The Forgotten Ones

Katie Vormittag

In the last few chapters of Bonilla-Silva’s Racism Without Racists, topics such as affirmative action are discussed between interviewers and respondents. Interviewers tried to gauge who was supportive of affirmative action and who was against it. From their answers, he then made connections to their gender and age. What he found was that most of the respondents who were supportive of affirmative action were younger females and blacks of all ages. Those that were against it were generally white and didn't agree with the inequality that whites were now receiving because of the affirmative action. Through all of the interviews it was made clear to the reader, or at least to me, that those who were directly affected by racism or those who grew up what we think is a less, discriminatory era were supportive and those that were on the other side of it were opposing. To me, this struck a chord personally because as affirmative action is in place to prevent black people from being discriminated against in the workplace and in university admissions, there are other groups that have been affected by tragedy that do not receive those same benefits. For example, one side of my family is Jewish and I had ancestors from Poland and some other European areas that were directly affected by World War II and the Holocaust. If they had not moved to the United States before Hitler came to power, I may not even be in existence. However, although my family has suffered from religious prejudice, I do not feel like I am owed anything. It was recorded that six million Jews were executed, yet there aren't any known organizations out there now that have anything to do with repairing the damage done and giving any benefits to the families affected. If certain groups are being compensated for discrimination, then all groups that have experienced similar tragedies need to be compensated as well. If that makes things too complicated, then everyone should be treated equally across the board. Discrimination will always be present; therefore, when one group receives more of something than another, the cycle continues. By eliminating anything extra for any one group, this makes discrimination even less likely. By eradicating specialties among any one group, no one is to blame for favoritism. Just as there is discrimination against Blacks, there is discrimination against all races. Therefore, favoring one group is unfair to others. By helping one race, another is being hurt. If this were equal among other groups, then Germans today should be discriminated against because their ancestors most likely participated in the Nazi regime and crucified the Jews in Eastern Europe. I do not feel like the hatred towards Blacks is fair; however, adding benefits that ends up hurting other racial groups is not fixing the problem. With every benefit given to the group discriminated against the most, the more everyone is reminded that prejudice beliefs are continuously being recycled. Not any one person today is to blame for the awful things that happened either in slavery or in the Holocaust, so this is why everyone today should be on the same playing field. 


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=i5Sev2dRrebenM&tbnid=xoy1SK0P1DML-M:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeminspire.com%2Fabigail-fisher-fights-affirmative-action-at-university-of-texas%2F&ei=iSJzUpvuDZDlyAHsooDICQ&bvm=bv.55819444,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNEuEEN9YsDQDmc_8oCdH4pOoCfUfQ&ust=1383363591235038

No such thing as Colorblind

           Racism and racial inequalities seem to be particularly hot topics of our society in this day and age.  In chapter 7 of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s Racism without Racists, white college students were interviewed about their views on minorities and the laws regarding them. Many would say that all white people are racists or at least have some racial tendencies. However the findings concluded that there most certainly are white racial progressives whom do not have prejudices or discriminate against other races. Yes our society is filled with many white people claiming to be “colorblind” (which we all know is not the case) but there are those who truly believe in equality. Many white people do not support affirmative action and think that they are somehow being treated unfairly when they did not do anything wrong. But I would chalk this up to be white people not being knowledgeable about the struggles other races face and have faced for many years. Staci, one of the female interviewees believes that being white is an advantage and when you have white-skin privilege “things are more accessible to you. You don’t walk into somewhere and you’re not automatically judge by your skin color” (190). White people have a privilege that they may not but should be aware of because it is noticeable and quite obvious. Due to some whites lack of realization that they have a privilege that other races do not and will never have they fail to understand the hardships and disadvantages that minorities experience.

            I personally support affirmative action and I do not claim to be colorblind but I do of my privilege being white. Although I cannot relate to minorities because I do not know what they have been through, I do believe that every single human being deserves the exact same rights without any discrepancies. The world would be a much better place if there were equality for all but unfortunately due to all of those who oppose this idea I am not so sure if equality will ever see its place in our society. Bonilla-Silva’s research concluded that for the most part white people of the working class particularly women could more closely relate to minorities in terms of socioeconomic status. But why should this be the case? Why is society all about race and class? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, there has to be enough people who know that this inequality is not right and are willing to do something about it. I have not done anything on a large scale of greatness dealing with these issues but I do voice my opinion to those I am close to and I try to educate them about the knowledge I have learned in this class. I think that most people just need some educating and understanding of just how serious this racial issue is. I have come across many people who seem to think that race is no longer of importance today and that it is a “thing of the past” and I think that those people must be living in a separate universe because that could not be any further from the truth.

http://newsreel.org/guides/race/whiteadv.htm

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

Anti-Racists?

