A Case for Color Blindness | Coleman Hughes | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Shelley Tsang 曾雯海

I want to do a quick exercise.

我想快速做個練習。

Close your eyes.

請閉上雙眼。

I want you to picture your best friend.

想像你最好的朋友。

Think about what specifically you love about them.

明確想想你愛他們的點是什麼。

What trait makes them them?

什麼特質讓他們是他們。

Now open your eyes.

請張開眼睛。

I don't know what each of you came up with,

我不知道各位想出的是什麼，

but I'm pretty sure I know what you didn't come up with.

但我很確定我知道 各位沒有想出什麼。

I’m pretty sure none of you thought,

我很確定沒有人會想：

"What makes Jim Jim is the fact that he's six-foot-two and a redhead."

「吉姆之所以是吉姆，是因為 他身高六吋兩吋且一頭紅髮。」

I'm guessing you chose their inner qualities,

我猜想各位選的是他們的內在特質：

their sense of humor,

他們的幽默感、

their generosity, their intelligence,

他們的大方、他們的智慧，

qualities they would have no matter what they looked like.

不論外表如何改變， 他們都仍然擁有的特質。

There's one more quality I'm pretty sure you didn't choose.

還有一項特質， 我很確定各位沒有選。

Their race.

他們的種族。

Of all the things you could list about somebody,

在所有你能列出的人的特質 當中，種族是最不有趣的，

their race is just about the least interesting you can name,

right down there with height and hair color.

和身高及髮色差不多等級。

的確，在喜劇俱樂部裡， 種族是很有趣的玩笑題材，

Sure, race can be good source material for jokes at a comedy club,

but in the real world,

但在真實世界裡，人的種族 並不代表他是仁慈或自私、

a person's race doesn't tell you whether they're kind or selfish,

whether their beliefs are right or wrong,

他們的信念是對的或錯的、

whether they'll become your best friend or your worst enemy.

他們是否會成為你 最好的朋友或最大的敵人。

But over the past ten years,

但在過去十年，我們的 社會變得越來越強調

our societies have become more and more fixated on racial identity.

種族身分。

We've all been invited to reflect on our inner whiteness or inner Blackness,

我們都曾經被要求去反思 我們的內在白人或黑人特質，

as if these racial essences define who we are.

彷彿這些種族本質會決定 我們是怎樣的人。

Meanwhile, American society has experienced the greatest crisis

同時，美國社會

也在經歷一個世代中 最重大的種族關係危機。

in race relations in a generation.

Gallup has been asking Americans how they feel about race relations,

蓋洛普詢問美國人對種族關係的 感受，結果呈現在這張圖上。

and this chart is the result.

So as you can see, between 2001 and 2013,

可以看到

2001 到 2013 年間，多數美國人 對種族關係的感覺是好的。

most Americans felt good about race relations.

Then both lines take a nosedive.

接著兩條線都突然下降。

It's no exaggeration to call this one of the greatest crises of our time.

稱之為我們這個時代 最大的危機並不誇張。

And clearly we need new ways of thinking about race

很顯然我們需要用 新的方式來看待種族。

if we're going to reverse this trend.

才有可能反轉這項趨勢。

So today I'm going to offer an old idea,

今天，我要提出一個舊的概念，

but it's an idea that's been widely misunderstood.

但大部分人都誤解了這個概念。

You've probably heard it before, it's called color blindness.

各位以前可能聽過， 它叫做「色盲」。

What do I mean by color blindness?

我說的色盲是什麼意思？

After all, we all see race.

畢竟，我們都會看到種族， 這是我們無法控制的。

We can't help it.

And what's more, race can influence how we're treated

此外，

種族會影響別人如何對待我們 以及我們如何對待別人。

and how we treat other people.

So in that sense, nobody is truly colorblind.

從這個角度來看， 沒有人是真正的色盲。

But to interpret the word colorblind so literally

但用這麼字面的方式來詮釋 這個詞，就是在誤解它。

is to misunderstand it.

