Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America

During the era of slavery and Jim Crow, white people more often freely and openly used racist terms such as the n-word. But that kind of talk is no longer accepted publicly. Bonilla-Silva notes only one student from his study using a racist term but notes that interviewees over 60 often referred to Black people as “colored” people. However, these interviewees also reported having more direct experience interacting with Black people than did the college students, many of whom openly admitted to hearing or telling racist jokes. Members of both groups reported on racists in their own families, with one student, Lee, even admitting to having Nazi leanings as a younger man due to his father’s overt racism.

Analysis of post-civil rights speech has confirmed that white people use semantic moves to safely state their views. They might make claims of denial or ignorance to shield their own comments. This section highlights the most common verbal strategies employed by white people.

“I Am Not Prejudiced, but…” and “Some of My Best Friends Are…”

Multiple respondents to both sets of interviews Bonilla-Silva analyzed opened racist statements by saying that they were not racist or that they had Black friends. Rhonda, a part-time jewelry store employee in her 60s, for example, stated she was not prejudiced before explaining her belief that Black people had grown spoiled by the welfare state. Jill, a professional, noted she used to be good friends with a Black man (who is never named, of course) who she feels got into graduate school because of his race (she notes his low GMAT scores).

“I Am Not Black, So I Don’t Know”

The aforementioned rhetorical strategies have become cliched and parodied, so white people have developed other rhetorical movies. Often, respondents to Bonilla-Silva’s surveys would preface a statement about their racial views by noting that they don’t know because they are not Black (even though they seem to know their own views quite well). One student, Liz, said she couldn’t answer a question about discrimination on minorities because she is not Black or Hispanic but that she does see reverse racism toward white people when it comes to scholarships. She also alleged that Black people lie when they say they experience racism; such back-and-forth rhetoric of ignorance and accusations of lying show how dangerous color-blindness can be.

“Yes and No, But…”

This rhetorical strategy was more often employed by students than the professionals Bonilla-Silva interviewed. In this strategy, a respondent would answer a question such as whether there ought to be special opportunities for people of color to gain admission to universities by thinking about it then saying “yes and no.” Emily, for example, admitted that there ought to be a special program for Black students but that maybe it ought not be that special since it would then discriminate against white people. When asked more bluntly about affirmative action, though, Emily indicated she was strongly against it and perceived it as reverse racism. This implies that the “yes and no” strategy helped her guard herself from a response she assumed would not be well received. Other students would say that they were both for and against affirmative in the abstract but reject it in the specific case of a minority getting a job ahead of them. Similar responses came from the professionals interviewed as well.

Anything but Race

In this rhetorical device, white respondents might answer a question by explaining it away as being about anything other than race or prejudice. Two college students, Ray and Sonny, for example, noted that they did not have Black friends in high school by saying it had nothing to do with race. However, they both seemed to recognize that this realization complicated their color-blind view of themselves, so they affirmed it was not about race but about living in different neighborhoods or just not being exposed to other people. Similarly, an older worker, Marge, renounced interracial marriage because of the way it would impact the children involved while also noting it had nothing to do with the race of the partners, a statement that makes very little logical sense. Bonilla-Silva noted earlier in the chapter that some of these rhetorical strategies run into self-contradiction, and Marge’s diatribe against people from two races marrying while saying it is not about the issue of interracial dynamics is certainly a statement that boggles the mind.

“They Are the Racist Ones”: Projection as a Rhetorical Tool

Since Freud, psychologists have argued that humans regularly use projection to defend themselves or escape from guilt and responsibility. Both the white students and professionals surveyed projected racism onto Black people. One student, Janet, blamed Black people for separating themselves from white people and preventing her from becoming friends with them. And, like Marge from the previous section, she voiced concern about the children of interracial couples and accused the couples of being selfish. By doing so, she was able to safely voice her problematic objection to interracial marriage. Other students also suggested that Black people would feel bad if they got hired because of affirmative action. This is a common technique of white people because it seems like it comes from a place of love, even though white people never admit to feeling bad themselves about receiving jobs because of their race.

Adult respondents projected at a higher rate than did the students. One noted that Black people were just prejudiced against police, and another woman lamented that there was no “United Caucasian Fund” to help white people considering that Black people “separate themselves” despite having access to the same schools white people do (198). To all these people, “people of color are the problem; whites are not” (198). 

White people often rely on ways of softening the statements they make, saying not that they are against affirmative action but that they are “a little bit” against it, for example. Mickey, a white student interviewed for Bonilla-Silva’s project, used the already familiar diminutive that he’s a little concerned about the children of interracial marriages but not actually against it. Similarly, he added that most people are too sensitive to “little things” that happen on campus, such as a professor using a racial slur or making comments insensitive to one’s religion or sexuality (200). The adults interviewed were less likely to use such softeners.

Rhetorical incoherence is a natural part of speech, but people tend to become even more incoherent when they begin to talk about race. The college students he studied especially seemed to stutter and stammer when asked about their own lack of interracial dating history and the idea of self-segregation. This may be because they recognize that anything they say about Black people could be said about them (that is, they would feel offended if a Black person said they would not date a white person, for instance). The older interviewees were generally more coherent but still stumbled over explanations of racial questions.