Skip to main content

Based on the Preface, Introduction, and Chapters 1-4 of Ian Haney López's "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented...

First, colorblindness refers to the disregard of race in the public arena. The idea is that the Constitution is colorblind and therefore, cannot favor any one group of people over another. Based on this form of reasoning, affirmative action policies are unnecessary to ensure the complete integration of black Americans into the public sphere. This view of absolute colorblindness was steadfastly rejected by the Supreme Court in the early 1960s.


Initially, civil rights champions like Martin Luther King welcomed the idea of absolute colorblindness. However, as the 1960s progressed, it became clear that informal efforts against integration prevailed despite laws against segregation. So, the civil rights movement changed course; leaders began demanding that race be considered in efforts to integrate black Americans into every social sphere. However, by the mid 1960s, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier position. It now championed the view that it was just as wrong to compel integration as it was to force segregation. Lopez argues that such a notion of colorblindness renders civil rights gains obsolete and promotes dog whistle politics.


He maintains that the notion of absolute colorblindness protects whites in their efforts to derail the full integration of minorities into mainstream society. So, today, "colorblindness" is dominant in the race discussion because there is disagreement about how to pursue racial cohesion in American society. While some argue that integration shouldn't be enforced by violent means or by affirmative action policies, others argue that raced-based policies should be in place to reverse centuries of material hardship. So, a working interpretation of "colorblindness" is central to the debate about racial harmony.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more