A
Critique of Colorblindness is
a text, the main idea of which is to challenge the idea that a race is a fixed
category with the use of the Critical Race Theory by focusing on politics as
well as law in order to reformulate legal doctrines. It starts with looking
through the assaults from both the left and the right. Both of which have their
own wrong approaches towards colorblindness. While the Left is using silent
racial politics in order to keep its votes from Whites as well as Blacks, the
Right’s approach towards race is also not helping the situation at all since
they do not really believe in the reality of race as something socially
constructed. It is mentioned that as long as the use of race remains invisible,
the democratic political space where groups come together to mobilize to engage
in social change or to represent their much larger society, vanishes. In order
to prevent that and make people see the race as it is, the text introduces us
to the three major flaws in the colorblindness approach, which are: (1) the
assumption of racial inequality is a problem of individuals, (2) people do not
actually look closely to the established racial inequality due to the
colorblindness idea of theirs, and (3) the belief on how the colorblindness
acts inefficiently on grassroots organizations by preventing civil rights
communities from mobilized and being unified. Besides, it is pointed out that
civil rights movement lost their moral and analytical power and conservative
and neoconservatives persuaded us that solely individual initiative can change
something, others cannot do anything about it. Moreover, “The Brazilian
Experiment in Race-Blindness” is other crucial point of the text. In this part,
it is emphasized that the race is dealt with differently in Brazil and there is
color caste system instead of racial caste system to which we are familiar from
the US.
This
text touches upon many subject that has been studied during this course. One of
which is the idea of how people still believe that race is only about the skin
color yet as we studies in our courses, race is a socially constructed term
since it changed through time and country according to what is the best for
political power and relations as it is also mentioned last week’s reading, Race,
Class, and Gender in the United States. Also it is mentioned, there is no
help in acting as if there is no race at all when there is racial inequality.
Instead of acting as if there is nothing wrong, we need to do something in
order to prevent this inequality as we have talked for the previous two weeks.
The one of the most important problems mentioned in the text is how race is
seen as a personal problem rather than social, economic, historical system
(However, is it really possible to take an individual and her/his behavior
without any consideration to the society s/he belongs to?). By doing this,
putting the whole blame on individuals, the problem is still staying there and
not speaking about it will not help anyone. The solution as mentioned in the
Matter of Whiteness as the Critiques of Colorblindness, is informing
people about different racial groups other than hiding the facts. Besides, in
the text it is pointed out that conservatives “blackened” the poverty, it means
that they demonstrated all black people as being poor by ignoring many poor
white Americans living in the country. They do this generally to demonstrate
that it is not a problem, which concerns all the people and these poor black
people who can solve the problem, which they created for themselves. In Race,
Class and Gender in the United States, it is mentioned, “the social
construction of class is analogous but not identical to that of race.” This
statement clearly shows us that, we cannot identify class by attributing them
to certain races.
We
found this text really informative, not only about the conception of race
within the society but also about the deep ideology of the race, about the
different political approaches and their reasons. It was interesting to learn
about the colorblindness and how it is approached wrongly by people. Some of
these wrong approaches and their explanations correct our wrong approaches
towards race. We realize sometime we also use colorblindness as if it makes
everything perfect, yet all it does hiding something which is already there and
this thing is racism. Besides, it showed us that how color blindness is the
new way of racism instead of being a solution for this issue. We saw its effect
on politics and social life by focusing on conservatives' and neoconservatives'
approaches to the concept. Moreover, we really found interesting the different
approaches adopted by the US and Brazil towards color and race. Finally, we saw
how the concept of “color blindness” distorts our perception and creates “new
racism” instead of it is supposed to eliminate it.
*If you haven't seen the picture changing, wait a minute and look carefully*
We would like you to watch this amazing TED Talks video of Mellody Hobson, who is an African-American investment expert, on colorblindness and color bravery.
http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2014/MazdaRebels_PL/MellodyHobson_2014-480p.mp4 (or you can reach the video from here: http://www.ted.com/talks/mellody_hobson_color_blind_or_color_brave)
"We cannot afford to be a colorblind, we have to be color brave" -Mellody Hobson
Do you agree with her? Why? Why not?
Some other questions to think about on this subject:
- Is it possible to talk about racial equality while there is still the identification as African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American? Is it bad that we have these identifications? Do they matter?
- Why do you think there is no commonly used identification as White?
- Why do conservatives try to link “black people” and “poverty”?
- How Brazil and the US deal with race issue differently?
Ezgi ULUSOY &Yasemin ÖZTEMÜR
I think racial equality and identification as African/Asian/Latin-Americans are different aspects that must be considered separately while studying race and ethnicity. It is very important to use this kind of identification for social, cultural and historical wealth of a nation, because there is, there is a cultural and historical ruins that lie behind these identifications. If we erase or put aside all these identification we will ignore the historical events that people experienced in the pst. I think in this way because I'm one of the Turkish Kazakhstani immigrants who have labeled as Ahıska Turks, and which makes me feel proud as it reminds me my history.