      

     Color-blind racism is a new racial ideology in which whites have developed powerful explanations, which have become justifications, for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility for the status of people of color. Most whites rely on this ideology to articulate their views, present their ideas, and interpret interactions with people of color. Because whites believe discrimination is a thing of the past, minorities’ claims that they are being racially profiled, are interpreted as excuses. Whites do not have a problem with their own racial segregation because they do not see it as a racial phenomenon.

Racial progressives are people in which do not follow this pattern. They do not go with the flow of color-blindness. These racial progressives are made up of mostly young, working-class women. For example, Bonilla-Silva interviewed a student at WU named Beth. She grew up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood. Her four friends she mentioned were all of a minority ethnicity. She described herself as “very liberal” and supported interracial marriage strongly. She understood that discrimination affects the life chances of minorities and even supported programs compensating minorities for past discrimination.  An example of a racial progressive in the category of Detroit area residents is an unemployed woman named Sara. She was raised in Detroit in a low-income neighborhood and said the diversity in her neighborhood was a bunch of different people. Her friends correlated to that because she had one Arab friend, one black friend, one white friend, and one Mexican. She has had an affair with a black guy. She believes blacks experience daily discrimination and doesn’t believe that blacks are lazier than whites. She was one of few whites to acknowledge the fact that the company was 97% because of racism.

        These racial progressives were found to be more likely to support affirmative action and interracial marriage, have close personal relations with minorities and blacks in particular, and understand that discrimination is a central factor shaping the life chances of minorities in this country.  Bonilla-Silva has argued that whiteness is “embodied racial power” because all actors socially regarded as ‘white’ receive systemic privileges just by being white whereas those who aren’t white are denied those privileges. The interaction between race and gender has a lot to do with the U.S. being historically antiblack, antiminorty. White male workers have been historically supporting the racial order. White masculinity has provided white men with economic and noneconomic benefits. Bonilla-Silva has pointed out that contemporary racialized capitalism has created a situation in which white women and racial minorities increasingly share similar class conditions in the workplace. These racially progressive women used their own experiences of discrimination as women as a lens through which to they can comprehend minorities’ racial oppression.  

      Throughout history, there have been plenty of women that have been classified as racial progressives. One woman is Lillian Eugenia Smith (1897-1966) who was a writer and social critic of Southern United States. She was a liberal unafraid to criticize segregation and work toward dismantling Jim Crow laws.

http://www.conspireforchange.org/?page_id=7

Affirmative Action or Affirming Stereotypes?

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas
2.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578517602559504498

Eduardo Bonilla- Silva discusses several frameworks of sociology in his book “Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America.” In chapter 7, Bonilla-Silva debates the topic racism and how it is still prevalent in America even in a “post racist” society. Specifically in chapter seven, Silva interviews several African Americans about how they perceive affirmative action. Most of the people interviewed believed that affirmative action was helpful, and should continue to be used in institutions. A common misconception of affirmative action is that it is choosing minority students who are not qualified over qualified white students; this is not the case. For example, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Multer  Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas in 2008 and were denied admission. They blamed it on affirmative action because they found that certain African American students were less qualified. Their reasoning was flawed because there were other African Americans that were also denied application to the university. In this case, Eduardo Bonilla- Silva would explain affirmative action by using his own theory of minimization. White people try to minimize blacks’ issues with getting into schools, and when African Americans succeed, some whites can’t handle it in their precious psyches.

