Trackbacks & Pings

1. It’s hard to be a racist « Clueless White Woman on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:07 pm

   [...] 24, 2008 Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote a piece for CNN called The fallacy of colorblind post-raciality, discussing why about seventy percent of respondents in a recent poll said they did not have [...]

Comments

1. sylvie wrote:

   colorblindness gets me angry, mainly because it assumes that there’s suddenly a clean slate once you say race doesn’t matter; as if the word “colorblind” itself is some kind of magical spell. i think it’s a cop-out for people who don’t actually want to discuss racism yet don’t want to be thought of as racist.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶

2. KadiBaby wrote:

   I’m sorry this has nothing to do with the post but I was hoping that the Racialicious regulars would help me out. Why is it that HRC Democrats who threaten to vote for McCain don’t vote for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney? Isn’t she closer to them on the issues?

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶

3. Chris wrote:

   @KadiBaby: because a vote for McCain would hurt Obama more than a vote for anyone else.

   Why cast your vote to a third party, then you could do twice the damage by voting for the person who’s more likely to win?

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶

4. kiki wrote:

   The other seven must be afflicted by “colorblindness,” that odd phenomenon that drives people to insist that they “just don’t notice race” …

   I’m guessing they didn’t poll many cab drivers, cops or hiring managers.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶

5. jed wrote:

   Colorblindness as a white solution to racism parallels “Let sleeping dogs lie.” It is a beginning, and after several generations pass, perhaps so too will most racism. So, what is a more palatable alternative to colorblindness? I never see that discussed.

   As for McKinney, KadiBaby, if you were from Dekalb County, Georgia, you would not need to ask your question. McKinney (and her father) has a long record of temper issues, and her incident with the federal security officer was the last straw for many white liberal east Atlantans.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶

6. DivergentDana wrote:

   Ah, some HRC Dems fully intend to vote for McKinney, KadiBaby. Odds are, the HRC folks that are leaning towards McCain are composed of the following groups:

   a) folks that are smack talking to get respect and acknowledgement from the Obama camp, but may end up voting for Obama anyways, voting for McKinney, writing in HRC, or staying home

   b)crossover voters that are moderate/liberal republicans, independents, and conservative/moderate dems — people for whom it may not make sense to vote further left, and whose Democratic loyalties in this election lie with Sen. Clinton and her alone.

   c) all of the above

   or

   d) racist asshats that categorically refuse to cast a ballot for a black person, even if that black person has no chance of winning and may indeed contribute to the loss of another

   Former HRC voters who are now for McCain aren’t a monolith, and they have quite a few reasons for doing what they’re doing, some understandable (like a,b, and c) some less so. My mother’s in category A. She plans to vote for Obama in the primary, but she vociferously claims that she’ll vote for McCain to piss my father off because he’s been gloating ever since it looked vaguely like an Obama victory. I’ve also heard quite a few other HRC folks that have little to no problem with Obama, but despise his acolytes and don’t mind if they sweat a little before the primaries.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:26 pm ¶

7. DivergentDana wrote:

   “So, what is a more palatable alternative to colorblindness? I never see that discussed.”

   Mutual respect and acknowledgement of varied life experiences that can be positively or negatively impacted by ethnicity. Looking past color implies that it’s either a forgivable flaw (like “they can’t help the way they are”) or something that doesn’t matter in any way at all, which is not a reality today and is the equivalent of “putting the cart before the horse.” Colorblindness often accompanies “colordeafness” — the idea that the testimonies of people that have experienced racism are the result of mass delusion/oversensitivity and that the issue of racism, like race, can be solved by ignoring it totally and pretending that it doesn’t exist.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:56 pm ¶

8. Fransky wrote:

   Carmen-
   Awesome article! One dude in the comments feels race is biological. He said:
   “Race is most certainly a biological reality. A medical examiner or physical anthropologist can determine the racial makeup of a deceased individual from hair, bones, or DNA.”

