Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism
Instructor: Dr. Lalia Hekima Kiburi
Spring Quarter 2014
Blog Question #2
Blindness means being unable to see.
A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences.
What is racial colorblindness?
Racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and rife with stress and controversy. Many ideas have been advanced to address this sore spot in the American psyche. Currently, the most pervasive approach is known as colorblindness. Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity.
At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.
Problems with the colorblind approach--Racism? Strong words, yes, but let's look the issue straight in its partially unseeing eye. In a colorblind society, White people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.
Let's break it down into simple terms: Color-Blind = "People of color — we don't see you (at least not that bad ‘colored' part)." As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don't want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't talk about. Thus, colorblindness has helped make race into a taboo topic that polite people cannot openly discuss. And if you can't talk about it, you can't understand it; much less fix the racial problems that plague our society.
Colorblindness is not the answer
Many Americans view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context.
Given recent issues relating to hate speech and freedom of speech rights among UCLA college students observing dating and mating across cultural lines: http://www.ryot.org/offensive-flyer-at-ucla-calls-asian-girls-who-date-interracially-honkie-white-boy-worshipping-whores/563413—how would you argue to support a UCLA student embracing a colorblind ideology? How would you argue to oppose a colorblind ideology in UCLA’s highly diverse educational setting?
Concerning the recent hate events at UCLA, a colorblind ideology can provide both positive and negative aspects to the situation. If a student chose to support the colorblind ideology, s/he is committing to not seeing a difference between various races. This could help those who are being racially attacked because it would allow everyone to be treated equally. The people who are being victimized would no longer be seen as any different than the others. By using this, they would in turn experience less of these hate speech experiences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, simply ignoring their culture and treating all people the same does not always work out fairly. This colorblind approach does not let those of the minority get to accurately express their traditions, culture, beliefs, etc. Because UCLA is a diverse and academic setting, there are many mixes of people in a concentrated area. Often, others are willing and excited to learn about the various races that surround them. Yet, if everyone is treated the same, how can the others learn from their peers about various and different cultures? In this sense, a colorblind ideology limits the experiences of the minority and the learning opportunities of everyone else.
All in all, although a colorblind approach may help lessen the victimization of certain races, it does not let adequate expression of the cultures and backgrounds.
Colorblind racism is a very flawed concept. I believe that there are parts of it that can be employed, and some parts that should be completely disregarded. People of different backgrounds and descents should embrace their own culture, and not have to go about their lives being "colorblind" and rejecting their own culture. This provides a more hostile environment for themselves because they cannot express their roots. Additionally, it would oppress them even more, as they would have to conform themselves to the majority population, and follow their customs and norms. Race should be acknowledged, but instead of it being something you hide, it should be something you can flaunt. That is why there are so many minority clubs on campus. With customs and race being embraced, it would create a more diverse world, one where no one single group's norms and customs can outweigh another's. America is described as a "melting pot", so it should be that every single race's customs can become integrated into mainstream cultural norms. Racial colorblindness is a flawed concept, but it does have some good parts to it. We should not judge people based on their race, but instead their own personal achievements. However, we cannot fully ignore race, as it does become oppressive as well. At UCLA, since it is so diverse, they should just implement parts of racial colorblindness, but still be able to acknowledge the different backgrounds that everyone comes from.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering the recent events that have occurred at UCLA, a colorblind ideology seems like a reasonable approach to solve the issues. If students were to embrace a colorblind ideology then these racial differences would no longer exist. It would solve the issue of hate towards specific races due to the fact that everyone would be looked at as equals. Although colorblind ideology diminishes the opportunity for racial hate to exist, it doesn't really solve the problem of discrimination of races. Race is more than just the color of one's skin and the existence of colorblind ideology ignores the culture and individuality that different races bring. Despite the fact that the lack of colorblind ideology does allow for discrimination to be present, it allows the uniqueness of different cultures to be carried on through generations. It is important to acknowledge these culture differences, depicting that colorblind ideology is not necessary as long as racial hate can be greatly diminished.
