Trick coin: 2-faced, 1 face; Colorblindness: 2-delude, 1 disposition. Both bear no fair finish.

On page 184 Taylor quotes a statement that a journalist made, which he claims epitomizes his post-racialist racism (in accord to politics specifically), "'In the post racial era personified by Obama...Americans start to make race-free judgments about who should lead them'".  I really enjoyed how Taylor framed this statement with such dripping sarcasm (at least thats the way I read it). Right before quoting this journalist Taylor says, "When the black-identified" (<-I find that phrasing to be particularly important, because Taylor discusses much earlier in the book that there was a movement from mulatto to identifying as black, and then the 1 drop rule) "son of a racially mixed-marriage between a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas can become president of a country built on racial slavery and a horror of miscegenation; when, moreover, he can do this in the post-9/11 USA despite bearing (what the President himself described as) a funny, Muslim-sounding name; when things like this happen, the post racialist concludes, we have put race behind us and embarked on a new phase of human social relations"(184). Making clear that Obama, himself, declared his name as, "a funny, Muslim-sounding name" acts as a slap to the reader's eyes. Many points are made just within this statement that expresses how false and misleading this post-racialist thinking is--starting off with Obama being identified and identifying himself as a "black man". That being followed with his own explanation of his name, where he identifies it as "funny" (funny-similar to ethnic-'ethnic' to the majority, 'funny' sounding-to the majority). First he, himself, identified with two different radicalized groups which, if colorblindness was a real thing he A-wouldn't have done that and B-wouldn't have needed explain what his name to americans as "funny" and "Muslim-sounding". The reason why he did, and why he most likely felt pressured to, is because America is so far from actually being colorblind. Minorities need to constantly explain themselves (i.e. Obama clarifying that his name might sound funny and a little like a Muslim name--but it's stops at just "sounding" like it. So to assure the public that he is not black AND Muslim... just black with a Muslim-sounding name), all while the majority's position is pre-secured and accounted for as a "normal" American. I.e. president Bush did not need to disclose what his name might sound like along with an adjective that could be viewed as demeaning and belittling to those who actually fall under his unwanted label. Bush had no need to put forth effort in explaining  his name and how it's 'un-American' (or just non-white) sound is just 'something-else-sounding' --in fear of being misidentified, mislabeled, mis-colored, and misconstrued as being someone of a 'funny', 'scary', or 'barbaric' nature. These small and simple instances, which might seem insignificant, actually expose the objective unconscious of how objectifying Americans still are ...especially racially. Thus completely discrediting any claims of colorblindness. Taylor then follows the journalist's quote with pointing out that, "this willingness to set race aside when it comes to questions of leadership is, for the committed post-racialist, just one example of a wider commitment to colorblindness in all spheres of human relations"(184). This statement working with the one he makes directly before the journalist's quote, work together to further emphasize how false the claim of colorblindness really is. Especially that our own president has to justify, explain, and detach the sound of his name from  a group of people that are currently being criminalized in this country. It is also indicating that if this is happening on a political level (especially so high), there is no doubt that this colorblind (but really mindblind underlining racism) concept is being implemented and mobilized through human social relations.