A Difficult Conversation

[np307]

It was an interesting podcast. I think Rue was there more for brand promotion than to actually discuss problems and solutions. That's not a slight, as Outdoor Afro is relatively unknown in the hunting community. This podcast was a sort of foundation setting one in my eyes. You could tell she got a little off-message when Steve pushed the conversation into different areas. I would hope they could have another conversation with some actual give and take. Unfortunately, I think most people who dont want conversations like this to happen are only going to focus on the seemingly contradictory remarks about how to treat people you see in the woods (dont be unfriendly but dont be too friendly). I understood the point, but there's a lot who will hear that and assume it's a lose-lose victim mindset (as evidenced by some IG and FB comments).

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for sharing JLS. It was a very interesting podcast.

It resonated with me when Rinella spoke to Rue about how he was raised in a world where "color blindness", was the north star. I was too. It kind of comes full circle for me when they spoke about being made to feel very unwelcome in the outdoors, but on the same hand one can also feel very "overwelcomed". It's all a very delicate dance, and made me think that color blindness is the north star for initial behavior, but falls far short for getting to know someone, and may falls short when compassion is needed. I don't know.

I enjoyed it, and it certainly made me think. Her discussion about racist policies of the past around public swimming pools and beaches, and how that has resonated through the ages to today, was eye opening and is just another example highlighting how evil can echo.

 

[Hammsolo]

I suspect you are correct to some degree.

I was a guest on the Urban Archer NYC podcast last week. Was it coincidence? Nope. Cliff Cadet, the host and hunter, who happens to be a black, saw the comments on my IG when I posted a black screen on June 2nd. He saw me engaging with the audience. He had followed me in the past, but we had never connected. He jumped in on those IG discussions, engaging with the audience from the perspective of a black urban male who hunted. It took a lot of people off guard the way he presented himself. He contacted me afterward and asked if I would be on his podcast. I understood some would have the immediate response that I did this because of the events since the George Floyd death, but I agreed. Yeah, the George Floyd event and the following weeks of tension did bring Cliff and I together. It wasn't by accident.

Glad I did that with Cliff. Link here - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/when-the-hunt-calls/id1497160704

Recently, there was a thread on Hunt Talk about another black hunter who was on the Nine Fingers Chronicle podcast, Arlando Chiles. He was then on the Gritty podcast. The topic of me and Arlando communicating over the last two years came up in both podcasts.

Arlando came to Montana bear hunting in May, but due to COVID, we couldn't get together for a visit. A couple weeks later, the George Floyd event blew up. I did a podcast with Arlando last week, knowing full well that many will say I am just pandering, having the token black hunter on my podcast because of all that is/was going on. Would they have viewed it any differently if we had been able to meet in May before the George Floyd event? Not sure.

In spite of those who don't know the real gig, I'm going forward with releasing it and will take the anticipated comments for what they are. I'm surely not going to ignore a person who I've been communicating with the last two years, just because we have a lot of tensions in our country surrounding the issue of race. That he happens to be a black hunter who has an interesting story of how he found his way to hunting and how he is using hunting to help in his community, makes it even more compelling during these times.

Similar to the question about Meateater, "Did these two podcasts, one on which I'm a guest and one I am a host, happen by accident?" Not really.

But, nothing I do is by accident. I want to push discussions. I want to be uncomfortable in my confidence that my view of the world has it all figured out. Having these discussions helps me think harder of my life experiences that have formed my world view, especially when I compare them to folks who have a way different life experience, yet we both ended up at the same end point when it comes to our love of wild things, wild places, and hunting. I won't quit having these discussions offline or online, due to the amplified tone of the current times that might put me at higher risk or more discomfort.

I've not listened to this Meateater podcast. Maybe my road time home tomorrow will be a good time to do it. Whether it was or wasn't by accident, I'm interested in these discussions.

Thanks Randy. I appreciate your perspective. I’m a science teacher, and it’s my job to create engaging lessons that link to current events. It’s wise to teach about viruses, human population growth, and climate change for example. I want to promote the wild for all. I want to promote understanding for all. Another thought is that I believe we need to assume positive intent. I choose to believe Steve and others are working to do good. I have no evidence otherwise.