ReplyDeleteThe colorblind ideology is an epitome of how things can make sense in theory but not in practice. In theory, the ideology pursues equality by attempting to treat all individuals the same without regards to their ethnicity, culture, or ethnicity. However, in practice, what colorblindness really does is forces people to overlook race in a way that makes discussing a racial issue as taboo. And thus, a taboo topic is unspeakable and something that is never discussed can never be overcome. The student who wrote the flyers is aiming to implement his (strange) take on a colorblind society. The flyers are saying that (Asian) women should not be looking for a particular (White) race, because in doing so, they are not acknowledging equality within potential partners. Dating and mating across cultural lines is such a challenging topic because it is impossible to tell people who they should or should not be attracted to, even when who they are attracted to has racial implications. In a highly diverse setting like UCLA, living in colorblindness is flawed because it allows for mainstream customs to thrive while suppressing minority ways. Thus, it is imperative to eradicate the colorblind ideology because of its implications, as I believe that acknowledging that people are treated differently based on appearance allows us as a society to not be as sensitive about topic like racism that needs to be better understood and changed.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the approach is very important in the consideration of a colorblind ideology. I don't agree with the majority of the beginning of this article. I think the idea of colorblindness doesn't imply that, "there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't talk about". My impression from what I've heard of racial colorblindness is that regardless of race, people should be treated as equally as possible. Nobody gets privileges, nobody gets ignored, everyone is allowed to live their own lives the way they want without fear of people looking down on them. It isn't saying to ignore cultures or the way people live or what made them what they are. To me, if I were to (metaphorically of course) adopt colorblind ideology I wouldn't pretend someone's past was unimportant, it would only affect the present. I respect people of all races, genders, sexual preferences, and religions. To pretend they are all equal isn't to say they are all the same people. To me it means that they all deserve the same respect in whatever they do.
ReplyDeleteNow, there is a part of the article that seems to carry a totally different message to me. Talking about race in public, obviously, would come to an end if everyone was racially colorblind. And it makes sense in this way that this could have negative side-effects. Part of the reason that the world is so beautiful is because we can all appreciate each other for our differences, but if we choose to not see those, we can't talk about them, we can't appreciate them as something unique or something that someone can be proud of as an individual. Another thing I agree with is the fact that it can turn into an ideology of turning a blind eye. If things happen in society such as lost opportunities, altered perceptions, or income changes based on race, how can colorblind people observe these differences and help to stop them if they can't tell that one specific group is receiving these disadvantages? The world as a whole would need to be colorblind for this to be effective, and even then there's room for error. A group that doesn't understand a certain custom or can't understand something will be left in the dark in a society that can't interpret this as a cultural shortcoming or misunderstanding. Or perhaps something said is received by a racial group as extremely rude. This would create an argument that developed from a racial misunderstanding where one side can't realize what went wrong.
Overall, there are definitely flaws if you dedicate 100% to the ideology of racial colorblindness, but there is something to gain from the understanding that regardless of skin color a person should be respected and not treated as a lesser form of human being. We all have our differences and our preferences, but we are all humans and in a perfect world we would all be treated with general equality and understanding.
So to a UCLA student attempting colorblind ideology I would say if you intend to follow this approach senselessly then it is ignorant and can lead to problems. But if it is less of a religion and more of a way of thought to you, then I think it isn't too outrageous for people to begin believing that we are all equal. At UCLA especially now it seems like the Asian community needs support for the direct hate that they're receiving, but if all students were racially colorblind this wouldn't need to be about race. This is cruelty towards another human being and regardless of race it is offensive, rude, and should be stopped.
All of the hate events and crimes at UCLA have put into question what a colorblind ideology could do for the campus. I agree with Michelle that it could be both a positive and negative change. Colorblind ideology has its upsides as well as its other consequences. In my opinion, it would be very difficult for any institution, especially for such a large one as UCLA to apply this ideology and most of all enforce it on all the people involved in UCLA.
ReplyDeleteIf UCLA were to be able to adopt a colorblind ideology, it might help stop the hate crimes from happening outright, but it may cause a general unrest. This might cause people who feel strongly to rebel in more dangerous or creative ways. On the other hand, if people were forced to look at each other in the same light regardless of color, this could help bring more tolerance to a larger group of people. The group of students and staff would either have to adjust their views or would have to band together to oppose them.
The problem with colorblind ideology is that it does not embrace the differences between cultures, but rather ignores the idea of difference altogether. This is a much larger issue because it not only fails to embrace the many benefits that come with the differences between cultures, but also forgets to consider that each culture experiences life differently and contributes something unique to the world. Regarding the hateful messages at UCLA, the colorblind ideology would be disregarding the past heritage of every culture which may be more insulting than the racial slurs themselves. Therein lies the biggest problem with applying the colorblind ideology: if we cannot embrace the differences between the cultures its as if we are getting rid of the differences that make us human: different languages and cultures that form America as a country today. It would be hard to develop respect for colorblind ideology if the people’s cultures were not respected in and of themselves.