   How do you or does one counter this argument? Peace!
   ~F

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 2:59 pm ¶

9. Roxie wrote:

   It is a cop-out. It completely ignores the racism in our institutions and calls for us to just KEEP ignoring them and to forget the past or pretend the past has no bearing on our present situations. It also helps set up the ‘those who talk about race are the REAL racists’ mythos

   I’ll be post-racial when we’re post-racists.

   Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶

10. Cara wrote:

    “Color-blindness” reflects the deeper denial pervasive in shared American consciousness. Some people use Powell, Rice, and Thomas as examples of how race is not a factor in success….when the relevance of Race in their cases is starring you right in the face. If it were not for Affirmative Action, these individuals would not have been able to attend prestigious colleges or even fill-out applications (yet alone apply at all) to the white-collar educational, corporate, and military positions that catapulted them into the public eye and the white house (& supreme court).

    [Please Note: the 1948 Desegregation of the U.S. Military Armed Forces; Title VII and Title IX or the U.S. Constitution. If race (and gender in Rice’s case) had nothing to do with their success – or potential to succeed – then why were these laws passed. You don’t pass laws b/c of a non-existent problem.]

    As for “color-blindness”…..If a person doesn’t see your color/ethnic heritage – then they don’t see you! I want people to see ME; I want them to see my heritage. I love my heritage and I believe to know Black ppl (or any other ppl for that matter) is to love them. This is one of the biggest examples of white privilege. Whites can say that they are color blind, but People of Color can’t b/c they are constantly being reminded of their non-whiteness. I don’t say this in theory or metaphor – people of color are literally “told” or comments are made to them reminding them of their “otherness.” You can’t say Race doesn’t exist when you don’t experience these things. That in itself is extremely disrespectful and dismissive.

    Post-racial politics and Color-blindness is a way for whites (and others) to DIVORCE themselves from the historic oppression faced by American of color in the U.S. To be non-racist is to accept ‘racial’ difference, but not to ignore the history and struggles of a people. Race to non-whites is connected to a shared struggle that they have faced being “HYPHONATED – Americans.”

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 3:25 pm ¶

11. Winn wrote:

    @ Fransky:

    Joseph Graves is an evolutionary biologist whose book, The Race Myth, debunks the assertion of a biological basis for different races, and addresses the fact that the differences mentioned by the poster you reference emerge from adaptation and selection due to geographical and environmental influences. Although some aspects of his socio-cultural analysis are sound, that aspect of his book has been better handled by Stephen Jay Gould and Jared Diamond. But for the scientific explanation of how race is a social construct rather than a biological or genetic reality, Graves does a great job, especially for readers who are non-scientists.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 3:26 pm ¶

12. DivergentDana wrote:

    This argument is actually true, to a certain extent — the skull is the only part of the human skeleton that racial makeup can be determined from, however, and there are only 3-4 recognized racial categories in phys anthropology — there is no cranial classification for Latino, Arab, or South Asian — groups that are widely identified as seperate social races. That being said, there are genetic markers that set the latter two groups apart, but identifying genetic markers can also be found in groups that aren’t currently considered social races, like Mediterraneans. Due to hypodescent in America, someone can be socially black, yet biologically white, and there’s — say it with me “more in-group variation than there is between racial groups.” All it proves is what everyone already knows… groups have different facial features and skin/eye/hair colors as a result of inbreeding in relatively isolated environments for long amounts of time.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 3:27 pm ¶

13. kerrita k. wrote:

    franksky- i think the u.s. is stuck on phenotypic race, not genotypic. for my countering the argument – as i do with my students – i point out that race as we use it in an american context is a historical, economic, social, external and therefore phenotypic category. this category is about people’s perceptions and is a old as the hills and everybody does it.

    while the genotype of ‘race’ (which we now use in quotes as a class) – is clearly the result of intragroup reproduction and therefore represents the passage of genetic material between persons who are attracted to each other. this category is how people actually interact and is a wonderful and emerging scientific pursuit in fields that explore how certain medicines interact with a person’s genotype.

    the two categories under this definition then interact and co-evolve.

