Racial discrimination is the most rampant form of behavioral moral criticism in relation to race. Racism can either be personal or institutional, but is considered morally wrong. It can be capped by the application of a moral ideal referred to as color blindness. Blum (91) presents a detailed discussion of this concept where he presents three kinds of this ideology namely racial harmony, race neutrality, and egalitarianism. Of the three ideologies, racial harmony is considered the most appropriate for coping with problems of racism and racial injustice due to various reasons.
Compared to other forms of color blindness, the ideology of racial harmony advocates for a time when people would uphold their cultures and ethnicities, and still lead a harmonious life without racial tension. The concept of neutrality and egalitarianism on the other hand aims at erasing the importance of race in human life (Blum 91). For instance, neutralizing races would require ignoring the role of racial differences during decision and policymaking processes. As well, racial egalitarianism implies equating races based on past wrongs with an ultimate goal of neutralization. As Blum (93) points out, implementing these ideals would be difficult given the history of America of the Whites being supreme to other groups. It would demand changing some factors for neutrality to exist.
In summary, American history does not favor racial egalitarianism and the ideology of racial neutrality. Such ideals would be perceived as beneficial to groups such as Blacks, but futile and injurious to the once-dominating Whites. Therefore, an ideal such as racial harmony, which would go behold egalitarianism and neutrality to encourage racial interdependence while targeting equality would be the most suited to cope with racism in America.
Work Cited
Blum, Lawrence. “Racial Discrimination and Color Blindness.” I’m Not a Racist, But…: the Moral Quandary of Race /, 2002, pp. 78–97., Web.