If you notice the obvious differences amongst the races, you are a racist. If you deny that any such differences exist -- you may think you are off the hook. Think again.
No, if you deny the racial differences, and proudly claim your 'colorblindness', you are -- a racist. Still.
There is no winning. Resign yourself. White=racist. Plain and simple.
Now, the multicultists tell us that 'there is no such thing as race. There is just one race: the human race.' Then there's the old standby: 'race is just a social construct.' Wasn't that the agreed-upon script? We've certainly had those ideas rammed down our throats for several decades. But alas, there's a new version of political correctness: colorblindness, once the ultimate virtue, is just 'racism' by any other name:
''Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.
Let's break it down into simple terms: Color-Blind = "People of color — we don't see you (at least not that bad ‘colored' part)." As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don't want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't talk about. Thus, colorblindness has helped make race into a taboo topic that polite people cannot openly discuss.''
Well, it's a taboo topic mainly because the 'people of color' have made it such a minefield that we dare not step anywhere near it, unless we are absolutely fearless -- or reckless, and think we have nothing to lose by daring to mention it.
It's the people 'of color' who have tried to make the 'dialogue on race' into a one-sided harangue, consisting of endless accusations and condemnations of Whitey. Poor old James Watson paid the price for mentioning racial differences, and now we are told that to pretend not to see the differences is equally 'racist.'
I hope the respectable Republicans have seen this article, and taken note that they can't hide behind their professed 'colorblindness' anymore; the jig is up. They have your number, you respectables.
Notice the picture in the article, with the White woman covering her eyes, in a 'see no evil' pose. If we see evil and speak up about it, we are racist. If we pretend that we don't see it, we are racist.
The article implies that we have to 'talk about race' in order to 'fix it.' Well, the lefty multicultists have been blathering endlessly about the evils of noticing racial differences for at least five decades now, but things have only gotten worse, and drastically so since January, 2009. I wonder why that is?
The other side (the multicultists and their clientele) demand a 'dialogue on race' but the truth is unwelcome at the discussion table. What, then, is there to talk about? Do they expect Soviet-style public confessions from us guilty people of non-color? That seems to be the only kind of 'racial dialogue' they are willing to accept. And we've had more than enough of that for the last several decades.
When the truth is no longer proscribed and punished, then we can talk. Until then, guilty Whites will have to continue walking on eggshells and biting our tongues whenever tempted to notice the uncomfortable truth that Must Not Be Named.
And one more thing: Psychology as a 'scientific' discipline should be objective and value-neutral, should it not? Instead, it seems to glory in preaching morality at us in the guise of 'science.' Psychology is now just another arm of the leftist orthodoxy.