Despite these downsides colorblind ideology does have some aspects that make it seem a worthwhile cause. It does get people to accept the concept that all humans are equal, meaning that no one culture can be considered less than another. If the ideology was accepted, people would be less inclined to commit these hate crimes because they would possess the respect for other cultures as they would for their own.
The idea of colorblind ideology seems to be well serving and adapting some of the concepts would be helpful for not only UCLA, but people in general. The concepts are not that everyone is the same in terms of color and race, but everyone is equally human and that they all have a past and history and for that they should be treated with respect and race should not be a impact on how you view a person. If UCLA takes on a colorblind ideology, they may be able to solve issues of targeting specific groups of people if they are considered all equal. If they were to adapt the colorblind ideology, they would be stopping some hate crime because they would be equal, but at the same time they might be allowing people to actually do more things. If UCLA were to adapt the colorblind ideology, the people that are actually performing the hate crimes(even though they say it is not a hate crime) could actually argue they are not doing anything wrong and it would not be a hate crime because everyone is equal and they are not targeting any one group of people. Also another problem that colorblind ideology brings up is the fact that the people that relate strongly with a certain race/ethnicity may be pushed to the side and they might not be able to be in the space that their beliefs, history, or differences are respected. People may be more inclined to look at people as "equal" in terms that people are of one group and when that happens people will be overlooked. Colorblind ideology would also be taking away an identity and a community for people that identify a certain way. The pros of a colorblind ideology are that everyone would be looked at equally and the actions that would choose to do(such as dating) is not due to a certain ethnicity looking for another ethnicity, and cons are that people that identify with a certain title/belong to a certain community will lose that and it may also give haters unintentional ammo to say that they are not actually committing a hate crime.
ReplyDeleteI think that that the reason that the UCLA student should implement color blind ideology is that there is no other good way to objectively deal with sensitive race issues. If left to the subjectivity of that person, inherent prejudices taught by society would always be prevalent. At least color blind ideology attempts to give that person an even ground from which to view the world around them. I would say that color blind ideology could be bad in that it may cause that person to not appreciate the cultural differences that different races bring to the table. However, I disagree that with the author of the article that it ignores past prejudices and uniqueness of individuals. I believe that race does not play as major of a role of what makes people unique as some make it out to be, and choosing to try to see everyone in the same way stems from the acknowledgment that racial prejudices do exist and seeks to avoid that.
ReplyDeleteThe recent events at UCLA express notions of racism, intolerance, and stereotypes regarding Asian Americans and Mexican Americans. Flyers produced promote racist slurs and offensive language regarding relationships between Asian Americans and White Americans. The language shows ignorance about cultural sensitivity and is very repulsive.
ReplyDelete(1) Students might embrace colorblind ideology in a way of reacting against these events and flyers. In this sense, an individual may think seeing everyone as the same, or ignoring ethnic and cultural differences, is the only manner to deal with racism. The thought of equality through a lack of social acknowledgment is comforting; however, this belief is flawed. The process of denying racial and cultural differences serves as another form of racism. Indeed, forgetting the backgrounds of people in our community expresses that racism is over - racist people no longer exist - which is certainly a falsehood. (2) Ignoring the struggles, the victories, and the uniqueness may seem like a way to achieve freedom for all, but the theory actually buys into white privilege. If we do not recognize the problem and actively fight against racism, through honoring cultural differences, no progress will be made. People also say that we live in a post-Feminist world, meaning that sexism is no longer relevant. Similarly, this idea is untrue, as the fight for equality for women and all ethnicities is going strong. At a research university such as UCLA, diversity should be valued and emphasized to oppose racist individuals who produced such upsetting flyers. Education is key. The future depends on our ability to educate others and ourselves about the beauty and the importance of ethnic and cultural differences.
