Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Ignoring a person's race is racism + Multiculturalism undermines diversity

#1
C C Offline
Colorblind ideology is a form of racism (Monnica T Williams)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...orm-racism

EXCERPT: What is racial colorblindness? Racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and rife with stress and controversy. [...] 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.

However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism. [...] 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. 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.

[...] The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences. It recognizes that each tradition has something valuable to offer. It is not afraid to see how others have suffered as a result of racial conflict or differences. So, how do we become multicultural? The following suggestions would make a good start (McCabe, 2011):

Recognizing and valuing differences,
Teaching and learning about differences, and
Fostering personal friendships and organizational alliances

Moving from colorblindness to multiculturalism is a process of change, and change is never easy, but we can't afford to stay the same.

MORE: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...orm-racism

RELATED: Multiculturalism weakens national identity and social cohesion (disintegration into divisive tribalism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_...ulturalism



Multiculturalism undermines diversity (Kenan Malik)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...cal-policy

EXCERPT: . . . Part of the difficulty with this debate is that both sides confuse the lived experience of diversity, on the one hand, with multiculturalism as a political process, on the other. The experience of living in a society transformed by mass immigration, a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan, is positive.

As a political process, however, multiculturalism means something very different. It describes a set of policies, the aim of which is to manage diversity by putting people into ethnic boxes, defining individual needs and rights by virtue of the boxes into which people are put, and using those boxes to shape public policy. It is a case, not for open borders and minds, but for the policing of borders, whether physical, cultural or imaginative.

The conflation of lived experience and political policy has proved highly invidious. On the one hand, it has allowed many on the right – and not just on the right – to blame mass immigration for the failures of social policy and to turn minorities into the problem. On the other hand, it has forced many traditional liberals and radicals to abandon classical notions of liberty, such as an attachment to free speech, in the name of defending diversity.

The irony of multiculturalism as a political process is that it undermines much of what is valuable about diversity as lived experience. When we talk about diversity, what we mean is that the world is a messy place, full of clashes and conflicts. That's all for the good, for such clashes and conflicts are the stuff of political and cultural engagement.

But the very thing that's valuable about diversity – the clashes and conflicts that it brings about – is the very thing that worries many multiculturalists. They seek to minimise such conflicts by parcelling people up into neat ethnic boxes, and policing the boundaries of those boxes in the name of tolerance and respect. Far from minimising conflict what this does is generate a new set of more destructive, less resolvable conflicts.

To say that clashes and conflicts can be good does not mean, of course, that every clash and conflict is good. Political conflicts are often useful because they repose social problems in a way that asks: "How can we change society to overcome that problem?" We might disagree on the answer, but the debate itself is a useful one.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, by reposing political problems in terms of culture or faith, transforms political conflicts into a form that makes them neither useful nor resolvable. Rather than ask, for instance, "What are the social roots of racism and what structural changes are required to combat it?" it demands recognition for one's particular identity, public affirmation of one's cultural difference and respect and tolerance for one's cultural and faith beliefs.

Multicultural policies have come to be seen as a means of empowering minority communities and giving them a voice. In reality such policies have empowered not individuals but "community leaders" who owe their position and influence largely to their relationship with the state. Multicultural policies tend to treat minority communities as homogenous wholes, ignoring class, religious, gender and other differences, and leaving many within those communities feeling misrepresented and, indeed, disenfranchised.

As well as ignoring conflicts within minority communities, multicultural policies have often created conflicts between them. In allocating political power and financial resources according to ethnicity, such policies have forced people to identify themselves in terms of those ethnicities, and those ethnicities alone, inevitably setting off one group against another....

MORE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...cal-policy
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
(Oct 11, 2018 05:15 PM)C C Wrote: However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism. [...] 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. 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.

No one is responsible for "racial wounds" but those who actually perpetrated them. Demanding redress from anyone else is to imply guilt based solely on race...which is racist.
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
When the occasion arises I have noticed that skin colour can often be the elephant in the room
To quote Idris Elba "If you're good enough people don't notice the colour of your skin." but most of us aren't that good - or anywhere close. Address the elephant, put peaky white hand next to black as night hand and the elephant vanishes. Must be a bummer for a minority race but that's my take on it.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Oct 18, 2018 11:09 PM)confused2 Wrote: To quote Idris Elba "If you're good enough people don't notice the colour of your skin."


If it wasn't for Elba being in his fifties by the time they did finally get around to making the "next" after the "final" Craig film (6 or 7 more years to go at minimum?), then who knows how it might have gone otherwise...

Meanwhile, if it does turn out to be Richard Madden, then even at 32 now, he'll be yet another actor starting in his late thirties or forties when the ensuing turtle-pace interlude completes itself.

~
Reply
#5
Syne Offline
(Oct 18, 2018 11:09 PM)confused2 Wrote: To quote Idris Elba "If you're good enough people don't notice the colour of your skin."

That's what Booker T. Washington taught.

Two great leaders of the black community in the late 19th and 20th century were W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington. However, they sharply disagreed on strategies for black social and economic progress. Their opposing philosophies can be found in much of today's discussions over how to end class and racial injustice, what is the role of black leadership, and what do the 'haves' owe the 'have-nots' in the black community.

Booker T. Washington, educator, reformer and the most influentional black leader of his time (1856-1915) preached a philosophy of self-help, racial solidarity and accomodation. He urged blacks to accept discrimination for the time being and concentrate on elevating themselves through hard work and material prosperity. He believed in education in the crafts, industrial and farming skills and the cultivation of the virtues of patience, enterprise and thrift. This, he said, would win the respect of whites and lead to African Americans being fully accepted as citizens and integrated into all strata of society.

W.E.B. Du Bois, a towering black intellectual, scholar and political thinker (1868-1963) said no--Washington's strategy would serve only to perpetuate white oppression. Du Bois advocated political action and a civil rights agenda (he helped found the NAACP). In addition, he argued that social change could be accomplished by developing the small group of college-educated blacks he called "the Talented Tenth:"
- https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline.../road.html


Sadly, Du Bois won that argument, so we have black elites, like Sharpton, Jackson, etc., making money winning favor with the white man while most blacks are perpetually left behind. Washington and MLK must be rolling over in their graves.

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  alt claim: Lack of political diversity in science not due to systemic discrimination C C 0 145 Dec 11, 2020 06:54 AM
Last Post: C C
  Critical Race Theory is a classic Marxist divide-and-conquer tactic C C 0 150 Sep 30, 2020 12:16 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)