 

[thomas89]

20 minutes in to this podcast and I'm already confused.

On the topic of not being color blind, Rue says that Rinella is "going to have to get over it" in their discussion. When he suggests that she is "talking to a white dude", she responds: "No, I'm talking to someone who loves the outdoors and I want to connect on that."

Is that not by definition "color blind"?

 

[Irrelevant]

20 minutes in to this podcast and I'm already confused.

On the topic of not being color blind, Rue says that Rinella is "going to have to get over it" in their discussion. When he suggests that she is "talking to a white dude", she responds: "No, I'm talking to someone who loves the outdoors and I want to connect on that."

Is that not by definition "color blind"?

My very unnuanced brain finds this specific hypocrisy very prevalent in just about every racial conversation today.

 

[TOGIE]

20 minutes in to this podcast and I'm already confused.

On the topic of not being color blind, Rue says that Rinella is "going to have to get over it" in their discussion. When he suggests that she is "talking to a white dude", she responds: "No, I'm talking to someone who loves the outdoors and I want to connect on that."

Is that not by definition "color blind"?

i kind of agree. i'm still thinking about it though.

such a comment seemed to be the first cut in the stopping of the actual difficult conversation i think steve was trying to have. if she expounded on that comment rather than just saying it we could've learned a lot more of what she meant. and i'm thinking she does mean a lot more in what she said there than meets the ear, but we didn't get to hear it

 

[thomas89]

My very nuanced brain finds this specific hypocrisy very prevalent in just about every racial conversation today.

I’m not trying to ruffle feathers, still just trying to sort it all out for myself. Seems there’s a new puzzle piece each day.

i kind of agree. i'm still thinking about it though.

such a comment seemed to be the first cut in the stopping of the actual difficult conversation i think steve was trying to have. if she expounded on that comment rather than just saying it we could've learned a lot more of what she meant. and i'm thinking she does mean a lot more in what she said there than meets the ear, but we didn't get to hear it

Yes for me at least this is not a podcast as background noise. Think I need some dedicated time to really focus and reflect on what’s being said.

Thanks for the replies!

 

[ignorethefringes]

I finally got some time to listen to this while I worked this morning. My thoughts as I listened.

The comments on being color blind are a little confusing on her part. I've heard several things similar about see and celebrating differences but I still don't think I understand. Especially as later in the interview she talks about wanting people to lose the novelty of seeing a POC at the trail head or hiking or whatever. A general theme I felt while listening of, "You can't have it both ways." started here.

I disagree with some assertions that Steve never really dug in and had any difficult conversation. It took a while but I think he finally started digging in when he tried to play defend the "overly welcome" person. I think he did a good job trying to explain to her how one might feel the need to go overboard with welcoming someone who have been told over and over again feels unwelcome and uncomfortable in the outdoors. I feel like her messaging has been inconsistent in some ways and this was one of them. When Steve pressured her a bit by asking if intent matters, she reverted to (summarizing), "It's not appreciated when it's the 10th person." without acknowledging that any one of the 10 may not have known how the person before (or after) acted. Intent should be huge and as much as we're being asked to behave in ways POC prefer, I don't think it's too much to as POC assume the best of those of us that try to do right. When people feel like they can't do right no matter which path they choose, they aren't inclined to try something new.

She also talked about there being a representation problem, but further clarified that she's looking for accurate representation based upon location and local population. While POC make up something like 34% of America based upon the total population, that can vary wildly in different areas. I was reminded of her opinion on this when she later talked about looking a company's board or leadership in order determine how well diversified the company may be (and therefore determining a company's intent with "diversity" in advertising"). I wonder if she also looks to where the company is located and determines whether the board is adequately diversified. Steve talked about how diversified his leadership is, partially citing a female co-CEO, and how proud he is of that fact. He also referenced the difficulty in being proud of that fact without coming across as pandering in some way and making his leadership question whether they are simply filling a quota. Her opinion hints of hiring for diversity rather than simply qualifications which have always caused me heartburn. How can any one person look at a board and assume that a more qualified person of color was passed over to keep the board white? There are so few board positions (in terms of total available positions in the country) that it shouldn't be surprising that they are mostly white. Even if only 0.5% of the population of any race is qualified to fill that position, you're still looking at +/- 5.5 times as many white applicants as black applicants, or +/- 3 times as many white applicants of an applicant of any other race.

