Color Inclusive vs. Color Blind

Would countries be better off if it treated everyone the same or would they be better off to continue being inclusive?

The third way, we should have equality in opportunity but not equality of outcome.

wat

Perhaps I'm confused, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean by "color inclusive", but from what I understand, the whole concept is retarded.

If I understand correctly, "color inclusive" is the concept that we should embrace people's races as a part of them, rather than avoid the topic completely. That's retarded.

I fail to see how that shit matters. I build my impression of you based on your attitude, your ethics, your merits. I don't give a shit if you're black or white or red or yellow or whatever the fuck color Eskimos are. I don't care what your family is like, I care about what you're like. If anything, by associating someone with a racial culture, you are stereotyping them, which would be... racism, right?

Legally speaking, civilized countries (and the US, too) are "color blind". That is, if I'm not confused, here.

What's the difference?

Color Blind - Everyone's on the same level, no special treatment, no celebrating diversity.
Color Inclusive - Well, you know.. the opposite.

>>6
I would have thought that being color blind was being color inclusive, but color blind then, I guess.

color blind for sure.  every time the government tries to support one group it suppresses all the others.  total failure.

>>9
It's not so much the support it gives to groups that suppresses others but rather it's choice of group. We should give benefits to orpanages, veterans and victims of crime maybe, but not people who happen to be born with dark skin tones or a vagina.

Here in Europe I'd prefer color blind but in America I think the government should help the blacks (and maybe the indians) because you guys really treated them like shit.

>>11
>Do as I say, not as I do.
Cool hypocrasy bro. How about letting millions of 3rd world savages into your country as punishment for your great great great grandfathers bringing them civilisation in the 19th century?

>>12
Europe is different, we didn't import large numbers of blacks and enslaved them and then repressed them for a century. The minorities that arrived in the 60-70's and later faced racism but didn't have to fight for basic rights. I do think the colonizing powers should spend a lot more on development aid in their ex-colonies. Something in the range of 3-4% of the GDP.

>>13
All that money would just go into the hands of tyrants, they need to be weened off the "BAAWWW WE'RE VICTIMS GIVE ME YOUR FUCKING MONEY" teet. We should cut aid from Africa completely and without warning.

I don't give a shit if you're black or white or red or yellow or whatever the fuck color Eskimos are.

Eskimos are blue. :D

Seriously, though, they share common ancestors with the Mongols and Koreans, so I guess they're "yellow".

>>13

Wait hang on..  You think slavery only started in the USA in 1776?

>>17
No I don't, my point is that we in Europe have no significant amount of blacks who lived here and who were heavily repressed until very recently and therefore the current black population in Europe does not require positive discrimination.

>>19
Sure, you just owe pretty much all of Africa, and most of Asia, all the nice shit you own.  REPARATIONS, GWEILO!

>>14
I agree.  We should do the same to Israel, as well.

if there blue and yellow...doesn't that make them green?

>>20
See: >>13

>>23
That doesn't cover the fact that I am not the individual responsible for those crimes.