Depending on the situation at hand and the extent to which it is followed, colorblind ideology could be either harmful or beneficial. I am of the belief that it is not generally a bad thing, and that in fact, it is the right direction for our society to move. While we are often led to believe that it is such a terribly offensive form of racism, at its core, it is nothing but the practice of looking at a person’s characteristics other than their skin color. In doing this, much more about the person can become apparent that we would otherwise miss if tied up in focusing on their color. Many people argue that this is just as racist as discriminating on the basis of color, but that argument is extremely flawed. Colorblind ideology in and of itself does not directly exclude any consideration of culture or heritage, just the physical color of their skin. The extension of it to include those things other than color have just arisen as an attack on the ideology by those who have felt victimized by it. Thus, any minority who complains that this is such a terrible thing is just furthering the issue. If we were all to just accept that skin color and culture were two unique things that could be considered independently, then we would be a lot better off, and this conflict over such a trivial issue could be put to an end. All of this lends itself to the idea that colorblind ideology in and of itself, when only concerned with ignoring physical color, is not a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in contrast, when colorblind ideology is extended to ignore one’s heritage or culture, that is when it can become harmful. It also becomes a problem when it is used to create stereotypes, as seen in the UCLA article. In a place as diverse as UCLA, it is important to recognize the differences people bring to the campus and the beautiful diversity of culture that creates. With that in mind, it would be extremely ignorant to be blind to the cultural aspects of the student population, so in that sense, colorblind ideology can be harmful, and should be stopped.
Side note:
Try googling “define colorblind ideology” and see what pops up immediately in the big bold text. These kinds of messages are not doing anything but exacerbating the problem in relation to colorblind ideology. If we define the word as a form of terrible racism, that is exactly what it will become. However, if we use it more in context of just not paying regard to someone’s coloring (which can actually be beneficial in society), then that is simply what it will be.
Choosing to embrace colorblind ideology feels more enticing because of the issues of hate speech and freedom of speech rights at UCLA; the racist and stereotypical slurs makes one want to erase all the stereotyped racial differences and lines drawn between ethnic groups. Thus, a UCLA student who experiences racial hate may be attracted to the possible solution of disintegrating that hate by getting rid of any evidence of race.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, colorblind ideology is too much of an idealistic solution because in reality, there are many differences between groups of people that arise from their cultures. As mentioned in the blog post, colorblindness fails to look at “the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context”. Even if not in such a highly diverse, educational setting such as UCLA, but especially if the environment is, people can only accept and embrace all cultures by beginning with acknowledgement.
However, one aspect of colorblind ideology I believe that should be considered is the focus on the individual’s personality and culture, and not their race. I think that in general, the concept of “race” shouldn’t exist. Yes, people are unique because of their cultural differences, but it is due to ethnicity and not race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOpposition against the ideology of colorblindness on UCLA campus is only enhanced by the fact that the campus, and surrounding city, are so very diverse. LA is one of the most diverse cities in the nation, and certainly in California. Limiting the scope of the students on campus to nothing more than a a blurred line of “equality” between all races and cultures would be nearly impossible. The city and campus themselves are so rich in culture, simply due to the diversity itself. Colorblindness could only serve to lose this rich land of diversity. Obviously, in the face of the race issues prevalent on the UCLA campus at this time, it would seem that a colorblind ideology would do the campus some good, easing the tension currently stirring within the student body. A colorblind ideology seems like an easy way of dissipating racial tension on campus by eliminating the very differences separating it. In theory, this should serve to benefit the minority by equating it to the power of the white majority. But, again, UCLA is a campus rich in diversity and culture. Limiting the school to the blinders of a pseudo “equality” would surely result in a greater loss than any gain it produce.
ReplyDelete1) I would not necessarily argue FOR a UCLA student embracing a colorblind ideology. While said student’s intentions might have been good, meaning that he or she is advocating for cessation of racism and prejudicial stereotypes, his or her adoption of the colorblind ideology actually backfires, increasing racial tension by ignoring the differences between every culture. For this particular student, it would be beneficial to help he or she explore the reasons why colorblindness is detrimental to equal rights and treatment progressions. It would be important to be supportive of said student while attempting to alter his or her perception of equality progression, if only to prevent the student from adopting another backward philosophy.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that, in order to overcome the racist agenda, which is only further perpetuated by colorblind ideology, it is necessary to spread awareness. Colorblindness has an appeal at first, especially to those of privilege, as it seems to promote equality for and between all races. However, this ideology only further prolongs the road to equal treatments for all. In UCLA’s highly diverse educational setting, I would aim to spread public awareness through social and print media as to argue against colorblind ideology. It may seem easier, and in some cases, right, to look beyond race as a determinant factor in the treatment of others. However, it should be noted and embraced that the treatment of others should value and uphold all aspects of one’s identity, including race, as not to demean those traits that one holds dear.
Examining the events at UCLA, there are both pros and cons to the colorblind ideology.
ReplyDeleteIn support of the argument to obtain a colorblind ideology perspective, it could be a good thing because it would essentially eliminate the basis for the comments made. Casting aside racial differences could potentially create an environment that is more accepting and calm.
