“Whiteness Isn’t about Skin Color.” Challenges to Analyzing Racial Practices in a Norwegian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic the article discusses is timely and very important. However, I am concerned about a number of issues: (1) The conclusions are based on a very small number of interviews. More data is needed to support the broad arguments the authors are making. (2) The names of the interviewees and the place they are affiliated with are mentioned explicitly in the article. There is no statement by the authors as to whether these names are real or whether the consent of the interviewees to publish their names has been obtained. (3) The term "postcolonial" is thrown around in the paper without any serious engagement with postcolonial research to justify the use of this term. (4) The frequent grammar, punctuation, and stylistic issues in the paper stand as a barrier that prevents full understanding and engagement with the article. I noted in the attached file many places where statements were vague or awkwardly constructed, where elaboration was needed, and other comments. Please see the attached file for more details. I still think the article has potential if the issues above are properly addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful and very useful comments to our article. We have described the revisions that we have done in the attached document. There you can find how we have addressed all the comments both in the review and in the attached pdf that you so kindfully sent us. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear colleagues!
First of all, congratulations for choosing a highly topical issue.
However, paper needs a significant revision.

The main claim to the article is a poor quality of empirical data and an extreme narrowness of the references. The author(s) have decided to prove the existence of discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities in Norway, the existence of hidden racism among the white Norwegian racial and ethnic majority, but instead of attracting a wide range of objective sources, they’ve limited themselves to a few insightful quotes from interviews, and to be more accurate, their own interpretations of these quotes.
The author(s) repeated the flaws for which scientists have long and convincingly criticized the "critical race theory" they adopted: the rejection of objective evidence in favour of subjective narratives of "victims" of racial or ethnic "suppression," resulting from the conviction that reality is socially constructible. There is no doubt that this criticism is well known to the authors of the article. If they nevertheless prefer to turn to this methodology, then they would first have to convincingly refute the criticism which has previously been expressed against it.
As a result, the authors have not been able to demonstrate convincingly the existence of latent racism and a tendency towards discriminatory attitudes towards ethnic and racial minorities among a large population of Norwegians. But after the terrorist act committed in 2011 by Anders Breivik, it would seem that there is no doubt about this. I am sure it is the reason that the article needs deep processing.
Let us assume that the authors would be able to prove somewhat more convincingly the existence in Norwegian society of hidden discrimination and racism (nationalism) against immigrants from economically backward and culturally distant countries in Asia and Africa or against the Sámi. Then I would have the following questions to answer next:
1) does the author(s) accept for latent racism and discrimination the natural, but politically correct, indignation of the indigenous population by mass immigration, which has no economic meaning and poses painful problems in terms of the socio-cultural integration of immigrants into the host society?;
2) do not they accept for latent racism and discrimination the quite natural desire of Norwegians to minimize the negative effects of such immigration and facilitate the integration of immigrants? Finally, the national-cultural homogeneity of Norwegian society is its serious advantage, since it provides an unusually high level of trust of citizens to each other. And mutual trust is just the oil that allows you to reduce friction in the socio-economic system, to reduce transaction costs.
3) do not the author(s) accept for latent racism and discrimination of the Sami an entirely natural and voluntary process of their integration and assimilation? After all, it is quite natural that representatives of such scanty peoples, having no chance of creating their own state and wishing for a better future for their children, do not seek life on reservations, not to preserve their culture and life, not to turn into living exhibits of an ethnographic museum, but to the fullest possible development of the culture of the Norwegian people.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your critical, but insightful and useful comments. We have revised the document accordingly. The changes and how we answer your questions, comments and suggested is described in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors diligently incorporated all the comments on grammar and style, and I thank them for that. The article could still use moderate proofreading, which an English-speaking colleague of the authors or an editor could help with.  The authors removed the personal information of the interviewees, which was one of my biggest concerns. The brief reference to Edward Said is a good addition, but I am not sure if it is sufficient. The postcolonial framework is implicitly incorporated. In academic papers such as this one, explicit rather than implicit articulation of the theoretical framework gives research depth and credibility. 

Author Response

We have uploaded the comments to reviewer 1. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for sending this paper for another round. I notice that significant and important changes have been made to the text as the authors of the article mention in their letter. Now I stand by recommendation of publication acceptance as is. I believe that the article "“Whiteness isn’t about skin color.” Challenges to analysing  racial practices in a Norwegian context" corresponds to the requirements, and it is sure to be recommended for publication.  

Author Response

Thank you for your review and  recommendation of publication acceptance. Since you do not have any further recommendations, we have not uploaded any document where we describe the changes according to your review. We have made some minor changes as a respond to the other reviewer, that can be found in the final document.