The uproar over Pantone’s latest “Color of the Year,” dubbed “Cloud Dancer,” raises questions about the hyper-sensitivity of some critics. Initially, the author dismisses the entire idea of declaring a color of the year as trivial. “Cloud Dancer,” which the writer describes as a “slightly muddled shade of white,” becomes the center of a storm fueled by far-left outrage over alleged racism.
According to the U.K. Daily Mail, this absurd protest culminated in claims that Pantone’s decision is “racist” and “tone-deaf.” The reaction showcases a level of offense that seems unnecessary, especially when one considers the far larger societal issues that people face daily. The writer points out the stark contrast between the anxieties of everyday folks grappling with serious life challenges and those fixated on what amounts to a color selection.
The author rightly emphasizes that real problems take precedence over such frivolous controversies. “People dealing with real issues—health, finances, work—don’t have the time or care to get riled up over something as benign as a makeup company’s favorite color,” they assert. Yet, a segment of the population chooses to direct their ire at the color chosen by Pantone.
Layering irony upon irony, the writer highlights that this outpouring of outrage inadvertently points fingers at Sky Kelley, the president of Pantone, who happens to be a Black woman. If critics are claiming racism, they are also, perhaps unintentionally, attacking a leader unlikely to endorse a color choice based on racial bias. “It seems aggressively unlikely that anti-black racism was somehow at the forefront of her thought,” the author argues, reinforcing the idea that the outrage is unfounded.
Furthermore, the piece draws attention to the inconsistencies in past color choices without stirring controversy. For instance, colors like “Mocha Mousse” or “Peach Fuzz” failed to provoke similar objections despite the potential for racial interpretation. “Notice how white conservatives didn’t start crying ‘MUH RACISM’ after that one,” the writer notes, exposing the selective outrage that seems to plague discussions around race today.
This disconnect reflects a growing discomfort with the trend of politicizing virtually every aspect of culture, even something as innocuous as color preference. Critics are encouraged to consider whether their outrage is misplaced. The article succinctly encapsulates this sentiment, stating that the fervor directed at Pantone is “indefensibly dumb,” making a case that perhaps the outrage machine has gone too far.
Finally, the author makes a crucial observation about the nature of corporate political involvement. While some companies indeed engage in political contributions, Pantone appears distant from such practices. With minimal monetary support directed toward political figures, the notion that Pantone’s color choice promotes any form of supremacy is rendered absurd. “I seriously doubt a company that came closest to supporting Kamala Harris is out here trying to promote white supremacy,” the author asserts, delivering a final blow to the claims of racism.
In sum, the uproar surrounding Pantone’s color announcement showcases a troubling trend of overreaction by a vocal minority. The substantive criticism levied against the color and its supposed cultural implications pales in comparison to the larger issues society faces. Perhaps it’s time for some to take a step back, breathe, and reconsider their priorities—starting with the notion that the color of the year should be free from the burden of political critique.
"*" indicates required fields