Colorblind is a word like warmhearted.

「色盲」這個詞就像是「熱心」。

It uses a physical metaphor to capture an abstract idea.

用實體的比喻來捕捉 一種抽象的概念。

To call someone warmhearted isn’t to talk about the temperature of their heart

說某人熱心，並不是 在談他心臟的溫度，

but about the kindness of their soul.

而是談他靈魂的仁慈。

And similarly, to advocate for color blindness

同樣的，主張說你是色盲

is not to pretend you don't notice race.

並不是假裝你不會注意到種族。

It's to support a principle

重點是支持這個原則：

that we should try our best to treat people without regard to race,

我們應該盡力以不受到 種族影響的方式來看待人，

both in our personal lives and in our public policy.

私人生活中和公共政策都應該如此。

And you might be thinking, what's so controversial about that?

各位可能會想，那有什麼好爭議的？

Well, the fact is the philosophy of color blindness is under attack.

事實是，色盲的哲學正在受到攻擊。

Critics say that it's naive

評論家說它太天真，

or that we're not yet ready for it as a society

或者說我們這個社會 尚末準備好接受它，

or even that it's white supremacy in disguise.

或者甚至說它是 白人至上主義的偽裝。

And many people agree with these feelings.

而許多人認同這些感受。

For example, a few years ago,

比如，幾年前，

a young adult fantasy author came under pressure

一位年輕奇幻文學作者受到 壓力而暫緩推出她的新書。

to halt the release of her new book.

Why?

為什麼？

Because the marketing blurb for the book went like this:

因為這本書的行銷宣傳介紹這麼寫：

"In a world where the princess is the monster,

「在這個世界裡，公主是怪物，

oppression is blind to skin color,

壓迫是色盲，不分膚色，

and good and evil exist in shades of gray ..."

善與惡存在於有許多細微 差別的灰色地帶中……。」

Now that one sentence clause

其中關於壓迫是色盲， 不分膚色的那個句子，

about oppression being blind to skin color,

describing a fantasy world, mind you,

請注意，它只是 在描述一個奇幻世界，

was enough to provoke an online backlash.

就能在網路上引發強烈反彈。

Now, part of this reaction to color blindness

大家對色盲會有這種反應， 其實有部分是色盲擁護者的錯。

is actually a fault of its advocates.

People will say things like,

有人會說，比如，

“I don’t see color” as a way of expressing support for color blindness.

「我看不見顏色」，這是 他們表達支持色盲的方式。

But this phrase is guaranteed to produce confusion

但這個說法肯定會造成困惑，

because you do see color, right?

因為你確實看得見顏色，對吧？

I think we should all get rid of this phrase

我認為我們應該不要再這麼說了，

and replace it with what we really mean to say,

改成直接說出我們 真正的意思，也就是：

which is, "I try to treat people without regard to race."

「我會試著不讓種族 影響我待人的方式。」

Now, that said,

話雖如此，

most of the pushback to color blindness comes from critics

大部分對於色盲的反彈 來自於評論家，

who misrepresent it as somehow a conservative idea.

他們把色盲扭曲成某種保守的概念。

Now, this could not be further from the truth.

這實在與事實相距甚遠。

The philosophy of color blindness does not come from conservatives.

色盲的哲學並不是來自於保守派。

It actually comes from the radical wing of the antislavery movement

它其實來自於

十九世紀反奴隸制運動的激進派。

in the 19th century.

The earliest mentions of color blindness come from Wendell Phillips,

最早提到色盲的人 是溫道‧菲利普斯，

who was the president of the American Anti-Slavery Society

他是美國反奴隸制學會的會長，

and a man whose nickname was "abolition's golden trumpet."

他的綽號是

「廢奴主義的黃金號角」。

He believed in immediate full equality for Black Americans.

