Is Racial Colourblindness Really So Harmful?
“Color blindness causes harm at multiple levels. In the first instance, it is an act of minimization and erasure” - Layla F Saad.
The concept of colourblindness doesn’t seem to resonate with many people. Some outright reject it, seeing it as harmful (as the quote above suggests) or as an obstacle to achieving a fairer and more equitable society. They argue that ignoring racial differences fails to address the “systemic disadvantages” and discrimination faced by certain racial groups.
Others, while not necessarily against the concept itself, have concerns about its terminology. They suggest that the phrase "colourblindness" lacks clarity or doesn't actually make sense, especially when it is impossible to truly be blind to someone's race or skin colour. Alternatives such as "race-agnostic" or "race neutrality" are sometimes proposed as potentially better options.
Let's first address the concern about the phrase "colourblindness" itself, which Coleman Hughes has discussed extensively when speaking on the concept. The phrase need not be taken literally; it's figurative language, like many other idioms and expressions we use.
For example, consider the term "warm-hearted," an example Hughes often cites. It doesn't literally refer to the temperature of one's heart muscle. Rather it describes a kind, compassionate person. Similarly, "open-hearted" implies being loving, honest, and willing to connect emotionally, not that one's physical heart is open. When someone gets "cold feet," they're not experiencing physical coldness but a state of nervousness or hesitation, particularly before a significant event like a wedding.
We readily understand and accept the non-literal meanings of these phrases. Yet, many struggle to apply the same principle to "colourblindness." The term doesn't mean physically failing to perceive someone's race or skin colour. It represents the goal of judging people solely on their character and actions and not making assumptions or decisions based on race.
The notion that colourblindness causes harm to individuals and society or that it represents an act of minimisation and erasure is misguided. In reality, the concept of colourblindness aims to achieve the opposite: it seeks to view individuals holistically rather than fixating primarily on their race or skin colour. It does not ignore structural inequalities or neglect addressing the root causes of discrimination and disparities in areas like education, employment, and criminal justice. Instead, colourblindness takes a more comprehensive approach by examining other potential factors that may contribute to or perpetuate these disparities, such as socioeconomic class structures and personal choices (an area that is often overlooked and insufficiently discussed). Rather than being a form of dismissal or erasure, colourblindness strives to consider the whole person beyond the single dimension of race.
At its essence, colourblindness is rooted in the principle of treating all individuals equally, irrespective of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. It firmly opposes the idea that a person's race or colour should define them or hold paramount importance in their identity. Rather, colourblindness endeavours to perceive individuals in their entirety — considering their character, personality, skills, experiences, and values — beyond merely the hue of their skin. One might wonder why anyone wouldn't view this as the optimal way to relate to others.
Far from minimising or erasing the individual, colourblindness recognises that a person's race or ethnicity is just one facet of their multifaceted identity. It acknowledges that individuals are complex, nuanced human beings, not just members or representatives of a racial group. Race consciousness, on the other hand, is what actually minimises the individual, reducing them to arbitrary physical characteristics. Colourblindness penetrates beyond those surface-level differences to the shared humanity we all possess. It is a liberating quality that should be embraced, not feared or dismissed.
Your support allows The Equiano Project to keep these important conversations going in such a race-obsessed and tribal world. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber so we can continue to tackle the "thorny" subjects.
Ada is the Head of Content at The Equiano Project. Subscribe to The Equiano Project YouTube channel HERE.
Great article, thank you. I often question the sincerity and integrity of those who argue against colourblindness - people like Sunny Hostin who recently argued with Coleman Hughes on The View. Perhaps I shouldn't, perhaps I should always assume the best motives in others - even when what they are proposing is so obviously damaging and wrong. But putting someone's race front and centre, the most important consideration, as critical race theorists do, is so obviously a cul de sac, nihilistic and hopeless. Whereas colourblindness is hopeful, visionary and inspiring - a vision that can unite everyone, inspire everyone. That's why Martin Luther King Jr's Lincoln Memorial speech is so powerful, 60 years on it can still send shivers up and down your spine (in a good way!). Also colourblindness, if we can link the idea directly to MLK's vision, has a proven track record. The progress made in race relations between the 1960s and the 2000s in both the US and UK was dramatic - Colin Powell, Condoleezaa Rice, Barack Obama. Condoleezaa Rice was born in the segregated South, I believe, and became US Secretary of State - that's an indication of dramatic progress, in my opinion. But over the past 10 years or so, I feel that progress has stalled and we are becoming more divided and the future less hopeful and I would put that down to the increased influence of critical race theory and a concerted effort in some quarters to undermine colourblindness and to turn people away from MLK's inspirational vision.
If colourblindness it's just a metaphor, doesn't mean what it says and is confusing people, then why don't we scrap it? I don't use it myself. When I was a child in the 1970's before I'd heard of racism the term often used in the UK was 'colour prejudice'. Many protested that we should not be judged by our skin colour. Is that all that colour blindness means? If it is a metaphor for something else then what is the something else?
Glen Loury recently challenged the growing appeal of 'racelessness', is racelessness and colourblindness the same thing? or does colourblindness accept the reality of race, while arguing that metaphorically we should proceed 'as if' race didn't exist?
The argument continues because there is something behind it. Are we dealing with personal conduct? That people should treat each other with kindness and respect? Or are we talking about systemic and institutional problems that will not disappear if left to good intentions and individual good will alone. Loury talks about growing up amongst black people and seeing them as 'his people', he also points to the data that show that black people are over-represented in social categories that show disadvantage (prison, welfare, poverty, health etc).
Race is a social construct but it is a historical reality, it has at times been taken literally and scientifically.
But what is the problem today? What is the argument about? Certainly there is an argument between black people (albeit not in the mainstream media). Those who treat race as a fundamental explanatory concept are in the ascendency. There may be an argument that anti-racists are themselves maintaining the idea of race, and trapping black people in narrow racial categories. Is this what colourblindness is challenging? Are there other ways of challenging this view?
Is racism still a problem? Most would agree that it has not gone away (even if some exaggerate it for their own purposes). Is racism not a problem for proponents of colourblindness. If colour blindness is just a metaphor (I don't think that it is) then the term is redundant (I don't think it is).