ReplyDeleteI hope I could express my opinion properly from a different perspective.
Hasan Bayram
Speaking of color, this presentation made me think about something.
ReplyDeleteWe very often link racism with color, so we often speak in terms of 'white v. black'. The truth is that racism is much more complicated, as we all know. You may all know about the 'Plessy v. Ferguson' trial in Louisiana. Homer Plessy was white and definitely looked like a Caucasian man, but as he had something like 1/8th of black blood from his ancestors, he was considered as a Black man (is actions led to the 'Seperate but equal' doctrine). At that point, I think that it's possible to question the very principle of 'color' ? What does that really mean when it comes to the concept of race ? Is it just a question of appearance or is it deeper ?
This guy, Homer Plessy, was 'physically' white, but was still treated as a Black man.
This is, to me, a relevant proof that racism is socially constructed and so, flexible.
Anyway, I read Mellody Hobson's speech and so I'll answer the question about it.
I definitely agree with her, avoiding a problem won't lead to solve it. This concept of "colorblindness" is a nonsense to me. It makes me think about "Americanah" when Ifemelu and a friend of her (if I remember well) went to buy some clothes and the seller did not dare to ask her if it was the black saleswoman or the white one who adviced her. Instead of that he asked useless questions like "Is it the brown-haired girl ?" (they both were!). It was uncomfortable to him just asking a simple question "is it the black or the white one?"
This is something Hobbes is dealing with in her speech, comfort ! "If we can learn to deal with our discomfort, and just relax into it, we'll have a better life".
The solution is not to pretend that there is no issue, the solution is to face the issue and be cool with it, like "Ok, you're black, I'm white, it's not a big deal, we're both human beings after all."
And she is pointing out something that I find essential, it is education. To me, it is pretty obvious that the very solution lays in the hands of the next generations and so, in the hands of the education we provide them.
~Inès Allag
LOVE that you linked back to Americanah, Ines! Well-done and thoughtful response!
DeleteGreat post guys! Well presented, too. Sums up a lot of the key points of the text and helped me understand the text better.
ReplyDeleteJust to add my opinion on the first questions you guys put up:
“Is it possible to talk about racial equality while there is still the identification as African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American? Is it bad that we have these identifications? Do they matter?”
I would say both yes and no to that. I think the fact that such a distinction in identification has for so long been used as a way of dividing and discriminating people is definitely wrong. Actually, this way of identifying oneself by including ethnic origin in itself is not a bad thing. Saying that someone is African-American or Latin-American doesn't really seem racist when you think about it. In fact, today, many people feel proud of showing their ethnicity, alongside their national identity.
I also think the motives behind such usages and the consequences of it are what makes all the difference. The fact that white Americans from Europe were never subject to such usage is what seems to be the problem. They could just be called "Americans" and need not state whether they are Polish-Americans or Swedish-Americans. They would not be questioned further about their origin, as it really wouldn't make a difference in their case. They're all white, that's all that matters. I think this is where issues of racism reveals itself. For a long time, African-Americans, Asian-American, or Latin-Americans couldn't just identify themselves as "American". If they did, it might be considered misinformation. How are we to stereotype and prejudice people that look different if they all hide under the same identity label?
It also suggests that people of America fall into two categories: those who are considered real or "pure" Americans, which include all white Americans and the "non-pure" Americans which includes all race and ethnicities that are not white, regardless of how long these "non-pure" Americans have lived there. It is like associating a national identity with a specific favoured race. Your whiteness determines how American you are. The rest are just second class citizens and their “American-ness” only comes after their race. So an African-American would be treated as an African first and then as an American, rather than belonging to the American identity as a whole and benefit from the same rights.
But I also think the situation regarding the usage is a bit different now. Calling oneself “African-American” or “Asian-American” is becoming more of an option rather than a necessity. I also use the terms “African-American”, “Asian-American”, “Arab-American” or “Latin-American” often while referring to white Americans as “Americans”, and it never occurred to me that I might have also unintentionally been discriminating.
Yet in academic writing, literature, such usages are still so common, but in such cases I do feel like it is necessary because these “minority” groups have been treated differently for so long that it is necessary to distinguish them from each other to be able to study each group individually, to understand their culture and living conditions better to be able to see what rights they have been deprived of compared to their fellow white American citizens. It is too late to generalize and refuse to see differences now. Otherwise, wouldn't it fall into the case of color-blindness, as Ezgi and Yasemin discussed, by pretending everyone is equal and sweeping ongoing racism under the rug?
Those were just my thoughts and uncertainties on that question as I believe that certain people can be quite sensitive to identity labelling and get offended by what seems to us a normal way of identifying other people. We just need to be aware of how words and certain term usages can play a role in the process of discriminating and polarizing people.
