Colorblindness, accusations of racism, and Florida

Perceived shifts in society and in language give me pause.  The working definition of “racism,” for instance, seems to have morphed.  Here’s an example:  a commentator labeled a “conservative” border policy “racist.”  The policy is not focused on race at all, but its effect is seen as racist.  The new working definition of the word “racist” tries to keep the assessment of the border policy safe from challenge.

In my job a couple of months ago, I was privileged to interact with, and broker small deals with, two people whose skin is much darker than my own.  (Admittedly, the meat of an apple is darker than my skin, but that’s beside the point.)  Did I notice their color when I first met them?  Yes, but I also notice the colors of cars in the parking lot, and it’s not as though the skin color affected my conversation.  I had only pleasant interactions with the men, and ended up supporting each of them in ways that would have been impossible for a racist.  In other words, if I were racist in the way I understand racism, I would have rejected them out of hand, on the basis of their skin color.

I would confidently assert that I’m not a racist, but neither am I colorblind.  At times I know I’m biased.  Some biases may be related to skin color, but mine also relate to behaviors and backgrounds; these are not based on race.  More important:  I am typically able to overcome my biases.  (Well, except with rednecks.  I can’t stand being around rednecks and others who act in a low-class manner.) It was only after the second business deal captioned above that I connected the two in terms of skin color—and realized that I had been really unaffected by the race/color/ethnicity.  I had sat in the vehicle of one of those men for quite a while for conversation.

I imagine I will continue to feel that being colorblind is a reasonable goal, whereas the world seems to have moved in a more radical direction—that is, to see color starkly and to act differentially, based more on skin and claimed racial background than on merit or ethics.  The situation is growing worse for people like me, based on our now apparently unfortunate, natal skin color.

Now, about the Florida public school curriculum and a much-ballyhooed mention of slavery . . . .

The first bit I heard referenced Governor DeSantis, and I immediately thought that he had simply been a little careless in making his comment.  (Or, just as likely, he was taken out of context.)  After that, I saw references to the statement by those who are markedly on the left, and I knew the comment had quickly become a politicized matter more than a matter for discourse or consideration.

Then, on the morning of July 31st, I listened to a a fair treatment of the situation and learned that

• The current curriculum is an expansion of a curriculum that was in its infancy 30 years ago.
• 13 Florida scholars, including people of color, came together in a working group, in order to ensure appropriate perspective and responsible, thoroughgoing treatment of the subject.
• One scholar who helped develop the curriculum—a black man—offered a strong demurrer to VP Harris’s emotional, apparently uninformed, public criticism:¹  he asserted that she moved from “stating a falsehood” to “repeating a lie.”
• As to substance:  the curriculum in question amounts to more than 211 pages, and sections are devoted to the harsh conditions of passage, what slaves endured when they tried to escape, and more.  Frederick Douglass is quoted in the passage that has created controversy.  The idea that slaves could possibly build on the severe difficulties they faced would be reasonable for anyone who is willing to consider a range of possibilities.  Such a notion is not by any stretch “racist” in a negative sense.

Based on what I have heard in a 15-minute podcast, I would lean heavily toward supporting the Florida curriculum and hope other states will follow suit.  On the contrary, the obviously unconsidered biases of the likes of VP Harris (and, reportedly, the persons who host TV’s “The View”) show negative examples of people who are willing to jump to criticism without knowledge.  The Florida curriculum seems to be characterized by rational, historically appropriate treatment with scholarly perspective.  At more than 200 pages, this standalone curriculum—not merely a brief nod hidden within an “American History” course—has shown that it is willing to treat a sensitive topic extensively, moving toward deeper education of young people.  All would do well to avoid simple-minded kowtowing to so-called Critical Race Theory as a philosophical basis for curricula that end up highly biased and incendiary at their core.

Which is more fair and less racist—an immediate leap to an unwarranted conclusion based on a careless quotation, or honest consideration of an extensive treatment of the history of a horrible chapter in American history that mentions the strong character and development of a great many former slaves and their descendants?

---

¹ I suggest that VP Harris was participating in the politicization, contra Mr. DeSantis, or she didn’t know anything about the curriculum or its genesis, or both.  She is culpable, in any case.