Ignorance

"Surely it is correct to understand some apparently racist comment as coming from ignorance. But ignorance is not always a good excuse. There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. There is the notion "he should have known better" -- which strictly implies that he didn't know, but also holds him responsible for it. It is a very interesting kind of moral judgment."

This comment on one of my previous blog posts by Professor Florka inspired me to consider the topic of ignorance in regards to racial issues. I struggle with how to view those who are ignorant to the point that they do not understand when they say or do something that is racist. These people may be full of good intentions, but their ignorance hinders them from realizing the true gravity of their actions. And regardless of their intentions, their racism only perpetuates the problems with race in society as a whole. So are these people at fault?

This question conjures two types of ignorance of me: willful ignorance and culpable ignorance. I question if the people who are ignorant to racial issues do so willingly or if they are simply uneducated and haven't been subjected to an environment that forced them to confront that ignorance. I suppose that it varies on a case by case basis, but it seems for the most part that those who are ignorant to racial issues in today's day and age may be doing so willingly. Although there are exceptions, a majority of people have been exposed to the history of racial issues and have been taught all about equality and understanding. Because of this, it's difficult to understand how people remain ignorant of how their words could be interpreted as racist, especially if they're judging or assessing a person or concept completely based on race. 

So is this willful ignorance? Perhaps. It's easy to convince oneself that race isn't an issue anymore which would make one less sensitive to the comments they make about race. People sometimes choose to ignore reality because a flawed perspective of the world is more comfortable than acknowledging the real world. People are willfully ignorant about things all the time and it seems logical that race could be another issue that people choose to ignore because it makes their lives simpler.

This brings me to the culpable ignorance mentioned in the above comment. Although it's difficult to assess exactly how severe one's guilt may be in regard to their ignorance, people should be somewhat held accountable for their ignorance if it perpetuates hatred or negativity, even in the slightest. Willful ignorance seems to be the most culpable form of ignorance, but with the topic of race, people SHOULD be aware thus they are subject to guilt if they are not.

Group Event

I wanted to wait to write my blog this week so I could use it to reflect on the group project I did for this Philosophy of Race course. Tonight, my group hosted an open mic night named Silenced Voices which aimed to give students a platform to openly talk about race. We had a handful of poets go up and perform and then followed with a discussion.

I was really impressed with the turn out. There were a lot of different people who showed up and although the numbers weren't huge, getting 25+ students to come to an event the day before Thanksgiving break when  assignments are piling high is great. But I'm not writing this to go over the facts and figures of the event. And I'm not writing it to talk about the poems themselves. Although they were all amazing and touched on topics including welfare, the war on drugs, education systems, racial profiling, and racism as a whole, it was what the discussion concluded with that I thought was particularly powerful.

Ursinus is segregated. We may boast mildly impressive diversity statistics for a small, suburban liberal arts school, but what does that really mean? Is it really diverse if the blacks sit with the blacks and the whites with the whites and the Asians with the Asians? Diversity isn't a statistic, it's a word with broad meaning and should suggest an understanding and appreciation for different types of people. Unfortunately, as we came to decide in our discussion, that type of diversity is absent from this school for the most part.

So why do people group by race? Arguably, it's not that people group by skin color necessarily but rather by a shared common life experience and whether many realize it or not, life experience is often heavily affected by race from the day we are born. As a group, we began to question how we are to overcome such an obstacle and how we are to start forging an understanding between different types of people.

Statistics and events don't make people really get it. You can tell someone the facts and figures of racial injustice but does that make people understand? No. In this society of white supremacy someone's race affects not only their chances to get an education or a job, but also their internal understanding of what it means to live in this world. If we really want to overcome the obstacle of misunderstanding, we have to encourage understanding and empathy. But how do we do this?