    :0)
    -kerrita k.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 4:06 pm ¶

14. kerrita k. wrote:

    oh. sorry. fransky – **where ARE my glasses?**
    :0)
    a book i use with my class – which they actually like – is mark smith’s
    how race is made.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶

15. jed wrote:

    >> “Color-blindness” reflects the deeper denial pervasive in shared American consciousness.

    Do you actually expect that to sell to the mainstream? That may play well in the university classroom, but it won’t get any mileage in the “typical american living room”. Whites who hear psychobabble like that think “they just need something to squawk about”. Hell, many americans don’t even believe in the “shared American consciousness” regardless of whether the issue is racism, sexism, or even food.

    Further, take “the other seven must be afflicted by colorblindness” and “when people proclaim that they’re colorblind, what they’re really implying is that race no longer matters in America”. Talk about making “assumptions about that person’s intellectual or emotional characteristics”!

    Here is the basic problem with saying people are in denial: you are trying to prove a negative. Either come up with a better marketing strategy, or accept colorblindness as a compromise few generations. After all, racism is a learned behavior, and if colorblindness minimizes overt racist actions, then no child will have a role to model.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶

16. DivergentDana wrote:

    I don’t understand… I thought you wanted to see “alternatives discussed”, jed, not dismiss them with a hand fling and a “that’ll never sell in Topeka”, then present an ultimatum. That being said… is there anything particularly ivory towerish about my alternative, jed?

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 4:45 pm ¶

17. Black Canseco wrote:

    As I wrote in KNOCK THE HUSTLE, colorblindness is for dogs and flies.

    People are not crayons, and Blackness is more than ink or a superficial trait. You don’t stripmine and co-opt people of ownership every cultural cue they possess (history, language, music, etc.) then play the “it’s just a color, get over it” game.

    you can, and we do as a society… and you’ve seen how well that’s worked so far.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

18. Winn wrote:

    Wow, Jed! What “mainstream” are you referring to? What “typical American living room”? The one where “hardworking White Americans” live? Perhaps you can afford to dismiss it as “psychobabble” (jargon as meaningless as what it purports to refer to), but one of the points of Carmen’s article was that colorblindness does not, as you put it, “minimize overt racist actions”, or even covert ones for that matter. Colorblindness is not only unrealistic, it is dismissive, invalidating, and emboldens the infrastructure of institutional racism that impacts our lives far more than slurs from Don Imus or nooses hung in front of someone’s door. It is a vestige of privilege, a way of patting oneself on the back without doing the hard ward that is required to really wrestle with racism and its pervasive entanglement in the fabric of American life (whether that life is a shared experience or varies wildly among disparate groups). Your flippant response reinforces what we already knew; that most people not directly affected by racism can’t be bothered to deal with it. It’s not about being in denial, it’s about being oblivious, and I fail to see how the colorblind “compromise” has moved us any further toward parity or true diversity, or challenged anyone to see the world more expansively, realistically, and inclusively. Those people convinced they don’t notice race or just see “people as people” have a real impact on my life and those of people of color, because their dismissal of racism as a contemporary and entrenched reality that goes beyond KKK rallies and restricted public facilities can limit opportunities, fail to redress legitimate grievances, reinforce stereotypes, and further marginalize the people they claim to value as “human beings”. There’s a fantastic documentary, dated but still effective, that shows the fallacy of colorblindness starkly: The Color of Fear, from 1995.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 5:24 pm ¶

19. Treacle wrote:

    Jed,

    Why are you here?

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶

20. Joseph wrote:

    @ Cara
    “As for “color-blindness”…..If a person doesn’t see your color/ethnic heritage – then they don’t see you! I want people to see ME; I want them to see my heritage. I love my heritage and I believe to know Black ppl (or any other ppl for that matter) is to love them. This is one of the biggest examples of white privilege. Whites can say that they are color blind, but People of Color can’t b/c they are constantly being reminded of their non-whiteness.”