他認為黑人美國人應該 立即享有平等的權利。

And in 1865, he called for the creation of a "government colorblind,"

在 1865 年，

他呼籲要創造「政府色盲」，

by which he meant the permanent end of all laws that mention race.

他的意思是要永遠廢除 那些提到種族的法律。

What about the other critiques of color blindness?

那其他對於色盲的批評呢？

Wouldn’t color blindness render us unable to fight racism?

色盲不會讓我們變成 無法對抗種族主義嗎？

Wouldn't it mean getting rid of policies like affirmative action

色盲不就意味著

拋棄對有色人種有益的平權行動？

that benefit people of color?

I believe that eliminating race-based policies

我認為，

剔除掉以種族為基礎的政策

does not equal eliminating policies meant to reduce inequality.

並不等同於

剔除掉旨在減少不平等的政策。

It simply means that those policies should be executed

它只單純意味著在執行那些政策時

on the basis of class instead of race.

應該以社會階級為基礎而不是種族。

Why class over race?

為什麼是階級而不是種族？

I'll give two reasons.

我給各位兩個理由。

First because class is almost always a better proxy

首先，因為

比起種族，階級幾乎總是

for true disadvantage than race.

更能反映出真實的弱勢。

Imagine we picked ten Americans at random.

想像一下，我們隨機 挑選十名美國人，

And our task is to sort them from least privileged on one end

我們的工作是把他們排序， 從最沒有特權的

to most privileged on the other.

一直排到最具有特權的。

Now, there's no direct measure of privilege,

我們無法直接測量特權， 所以我們得找個替代測量值。

so we have to choose a proxy measure.

My claim here is that lining them up by income or wealth

這方面，我的主張是

用收入或財富來排他們

would get us closer to achieving that task

能讓我們很可能完成這項任務，

than simply lining people up by race.

會比單單根據種族來排序更接近。

That's what I mean when I say that class is usually a better proxy

這就是為什麼我剛才會說 階級通常都比種族

for disadvantage than race.

更能反映出弱勢。

And the second reason is that class-based policies tend to be more popular

第二個理由是：以階級 為基礎的政策通常比較常見，

and less controversial because they don't penalize anyone

且沒那麼爭議，

因為它們通常不會因為無法 改變的生物特性來懲罰任何人。

for immutable biological traits.

Think of policies like need-based financial aid

想想以需求為基礎的財務救助政策，

or the earned-income tax credit.

或勞動所得稅扣抵。

These are policies that address inequality

這些政策是在處理不平等，

without anyone having to feel the sting of racial discrimination.

且不會讓任何人有 被種族歧視的刺痛感。

I want to give you an example of a disastrous race-based policy.

讓我舉個種族為基礎的 政策造成悲劇的例子。

It was called the Restaurant Revitalization Fund.

它叫做餐廳振興基金。

Over 70,000 restaurants closed in 2020 due to the pandemic,

因為疫情，2020 年 有超過七萬間餐廳倒閉，

and this fund allocated 29 billion dollars to help these restaurants.

而這項基金撥出兩百九十億美金

來協助這些餐廳。

But for the first three weeks of the program,

但在這個方案的前三週，

only people of color, women and veterans could apply.

只有有色人種、女性， 和退伍軍人可以申請。

So soon after it began,

所以方案推出後沒多久，

white male restaurant owners sued, alleging discrimination.

白種男性餐廳老闆 提出控訴，指控歧視。

A judge ruled in their favor, and the program was stopped.

法官的裁決支持他們， 這個方案就被終止了。

But by that time, two thirds of the money was already gone.

但那時，三分之二的錢 都已經用掉了。

And it wasn't just white men that got discriminated against in this policy.

且受到這項政策歧視的 不僅是白種男性，

Around 3,000 women and people of color were promised money

大約有三千名女性和有色人種

在法官終止這個方案之前 就得到補助的保證，

before the judge stopped the program

and then unpromised that money just after.