At least in our discussion group tonight, we realized that the arts and especially something like poetry can do a lot to forge common bonds among different people. The emotion and true experience that something like art can convey goes much farther to solving the issue of racial misunderstanding than pure statistical data and historical events can. While I still think it's extremely important to be aware of structural and institutional racism as a means to remedying the segregated society we live in, we need to get to the core of things. Art perpetuates the experience of being human, which everyone can relate to regardless of the color of your skin or where you grew up or how society has affected you. Race is such a taboo topic, but it shouldn't be. And art provides people with a safe outlet to talk about the way they feel about race and also affect other people's views on race.

Where's the line?

Something I'm finding myself struggling with is when and where it is proper to analyze situations based on race. Now I'm a chronic over analyzer, taking the things in my every day life and often twisting them in all sorts of ways in my head. Usually just for the hell of it, just to think new thoughts. So perhaps I'm not the best person to be considering where the line is between not considering race enough and considering race too much. But anyways, here's my beef:

When someone tells me I'm "overreacting" because I'll vocalize my discomfort when something blatantly racist is said, I'm automatically pissed. When you're sensitive to an issue like race, you'll pick up on it in everyday life much more often and you're more prone to possibly "overreact" when the issue is not treated as you would like to see it treated. So I don't want to say anyone is "overreacting". But I'm going to.

When you look at the outpouring of articles regarding musicians like Lorde, Lily Allen, and Miley Cyrus, criticizing them for participating in racist dialogue, I think people are overreacting. Don't get me wrong, I think it's still important that there is discourse on the issue and it should 100% be something that people consider when listening to the music or observing the actions of these artists. However, I think a lot of the criticism (at least what I've read) is not to perpetuate knowledge or understanding, but rather violently criticizes in a way that is not the least bit constructive. These artists are a part of the pop culture machine, and I think that attacking an artist's integrity or personal views is not what needs to be done as it does not confront the real issue. The real issue seems to be that the appropriation of certain themes and ideas does not resonate as inappropriate to a majority of people. When you're looking at a Lily Allen music video or a Lorde song, you're looking at a collaborative artistic product that went through rounds of review and refining before it was ever released to the masses. The issue is not artists using racial themes to prove a point, but rather that the whole system was too ignorant to even realize that certain ideas or allusions could conjure racist notions for certain individuals.

This sounds bad. But I don't mean it that way. What I'm trying to say is I don't think a lot of what is criticized today as "racist" in mainstream media really had the intention to perpetuate those viewpoints. Often, these songs or videos are inspired by the byproducts of inherently racist systems or are a result of ignorance. To react negatively to what one perceives to be "racist" is not an issue, but it does seem to be overreacting when one's criticism doesn't consider the other side of the argument. For the sake of progress and knowledge, it's important that people point out when certain works seem racist but at the same time, such an observation is really only productive if it considers how it came to be racist. Especially in mainstream media, there is usually no intention for racism as quite bluntly, it's not marketable in today's day and age. Thus the issue isn't purposeful perpetuation of racist notions but rather the ignorance that plagues the masses. How can we get more people to be aware when they are making allusions to racist concepts? How do we go about erasing that ignorance and informing people? I mean, I guess these critical articles are a start, but they aren't really a solution, are they?

So where is this line? Where is it okay to be blatantly pissed without having to explain yourself because the racism should be apparent and where is it better to accompany your outrage with constructive suggestions in order to make people better understand? Not sure. Great question.

The New Jim Crow Thus Far...

While I have yet to finish The New Jim Crow, I am thoroughly impressed thus far. Michelle Alexander maintains a strong and persuasive yet very honest voice. She mentions in her preface that she has a specific audience in mind for the book, and I feel as though I fit into that audience.  Alexander says she writes for those who have tried to convince the people around them that "... something is eerily familiar about the way our criminal justice system operates, something that looks and feels a lot like an era we supposedly left behind, but who have lacked the facts and data to back up their claims." She hopes to empower her audience, and I could use that empowerment. It's difficult to make unpopular arguments like the ones surrounding race unless you are equipped with the proper information to back up your argument. The argument that racial discrimination still exists in America is not one many want to hear, and in order to convey it effectively, facts and figures and analogies are needed. I hope that as I work my way through the book, I will become knowledgeable about this new racial caste system that has been perpetuated by the current prison system and war on drugs.

