Colorblind Racism: Four Central Subcategories

The idea of racism has evolved and has become less prevalent throughout the last century. Schools and public areas are unsegregated, voting rights, racial slurs being considered as unacceptable behavior etc. American sociologist and race theorist, Howard Winant states that’s “The ensuing approaches increased recognition of racial injustice and inequality, but did not overcome the discriminatory processes” (Winant,2000)Although the United states has come a long way to try to end racism, one cannot ignore the fact that it still exists. It is something that may seem invisible in society, but everybody knows that it still thrives and that it’s racial attitudes affect the way our society functions. One of these invisible forms of

Color blind racism is an “ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics,” according to Bonilla-Silva

Wise’s examination of the inconspicuous character of racism 2.0 dovetails fittingly with our course’s recurring theme of institutionalized racism. In class lectures we have defined institutionalized racism as the discriminatory practices that have become regularized and routinized by state agencies, organizations, industries, or anywhere else in society. Although such practices might not be intentionally racist, they end up being racist nevertheless as consequence of the systematized and unspoken biases that have become increasingly convoluted and entrenched within society over time. It also doesn’t help white people to recognize these discriminatory practices considering they have been unconsciously tailored to be consistent with white perspective and mentality. In her article, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, Peggy McIntosh examines not only how white folks often consider themselves to be a normative figure within society, but also how they are carefully taught not to recognize the advantages they gain from the disadvantages that impair people of color. In the article, McIntosh acknowledges the reality of her own white privilege and expresses, “In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth” (McIntosh 4). In fact, even if white folks do not believe themselves to

It has been a common assumption that the moral character of an individual is linked to their race. Consequently, this has been a major propagator of racism. Furthermore, this has been spread people who the author refers to as “dog whistle politicians” who think that the whites have to succeed because they have the values, work ethics, and orientations required for success. According to Lopez, using colorblindness as a means of looking beyond the skin color of an individual would be helpful in dealing with racism as a whole. Colorblindness has a great role in fighting the establishment of racial policies and in dealing with dog whistle themes. Some of the chief advocates of colorblindness such as Martin Luther King, ending segregation were not the only drive in fighting for civil rights, but also changing the common mindset of linking some races with misery. (82) In recent times, a lot has been done to try and fight the racial stereotyping “deep connection between race and disadvantage” although some gains have been achieved, the author states that a lot has to be done yet.

Racism is a word that sparks a nerve in many individuals today. As hard as it is to believe, racism is still a big factor in what we as a society know as a unified America. Although, it is not as obvious as it was in the past, it still goes on, just in ways that are less noticeable. We ask the question, is the emphasis on a color-blind society an answer to racism. Ward Connerly claims it is a way to stop the segregation and make America a whole as it has been striving to be for the longest. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva believes color-blind racism is the new racial ideology and still brings about racial inequality. As the solution to the question progresses, we ask ourselves, will a

Edgar (2007) put forward that the second type of racism is ‘direct racial discrimination’. This term involves ‘decisions being made which are racially biased, disadvantaging either individuals or as a group’ (Edgar 2007, P.73). Edgar noted that this involves the

It’s either black or white, right? This is a common misconception heard in relation to many contentions involving racial controversies in America, and sadly, more often than not, it is assumed to be true. The racial, or rather ethnic, and social injustices in the United States are under the unsubstantial influential power of, what is deemed by most philosophers as, the “black/white paradigm”. “Juan Pera defines this paradigm as “the conception that race in America consists, either exclusively or primarily, of only two constituent racial groups, the Black and White… In addition, the paradigm dictates that all other racial identities and groups in the United States are best understood through the Black/White binary paradigm” (Alcoff 248). Linda Alcoff, a distinguished and highly recognized woman philosopher at the City of University of New York, who specializes in epistemology, feminism, and race theory, hopes to dissuade one from simply accepting the “black/white paradigm” but rather instead deduce that all matters in relation to race and the wrongs inherent to racism cannot unpretentiously nor moralistically be placed into the two racial groupings of either black or white.

When trying to understand the concept of color blindness we first need to understand what the term means. It is a set of beliefs in which white individuals judge non-white individuals as if they were treated equally ignoring past racism (Scott p. 77). Individuals who use color blindness do so through four central frames usually used together. The four frames are abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. To understand how the four frames are sometimes used together we need to understand their meaning.

This chapter on the framework of the colorblind ideology seems to be the most concrete and logical chapter in the book. This chapter is very well put together, with examples that cover a wide variety of topics. He also illustrates the concept of the frameworks playing into one another very well. The premise of these four frameworks as an “impregnable yet elastic wall that barricades whites from the United States’ racial reality” makes perfect logical sense as an explanation for the “racism without racists” culture seen in the US (47). Changing attitudes towards race relations forced a change in the manifestation of racist ideologies.

If the first line of the passage were to be true, then that would make a feminist a sexist by using the same logic. But, instead, all that has been created is a mind-numbing oxymoron like “jumbo shrimp” or “loud whisper” that does nothing besides make you have to read it twice to make sure you understand it.

Does racism still exist? This is one of the countless controversies between people today in which many people might answer “no”. Others may agree with Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a sociology professor at Duke University. Bonilla-Silva argues that racism still exists, but has become more subtle since the end of segregation. Bonilla-Silva refers to this "new racism" as color-blind racism. This term is defined by Bonilla-Silva in his book, White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era, as, "A new, powerful ideology that justifies contemporary racial inequality and thus help maintain 'systematic white privilege '"(132). Abstract Liberalism, Naturalization, Biologization of Culture, and Minimization of Racism, are the four central frames Bonilla-Silva uses to describe and prove racism is still a problem in the form of color-blind racism. These frames and the interviews used as evidence effectively prove Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s idea that there is racism without “racists”.

At one time and still today to many people, race is an essentialist category meaning that the race of a person is a category innate in them that sets them apart from others and makes them act in a certain way.

Nevertheless it is clear solution that effects of neoliberal policies on people everywhere even creating the structural racism. Furthermore, the racial hierarchy became hegemonic and today the term of racism is not only colorblind but also it is neoliberalism. In United States, neo-liberal racism images that "racial discrimination and inequalities as thing of the past" while creating racial inequality and hieararchy. The following review of Eduardo Bonilla 's work, White Supremacy and Racism in the Post- civil Rights Era, publish that "Color blind racism articulates elements from the free market ideology and culturally based arguments to justify the contemporary racial order....Although color blindness sound progressive, its themes, style, and storylines are used to explain and justify racial inequality." In

In Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism, it was discussed on how color blindness needs to be shifted towards a more positive ideology, that being multiculturalism (Williams, 2011). Instead of pretending to not see race or culture of others, multiculturalism celebrates different cultures. I like this ideology much better than color blindness. Instead of trying to deny race and culture, multiculturalism celebrates what makes everyone different, it teaches everyone to recognize and value each culture. It also doesn’t deny what racial conflicts or awful things occurred in the past, it doesn’t try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it was something that never occurred (Williams, 2011). I think by being open about past events, or conflicts

According to “what would you do”, it seems that racism is unconsciously inherent in practically everyone. The vast majority people would like to have confidence in white people without principles. People might have various states of mind and criterion for judgement because of different races. Classifying people according to race and gender is a kind of elemental drive and instinct of human beings. However, this kind of classification method could not have a certain objective inevitability and legitimacy. For example, on the basis of genetics, the actual genotype of a person who looks like a African-american may be a Caucasian. Unfortunately, the United States was torn apart by strife caused by the pluralism of races. The public could easily