    Cosign. But…

    What if when people see you they can’t “see” your race/ethnicity? I make no special effort to “pass” but every day there are people who walk right by me and have no idea I am an Arab. I have one of those faces…green eyes, full lips, curly hair, fair skin: people love to assume that I am what they are. Those of us that fall somewhere between “Black” and “White” in US American culture are likely to be invisible to this sort of scrutiny. But while the benefits of racial/ethnic invisibility are well-documented no one ever talks about the downside: i.e. the danger you can find yourself in when the people all around you suddenly realize that you aren’t one of them after all. The ground can shift pretty fast when this happens, lemme tell you. I used to wish I were darker when I was younger, specifically for this reason. All those white people who tell you they “Don’t see color” aren’t necessarily thrilled when they–literally–can’t see it. White people do NOT like a “double agent.”

    Just to be clear: I am not suggesting any “post-racial” nonsense I am just arguing for some subtlety here because the alternative to the fallacy of colorblindness isn’t perpetual visibility…at least not for some us.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 6:14 pm ¶

21. NancyP wrote:

    Genetic origin is biological. The tendency to instantly evaluate a person by degree of visual similarity is probably biological (hard-wired). “Race”, as used commonly, is a social construct, poorly defined, that tends to collect all sorts of characteristics that have NO correlation to genetic ancestry.

    One can infer where distant ancestors came from using polymorphic regions on mitochondria (inherited only through the maternal line) and Y chromosomes. That data supports the idea that Homo sapiens migrated from Africa to all other places on the globe (eventually). One can trace migration routes – Iceland has lots of typical “Norwegian” Ys, compatible with its settlement in about 900 CE by Norwegian men who had pissed off someone important or committed crimes. A lot of the mitochondriae sequences indicated that a large proportion of the women had Irish, Welsh, Scottish, English bloodlines, consistent with the known fact that the Icelanders kidnapped female slaves and concubines from those locations. One can also use DNA analysis of 100,000s of autosomal polymorphisms to recognize “typical” polymorphism set held by individuals from a particular geographic origin.

    Likely ancestry can be inferred by physical anthropology, but this is not without error. Likewise, very kinky hair typically indicates “recent” (few thousand years) subSaharan African origin, but there are genetic disorders in European-descent individuals which superficially mimic SSAfrican hair (not comparable under the microscope, though).

    The whole phenotypic “origin recognition system” (bone structure, hair) becomes more inaccurate with intermarriage.

    The problem is in defining “race”. Which criteria generally get used? The phenotypic ones, which are less reliable than genotypic criteria. Between the mitochondrial, Y chromosome, and autosomal DNA, one can detect characteristics of a particular origin (and more than one origin) in someone who does not resemble the stereotypical “pure blooded” (ancestors have been from one general location) example. Ie, lots of “white” supposed European-only-origin people have significant quantities of “black” SSAfrican genotype. And vice versa.

    I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t walk down the street with a DNA analyzer figuring out where on the origins continuum the passersby are located, and finding a wholly artificial cut-off point separating the continuum into two (or more) groups. I look at them and note skin color, hair, build, facial features. I classify the person according to societally defined cut-off point for “European” or “African”. All this happens in a split second, as does the classification of people into “men” and “women”. Close kin? Distant kin? Clearly from some other area? Candidate for sex act? Recognition of general phenotypic characteristics of one’s own group, and ability to identify the obviously out-of-group individual, is probably a deep evolutionary mechanism.

    So I believe that there is a biological basis to the tendency for people to identify degree of relatedness (too closely related to fuck? sufficiently different to fuck?)(our region vs. from somewhere else), and being human and with lousy smell, we do it visually. Some mammals classify relatedness by smell, and prefer to mate with individuals with a very different smell than immediate family.

