One of the most well-intentioned sentences I've ever heard is "I'm colorblind. I don't see race, I see people." I hear this a lot from people who honestly identify as liberal.
It sounds good, right? The person saying it means "I'm not going to judge you by your race," right?
The problem is, that might be how it's meant, but it's often not how it's received. Would it surprise you to know that for the person on the receiving end, it's an inherently discriminatory statement? More to the point, would it surprise you to know that for the person on the receiving end, it's racist?
Yeah, it surprised me too when it came up in a discussion else-net, but it's the truth. Telling someone you "don't see" their race, or gender, or orientation is a bigoted thing to say.
Come with me over the jump and we'll talk about why.
First, let's talk about discrimination.
Pick your prejudice. Think of something that, if you found out your best friend, lover, or co-worker was associated with it, would drive you bonkers. (Caveat: don't pick things that are illegal. I'm talking about one of those protected categories, like race or religion or gender or orientation.) For me, that bonkers-creating thing is religion. When I hear that someone is a religious person, even if I have no other cause to dislike or distrust them, I immediately set them back a few paces in my mind. They don't get to get as close to me as they might want to, because the simple fact that they follow a religion, to me, makes them dangerous and unpredictable.
Is this fair? No.
Is it right? No.
Do I do it anyway, despite my best efforts? Yes, although I'm working on that.
Do I tell them, "I love you/care about you/like you, in spite of your religion"?
No. I do not, because it's dishonest to care about a person only if they edit themselves so that they're exactly like what you are comfortable with. It's outright wrong to insist that someone change fundamental parts of who they are so that you don't have to deal with how that fundamental part makes you feel. This goes for anything that doesn't involve harming others, by the way: the possession of a penis, of dark skin, of an attraction for the same gender, of a belief in god. None of those harm others simply by their existence.
The problem is, too many people - me included, even now - tend to think that colorblindness, gender-blindness, orientation-blindness, religion-blindness, and other clunky terms which mean "I don't notice these different things about you" is desirable. This is especially true of those who carry a trait that is the assumed default: white, straight, male, middle-class, Christian, able-bodied, employed, etc. We know that people don't want to be judged on their race, so we default to what we think is the other side of the coin: ignoring that they have one. Same for gender, disability, religion, etc.
What is hard for many of us to understand, especially if we came to progressivism from conservative backgrounds, is that when you say to someone who's black "I don't see race, I just see people," or to someone who's gay "I don't see orientation, I just see people," or indeed to anyone who isn't the "default" that you don't see their difference, you just see a person, is that it's an insult.
Yep. An insult. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.
Get a bunch of friends of different races, orientations, genders, religions, etc. together in a room. Have them write down twenty things that they feel are central to, or at least important to, how they see themselves - what their identity is. Afterwards, check out the results. It's interesting, but when you conduct this kind of experiment, most of the time the white people don't put down "white" as one of their identity-identifiers, but almost every other person in the room will put down their race. Same for gender: men don't generally put "male," but women almost always put "female." And so forth.
What does this mean? Well, the lesson I'm taking away from it is that when we tell people "I don't notice your race/color/gender/religion/ethnicity/orientation/etc.," we're telling them that those things, which are formative and often central to their identity, are not worth bothering with. We're telling them that we would prefer to pretend that they were white, or male, or straight, or thin, or whatever is the default. That instead of us being colorblind, we want them to be whitewashed. It means we're saying "I like you in spite of this difference," instead of "I accept you for who you are, including this difference, because it's part of what makes you who you are."
How can we possibly see them for who they are if we ignore all the things that make them who they are? When you think about it logically, it makes no sense, does it?
I've been on the receiving end of this myself. I've had co-workers say, "Well, I just don't THINK of you as gay." My own in-laws do this about my atheism: when I go to their home for dinner, their assumption is always that my husband and I are Christians, despite our repeated attempts to tell them that we're not. What this says is that they are either actively ignoring this important part of our identities because they disapprove, or they are just so unable to deal with the idea that our identities are not the same as theirs that they unconsciously reject it. Either way, it's not fun to be on the receiving end of it.
There seem to be only two solutions we've tried so far as a society for these issues. The first is the elimination of the concept of race (or gender, or orientation, etc.). The other is the requirement that such things be taken into account (as in affirmative action). The problem is, neither one of these solutions really works.
Those who say "let's get rid of race" seem to think that getting rid of the concept will somehow get rid of the stigma or the discrimination. On its face, this seems to work, but realistically, it's just not possible for most of us, as humans, not to notice difference and label that difference. And ask any person of color or woman how it feels to get hired for a job and wonder if they got it not because of their abilities but because they were hired to meet some affirmative-action quota. So far, the methods we've used to deal with the differences in others have been lacking, at best, and sometimes just as bad as the original discrimination at worst. We either demand that people's difference is taken into account, as with affirmative action, or we demand that it be ignored, as with those who want to eliminate the concept of race. Either way, we're invalidating what it means to be black, or gay, or female for persons who are on the receiving end of these methods.
Can we find a better way to handle difference? I think we can. I think we can start by treating each individual as a person - not by denying their difference, or by ignoring it, but by accepting it as part of what makes them who they are. Instead of assuming that Jing or Rafael or Nwaka or David had the same background as you, try learning what it means to be Asian-American, or Latino, or African-American, or Jewish. Of course, this takes a lot more effort, and a lot of practice, but it pays off in big ways when your Jewish friend knows that you won't make fun of him or look oddly at him when he keeps kosher or takes a vacation around Purim. It pays off in big ways when your black friend knows that she can tell you about her experience of being treated like she was "less than" simply because of her skin color, and how that colored her experience in other ways, without being told that her experience doesn't matter to you. It pays off when your Asian friend knows that she can talk about how the Asian cultural expectations about praise that she grew up surrounded by still color her ability to receive praise from bosses and instructors today, without being told that her culture is wrong or that she should just get over it.
What's the payoff? Well, if everyone took a little time to just acknowledge the differences which create the people we interact with and care about, it might go a long way towards reducing some of the tension out there when we interact with those who are not just like us, especially for those who are not part of the cultural "default" set. Think about how much easier it would be to interact with others if you weren't (on some level) automatically bracing yourself for conflict, thoughtlessness, or ignorance. I know that interacting with people who take my orientation in stride is infinitely less stressful than interacting with people who try to pretend or ignore it out of existence.
Although our brains automatically create categories and sort our experiences into those categories, we must look beyond them and look at the people that make them up if we're to advance as a society. The post-racial world is a myth (as is the post-gender, post-orientation, post-whatever world). But we can move towards a world where race, gender, orientation, etc. are acknowledged and celebrated without those same things having to be issues and bones of contention.
So when I know that my friend's Christianity is important to how she sees herself, I know that I can't just pretend it away. When I know that my co-worker's Judaism is important to how he sees himself, I know that I should acknowledge it, not ignore it. Even though religion makes me bonkers and uncomfortable, it's still my job to acknowledge that it's part of their experience and their identity, even if it's not an experience I've had or an identity I share.
Anything less is simply bigotry, hiding behind a nice-guy mask.