方案終止後，保證就被收回。

剩下的一百億美金

And the remaining 10 billion then went to white men

被分給一開始被排在 後頭的白種男性，

who had initially been put at the back of the line.

So the net result of this policy was a double dose of discrimination.

所以這項政策的淨結果 是雙份的歧視。

Initially, thousands of white men were discriminated against

一開始，數千名白種男性受到歧視，

接著又是數千名女性 和有色人種受到歧視。

and then thousands of women and people of color were discriminated against.

And it's a virtual guarantee

這幾乎就可以保證

that there are people out there who lost their restaurant

這兩個族群中都有人因為膚色不對

in both of those camps because they were the wrong skin color.

而失去他們的餐廳。

Can anyone really argue

真的有人能夠爭辯說色盲的方案

that a colorblind program wouldn't have produced better results for everybody?

不會為每個人帶來更好的結果嗎？

So I just gave an example of a disastrous race-based policy.

我剛舉的例子是以種族 為基礎的政策結果造成災難。

Now, I want to give you an example

現在我要舉的例子是一項色盲政策，

of a colorblind policy that has worked quite well.

它就很成功。

America has been struggling with the issue of racial bias in policing

長年以來，美國都為維安 過程的種族偏見議題所苦。

for a very long time.

And a solution to one aspect of this problem

有個方法可以解決 這個問題的一個面向，

is to issue tickets using traffic cameras instead of human beings.

那就是用交通監視攝影機 取代人來開罰單。

Cops can be racially biased, consciously or not,

警察可能有種族偏見， 不論他們自己是否意識到，

but traffic cameras, red light cameras and speeding cameras can't.

但交通監視攝影機、紅燈照相機，

和測速照相機就不會。

So you would think anyone interested in reducing racial bias in policing

所以你會以為，任何人只要想要

減少維安過程的種族偏見，

would support these traffic cameras.

就會支持用交通監視 攝影機，但你想錯了。

But you'd be wrong.

Some have opposed them on the grounds

有些人反對這麼做的原因 是因為這樣做並不會產生

that they don't yield statistically equal ticketing rates by race,

在統計上符合各種族 平等的開罰單率，

and they remain illegal in many US states.

且在美國許多州， 這類攝影機都還不合法。

So here's an example

所以這個例子是色盲哲學

where the philosophy of color blindness cuts through confusion like a knife.

像一把刀一樣切穿混淆。

If we’re guided by color blindness,

如果我們的宗旨是色盲， 我們的目標應該是

our goal should be to eliminate bias from systems that affect people's lives

在有可能的情況下盡量將影響

人民生活的偏見從體制中剔除，

wherever possible,

not to manufacture statistically equal outcomes by any means necessary.

而不是不擇手段去產生出 統計上符合平等的結果。

So my talk has been focused on America,

我的演說把重點放在美國， 但我的訊息對象其實是

but my message is really for any key decision maker

世界上任何地方任何機構中的 任何關鍵決策者。

at any institution anywhere in the world.

If you care about fighting racism, embrace color blindness.

如果你在乎對抗種族主義，

請擁抱色盲。

Support class-based policies.

請支持以階級為基礎的政策。

Create colorblind processes in your own world.

請在你自己的世界裡 創造色盲的流程。

If you're a professor,

如果你是教授，

grade your students' papers blind to their names.

給你學生的作業評分時， 遮住他們的名字。

Think creatively about how to apply color blindness to your life.

發揮創意，想想如何 把色盲應用到你的生活中。

Color blindness is the best principle by which to govern a multiracial,

要治理多種族、多人種的民主國家，

multiethnic democracy.

色盲是最佳的原則。

It's the best way to lower the temperature of tribal conflict in the long run.

長期來看，它也是讓族群衝突 冷卻下來最佳方式。

And if we wait for the moment when society is ready for it,

如果我們還要等社會準備好接受它，

we'll be waiting forever.

