Madison DeLoach

Marie Lo
Race and Social Justice
November 7, 2015
Unpacking Whiteness
What does Slavery, the massacre of Native Americans, and the rejection of well over a
hundred naturalization applicants have in common? Whiteness; more specifically, racial
formations and the transparency phenomenon. When examining racial formation, one can look
deeper into the cause of mass genocide, slavery, and the harsh discrimination tied to
representation of an entire race. With transparency, one has the tools to analyze scholars lacking
white race consciousness, as well as the cases the set forth the meaning of whiteness itself. Yet,
Transparency, ultimately better illustrates how whiteness operates in society than racial
formations.
In Omi and Winants Racial Formation of the United States, racial formation is clearly
defined as () the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited,
transformed, and destroyed(55). In order to fully understand racial formation one must also
examine racial projects as well. Racial projects are essentially a representation of each race held
by society. As put blatantly by authors Omi and Winant, races as well as racial formations are in
fact social structures created to organize human bodies.
Whiteness has operated on the construction of racial formations from very early on in
history to present day. To examine closer Omi and Winant state that Waged all around the globe
under a variety of banners such as anticolonialism and civil rights, these battles to challenge
various structural and cultural racism have been major features of 20th- century politics. The

racial horrors of the 20th century- colonial slaughter and apartheid, the genocide of the holocaust
and the massive bloodlettings required to end these evils() While racial formations were
socially constructed in order to simply organize people by race, it has time and time again been
used to create barriers and support prejudices held by hate groups as well as the average white
person. As early as inquisition times when the Spanish first discovered the Americas we can see
racial formations being used as a means to fulfill ulterior motives, such as the need to
differentiate between the Spanish invaders and native peoples of America. As soon as a race is
established as different to white, historically it seems to be synonymous with inferior. With
is idea of inferiority amongst races almost always comes dehumanization of a group of peoples
due to this constructed race or ethnicity. We can see this in the examples given by Omi and
Winant, with apartheid and the holocaust, but we can even see it in American history with the
slaughter of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans. Each and every one had been
divided into a lesser racial group, which had both scientifically and socially been upheld for
years by those white and in power. Many racial prejudices can be attributed to racial formations
with the notion that races are divided and then often unfairly represented in society.() we
expect differences in skin color, or other racially coded characteristics, to explain social
differences. Temperament, sexuality, intelligence, athletic ability, aesthetic preferences, and so on
are presumed to be fixed and discernible from the palpable mark of race. (Omi & Winant 60).
From the above quote one can see that from the separation of races came broad generalizations
of what each race should be, do, or like. Examples these stereotypes can be found in the food
eaten, clothes worn, music listened to and other cultural attributes. Unfortunately, these traits
become ones only means of understanding a race a therefore this creates untrue preconceived
ideas about a person solely based on their race. Many of these stereotypes are often hurtful to a

races image and usually don't reflect onto white culture as it is seen as the norm. With this in
mind while non-whites are stigmatized and generalized for almost every individual aspect of
there race, the white race continuously take advantage of this and perpetuates these traits
socially, politically, legally, and often through media.
Transparency is essentially defined as white people not seeing themselves whiteness in
general, in a racial sense. It is directly tied to what is known as the White race consciousness, or
the ability to examine ones whiteness in racial terminology. This ideal recognizes race and racial
differences; and while transparency is capable of doing so as well, it lacks the ability to self
examine race. With this inability to see oneself in a racial sense, also looses any meaning in the
white race identity of oneself. This by default makes everyone white normal and the standard
setting and all those who are non-white a flipped coin of abnormal. With the impotence to see
whiteness in racial terms one can never achieve white race consciousness and therefore will lack
serious depth and understanding in any past or present racial issues set before them.
Transparency shows how whiteness came to be defined, as well as how whiteness
operates on the absence of white race consciousness. Without acknowledging oneself in a racial
sense, many white academics and scholars miss clear-cut racial issues that stem from whiteness.
An excellent example Haney Lopez uses in White By Law is that of an article written by
Alexander Aleinikoff, where he so clearly misses the mark of white race consciousness. With
good intentions of writing of the importance of seeing blackness in law and general social
disadvantages African Americans face, he chooses not to delve deeper or examine perhaps what
whiteness has to do with this topic. Haney Lopez points out Aleinikoff could have perhaps
instead wrote of the systemic advantages whites have within a societal and legal sense (Haney
Lopez 21-22). Often we see scholars who experience transparency and think that in order to be

