Colorblindness Redux

I had to comment on a HuffPost blog post by David A. Wilson, founder of NBC Universal’s The Grio, a “video-centric news community site devoted to providing African Americans with stories and perspectives that appeal to them but are underrepresented in existing national news outlets,” if for no other reason than to clarify what most conservatives mean by colorblindness.

Wilson says it’s better to be racist than colorblind. What does he mean?

“To claim color blindness ignores this very human truth. We can no more be color blind than be unconscious of height, weight, age or sex. We can easily and openly describe any of those human characteristics; however we whisper or try to find creative ways to describe someone’s race in conversation. Of course the reasons behind this discomfort are rooted in an ugly history that held race as the primary marker for our discrimination.”

I agree. Achieving colorblindness may be a worthy goal, but we perceive differences. That’s a fact, and it’s morally neutral. It’s neither good nor bad. I’ll take it a step further: avoiding certain people based on differences isn’t a bad thing, either, although politically correct society tries to condition the sheep to believe it is.

Here is where liberal types misunderstand conservative types like myself. I don’t care whether someone dislikes me because of my skin color. That’s his/her problem, not mine. But it becomes my problem if the person infringes on my rights because of the color of my skin. If the government does it, the infringement is worse. Government policy must be colorblind. If individuals want to give it a try, more power to them.

Colorblind government policy is that which treats its citizens as individuals without regard to race. Government was instituted to protect our civil rights, that is, our individual rights, and it’s necessary for the existence of a civilized society. Its function isn’t to control people’s lives, but to allow people to live freely without interference from others. Individual private citizens may hold prejudices and biases for whatever reason, but those prejudices and biases are held in check by a government whose duty is to protect everyone’s rights. An individual is free to think whatever he wants to think about me because I’m black, but neither he nor my government may interfere with me because I’m black.

That, Mr. Wilson, is why conservatives advocate colorblind policy.

“We give weight to the idea of race being negative by considering it taboo. The more we avoid the topic, the discussion, the word, the more power we lend it. To bring race into casual conversation is to treat it as it should be treated — as a non-issue.

“Now is the time to accept our human nature and admit that no matter who we are, there’s a little racist living inside. To face our racist and look to battle its biases every day should be a personal and life long struggle for each of us against the very worst of our human nature. As any recovering addict can attest, the first step to recovery is admitting the problem.”

I disagree with him, to a point. Perceiving and acknowledging differences does not mean someone is a racist. If that were the case, the whole world’s racist. I also disagree that individuals necessarily should battle biases. Hold them all you like! Hate people of different races, if that’s your thing. But if you infringe on someone’s rights, because of race, sex, or whether the wind blows east, that’s another matter.

Let’s focus more on protecting individuals’ rights and keeping the government in check and less on trying to change the way people think.