Now, all of the above being said, considering the likely age and experience of the average person being chose to be on the board for a company, you're likely getting into problems of education inequality and other disadvantages associated with the civil rights movements. Hopefully, over the next 20 years as board members age out we'll see a more even distribution of well qualified minorities being chosen to be on boards/leadership.

I like her goal of having it be normal to see a POC at the trail head, hunting, fishing, whatever. But it's going to feel abnormal for many (and they'll react as such) until it's not abnormal. The biggest problem is not the reaction from the current demographic, it's a the lack of engagement within the POC community. I'm pretty sure people won't react like it's unusual, when it's not unusual anymore. Her analogy about smoking was a good one too. People will get used to it as they have to; we are abundantly adaptable. But other than directly asking my friends of color to go out with me, there is little I can do to change the overall demographics. I would bet that, by a vast majority, people get involved with the outdoors via someone they directly have a relationship with and not a random stranger. It's worth remembering too that even if we get to accurate representation (based upon country statistics), you're still going to see 3 white people for every POC you see.

Finally, she talks about how people tend to overthink things and she may be right. But I wish she'd ask herself why. Never in my life have I felt that I or my parents were racist and treated others poorly based upon their skin tone. But, never before in my life have I worried so much whether POC might think I'm racist. Although I'm glad some difficult conversations are being had, I fear that we're actually creating more division between us at times based on the mixed messaging. Yes we're overthinking, because feels like we're going to screw up either way.

 

[JTHOMP]

Haven’t listened to Steve’s podcast yet but currently listening to one also recently produced on the subject by Clay Newcomb. Talks about discussing this issues, having empathy, and historical hunting. A good listen of different perspectives.

History of Racism and African American Hunting w/ Jonathan Wilkins

Episode · Bear Hunting Magazine Podcast · Jonathan Wilkins of Black Duck Revival and Clay Newcomb have a discussion about the history of African American hunting in the South, but more importantly, they discuss the historical issues that have led to low participation of African Americans in...

open.spotify.com

 

[Trial153]

I been trying to stock pile some podcasts for my flights to Alaska in couple weeks....this one is on the list.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I'm very excited to see people of diverse backgrounds entering and advocating for outdoor lifestyles! Especially when it comes to hunting and fishing, we need more voices to keep these traditions alive.

I get the feeling folks who dont live around black people think of them as an alien species that needs study and interpretation. And the black population in the west is pretty small. Living in the south, I interact almost daily with black people who hunt. But in my state, they are primarily hunting private land (most of the federal public land is in parts of the state with fewer black folks, like much of the US probably). The guys I interact with are a lot like another black meateater guest, Josh Carney. We speak the same language.

I finally got some time to listen to this while I worked this morning. My thoughts as I listened.

The comments on being color blind are a little confusing on her part. I've heard several things similar about see and celebrating differences but I still don't think I understand. Especially as later in the interview she talks about wanting people to lose the novelty of seeing a POC at the trail head or hiking or whatever. A general theme I felt while listening of, "You can't have it both ways." started here.

I disagree with some assertions that Steve never really dug in and had any difficult conversation. It took a while but I think he finally started digging in when he tried to play defend the "overly welcome" person. I think he did a good job trying to explain to her how one might feel the need to go overboard with welcoming someone who have been told over and over again feels unwelcome and uncomfortable in the outdoors. I feel like her messaging has been inconsistent in some ways and this was one of them. When Steve pressured her a bit by asking if intent matters, she reverted to (summarizing), "It's not appreciated when it's the 10th person." without acknowledging that any one of the 10 may not have known how the person before (or after) acted. Intent should be huge and as much as we're being asked to behave in ways POC prefer, I don't think it's too much to as POC assume the best of those of us that try to do right. When people feel like they can't do right no matter which path they choose, they aren't inclined to try something new.

