What is it about colorblindness that makes it feel so natural in our perception of others? I believe it is the normalization of online sources that shapes it to be the standard for how we view race to perpetuate colorblindness. In this way, choosing to be colorblind acts as an ‘eye prescription’; that frame of mind is normalized and idolized by society, which leads us to forget why race is important to discuss and recognize. Colorblindness is an invisible eyeglass lens that is recommended for others to wear during their everyday interactions with people of color. Acknowledging race has more benefits than ignoring it overall. Still, because we are normalized to view colorblindness more positively than just acknowledging race, I believe our society has had an upward trend of people having colorblindness as an invisible eye prescription. There was a viral Facebook post shared by Lydia Rosebush, in which she described a conversation she had with her son, Jax, on February 24, 2017, in which he wanted to get a haircut to resemble his best friend, Reddy Weldon. Jax’s goal was to look so similar to Reddy that their teacher wouldn’t be able to tell them apart.
Media news outlets such as CNN jumped on the fact that, because Reddy was black and Jax was white, both of them not seeing race as the difference between them was admirable. Jax’s mom agreed with this sentiment, and explicitly states that she believes “There’s an innocence children have that sometimes we lose. If we could get some of that back, I think it would be amazing.” (Holcombe, 2017).” On a broad scale, this did not inherently appear to be a ‘bad’ thing for children to do, but I’m not sure if that is enough to remind others of the importance of recognizing race as part of someone’s identity. In all truth, colorblindness is an invisible step backwards when children don’t see race that bleeds into their adulthood. Recognizing race as an essential part of someone’s identity is very different from ignoring it altogether.
However, what feels harmless in childhood becomes far more complicated in adulthood. As children age, they will most likely follow media portrayals of race, which skew the importance of recognizing racial differences because their lack of understanding race as children sets them up to follow purposeful “neutral” algorithms. The so-called ‘innocence of children’ reflects how colorblindness, when carried into online systems like algorithms, reinforces inequality instead of erasing it. As we’ve read in Noble’s piece, algorithms online actively feed into racial biases rather than eliminating them. Colorblind ideology hides structural inequalities while actually strengthening them, which is why we need higher criteria for recognizing these harmful algorithms and better ways of regulating them.
However, algorithms have become more advanced in a widely spreading colorblind ideology. In her book, Algorithms of Oppression, Safiya Umoja Noble cites Jessie Daniels’s book Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights, which is about tracing white supremacy from print press to media sources. Daniels distinguishes between the accessible and non accessible sites that disguise white supremacy, evoking a cyber racism for anyone who uses the sites due to how ‘cloaked’ the racism is. Noble specifically pulls out the idea of the “white racial frame” from Daniel’s work, showing how online algorithms appear neutral but in reality reinforce segregation and inequality, proving that colorblindness doesn’t erase racial divides but deepens them. Rather than dissolving divides, we see people resegregating, evidence that colorblindness not only fails to prevent inequality but also makes people forget why racial differences should be recognized as part of understanding, not judgment. Parents can address race with children by normalizing it as a topic that naturally arises in their household, encouraging them to discuss it with other children, and being open to learning about it in school. There are actual benefits from addressing race with kids positively, so as not to erase race from existence. We simultaneously share in this problem, as neutrality in and of itself means you don’t have an “opinion”. So, if children are rewarded for not seeing race, what happens when the algorithms that shape their world adopt the same logic, erasing differences instead of addressing them? How might that shape the way future generations understand justice and equality?