I’ve started noticing a trend in local papers that seems silly on the surface but ridiculous when you think about it. Take a look a this description of a carjacker in the Morning Call of Bethlehem:
The gunman was described as 5-foot-10 to 5-foot-11 inches tall, 25 to 30 years old with hair in tight cornrows. He was wearing a do-rag and large diamond rings in both ears, police said.
Police are asking anyone with information on the carjacking to call township detectives at …
Notice anything missing? Based upon stereotypes, I suppose we can assume the assailant is Black, but wouldn’t it be less denigrating to just say so than to assume everyone will infer this little piece of information based upon the do-rag, cornrows and large diamond earrings? Of course at this point I am assuming he is Black, which is not a good idea since this criminal could very well be White, Hispanic or Asian. But I am betting that the writer would have made certain we were aware the carjacker was White or Hispanic or Asian to ensure we did not assume, based upon the description given, that this person is Black.
I just don’t understand how we will ever get to the truly important goal of becoming a colorblind society if we can’t even describe someone accurately without feeling obligated to tip-toe around a key characteristic… skin color. A colorblind society is not blind to the color of our skin; but it does not define a person based upon the color of their skin anymore than it would define a person based upon shoe size. A colorblind society is able to recognize skin as an external trait, like eye color or hair color, while looking passed those physical attributes to see a person.
Folks.. we will never get there following the PC path.
|
|
|
|