She also talked about there being a representation problem, but further clarified that she's looking for accurate representation based upon location and local population. While POC make up something like 34% of America based upon the total population, that can vary wildly in different areas. I was reminded of her opinion on this when she later talked about looking a company's board or leadership in order determine how well diversified the company may be (and therefore determining a company's intent with "diversity" in advertising"). I wonder if she also looks to where the company is located and determines whether the board is adequately diversified. Steve talked about how diversified his leadership is, partially citing a female co-CEO, and how proud he is of that fact. He also referenced the difficulty in being proud of that fact without coming across as pandering in some way and making his leadership question whether they are simply filling a quota. Her opinion hints of hiring for diversity rather than simply qualifications which have always caused me heartburn. How can any one person look at a board and assume that a more qualified person of color was passed over to keep the board white? There are so few board positions (in terms of total available positions in the country) that it shouldn't be surprising that they are mostly white. Even if only 0.5% of the population of any race is qualified to fill that position, you're still looking at +/- 5.5 times as many white applicants as black applicants, or +/- 3 times as many white applicants of an applicant of any other race.

Now, all of the above being said, considering the likely age and experience of the average person being chose to be on the board for a company, you're likely getting into problems of education inequality and other disadvantages associated with the civil rights movements. Hopefully, over the next 20 years as board members age out we'll see a more even distribution of well qualified minorities being chosen to be on boards/leadership.

I like her goal of having it be normal to see a POC at the trail head, hunting, fishing, whatever. But it's going to feel abnormal for many (and they'll react as such) until it's not abnormal. The biggest problem is not the reaction from the current demographic, it's a the lack of engagement within the POC community. I'm pretty sure people won't react like it's unusual, when it's not unusual anymore. Her analogy about smoking was a good one too. People will get used to it as they have to; we are abundantly adaptable. But other than directly asking my friends of color to go out with me, there is little I can do to change the overall demographics. I would bet that, by a vast majority, people get involved with the outdoors via someone they directly have a relationship with and not a random stranger. It's worth remembering too that even if we get to accurate representation (based upon country statistics), you're still going to see 3 white people for every POC you see.

Finally, she talks about how people tend to overthink things and she may be right. But I wish she'd ask herself why. Never in my life have I felt that I or my parents were racist and treated others poorly based upon their skin tone. But, never before in my life have I worried so much whether POC might think I'm racist. Although I'm glad some difficult conversations are being had, I fear that we're actually creating more division between us at times based on the mixed messaging. Yes we're overthinking, because feels like we're going to screw up either way.

I pretty much agree with all of this. Except I dont understand why anyone would treat someone differently at the trailhead or while hunting. That seems ridiculous to me. And furthermore, wouldn't normalizing a person of color (not treating then differently) be considered what Steve is calling "colorblindness"?? It seems like she has come to some conclusions that run counter to critical justice theory but she doesnt want to stray from ideological orthodoxy.

Overall I thought this guest brought some positive insights and I'm glad she was on.

 

[thomas89]

I finally got some time to listen to this while I worked this morning. My thoughts as I listened.

The comments on being color blind are a little confusing on her part. I've heard several things similar about see and celebrating differences but I still don't think I understand. Especially as later in the interview she talks about wanting people to lose the novelty of seeing a POC at the trail head or hiking or whatever. A general theme I felt while listening of, "You can't have it both ways." started here.

I disagree with some assertions that Steve never really dug in and had any difficult conversation. It took a while but I think he finally started digging in when he tried to play defend the "overly welcome" person. I think he did a good job trying to explain to her how one might feel the need to go overboard with welcoming someone who have been told over and over again feels unwelcome and uncomfortable in the outdoors. I feel like her messaging has been inconsistent in some ways and this was one of them. When Steve pressured her a bit by asking if intent matters, she reverted to (summarizing), "It's not appreciated when it's the 10th person." without acknowledging that any one of the 10 may not have known how the person before (or after) acted. Intent should be huge and as much as we're being asked to behave in ways POC prefer, I don't think it's too much to as POC assume the best of those of us that try to do right. When people feel like they can't do right no matter which path they choose, they aren't inclined to try something new.

She also talked about there being a representation problem, but further clarified that she's looking for accurate representation based upon location and local population. While POC make up something like 34% of America based upon the total population, that can vary wildly in different areas. I was reminded of her opinion on this when she later talked about looking a company's board or leadership in order determine how well diversified the company may be (and therefore determining a company's intent with "diversity" in advertising"). I wonder if she also looks to where the company is located and determines whether the board is adequately diversified. Steve talked about how diversified his leadership is, partially citing a female co-CEO, and how proud he is of that fact. He also referenced the difficulty in being proud of that fact without coming across as pandering in some way and making his leadership question whether they are simply filling a quota. Her opinion hints of hiring for diversity rather than simply qualifications which have always caused me heartburn. How can any one person look at a board and assume that a more qualified person of color was passed over to keep the board white? There are so few board positions (in terms of total available positions in the country) that it shouldn't be surprising that they are mostly white. Even if only 0.5% of the population of any race is qualified to fill that position, you're still looking at +/- 5.5 times as many white applicants as black applicants, or +/- 3 times as many white applicants of an applicant of any other race.

Now, all of the above being said, considering the likely age and experience of the average person being chose to be on the board for a company, you're likely getting into problems of education inequality and other disadvantages associated with the civil rights movements. Hopefully, over the next 20 years as board members age out we'll see a more even distribution of well qualified minorities being chosen to be on boards/leadership.

I like her goal of having it be normal to see a POC at the trail head, hunting, fishing, whatever. But it's going to feel abnormal for many (and they'll react as such) until it's not abnormal. The biggest problem is not the reaction from the current demographic, it's a the lack of engagement within the POC community. I'm pretty sure people won't react like it's unusual, when it's not unusual anymore. Her analogy about smoking was a good one too. People will get used to it as they have to; we are abundantly adaptable. But other than directly asking my friends of color to go out with me, there is little I can do to change the overall demographics. I would bet that, by a vast majority, people get involved with the outdoors via someone they directly have a relationship with and not a random stranger. It's worth remembering too that even if we get to accurate representation (based upon country statistics), you're still going to see 3 white people for every POC you see.

Finally, she talks about how people tend to overthink things and she may be right. But I wish she'd ask herself why. Never in my life have I felt that I or my parents were racist and treated others poorly based upon their skin tone. But, never before in my life have I worried so much whether POC might think I'm racist. Although I'm glad some difficult conversations are being had, I fear that we're actually creating more division between us at times based on the mixed messaging. Yes we're overthinking, because feels like we're going to screw up either way.

I noticed much of the same. Welcome...but not over welcome. At one point she even mentioned just being left alone, something to the effect of “can’t we just BE out here?”. So welcome, but don’t over welcome, welcome but don’t acknowledge and let people just “be”, but also don’t be color blind.

Quite interesting about the segregation of pools and the increased drowning rate amongst the black community. Something I truly never considered but does have merit.

She also was losing me talking about the fear of being a POC and started to give statistics of lynching.

Personally I lean towards just leaving people be no matter what. Very thought provoking podcast without any real answers. Probably much of today’s world anymore, about as clear as mud.

 

[ignorethefringes]

I noticed much of the same. Welcome...but not over welcome. At one point she even mentioned just being left alone, something to the effect of “can’t we just BE out here?”. So welcome, but don’t over welcome, welcome but don’t acknowledge and let people just “be”, but also don’t be color blind.

Quite interesting about the segregation of pools and the increased drowning rate amongst the black community. Something I truly never considered but does have merit.

She also was losing me talking about the fear of being a POC and started to give statistics of lynching.

