To insist on a "color blind" view of society, our industry, etc. is to deny the real experience of people of color within it, who have found discrimination and prejudice.
We can and should say to racists that try to prove some sort of race-based superiority that genetically "race" is a silly fiction, and has no basis in reality. But, we can't deny that black folks in America have a very different experience than white folks. Doing so is counter-productive to the conversation that needs to happen.
I inisit on color blindness in all kinds of social, business, and political relationships, but I do not deny that blacks have a much tougher time, other things being equal.
Race-based discrimination, whether supposedly for or against blacks, does not actually provide value for blacks in general in the long run, and neither does it provide value for non-blacks.
As a side note, other things are not equal. For instance, coming from an abusive family in America is probably much more of a disadvantage than being black. We need to stop fetishizing race in particular.
Who is "festishizing race"? And, what does that phrase mean in this context? Do you believe I'm fetishizing race? Or OP? Or some other comment in this thread?
I'm merely saying that to insist that race not be part of the conversation is a passive approach to maintaining the status quo. Or, to quote Elie Wiesel: "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim."
In every conversation? No. In a conversation about the under-representation of minorities in tech? Yes.
"Encouraging people to discriminate based on race is the status quo, ignoring it is the exact opposite."
Ignoring oppression is not the opposite. It is the tacit approval of oppression.
I agree wholeheartedly. And you should fight the opressor.
I understand the need to relate by example, but am I wrong to insist on a reality where race/ethnicity has jack to do with success in tech entrepreneurship?
> I'm merely saying that to insist that race not be part of the conversation is a passive approach to maintaining the status quo.
I'm fine conversing about race. But I don't think that you are actually advocating simply for more conversation. I think you are trying to oppose what I am advocating.
I am advocating that as individuals, we should treat other individuals in a colorblind way. I do not think that that would maintain the status quo, I think it would significantly improve the status quo over time.
No one considers black an offensive term, and in many cases "African-American" is clunky and imprecise, for example this thread. OP is really asking about black founders.
>white South African would be.
The "African" in "African-American" has nothing to do with where you were born or where your parents were born, just like the "Free" in "Free Software" has nothing to do with beer. It has to do with the origin of the features that make you distinct (in a historically particular way) from white Americans.
Of course, if white Africans who move to America identify as African-Americans, it's certainly their right, and I'd gladly refer to them as that.
As a south-american, the term african-american irks me. It reeks of political correctness, not respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Evolution
EDIT: eh, what did I get myself into... over here we're just plain white/black/latin/asian/etc, despite some media usage of the term 'afro-descendant'. I do support affirmative action policies in general, it's just my personal opinion that teaching kids to be self-conscious about race in this context is not necessarily positive.