Something that has particularly struck me in the introduction is that the U.S. incarcerates more of its racial or ethnic minorities than any other country in the world. I'm always weary of the way that statistics can be skewed or manipulated to prove a certain point. But regardless of however this statistic could be argued, it's horrifying. No matter what other reasons could be attributed to this phenomenon, this is a blatantly race based problem. I had no idea that the U.S. held this position in the world. It's startling and disturbing and more disgusting than I thought. I'm excited to complete this book because I can only imagine that I will stumble across more facts that will completely shake my existing sense of societal realities.

Cadillacs

I was recently watching a documentary entitled "Whitewashed, Unmasking the World of Whiteness" about the privileged experience of being white. I feel like throughout these blog posts I've done a lot of reflecting on what it means for me to be white so although that aspect of the documentary was enlightening, it's not what I want to talk about. One of the people interviewed in the film referenced a quote by Malcolm X that hit me hard. It was, "Racism is like a Cadillac, they bring out a new model every year."

This. This is it. These words make sense of everything in my head. They give logic to all the times I've stumbled around attempting to explain to people how today's society is still racist. Just because we don't see the high school history textbook definition of racism in everyday life does not mean that racism is not around. It is fundamentally embedded in our society's systems and structures, it just takes on different forms and methods as time goes on.

Now I know this isn't necessarily insightful. Nor is it exceptionally revolutionary. But it seems as though once you hit a certain point in studying a subject, the light bulb just doesn't illuminate for you anymore. You don't have those instant revelations anymore. And for awhile I've felt that way about studying racial matters. I am by no means an expert or a scholar or even a mildly experienced researcher. I've taken a few classes, read a few books, but I still always feel stuck when I talk about race. Maybe it's because the vocabulary in place is rarely all encompassing of the major social issues they try to describe. Maybe it's because since I'm white and have never really had to think about race on a "real life" level until now, I'm working from an exceptionally low point of understanding so a simple analogy like Malcolm X's really enlightens things for me.

Well I guess all of my entries do end up about me being white. My whiteness never made me have to truly consider race. My understanding of race began as so elementary that such a simple quote (even after about three years of being finally fully conscious of race issues) could suddenly help things make more sense. It's like I'm learning a new language after already having had a language ingrained in me for quite literally decades. I'm learning a new understanding of race after years of being ignorantly under the impression that there was really no greater understanding to have. It's sad. And I think my experience is something a lot of other white people can relate to.

Debate

A part of Wise's book that particularly resonated with me was Wise's recount of his experience on the debate team in high school. While the terminology and references he makes to debate may have been lost on the typical reader, I found myself immediately reminiscing on my debate team days.

I was captain of the debate team in my high school and the team exclusively focused on the type of policy debate that Wise refers to. Thinking about the team I captained, everyone was white with the exception of one Indian boy. Thinking about the league my high school was a part of, I remember almost every single team being completely white with the exception of one black and a few Asian debaters.

But what makes the practice of debate such an obvious sign of white privilege is not the racial composition of participants necessarily, but the subject matter. Debaters take major world events like terrorism, food shortages, and energy initiatives and prepare an affirmative action plan along with an arsenal of research to negate any alternative plan that comes their way. However, as Wise states, teaching people to make a game out of real life situations is dangerous. Serious world issues are turned into abstractions in which debaters pull apart the details and formulate irrational cause and effect events in order to simply win the game. Debaters are only able to speak freely on the topics of poverty and economics because it is an issue that does not affect them. They can hover above from their position of power and turn policy into game. It is a privilege to have this perspective.

