I'm not sure what you mean by "sanctioned", because it's not like there's a nifty little club or an official organization or something.
Whenever there's an ongoing conversation, there has to be consensus about what the terms being used means. That consensus usually does not come from an official source with a rubber stamp, but, just as usually, it may as well have. That's what I mean by sanctioned.
The problem is not about someone claiming that "I see a black person and automatically think they're lazy" - it's about someone saying, "I don't even notice that they're black!", which is a blatant lie and a function of white privilege.
Granted.
I am, however, wondering if there are more people than me who have interpreted the term "color blindness" in a different way. From other things I read over the years where people use the term, it often seems like what they're getting at isn't "I don't see that she is black" but "I don't see black as inherently bad."
The claim that one actually doesn't see things like skin color (provided one is not actually blind) would make me question the speaker's intelligence more than anything else. Though, work in the field of race boundaries have shown that skin color is one of the least important attributes in determining a person's race, and all the used attributes are culturally chosen, so they may or may not be shared across cultural boundaries. So any two people may or may not even be able to agree on what identifies a third person as white/non-white.
Saying that you acknowledge someone's race and do not automatically apply stereotypes because of that has nothing to do with colorblindness.
It's good to know where you're coming from and how you're using your terms.
I'm not sure where you picked up that definition from.
The same place from which all language is learned: interpretation of context.
Colorblindness, AFAIK, has always been used to connotate that someone doesn't even realize that people are of other colors, that to them Black = White = Latino = Asian = Native Americans, etc, that everyone is the same.
Interesting. The only times I ever noticed people read the term that way is when they're critiquing people for claiming to be color blind. I'll have to go dig around and pay more attention to how the phrase is being used.
The discussion at hand involves a white woman claiming that she does not "see" or "notice" race, that she is oblivious to it and that therefore her actions, thoughts, and words are never dictated by race.
My definition was entirely tangential to the discussion at hand. As I said, my question was for my edification only. It was not meant in any way to be applied to what the woman you quoted said.
All I'm really trying to do is understand where you're coming from so that I can read your posts the way I think you want them read. Since I'm on the periphery of a conversation in which you're immersed, I need to occasionally wade in check your assumptions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-13 06:40 am (UTC)Whenever there's an ongoing conversation, there has to be consensus about what the terms being used means. That consensus usually does not come from an official source with a rubber stamp, but, just as usually, it may as well have. That's what I mean by sanctioned.
The problem is not about someone claiming that "I see a black person and automatically think they're lazy" - it's about someone saying, "I don't even notice that they're black!", which is a blatant lie and a function of white privilege.
Granted.
I am, however, wondering if there are more people than me who have interpreted the term "color blindness" in a different way. From other things I read over the years where people use the term, it often seems like what they're getting at isn't "I don't see that she is black" but "I don't see black as inherently bad."
The claim that one actually doesn't see things like skin color (provided one is not actually blind) would make me question the speaker's intelligence more than anything else. Though, work in the field of race boundaries have shown that skin color is one of the least important attributes in determining a person's race, and all the used attributes are culturally chosen, so they may or may not be shared across cultural boundaries. So any two people may or may not even be able to agree on what identifies a third person as white/non-white.
Saying that you acknowledge someone's race and do not automatically apply stereotypes because of that has nothing to do with colorblindness.
It's good to know where you're coming from and how you're using your terms.
I'm not sure where you picked up that definition from.
The same place from which all language is learned: interpretation of context.
Colorblindness, AFAIK, has always been used to connotate that someone doesn't even realize that people are of other colors, that to them Black = White = Latino = Asian = Native Americans, etc, that everyone is the same.
Interesting. The only times I ever noticed people read the term that way is when they're critiquing people for claiming to be color blind. I'll have to go dig around and pay more attention to how the phrase is being used.
The discussion at hand involves a white woman claiming that she does not "see" or "notice" race, that she is oblivious to it and that therefore her actions, thoughts, and words are never dictated by race.
My definition was entirely tangential to the discussion at hand. As I said, my question was for my edification only. It was not meant in any way to be applied to what the woman you quoted said.
All I'm really trying to do is understand where you're coming from so that I can read your posts the way I think you want them read. Since I'm on the periphery of a conversation in which you're immersed, I need to occasionally wade in check your assumptions.