What a crayon box can teach the left about real diversity

St. Paul offered a powerful message of unity in his letter to the church in Galatia: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

That truth still resonates.

Let’s be honest: No one is actually the color white. Everyone falls somewhere along the spectrum.

What does it mean to be unified across our human differences? How can that kind of unity offer hope for peace and shared blessings? And how does dividing people by skin color undermine that harmony?

This verse reminded me of the familiar box of crayons many of us used as children — and that children and grandchildren around the world still use today. Each crayon is different, but together, they create something beautiful.

Crayola has made a fortune creating countless color combinations for its crayon boxes — including a tub with 240 crayons.

In exploring one of its more popular sets, which includes 64 colors, I noticed something interesting: The collection contains a white crayon. That makes sense. White is a color — and in some ways, it’s a blend of all colors.

Think about how a prism works. When white light passes through it, the light breaks into a spectrum of primary colors, which combine to form secondary colors. A video from Study.com explains it this way: “White light is defined as the complete mixture of all of the wavelengths of the visible spectrum. ... The combination of all of the colors will result in a beam of white light.”

But here’s a question. If science tells us that white is a mix of all colors, why do we often hear from the left that society is divided into “white” and “people of color”? Doesn’t that imply white isn’t a color at all?

Is it possible that the left’s framing is flawed? Could its prevailing narrative be missing something?

Let’s be honest: No one is actually the color white. Most so-called white people are really more off-white — maybe with a hint of pink, tan, yellow, or red mixed in. In other words, they’re still a color. So by that logic, wouldn’t that technically qualify them as “people of color,” too?

And black people? They’re not crayon-box black, either. Skin tones range from light brown (off-white, even?) to deep, rich shades of brown. Everyone falls somewhere along the spectrum.

If Crayola wanted to lean into this and go all-in on political correctness — or, let’s say, full woke mode — it could just rebrand its boxes. How about calling the big one “239 plus white” and the classic set “63 plus white”? Problem solved.

Fun fact: Crayola used to have a crayon named “Flesh.” It was this pale pink color that, for most kids, didn’t match anyone they knew. I remember noticing that as a kid — none of my friends looked like that crayon. Eventually, Crayola got the memo. Some say the company made the change in the early ’60s, others say it was later (Reddit, of course, has opinions).

I also remember seeing an ad where a little girl picked a crayon and said she could finally draw herself. That stuck with me — and maybe shows just how powerful (and personal) a box of crayons can be.

Here’s one last point to consider in the “white is a color” discussion:

Have you painted a room in your house lately? Sherwin-Williams offers dozens upon dozens of shades it classifies as white. If white isn’t considered an acceptable color — at least by some on the left — why are there so many variations of it for walls?

And if white carries such problematic connotations, why do people choose to paint their living rooms or bedrooms in shades of it? Especially bedrooms — the one place you’d hope to escape the chaos of modern life.

Also, while we’re on the topic: What’s with the name Sherwin-Williams? It sounds suspiciously like a Civil War general. (Yet another shade of controversy?)

Now that we’ve sorted out the color confusion, maybe we can shift to the next hot-button issue on the list: What exactly are we supposed to do with the growing catalog of 92 genders and counting?

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.