Unless you've been living under a rock, or (more likely) comfortably trapped in your Millsian Private Orbits:
“Nowadays people often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They sense that within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are often quite correct. What ordinary people are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited to the close-up scenes of job, family, neighborhood; in other milieux, they move vicariously and remain spectators. And the more aware they become, however vaguely, of ambitions and of threats which transcend their immediate locales, the more trapped they seem to feel.” (Mills 1959: 3) - See more at: http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/6506#sthash.cZTXw5vZ.dpuf
you will realize that there is a military stand off in Ferguson, Missouri between a heavily militarized, yet untrained police force and its residents over the shooting death of Michael Brown an unarmed black teen by local white police officer Daren Wilson. In the wake of this event, which has become all too common recently, not only have racial tensions boiled over between the (95% white) "peace keepers" and their charges (a community that is populated by 68% black Americans) but the narrative of this story from major media outlets has been one of denial that race is even a factor.
Eduardo Bonilla Silva, Sociologist, Race Scholar and author of the book Racism without Racist discusses the idea of colorblindness and racial denial in the majority of his work. According to Silva, the colorblind ideology is a way to minimize racism as a structural social problem, and transform it into an individual/personal problem; thereby maintaining levels of inequality and denying the experiences of people of color. We see this racial deflection in full effect by (a majority of ) conservative media outlets and political pundits (who are most often white men who deny their own privilege) when reporting or responding to the events unfolding in Ferguson.
Additionally, The other common narrative being pulled from the "colorblind" shelf and dusted off is "the good kid" trope. Initial reports coming in about Michael Brown's shooting (even the one previously posted above) framed him as a "good kid" that didn't deserve to die. While this may indeed be true, the implications of the "good kid" trope speaks volumes about the value of people of color as a whole. First, the fact that the phrase "a good kid" has been uttered illustrates the overarching stereotype that the majority of black teens aren't considered "good kids" which frames Michael Brown as an exception to the rule (stereotype). Thereby defining the life of people of color, especially young black men, as considerably less than [people who are white]. Secondly, this allows (predominantly white) individuals to be outraged by the shooting of Michael Brown but still see the majority of people of color in a negative light. This the same thing that happened with the election of Barrack Obama, after which white guilt dropped and the denial of racism rose.
There have been scholars and Sociologists (other than myself,) that have been trying to push against the tide of race denial in the mainstream media with sound Sociological analysis. Some of those individuals have been Cornel West, Evan Stewart, Peter Kaufman, and a favorite of mine: Tim Wise . Some news outlets have even suggested a reading list (with some of the authors I previously mentioned) to give the public some racial and historical context to the Ferguson shooting that is (as I have mentioned) the most recent event in a long history of police brutality, violence and discrimination of people of color by those in authority.
In the popular media however, I have to commend two hosts John Stewart and John Oliver. The John's have both synthesized the arguments of race scholars and Sociologist ( albeit with a quipy humorous tone) but they also take to task some of the inane, colorblind, and down right racist remarks that ignore multiple forms of privilege.
John Stewart is up first:
While I love his analysis (especially the serious tone at the end) The studio's independent research study he mentions seems to be framed as a way to legitimize his argument when the other information he cites or provides does that already...it just seems redundant as if to say "See we're not racist!" Also, while acknowledging the existence of white privilege and the different experiences that people who are white have compared to people of color is important I wish John Stewart took more ownership of his own white privilege publicly.
John Oliver is Next:
Oliver does take ( a little) more ownership of his white privilege but he also provides commentary of the militarization of the police force in Ferguson and the overarching gun culture( that is the source of other problems recently) which I think is important.
Regardless of their accuracy, the general problem with these analyses is that they are presented with the intent to be humorous and entertain. The unfortunate result of this is (outside of the depressing statistic that it is through these programs that the majority of young adults get their news) that these serious issues are handled in a reductive manner, and that people truly miss the gravity of the situation that is being reported. While I am grateful to the John's for bringing relevant and accurate analysis to the masses, I would like them to provide a list of other reading material people can access if they want to follow their stories more academically.
