The state of race relations in America seemed to be improving for decades, then crashed and burned over the last 5 years. What’s going on? Why is everyone so obsessed with race again and how can we move beyond race politics? Expect to learn why anti-racism is just neo-racism, the difference between being colourblind and actually being racist, why your social class is more important than your ethnicity, whether MeToo hurt women more than helping them, if there is a realistic case for DEI, whether any race-based policies have ever worked and much more…
The Colorblind Philosophy
Coleman Hughes advocates for a colorblind philosophy, which means treating people without regard to their race in both personal interactions and public policy. He clarifies that this does not mean pretending not to see race, as everyone acknowledges racial differences, but rather choosing not to give weight or regard to a person's race when interacting with them or making policy. He advises people to stop saying "I don't see race" because it provides an easy target for critics; instead, one should say, "I try to treat people without regard to race". The philosophy acknowledges the capacity for racism in all individuals but insists on not letting race determine treatment.
Shift from Class-Based to Race-Based Policies
Historically, the Civil Rights Movement, as articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. in the mid-1960s, proposed class-based anti-poverty programs that would benefit all disadvantaged people, including black and white poor alike. These policies, while not race-based, would disproportionately help black people because they were disproportionately poor. However, a significant pivot occurred after destructive riots in the late 1960s and again following George Floyd's death in 2020. This led to a loss of faith in colorblind principles among elites, and an enormous pressure to "center race" in public discourse and policy, resulting in the implementation of race-based affirmative action and a suite of other race-based policies.
The Role of Social Media in Shaping Perceptions
Hughes suggests that the perception of increased racism and police violence is largely a false one, exacerbated by social media and smartphones. Around 2013, the widespread availability of camera-enabled smartphones and social media platforms fundamentally changed how information spreads. Videos of police incidents involving black individuals, often stripped of context, began to go viral, tapping into historical guilt and outrage, and spreading much faster than journalistic fact-checking. This created an inaccurate perception of the actual incidence of racism and police killings. For example, studies in 2019 showed that many liberal Americans believed approximately a thousand unarmed black Americans were killed by police annually, when the true number was 12.
Critique of Modern Anti-Racism - Neo-Racism
Hughes identifies a trend over the past decade towards a form of "anti-racism" promoted by figures like Ibram Kendi and Robin D'Angelo. He argues that this philosophy, which often stems from Critical Race Theory, is in fact racist. He characterizes it as demanding that white people constantly consider their privilege and defer to black people's "superior epistemic authority" on matters of race, discouraging disagreement or silence. Hughes contends that such a framework, which suggests different races should live by different rules, is antithetical to a healthy multi-racial society and advocates for a true anti-racism where a person's race does not define their intelligence, character, or values.
Negative Consequences of Race-Obsessed Policies
- Increased Homicides from Police Defunding: The "defund the police" movement, although representing a minority view within the black community (80% wanted the same or more police presence), led to defunding in many American cities. This resulted in the single greatest year-to-year increase in homicides in America in the past 100 years in 2020, disproportionately affecting black and poor communities. Hughes highlights the irony of many affluent individuals in gated communities supporting defunding police in poor neighborhoods while having their own private security. This demonstrates a focus on "looking good" over "doing good," with policies often backfiring on the very people they intended to help.
- Interpersonal Paranoia and Self-Censorship: The heightened focus on race and fear of "cancellation" has introduced paranoia and tension into inter-racial relationships. People may self-censor or even avoid hiring black employees due to fear of baseless racism accusations, leading to negative real-world impacts on race relations.
- Fragility and Exaggerated Fears: Media narratives that emphasize racial dangers (e.g., "dangers of jogging while black") can create exaggerated fears among everyday black people, leading to undue anxiety during routine interactions like traffic stops, even when the actual risks are infinitesimal. This "safetyism" culture, in general, makes people more fragile and vigilant rather than genuinely safer, contributing to increased anxiety in younger generations.
Misguided Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Hughes distinguishes between a "healthy" form of DEI and its current manifestation. A healthy DEI involves corporate best practices for inclusive behavior, such as ensuring all employees, regardless of background, are included in informal interactions, without conscious prejudice. However, he argues that most modern DEI efforts are problematic because they mandate quotas or percentages of non-white people and women, implicitly labeling institutions without such numbers as racist or sexist. He believes that hiring and promotion should be based on competence and merit, and that diversity, like love, is best when it arises naturally rather than being forced. He offers an exception: if racial homogeneity actively prevents an institution from doing its job effectively (e.g., an all-white police force in a diverse community), then pursuing diversity is justifiable. Otherwise, most race-based policies have caused more harm than good.
Revisionist Historical Narratives
There is a trend in modern historical narratives, including Hollywood movies, to play up the sins of white supremacy and downplay any responsibility of black people. Examples include films like "The Woman King," which falsely portrays the Dahomey tribe (historically heavily involved in slave trading) as being conflicted about or ending slavery. Similarly, "Hidden Figures" exaggerated segregation experienced by black women at NASA, despite one of the real women stating she felt no segregation there. This revisionism, according to Hughes, fits a "neo-racist" view where "Whiteness is evil, Blackness is good," ignoring the historical reality of slavery existing in almost every society across all continents and involving various groups as both oppressors and oppressed.
The Elite Disconnect from Public Opinion
Hughes notes a significant disconnect between elite circles and the general public regarding race issues. Elites are often more sympathetic to the "white is evil, people of color good" framework and trendy ways of signaling anti-racism. A prime example is the term "LatinX": a 2020 Pew poll found that roughly 60% of American Hispanic people had never heard of it, and another 36% had heard of it but disliked it. Only about 4% both knew and liked the term, highlighting how elites operate on a different plane of reality from the majority.
Path Forward: Reaffirming Colorblindness and Addressing Underlying Vulnerabilities
Hughes proposes a solution that involves individuals recommitting to colorblindness in their personal lives and promoting policies and politicians that support these values. This includes overturning executive orders and judicial decisions that mandate racial discrimination, such as affirmative action. The cultural goal should be an insistence on a colorblind society, where the state does not discriminate against citizens based on skin color. He also suggests that the end of the Cold War and the fading psychological hold of the War on Terror have allowed the US to turn inward and focus more on internal divisions, making it more vulnerable to societal splits. While societal change is slow ("conceptual inertia"), "availability cascades" can occur where a few voices speaking out can quickly shift public opinion when many realize they hold similar private views.