- Sera
Hi Sera, I think your comments here link back to what Dyer says about how whiteness is the "normative" category--and therefore the dominant one-- and all others are subordinate. So basically, we are talking here about white power....
DeleteWe had a rather energetic start to the day with the songs and Jennifer's way of lecturing (Turns out coffee isn't necessarily the best way to wake up. ...that or I'm getting caffeine-tolerant. Oh well...). It was really impressive how you could keep the energy level just as high. Especially Ezgi's somatic involvement helped quite a lot in this sense and made it just that much easier to stay focused on the presentation for the whole duration.
ReplyDeleteIt was quite informative as well. I think you both were very well-prepared for the task and covered the text in great detail. In all honesty, I found the text to be comparatively difficult to comprehend. However, the presentation and the small discussions had in class helped a lot.
To answer one of the questions, I think Hobson's statement is a substantially significant one and can be extended to include more than just racial discrimination. To put it in its own context, I believe what she's trying to get at is that we should be celebrating difference and diversity rather than deploying them as tools of discrimination.
One particularly interesting way she approaches the issue is that she puts quite a bit of emphasis on the individuals themselves, rather than proposing solutions of a greater scale. This is not to say she sees racial discrimination as a problem of an individual-based nature; but to her, one solution comes through individual’s challenging of racism in their daily and especially professional lives.
Although the whole thing makes sense in its own way, I can’t help but feel that she’s somewhat reluctant to go into specifics and is more or less orbiting around the issue by jumping from one vague word to another. Even though I agree with her on the bigger picture she paints, I’m not entirely sure exactly what it is I’m agreeing with, if that makes sense. Then again, considering her audience, perhaps it’s just intentional and she doesn’t quite want to make anyone feel uneasy. (Kind of ironic then, when she’s trying to get people to speak clearly on the issue, it’s her who avoids detail.)
On a small note, I've noticed a rather ironic trend in this whole colorblindness business. It seems to me that a lot of people who preach it actually do so with good intentions, thinking it's a plausible solution. Just some food for thought.
-Buğra Murat Altan
Murat has touched upon the concept of "positive racism"--the idea that not all racist acts, ideas, ideologies are overtly negative. Some of them can sound positive or even come from a position of genuinely wanting to solve a perceived problem. I appreciate that you question, instead of just accepting, the material you are presented with.
DeleteColorblindness can be a confusing term yet in this blog post it is made clear what it actually means. Colorblindness means everyone is equal and there should be no judgment between the different skin colors. Yet, as one of the biggest flaws of colorblindness, it disables people to see the economic and social inequality between races. This leads to being ignorant for the solution of inequality. When I read the part of the blog post about this flaw, I remembered a Turkish saying by Ragıp Duran which translates into “While a wolf is eating a sheep and you keep impartial; it means that you are siding with the wolf." I think this is exactly what the colorblindness approach does in effect.
DeleteOne other point is that during the presentation Hacer had a question about the difference in the views of race in Brazil and United States. As class we said that instead of race, color matters and there is no official racelessness. I found a quotation on page 63: “..., in Brazil the dominant ideology of race-blindness has long denied that race has any relevance to social, political or economic marker.” This means that racial discrimination ended long before in Brazil when it compared to USA. Actually, USA still struggles with racial discrimination.
Comparing to today’s United States, racism and the approach of colorblindness have not ended. There is an emergence of a thought which involves decrease in racism with Obama’s being elected as the president. Nevertheless, this statement can only be made by the supporters of colorblindness approach. Obama had to prove that he is different than other black Americans; or in other words, he is not too black! For becoming the president, he needed more than the votes of the black Americans. He needed white Americans votes as well. So, for beating prejudices, still he had to prove that he is different. Colorblindness does not think of the efforts of black people who struggles to prove their worth, including the struggle of Obama.
Bige Yılmaz
There are many things to admire in Bige's response, but I want to highlight that she made a connection between the material and something from Turkish culture. I want to encourage everyone to find sources of shared conflict and also dissimilarities between USA and Turkey in our studies this semester....
DeleteThis is going to be two part post because this thing is not letting me post 3000 character because the limit is 4096 characters.. wait what?
ReplyDeleteI would like to some of the questions Ezgi and Yasemin ask in this post as they can easily be misunderstood, especially the first one.
They speak of racial equality and racial identification together but I think we are forgetting a critical point. Most of the racial profiling names such as African-American, Latin-American, and Asian-American are names that are embraced by the communities they represent. I believe the problem lies with the individual first who calls himself Latin-American first instead of just plain old American. They find a sense of security with their isolated community, it makes them think that they are not required to adapt to the American community as long as they live in their isolated ethnic groups with more or less no contact with the outside world; unless it's about "racial equality"
On one hand we have a group of people who refuse assimilation (rightfully so?) and adaptation because they would like to act as if they are in the country of their ethnicity, and on the other we have the same people asking for equality in jobs, schools, life in general.
