I don't think anyone's arguing that we should all pretend we're colorblind. His point, and mine, was that skin color really isn't that important of a feature. Now you can interpret that in any shape or form you want, but attacking his point without even allowing him the chance to clarify isn't something I'd like to call a healthy debate. Martin Luther King fought for equal opportunity for all races. Maybe it was more special for the blacks because it impacted their lives directly, but to say it's irrelevant to anyone but black people is untrue. It definitely had an impact on me, and I bet you "let freedom ring" was pretty relevant on some women's minds during that period. He was a philanthropist - not some sort of Black Pride leader. I don't understand this part at all. Are you saying that the grandchildren of racists are in some sort of debt? Should we have a holiday for every time one large group of people wronged another large group of people? That sounds like one ugly calendar. - - - - - Is making people feel like they are owed something really making social relations any better? When religions, races, and nations keep score amongst each other like some sort of "objective, omniscient system" that is ironically comprised of a bunch of spiteful children who hide behind business suits and public opinion, who is really winning? We can't afford to isolate each other because of history when we share the same exact challenging future ahead of us all. We, as human beings, already have enough to worry about. *applauds and flowers*