The debate topic I remember most clearly had to do with welfare in the United States. The affirmative plan my team had developed was one in which welfare was slowly phased out and all funds would be reallocated to government approved private charities. In practice, this plan would have disastrous and disgusting effects on society. In debate theory, this was a bullet proof plan that very few teams had evidence against and we had enough biased sources to make ourselves sound right.

What's even worse? I grew up on welfare. And the fact that my family worked itself out of poverty to the point where I now live in a nice suburb and attend a private college can be at least partially attributed to white privilege. There was a tinge of disgust in my voice when I read the ultra-conservative sources which supported our plan by describing how the welfare system is ineffective and is just taken advantage of. But at the same time, there I was, elevated by white privilege playing a game with a social issue that had even directly affected my life.

It's kind of sad to think about. I enjoyed the thrill and excitement of debate, but in the end, it's all just kind of a sad game that prepares people to go on to play the sad game of politics. Whether it's out of touch high school students making a game out of policy or out of touch politicians making a game out of policy, the clouding of perspective that white privilege offers detracts from real understanding.

The Confusion

After an admittedly stressful beginning to fall break filled with either writing papers or agonizing about writing papers, I have yet to start reading White Like Me. However, there is something I wanted to vent about before breaking into the reading...

Two years ago I was in an African American Studies course here at Ursinus that completely changed the way I viewed race. While a lot of different readings and workshops and lectures brought me to radically reconsider how I viewed the issue of race in our society, going to see Tim Wise speak at West Chester was one of the more influential encounters I had that brought me to change my opinions.

Now I don't remember much of what he said if I'm being honest (I remember thinking that he wouldn't be the kind of guy I think I could tolerate for more than an hour or two). And while his personality was mildly off-putting, seeing a white man stand up and actually acknowledge white privilege and why it was wrong in public setting was amazing. At this point, white privilege was a relatively new concept to me (well the theory itself was, I'd been living in it my whole life) thus it was legitimately powerful. As Wise spoke, all of this race talk was finally making sense and the mechanisms in our society which perpetuated a system of inequality were illuminated. I felt as though maybe I was starting to get it. Then I remember a sort of call to arms, urging anti-racists to combat the racial injustice in our society today. I was inspired, but confused... as I still am.

All of this anti-racist talk is great, but no one takes a white person (other than Tim Wise) seriously when they talk about it. White people think I'm overreacting/don't want to hear what I have to say because it would force them to face their racist tendencies. Black people think I'm another white kid who wants to get up on my liberal high horse and chant "equality" from the hilltops because it will make me "different". Am I using rash generalizations right now? Yes. But that's how I feel when it comes to vocalizing my opinions on the issue of race. I'm not sure if it's because I'm white or a female or both but no one wants to take my opinions seriously. On the same note, I'm not sure if I can even take my opinions seriously because really, what am I supposed to do about the issue of race? I care about it. I want to see things change. But this is a socially embedded problem that I can't just fix and if people only want me to shut up when I start talking about the issue, what am I supposed to do?

This is a confusing post brought to you by a confusing girl talking about a confusing issue. Hopefully White Like Me will provide some clarity.

Profiling

After reading the anecdotal introduction to Taylor's sixth chapter about racial profiling, I was immediately reminded of something my mother said. We quite typically get into controversial discussions, mostly because we both always think we're right and hold polar opposite political views. This time, when the slightest reference to racial profiling came up on the television, my mother said "Now how are you to blame a cop for pursuing minorities more often when statistically, they are more likely to be committing crimes? If I was a black man, I wouldn't be mad at the cops, but at other black men for giving me that reputation."

At that point my jaw dropped, and I couldn't immediately speak as if I had just witnessed a bomb explode. On occasion, I hear things that just seem so illogical to me that I cannot begin to explain why they are wrong. But in this case, I tried. I tried to explain how using race as a factor to judge a whole group of people is not rooted in logic and how such prejudice is the problem in our society. I tried to explain how the "statistics" she references are already skewed solely because of racial profiling, thus it can't be used to explain racial profiling. In the end, all she could really say was: "It's statistics Ashlyn, and cops have a job to do. I can't wait for this liberal phase to go away."

I was dumbfounded. But I usually am after conversations like that with my mother (who I do love dearly despite our difference in opinion). What mostly disturbed me was an unwillingness to acknowledge the problem and I find that to be the biggest hindrance in working towards racial equality in general. There absolutely is a problem, but it is constantly overlooked. People don't want to be pushed out of their comfort zone. (white) People don't want to consider a problem if it's not theirs to begin with. Why would my mother or any other white person be bothered to acknowledge the issue of racial profiling when it doesn't affect them? People who desire a more just society may push acknowledgement but people content with their status in society see no reason to rock the boat. It's sad. And unfortunate. And I don't understand it. And I don't know what I should do about it. I don't know if I would make any sort of difference. And I don't think anyone would ever take me seriously even if I tried to make a difference because I am a white female college student who is apparently going through my "liberal phase".

CIE Considerations

I was recently informed by the professor of my Philosophy of Race course that the faculty is considering adding The New Jim Crow to the curriculum for a class entitled the Common Intellectual Experience, which is mandatory for all freshman students. This book would be replacing the current section of the curriculum which discusses the Holocaust. I firmly believe that The New Jim Crow needs to be introduced into the CIE  coursework, even if it means not having a conversation about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is a subject that many students are familiar with. Having studied it on four separate occasions in my academic career thus far, I know my experience is not unlike many others. Students come in to a conversation about the Holocaust with a great deal of base knowledge and although the CIE experience does often push students to more deeply consider the issue, it is nothing new. Talking about the Holocaust initiates discussion on genocide, humanity, and the extreme effects of prejudice. However, it is much more simple to talk about these notions when they are something of the past. In history we first make sure we are detached from the wrong doings in time and space before an open conversation is easily had.

To consider the issues found in a book such as The New Jim Crow would be hugely influential on students. Firstly, the conversation of race is not typically seen in a standard classroom setting. Vague generalizations while studying the civil rights era may be discussed, but if a student does not seek elective courses which cover the topic, is it something they will not learn about. Secondly, being confronted with the realities of racism that still exist today would cause a great impact on many students. Many people do still firmly believe that we now live in a racially just society where inequality has faded and colorblindness is the answer to all. To be blunt, more people need to wake up and any opportunity to proliferate knowledge about race relations in our society should be taken, as there are not many open platforms in which such a conversation can be easily had. Thirdly, introducing such a controversial issue to a group of freshman college students would undoubtedly spark lively debate. It would not be an easy conversation to have, but it would force them to think about their own thoughts and the status of their society. Finally, I believe that if Ursinus College is going to attempt to pride itself on its (minimal) diversity, they should strongly consider introducing subject matter into freshman curriculum that would perhaps eliminate the racial tension on this campus which clearly exists.

Reflection

I recently read an article called "Never Ending Story: Conversation About Race Has Not Brought About Cultural Consensus". What particularly struck me was the observation regarding how the American people use film in order to have the conversation of race. From what I was able to gather, the author suggests that Americans use films which cover race in a particularly sensitive way in order to "have a conversation" about race but be able to conclude that conversation with a certain sense of satisfaction.

It is not as though movies which talk about race are not popular. Tarantino's "Django" was a hugely successful film which although artistic and sensationalized, did speak to the violence of slavery in the South. However, when considering how this film contributed to the conversation of race in America, it did very little.  Isolated in time and space, the film only spoke to mid 19th century racism in the deep American South. Additionally, while the main character Django is a gun wielding black man seeking great revenge, he is still led to his position by a white man.

This "white savior" complex seems to be a major problem in film. Conversations about race are accessible to white people because they're toned down. In these films, there are the white people who are evil villains with extremist thoughts and then there are the white people with a moral code that everyone reveres. The latter are the kind of white people that today's audience can look at and be like "Well if I lived back then, I'd be that guy!" It lessens any sort of white guilt. It lets white people talk about just how terrible things like slavery were but then feel a sense of relief due to distance from the actual situation and solace in the white savior that they "would be if they could."

