Skip to main content

Why "Colorblindness" Needs the No-Racism Axiom

In my last post I highlighted the No-Racism "Axiom" of modern "colorblindness." The axiom states that "systemic racism is not a thing," and upon this axiom proponents of colorblindness build a worldview in which the racial ills of our world can be cured by individuals making the decision not to engage in interpersonal racism, or recognizing that race even matters in the world. "I don't see color, I only see people," the colorblind individual asserts.

Colorblind people generally know that race has no biological basis. Perhaps they've read The Myth of Race or The Mismeasure of Man. Since science has proven race irrelevant, colorblindness seems to be an obvious and proper response. This is seemingly in line not only with a general sense of morality and personal goodness, but it also appears to echo the famous line from Martin Luther King Jr's I Have A Dream speech in which he envisions a day when "[people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." What could be more admirable than living by the words of the American hero MLK?!

I'll admit that this view seems, at first glance, very appealing. However, the No-Racism Axiom is demonstrably false. And as I'll argue here, without this false axiom colorblindness not only proves to be useless in solving racial problems, it actually becomes a form of racism.

We Live In A Racial World

The No-Racism axiom is readily disprovable using many lines of reasoning. Here, I'll highlight two that I find to be extremely important.

1) We live in a society that is racially segregated. In a simple study of personal social networks, "respondents were asked to name up to seven people with whom they had 'discussed important matters' in the past six months." They were then asked about several characteristics of these individuals, including their race. The results are rather stunning:

White US-Americans have social networks that are, on average, 91% white. Similarly, Black US-Americans have social networks that are 83% Black. 

To put it another way, 75% of white US-Americans have social networks that are entirely white. 

This is not a random outcome given that only about 68% of the US population is white, while roughly 13% of the population is Black. There are many conclusions to draw from this, but for the sake of disproving the No-Racism Axiom, I'll simply conclude that citizens of the United States see race. 

Race is relevant in schools. Racial segregation is just as bad today as it was in 1968!

Chart from The Unfinished March
Modern-day school segregation is described thusly:
In most metropolitan areas, if one were to randomly choose two high poverty segregated high schools and two middle class white and Asian schools, and visit for a day each of the classes purporting to teach the same subject and grade level, the inequalities would become so apparent they would shock the conscience of anyone who truly believes in equal opportunity. (Orfield, Kucsera, and Siegel-Hawley 2012, xvi)
Segregation is also a salient feature of housing in the US. Let's look at this for one of the nation's largest cities: Chicago, IL (from the Chicago Reader):

The concentration of Black residents in Chicago, IL's
77 residential areas (communities). Source
A description of this map is given in the text of the article:
Chicago's population of 2.7 million is 33 percent African-American, 32 percent non-Latino white, and 28 percent Latino, according to 2008-2012 census estimates. More than half of the black population (52 percent) lives in only 20 of Chicago's 77 community areas—neighborhoods that are each more than 90 percent black. 
I suspect that some skeptical readers are thinking, "Well, Black people are just as segregated as white people. People live near and socialize with with people who are like them." First, this notion of like-with-like certainly doesn't jibe with a colorblind life, does it? Secondly, this segregation has a harmful effect on Black and Latin@ people that is not felt by white people because of the second key point, below.

2) Race strongly correlates with life opportunities, choices and outcomes. Let's look at this first in terms of unemployment, using the previous map of Chicago housing segregation:

The map on the left shows the concentration of Black residents among Chicago's 77 residential areas, while the map on the right shows the concentration of unemployment. Focusing on the regions with the highest unemployment (dark brown) shows that those regions are 91-100% Black. Conversely, those regions with the lowest unemployment (gray) have Black populations that are mostly < 10% and all < 20%. 

Furthermore, history matters. One can compare the features of both maps above with a redlining map of South Chicago that was used to designate certain areas as "high-risk" for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans (orient yourself with Calumet Heights near Calumet Lake). Those dark regions are all red, meaning that the Black people who lived there in 1940-1960 could not own homes and build wealth, and were instead subject to predatory housing practices such as contract lending. The Chicago ghetto, as with all ghettos, is a matter of public policy.

In our country, race also correlates strongly with other important aspects of life:
If we lived in a world in which the color of ones skin is irrelevant compared to the content of a person's character, these race-based disparities would not and could not exist. Yet they exist in almost every aspect of US life. One tempting "out" for the colorblind individual is that these disparities are tied to the culture of non-white groups. Maybe it's the deficient culture of Black, Latin@ and Native people that leads to these differences in life outcomes. Perhaps they need to work harder, value education more, say no to drugs, and stop being so dependent on taxpayers.

But can this opinion, which ties the content of a person's character to the color of their skin be deemed "colorblind?" 

Colorblindness as Racism

Black, Latin@ and Native people live lives that are separate and very much unequal to the lives of white people. This simple fact of life is not news to most People of Color in our country. However, this is what colorblind people ignore when they claim to not see color. White people may not see these aspects of life because the vector of disparity aims in exclusively one direction: away from them. 