Personally I lean towards just leaving people be no matter what. Very thought provoking podcast without any real answers. Probably much of today’s world anymore, about as clear as mud.

I agree about the drowning statistics. I also couldn't help but think along the lines of, "That is literally something that can be addressed easily by every individual family." I understand the poor policies of the past have brought this upon the community, but teach your kids to swim gosh darnit! LOL I'm a little more passionate about it being in S. Florida where we hear about drowning deaths all the time because there is water everywhere. It blows my mind that how many people don't learn how to swim as a matter of life and death safety. What if your car skids off the road and ends up in a canal?

The lynching stuff was tough. When she brought up Emmett Till I stopped the podcast to read about it. It's a horribly tragic story that took place less than 70 years ago. Several of the people involved were still alive within the last 20 years. That should be shocking and give each of us a pause about how recent some of our tragic history occurred.

 

[Jmnhunter]

I got confused on the "color blind" comment as well, and thought thats how it should be right? I believe that was a poor choice of words to describe it, more like "Color aware"

I really enjoyed the podcast; as someone else mentioned, now that windshield time has diminished, my podcasts are limited to Hunt Talk, Meat eater, and a couple others but I'm backed up now and make excuses to work in the garage so I can listen now!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Discussing how the black community can work toward fostering more outdoor engagement from within, instead of blaming others for feeling "uncomfortable" in the outdoor space would actually be a difficult conversation. Promoting empowerment instead of defaulting to blaming "racism" would be a refreshing and difficult conversation.

Seems like when you disagree it is not a difficult conversation, but rather "it loses you". However, you suggest that the appropriate "difficult conversation" is when the "other" has to answer to your beliefs. An interesting approach to "difficult conversations" - I am right, you are wrong, now explain how you are going to do what I tell you to do. Not exactly building understanding or bridges.

 

[geetar]

Haven’t listened to Steve’s podcast yet but currently listening to one also recently produced on the subject by Clay Newcomb. Talks about discussing this issues, having empathy, and historical hunting. A good listen of different perspectives.

History of Racism and African American Hunting w/ Jonathan Wilkins

Episode · Bear Hunting Magazine Podcast · Jonathan Wilkins of Black Duck Revival and Clay Newcomb have a discussion about the history of African American hunting in the South, but more importantly, they discuss the historical issues that have led to low participation of African Americans in...

open.spotify.com

I haven’t listened to this one but all Clay’s podcasts that I have listened to have been interesting.

 

[VikingsGuy]

A few thoughts on the "color-blind confusion". For those seeking understanding, there may be something of use here in your journey (or not), but I understand many will just reject out of hand.

Colorblind is not the goal. Ignoring where someone is from and what they may have experienced that is different than you is not respectful, it is dehumanizing. If a parent says to me, "I treat all of my children exactly the same - I see no differences in them whatsoever, I am "kid-blind" - fair for everybody is my motto." I would call this person a lousy parent. Each of our kids is different and they need us to see who they fully are so we can be fully loving of them and in support of them in their own specific needs. What one kid needs another may not. Something that upsets one of my kids may be water off the duck's back for another one.

Similarly, the goal is not to be "color-blind", but to see color, but not use color to prejudge another person and subject them to lesser treatment because of this prejudgement. This can be tricky to discuss because some people use "color-blind" to describe their sincere attempts not to prejudge and devalue - which is good, but only half of the way to seeing the person fully for who they are and how you can help. Meanwhile, others use "color-blind" as a lazy dodge of difficult conversations/introspection and to preserve the status quo that is working quite well for them under the guise of being fairminded.

I think a lot of well-meaning and honorable people use the term "colorblind" with the best of intentions, but it can be an unintended trap into not seeing the full situation.

Another parallel is the golden rule vs the platinum rule. How can anyone be criticized for living the golden rule? But in many circumstances doing for others what you would like isn't actually what they need.

YMMV.

 

[thomas89]

A few thoughts on the "color-blind confusion". For those seeking understanding, there may be something of use here in your journey (or not), but I understand many will just reject out of hand.

