to have a history like that , based on RACE, and then suddenly tell these people that they are 'racist' for feeling a comradery and common struggle,,, is the most passive aggressive type of bullying and racism there is

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

'disclaimer': anywhere black/white is mentioned, please do not take it to mean ALL of either,, as I know no statements that apply to EVERYONE all the time,,,



But claims of colorblindness really are modern-day bigotry, according to Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a sociology professor at Duke University. In his book White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era, Bonilla-Silva argues that racism has become more subtle since the end of segregation. He considers colorblindness the common manifestation of the “new racism.”

“Whites believed that the Sixties was the end of racism,” says Bonilla-Silva, who is a Puerto Rican of African descent. “In truth, we have to admit that struggles of the Sixties and Seventies produced an alteration of the order.”

That alteration upended the rhetoric of the civil rights struggle, Bonilla-Silva said, so that historically oppressed groups would seem to be the perpetrators of discrimination, not its victims. As an example, he points to the way affirmative action foes buttressed their position with the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote from the 1963 March on Washington.

“They say ‘like Martin Luther King, I believe that people should be judged by the content of their character.’ People eliminate the history and contemporary practice of discrimination and play the morality tale,” Bonilla-Silva says.

Building a bridge to another culture can be difficult, but rewarding, as Aileen Moffitt has seen during her 20 years at Prescott Elementary School in Oakland, Calif.

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/feature/colorblindness-new-racism



Don’t be colorblind or even try to be. Don’t hide racist ideas with disclaimers. Talk about race. Deal with race. See race.

http://www.sociologyinfocus.com/2012/01/30/im-not-racist-im-colorblind/

So, you are saying that it an act of racism for someone to tell others that their racist behavior perpetuates racism.

Well, isn't that a case of the apple calling the orange "fruit".

Do you know the origin of the English word "slave"?

The word comes from the name "Slav", which was the name of a group of Caucasian people who used to be enslaved.

That's right. Historically, people of all "races" have been victims of slavery, including people who were racially "white".

Also, there is a difference between identifying one's self as being a member of an ethnic group (examples: Scottish, Irish, Slav) and judging people by their outward "racial" characteristics.

Suppose that a Christian who happens to be outwardly "black" calls a Muslim man "brother" because that Muslim also happens to be outwardly "black". The two people could be of completely different ethnicities, but the Christian has judged the Muslim solely according to skin color and deemed the Muslim "family" solely because of skin color. That would be an act of racism.

Now, suppose that the same Christian encounters a Christian man who happens to be outwardly "white". The two people could have grown up in the same culture, one in which racial discrimination was dying relic of a previous era. The two could have plenty of cultural things in common, but the first Christian doesn't call the Christian man "brother" despite their shared faith. That would also be an act of racism.

Boys and girls, we aren't living in the middle of the 20th Century. These days, people of different outward "racial" characteristics are growing up immersed in the same culture. They are living in the same neighborhoods and apartment complexes. They are attending the same schools, attending the same churches, working in the same factories. In short, people are growing up ethnically the same despite any differences in their outward "racial" characteristics.

There comes a time when the culture of one's ancestors becomes a thing of the past. Sure, it is acceptable to acknowledge the culture of one's ancestors, but you can do that without denying comradeship of people who are a part of your present-day culture, regardless of what outward features that they may have. Modern-day ethnic comradeship is not dependent on a person's outward "racial" characteristics.

That is what it means to be color-blind. It means that one does not judge comradeship with another person solely according to skin color. It is an attempt to fulfill Dr. King's dream.

Here are excerpts from Dr. King's "Dream" speech:







Dr. King repeatedly talked about the need for people who are "racially" different to accept each other as brothers and sisters.

Dr. King expressed brotherhood as being color-blind. I am in agreement with him.

Let me set the record straight.

In the USA, people have been playing on a level playing field for quite awhile, especially during the entire 21st Century.

The unpleasant thing about playing on a level playing field is that doing so doesn't guarantee equal results. So, what happens when people don't get the results that they want?

Well, it isn't uncommon for a black American to cry "Racism!" when there is no racism because that person doesn't like the outcome of something, and the person will expect that his/her false claim of racism to be accepted as being true just because the person making the claim is black.

The harsh reality is that not only can black Americans make false claims of racism, but there have been plenty of cases of black Americans making false claims of racism. Yet, not once have I heard or read a black American social commentator admit to the existence of false claims of racism made by black Americans.

