That is not what is meant by being racially color-blind.

its the English definition




BLIND:
unable to see; sightless


that's why people rarely refer to being 'height blind' or 'eye color blind',, there is no assumption that noticing height or eyss refers to a state of judging the character of a person by their height or eye color

so why the phrase 'color blind'? its suspicious at its conception

see my color,, just don't assume to know me individually with only that physical observation,,

"Color-blind" is a figure of speech for someone who doesn't judge another person's character by skin color.

Sure, when it comes to bodily aesthetics - what one person considers to be sexually appealing - skin tone is a factor, along with height, weight, hair color (or amount) and any other physical feature.

Yet, you can have one kind of opinion about another's outward attractiveness and still have a different opinion about the other's character.

I see skin color when it comes to the former, but I ignore skin color when it comes to the latter.

We all bleed red my friend. As a veteran of war, I swear it's true!

if you SEE skin color

you are not 'color blind'


that's my point

the term is a pc attempt to avoid discussing race, as if it doesn't exist or people don't 'see it',, when of course , they do


I don't want a color blind world

I want a color enamored world, where we not only SEE, but APPRECIATE the differences in color, culture, ethnicity,, or whatever

Well said! Thanks for your service.

Getting back to the topic of the OP ...


Why would a white political candidate believe it necessary to use a racial gimmick in order to win an election?

Well, it's possible that the candidate feared he would be a victim of anti-white racism if he didn't.

Yes, black racists do exist in the USA. Remember this?:

more individual racism, noone ever suggested it wasnt real

and IM sure he may have felt he would be a victim of anti white racism, or he may have just felt he didnt have a strong enough campaign on its own merit to win,,,,

he not only allgedly pretended to be black, but he was deceptive about who else supported him, which may have also been significant in swaying people who were supportive of his 'endorser' to support him

I am not approving of what the winning candidate did.

I am just pointing out a possible motive for what he did.

If enough anti-white racism exists within a voting district, then a white candidate in that district has a reason to be concerned about it.

I agree, if something exits, those affected by it have a reason to be concerned about it,, even if they cant PROVE to others that it exists,,

The winning candidate in this case needs to step up and prove that what he did was necessary because of anti-white racism. Otherwise, he will continue to look sleazy.

I agree

I personally wouldn't care about whether his materials had pictures of black folks on it,, candidacy shouldn't matter on appearance anyhow,,,but if its intended to falsely represent who the candidate is

COUPLED WITH

providing names for 'supporters' hoping to deceive voters about who is supporting them

there lies a problem

I fully agree with you on this point. The winning candidate was intentionally deceptive. If I were in his district and had voted for him, then I'd be sure to vote against him the next time because of his intentional deception. Indeed, I hope that he either resigns or gets voted out later.

The existence of anti-white racism, both visible and invisible, doesn't justify what this person did. Two wrongs don't make a right.