Thanks for the response and the quote - on the 'surface' the concept of being 'colourblind' can be taken as something positive (by me at least), as seeing beyond race and colour - not pre-judging or discriminating between people - but with closer scruntiny is, agreeably, more along the lines of....
"...that there can be injustice in treating people the same when in relevant respects they are different, just as much as there can be in treating them differently when in relevant respects they are the same..."
...Colorblindness falls down because it is based on an idealistic principle (that all people are equal) which may be valid sub specie aeternitatis [b]but which fails to take account of the contingent facts of racial inequality and disadvantage in our present society.
...so thanks for pointing out this, as it is something I admit I had previously failed to grasp.
Thinking 'aloud' here... I am still trying to understand 'how' the whole process of dialog did halt...? Granted, perhaps that is too large a question for just one answer!?
Obviously it was hijacked... but by who? Was it gradual or immediate, and was it 'universal' (education, the average people on the street) or confined to the media.
And what existing 'dialog' did this halt? Was that dialog confined to Activists, and Civil rights leaders, or more mainstream discussion?
The link is appreciated too. I will think on this some more.