So I'm fascinated by this thing some white conservatives do when talking about how everyone has a struggle so we shouldn't talk about white privilege or systemic racism: they list races like white, black, and then something like *purple*, some random color like that. A thread.
2: I grew up hearing stuff like this (I grew up at Catholics schools in military towns, so they tended to lean conservative and very white). And I think the intention here is something emphasizing individual skin color as an *individual* and ultimately *arbitrary* characteristic.
3. This is an example of the colorblind ideology, of course, with all its inability or simple unwillingness to see structural and subconscious racism. The idea here is that skin color has *no* connection to large systems of oppression (for many) and privilege (for others).
4. But it's also an example of the meritocratic ideology, the idea that differences of social status or other social identities are superficial and *arbitrary* in determining success, that there's a real *talent* and *person* accessible and legible to anyone of good will.
5. Of course, such emphasis on merit beyond differences is in many ways a great idea, even if a colorblind version can actually be quite creepy in that its "elimination of difference" is actually a homogenization towards the cultural forms with the most power.
6. TL/DR: Talking about "we're all the same, black, white, purple" is, I think, well-intended, but it ignores how the claim implies a call for assimilation towards the powerful (whiteness, straightness, whatever) and it can dangerously ignore real forms of structural oppression.
You can follow @jeffguhin.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: