An Abstract

I’m Color-blind But What Are You, Anyway?

Racism in the United States exists under a relatively new guise. Where once the “one drop rule” supported overt racial discrimination, a “color-blind” racial ideology now supports a more covert system of racial inequality (Bonilla-Silva 2003, Carr 1997; Frankenberg 1993).

A dominant ideology is a belief system that supports and rationalizes current social arrangements. Those who maintain a color-blind perspective on race 1) maintain that success in life is primarily based on individual effort rather than group membership and 2) refuse to acknowledge racial differences or talk about racial issues (for fear of appearing racist) (Schofield 1986). Color-blind Americans make “efforts to ‘not see’ race differences despite [race’s] continued salience in society” (Frankenberg 1993:149). This new racial ideology in the United States (from about the mid-1980s to the present) is connected to what Bonilla-Silva (2003) refers to as color-blind racism. He outlines four main “frames” of color-blind racism: abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. (1) Abstract liberalism uses the language of equal opportunity and free choice for all as a basis for opposing many concrete policies of anti-discrimination. The assumption is that if we all just believe in these ideals, no particular policies or interventions will be necessary to combat the centuries of legal racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and exclusion. (2) Naturalization explains away patterns such as racial segregation in housing and endogamous social networks and marriages as “just the way things are” since people somehow automatically gravitate toward “their own kind.” The assumption is that it is “just natural” (not socially prescribed or conditioned) that people avoid others who are racially unlike them. As with abstract liberalism, the resulting line of thinking is that nothing in particular needs to be done or should be done about something as “natural” as segregation. (3) Cultural racism describes people of color as lacking in family values, discipline, work ethic and morality. These traits are seen as learned in impoverished or insuitable communities rather than as inborn. Yet again, this ideology steers one away from supporting antiracist policy initiatives, since “values” are not seen as able to be changed through public policy. (4) Minimization of racism is simply the outlook that racial discrimination is rare, and occurs only in isolated, fluke incidents, if at all. What follows from this is that people of color are seen as whining, complaining, and over-exaggerating discrimination (Bonilla-Silva 2003:28-29). An ideology is only successful to the extent that it can permeate an entire culture, both dominant and subordinate groups. Both Carr (1997) and Bonilla-Silva (2001, 2003) used data to show that, while whites express color-blind ideology much more than do blacks, a good number of blacks also at times subscribe to the color-blind ideology. Thus, when referring to color-blind ideology, we are referring not only to some commonalities in whites’ views on race, but to an entire belief system which upholds and rationalizes the given power structure of a society.

People from all political perspectives have embraced the concept of color-blindness and argue that it is the cure for race-based problems in our society. Bonilla-Silva (2003) points out that there are specific storylines, rhetorical devices, and language patterns common across the US that form the basis of this color-blind ideology. People often use the language of equal opportunity and free choice for all as a basis for opposing many concrete policies of anti-discrimination. For instance, growing numbers of conservative politicians, pundits, and scholars advocate a color-blind perspective towards social issues. Many, such as George Will, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Newt Gingrich, and Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom sprinkle their anti-affirmative action arguments with the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: we should “be judged by the content of [our] character rather than the color of [our] skin.” They argue that race-based policies are inherently racist (Rockwell 1995, Will 2002, Thernstrom & Thernstrom 1997).

Many left-leaning Americans are also drawn towards a “color-blind” view of society (Brown et. al 2003). These proponents of color-blindness tend to believe that if we act as if race does not matter, it will not matter. In fact, many social scientists say “the idea of color-blindness has become the orthodox view among most Americans.” (Carr 1997; Frankenberg 1993; Williams 1998, Hitchcock 2002, Bonnilla-Silva 2003). Increasing numbers of Americans, on all sides of the political spectrum, have come to the conclusion that a color-blind ideology is the solution to racial problems.

Believers in color-blindness argue that “race should not and does not matter” (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, and Browne 2000). They say that blacks and whites should be viewed, described, and treated simply as individuals rather than members of particular races. Following this line of reasoning, proponents of color-blindness argue that social science has not caught up to the changing times. In fact, many say that social scientists, by studying issues of race, actually perpetuate racism by giving credence to the notion that race matters. Conference panellists discussing their research on racial issues are sometimes accused by some audience members of worsening racial problems through their work. Color-blindness has influenced U.S. society at all levels. Structurally, civil rights legislation and Affirmative Action (AA) programs have been struck down in the courts and through the ballot box (Brown et. al 2003). Culturally, we have seen the colorblind ideology disseminated throughout the media (Demott 1995, Korgen 2002).
Individuals’ opinions about racial issues and even conversations about race have been influenced by this increasingly dominant ideology (Bonilla-Silva 2003). Even the interactions between close cross-racial friends reflect the influence of the color-blind ideology (Korgen 2002). This reluctance to speak about racial issues on the individual level leads to and supports color-blind policies and laws on the structural level. Structures that protect white racial privilege remain firmly protected under the cloak of color-blindness. If color-blind perspectives towards race exist even among whites with close cross-racial friends, structural racial inequities will remain ignored and in place.

Abstract:

This article is about how people of United States are changing their way to relation with people of another race. There is a new view about this problem, in fact is taken as a solution of it, it's the color-blindness, this means that it doesn't matter what color are you, it only matters your personality and abilities. The point is that color shouldn't be a discrimination factor for anything, we are all the same, we are all people.
In United States racism is really arranged, so this study tried to know if color-blindness is a perspective that has changed the way that whites and blacks relate to each other. the results are that instead of indicating a decline in the importance of race, the color-blind ideology acts as both a cover for the obsession with race in U.S. society and a subtle but effective reinforcement for it.