Now I know this topic is not so simple as not everyone is an immigrant reminiscing about their home country, most are America born citizens, and that racism also stems from the white America who feels insecure about losing their jobs to the "non-white" but I wanted to show that the coin is not one sided. Racism is not just from white people but also from the people who are discriminated in the first place. These names are not solely created by white Americans and plastered on these ethnicities (is there really a plural for this word?) but they are embraced by these people who are proud to be different.
For the second question, I believe there is a common identification used for white people; white.. I think we are not aware of this only because we are living in Turkey in which people of all kinds of skin color live and never been made subject of racism. Racism follows different trends in Turkey and I believe most of us would consider ourselves as white even if we had the color of wheat before the harvest. That's why, to see white, we need to look at it a bit differently.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOn the news (for those of us who watch American television, not just tv shows, and not Fox for god’s sake..) we don't see a news anchor reporting a theft and say "20 to 30 year old 6 feet tall male" we see "20 to 30 year old 6 feet tall WHITE(or black or hispanic or w/e tickles your fancy) male". You see, white is being used to identify white. And you might say this way too specific but I think everyone uses it every day in their lives (Americans that is). If 2 black people are talking and one of them is going to talk about a third person who is white, they wouldn't say "there is this dude I met yesterday" they would add the (adjective?) white to it. If the person in question was black they wouldn't mention it because there is really no need to, is there? Same would go for a white couple for the exact opposite, it is just that we are used to being in our own circles that we don't need to define things that are familiar to us. When you ask for water you wouldn't go out of your way to say "can you give me a glass of water that is transparent?". This would seem ridiculous in any context. I believe we are just lazy in that sense and don't feel the need to define things that we are used to seeing, knowing..
DeleteI think the topic of racism is too black and white (forgive the pun) and that we are looking for culprit under every stone, for the last 60 years or so especially and yet coming up empty handed. I believe that racism persist because people are too comfortable living in their own world and refuse to truly become part of another. A black person must forgo his/her own blackness first (I not talking about MJ here, the ideology behind being black and everything that comes with it). If you are coming to America to be an American and live the American dream, you are probably not going to do it if you confine yourself to the China Town and never leave its confine.
As always, I strongly believe change starts within one’s self and nothing will be achieved by holding onto something with both your hands, unwilling to let go, and still asking for something else.
"I believe the problem lies with the individual first who calls himself Latin-American first instead of just plain old American. They find a sense of security with their isolated community, it makes them think that they are not required to adapt to the American community as long as they live in their isolated ethnic groups..."
DeleteI like your comment which looks things as you also says from a different perspective yet I have to ask if these people are calling themselves like that because they feel security or because they are threatened by outer society. I think the way we choose while constructing a sentence matters a lot as Chimamanda says in "the danger of a single story", the way how we start a story, can change the whole story. They feel secure in this safe community because the outer society threaten them. They do not find the security they find in their own community because of the racial inequality. This is just my idea though. I totally agree with your point about the people who goes there for better lives and still act like they are still in their own country (it's just like many Turkish people who lives in Germany). I think it doesnt make sense since if they act in the same way as in their country then America would be the same country as their own country. I think I make it a little hard to understand but you say it very clearly so people will understand from your comments. Even though I agree with that, I still doubt if they will be accepted to American society if they act like one just like the Turkish people in Germany. Even though they speak German amazingly and act like one, they are still seen as Turkish not by all, but by many (told by two German Erasmus student). So I'm afraid it is not only about individual's conception of themselves and changing their own life, it is also about changing the way society looks at these racial differences. Of course there will always be differences. There are even differences among Whites but as we educate more people about these differences and show them how these differences are okay, it will eliminate the discrimination day by day.
-Ezgi ULUSOY
So are the middle-class suburbs (predominantly white) also a kind of ethnic enclave? I want to paraphrase Chimamanda and say that the problem with labels is not they are wrong, it is that they are incomplete. We need to understand the history attached to labels and what they mean when we use them. The problem is not with calling someone African American and Asian American or Native American--it all depends on the context. Also we must not forget white power which makes white normative. When we recognize that whiteness is invisible, we understand the power of names and labeling. Also, I want to ask Murat G: "What is an American?" "What does it mean to be an American?" I would argue that there are many ways of being an American, and not all of them involve assimilation....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that colorblindness is a poor excuse of the race whom thinks that they're superior than the people of color. It might be known as there's no longer racism due to the laws but since people of color still accepted as a different race, it still lives within the stereotyped minds.Moreover, people refuse to accept someone whom is different than them because of this issue.
ReplyDeleteI also think that, the main reason of it is the fear of the unknown. Since other race is different they afraid of sth that they do not know. In addition to that, since white race is 'superior' and more, they find it easy to attack and describe the others as 'different.'
