After reading Bonilla-Silva "Racism Without Racists." I realized, I certainly have encountered the 4 frameworks of colorblind racism: abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization prior to this reading. Consequently, I did not categorized them into these frameworks; yet, they certainly make sense.
There are many examples in which these frameworks thrive and work in our society from the media, educational institutions, the workplace, etc. However, I keep referring these frameworks to the board game "Monopoly" to make relationships.
Now how in the heck does the 4 frameworks tie into a longtime beloved (or maybe infamous in some cases) board game? Glad you asked. This is how: say for instance we have 4 players. Yet 2 of them starting playing 20 minutes before the other 2 players. They started off with their customary $1500 from the bank. That is certainly enough time for them to have brought property and houses, pass go a few times and collect the $200. Maybe even collect rent and gain even more money.
Now the remaining 2 players join in the "fun". Granted, they are given the $1500 that the first 2 players received. They are allowed to roll the dice, and have the opportunity to buy and sell property like the original 2 players. So, equal opportunity right? Wrong! More than likely the first 2 players brought up most of the property, collected rent, and earned more money. Therefore, there are less opportunity for the latecomers to buy property, and earn more income being that they will probably end up paying rent to the early players.
So this made me think: If the people within the various frameworks are the early players of the monopoly game then how can such people think outside the "board" (get it play with words, "think outside the box"). Next, Is abstract liberalism a way of ignoring the problem in hopes that it will change on its own or is it the majority's way of maintaining the status quo in order to remain in power? Also, what is the most effective, reasonable way to --not so much eliminate racism-- but to make the game fair?
I like this analogy- though it is a board game it rightly points out the economic disadvantage of the system quite well. Remember- people use frameworks in discourse rather than belonging to them
ReplyDeleteThat is true. I was attempting to respond to why people who fall into these frameworks thinking is flawed. I can see how I could have made this more clear. In retrospect I should have mentioned this in my post as well. Thanks :-)
ReplyDeleteShawn, this is an excellent analogy! From all the frameworks, your Monopoly analogy specifically reminds me of Bonilla-Silva's "abstract liberalism."
ReplyDeleteThis color blind framework refers to political liberalism. This frame ignores the fact that people of color are severely underrepresented in schools, jobs, universities, etc (pg. 28). This obviously has negative consequences for minorities who are not in the same plainfield level than whites.
In your Monopoly scenario, the players who began playing first and therefore buying property, selling it, renting it, earning interest and so forth have a greater opportunity to win the game. On the other hand, the players that began playing last will not have equal opportunity to win the game.
The real life scenario isn't much different. There are uneven plainfields and history (or as Bonilla would say, "facts") that have had consequences such as inequality.
Ignoring that these minorities have had unequal opportunities is therefore encouraging inequalities between races.