Whether they openly did it or shrouded it with color-blind phrases, race and ethnicity matters for the contractors in this study. In this chapter, each group of contractors confirmed much of the findings reported by researchers on racial attitudes and attitudes toward immigration. First, White contractors continue to view Blacks and Latinos in negative ways, suggesting that much of the disparities and issues Blacks and Latinos face are due to their work ethic, culture, or the power of competition. More importantly, this color-blind discourse hides the fact that Whites have power and privilege in the construction industry. This discourse also attempts to suggest that everyone has an equal chance of succeeding in construction business ownership if they try hard enough. However, as Whites usually point out, not very many Blacks or Latinos have what it takes to succeed in this industry, which is more apparent when they discuss issues of
competition. Their discussions of competition also point out that there are some concerns of Latinos challenging their positions, which increases, as Blumer (1958) proposed, prejudice and discrimination toward Latinos.
Second, Black contractors continue to suggest that racism is still a salient issue and that Whites continue to be the culprit of why they face discrimination. However, they also now face racism from Latinos, which, as some contractors suggest, characterize a Black versus everyone
else situation. In fact, Black contractors suggested the most instances of competition with Latinos and felt that they personally challenged every facet of their livelihoods. Some scholars, such as Gans (1999), suggest that this black versus non-black dichotomy will be the new order of the American racial hierarchy. However, as Bonilla-Silva (2003) and Gallagher (2004) point out, this dichotomous hierarchy is not as new as we think; Whites have long included and excluded groups into honorary white status. I contend, though, that this relationship between Whites and Latinos may be an exploitative relationship that is more about an economic opportunity for Whites to tap into a source of cheap labor. This is obvious in how Whites view Latinos as economic and social threats. Moreover, while Whites consider the Latino work ethic as wonderful, they view them as incapable of running a successful business like Blacks. Thus, as Gans (1999) suggests, this relationship may not last and Latinos may find themselves in the "Blacks only" category again. For me, this seems to be coming true because many of the White contractors viewed them as an economic challenge to their livelihood; thus, placing their
relationship with Latinos as strictly in an employer-employee relationship mode. We also have to add on the growing tensions about unauthorized immigration in the U.S. and in Georgia, which could send those Latinos accepted as White, literally, packing back to their previous minority and "undesirable" statuses. Especially, since there is a history of White rejection of Latinos in the U.S., such as the repatriation of thousands of Mexican immigrant and Mexican American
families during the 1930s and the Proposition considered in California in the 1980s through the 1990s (see Balderrama and Rodriguez 1995; Guerin-Gonzalez 1994). In short, very few White contractors in this study have strong ties to either Blacks or Latinos and if they do, then it is marginal at best.
Third, Latino contractors tend to view racism and competition differently, based on their perceived relationships with Whites and Blacks. In this chapter, Latinos view their relationship with Whites as symbiotic and beneficial; thus, reducing any possibilities that Whites are racist toward them. However, this relationship, again, seems to be one-sided as the White contractors' comments suggest. The Latino contractors' relationships with Blacks are very negative and competitive. Clearly, Latinos' attitudes about Blacks match White attitudes. For instance, many of the Latino contractors suggested that Blacks were incapable of doing well in this industry, which is something the White contractors said as well. In addition, Latinos felt that racism and competition was something they had to deal with on three fronts. Other newly-arriving Latinos represented the greatest threat to most of my Latino contractors' positions in the construction industry because, as one contractor suggested, Latino immigrants could work for cheaper and could ruin their image and status in Atlanta. Overall, this competition with other Latinos also pushed some of the Latino contractors to express some of the same resentments that Whites and Blacks suggested about immigrants.
One of the more important findings to take away from this chapter is the power of color- blind ideology. All three groups in this study used color-blind ideologies to downplay the significance of race and racism in almost every instance. While all three groups suggested that a good work ethic, dedication, and commitment were the keys to success, only a couple of Black and Latino contractors mentioned that their skin color stacked the odds against them. Moreover, each of the groups accepted and reinforced this color-blind ideology by explaining the
differences between each group. However, in the end, this ideology hides the fact that Whites continue to be at the top of the pecking order in this industry. Gallagher (2003a) suggests that the power of color-blind ideology is that race is still important in the conversations but the racial
hierarchy it creates disappears. In this chapter, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos never overtly
mention that there is a hierarchy. They all truly believe that they can achieve anything, regardless of skin color. Even though some Latinos and Blacks mentioned that they felt that Whites
excluded them, none of them suggested that the hierarchy was the issue, but they just did not work in the same circles or niches. In fact, White contractors suggested that they never really competed with Blacks or Latinos; however, there was a clear concern of competition between Blacks and Latinos. Here, we see the product of color-blind ideology; Whites continue to be at the top of the Atlanta construction industry, which is veiled with fervent support of individualism and self-reliance by all groups and the squabbling between minorities.
As I pull back from this narrative and relate back to my first paragraphs of this chapter, it is clear that race, ethnicity, and nativity matter in the city too busy to hate. While the blatant distaste and hatred that existed in Atlanta and the South in the 1950s and 60s has dissipated, the racist sentiments, stereotypes, and most importantly, the racial hierarchy the past created is still very much present today. Feelings of fear and animosity between groups have continued to control and shape these contractors' racial attitudes because of the persistence of competition between racial and ethic groups, reinforcing the racial hierarchy that privileges Whites. Whites still view Blacks in very stereotypical ways, even though it is cloaked in color-blind language. Also, with the addition of another significant ethnic group, Latinos, the increase in competition has brought about more prejudicial and racist attitudes. The task at hand now is to show how these racial ideologies presented become a part of the social structures of the construction industry. From here, I turn my attentions to showing how race, ethnicity, nativity, and racism matter for the business owners in this industry. I also show how the color-blind attitudes
continually preface each of the contractors' inclusion in the construction industry and their own actions, represented through their hiring practices.
Chapter 4
ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPITAL: HUMAN, CULTURAL, AND FINANCIAL