It strikes me that it reduces racial differences to something purely cosmetic. People are not all the same, we don't all taste the same, we're not all the same weight or size. Race (or rather, ethnicity) has more implications than just a different color, and embracing different races requires admitting these differences.

Plus, M&Ms with nuts are delicious, and I am offended by the stereotyping.

The entire reason racism is such a problem is because race is purely cosmetic. If it were not, racism wouldn't be a form of discrimination, it would just be acting in accordance with reality.

Race is purely cosmetic, but ethnicity and the cultures associated with it are not. This works for race, but it doesn't work for ethnicity because that usually includes culture.

It also fails to acknowledge the presence of bi-racial or multi-racial individuals. It seems to assert that race is static, and therefore it promotes interaction but not inter-mixture.

Also, I always take a step back when I hear the "race is purely cosmetic" argument. I certainly don't disagree that racial phenotypes do not define behavior or character and thus "race is purely cosmetic." But, race also has real tangible material effects. Whether or not it is purely cosmetic, it (or the idea of it) shapes and affects peoples lives. The relationship between race and ethnicity is a complicated one and needs a more nuanced discussion than race is the physical exterior and ethnicity is culture. It is not always so easy to separate the two.

And, don't forget about blue M&Ms!

I don't know, nilbog. I think that race and ethnicity should be kept distinct. First of all, race is not even a discrete category, but rather a historically contingent social construction and should be seen as such. And I think there are many examples of "race" and ethnicity being completely separate. Think of all the Asian and Eastern European orphans who have been adopted by American and Canadian couples. My friend Plum is Vietnamese by birth but as American white trash as you can get (and proud of it).

I actually like this premise. I think it would be a good way to start talking to little kids. Like M&Ms, we are all different colors, but like M&Ms on the inside are all made from the same ingredients (chocolate, milk etc.), inside, people are all human beings made of the same ingredients (heart, soul, brain, etc.). M&Ms don't discriminate against each other, even though they are all different colors. Wouldn't it be nice if in that respect people were more like M&Ms?

Rachel in WY - I agree that in theory it is nice to separate race and ethnicity into discrete categories, I just think that for many people in their daily lives it is not so easy to separate the two. I don't disagree with you that there are examples when the two function separately but in your example for instance I am unclear which is the "race" and which is the "ethnicity." Is Vietnamese a race or an ethnicity? Is "American white trash" (a category that troubles me a little but whatever) a race or ethnicity? Vietnamese is either a national identity or an ethnic affiliation, not technically a race. So, if your friend identifies both with her Vietnamese heritage and her American upbringing, what is the function of race here?

My point was, I think, that the definition of both race and ethnicity are murky and necessarily amorphous. I'm not saying that they can never be thought of as separate categories but that they play out in complex and intersectional ways in the lives of individuals.

My discomfort with the essay stems from the fact that red M&Ms weren't enslaved by the blue M&Ms for a couple hundred years and then 'freed' and have yet to reach economic or political equality. Orange M&Ms aren't judged by their progress in school or the size of their bank accounts to determine if they are 'good' orange M&Ms or not. Sure, it would be nice for us to close our eyes and treat everyone the same, but the truth is that privilege exists in the human world, and not in the candy world. (Although those poor light brown M&Ms were given the boot a while ago and usurped by the blue, which still makes me sad. Those light brown ones were the tastiest.)

I can see the point that the original writer was going for - we all look different on the outside, but we're still all human on the inside. If we can see past the exterior differences - color, social background, and so forth - and realize that we're all humans, then maybe a lot of the problems we have in the world today could be solved during conversations while sharing a bag of M&Ms.

(Forgive me, I'm tired. It's been a long day.)

The problem that arises is that the Red M&Ms don't have to work, the casinos pay for them to live on the reservations they've been granted by the government.

Oh, and the Brown M&Ms are oppressed by The Man because, up until a hundred and forty years ago, their kindred Browns sold them into slavery to M&Ms of other colors. Because of that, they're supposed to get special treatment, lest we face the wrath of the ACLU.

Oh, and the Green M&Ms - the "girl" M&Ms, according to the commercials - well, I'm actually going to stop there. See, by focusing on what makes all of these different M&Ms different, divisions are created, and hostility arises. If the commonality and universality of being and M&M were truly celebrated and enjoyed by all M&Ms, regardless of the superficial outward appearance, then those divisions would fade into nothing.

That's just me. But I'm only a guy.

The comment by 'im still a guy' is a perfect example of why sometimes we have to know our differences before we can become proclaim ourselves color blind. He states:

"Oh, and the Brown M&Ms are oppressed by The Man because, up until a hundred and forty years ago, their kindred Browns sold them into slavery to M&Ms of other colors"

He's so convinced that everybody is the same that he doesn't even bother to question is understanding of history and challenge his perceptions. And in doing so he ignores the fact that divisions and hostility are not being created, but are remnants from our past.

For example, he recreates a common and powerful racist tactic:

The assumption that distinct groups of people---with different languages, cultures, religions and customs who shared only a proximity in geography and similar appearances from the perspective of an invader---would have considered themselves kindred in the first place.

I wonder if he would ever suggest (solely based on skin color and geography) that aggressions and injustices on the European continent within the last couple centuries were among "kinfolk".

Given the intermarriage of royalty in the various European nations as a form of securing treaties, I could very easily say that aggression and injustice on the European continent were among kinfolk. Quite often, brothers and sisters and cousins were on opposing sides of wars in Europe over the last several centuries. Those royal families continue to exert a degree of influence even today.

Also, I don't mean to say that differences don't exist - I mean to say that we all have far more in common as humans living on this planet than our superficial differences can supercede. We are all born, grow to adulthood, and so on . . . . we are all part of a family of one sort or another, we all fall in and out of love, many of us feel the need to believe in something greater than ourselves (be it Yahweh, Allah, the Goddess, unadulterated science, or any other power). In that we are all human and share those same emotions and experiences, regardless of ethnic or cultural background, is my point.

Sorry if you missed that, Spike.

I would hope that in modern, civilized society, we could learn from the errors of our ancestors without dwelling in them. Yes, I said in them. The past might hurt, but we have to learn from it and move on. Go watch "The Lion King" and have a baboon shaman explain it if you don't get my meaning.