In my own experience, affirmative action has most likely affected me indirectly as well as directly. When I was a senior in high school I applied for admission to two schools. I applied at Illinois State University the University of Illinois: Urbana- Champaign campus. UIUC was my first choice, and I remember taking extra care with this application. I was a 3.5 GPA honor student, in the national honor society, captain of the tennis team, vice president of cultural clubs, and had a wealth of other accolades given to me by teachers and faculty. So when I received my letter of admission from ISU, I knew U of I would accept me. It is needless to say that I was heartbroken when I did not get into U of I. I couldn’t possibly understand why that would happen to me. I continued on to ISU, and eventually NIU, but it always bothered me that I wasn’t accepted to U of I. I remember answering several questions about my race on the application, and I remember assuming that I would be a student because not only did I have the dream resume, but I was also an African American woman. I was under the impression that they had to let me in due to affirmative action. This was not the case, although qualified, my parents were not in the right tax bracket, and so I believe this is the real reason I was not accepted. It is interesting to me that white people hate affirmative action, but they use their own family connections to gain acceptance into schools. Most white students are accepted into schools because their parents are generous alumnus, and they need little to no financial aid to be able to pay their tuition. 

America's Post-Racial Relations

America's Post-Racial Relations

“The white students at Ole Miss who greeted President Obama’s decisive re-election with racial slurs and nasty disruptions on Tuesday night show that the long shadows of race still hang eerily over us. Four years ago, when Mr. Obama became our first African-American president by putting together an impressive coalition of white, black and Latino voters, it might have appeared otherwise. Some observers even insisted that we had entered a “post-racial” era” (Hahn, 1). The question here is do we currently live in a post-racial era? Of course we do not! Racism still exists in the twenty-first century. I being a curly-haired Latina cannot walk into Macy’s without getting stared at. In the image above, are two officers talking about how President Obama lacks respect for police and he is wanted. What makes him lack respect for the police and his country? Due to the fact that he is African American makes him lack respect? This is a great example of how we do NOT live in a post-racial America or colorblind country. Racism and discrimination is still evident today within the judicial system and out. I can relate to this in that when pulled over by police they were shocked that my car was under my name and not my parents. Yes I am a young Latina with a valid driver’s license and up-to-date insurance. They even asked multiple times if I had anything in the car. All I wanted to do was get some ice cream with my boyfriend who is African-American. Moreover, according to Bonilla-Silva, “Obama’s election is a confirmation of the veracity of whites’ claim to be color blind and the beginning of a post-racial America”. Just because the United States has an African American president does not mean racism is no longer a factor in our country. After all, he is not 100% African American. “Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations, few whites in the United States claim to be racist. Most whites claim that they don’t see any color, just people” (Bonilla-Silva, 1). Then why is there such controversy that we have a black president?

Moreover, “we are not a nation devoid of racial discrimination nor are we a nation where race does not matter. Race and racism are still critical factors in determining what happens and who gets ahead in America” (Toure, 1). In the article No Such Place as ‘Post-Racial’ America by Toure, the author discusses the idea that we in fact do not live in a post racial society but although we do not live in that type of society people are beginning to believe we do because why would they use a term that isn’t real? The author describes post-racism as “a mythical idea that should be as painful to the mind’s ear as fingernails on the chalkboard are to the outer ear” (Toure, 1). Racism is not just an idea of the past. “Race is like weather — we only talk about it when it’s extreme but it’s always there” (Toure, 1). I agree with this statement in that, if race is not talked about, it does not exist. The difference between now and then is that now people are not as open to talk about their views on race due to the fact that they do not want to be labeled as a ‘racist’. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/political-racism-in-the-age-of-obama.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382722591-s/6CbfTIoemEcXbi9Kkknw

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/no-such-place-as-post-racial-america/?_r=0

Colorblindness' Deceitful Ideology

          Although racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and typically invoke stress and controversy it is a necessary issue that must be addressed sooner rather than later, as it is unprincipled at best, to embrace the notion that while we live in a country that prides itself in opportunities for aspiring immigrants they are nevertheless being continually treated as second class citizens. As we all know, some ideas have been presented to try an address this sore issue in our society today, the most pervasive approach is known as colorblindness. Colorblindness can be best defined as the racial ideology that theorizes that the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, by dismissing a group or individuals’ race, culture, and ethnicity altogether.

          
          The ideology behind colorblindness is deceiving to those who do not analyze it in its complete context and through in-depth analysis. What I mean by this is that if one correlated this concept with Martin Luther King’s inspirational plea to “judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin” focusing only on their shared humanity then colorblindness seems like a good thing. However, colorblindness is inept when trying to heal racial lesions on a personal or national level. The main problem within colorblindness is that white people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively and effortlessly ignore racism in American life, as well as justify through their privileged standing in society the racism taking place today; yet most minorities who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently as it creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, discards their cultural heritage, and undermines their unique perspectives (Bonilla-Silva). I can honestly say that this has personally affected various aspects of my life, which I can only describe as irritating experiences; by having come to the realization that most of the individuals enacting upon these prejudice actions basically do not know any better and embrace their ignorance, I was then able to not let these affect me on a personal level. Although I have experience various racist incidents, like being followed around at a store by the owner because he suspects that because of the color of your skin there is a higher probability that one might commit theft, I still maintain that colorblindness would only blur the discrimination being enacted and not provide any real solution.