Nowadays, altough this classification has decreased a lot, I think that people should set free their minds to accept that there's nothing different with the 'other's
-Kardelen İpek
Identifications as African -American, Latin-American etc. make it unthinkable to vision "racial equality". As long as one tends to identify a person with his/her race, racism will remain as a huge problem. Categorizing a person with a single story, as mentioned in the TEDtalk of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, misleads minds, and people's perceptions. Seeing only skin-color of a person and generalizing the person with a racial title without paying attention to his/her personality create "a single story". Additionally, identifying a person with their race is actually racism in itself. However, ignoring the fact of race problem is not a solution, either. To solve the problem, we, together as people of one world, must be open-minded to differences of each-others and avoid generalizations and identifications.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I want to ask a question: Can some one be colorblind and at the same time care about the problem of racism? (As discussed during presentation that being colorblind is actually avoiding the problem)
-İlkim Türkeri
Two things: as Murat G. mentioned, to NOT name someone according to their race DENIES people their heritage, their culture, their ancestry and their history. So we don't want to erase or make invisible those important stories. Also, we change what "African American" or "Asian American" or "white" mean--to limit what these terms mean to us is also a kind of a single story. In my opinion, people are free to redefine terms ON THEIR OWN TERMS and negotiate their identities in multiple and complex ways. There is no ONE/SINGULAR African American, Asian American, Latino/a, white, etc identity....
DeleteThank you ladies for this thoughtful post and presentation...
ReplyDeleteI want to focus on the political side of color issue as we briefly mentioned about in the classroom. When I was listening the presentation, I tried to figure out what “colorblindness” means to me and what it actually means in our social and political lives. For me being a color-blind person was not something bad before reading the text as I always thought that saying “I am a color-blind” would mean that “I do not label people by looking at their color. But after reading the text (A Critique of Colorblindness), I realized that being a color-blind person is something negative as that person ignores the inequality in this “colorful” society. If that color-blind person is a politician, then the problem gets worse because we expect politicians to solve the problems rather than acting like everything is all right.
In out text, the third rule that governs the colorblind universe is the idea that “Race is a personal problem.” I guess it was last week's reading saying that race is socially constructed then this week we see that some people say it is a personal problem. So how come can it be something “personal” when it is socially constructed? I think race is not only a result of the actions of mean people but it is also a result of the actions of selfish politicians. Conservatives, for example, act like they care about the inequality between whites and blacks but they do not make democratic interference. Progressives, either, do not make an honest confrontation to racial inequality although they talked about race. Of course there are regulations for black people but they are not enough and sincere, at least in my opinion. What matters for political parties is just to get more votes and not loosing their current supporters at the same time.(Give a minority group a minor right, make them vote for you, and show your “economically powerful” supporters that they are still better!)
To answer one of the questions on the post: “Why do conservatives try to link “black people” and “poverty”? Maybe because they do not want to be responsible for poverty issue and they say “This is black people's problems and only they can solve it.(This is not wealthy people's problem dude!)
-Tansu Özakman
The text was pointing out the problems of saying that racism is a personal problem, not advocating this point of view. The text pointed out that after the passage of the Civil Rights Movement, many Americans believed that if racism happened, it must be because of someone's individual problem, not a larger societal issue. However, since we understand that race is process and socially constructed and operates through structures of power, we know that it is not just individuals who are racists (although there are individuals who are racist), but that the main problem lies in structural racism--or, the ways in which society itself is structured in such a way that allows inequality to continue. Does that make sense?
DeleteTo look at the earlier period of the U.S history, racial minorities have been denied access to jobs, society, housing and educational ability. Yet, during the Obama’s presidency, America got a powerful change with multicultural doctrine and people start to aware of skin color discrimination .As I understood from this presentation the term “colorblindness” is occurred and it breaks the racial walls in people’ mind. I think ignoring racial barriers means that one simply destroy history that one lived in past and It can also means ignore the history of humanity. Most people believe that the term colorblind destroys or removes racism and I think it leads to make people simple minded about equality. Besides, even if some people think that “colorblindness” is a good thing I think they are not ready for being it. They only do not want to take responsibilities of racism and thus the term becomes an individual problem of people and it shows that there is a dilemma of being racist and being colorblindness. I think , people should struggle to be color”full” rather than color”blind” and should not ignore racism and should raise color consciousness. I want to finish my comment quote from Americanah:“The only race that matters is the human race” (p.5,Americanah)
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, Chimamanda uses that quote sarcastically to critique colorblindness. She is not advocating that point of view.
DeleteFirst of all I want to thank Yasemin and Ezgi.
ReplyDeleteIt was a really thoughtful, great and energetic presentation.
“Colorblindness” is a complex issue and its effects still go on. Colorblindness brings the ignorance of people and it should be questioned that it is a good thing or a bad thing. In the text, they think that “colorblindness “can solve the problem but I think that it can not solve the problem because it creates inequality in the society. Society has already problems about “racism” and “colorblindness” makes this problem more complex and confusing. Even though race is biological, people use this term differently. Actually race has multiple meanings but because of “colorblindness” racism becomes an obsession of people. I think that “colorblindness” might be thought as an excuse because of willing to be superior than other races. Race becomes more political and people can use this how they want. Biases, stereotypes and generalizations increase because of people’s wrong thoughts about “race”. Ignorance of the reality about race problem and not facing this problem are seriously wrong. Finally, people should express themselves and speak their minds about “race” problem and thanks to discussing it and not avoiding, people can learn the reality about “colorblindness”.
