Assuming that by “we” he means regular folks and not pundits or bloggers, I think we do need to talk more about race. Yes RefineryOperator (awesome name) discussing race does involve a lot of talking about how you feel. But in doing so it allows your counterpart know why you hold a particular view on topic X and gives them the opportunity to address your concern and influence you (I think affirmative action is a good example of this. Honest engagement nearly always makes both sides come away from the argument with less of a hard-line opinion). I don’t see this type of conversation as “mak[ing] eachother do the right thing.” There is a way to have an honest dialogue on race without telling the other person they are an asshole and wrong and must change their view to comport with mine. It happens here, well, most of the time.

I think that dialogue is important because I don’t think that people know how those of another race think or feel about the important issues. How could white people who don’t engage blacks understand their perspective if they’re hearing only the “official” black opinion from Lando or Al Sharpton or even some less ridiculous figure. Us white’s don’t really have official spokesmen the way you all do, but I wouldn’t want my own views to be represented by the Bush’s or Palins or Buchanans of the world (Pat or Tom). I think that by giving up on honest dialogue, you cede the floor to the loudmouths and the influential. This shouldn’t be the extent of the racial conversation in this country.

Moreover, while I agree that we need to talk more about specific policies that may disproportionately affect black people, I hope that Coates is not saying that this should be the extent of any conversation. Limiting the dialogue to this issue is a good way to make white people turn their brains off and go back to football and bud light.