I wonder about how commercially successful a film would be that didn't have a white savior. One that really highlighted the abuses of the white majority against blacks without any forgiveness. Forgiveness softens the racial conversation that films could potentially have.

White Denial

"It's not like I made black people slaves, racism isn't my fault."

"I didn't ask for white privilege, I don't feel bad for having it."

"I am NOT a racist but...."

When it comes to the conversation of race, white people really like to avoid it. If they're forced to talk about race, they'll deny it. They'll deny that they see color and deny that they've ever had an even remotely racist thought cross their mind Yet we live in a society clearly differentiated by color lines where racism is rampant and a system of white supremacy is in control. To say that you are not a racist is reasonable, but people often use that statement to suggest that they see a society of equality which is entirely unfounded. 

I wonder why many white people are like this and it seems as though the most reasonable explanation is that denying racial issues is the easiest path towards non-action. To acknowledge that there is a problem suggests that there should be a solution. However, solutions towards equality oftentimes involve having to overthrow the system of white supremacy which seems counter intuitive for those who reap the benefits of it. 

But perhaps the reasoning for white denial is simpler and much more passive. Many whites are extremely uneducated when it comes to the realities of racial issues. And is that their fault? Not necessarily. The education system perpetuates biased curriculum which teaches the history of white men and not necessarily the whole of human experience. Additionally, considering that the majority of the white population grows up in areas heavily dominated by whites with little to no minority influence, there seems to be relatively few opportunities for whites to even stumble across the realities of racism unless they seek the knowledge for themselves.

The whole issue of denial is a major obstacle in progressing towards a more just society, but how is it to be solved? I'm personally a major proponent of revamping the educational system and ridding old curriculum in order to replace it with a history that expresses the plight of minorities and the wrongdoings of the majority much more in depth. But I am not convinced that such an effort would fully alleviate the issue at hand. 

Race is an issue that no one wants to talk about. Why? Because it is awkward. Having an open conversation about race means ridding yourself of your preconceived notions and attempting to have an honest conversation while pushing away the fear of offending others or seeming uninformed. Ultimately though, if there is to be forward motion in the fight for equality, this is a conversation that needs to be brought to the masses and even put in the national spotlight so white denial can be remedied. 

I wonder who could do such a thing?

....... Obama? Hello?

"What is a white bitch like you doing listening to music like this?"

I come from a rather conservative area. The population is mostly white middle class suburbanites with a heavy sprinkling of rural folk. While I like to believe I keep a group of close friends back at home who are more liberal in their ideologies, my extended network of acquaintances isn't necessarily full of the most open minded individuals.

I get put in charge of the music at parties a lot, mostly because I'm the only one who cares enough to make a playlist. However one time this summer, my taste in hip hop and rap apparently perturbed a few guests. So much so, that one just easily shouted, "What is a white bitch like you doing listening to music like this?"

This isn't the first time I've been questioned about my taste in music. But it was the first time someone blatantly attacked me based on race and gender, suggesting that those factors should somehow determine a lifestyle choice so simple as what music I listen to. It irked me, and still irks me. And what irks me even more is that I was too stunned by ignorance to even give this man a response.

I listen to rap music because I grew up on it. While a lot of people my age had parents who listened to the Beatles or Bruce Springsteen while they were kids, my mother would play Eve, Missy Elliot and Timberland & Magoo. My love of the genre only developed over time as I started to explore early rappers and underground artists. Layered beats, poetic verses, often aggressive deliverance of heavy messages... it's just what I like. I understand when some are surprised that I listen to a lot of rap, but this man's statement arose from pure confusion which I suppose angered him enough to call me a "white bitch".