-Ezgi Doğan
I think you misunderstood the text if you think Gunier and Torres are advocating colorblindness as the solution to America's racial problems. It is just the opposite. The point of the article is to show how colorblindness FAILS to solve racial problems, even to the point of denying that they exist in the first place.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteColorblindness! It is like a disease that could spread into many people unless it is diagnosed. During this presentation, I remembered a saying, “The snake that doesn't touch me can live a thousand years for all I care”. I think that this saying reflects the core reason of colorblindness which lies beneath: it is the ignorance of people who think only of themselves in a selfish way. Ignorance which comes from a selfish view does not promote any solution, but it only multiples the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination in society. As it is mentioned in the presentation, the importance is not to change the individual’s conceptions or lives but to change the perspective of society to the racial differences. Thus, people should observe this issue in a larger picture rather than individualizing it.
ReplyDeleteEstablished racial equality still exists and determines the life chances of all people. Race should not be left alone just to assert the idea that color does not matter. It does matter because it actually affects people’s opportunities, incomes, and even health care. Yet colorblindness makes race a taboo for “polite” people to talk about. (If people cannot discuss it, how can they understand it?) However, ignoring this important problem reinforces existing power structure and only makes it become more complicated than it is. Therefore, social change needs passionate interest of everyone in the society for the greater good. In order to change the society‘s approach to these discriminations, it is crucial to get rid of this horrible disease of colorblindness which threatens everyone.
-Burcu Karatekeli
I think the most interesting thing was the word "colorblindness". When we mentioned about the colorblindness, the significant part of the word is 'blind'. This word does not connotate something positive or negative for me. Because 'blind' cannot have a chance to choose something like if it is good let's see or bad let's close our eyes so that being 'blind' is something neutral for me. That's why this 'race problem' cannot be solved. If you are "blind"; I mean if you are ignoring the problems, you cannot have any expectation for solutions. This solution is maybe hard or can take some time but people should not give up. People have to choose 'to see' problems rather than pretend as 'blind' or play ostrich. I believe that if a human being can accept his or her mistake, whatever the concept is, she or he can solve the situation. Because accepting the mistake is the hardest thing for a human being.
ReplyDeleteDilan ALGAN
I like your focus on the diction here, Dilan, and your analysis of the word "colorblind" itself--a creative and new way to approach the topic!
DeleteThe presentation from our friends was relevant and quite good for the weekly topic. The word “colkorblindness” is the key issue in the text, as far as I understand it is still problematic in the sense that there are several paradoxical parts of colorblindness and as Yasemin added from the Ted Talk video “color brave”.
ReplyDeleteFirstly it was good to hear that “race has multiple meanings” which means you can bend it to some aspects like political, social or eceonomical. In my personal view it is mostly about the economical issues that the constructed word “race” has become. In addition to that thought, we have read 3 articles that runs around the same issues and most of them refers to “the race is mostly “constructed” for the benefit of a political or economical side for someone else, mostly whites” . Therefore Torres’s idea of federal indian ideology also the example of David Plotki’s research on hungary by Ezgi was well put to raise a question that how can someone become/be black and how this is socially constructed.
In essence the grassroots is a great examples that normal citizens comes together and protesting against something was another key issue for like Civil Rights Movement in 1964 or the historical one the railroad protest in 1877. Yet I cannot understand that how being brave about your race solve the problem of discrimination, because in my opinion it will also create another consiousness of faschistic ideology about self identity? I mean isn’t it possible for instance a black person do the “color brave” and now he will be pointed like he was a racist but in visa-versa?
Serhat BAŞAK
I see your point Serhat, but I think it's all about the style and context in which someone performs "color bravery." I don't think the speaker was equating color bravery with militancy, or an entrenched ideology about identity (like the Black Nationalists of the 1960s). I think she was trying to make a larger point about seeing humanity in all its differences and appreciating the differences for their strengths and recognizing the struggles people have faced and still face to achieve greatness or success (however someone chooses to define that for him/herself). Which is, of course, a much braver act than simply refusing to see any differences at all...
DeleteColorblindness is one of the major problems in whole world but the most in America. Colorblindness is not seeing color so it means not being a racist but actually this does not an issue. Being blind is wrong in all senses, people should see the problems and try to solve and try to overcome the problems. Avoiding to deal problems and accepting their existence don't bring any solution to the situation especially in subjects like racism. Racial differences should be accepted in a real sense and their existence should also be tolerated rather than elliminating the existence of it. Not seeing them intentionally means being ignorant. Ignorance should be exceeded at first sight in racism issue. Some people still seems not to accept people from different races and they don't go for real and permanent solutions, the solutions they bring out for racism are just superficial solutions unfortunately. First people should manage not to see race differences as a problem than they should focus on the way of solutions for make the whole world accepting and not seeing racism, race differences as a problem.
