that it was “better than it used to be” (p. 42). A number of highly racist incidents also came to light at Lyon. However, these were discussed largely under the racially neutral term bullying (p. 45). Stoll found that almost all examples of bullying provided by teachers were linked to race, and so although bullying may have been a neutral term, the actual act of bullying was not. Defining individual acts as bullying allowed to the school to gloss over institutional racism, reinforcing a colorblind ideology. But is simply challenging “bullies” (racists) by saying “you can’t say the N-word in my class” (p. 53) really enough? Stoll’s answer, rightly, is no. It needs to be addressed for what it is—racism—that is being maintained at a structural level. Chapter 3, “Doing Antiracism in Schools,” provides an alternative to color-blind education, which Stoll defines as a “color-conscious” educational approach (p. 67). I personally applaud this idea, which emphasizes the need for teachers to think critically about the way race may shape experience within schools and wider society. Stoll argues that colorblind practices should be replaced with (1) strategies that encourage trusting and understanding relationships between teachers and students of color, (2) reflections upon teaching practices and their appropriateness for students of color, and (3) a reimagining of the curriculum to ensure that it is culturally “inclusive,” “relevant,” and informed by scholars of color (p. 82). By acknowledging color, teachers can open their eyes to the ways in which race manifests itself within the classroom and is entangled within approaches to teaching, responses to learning, the distribution of discipline, and access to opportunity. The only question I felt the book left unanswered was how students felt about their school’s color-blind approaches to education. Interviews would have offered an interesting perspective, and we could have heard the other sides of the teacher’s stories. For example, when Ms. Brown highlighted how black boys were more likely to be sent to the head teacher and put the onus on them to “get their act together,” rather than questioning the differential distribution of discipline, I couldn’t help but wonder how students viewed this same phenomenon (p. 24). Nonetheless, Stoll provides an informed and detailed argument against color-blind approaches to education, which builds effectively upon existing literature concerned with conceptualizing color blindness more theoretically (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Burke 2018). Despite focusing specifically on education, the book also aligns itself with research concerning color blindness in other institutional settings. As a prison researcher, I find the similarities between the justification of racial color blindness in schools eerily similar to its validation within penal institutions (Alexander 2010). Therefore, the book is useful not only for those interested in the study of education but for anyone interested in the study of race, racial inequality, and/or racial equity within any social context.

中文翻译：

---

必然是黑人：佛得角青年，嘻哈文化和对身份的批判

它“比以前更好”（第42页）。里昂也发生了许多种族主义事件。但是，这些问题主要是在种族中立术语欺凌之下进行的（第45页）。斯托尔发现，教师提供的几乎所有欺凌行为的例子都与种族有关，因此，尽管欺凌行为可能是一个中立术语，但实际的欺凌行为却并非如此。将个人行为定义为欺凌行为，使学校可以掩盖制度种族主义，强化色盲意识形态。但是，仅仅通过说“你不能说我班上的N字”（第53页）来挑战“欺负者”（种族主义者）真的足够吗？斯托尔的答案是正确的。需要从结构层面上维护种族主义这一问题。第3章“在学校进行反种族主义”提供了色盲教育的替代方法，Stoll将其定义为“注重颜色”的教育方法（第67页）。我个人对此表示赞赏，该观点强调了教师必须认真思考种族可能塑造学校和更广泛社会中的经验的方式。斯托尔认为，色盲实践应替换为：（1）鼓励信任和理解彩色师生之间关系的策略；（2）对教学实践的反思及其对彩色学生的适用性；（3）对课程的重新构想确保它在文化上“具有包容性”，“相关性”，并由有色人种学者提供信息（第82页）。通过认清颜色，教师可以睁开眼睛，了解种族在课堂上的表现方式，并纠结于教学，对学习的反应，纪律的分配和机会的获取。我觉得这本书没有得到解答的唯一问题是，学生对他们学校的色盲教育方式有何感想。面试会提供有趣的视角，我们可能已经听过了老师故事的另一面。例如，当布朗女士强调黑人男孩如何更有可能被派往班主任并让他们承担责任以“使他们的行为团结起来”时，而不是质疑纪律分配的差异时，我禁不住想知道学生如何看待这种现象（第24页）。尽管如此，Stoll提供了一个针对色盲教育方法的知情而详尽的论证，该论证有效地建立在现有的有关从理论上对色盲进行概念化的文献上（Bonilla-Silva 2003; 伯克（Burke 2018）。尽管特别关注教育，但该书还与其他机构环境中有关色盲的研究保持一致。作为监狱研究人员，我发现学校中种族色盲的正当性与在监狱机构中的确证相似（Alexander 2010）。因此，这本书不仅对那些对教育研究感兴趣的人有用，而且对任何在任何社会背景下对种族，种族不平等和/或种族平等的研究感兴趣的人都有用。我发现在学校中种族色盲的理由之间的相似性与在刑事机构中的证实极为相似（Alexander，2010年）。因此，这本书不仅对那些对教育研究感兴趣的人有用，而且对任何在任何社会背景下对种族，种族不平等和/或种族平等的研究感兴趣的人都有用。我发现在学校中种族色盲的理由之间的相似性与在刑事机构中的证实极为相似（Alexander，2010年）。因此，这本书不仅对那些对教育研究感兴趣的人有用，而且对任何在任何社会背景下对种族，种族不平等和/或种族平等的研究感兴趣的人都有用。