那永遠等不到。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: Coleman, thank you for this.

主持人：科爾曼，謝謝你。

You know, Mellody Hobson came to TED a few years ago,

梅洛蒂‧賀伯森幾年前來過 TED，

and she had a very different message for us.

她帶給大家的訊息非常不同，她說，

She said, be color brave, not colorblind.

要有色膽，不要有色盲，她的主張是

Her argument was that being colorblind is dangerous

色盲是很危險的，因為 它會很有效地忽視問題。

because it's effectively ignoring the problem.

What would you want to say to her?

你會想對她說什麼？

Coleman Hughes: Yeah.

講者：好的。

One thing I would say is, like I said,

我想說的一件事是，

color blindness as a philosophy, that is the goal.

如我剛才所言，目標 是把色盲當成一種哲學。

That's an idea that comes from the anti-slavery movement, right?

那是來自反奴隸制 運動的觀念，對吧？

That's not an example of ignoring the problem.

那並不是忽視問題的例子。

That's an example of having the best philosophy

這個例子反而是用最佳哲學

with which to address the problem, in my view.

來處理問題，這是我的看法。

CA: But could you argue that that dealt with one part of the problem

主持人：但你覺不覺得雖然那能 處理部分問題，但在現今的世界，

but in today's world, there are still many situations where it's not enough.

在許多情況中光是如此並不夠。

Take this story of an orchestra, right,

比如，以管弦樂團為例，

an orchestra, and it's largely white.

管弦樂團大部分成員是白人。

And that doesn't feel right.

這樣感覺不對，

So they institute a policy of color blindness where,

於是他們制定一項色盲政策，

you know, there can't be any racial discrimination

讓種族歧視不可能存在，因為，

because new musicians are auditioned behind a screen.

新進音樂家是在圍幕中 進行試奏甄選。

That's colorblind.

那是色盲，到此一切都很好。

So, so far, so good.

And maybe that helps.

也許那有幫助；但也許實際的狀況是

But maybe the actual situation

is that the minority kids in that area

那個地區的弱勢孩童 連樂器都無法取得，

just don't have access to instruments,

it's just harder for them ever to get the kind of training and stuff they need.

他們比較難得到 他們需要的訓練等等。

And the orchestra needs to be taking a lead to bring people through

而管弦樂團必須要 帶頭錄取一些弱勢族群，

so that there are people in that orchestra who can inspire the kids

這麼一來管弦樂團才能 鼓舞弱勢孩童之類的。

and so forth.

講者：我想提一個不同的……

CH: Yeah, so I would propose a different --

So if I were leading that orchestra, what I would do is I'd say,

如果我來領導那個管弦樂團，我會說

let's continue to audition everyone behind the veil,

咱們繼續採用圍幕甄選，

be colorblind in that sense,

那方面維持色盲原則。

and then let's separately invest in the community

接著咱們再另外去投資社區，

so that we can get kids instruments when they're young

讓孩童在小時候就能取得樂器，

and then judge them by a colorblind standard

接著

他們去甄試時再用色盲的 標準來評鑑他們，

when they come to audition.

如果能在這個層面上來做，

See, if you rig it at this level,

then you're just changing the bar by which you would measure progress

你就是從源頭改變了 你衡量進步的標準。

to begin with, right?

So I think that is a kind of an artificial solution,

我想那就是一種人為的解決方案，

whereas we want to maintain colorblind standards,

一方面要維持色盲的標準，

but actually address the root causes of the problem.

實際上又能處理問題的根源。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

CA: Coleman, you're an incredibly powerful voice on this issue,

主持人：科爾曼，針對這個 議題你是極具影響力的聲音，

and I really thank you for the courage to come here, make this case.

我很感謝你來此解釋 這個主題的勇氣。

Good luck with the book.

祝你的書順利。

講者：謝謝，TED。

CH: Thank you, TED.

（掌聲）