ABC’s morning talk show, The View, prides itself as being a platform for diversity and inclusivity. However, they have repeatedly proven to be a major source of racial hatred and division in America, fueled by the likes of co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) and moderator Whoopi Goldberg, who is known for her staunchly racist and anti-Semitic opinions.
So, it was surprising when they invited podcaster and author Coleman Hughes to promote his book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America, on Wednesday’s show. His reasonable position led Hostin to call him a “charlatan” and a “conservative” in an attempt to discredit him, and Goldberg to attack him based on his age.
During the show, Goldberg asked Hughes to explain what he meant by “colorblind.” He responded by saying that he believes in treating people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and in public policy. He also denounced the so-called “anti-racism” movement, stating that it teaches children that their race is everything, which he believes is the wrong way to fight racism.
This idea of not dividing people along racial lines did not sit well with Goldberg, who suggested that Hughes was too young and did not understand history. She claimed that when she was in school, there was no mention of race or black history, and that is how people were judged. Hughes respectfully disagreed with her, mentioning that when he was in fifth grade, he watched Roots in public school. He also noted that their different experiences might be due to their different generations and regions in the country.
Hughes went on to explain that his idea of a colorblind society is an ideal – a “north star” that we should strive towards, even though we may never fully reach it. He argued that wokeism, the ideology that views race as the most significant factor in a person’s identity and experiences, is actually taking us backward. He believes that instead of using race as a proxy for disadvantage, we should look at socioeconomics and income to have a better understanding of who needs help. He noted that this approach would also benefit poor white individuals.
These ideas triggered Hostin, who called Hughes’ premise “fundamentally flawed.” She and Hughes proceeded to argue over the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., with each of them quoting different statements to support their arguments. Hostin, who claimed to be a better authority on MLK because she is friends with his daughter, argued that he believed in racial reparations and racial equality, contradicting Hughes’ stance of using class to address poverty and disadvantage.
When backed into a corner, Hostin resorted to attacking Hughes personally, suggesting that he was being used as a pawn by the right and calling him a conservative and a charlatan. Hughes, who identifies as a left-leaning independent, clarified that he has only ever voted for Democrats and would vote for a non-Trump Republican if they were compelling enough. He stated that there was no evidence of him being “co-opted,” and Hostin’s accusations were simply an ad hominem tactic to avoid addressing the important conversations they were having.
After a commercial break, Joy Behar expressed her confusion at the idea that the “anti-racism movement” is similar to white supremacy. Hughes explained that individuals like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi view race as an extremely significant part of a person’s identity, mirroring the beliefs of white supremacists. He argued for the importance of teaching children that their race is not a significant feature of who they are, and that their character, values, and actions are what truly matter.
Hostin attempted to argue against Hughes, claiming that he was misrepresenting the beliefs of Robin DiAngelo. However, Hughes pointed to her own book as evidence of her views.
Overall, The View’s attempt to have a conversation about race and racism through the promotion of Coleman Hughes’ book quickly turned into a hostile argument. Hostin, Goldberg, and Behar all seemed to be triggered by Hughes’ views, resorting to personal attacks and misrepresenting his arguments.
The show, which claims to promote diversity and inclusivity, failed to have a civil and open dialogue about an important topic and instead chose to shut down opposing viewpoints. This highlights the need for genuine conversations about race and racism, rather than using it as a weapon for political gain.