    The concept of “race” is artificial, given that we measure likely genetic origin by only a few traits which are sometimes misleading, and we are measuring characteristics that occur on a continuum, not on a bimodal or trimodal distribution. The dividing points for these few traits aren’t there biologically. The classifications are defined and the dividing points designated by social consensus, and can differ markedly. The socially determined lumping of non-origin-specific characteristics onto the social construct of “race” is the main reason “race” has such power.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 6:30 pm ¶

22. Cara wrote:

    @jed

    I’m a little confused here…..your comment seemed to come out of West Hell or something. Did you read or skim? Colorblindness DOES NOT minimize racist actions! In fact, I think the concept is racist and dismissive of racial reality in America. That was apart of my point. You can’t just say things and make them so. Word’s with out action (in this case being a change in racist beliefs and the recognition of those beliefs) is nothing but empty rhetoric.

    And why does a racist action have to be “overt”? When P.O.C. are “reminded” (as I stated earlier) of thier non-whiteness, it is not often “overt”. It is subtle, but it still implies to them that they are not “American” enough, not “smart” enough, not “beautiful” enough, not “rich” enough, etc. to reach the *freakin’* white-supremist-heterosexual-partriarchal standard! [sorry was that last sentence too 'university classroom' for you?]

    In regards to your “Do you actually expect that to sell to the mainstream? ” comment – hey, I’m not trying to sell anything…..When people start to get real about race it wont be “mainstream” b/c it wont be popular. When we really start to look at ourselves and see our racism/prejudice for what it is – it is going to hurt. It wont feel good! And we may not want to all join hands, sing and hug at the end.

    When Race was created, socially and “legally,” it began a process (instiutional and social) that oppressed and brutalized masses of people. So why would we assume the aftermath (post-racial consciousness) would be pain-less and without termoil? – AND, without a need to actually do some reading (research) into what the foundations of Racism (systematically and socially) are all about. This thing can’t happen just by conversation (though ‘listening’ and talking to each other with respect is definitely the biggest part). We need to talk about the supreme court cases and laws that helped shape Race in the U.S. People didn’t come upt with race in their head, they had some institutional help along the way.

    The greatest education (in regards to Race awareness) you recieve is the one you give yourself! The best discoveries of what is wrong with all of us (racist or self proclaimed non-racist) will happen outside of the classroom. But not necessarily outside of the library or chamber of commerse! All of the resources (and proof) we need is out their to help you interpret what is going on. Everyone, including regular folks and university folks, will have to come to the table. Next time please don’t make snobbish remarks.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 6:31 pm ¶

23. SarahMC wrote:

    I hate when people claim colorblindness.
    To me, that sounds a lot like, “I barely even notice you’re black (or Asian, Latin@, etc)!” As though non-whiteness is objectively something one must overcome, passing over into “normalcy.”
    I’ve found that people often claim to be colorblind when attempting to shut down discussions of race and how racism impacts people’s lives.
    Colorblindness is not the goal. People should not have to lack color, so to speak. Instead, we should all recognize, appreciate, and respect each other’s (different) racial identities.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 7:42 pm ¶

24. TKO wrote:

    Jed: “After all, racism is a learned behavior, and if colorblindness minimizes overt racist actions, then no child will have a role to model.”

    Colorblindness (in your world) may “minimize” overt racism, but it does not eliminate it. More importantly what does colorblindness do for covert racism? Covert racism is more dangerous than overt racism. Yes, you’re right; racism is a learned behavior…but just because someone does not verbalize or openly express their racism, does not mean that it cannot be learned (and yes, there are plenty of examples, but for the sake of brevity, I will leave them out).

    To be honest, the term “colorblindness” is really starting to get on my nerves. Do you really want to live in a colorblind society? I don’t. I want people to acknowledge and accept me for who I am, and race is a part of who I am.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 7:43 pm ¶

25. superchunk12 wrote:

    Perfect Cara, Perfect.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 7:56 pm ¶

26. Mogs wrote:

    hold up, y’all. how does a lack of “feelings of racial prejudice” automatically equal “colorblind”? it’s totally possible to acknowledge that race matters in society today without personally being racist. in fact, if i had to guess, i’d say that’s why most of the people reading this blog are here. given the wording of the actual question that survey respondents were asked, i don’t think you can conclude that all these people think we live in a “post racial” society.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 8:04 pm ¶

27. lxy wrote:

    The concept of “post-racial” is just an oh-so-trendy euphemism for assimilating into Mainsteam Amurikan culture. It’s not surprising that a Corporate media mouthpiece like CNN would be touting this idea.