However, I can see many flaws with this. UCLA is a very diverse area, and the diversity is an integral part of LA. Eliminating this could be offensive to some people, especially those who embrace this aspect of LA and the surrounding area. I think that ignoring racial differences with the colorblind ideology would just bandaid the issue for a little while, but it would need to be addressed again in the future.
Based on the recent racist flyers at UCLA, a colorblind ideology may help alleviate the situation. Colorblindness seeks to treat individuals equally without regards to their race or color. This would prevent individuals at UCLA such as Asian or Mexican women from being discriminated due to their race. Individuals would only be criticized on their character rather than their race which would prevent racist flyers from propagating around UCLA. Embracing a colorblind ideology may be an effective way to reduce racism.
ReplyDeleteUCLA's highly diverse educational setting is diverse because of the numerous students of various races and cultures who attend UCLA. Many of these students have unique backgrounds, personalities, and experiences that contribute to UCLA's diverse setting. Colorblindness would eliminate the cultural and racial aspect that many students would be proud of. Clubs or organizations such as the Asian Pacific Coalition or Vietnamese Student Union that promote positive aspects of one's culture would unlikely exist if UCLA embraced colorblind ideology. By opposing colorblind ideology, many individuals can learn about each other's cultural backgrounds and embrace their cultural identity. This would promote multiculturalism which would further support diversity at UCLA.
Although certain aspects of colorblind ideology such as treating individuals equally can help reduce racism at UCLA, it is also important that individuals can embrace their race and cultural background to create a diverse setting where individuals can better understand each other better.
When racial slurs are used such as the flyer situation at UCLA, colorblind ideology can be easily justified. First, a definition of colorblind ideology must be set; treating everyone equally independent of chosen race, skin color, ethnicity, exoticness, etc... To argue for this type of thinking to be implemented, thinking that rather than highlighting each others' cultural differences, ignores them, we must first determine the cause of the flyers. Why were the flyers posted? It seems that the articles were posted because some, "womyn" (women) at UCLA were choosing to date interracially, perhaps for cultural differences in the men of their choose or for different lifestyles as a result of their different ethnicity. This angered a certain group of individuals and led them to attack those couples. From the situation presented, colorblind ideology seems like a great way to handle the situation. implementing colorblind ideology would negate the reasoning behind the anger that occupied the flyer-makers' minds. If the makers simply ignored the ethnicities and treated the couples as the same ethnicity (equal), the womyn's saying interracially would not be a problem at all.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, however, colorblind ideology is not easy to implement. Even if I claim to be completely closed to racial differences and choose to be as racially ignorant as possible, I highly doubt I would be perfectly colorblind to race. Should one be able to be perfectly colorblind, the ability to do so would not be ideal in the UCLA incident, or in real life for that manner. Colorblind ideology, because it ignores racial differences, treats us all the same, ignoring our cultural history, traditions, values, morales, and ideologies. Embracing these things adds a certain flavor to life that couldn't be found or attained by any mean other than through other ethnicities. Exotic traditions mystify us, unheard of traditions intrigue us, foreign morales allow us to learn and grow as a whole via implementation, and ideologies allow us to better understand ourselves and the purpose of the things we do. choosing to embrace racial differences allows the entire world population to carry sustained growth, it allows us to attain worldly knowledge, to better understand the world around us and how it operates. At UCLA, like at many other UC campuses, the population is very diverse, and so the aforementioned has a prime location on the UCLA campus. The students should choose to embrace the other cultures and grow worldly, not be ignorant for their entire lives and miss out on one of life's great joys, the understanding and accepting of other human beings.
I do not believe if is the most effective way to deal with racism on campus at UCLA or any other universities using the colorblind ideally because race will always be a factor in the eyes of humans and diversity should be embraces, not ignored. Though the approach seems like an ideal solution, it isn't realistic because it wants people to push racial differences under the rug and ignore them in the face of reality. Attending University is a place for young people to mature and become adults. Its a center for learning and sharing knowledge and its a place where diversity should be embraced the most. Knowledge we gain in the classroom comes from every part of the world and so are the students sitting there listening. Instead of trying to avoid racism, maybe we should start to encourage students to explore the diversity around them, travel and study abroad, and really learn to appreciate the multiple cultures around them - I believe this could enhance our society and allow racism to fade away naturally as we embrace the world as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI GOT IT TO WORK AND POST MY RESPONSE WOOO!