Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow conservatives hijacked “colorblindness” and set civil rights back decades
STOP BEING "COLORBLIND"How conservatives hijacked colorblindness and set civil rights back decades
MLK dreamed of a world where race doesn't divide us not one where we pretend it doesn't exist
IAN HANEY-LOPEZ
Excerpted from "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class"
Why do so many whites respond to the dog whistle refrain that they, and not minorities, are todays most likely victims of racial discrimination? Colorblindness helps to legitimate the substance of dog whistle complaints because it promotes understandings of race and racism that obscure discrimination against nonwhites and magnify the ostensible mistreatment of whites.
Is your baby racist? The question blared from the cover of Newsweek Magazine in September 2009, eight months after the inauguration of the nations first black president. The accompanying story reported on several recent studies showing that young children not only notice race, they repeat painful stereotypes. In one study, a researcher recruited roughly 100 families from Austin, Texas; all of the families were white, with children between the ages of five and seven. When the children were asked how many white people were mean, they commonly answered almost none. But when asked how many blacks were mean, many answered some or a lot. The thrust of the article seemed to be that children possess racial biases. However eye-catching the title, though, it pointed in the wrong directionat infants and little children rather than adults. The core of the article focused on parenting strategies, and especially on the desire to raise children to be colorblindto be blind to race. The parents were not teaching their children to be bigots. Instead, they were doing their utmost to teach their children to reject racism by studiously ignoring race. Yet, even in a liberal bastion like Austin, it wasnt working.
Today the dominant etiquette around race is colorblindness. It has a strong moral appeal, for it laudably envisions an ideal world in which race is no longer relevant to how we perceive or treat each other. It also has an intuitive practical appeal: to get beyond race, colorblindness urges, the best strategy is to immediately stop recognizing and talking about race. But it is especially as a strategy that colorblindness fails its liberal adherents. We cannot will ourselves to un-see something that weve already seen. In turn, refusing to talk about a powerful social reality doesnt make that reality go away, but it does leave confused thinking unchallenged, in ourselves and in others. The Austin children exemplify this. Differences in raceincluding physical variation and its connection to social positionresemble differences in gender: they are plainly visible to new minds eager to make sense of the world around them. When unexplained, however, children (and our unconscious minds) are left susceptible to the power of stereotypes. As the Newsweek authors conclude, children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue but we tell kids that pink means for girls and blue is for boys. White and black are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own.
We should also acknowledge that colorblindness has an additional appeal: it seems to provide a safe route through the minefield of race relations. Many whites are understandably nervous to talk about race at all, though especially in racially mixed company. What if they slip and say something that sounds ignorant, or worse, bigoted? Simply avoiding race altogether seems to offer a solution. Yet, those who adopt a colorblind strategy often come across as more racially hostile, not less. Refusing to acknowledge obvious social differences creates an impression of suppressed dislike, and studies have shown that whites who studiously avoid mentioning race even when it is clearly relevant are perceived as more bigoted. Perhaps this contributed to how the Austin children came to interpret their parents racial attitudes, after their parents tried so hard to suppress references to race. Asked do your parents like black people, more than half either said no, my parents dont like black people, or simply answered, I dont know. The researchers remarked, in this supposed race-free vacuum being created by parents, kids were left to improvise their own conclusions many of which would be abhorrent to their parents.
more
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/20/how_conservatives_hijacked_colorblindness_and_set_civil_rights_back_decades/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 687 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How conservatives hijacked “colorblindness” and set civil rights back decades (Original Post)
DonViejo
Jan 2014
OP
daleanime
(17,796 posts)1. Kick....