    In practice, it means that people of color should melt into the dominant White culture and effectively subordinate their own ethnicity.

    In general, the ideas of “post-racial” and “color-blindness” are designed to deny the reality of White power and domination.

    For those people who say that they believe in “color-blindness,” I always tell them: Then have Whites give up they power possess as a result of America’s racial caste system.

    But giving up power of course is the very LAST THING that most Whites want to do.

    Instead, they pretend that White socio-economic and cultural power don’t exist with all this rhetoric about colorblindess.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 8:35 pm ¶

28. NancyP wrote:

    Crap, I am boring for America again. Sorry.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 9:48 pm ¶

29. Ejunco wrote:

    Well all people have some form of prejudice towards other people doesn’t have to be race it can be music, style of fashion, a sub culture but well have that small racial prejudice like where we talk amongst close friends and criticize other ethnic groups for the wrong things they do and such, it’s normal not in a sense it’s good but you got to work at erasing that prejudice.

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 11:08 pm ¶

30. Yemisi Blake wrote:

    Nice post, Carmen!
    best,
    Yemisi

    Posted 24 Jun 2008 at 11:29 pm ¶

31. Korolev wrote:

    I’m pretty sure everyone has a bit of prejudice in them, whether it be against race, religion, nationality, wealth, etc. I’m also sure that everyone generalizes (unconsciously or consciously) about some races. The thing that separates a racist from a non-racist is the fact that a non-racist recognizes his or her prejudices, and combats actively against them, while a racist embraces his or her prejudices.

    Personally, I tend to judge people on their clothes. I know it’s wrong, but I do. I also make assumptions about a person’s intelligence based on how they speak, which again, I know, is very wrong, but it’s an instant reaction. If someone talks trash, I tend to think very badly of them, even though they could be perfectly nice people.

    I’m also prejudiced against religious believers, even though most religious people that I have met have been very nice, private people, who don’t preach to me (it’s just that I had a few bad experiences with fundamentalists).

    That score of 3 out of ten is obviously inaccurate. A more accurate score would by 10 out of 10 or at least 8 out of 10. That doesn’t mean that 8 out of 10 people are racist, but at the very least prejudiced.

    Prejudice is something that occurs in all of us, because of our troubling habit of putting things into boxes (in our minds). In order to deal with the world, we tend to categorize things. Intellectually, we know that these generalizations are not accurate pictures, or can even be wrong, and we have to fight instinct with reason.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 12:12 am ¶

32. Korolev wrote:

    And one more thing – people aren’t colour blind, in the sense that they can’t see ethnicity. Everyone sees it, and I’d wager that most, if not all, people have prejudices and stereotypes associated with ethnicity. However, don’t we WANT a colour blind world? Don’t we WANT a world where race and ethnicity are not given any importance? A world where everyone is treated based on their own merits and personalities? I know that’s not the world we live in, but maybe that’s a world we should aim for.

    Race is biologically unimportant. All ethnic groups are equal members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. That’s genetics, as Nancy P wonderfully pointed out. Different ethnic groups can inter-marry and produce fertile offspring, which is the text-book definition of a species. Because interracial children are possible, it proves, beyond all doubt, that all races are part of the same species, and are biologically equivalent.

    I don’t believe in “separate-but-equal”. There is not “separate”. There is no significant biological difference between white people, black people, middle eastern people, asian people, etc, etc. I hate it when people say “My People”. No, there is no “my people” or “your people”, there’s just PEOPLE – the human species Homo sapiens sapiens. And that is the truth, handed down to us by science. We are all one species, indivisible genetically. Only the petty, cosmetic differences cause such division and strife.

    I know that in modern day societies, race is still important, from a social perspective. A black person in the US will be discriminated against. I understand that. Socially, the idea of race still holds much power.

