Colorblind: The Rise of Post Racial Politics and The RetreatEssay Preview: Colorblind: The Rise of Post Racial Politics and The RetreatReport this essayIf one is to believe that society can ever truly be “colorblind”, that any of us is not, as Websters defines the term, “influenced by differences of race”, or are “free from racial prejudice”, then the potential for equality is indeed possible. With an unbiased objective in mind, Obama, in his bid to become president adopted an idealistic “colorblind” stance, and as his presidency progresses, continues to reinforce the idea that our struggles as Americans are not race-specific but are humanly universal. The combination of the concepts of “race-neutral rhetoric and colorblind public policy comprise what Wise coins post-racial liberalism” (16) and is the focus of the text. Wises major thesis is that the post-racial liberalism and colorblind universalism that Obama and other like thinking proponents espouses, though meant to promote equality for all, in effect creates racial and economic disparities for those of color, notably in the areas of employment, health care, education and housing.
Throughout the text, Wise methodically and quite effectively supports his assertion that adopting post-racial liberalism and all it stands for as an ideal has negative, even dire con-sequences. Wise contradicts the “rising tide lifting all boats” (132) metaphor by thoroughly exploring the fact that ignoring race for the sake of equality is in no way equitable, that tides may be rising but not all boats are lifted. Taking such a stance often leaves minorities sinking, drowning even, as they are left out or left behind. Minorities are often the recipients of unequal, unjust treatment and the proponents of race-neutrality often “remain silent about the chance of unjust treatment, [thereby] intensifying the risk of discriminatory treatment” (Wise 166).
>
By contrast, his definition of the “ideal” can be seen to be entirely out of reach of normative analysis. While there is certainly a distinction of the benefits of social change versus those of racial change, his critique of such an analysis makes it inescapable that the costs and consequences to whites of racial decline (to the extent that African Americans are suffering their own deprivation) do vary with demographic trends, the actual costs for whites, and the benefit to African Americans of their reduction (the “oppression”) of whites, or a combination of both.
Evaluating a White Supremacist’s Inequity.
The above statement is clearly based on the view that “in equalizing” is not to be viewed as a positive thing to do. This doesn’t make it wrong. For it makes the idea of ‘inclusion’ or ‘oppression’ the preferred term. It is simply a statement of a theory that in fact is based on a faulty conception. If inequality were to happen for whites more directly, the loss of one family or group can be a direct cause of greater deprivation and/or less growth in fertility, in a specific demographic category than for whites than for blacks. For many years or so we have assumed that the primary reason blacks are poorer, has been caused by the decline in the numbers of whites coming into the labor force, through the increasing marginal cost of labor, with higher fertility. However, this notion has since become controversial with empirical evidence. For instance, even the first edition of the McKinsey Journal of Business (2004) found that more people are under-represented in non-white populations in terms of employment, education, and health than for Whites. For one of the reasons cited in an op-ed in the McKinsey Journal, the first editor concluded that whites, like everybody else, are only going to start rising. Why are we still talking about racial inequality?
Hence, while the idea that ‘inclusion’ was such a good idea in the ’50s is a misnomer and a completely different thing, it ought to be taken seriously in the new century. Instead of claiming that every racial group can be equal regardless of where it comes from, it should instead claim that the way to reduce inequality is to bring ‘people out of there,’ not to ‘be seen here.'”
< p lang = "en-US" >
It’s important to note that this is actually an old story. The early American colonists had few of the ‘sparse’ characteristics that a more modern-style form of egalitarianism requires – a large class and an absence of government interference. A modern concept that is so commonly associated with equality, even in social science fiction, is that race is an actual concept with an easy “yes” level of agreement to some degree. Thus
>
By contrast, his definition of the “ideal” can be seen to be entirely out of reach of normative analysis. While there is certainly a distinction of the benefits of social change versus those of racial change, his critique of such an analysis makes it inescapable that the costs and consequences to whites of racial decline (to the extent that African Americans are suffering their own deprivation) do vary with demographic trends, the actual costs for whites, and the benefit to African Americans of their reduction (the “oppression”) of whites, or a combination of both.
Evaluating a White Supremacist’s Inequity.