The sad truth is that too many black Americans have learned to see racism where there isn't any.

For the sake of fairness, I could be mistaken when I say that a person is engaging in racism by calling others of that person's race "brother" and "sister". My perspective could be flawed. I, too, could be seeing racism where there isn't any.

For the sake of argument, suppose that I am wrong in regards to my earlier claims. Suppose that it is not an act of racism for one black American to call another black American "brother" or "sister". Well, black Americans can do that while at the same time declaring racism to be absolutely wrong.

People genuinely opposed to racism say that racism is absolutely wrong.

People who practice racism deny that racism is absolutely wrong. People who practice racism accept an act of racism if they approve of the act's beneficiary.

Now, if a white American were to proclaim that racism isn't absolutely wrong, the that person would be accused of supporting racism . . . and the accusation would be true. The person would be guilty of supporting racism.

So, what happens if a black American were to proclaim that racism isn't absolutely wrong? Would that person be judged the same way that a white person would be judged for making the same claim?

Here is the deal:

If it is absolutely wrong for a white person to judge people by skin color, then it is absolutely wrong for a black person to judge people by skin color.

If it is absolutely wrong for black people to be denied something because of their skin color, then it is absolutely wrong for black people to be granted something because of their skin color.

The call for color-blindness is a call for all people to play by the same rules, for all people to be held accountable to the same standard.

In a color-blind society, people receive government aid based on their need, not based on their skin color. People who want to be given an advantage because of their skin color will be opposed to a color-blind society; they will be opposed to Dr. King's dream.

Dr. King dreamed of living in a color-blind society. He didn't see color-blindness as being a problem. He saw it as a virtue.

Consider the following hypothetical situation:

Ships "A", "B" and "C" are traveling on the Atlantic Ocean when all three strike icebergs, causing all three ships to start sinking.

To make matters worse, neither ship has enough life boats for its passengers.

Captain "A" of ship "A" responds to the lifeboat shortage by announcing that all white passengers will be given first opportunity to enter lifeboats, while non-white passengers will have to wait until all white passengers are in lifeboats.

Over on ship "B", Captain "B" has learned what Captain "A" has done. So, in an attempt to make things "equal", Captain "B" announces on ship "B" that all non-white passengers will be given first opportunity to enter lifeboats, while white passengers will have to wait until all non-white passengers are in lifeboats.

Meanwhile, on ship "C", Captain "C" gives all passengers equal opportunity to get into lifeboats.

Questions:

#1. Did the action of Captain "A" justify the action of Captain "B"?
#2. Was there anything dangerous about Captain "C"'s color-blind treatment of his passengers?

The moral of my story is this: Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't set right the results of yesteryear's racism by using new acts of racism that have different beneficiaries.

The correct way to combat racism is to promote the color-blind treatment of people, which is what the late Dr. King promoted in his "I have a dream" speech. If color-blindness is dangerous, then Dr. King had a dangerous dream.

Sadly this rhetoric leads people to believe racism in itself is purely a white issue. It also reinforces what I believe in that oppressed people become the oppressors and the cycle is perpetuated!

Totally agree; it cracks me up when someone says they wont date a certain race, people lose their minds but if a black person says they will only date a white person, or another race will say something like that, then it's all good.

I date people; not races; and some I am not attracted to.

It's not peoples rights to date who they want; it takes two interested parties, not one.

smh,,, the message is not getting through

you are also my brother dodo, and I love you dearly

but not even you gets to accuse me of 'racism' because of whom I choose to call brother,,,,

there are different applications of the word 'love', are there not?

we love our children one way, our parents one way, our spouses one way,,, all love, but in different capacities

likewise people can be brothers and sisters in different capacities,,,whether its culturally, religiously, or ethnically

so respectfully, it IS the same thing when I call a black man my brother in aknowledgement of our similar ancestral history or cultural experience

as when I call a white man my brother in acknowledgment of a similar religious history

because, to be truthful, noone walks around with their genetic history on their foreheads,, and in THIS COUNTRY , it was the asthetic appearance that determined the treatment of people,, and that creates a COMMON cultural experience that is not only based in RACE, but perceived race

,,,its hypersensitivity that sees something more to that, and especially that can see calling someone a 'brother' (for whatever reason) as negative