Colorblind is not the goal. Ignoring where someone is from and what they may have experienced that is different than you is not respectful, it is dehumanizing. If a parent says to me, "I treat all of my children exactly the same - I see no differences in them whatsoever, I am "kid-blind" - fair for everybody is my motto." I would call this person a lousy parent. Each of our kids is different and they need us to see who they fully are so we can be fully loving of them and in support of them in their own specific needs. What one kid needs another may not. Something that upsets one of my kids may be water off the duck's back for another one.

Similarly, the goal is not to be "color-blind", but to see color, but not use color to prejudge another person and subject them to lesser treatment because of this prejudgement. This can be tricky to discuss because some people use "color-blind" to describe their sincere attempts not to prejudge and devalue - which is good, but only half of the way to seeing the person fully for who they are and how you can help. Meanwhile, others use "color-blind" as a lazy dodge of difficult conversations/introspection and to preserve the status quo that is working quite well for them under the guise of being fairminded.

I think a lot of well-meaning and honorable people use the term "colorblind" with the best of intentions, but it can be an unintended trap into not seeing the full situation.

Another parallel is the golden rule vs the platinum rule. How can anyone be criticized for living the golden rule? But in many circumstances doing for others what you would like isn't actually what they need.

YMMV.

I think I understand the color-blind issue. I do not understand her aversion to it at Steve’s suggestion.

Another thing I just recalled that caused me confusion was when she stated she didn’t believe in a color by numbers approach. (I believe this was in reference to how you can attempt to right this wrong).

HOWEVER...she also stated when deciding what companies/brands Outdoor Afro would do business with, she looks at the board of directors (IIRC this was the terminology) to see if the diversity she wanted to see was actually there. I think her statement was something to the effect of to see if they are just talking a big game RE: diversity. So this could potentially mean that a business who also does not follow the “color by numbers” theory would not receive their endorsement/business/recommendationbased off of a lack of diversity?

Thanks for the discussion Vikings Guy. Only issue I see so far is you root for the wrong team. Go Pack Go!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Go Pack Go!

 

[ignorethefringes]

A few thoughts on the "color-blind confusion". For those seeking understanding, there may be something of use here in your journey (or not), but I understand many will just reject out of hand.

Colorblind is not the goal. Ignoring where someone is from and what they may have experienced that is different than you is not respectful, it is dehumanizing. If a parent says to me, "I treat all of my children exactly the same - I see no differences in them whatsoever, I am "kid-blind" - fair for everybody is my motto." I would call this person a lousy parent. Each of our kids is different and they need us to see who they fully are so we can be fully loving of them and in support of them in their own specific needs. What one kid needs another may not. Something that upsets one of my kids may be water off the duck's back for another one.

Similarly, the goal is not to be "color-blind", but to see color, but not use color to prejudge another person and subject them to lesser treatment because of this prejudgement. This can be tricky to discuss because some people use "color-blind" to describe their sincere attempts not to prejudge and devalue - which is good, but only half of the way to seeing the person fully for who they are and how you can help. Meanwhile, others use "color-blind" as a lazy dodge of difficult conversations/introspection and to preserve the status quo that is working quite well for them under the guise of being fairminded.

I think a lot of well-meaning and honorable people use the term "colorblind" with the best of intentions, but it can be an unintended trap into not seeing the full situation.

Another parallel is the golden rule vs the platinum rule. How can anyone be criticized for living the golden rule? But in many circumstances doing for others what you would like isn't actually what they need.

YMMV.

Honest questions: Should you treat someone different based upon an assumption of their life experiences? In this case, by seeing someone's color, what assumptions should I make and how should I adjust how I treat that person? If I start from a place of treating everyone with respect, should I change how I act based upon the color of the skin of a person I'm meeting for the first time?

The reason I ask all of this is because of what I've said before about how my parents were/are not racist and I don't believe I am either. So it's confusing to me to be told that I should "see color" when it's never affected how I treated someone before. I think people like me get confused and turned around when we get told to "see color" because it implies that we should adjust our actions in some way based on the color.