We really can't ignore this one if we want to introduce the new wave of politics. For the next few weeks, I wanted to touch on the different facets of identity politics, a kind of political alliance that moves away from the traditional party lines and more towards a single identity.

Identity politics has always been a part of liberal democracies, but only in the last few decades have they been able to break many of the boundaries of politics today. OK, so gridlock and loyalty is still a thing in Congress, but the vast array of representatives who had to run for office in 2016 needed a different approach than the way they approached 2012 or even 2014. They had either be staunchly for or against political identities such as feminism, environmentalism, and (cause it's already in the title) multiculturalism.

I hope that these posts will at least introduce to you how nuanced these identities can really be, cause not many other people are willing to go deep.

So first, let’s talk about multiculturalism. Google it. All its asking for is the support of multiple ethnic groups. For the sake of the word length, this post can have, I’m going to assume that people of a democratic society want to sustain multiple ethnic groups in their community. Please don’t make me defend the latter, not going do it.

But what next? How does a majority support the minority? A better question to ask: is the goal of liberal democratic equality to treat people the same, or is it to take distinctiveness into account and be granted equal value?

Not a fan of the binary, but it’s a good way to simplify. Do we choose color blindness, where we try to treat everyone the same in a court of law and as society as a whole, or do we go with color consciousness, noting that life is lived very different for every individual, especially for people from a different race or creed?

This question underlies a whole host of issues. From affirmative action to history textbooks to land appropriation to religious accommodation, etc… finding a path that is pragmatic for the government to enforce and principally sets a moral undertone is tough to find, and there are a number of elements to take into consideration. This post is just bare bone, so I would highly recommend finding readings. Cornel West’s “Race Matters” Bhikhu Parekh’s “Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory” and Will Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Citizenship” are some of my favorites on the topic.

First on Color Blindness. A lot of people start eye rolling when their friends start their claim with "I don't see color."

Now, color blindness is just a way to avoid recognizing privileges and disadvantages some people have based on the ethnicities they are identified as. Before, however, it used to mean a well meaningful attempt at resolving disparities in communities, a chance at egalitarianism in the pursuit of equality. I'm sure Lyndon B Johnson meant well when he said: “Dr. King is an honor to his race, the human race.”

A good critique to consciousness that blindness provides is the question of individual freedom. Different groups have liberties just as their members have rights granted to them by their state. The ability to reproduce the Quaker culture is a good example. But when does the liberty of the group trump the right of the individual?

Wisconsin v. Yoder was a supreme court case that ruled that Amish children could avoid the legal requirement for an education past the 8th grade. Many people applauded this case as evidence that the minority group can win. Group liberty won, but what about the children within the group? The few kids who would like to leave the Amish society would find it next to impossible to do so without a higher education. When a state that has to represent multiple cultures, a liberal attempt would be to provide individual liberty, in this case, the freedom to exit a culture.

Liberalism requires not that myself comes prior to my ends (that a minority fails to assimilate to the majority culture) but that my ends can be reversed (or that my choices and abilities can eventually determine my life, not the color of my skin that came from the lottery of birth).

Weighing these rights is difficult, but color consciousness is a better approach to the matter. Take Affirmative Action, an undeniably color conscious policy. It takes the affirmative action of adding incentives for minority races to enter higher education and the job market. This goes over the removal of negative barriers, like the bar that prevents these same people from going to school or work.

Color blindness can only work to remove the negative barriers, and this creates a cover for de facto inequality. Neutrality is nothing more than a cover that hides the blemishes of social tendencies that prefer one group over another. As Malcolm X would describe it, color blindness “dresses up like an angel but is nothing but a devil.”

In my opinion, assimilation and addressing past grievances can be best resolved under a culture of color consciousness. A free liberal society needs a societal culture: a meaningful cultural environment of people and practices in which they make their own choices. I agree with the criticism made by color blindness camp, but that is all it is: a critique. Have the resources available to exit a culture, but continue to recognize the differences communities have and legislate accordingly.

Ok, it doesn’t cover much. I haven’t even begun to talk about situations regarding the assimilation of illiberal communities, or what happens when Sikhs have to follow a motorcycle helmet law (safety, sure, but come on, try putting one over a turban and come to me when you’ve lost that battle). But I hope that I have at least brought the conversation to a higher level of debate.