Essay Exam

SOC3620/ Unit 08

Color-Blind Racism

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2010. Racism without

Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence

of Racial Inequality in the United States. Third

Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Members of the dominant group (i.e., white

males) tend to believe that “race no longer

matters” [=denial] in this post-Civil Rights era.

This book challenges this belief. The goals of

this book are to describe the main components of

color-blind racism, explain their functions, and

theorize how future U.S. race relations might

look like (pp.13, 262). But the purpose of the

book is NOT to demonize whites or label them

“racist” (p.15). It simply tries to uncover the

institutional mechanisms and collective practices

that help maintain the contemporary racial order

(p.15).

Since the late 1970s racial progress in the United

States had stagnated and, in many areas,

regressed (p.209). For example, after 9/11 racial

profiling has become a legitimate weapon in the

fighting against terrorism (p.211). All

socioeconomic indicators revealed severe racial

gaps in income, wealth, housing, and educational

and occupational standing (p.209). Racial

inequality today is due to the continuing

significance of racial discrimination (p.210).

Discrimination affects almost every aspect of the

lives of people of color. The cumulative effects

of historic discrimination are so profound that

even if all forms of economic discrimination

blacks face ended today, they would not catch up

with whites economically for several hundred

years (p.79).

Color-Blind Racism in Amerikkka (pp.x,195)

aka: Modern Racism, Subtle Racism, Aversive

Racism

1. Unlike Jim Crow, new racism reproduces racial domination mostly through subtle and

covert discriminatory practices which are

often institutionalized and buttressed by the

racial ideology of color blindness (p.213).

2. Color-blind racism emerged as a new racial ideology in the late 1960s in the context of

anti-affirmative action, reverse racism, and

anti-immigration climates (p.211).

3. Members of the dominant race cannot see the centrality of race in the United States

(p.172).Whites subscribe to the idea that race

has all but disappeared as a factor shaping

the life chances of all Americans (p.262).

4. Most members of the dominant race do not perceive discrimination to be a central factor

shaping the life chances of minority groups

(pp.7, 210). They favor equal opportunity but

not affirmative action, believe discrimination

is not an important factor shaping the life

chances of people of color, or still wonder if

racial minorities have an inferior culture

(p.14).

5. The ideology of color-blind racism denies the salience of race, scorns who talk about race,

and increasing proclaims that “We are all

Americans” (p.184): “Don’t you think the

best way of dealing with America’s racial

problems is by not talking about them. By

constantly talking about racism you guys

add wood to the racial fire, which is

almost extinguished!” (p.261).

6. Color-blind racial ideology explains contemporary racial inequality as the

outcome of nonracial dynamics: The product

of market dynamics, naturally occurring

phenomena, and cultural limitations (p.2)

7. The ideology of color blindness is about justifying the various social arrangements

and practices that maintain white privilege

and racial inequality (p.211).

8. Members of the dominant race do not feel guilty about the plight of minorities (blacks

in particular). Whites believe minorities have

the opportunities to succeed and that, if they

do not, it is because they do not try hard

(p.265).

The Central Frames of Color-Blind

Racism (Bonilla-Silva, Chapter 2)

The following four frames prevent the dominant

group from seeing the racial reality. These

frames allow the dominant group to avoid

looking at discriminatory practices in social

institutions such as labor and housing markets,

and their effect on minorities’ life chances. What

do these frames allow the dominant group to

accomplish? They are disclaimers for being “not

a racist.”

[A] Abstract Liberalism (Laissez-faire Racism)

Members of the dominant race use ideas

associated with political liberalism (e.g., equal

opportunity, laissez-faire) and economic

liberalism (e.g., individual choice) in an abstract

manner to explain racial matters (p.28).

(1) Rationalizing Racial Unfairness in the

Name of Equal Opportunity: “I think that

they should have the same opportunities as

everyone else” (p.31); “I am all for equal

opportunity, that’s why I oppose affirmative

action” (p.47)

(2) Defending White Privilege in a

Meritocratic Way: “I still believe in merit”

(p.32); “They can’t succeed because they don’t

try” (p.33);

(3) Keeping Things the Way They Are: “I

don’t have a problem with all-white and all-black

neighborhoods if that’s the choice of the people,

the individuals” (p.35); “Racial change should

happen through an evolutionary process in

peoples’ hearts rather than through governmental

actions” (p.34);

(4) Making their Own Choices: “People have

the right to choose where and with whom they

live” (p.36); “I support school integration, but I

do not believe in forcing people to do anything

that they do not want to do” (p.48).

[B] Naturalization

Members of the dominant group explain away

the racial phenomena by suggesting that they are

natural occurrences (p.28).

“Blacks like living with blacks, and whites like

living with whites…it’s a natural thing” (p.48);

“I think people spend time with people that they

are like, not necessarily in color” (p.37); “We

all try to stay with our own kind so they get

along better with their own people’ (p.38); “So,

it’s more human nature” (p.39); “Self-

segregation is natural; interracial marriage is like

salmons swimming upstream (p.111).

[C] Cultural Racism

Members of the dominant group defend the

racial status quo by using culturally based

arguments (p.28).

“Mexicans do not put much emphasis on

education” (p.28); “Blacks have too many

babies” (p.28); “I believe in morality…The idea

of fourteen-year-old kids getting pregnant and

then having…It’s ridiculous” (p.29); “So, I

mean the priorities are different” (p.41); “They

want to get a short cut to make money” (p.42).

[D] Minimization or Denial of Racism

Members of the dominant race suggest that

discrimination is no longer a central factor

affecting minorities’ life chances (p.29).