ReplyDeleteÖzge BAŞAK
It was a good and informative presentation that helps me see more of the color blindness and what is the opposite “color brave” to balance meanings.
ReplyDeleteColorblindness is not seeing color and race but the real problem is that people are ignoing the real problem and they named it as color blindness. Race is not only about non-white people, if we do not see whiteness than we should also should not see blackness. We all see colors and the problem is that we should not discriminate people and we all need to recognize people as humans. As whiteness is normal than blackness also should be normal. The speech that we had watched today in class by a business leader is telling that we should not ignore the problems about color blindness and we should be comfortable with the uncomfortable. We should be 'color brave' not color blind because the problem of inequality is not societies problem but it is individuals problem. Instead of ignoring people we should be embrace the idea of treating everyone equally.
Gözde İPEK
I believe that the issues discussed in this particular presentation were relevant in the sense that colorblindness is still a problem in many multicultural societies. It provides people with an easy route to escape from the solutions required to solve many issues surrounding different racial groups. In order to be a part of the solution, we have to acknowledge differences not build on prejudices, but what makes as human as a species. It is also important to accept differences as well, since there are many people hailing from various parts of the world, living in cultures which may be akin to ours or not. Discriminating human beings based on their cultural beliefs, religions and languages is a dogma that we should all avoid to create societies of "color-brave" people who are not afraid to be themselves, regardless of where they belong to. It may take years or even generations for us to reach that stage, but we all have to start somewhere.
ReplyDeleteKaan Can Oyman
So, let's take up Kaan's call to action: how can each of us, individually, try and do one act of color bravery this term? How can we start the revolution, the new society through a simple individual action??
DeletePeople sometimes (unfortunately usually) have the tendency to ignore bothering issues no matter what the problem is about. In the aspect of race, the problem and its unfavorable outcomes sometimes can be irrevocable and dangerous both for the targeted people and for the rest of the society. When people ignore the problem, this means that the solution also disappears automatically. I think it’s as dangerous as causing the problem although sometimes unintentionally. Thus, because the real problem still exists and because there would be no control mechanism to restrain the aggravation of the outcomes of the problem, it would be more difficult to reach a solution.
ReplyDeleteAccording to me, the most interesting part of the issue is how people justify their ignorance, in other words, their colorblindness. Although there are some unintentional tendencies towards colorblindness, I believe this notion is also used as a part of a systematic process through which racial inequality problem would be stay out of sight. Because there will always be groups who stand up for racial inferiority or superiority, they would find a more suitable ground to support their thesis in the circumstance of common ignorance. There may be claims about colorblindness can only be justified in an environment where all the inequalities among different races disappear both legally and practically and when all the compensation is paid by the group who benefited from this segregation for years. I mean, this compensation is not related to revenge or violence, but in the sense of tolerance and privileges to the oppressed groups. Even if all the inequalities are disappeared physically someday in the future; ignoring racial discrimination, which has been a matter of fact for years, is like being unfair to people who gave their lives for this cause and who expended a lot of effort on this issue.
I also want to link the issue of colorblindness to the problems that Turkey has been encountered, but in a different way. We see how dangerous it can be to ignore a problem for decades. For decades, thousands of people died in the eastern part of Turkey. Because terror is used as a way to manipulate people’s tendencies and as a way to create fractions, the problem got bigger and bigger. And because many people didn’t care about the actual causes or they just ignored these causes, the situation came to a state of complete disaster now.
Turning back to racial inequalities in USA, in the same way, I believe that race matters in a world where people are shot in the street only because they are black or because they do not suit to standards.
Thanks for the super presentation and thanks for finding out the tricky aspects of the issue to discuss in the class
Deniz
Again, I want to mention that I always appreciate it when you guys can find ways to link this material back to Turkey and make it relevant for your own country and the issues that are relevant here. Since I am not an expert, I hope you will continue to teach me about the similarities and differences....
DeleteFirst of all I want to thank you Yasemin and Ezgi for their detailed, well summarized, dynamic and informative presentation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mellody Hobson’s saying that “We cannot afford to be a colorblind, we have to be color brave”. I believe that the word “colorblind” is nothing but a political and economic agenda of people who hold the power. I think people cannot afford to be colorblind not just because it leads people to ignore this problem as it is mentioned both in the text and in the video but also it directly feeds the current political, social and economic structure of America. The main problem is colorblindness degrades issue, it shows as if the issue is color but no, it is not. The issue is inequalities people are exposed to due to their color. Melody Hubson mentions statistics that show discrimination still continues not “legally” but in practice, in many fields. And if people continue to be colorblind, these inequalities will become more natural for them after a while. So, I also believe that the concept of colorblindness is another racial formation as social darwinism. As social darwinists do, they want to naturalize these inequalities so that they can keep the power and structure as it is now and the best way to do is make people to stop thinking or questioning the problem. Because once they stop questioning, they will accept as things are shown or told and everything become natural. By they, I mean certain groups of people at the top hold the power. So, idea of colorblindness is nothing but playing into some people hands, people who create these inequalities.
