ABC’s The View has been a major source of racial hatred and division in America thanks to the likes of staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) and moderator Whoopi Goldberg. So, it was a surprise when they invited podcaster and author Coleman Hughes to promote his book about removing race as a factor in government policy-making, on Wednesday’s show. His reasonable position led Hostin to call him a “charlatan” and a “conservative” as a smear, and Goldberg to attack his age.
Since he was there to promote his book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America, Goldberg asked him to set the stage by explaining what he meant by “colorblind.” “My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy…” he said.
He also denounced the so-called “anti-racism” movement. “The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years, it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism, teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that’s why I wrote this book at this time,” he said.
Not dividing people along racial lines didn’t sit well with Goldberg, who proceeded to suggest that Hughes was too young and just didn’t understand history (Click “expand”):
GOLDBERG: Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know, when I went to school, getting any information about anyone’s race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America — 100 years ago when I was a young woman — [Laughter] — That’s how people saw you, that’s how they judged you.
So, I think — I don’t want to say it’s your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like, women couldn’t get into colleges; if you are a black person, there are a lot of colleges wouldn’t accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that’s what a lot of folks have been trying to do.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.
HUGHES: I think that’s your experience and that’s valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school.
GOLDBERG: Yeah.
HUGHES: So, these are different experiences. I think it’s also different generations, it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country, so I’m not going to deny that.
Hughes said that “a colorblind society” was “an ideal. It’s a north star and the point is not that we’ll ever get there, we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we’re going forward and backwards.” He declared that wokeism was a force bringing us backward.
He went on to denounce the use of “black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage” and said “socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage,” because “you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way.” He noted that the method would also help poor white folks.
The idea that people were more than just their skin color triggered Hostin, who called his premise “fundamentally flawed.” She and Hughes proceeded to spare over the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., each throwing out competing quotes. Hostin argued that she was a better authority on MLK because she was friends with his daughter (Click “expand”):
HOSTIN: This is not my question, but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race, when you do look at the socioeconomics, you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So, your argument – and I’ve read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
[Applause]
HUGHES: Well, two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you, they’re not.
HOSTIN: Yeah, they’re not and the stats show that.
HUGHES: Of course, I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best?
HOSTIN: Great.
HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can’t Wait is he called it, we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said, yes, we should address racial equality, yes, we should address the legacy of slavery, but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they’re disproportionately poor, but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed.
HOSTIN: That part is true, but as you are a student of Dr. King, I’m not only a student of Dr. King, I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So, I’m going to get to my question.
JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead.
HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. You know, content of character versus color of skin. Bernice, Dr. King’s daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually, Dr. King also said this, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes.” He also said in 1968, it was about less than a week before he was assassinated, “This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years.”
So, rather than class, he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death, he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations, and so your argument for color-blindness, I think, is something that the right has co-opted.
Backed into a corner, Hostin resorted to trying to smear Hughes as a “conservative” and a “charlatan,” citing unnamed “critics” (Click “expand”):
HOSTIN: And so many in the black community – if I’m being honest with you, because I want to be, believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you’re a charlatan of sorts.
HUGHES: Who am I being accused by?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not a Republican.
HOSTIN: So, how do you –
FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican.
HOSTIN: You said you’re a conservative.
HUGHES: No. No.
FARAH GRIFFIN: No.
HOSTIN: No, you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago.
HUGHES: I said I was a conservative?
FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not.
HOSTIN: Yes, you did.
Informing Hostin that he’s only ever voted for Democrats as a left-leaning independent (and would only vote for a “non-Trump Republican if they were compelling” enough), Hughes said there was “no evidence” that he’s been “co-opted” and what she was doing was “an ad hominem tactic people use to not address, really, the important conversations we’re having here.”
Following a commercial break, co-host Joy Behar made it known that she couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that the “anti-racism movement” mirrored white supremacy. Hughes explained that people like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kennedi “view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are,” just like white supremacists.
“Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo, they say that to be white is to be ignorant, for example. Well, this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are, who you are is your character, your value, and your skin color doesn’t say anything about that,” he declared, getting applause from the audience.
Hostin tried to argue that he was “misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is,” but he shot back with: “It’s in her book.”
The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:
ABC’s The View
March 27, 2024
11:37:45 a.m. EasternWHOOPI GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Political analyst and author Coleman Hughes makes a case for changing the national conversation on racism in his new book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. Please welcome Coleman Hughes.
[Applause]
So, I think the first question that I should ask you to do is explain to folks what you mean by this, “arguments for a color-blind America.” What do you mean when you say that?
COLEMAN HUGHES: So, a lot of people equate color-blindness to “I don’t see race” or pretending not to see race. I think that’s a big mistake. We all see race, right? And we’re all capable of being racially biased, so we should all be self-aware to that possibility. My argument is not for that. My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy and the reason I wrote this book – Thank you.
[Applause]
The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years, it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism, teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that’s why I wrote this book at this time.
GOLDBERG: Can I – I’m sorry, baby [to Sara Haines]. Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know, when I went to school, getting any information about anyone’s race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America — 100 years ago when I was a young woman — [Laughter] — That’s how people saw you, that’s how they judged you.