“I don’t see discrimination” (p.43); “It’s better

now than in the past” (p.29); “The past is the

past” (p.77) [=discrimination is a matter of a

distance past that does not affect blacks’ life

chances today (p.170)]; “Everyone has almost

the same opportunities to succeed in this country

because discrimination and racism are all but

gone” (p.47); “Discrimination against blacks is

no longer a problem in the United States” (p.43);

“What happened in the past is horrible and it

should never happen again, but I also think that

to move forward you have to let go of the past

and let go of what happened” (p.61).

Color-Blind Racism’s

Racial Stories (Bonilla-Silva, Chapter 4)

Story telling is central to communication.

Through stories we present and represent

ourselves and others (p.75). We tell stories to

make sense of the world in particular ways,

reinforce our arguments, persuade listeners,

justify/defend/challenge the current social/racial

order (p.75). We make stories, and stories, in

turn, make us [color blind] (p.97). There are two

kinds of stories: story lines and testimonies.

Stories are told by whites as vehicles for

signaling nonracialism although they are totally

submerged in whiteness (p.98).

[A] Story Lines of Color-Blind Racism

Story lines are the socially constructed, fable-

like tales. By telling and retelling story lines,

members of the dominant race strengthening the

collective understanding about how and why the

world is the way it is (p.76). For the dominant

group, the story lines serve as vehicles for

expressing anger, animosity, and resentment

toward racial minorities (p.98).

(1) “The past is the past”

This story line is used to deny the enduring

effects of historic discrimination as well as to

deny the significance of contemporary

discrimination (p.79). According to this story

line, we must put the past behind us and

government programs such as affirmative action

and reparation do exactly the opposite by

keeping the racial flame alive (p.77).

 “What happened in the past is horrible and it should never happen again, but I also think

that to move forward you have to let go of

the past and let go of what happened, you

know?...Some of it [affirmative action] will

go too far and it’ll swing the other way

[reverse discrimination]” (p.78).

 “To make up for what we did in the past [reparation], I’d say no. I mean, we can’t still

punish the Germans for what happened to the

Jews so if that is to make up for what they

did, then I’d do say no” (p.78).

(2) “I didn’t own any slaves” [It’s wasn’t me”]

This story line is used to defend that present

generations are not responsible for the

predicaments of blacks and minorities (p.79).

This story line also ignores the fact that whites

receive “unearned privileges” by virtue of

being white (p.82).

 “We shouldn’t be punished real harshly for the things that our ancestors did’ (p.80).

 “Me, as white person, I had nothing to do with slavery. You, as a black person, you

never experienced it. It was so long ago I just

don’t see how that pertains to what’s

happening to the race today” (p.80).

(3) “If Jews, Italians, and Irish have made it,

how come blacks have not?”

This story line is used by the dominant group to

suggest minorities’ status in the United States is

their own doing, because other groups who

experienced discrimination in the past are doing

quite well today (p.82).

 “A lot of things happened to a lot of people, but you can’t sit there and dwell on that. I

mean, like the Jewish people, look what

happened to them. Do you hear them sitting

around complaining about it?” (p.82).

 “When you look at the people coming from Asia, Japan, and China…they’re making the

honor roll [model minority myths]” (p.83).

(4) “I didn’t get a job (a promotion) because

of a minority”

This story line is used by whites as a case for

“reverse racism”—being white is no longer an

advantage in the United States (p.86).

 “A good friend of my brother’s, who didn’t get into law school here and he knows for a

fact that other students less qualified than

him did…He had better grades, better LSAT,

better everything…You should have the best

person there” (p.84).

 “I have applied at jobs and been turned down because I was white…I can hear them talking

and he can’t even speak good English…I

know why he got the job, and I don’t think

that’s fair” (p.86).

[B] Testimonies

Testimonies are accounts in which the narrator

is a central participant in the story. Testimonies

provide the seal of authenticity and sympathy

from listeners (pp.72, 76).

(1) Stories of negative interactions with blacks

[minorities]

Stories of negative interactions with minorities

are used to give credence to narrators’ negative

views on racial issues (p.98).

 “I was in the locker room…and I see a really big [black] woman stealing money out of my

bag” (p.88).

 “I was talking about affirmative action or something, and he [a black guy] called me

that I was being a racist or something” (p.88).

(2) Stories of positive interactions with blacks

[minorities]: “Some of my best friends are…”

Stories of positive interactions with minorities in

the past are used to cover up for a present (p.98).

 “I had a black roommate and she became one of my best friends…And we would actually

sit around and talk about stereotypes and

prejudices and I learned so much…And it

really, I think, for me, broke down a lot of

barriers and ended a lot of stereotypes…And

even still we don’t really keep in touch, but If

I see any of ’em on campus, still, you know,

we always talk with each other and

everything” (p.90).

(3) Stories of disclosure of knowledge of

someone close being racist

These stories are structured around a trinity

formula: confession, example, and self-

absolution (p.92). The testimonies of disclosure

of someone close being racist serve self-

presentation that “I am not a racist like my dad,

uncle, or friend” (p.98).

 “My mom is very open to things, but he [my dad] still uses terms like ‘them’ and ‘those

people’ and stuff like that {=confession}

which I don’t like at all {self-

absolution}…My dad asked me something

like how come I didn’t have any more white

friends? {=example}” (p.92).

 “My dad grew up in Detroit in a real bad neighborhood and…he is real prejudice

{=confession}…My mom went to Catholic

school all the way up until high school. So,

she’s got a lot of Catholic values so, can’t be

really be prejudiced…I brought one of my

buddies home one time and he was like ‘No,

I don’t want you hanging out with him,’ you

know, he don’t trust them {=example}. But

that’s my dad though, but that’s not me

{=self-absolution}” (p.94).