          In retrospect colorblindness is deceiving to those that feel it is a realistic solution to this nation’s racism problem. As a Mexican-American I don't wish for any aspect of my ethnic heritage to be unseen or invisible. The necessity for colorblindness suggests there is something disgraceful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't discuss. The only thing Colorblindness has done is turn racism into a taboo topic which polite people cannot openly discuss; this of course is an implicit problem because if you cannot talk about an issue as important as race, then you can't understand it, much less find a solution to this racial enigma that plagues our society.

additional information:

http://socialistworker.org/2012/12/04/racism-in-a-color-blind-society

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/08/review-racism-without-racists/

Vincent Who?

In high school, we all learn about racial injustice that have happened in the past. We tell these stories so people know this story and have a better understanding of what it was like for this race at a specific time, or what injustices should never be repeated. There have been many hate crimes in the past, but rarely will a student hear about an Asian American Male who had experienced it. Why isn't this ever brought up? In the documentary, "Vincent Who," Asian students were asked if they had known Vincent Chin. Almost all of the Asian students that were asked had no idea who he was. I fall victim to this category. 

Who is Vincent Chin? The first time I was asked this question was two weeks ago at an Asian American Association meeting. Who is Vincent? Why are people asking these questions? Disappointingly enough, I had no idea who this fellow Asian person was or what he stood for.

Neither did a majority of the audience. 95% of which were Asian. 

According to the documentary, "Vincent Who," Vincent Chin was an young Asian American Male, who lived in Detroit, Michigan. He was soon to be wed to his fiance when a tragedy occurred at a bar he was at. On the night of June 23rd, 1982, Vincent Chin was killed by two white males who accused him for being stealing their jobs in the auto industry. For a little historical lesson,  in the 1980's, the vehicle companies of America faced serious competition against their Japanese Competitors. Many American workers were out of jobs due to the decline in the sales for American Cars. 

Vincent Chin. An American-born Chinese Male, was accused of stealing jobs of white men. I would have rather said, thankfully these two men were caught, but instead, I shake my head at the justice system at the time. These two men were let off with a 3,000 dollar fine and 3 years of probation. 

I ask again, who is Vincent Chin?

To the two men who killed him, he was a Japanese guy who put them out of work.

To the justice system, he was treated like an insignificant living thing.

To the Asian Americans of today, he is a common name lurking around. 

In Vincent Chin's case, it is very obvious that these two white males committed a hate crime, which ultimately led to the death of an innocent Asian man. Although Chin's killers were let off with a slap on the wrist, the fact that these two males were let off with ease isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is why this case is not brought up in history books, or focused on in any other way. What bothers me is how I, as an Asian American woman had never heard of such injustice. What bothers me most is how minimal the focus of racial injustice is to my peers alike. 

According to Bonilla-Silva, the minimization of the significance of race is a central frame of color blind racism. When speaking of hate crimes of people of color, it is often taboo to call it a hate crime. Calling it a hate crime is asking for the debate on racism which in today's society appears to be "nonexistent." 

I'm not here to say that all of the other hate crimes that get attention don't deserve attention. In a society where racism is minimized, or brushed off the shoulder as insignificant, it is easy to get lost with the big picture. 

As the model minority coming from the bay area, a heavily populated area of asians, it is often minimized that asians experience racism. Coming to the Midwest as a person of color. I recognized that there was a sense of racial inequality throughout this campus. With something as simple as telling a story of a man of this specific race who was killed because of blind racism, more people would be educated and see the whole picture of things. I'm Asian America. I am a woman of color. I still experience racism and I feel just as uncomfortable as others who. this small sliver of minorities, although ideal, still deserves attention, and because of minimization, this often does not occur. Take Vincent Chin for example. 

What would you choose? Boxers or Briefs?

Can you be a subtle racist? Short answer is: Maybe. I’ll go ahead and explain. Bonilla-Silva makes a point that I find intriguing.

