The notion of a “Color of the Year” is, in itself, a peculiar one. Yet, something far stranger unfolded when a leading color authority recently announced its choice for 2026: “Cloud Dancer.”
To many, the color simply appears as a muted, almost unremarkable shade of white. But within certain corners of the internet, this seemingly innocuous selection ignited a furious backlash, labeled as “racist” and “tone-deaf.”
The outrage quickly escalated, with critics claiming the color unintentionally evoked troubling cultural and political symbolism. The controversy even dredged up unrelated incidents, demonstrating a remarkable reach for indignation.
It’s a stark contrast to the concerns of those grappling with genuine hardship – the daily realities of health, finances, and work. These are the issues that truly demand attention, not the aesthetic preferences of a cosmetics company.
A crucial detail often lost in the uproar is the leadership at the company behind the color choice. Pantone is headed by Sky Kelley, a Black woman, making accusations of racial bias particularly jarring and improbable.
Consider, too, Pantone’s previous selections. Last year’s “Color of the Year” was “Mocha Mousse,” a rich shade of brown. There was no similar outcry then, no accusations of favoring one group over another.
Before that, “Peach Fuzz” and “Viva Magenta” graced the annual lists, each met with acceptance rather than condemnation. This pattern reveals a selective sensitivity, a willingness to find offense where none was intended.
While scrutiny of corporate actions is warranted, particularly regarding political influence, Pantone’s involvement appears minimal. Employee donations to political campaigns are negligible, and the company itself engages in no lobbying efforts.
The accusations leveled against Pantone are not only unfounded but represent a new low in the cycle of manufactured outrage. They surpass even the absurdity of designating a single “Color of the Year” in the first place.
This incident highlights a troubling trend: a relentless search for offense, a willingness to interpret benign choices through a lens of grievance. It’s a phenomenon that distracts from genuine issues and diminishes the importance of meaningful dialogue.