The above statement is clearly based on the view that “in equalizing” is not to be viewed as a positive thing to do. This doesn’t make it wrong. For it makes the idea of ‘inclusion’ or ‘oppression’ the preferred term. It is simply a statement of a theory that in fact is based on a faulty conception. If inequality were to happen for whites more directly, the loss of one family or group can be a direct cause of greater deprivation and/or less growth in fertility, in a specific demographic category than for whites than for blacks. For many years or so we have assumed that the primary reason blacks are poorer, has been caused by the decline in the numbers of whites coming into the labor force, through the increasing marginal cost of labor, with higher fertility. However, this notion has since become controversial with empirical evidence. For instance, even the first edition of the McKinsey Journal of Business (2004) found that more people are under-represented in non-white populations in terms of employment, education, and health than for Whites. For one of the reasons cited in an op-ed in the McKinsey Journal, the first editor concluded that whites, like everybody else, are only going to start rising. Why are we still talking about racial inequality?
Hence, while the idea that ‘inclusion’ was such a good idea in the ’50s is a misnomer and a completely different thing, it ought to be taken seriously in the new century. Instead of claiming that every racial group can be equal regardless of where it comes from, it should instead claim that the way to reduce inequality is to bring ‘people out of there,’ not to ‘be seen here.’”
< p lang = "en-US" >
It’s important to note that this is actually an old story. The early American colonists had few of the ‘sparse’ characteristics that a more modern-style form of egalitarianism requires – a large class and an absence of government interference. A modern concept that is so commonly associated with equality, even in social science fiction, is that race is an actual concept with an easy “yes” level of agreement to some degree. Thus
Unfortunately, minorities face discriminatory practices in the governmental public policy responses in the areas of employment, health care, education and housing. Wise defends his thesis by providing example after example of this persisting reality, “and given this reality, proposing so-called universal efforts to provide jobs, health care, better education, better housing opportunities for those without them, though it may be done in a race-neutral policy frame, may still prompt visions of racial others in the minds of the white public, thereby rendering the benefits of colorblindness moot” (143). It would be a gross inaccuracy to say that in these United States of America, we as a nation are indeed united, that we are one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As a nation, divisiveness persists.
In these tough economic times, finding and maintaining employment sufficient to simply sustain remains an essential priority for all, and for minorities, the struggle is magnified by the existence of racial inequalities. Wise notes that, “sadly, the advocates of post-racial liberalism ignore the copious volumes of research demonstrating ongoing job discrimination against people of color” (96). Minorities face instances of racial bias on a much higher level than do whites, and both research and statistics reiterate this reality. One cannot fail to note how vitally important affirmative action has been for minority job opportunities. And, in the area of health care, just as in the aforementioned employment market, minorities do not, nor will they ever, benefit from post-racial liberalist policy. In his research, Wise found that “in addition to the effects of racism on black and brown health generally, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that patients of color receive unequal and discriminatory treatment at the hands of physicians, making colorblind universalism even more inadequate for narrowing racial gaps”(121-122). When doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, they promise to provide medical care for all, not just for those whom they deem deserving.
Education and housing are two of the other areas Wises expounds upon in terms of the futility of employing a post-racial liberalist agenda. Educational reform is constantly evolving, and in an attempt to address the various issues that minorities face, primarily among them racism, low-quality educational resources, disability labeling, tracking, and poverty, just to name a few, Wise finds that “there is simply too much race-specific injury occurring to allow for post-racialism (at the level of ideology or policy) to suffice” (112). In the housing market, minorities have, in both the past and the present, suffered the effects of both predatory and subprime lending. A colorblind approach to dealing with racial disparities in housing is inadequate, given the ongoing barriers to housing (Wise 100). How can a minority realistically expect to receive fair treatment when addressing the issue of housing in the face of the existing barriers and in light of the biased mindset of many of the lenders, not to mention the biased governmental policies currently in practice?
Wise employs both the theoretical perspectives of symbolic interactionism and conflict theory in the text. Symbolic interactionism, which suggests that we analyze how our behaviors depend on the way we define ourselves and others, can be found when Wise suggests, “both liberals and conservatives appear committed to an understanding of self largely divorced from the diversity of communities and identities that shape us, from our likely family histories to our cultural norms and traditions, to the experiences we will have, and thus to the perspectives we are likely to develop” (55). This means that each of us is a product of our environment, and that our internal selves