The dream cannot be colorblind

So, let me understand this argument. Not acknowledging race means not acknowledging culture, which dehumanizes people.

The most obvious problem is that race is not perfectly correlated with culture. Are all whites (Poles, Greeks, Italians, etc.) assumed to have the same culture? Are all blacks?

Second, it is pretty clear that claiming that treating individuals as, well, individuals dehumanizes people is ridiculous. In the worst case, if one "acknowledges" culture by inferring it from race, the inference will be wrong. A person's personality and behavior will be interpreted in a false context. In the best case, the cultural inference will be correct, but it then leads to collectivist nonsense. This is what dehumanizes people. Treating all members of X (which inferred from race A) in a certain way, or expecting them to behave similarly is dehumanizing.

Yes, 19th century slave owners dehumanized blacks, but not because they were colorblind. Of course, you don't explicitly link this particular dehumanization to colorblindness, but what other inference is one to draw given the logic articulated in the article before this example is provided? Even Paul must have realized stating this (the logical extension of his argument) would have been absurd. In reality, the slave owners dehumanized by making broad generalizations based on race and perceived culture.

You know Paul. Maybe to understand what MLK Jr. thought about race relations you would perhaps listen to HIS words instead of a professtocratic quack whose only clame to fame is that he was able to burn Larry Summers for having the audacity to suggest that West produce some real, honest scholarship rather than CDs of noise.

Thanks to you Paul, i think at long last, we can finally label the DI as a hate group. You have made our jobs much easier.

I learned for quite some time to take Cruse's opinions with a pound of salt. After all, what weight does Cruse's endorsement of Greedy West have, when Cruse is widely known to be the least professional of all D.I. columnists in history, except for George Ploss and possibly Mariam Sobh?

I still remember some hilarious comments posted on the old forum, in which "Mother Grammar" and others have pointed out the incredible amount of grammatical errors and malapropisms in every single column written by Paul Cruse. Of course, he would quickly claim that pointing out his lack of intellect is"offensive" and "racist". Sorry, Paul, I want to be PC and all, but the discrepancy between your ambitions and your abilities, if I may use that noun, stinks to high heavens. Instead of being grateful that you've gotten professional chances you don't deserve, BECAUSE of the PC times we live in, you continue to whine. What do you truly have to offer society? One little annoying repetitious tune: "I'm black, I'm a victim, keep offering me advantages so I have time to tell you all how racist you are".

To find out who "Dr." Cornel West (most certainly he would have never become a "doctor," if not for some top universities having to fill up racial "success" quotas with.... whatever) really is, study this:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=813

UIUC still has to answer about the hundreds of thousands of dollars (DI didn't tell us yet how many) which were flushed down the deep pockets of the greedy Black KKK "doctor," with nothing but racist snake-oil to show for it.