    However, race is purely social. When people say that “I’m proud to be black” or “I’m proud to be white” or “I’m proud to be chinese” or “I’m proud to be arab”, I can’t understand it, because there is no real difference between any of those groups. They are all human!

    In a perfect world, race would have no importance at all. No division would be allowed to exist. People would be called “human” and that would be that. Ethnicity would be given no quarter, given no importance at all. That is my perfect society – where humanity remains united, totally, by the fact that we are one species.

    I probably won’t see such a world in my lifetime. Discrimination remains rampant. Race is still seen as being biologically important, despite mountains of scientific data proving that it is not. But as the older generation dies, as more and more multi-racial people are born, maybe, just maybe, the idea of race will finally die, as it should. And then we will be one species united under a single banner – humanity.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 1:02 am ¶

33. lxy wrote:

    Korolev: your messianic rhetoric about a united colorblind humanity is disingenous but typical of the false universalism that most Whites and even non-Whites preach.

    While many people are fooled by this stirring rhetoric about a “common humanity,” they do not bother to examine closely what is the actual political content and effect of this “We Are the World” vision in practice: a de facto form of White domination in which White priviledge and power are now effectively hidden and denied behind the veil of “Colorblindness.”

    This is a false humanism.

    A better vision of universal humanism would begin from a different political perspective: the abolition of White privilege, power, and identity itself, as people like Noel Ignatiev has written extensively about.

    The philosophy behind Ignatiev’s work can be summarized in a single eloquent sentence: “Treason against Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity.”

    “The Point Is Not To Interpret Whiteness But To To Abolish It”
    http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 7:54 am ¶

34. CEdwards wrote:

    I have to write that I always get a little irritated when people bring up race as a social construct or insignificant part of biology. How does that erase its current and present importance in US and world politics and in society? I’m sure, like most black people who travel to New York City that when the cab driver passes you by you think to yourself, “Wow, really wish race was just a social construct right now…”

    It’s a nice thought, the idea of colorblindness but as it has been so eloquently put by many in this thread, it negates the realities of racism. When someone says they don’t see my color, there’s a list of things that go through my head, but the most important thought is “well, you must be blind, because you don’t see me.” Even if there was no racism or sexism, I’d want someone to recognize that I am black and female, as these are important aspects that make me who I am.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 8:31 am ¶

35. NancyP wrote:

    The ” ‘race’ is a social construct” subthread originated with a query about how to answer a commenter on the Anderson Cooper thread who was talking about race being biological. Generally these commenters go on to assign all sorts of complex traits to different races, and rank races according to ability….you know the score.

    It is trivial to say that there are some biological differences based on geographic origin of one’s distant ancestors. I am a pasty white Northerner whose ancestors would have been prone to rickets at that geographic location if they hadn’t lost some melanin.

    People are more than walking homes for variable densities of melanocytes. People overestimate the biological differences, and fail to recognize that 99.9% of biological variability does not correlate with race.

    Stating that ” race” is a social construct emphasizes that all sorts of societal and individual attitudes are assigned to physical characteristics – including the reluctance of NYC cabbies to pick up black fares. It emphasizes that some of the medical conditions observed to be more common in American blacks are NOT the results of “black-specific” genetic variations, but are the results of shitty environment caused by social attitudes, ie, racism. For example, ypertension, childhood asthma. ….. The public health solution to health disparities involves changing the racist social environment.

    I think that the “colorblindness” comments often reflect a white person’s hopes for one-on-one interactions. There’s room for education there, if the white person is sincere. Most white people are not used to thinking about history, social infrastructure, social movements, class, race, gender. We are a nation of TV-watching slugs, by and large – not deep thinkers or curious observers, sadly.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 11:15 am ¶

36. CVT wrote:

    People would never claim to be “Gender-Blind,” although sexism is obviously a large issue in this country. So why the $*#& do people think that being “Color-Blind” makes any sense whatsoever?

    “Gee, I didn’t even notice that that was a woman I was talking to – I just thought that it was a HUMAN BEING . . .”

