Colorblindness is the New Racism, Armstrong & Wildman

Colorblindness is the New Racism: Armstrong & Wildman
Argument: These
authors, Armstrong and Wildman argue that the practice of seeing the world
through a lens of colorblindness, a concept first adopted by the courts,
fosters a “head in the sand” mentality with regard to the role race has in our
modern society. Instead, they suggest an
approach of “color insight” which allows for vocabulary and methods to
communicate about the role of race and whiteness in educational and legal
settings. Armstrong and Wildman not only
discuss this approach, but provide useful steps toward attaining color insight
in the classroom which as a reader I appreciate. It is nice to discuss ideas, theory and
semantics, but I want concrete strategies to employ! Thank you Armstrong and Wildman….
Quote(s): “With
whiteness as the default assumption, Whites can claim they do not discriminate
because they often do not think in racial terms. Whites may observe the discriminatory
treatment of non-whites and consider only the disadvantages that flow from
being non-White without having to consider any of the benefits of appearing to
be White…. Racism does not exist to Whites
who reason “Racism is not my problem because I am not someone with a race or do
I think badly about other races. I do
not even usually think about race.”
Response:This is an interesting and enlightening statement made by
the authors. I would have to agree that
whiteness is the “default” assumption or the norm so to speak by which other
races are measured. Because whiteness is
the default norm, whites do not see themselves as a race category. Whites view race as other groups of people
with skin tones different from their own.
Whites tend to be segregated in communities, schools and the workplace
and therefore do not regularly interact with non-whites . This seclusion provides blinders, so to speak,
or a shelter of whiteness that does not present opportunities for interaction
with others. Racial issues and
experiences happen to non-whites usually in other neighborhoods.
The opportunities for
thoughts about race may only come from the news or social media for example,
which is fleeting and momentary. These
encounters or stories about people of other races that present issues for
discussion or contemplation are purely optional and are quickly replaced with
the next story.
The authors go on to say that whites only contemplate the
negative effects of race when they hear of a story in which race discrimination
happened to someone else. In these
moments, when a news story is broadcast over the TV or radio, the White person
would naturally consider and sympathize with how difficult it might be to be of
another race. However the authors state
this is not enough. They must also
consider the benefits of being white.
This is the part that I need to spend time contemplating. The authors suggest that whites who do not
acknowledge the privileges enjoyed by virtue of their whiteness are culpable in
racism.
It is true that whites don’t see themselves in terms of race
and often don’t even think about race because it doesn’t enter their world. I am not sure that I agree with the statement
that the white person can “claim they do not discriminate” because they don’t
often think in racial terms. There is a difference between whites who overtly discriminate and harbor racist
views in their hearts and whites who do not, but are guilty of living in their
own little (white) bubbles. Yes, they could
be described as ignorant or colorblind even, but does that rise to the level of being racist and conscious discrimination against others? I
think not. Could Whites stand to be enlightened as
I have by reading these articles and taking a master’s level course in social
issues in education and become more self-aware of the concept of white
privilege? Yes of course, and it is
needed. The challenge I have is first
becoming more aware of and recognizing white privilege in all it's forms, and then figuring out what to do about
it.
I agree with the argument that you stated the authors are trying to make regarding colorblindness and the need to have color insight. I like how you cited that you enjoyed the concrete examples offered by the authors to achieve color insight so the topic became more real and it was more than just semantics. I agree that whites are the default norm to which different races are measured. Reflecting on your post, I never realized that my neighborhood and school system as both a child and as an adult with children were predominately white. I enjoyed the discussion on how you interpreted the author's views and your reflections. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very informative. Thank you for sharing your insights on colorblindness versus color insight. I also thought back to my childhood neighborhood and school and realized that both were also predominantly white. Until I began to work in an urban school district, I have very little true life interactions with families of color.
ReplyDeleteI really like the layout of your posts! I think having the subheads to break up the content makes the information far more digestible. I too found myself questioning the use of certain terminology and connotations. Are those who don't actively see privilege being racist? Is that a term reserved for those that carry hatred and outright discrimination toward others? I thought back to Johnson and how he believed we need to stop carrying an inherently negative connotation to these words and how we must take them back. That makes sense in theory, but then how do we separate the people in "white bubbles" from those who feel like a dominant race? Once again I find myself really interested and equally confused haha!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the layout of the post was really helpful! Vinny, I think that to not actively see privilege you have to have it. While not seeing privilege may not be explicitly racist, I think this goes back to what Johnson said about being complicit in the 'trouble. I don't think the terms 'racist' or 'racism' automatically assume a malicious intent. Since racism involves systemic oppression, how we participate or benefit from institutions of power is a racist practice. I read the idea of 'taking back' these words as understanding that while we may have never tried to be 'racist,' by not trying we allow these institutions to persist.
DeleteCheryl, it is clear that your post is a success because it inspired so many thoughtful comments and interesting discussion! I think what you name here (in a clear and well organized way) is the key issue of this course: Is discrimination the overt acts of "meanness" or ill intent that is represented by segregated schools or lynchings... or is it also the words of "All Live Matter" per the Kevin Noose piece? Does it require malicious intention or can it by painfully unaware? Great things to keep talking about!! Thanks for getting us talking.
ReplyDelete