So, I think — I don’t want to say it’s your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like, women couldn’t get into colleges; if you are a black person, there are a lot of colleges wouldn’t accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that’s what a lot of folks have been trying to do.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.
HUGHES: I think that’s your experience and that’s valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school.
GOLDBERG: Yeah.
HUGHES: So, these are different experiences. I think it’s also different generations, it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country, so I’m not going to deny that. But I view this notion of a colorblind society similar to the idea of a peaceful society. Which is to say, it’s an ideal. It’s a north star and the point is not that we’ll ever get there, we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we’re going forward and backwards. And we’re going backwards when we’re doing woke kindergarten in San Francisco, you know, with — you didn’t hear this about story?
GOLDBERG: No, but, wait.
SARA HAINES: Want to get to the book. Because actually, you believe that public policies that address socioeconomic differences would be better benefiting disadvantaged groups and that race-based policies often hurt the very people they’re trying to help. What are some examples of policies that would be better at reducing racial disparities?
HUGHES: So, my overall argument is that class, socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage. We all want to help the disadvantaged, and the question is how do we identify them. Right? The default right now in a lot of areas of policy is to use, you know, black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage. And my argument is that you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way.
[Applause]
Right?
SUNNY HOSTIN: This is not my question, but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race, when you do look at the socioeconomics, you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So, your argument – and I’ve read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
[Applause]
HUGHES: Well, two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you, they’re not.
HOSTIN: Yeah, they’re not and the stats show that.
HUGHES: Of course, I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best?
HOSTIN: Great.
HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can’t Wait is he called it, we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said, yes, we should address racial equality, yes, we should address the legacy of slavery, but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they’re disproportionately poor, but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed.
HOSTIN: That part is true, but as you are a student of Dr. King, I’m not only a student of Dr. King, I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So, I’m going to get to my question.
JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead.
HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. You know, content of character versus color of skin. Bernice, Dr. King’s daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually, Dr. King also said this, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes.” He also said in 1968, it was about less than a week before he was assassinated, “This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years.”
So, rather than class, he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death, he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations, and so your argument for color-blindness, I think, is something that the right has co-opted. And so many in the black community – if I’m being honest with you, because I want to be, believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you’re a charlatan of sorts.
HUGEHS: Who am I being accused by?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not a Republican.
HOSTIN: So, how do you –
FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican.
HOSTIN: You said you’re a conservative.
HUGHES: No. No.
FARAH GRIFFIN: No.
HOSTIN: No, you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago.
HUGHES: I said I was a conservative?
FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not.
HOSTIN: Yes, you did. But my question to you is, how do you respond to those critics —
[Crosstalk saying to let him speak]
HUGHES: I think it’s very important. The quote that you just pointed out about doing something special for the Negro, that’s from the book Why We Can’t Wait that I just mentioned. A couple paragraphs later he lays out exactly what that something special was and it was the bill of rights for the disadvantaged, a broad class-based policy.
HOSTIN: But he also says you must include race.
HUGHES: No, he says —
HOSTIN: Yes, he does.
HUGHES: Well, everyone should go read the buy Why We Can’t Wait. Let’s not get sidetracked by that. I don’t think I’ve been co-opted by anyone. I’ve only voted twice, both for a Democrats. Although, I’m an independent. I would vote for a Republican, probably a non-trump Republican if they were compelling. I don’t think there’s any evidence I’ve been co-opted by anyone and I think that’s an ad hominem tactic people use to not address, really, the important conversations we’re having here. And I think it’s better and it would be better for everyone if we stuck to the topics rather than make it about me. With no evidence of that I’ve been co-opted.
HOSTIN: I want to give you the opportunity to respond to the —
HUGHES: I appreciate it.
HOSTIN: The criticism.
HUGHES: There’s no evidence that I’ve been co-opted by anyone. I have an independent podcast. I work for CNN as an analyst. I write for the Free Press. I’m independent in all of these endeavors and no one is paying me to say what I’m saying. I’m saying it because I feel it.
HOSTIN: Do you also believe –
GOLDBERG: Hold on, we got to go to break.
(…)
11:51:28 a.m. Eastern
JOY BEHAR: I have a question. Because you write the anti-racism movement, there are a couple of people — I don’t even know who they are, maybe you know.
HOSTIN: Robin DiAngelo.
HUGHES: Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kennedi, for instance.
BEHAR: Okay. Well, you say that that is just another form of racism and you even say there’s a lot in common with white supremacy. How can you compare those two things? You’re talking about anti-racism, you are comparing it to white supremacy.
HUGHES: Because they both view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are. So, white supremacists they obviously say – we all know what they say, okay. Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo, they say that to be white is to be ignorant, for example. Well, this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are, who you are is your character, your value, and your skin color doesn’t say anything about that.
[Applause]
HOSTIN: That’s – that’s actually misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is.
HUGHES: It’s in her book.
[Crosstalk]
GOLDBEGR: So, here we go. Thank you. Coleman Hughes, for coming. Because this is a show of lots of different opinions and we are multigenerational and we all got an opinion.
So, The End of Pace Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America is out now. And we’re giving it to you all, so you can read it and judge for yourself how you feel about what he’s saying.