“Subscribing to an ideology is like wearing a piece of clothing. When you wear it, you also wear a certain style, a certain fashion, a certain way of presenting yourself to the world.”

If we were to tie Bonilla-Silva’s concept with a concept mentioned by a character in my favorite movie Van Wilder. It’s about a guy who has attended college for 7 years, without graduating because he loves the college experience so much. I know what you’re thinking: “Where are you going with this?”

Let me explain: In the movie, Van Wilder does an interview with someone who would like to know about him for a paper. He only did this after losing a bet on the ice rink. He stated that people can be compared to kinds of underwear. He specifically meant boxers or briefs. Boxers are the more fun and outgoing underwear, and briefs being the more restrictive, and “all business” underwear. It’s weird, but he had a point. The kind of underwear can or could (depending on whether or not you actually believe that concept) dictate what kind of person you are.  I think that can also be tied with the type of racist you are. You can wear what’s comfortable, or you can wear a certain style.

Now It’s going to get weird, and I apologize.

I would like to explain a bit more about myself. I personally like wearing boxer briefs. It’s comfortable, but it also isn’t too baggy. In that respect, then my ideology on racism would be better. I don’t have a problem with other races. However, I will be honest and say that are certain aspects of races I don’t understand such as the evolution of rap. I also don’t understand certain fashion trends or haircuts. Twerking (however amusing) is also something I don’t understand either. There are also some things that would take way too long to list. I also have many friends of different races. This is what I can consider to be an example of Color-Blind Racism (which the entire point of the book).

The paragraph above is a prime example of post-Civil Rights racial discourse (Bonilla-Silva, 57). Such examples of phrases range from “I’m not racist, but…” or “I am not black, so I don’t know”, and things of that nature. Lack of speech can also be something that can be considered. Not being able to say something grammatically correct, or not saying anything at all can lead to one thing: whether or not one can be subtle in their racism.

So why do we say them, or why do we not say anything? It’s because our ideologies are like underwear. We can be harmful and restrictive in telling our opinions to others, like briefs. Or we can be open for anything to other races but still have boundaries, such as boxers. Or we can choose to be all open to anything. We can go commando.



If I were to follow my mantra: I would wear boxers.

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/feature/colorblindness-new-racism

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/04/17/the-accidentally-color-blind-racist/

Racial Censorship in the Media

The relationship between race and crime is a debated subject in the United States. In the article “Should race play a role in how the media reports crime?” by Kyle Rogers, he claims that “the media does not like to report black crime” and media bosses “say that censorship is for the public’s

benefit”. This view point seems contradictory to me. I can't remember how many times I have heard on the news or read in the paper, “the suspect, an African American male….” I feel like race is acknowledged frequently on the news, yet Rogers claims that this is not a regular occurrence.

He makes the bold claim that public safety has become less important than being politically correct. This I find interesting because it correlates with colorblind racism. We as a society are so sensitive to race that we try to hide it publicly. The media says that in the end race is not important information in regards to the cases/crimes, but they are just ignoring race all together. Acknowledging that race exists does not make you a racist. And in regards to race not being an important factor in crimes, as unfortunate as you may think it is, race is used by almost everybody as one of the ways to describe a person. I can understand why the media wants to avoid contributing to the stereotype, but facts about the crime should not be skewed.

I’m not sure I believe the media censors to the extent that Rogers implies. Why would the relationship between race and crime be such a hot topic if it wasn’t ever mentioned on the news? Plus, as we have discussed in class, racial issues is a focal point in our nation. Alexander even mentions in her article, “The New Jim Crowe”, that “at other stages of the criminal justice process, the Court has indicated that overt racial bias necessarily triggers strict scrutiny” (Gallagher 221). Racism exists! We will never be able to overcome the racial conflicts unless we admit that they are relevant in our society and a problem.

While I agree that race seems to be either overplayed or underplayed in the media, I don’t agree with some of his strong right-winged comments. One example of this is his statement about a Chicago Tribune reporter, Steve Chapman, who was defending censorship in the news. Rogers explained that “Chapman would rather see more innocent white people attacked than report the news accurately”. This statement seems like overkill to me. Chapman wants to believe in or contribute to the United States’ colorblind outlook and try and make the idea of race seem outdated or unrelated to crime. Although a bit radical, Chapman is trying to help fight the battle against racism. However, he is wrong to think that race is not relevant when it comes to crime. How can race not be related to crime when “the Supreme Court has actually granted the police license to discriminate” (Gallagher 221)? Talking about race is like walking on a tight rope, and while I don’t believe that ignoring it is a solution, I don’t believe that showcasing it will solve any problems either.