When these disparities are pointed out to white people, most respond with stories of their own hardships, or point to the struggles of their immigrant ancestors. Yes, white people are impacted by poverty. But not systematically on the basis of their race. The poverty of any individual white person cannot be traced to race-based historical policies. When making comparisons across racial divides, the comparison must be made between people at the same socioeconomic class level. When done so, white people still face huge advantages, and PoC still face the same litany of disparities I listed above. That time you were unemployed and had to go on food stamps? Just try to tell me that the outcome would have been the same for a Latina woman. 

As for white people with ancestors who came to the US in poverty, I'll allow MLK to take it from here:
Negroes have grown accustomed now to hearing unfeeling and insensitive whites say: "Other immigrant groups such as the Irish, the Jews and the Italians started out with similar handicaps, and yet they made it. Why haven't the Negroes done the same?" These questioners refuse to see that the situation of other immigrant groups a hundred years ago and the situation of the Negro cannot be usefully compared. Negroes were brought here in chains long before the Irish decided voluntarily to leave Ireland or the Italians thought of leaving Italy. 
Furthermore, those European immigrants had a country to flee to. A country that would offer them opportunity based on their whiteness (cf 1790 Naturalization Act). That country was built on the destruction of American Indians and on the stolen lives and labor of Black slaves (and the invention of Blackness itself for that purpose). There would have been no country to move to without the racial/colonial injustice that paved the way! Even late arrivals in this country, post-slavery, can participate in the benefits of whiteness and are not exempt from benefiting from the effects of race. 

Another key distinction is that Irish, Italian and many Jewish immigrants were able to become white by simply changing their last names, dropping their accents and discarding their former culture. Once they were white, they were able to move to nicer neighborhoods, and have access to better schools, healthcare, employment and college education. Further, they were eligible for FHA loans, GI Bill benefits and they were safe from housing covenants, blockbusting, white flight and predatory lending. Black and Brown people have historically been unable to, and cannot currently choose to become white, no matter how they change their names or discard their culture. 

Thus, the No-Racism Axiom is roundly disproven by readily accessible and abundant present-day and historical data. But can "colorblindness" remain a tenable approach to race in the US without this false axiom? I argue that the answer is no because our present racial disparities are so closely tied to race-based policies and practices. The only way to undo them is to recognize that certain races deserve recompense for these past and present injustices.

This lofty ideal can only be approached once these injustices are properly recognized and seen for what they are, and viewed within a racially-unbiased (e.g. non-white-supremacist) historical perspective. No colorblind individual can recognize nor repair racial injustice for the simple reason that they, in their own words "do not see race." Without the ability to see, much less fix racial injustice, they allow the status quo to continue. Their inaction props up and perpetuates systemic racism instead of calling it out and challenging it. Thus, perhaps paradoxically, their colorblindness becomes a highly effective mechanism for perpetuating racism.


mama mia said…
Some questions from one who is recently trying to remove the blinders: what would recompense look like in the reality of all the historic and current disparities/injustices? beginning within one's circle of influence and moving outward to effect change, how can it proceed? thru local and wider political engagement?

If one remains colorblind, then one stands to lose the upper hand indeed. Perhaps you've reached the truth about why it is that we prefer to "not see color" continue to deny the separateness we've created and controlled is based on fear of losing power...that is why we have such a hard time talking about race, we've been trained not to do so, to keep the status quo in place...

committed to continuing to keep my eyes opening and praying for the courage to know how to proceed on the journey as an ally in this struggle

Popular posts from this blog

On the Height of J.J. Barea

Dallas Mavericks point guard J.J. Barea standing between two very tall people (from: Picassa user photoasisphoto).

Congrats to the Dallas Mavericks, who beat the Miami Heat tonight in game six to win the NBA championship.

Okay, with that out of the way, just how tall is the busy-footed Maverick point guard J.J. Barea? He's listed as 6-foot on, but no one, not even the sports casters, believes that he can possibly be that tall. He looks like a super-fast Hobbit out there. But could that just be relative scaling, with him standing next to a bunch of extremely tall people? People on Yahoo! Answers think so---I know because I've been Google searching "J.J. Barea Height" for the past 15 minutes.

So I decided to find a photo and settle the issue once and for all.

I started by downloading a stock photo of J.J. from, which I then loaded into OpenOffice Draw:

I then used the basketball as my metric. Wikipedia states that an NBA basketball is 29.5 inches in circumfe…

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight

ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims.
I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to do was p…

The GRE: A test that fails

Every Fall seniors in the US take the Graduate Records Examination (GRE), and their scores are submitted along with their applications to grad school. Many professors, particularly those in physics departments, believe that the GRE is an important predictor of future success in grad school, and as a result many admissions committees employ score cutoffs in the early stages of their selection process. However, past and recent studies have shown that there is little correlation between GRE scores and future graduate school success.
The most recent study of this type was recently published in Nature Jobs. The authors, Casey Miller and Keivan Stassun show there are strong correlations between GRE scores and race/gender, with minorities and (US) white women scoring lower than their white male (US) counterparts. They conclude, "In simple terms, the GRE is a better indicator of sex and skin colour than of ability and ultimate success."
Here's the key figure from their article: