The Risks of Privileging a "Colorblind Mentality" in Contemporary America: Racing for Equality

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.


“I Have a Dream.” …Remnants of this historical speech continue to glimmer hope in the hearts of civil rights activists and human beings who hold America to its core principles. Indeed, our beloved country has ventured a long and promising journey since its conception and continues to move toward the actualization of MLK’s dream. However, the journey is just beginning. The dawning of a new era of civil rights activism needs to establish an inclusive forum that promotes the equality of all people- regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic class, or religion (see earlier post). Despite this overarching need, I would like to focus today’s blog on the controversial topic of race.

The cultural acceptance of politically correct communication has many obvious benefits. However, a residual drawback might be the decreased ability to openly discuss racial issues. Race is often portrayed as a taboo topic in civilized discourse. Instead of respectfully recognizing racial differences, our society tends to ignore the topic entirely.


Is a “colorblind mentality” healthy for America? Many people equate race with a person’s “color.” (Consider the labels of Black, White, Yellow, etc.) Although this mental equation is highly controversial, I would like to entertain this assumption to argue that our visually-oriented American society needs recognize the limitations of a “colorblind mentality.” As an incurable idealist, I hope for an American society that can celebrate diversity on all levels.


Instead of ignoring or denying the impact of race in today’s society, we need to embrace racial diversity. We need to (respectfully) recognize our differences- even celebrate our differences while simultaneously working to find common ground with other groups of people.

In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned a society “where (his children) will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” While we could interpret this statement as an active endorsement of a “colorblind mentality,” I see it differently. I strongly believe that we can recognize a person’s race AND focus on the unique aspects of the “content of their character.” I would like to think that we can be aware of a person’s race and still be able to evaluate that person by their unique character and behaviors. Race and character should not be mutually exclusive. …But do people perceive them as inherently intertwined?

Rejecting a “colorblind mentality” may promote forums to discuss racial issues and identities. By (respectfully) recognizing racial differences, we can begin to understand each other and create shared meaning across diverse backgrounds.

And so the journey toward equality continues. Recognizing diversity and engaging in civil discussions about race will pave a brighter path toward The Dream.

A beautiful bridge in Kyoto, Japan...taken on a family vacation in 2001 

Freedom of Speech and Responsibility

The underlying angst and public outrage against the disrespectful cartoon drawings of Muhammad have exploded into chaotic (and often violent) protests around the world. Despite the fact that these caricatures were originally released in a Danish newspaper in the fall of 2005, emotions are still raw and many people are demanding justice.

This highly charged controversy exemplifies a communicative and intercultural disaster. The disrespectful depiction of Muhammad in the public sphere clearly violates an ethical expectation: to balance the freedom of speech and responsibility. However, our ethnocentric tendencies may cloud the fact that the prioritization and interpretation of “free speech” varies greatly from culture to culture (and perhaps on an individual level, too). Regardless of the cartoonist’s intent—or the appropriateness of the protesters’ reactions, this ongoing controversy needs to be studied by communication scholars…

Japan 2001 

Paradigms, Anomalies, Activist Groups...Oh my!

Critiquing the assumptions of the rational world paradigm inspired a feverish dialogue that addressed the evolution of politics and activist groups. Basically, the rational world paradigm assumes that humans are guided by sound reasoning and logic. This paradigm privileges logos and simultaneously marginalizes the use of ethos in argumentation.

A recent COM 638 (Small Group Communication & Theory) facilitation addressed the need to validate other paradigms in the public sphere. Several activist groups, such as ACT UP and ABORTION-NO, have essentially persuaded others through “nontraditional” means. Instead of using logic and Toulmin’s model of argumentation, these groups use emotionally charged chants, visual rhetoric, and strategies of vilification.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the views or strategies utilized by these particular activist groups, they symbolically exist as significant anomalies for the rational world paradigm. How can activist groups persuade others without sound reasoning and evidence? Emotions, pictures, and fallacious arguments can be just as persuasive as well-articulated arguments. Clearly, other paradigms of thought need to be considered.

What if we adopted other approaches to argumentation and persuasion? Academia tends to dramatize the relationship between paired constructs. Sadly, rhetoricians have traditionally framed emotions and logic as dualistic. However, I contend that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive—especially in the arena of persuasion. Why can’t activist groups strategically capitalize on BOTH (pathos and logos) strategies of persuasion?

Despite their ability to push us beyond the rational world paradigm, I have several concerns with the practice of several radical activist groups. To begin, all activist organizations need to engage in ETHICAL communication. Invoking emotions and vilification as means to accomplish a persuasive objective flirts with the shadows of unethical behavior. For example, check out http://www.abortionno.org/. (Warning—this site contains extremely graphic pictures.) I do not approve of their propaganda. Second, I am concerned with the complete abandonment of rational thought. Anger and fear can be powerful motivational appeals, but I still believe that they need to be grounded in sound reasoning and credible evidence. As mentioned previously, ethos and logos can coexist augment the persuasiveness of a given message.

In sum, I urge activist groups to consider new strategies of persuasion. We do not have to be confined by the boundaries of the rational world paradigm. However, I must emphasize the need to consistently –- and relentlessly—use ethical communication while advocating for change.

Remembering Hiroshima...If you look closely, you can see a building that managed to survive the 1945 atomic bombing. I took this photo during a trip to Japan.

Star Gazing...

Hollywood dazzles our senses with its silvery spectacle of fantasy, drama, and special effects. Despite its glamorous reputation, the movie industry is far from perfect. The depiction of Asians and Asian Americans in Hollywood is symptomatic of our society’s “colorblind mentality.” (See January 28th posting.) I believe that the movie industry quarantines Asian Americans as uni-dimensional and reinforces inaccurate stereotypes of Asian Americans.

Throughout history, the film industry has encouraged shallow stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian males have been portrayed as ninjas, power-hungry villains, and socially awkward sidekicks. Asian females have been cast as exotic “creatures” and submissive women. In addition to these stereotypical roles, very few “A-list” Asian American movie stars exist. Take a moment to list as many prestigious Asian American movie stars…It can be quite a challenge.

Celebrating Diversity... or Creating Divisions?

In February, we appreciate the predictive utility of a groundhog’s shadow, celebrate romantic relationships (many of which will expire before April), and reinforce our personal commitment to lose 10 more pounds before spring break. These asinine traditions are mindlessly performed by millions and embraced by corporate America’s finest (consider Hallmark, Godiva, and the fitness industry). Despite the secured longevity of these frivolous practices, one legitimate February “tradition” is on the hot seat: Black History Month.

A February 7, 2006 article on MSNBC.com addresses the ongoing debate over the legitimacy of Black History month. Morgan Freeman has publicly spoken against the celebration of Black History month. He explains that “Black history is American history.” Others have argued that “Black History Month does separate (Black people) from the mainstream, and that shouldn’t be.”

As this controversy begins to boil, it’s difficult to conceptualize the actual erasure of Black History month. February, entangled with shallow and silly traditions of Groundhog’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and Spring Break Binging, is in danger of losing one of its most qualified traditions. Black History Month should not – and furthermore cannot be forgotten.

Civil Rights: A New Generation

Coinciding with the celebration of Black History Month and commemoration of Coretta Scott King’s life, a February 1, 2006 news article on MSNBC addressed the following concern:

“As the (civil rights) movement’s iconic leaders fade into history, much of the focus is on honoring the past rather than pushing for equality today.”

Considering an appropriate rhetorical construction of the civil rights movement is especially significant today. As a generation of civil rights pioneers passes away, there is a growing concern that the civil rights movement will be buried with them. In a previous post, I suggested that the civil rights movement has “evolved into a more complex phenomenon that transcends beyond a black-and-white mentality.” Indeed, the individuals who continue to cognitively construct civil rights as a black-and-white-only struggle are stuck in the past and neglecting the true diversity inherent to our current American society.

The concern that “many people find comfort in the notion that racial discrimination is a matter of the past” should be taken seriously (MSNBC, 2006). We must continue to push for inclusiveness and civil rights for all Americans. However, I urge you to not only celebrate the past achievements of the civil rights movement and continue to advocate for this noble cause, I ask you to consider the future of the movement. What do we want the civil rights movement to be/have accomplished by 2010? 2020? What is our shared vision? For we must embrace our shared history and actively move toward the future…