Sources:

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-race-play-a-role-how-the-media-reports-crime

Gallagher, Charles A. "The New Jim Crowe." Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2012. 221. Print.

Racist or not here I come!

       There are two phrases that should never be said, the first one is "I am not a racist but," and "some of my best friends are."  Being Mexican, I have encountered many people that feel the need to start their sentences with one of these two phrases and once they do, I discard everything they said after because in my head all I want to do is yell at them "shut up you big fat racist!"  Unfortunately my parents raised me better than that so I keep my comments to myself and cut them off or change the subject.  Bonilla-Silva does a great job in explaining how I feel in chapter four of his Racism without Racists book in the section titled Anything but Race, he states that this tool will allow whites to explain away racial fractures in their color-blind story.  Imagine if we could all be absolved of anything we did or said by just adding the word “but” after what we said like “I am not an alcoholic but, I just can't stop after a couple of drinks.”  Would we just accept that you are not an alcoholic because they used the word “but?”  People should just say what they are thinking, “I am an alcoholic because I can't stop myself after a couple of drinks” or in this case, “I am a racist because I don't want my daughter to date outside of our race.”  I would respect someone so much more if they just came out and said this.  People will never admit their faults because as human beings we have the natural desire to be liked and therefore we, for the most part, want to portray an image of being the nicest people in the planet.”
     There was an article written by Melissa Quinn titled Duke professor claims racism the same today as in the 1960s.  She interviews Eduardo Bonilla Silva, who states that racism still exists just not as overtly as it did many years ago.  Bonilla-Silva was a guest speaker at Dartmouth College; he told students that “people often disguise their racism with ‘color-blindness’ and express their prejudice more covertly.” Bonilla-Silva states that a new racism exists, one that is not so easy to see and is clouded by white peoples attempt to minimize or deny that racism exists.   He also claims, “that the only way to remove racism in America is to remove systematic racism.”  Bonilla-Silva stated that the college these students were attending was among the “historically white colleges and universities,” and in order to fight this, “white people need to eliminate ‘the new racism’ and admit they have denied such color-blind racism.”  I was surprised by all the hateful comments that this article got and they were mostly from white people. One of the comments comes from Elizabeth that states, “So, according to this douchebag, if you call someone a racist and they deny it and defend themselves…they’re racist?”  Another comment that bothered me was from Tina and it states “And it’s people like him that start it.  Everyone goes about their lives until some idiot starts digging in the woodwork and starts inflaming it.”  I bet Bonilla-Silva is reading this and just laughing because these white people just reiterated what he said.  White people just want to hide their racism and they are mad that someone is telling it like it is.

     President Barak Obama said in one of his speeches that black men get followed everywhere they go when they are in a store and he included himself in that statement.  This is a blatant example of racism because they don’t do this to white people.  I have also been a victim of this and even though I have done nothing wrong it makes me feel uncomfortable.   There was an article done recently by Barbary Goldberg called Black customers claim discrimination by Barneys New York, police.  There was a young man that bought a $349 Ferragamo belt on April 29, 2013, and was handcuffed and detained for two hours before releasing him with no charges.  While police were interrogating the young man, they asked “as to how a young black man such as himself could afford to purchase such an expensive belt and that the debit card he had in his possession had to be fake.”  If this is not a racist comment I don’t know what is, because this would never happened if he was a white young man.  Bonilla-Silva is correct; racism is still alive and thriving each and every day. 

Here are the two articles that I referenced in my blog:

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/09/27/duke-professor-claims-racism-the-same-now-as-in-the-1960s/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/us-usa-newyork-barneys-idUSBRE99N12020131024

  

The four horsemen…of color-blind racism

If you didn’t get the title by now, the four horsemen represent the four central frames of color-blind racism; I thought it was necessary to have a Halloween theme to this week’s blog. I will be discussing what abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism are and how each frame is displayed/ portrayed in our society.

            The first frame, Abstract liberalism, involves the use of ideas associated with political liberalism (the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters. Abstract liberalism very strongly correlates with laissez faire racism. An example of how Abstract liberalism is portrayed in society is by a white man who says he has no problem with interracial relationships or marriages but when asked if it’s okay for his white daughter to date and marry a black man it then become an issue or “he is a great guy, but not for my daughter.”

