is that he was created in God’s image. If the Bible placed any significance on race,
wouldn't it have told us Adam’s color? And does God have a color?
That there were Christians who defended slavery on racial grounds only proves that there were
Christians who distorted the biblical view on race. At the same time, it was Bible-believing
Christians who organized the first large-scale effort in world history to abolish slavery.
A final thought: Imagine that tomorrow every human being woke up blind. Would the world
be more—or less—racist?
I’m Dennis Prager.