Here @sandylocks locates a central problem with the universalism and "interchangeability" of liberalism, as often expressed in "color-blindness"; very important points. (Note: there is no rejection of liberalism's egalitarian goals as such. The goal is shared; the means are not.) 
This accords with Gary Peller's explanation of where Critical scholars diverge from traditional liberalism:
And, again, I don't think this is too far from Dr. King as well:
As Crenshaw has argued elsewhere, the social and economic outcomes of supposed race-neutral, color-blind policies (and jurisprudence) can only be assumed just and equitable if we presume we already live in the non-racist, just, and ideal society.
Given a society racialized by over 400 years of racist law and custom, racial outcomes of liberal policies (and jurisprudence) must themselves be considered a measure of our progress toward the ideal, just society. Hence, neutrality & color-blindness are not the deciding factors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