Berivan UĞURLU
'So, I also believe that the concept of colorblindness is another racial formation as social darwinism.' By saying racial formation l actually wanted to mean 'racialization'.
DeleteAs we have discussed in the class color-blindness is a term which ignores the skin color or racial characteristics and it is supposed to be create a more equal society. However, I believe that it creates more complexity because most of the people use that term to avoid the topic of racism and accusations of racial discrimination. Moreover, color-blindness may undermine the legal rights of some minority groups. In the case of color-blindness whiteness is considered as normal whereas blackness remains different. I am really impressed by Mellody Hobson’s video, especially her memory with one of his friends (Harold Ford). The officer at the media organization thinks that they are here for work just because of their skin color. Another very impressing thing is her mother’s question: “How did they treat you?” She knows how people threat the blacks and would like to warn her daughter about it. Both in the text we have read and in the video, color-blindness is explained in a very detailed perspective. What they both suggest is that “Do not be color blind!” Being color-blind is not useful; just notice the color of people’s skin. Make race an issue and do not be afraid to talk about it. Be color brave.
ReplyDeleteBeside it, I think about the question the presenters asked us at the end of the class: “Are we being racist by calling blacks as African Americans?” I think it is a very good question to think about, even if I could not come up with a specific answer but it just remind me the video “Races & Politically Correct by George Carlin”. Carlin says that he does not like calling black people as African Americans because all blacks are not from Africa while not all Africans are black (e.g.: people from Egypt are dark brown white). I agree with him on that calling them blacks is better off because it is not a correct word to call all black people as Carlin mentions and it makes us racist in a sense by highlighting the origin of people who are American citizens anymore.
By the way, thank you Ezgi and Yasemin for your presentation and valuable questions which push me to think about.
Pınar ILGAR
Colorblindness is a practice of not taking into consideration of the racial characteristics of a person or a group of people. Embracing that idea or being color brave has positive and negative effects. People who are in the favor being colorblind are considered as ignoring the fact that there is a still implicit racism. They pretend as if there racism as a practice is over and people’s access to the resources or their financial status is the result of their own efforts. However, such approach does not explain why there are still invisible racial boundaries that limit some people in social, economic, political and cultural spectrums. Not confronting the problem, does not mean that it evaporates. On the other hand, when people become color aware, would that benefit people of different races? Or who is expected to be a color brave, minorities or majority races of a certain group? I believe that by paying attention to the physical of characteristics of people we can see the rich and diverse tapestry of the human races. Our differences should not be our disadvantages. However, observing the differences people should not be turned into a practice of excluding people from the majority. In addition, we still witness the racism maybe not legal sense, but in social spectrum. Therefore, we must take notice that racism still exists and we should focus on how we can end the racism as a concept. In order to do so we must first accept that racism is a problem that still continues and we should encourage people to embrace their racial features.
ReplyDeleteHacer Bahar
After the presentation I found myself digging deeper in the issue of colorblindness. I actually think that colorblindness was not meant to be a bad thing but rather at first people tried to show that they really believed in an equal and a free-of-color society. But today the concept is mainly used by many people as an excuse. They don’t want to think about the inequalities, they are not willing to see the problems in the society, they tend to think these are others’ problems but not theirs and thus they find themselves the right to say they are colorblind. Like saying; “Yeah, I don’t care what color others are, everyone is equal” but they don’t see the necessities that need to be done to fix already existing problems mostly caused and enhanced due to being a color-blind society.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Mellody Hobson talks about her own childhood experiences and economical perspective and how she associates colorblindness threatens the new generations. As she also raises up the issue of “awareness” and it being the necessary first step for action, I certainly agree with her. American society gives the utmost importance to unity but as long as colorblindness exists, I think it is not possible. Because by neglecting the problems of colored people, they are not getting closer to a unified society. Hobson also talks about Obama and I think Obama’s becoming the president of the US is a huge step. But it does not solve problems. I think the election of Obama is also seen like the CRM because people tend to think that after selecting a black president their problems are solved and image is fixed. However, this is not the case. There is still a huge problem in “dealing with the discomfort” as Hobson puts it.
Hobson also mentions observing our environment and working to change it would lead to a better society and it would bring solutions on individual bases. This actually reminded me of Ifemelu; how she observes her environment, makes comments about it and by making ironical statement she actually sticks the problems to our faces. Therefore I also agree that first thing to do would be to start the change from our own social environment. I believe, the realization of diversity being good to society, will bring about the change and the progress.