race conscious they must point out non-white differences. That said, certainly part of race
consciousness is seeing racial differences, yet these scholars don't go any further and start to self
examine their own race. They stop at non-white disadvantage and do not consider then white
advantage or privilege. Transparency can even be seen as far back as the prerequisite cases in
the late 1800s. Haney Lopez claims, Despite the apparent simplicity of the issue before them,
the court hearing prerequisite cases experienced great difficulty defining who was white, often
turning for succor to such disparate material as amici briefs, encyclopedias, and anthropological
texts. (Haney Lopez 23). The prerequisite cases were brought upon by the legislation that in
order to be a naturalized U.S. citizen one must be white. This caused an growth in court hearings
known as the prerequisite cases. In these cases the plaintiff seeking naturalization would be white
and the courts would use a system of common sense and common knowledge to come to a
ruling, usually not in favor of the plaintiff. The main issue with these proceedings was that
whiteness had yet to be defined. This directly ties back to transparency, the judges in these
hearings lacked an understanding of what whiteness was because they were white themselves.
Therefore by being unable to see themselves or whiteness in racial terms, they essentially
defined whiteness as the absence as race. In other words whatever was not deemed white, by
common sense or common knowledge became the precedent for further cases, and what
was deemed not white ultimately defined whiteness. With the ruling of the prerequisite cases
also came an understanding that what ever was in fact white was desirable as where was
whiteness came the ability to be naturalized. Thus all good attributes that related to being
naturalized where seen as white and all attributes oppositely where seen as non-white. Thus
being white became synonymous with being American.

Transparency clearly illustrates how whiteness operates both historically and on a daily
basis. As pointed out in the paragraph prior, transparency has been a common trait in many
issues revolving around race. Often when white people cannot examine themselves in a racial
sense, they seem to default to recognizing the racial differences in others instead. Haney Lopez
states Within this logic of transparency, the race of non- Whites is readily apparent and
regularly noted, while the race of whites is consistently overlooked and scarcely ever
mentioned. (23). As we saw in the prerequisite cases, the white judges in those proceedings
used the basis of what they knew to not be white to in fact, define whiteness. Transparency
makes whiteness operate unseen. With transparency, whiteness is not thought of critically,
specific white norms and behaviors go unnoticed, and perspectives remain omniscient.
Transparency even aids those who claim to be colorblind, by denying each personal perspective
that very much relates to someones race. With this, unless specifically stated most white people
assume whiteness first and for most. In White by Law Haney Lopez describes a Virginia court
case in 1630 where a man named Hugh Davis is whipt for having relations with a negro
woman. They key in this text as Haney Lopez points out, is that the article explicitly states that
the woman is identified as negro while the mans race goes unstated, so we presume he is
white. This goes along perfectly with the idea that if someone is white it goes unsaid and if they
are non-white they are immediately stated as such. While equally disheartening that by this we
mean to show that white is the unstated norm and non-white is different thus shown, we must
also recognize how this causes a sort of privilege. Transparency allows white privilege to go on
unchanged and unnoticed, because where we see disadvantage transparency ignores advantage.
Overall, while racial formation is essential to both how and why whiteness operates,
transparency both defines and exemplifies whiteness as we have come to know it. Racial

formation is an important concept that has been used to socially construct race as seen today.
That said, transparency is the inability to form race consciousness due to the lack of forethought
on whiteness in racial terms. Both illustrate the privileges that come from being white, but only
with self-refection and harsh scrutiny can we see transparency and achieve white race
consciousness and ultimately change.