Rejecting a zero-sum view of race - Worthie Springer

In the contemporary discussions about race in the West today, there's a growing pessimism about the future of our pluralistic societies. This is surprising given all the racial progress that has been made, particularly in the Anglosphere. We see this pessimism in culture, politics, and in intellectual life. Just take anything that you care about, minorities in the West have made great contributions and achievements that 100 years ago would have seemed impossible. A black president in the US, an Indian-heritage Prime Minister of Britain, and a political leader of Pakistani-descent in Scotland, just to name a few examples of western progress when it comes to racial diversity and pluralism.  

  However, too many in the elite class think these achievements do not mean much, or if they do mean anything, their meaning lies in these achievements being used as obscurants for how not much of anything has changed. This is an analysis that many have made in the past, but what's new is that a new zero-sum thinking is coming into focus in conversations about race. A competition in which if one race does really well in something, or if an individual of one race is accomplished, this is at the loss of people and groups of another race. Why else would CNN have an article arguing that non-black people using gifs of black people is digital blackface? Why else would there be crazy uproars about white people making Mexican food, or white people wearing dreadlocks? Why else are our elite colleges having separate dorms and separate graduations by race? These things are all consequences of how the shift has changed in regard to race. 

The reason the elite class laugh and scoff when they're reminded of the “I have a dream” speech, is because they don't believe in it. They think the best thing the West has done regarding inclusion is to increase the number of foreign-food restaurants.

Given all this, it is no surprise that there was a scandal in LA. The scandal, in which three Latino city council members were caught in a recording disparaging one fellow council member's black son as a little monkey, and plotting to expand their political power by redrawing districts that would benefit them at the expense of the black residents. As appalling as the scandal was, the actions of the city council members are just a political variant of what we've been increasingly seeing culturally for several years. If critical race theory is correct, and race  is the central organizing force, and the central crux of division in society, then why wouldn't people act as if we're engaged in a racial battle royale? An “us vs them” conflict where the illusion of race becomes the ultimate obstacle to solidarity, and where any aspiration of universalism is dismissed as naïve and foolish. 

   The beauty and magic of the civil rights movement was its universalist message. Its rejection of the parochial, its aspiration to create a world where the divisions of race can be transcended. Its achievements are self-evident, and we as a society should be proud of what we've accomplished. Colorblindness is not something we should abandon, especially when it has done more to further racial equality in such a short time than anything else. This is because colourblindness understands that race is unsubstantial. 

For years race has shaped how western societies defined who is in the in-group or out-group. We all understand how disastrous this has been. Race has been used to limit our empathy. It has caused us to see the suffering of people who do not share our skin tone as a problem for them, and not us. For example, the problem of crime in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit are not just problems for the black community, these are problems that afflict America, and to circumscribe this to only a problem for the black community doesn't do the issue justice. Likewise in the UK. The plight of working-class whites in school is something that should concern people of all races because it's not good to have a substantial part of your country and society struggling with their education. Prosperity and success of one group or individual benefits all of us. 

  Some might see this article as just some bland Kumbaya article - I assure you it is more than that. We must not give up on pluralism and universalism. Too many in our elites might have given up on these values, but we cannot. We have too much to lose, and the world cannot afford for us to get this wrong. We in the West, with our multi-ethnic democracies are ahead of the curve on racial equality, and colourblindness and the ethic of universalism are what got us here. 

 We have faced other challenges before.  Challenges and divisions of greater consequence, but the West has overcome them. In the past, peace between catholics and protestants was thought to be impossible. However, now another conflict between them seems impossible. My parents are evidence of this. My mother is a catholic, and my father is a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Marriages like theirs would have been seen as taboo 50 years ago, but now they're uncontroversial. If we as a society can do that with faith, why can't we do the same with race? We do not have to live in a world and believe in an idea set that reinforces the lie of race. The world does not have to be a constant tribal conflict of competing racial interests. What makes colourblindness so radical is that it challenges us to not use race as a point of action, to reject tribalism and recognise that race as a characteristic doesn’t have to be consequential. 

 Differences in ideas will of course always divide people, but there's no reason to believe that these current divisions with race should prove just as insuperable. It is our duty to ensure that this is not so. If this experiment in multiculturalism is going to work, we must replace the current ethic of anti-racism with one that is more amenable and less inimical to the world that we all want.