            The second frame, naturalization, is the frame that allows white people to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences. People tend to gravitate toward people and culture similar to one’s self because that is what the person knows and is comfortable with. An example of Naturalization in society is a middle-aged, white male rationalizing why he chose to be with a white woman opposed to any other minority. The white male’s reasoning is that it’s natural and no one’s fault that people want to be with their own type of people.

             The third frame, cultural racism, is a frame that relies on culturally based arguments to explain the standing of minorities in society. Whites typically blame minorities or “the victims,” saying that minorities are in the position that they are in because of their actions such as family disorganization or lack of effort. An example of cultural racism in society is stereotyping and the stereotypes that are placed on certain ethnic groups. A typical stereotype is the thought that black families have too much babies or that black people live in project because of their lack of effort.

            The fourth frame, minimization of racism, is a frame that suggests that discrimination is no longer a central factor affecting minorities’ life chances. This suggestion is made because of the idea that the civil rights legislation eliminated all racism and that people look past race. Most whites believe there is still discrimination against African Americans, but obviously not as bad as it once was and that it isn’t the only thing hold African Americans back. Instead, whites believe it is the culture of African Americans that hold them back in society. This is an example of minimization of racism.

            This brings us to the combination of the frames. Together, the frames make up a figurative wall and offers whites a nonracial way of stating their racial opinions without being viewed as racist. In a way just like the four housemen, the frames will come down to the final judgment of the people.

It's Just Natural

           Is it possible to be a racist without trying?  If one was raised with the idea of segregation as a normal occurrence among schools and other activities, are they the ones in the way of a truly united America?  In Bonilla-Silva’s Racism Without Racists, he explains Naturalization, one of the four central frames of color-blind racism as: “ [A way] to rationalize whites’ preferences for whites as significant others” (pg. 37).  The idea does not only stretch to significant others, but can also refer to basic interaction in daily lives.  This frame of mind essentially states that races like to be with their own kind, because it is a natural occurrence.

            As crazy as it may seem, if someone had given me that explanation as to why segregation is so prevalent in America, I would have completely agreed before this class.  It seems to me that people would feel more comfortable around their own kind because they feel safe and secure.  I can relate this very closely to my old high school lunches.  There was always one side of the room with whites and another side with blacks and latinos.  The only time anyone from another race would intermingle was because they were athletes or in some club activity together.  Very rarely did someone go out of their comfort zone unless they were forced to.  Just the intimidation alone shown from all of these groups is enough to make someone feel uncomfortable and not want to try to intermingle.

            However, it seems like social status also has a lot to do with racial the natural frame of color-blind racism.  According to Project Censored, U.S. schools are currently more segregated than they were in the 1950’s.  Even in rural areas it is a problem, with:  “73 percent [white students] attend schools that are 80 to 100 percent white”(pg. 2).  With rural areas barely experiencing any race change throughout their lives, many could believe in this framework of colorblind racism.  Maybe it is just natural that the minorities would want to be in schools where they feel comfortable among their peers.  If a mindset like that is easy to believe in a college setting, it might as well be second nature for high school students to believe the same thing.

            According to an article in the Chicago Reader, the sponsor of the first colored school that was opened up in Chicago had a school renamed for him that is now 98 percent black.  This school was created by the government to keep blacks separate from whites in their learning environments in Chicago.  Many of the blacks at this school could have believed that it was natural for them to attend this school.  If it was a school created for their specific race, then it should be a school that they would want to attend.  No matter how bad crime or gang violence could have been around the area, blacks may have continued to go to the school because they still believe it to be their natural place of education even after the segregation law was changed just as many of the whites in that area of Chicago may think.

            The Naturalization framework gives whites a way to think that racism and segregation is ok because it is a natural phenomenon.  With this way of thinking it is easy for one to brush over the fact that all of these races could be working together.  Many whites with this idealism may not even know that what they are thinking is part of racism and a major factor of segregation.  Proving that this is not natural may be the way to bring someone out of this logic.     

Sources:

Chicago Reader - http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/segregated-schools-desegregation-city-suburbs-history-solutions/Content?oid=9992386

Project Censored - http://www.projectcensored.org/2-us-schools-are-more-segregated-today-than-in-the-1950s-source/