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is why my personal choice to listen to music more often identified with a race other than my own would bother somebody else. Something about this encounter seems to suggest that by embracing black culture to an extent, I am disturbing those who would like to see whiteness maintained. Perhaps I am not adhering to the cultural expectations of whiteness. But why would that bother anybody? I can only venture to guess that being an anomaly disrupts the white supremacy status quo in some respect (however minimal that may be) which bothers people who do not wish to see the status quo questioned. If I stick to what society expects of me as a white female, no one has a problem. If I formulate my own identity disregarding race or even gender expectations, I rock the boat.

Another issue that this incident really makes me think about is if the statement against me was at all racist. I have always been hesitant to use that word in regards to white people. This is mostly because when most white people cry "racism", it's really only minorities reaching for equality and identity. However according to Taylor's definition revolving around "disregard", I wonder if this was some form of white on white racism. Racism is a heavy word for a quite petty interaction, but I do feel as though I was shown at least a mild level of disregard because of a race-based opinion.

To conclude this blog post, I have to establish that I still have not quite come to terms with everything. I'm unsure if my encounter was even relatively "racist" but as this class goes on, I hope to clarify that answer for myself. I also wonder if there is a conflict some may perceive between being white in a system of white supremacy yet embracing something culturally black. Or is it beneficial to evade these racial expectations and suggest that maybe racial barriers need not be so distinct? I'm hoping that as I come to learn more about the philosophy of race, I'll be better equipped to answer these complex questions for myself.

Color Blindness

An issue raised in the last class that was particularly interesting to me was the issue of color blindness. While many in the general population seem to believe that negating the presence of racial differences is a clear path towards the notion of equality, I feel as though color blindness is dangerous and potentially harmful.

As individuals, each human being is characterized by their life experiences. Socioeconomic class, geographical location, human interaction, and other such concepts shape people. Arguably, race is also one of these concepts which shapes the experiences one has which influence their individual identity. We live in a society where visual perception of race changes the way others treat you and one's racial identity may culturally influence the way one interacts with their environment. The way one perceives their own race and races unlike themselves influences one's interaction with the world around them and thus marks their identity.

Promoting color blindness seems to be an easy way out. It's a concept of convenience where the dominant race can rid themselves of the guilt they have living in a previously established system which benefits themselves while minority races still suffer. But just because color blindness ignores racial differences doesn't mean they aren't there. To deny the presence and influence of race on people is to deny one's individual identity and the historical actions which have led to racial differences in society. It is not fair nor does it work towards equality in any way. Color blindness is no solution, but rather a convenient ignorance.

Race?

One of the first topics Taylor touches on in Race: A Philosophical Introduction is language. He establishes how we utilize the words in our arsenal in an attempt to familiarize the unfamiliar, give description to what is initially indescribable.

Sometimes the struggle to give explanation to certain terms is met with much more difficulty though.

Happiness? Truth?

I could give you a dictionary definition. I could tell you what it means to me. But I in no way feel qualified enough to weave the words together that would properly and wholly tell you what either of the aforementioned terms actually mean. I'm familiar with the words themselves, but unfamiliar with having to grapple with their conceptual nature.

Race?

It came up in the first Philosophy of Race class discussion. "What's our definition of race?" I didn't raise my hand because I didn't know what to say. The complexities of such a broad term force me to consider personal experience, media, history, and an array of other factors. Race is not conceptually simple, rather a term that calls for great consideration of human history and experience.

From my minimal exposure to the study of philosophy, I feel as though this is what philosophy is for. To drive past what is apparent and question an idea from all angles in a quest for "truth". Right? Wrong? Good? Bad? I've been aware of these words for a majority of my life but rarely have been forced to question them in an effort to truly understand what they can and do mean.

I hope that as the semester progresses and I consider and question the philosophy of race, I may be able to reach a new level of awareness. Will I be able to give a direct definition of race by the end of this course? Not sure. But perhaps that isn't the point to understanding something so universally unique.