    For those who proclaim “color-blindness” or argue for it – spend a day walking around talking about “gender-blindness” and actively swapping the tenets of color-blindness into it, and then come back to me and let me know how that worked out for you (and how sincere it felt).

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 11:38 am ¶

37. DivergentDana wrote:

    And if there’s so many self-professed “colorblind” people out there, why are marriage and residential patterns so color-conscious? It can’t be a coincidence, and SES doesn’t explain it all.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 2:36 pm ¶

38. kerrita k. wrote:

    ha! right words in the right post. life is sweet!
    :0)
    @ cvt – i love that statement.! can i steal it and use it with my students?

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶

39. Mike wrote:

    None of this helps us answer where it is we want to be. How should Americans interact: how should a multicultural society function?

    Color-blindness is a weak and characteristically white solution to a tough problem. It tries to answer this:

    “How can I help others without punishing myself?”

    If the answer is that white America must punish itself to help others, where is the incentive for young white people to participate? Why should any white kid buy into a self-denigrating philosophy?

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 3:40 pm ¶

40. NancyP wrote:

    BTW, Divergent Dana, I am currently reading a book on white-led pogroms and restrictive covenants, “Sundown Towns”, by James Leuwen. Barely cracked it, and already it is fascinating – it basically explains residential segregation. It wasn’t just Tulsa’s black neighborhoods (1921) that were razed by whites, hundreds more towns and cities in the Midwest have documentary evidence of pogroms from 1900 onward.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 4:59 pm ¶

41. CVT wrote:

    Kerrita K. – by all means, “steal” away . . . It’s reassuring to see other teachers on this site.

    Mike –
    This is what white folks have a hard time understanding – acknowledging race is NOT prejudice. IGNORING it is not a solution.

    So where do we want to be? In a place where I can say, “This is my friend. He is black. And his experience of being black in America has lent to these various aspects of who he is, and I like talking to him about that to get that viewpoint and knowledge, so I know how to walk in the world in a positive way. However, we are friends not because he is black, but because of these various shared interests/experiences (listing, BLANK, BLANK, and BLANK) and because we respect each other.”

    I don’t know why that is so hard to accept. Because being white lends to different experiences than being any other race. Just as being a woman lends to different experiences than a man. Being a teacher versus being an electrician. Living in a city versus a small town. Having one parent or two. Yet, only with race does anyone offer IGNORANCE as a solution for mis-understanding or differences.

    People ask friends about their jobs, families, where they came from, past relationships, etc. Why would race be any different? How is that “punishing” white people? Is it punishment to ask that they treat racial background as an important aspect of life experience and identity? As far as I can tell, I did not write that we must bash white people – being white is also an experience that should be acknowledged.

    It never fails to drive me crazy when I have this conversation with certain folks – because it just shouldn’t be this hard to understand – but the weird defensiveness and fear of acknowledging race prevents any progress.

    “Color-blindness” as a philosophy is consciously-invoked ignorance offered as righteous solution. Please, people, just THINK for a second before defending the concept.

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 5:40 pm ¶

42. lxy wrote:

    “If the answer is that white America must punish itself to help others, where is the incentive for young white people to participate? Why should any white kid buy into a self-denigrating philosophy?”

    By this logic, America’s chattel slavery and Jim Crow Apartheid systems should not have been abolished.

    After all, if the answer is that White America must punish itself by (formally) ending its slave system or Jim Crow apartheid, where is the incentive for young Whites to participate. Why should any White kid buy into a self-denigrating philosophy that denies the superiority and right of White people to enslave or subordinate non-Whites?

    Why, any self-respecting White man or woman would not tolerate such a self-denigrating atrocity!

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 8:07 pm ¶

43. KadiBaby wrote:

    I just wanted to thank the Racialicious commenters for helping me understand the HRC dems political posturing. The openness of dialogue and differing of opinions on this blog has really helped in my education of America’s nuanced socio-political dynamics. A very useful supplement to my undergrad education!

    Posted 25 Jun 2008 at 9:08 pm ¶