White people who exhibit greater implicit bias
toward black people report engaging in discriminatory
behaviors, such as excluding blacks socially.
Image: AGE FOTOSTOCK
In Brief
Subliminal Stereotyping
- All of us hold unconscious clichéd beliefs about social groups: black and white, female and male, elderly and young, gay and straight, fat and thin.
- Such implicit bias is far more prevalent than the more overt, or explicit, prejudice that we associate with, for instance, the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis.
- Certain social scenarios can automatically activate implicit stereotypes and attitudes, which then can affect our perceptions, judgments and behavior, including the choice of whom to befriend, whom to hire and, in the case of doctors, what treatment to deliver.
- Recent research suggests we can reshape our implicit attitudes and beliefs—or at least curb their effects on our behavior.
More In This Article
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life,” Jesse Jackson once told an audience, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Jackson’s remark illustrates a basic fact of our social existence, one that even a committed black civil-rights leader cannot escape: ideas that we may not endorse—for example, that a black stranger might harm us but a white one probably would not—can nonetheless lodge themselves in our minds and, without our permission or awareness, color our perceptions, expectations and judgments.
This article was originally published with the title Buried Prejudice.
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentThis article is particularly sobering when considered in the context of the upcoming presidential election. A huge portion of our electorate still harbors the biases inculcated in childhoods filled with unfair but deeply held stereotypes. I am unsure if the moment of selection in the voting booth is one of rational thought or biased emotion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why might black faces, in particular, provoke vigilance? Northwestern University psychologist Jennifer A. Richeson speculates that American cultural stereotypes linking young black men with crime, violence and danger are so robust that our brains may automatically give preferential attention to blacks as a category, just as they do for threatening animals such as snakes. In a recent unpublished study Richeson and her colleagues found that white college students visual attention was drawn more quickly to photographs of black versus white men, even though the images were flashed so quickly that participants did not consciously notice them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm...not sure but maybe it has something to do with the fact that black men are 7 times more likely to murder someone than everyone else in society. Sadly they are also 6 times more likely to be murdered. Might be pretty unwise to lose that prejudice.
pierrelegrand's comment is correct. UnScientific American might as well ask people to lose such "biases" and "prejudices" as regarding day as day, night as night, etc. The article clearly demonstrates only one true bias -- the bias of political correctness, tirelessly promoted by UnScientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree teller. This is a part of a much larger function of the brain; to identify things outside ourselves. this is done through association and you cannot remove the brain's need to associate. It is a fundamental function. To identify certain aspects of association and hold them to a different standard is irresponsible and has no value other than to advance an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom "hammer and cotton ball" to "you're a racist and you don't know it"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an excellent article; very thought provoking, and I could certainly identify with many of the points given. The other night Bill Moyers hosted Reverend Wright on his show. All that I knew about him was that he was associated somehow with Obama and he was a bit of a "loose cannon". I followed every word he said, and much to my surprise I didn't find anything that offended me. In fact, everything he said could easily be verified by any student of American History. The line he crossed of course was debunking the myth most Americans hold in regard to past treatment of ethnic minorities in this country. I am personally aghast at the shameless way the media has played this up, pillorying a man for expressing his heartfelt convictions. And as might be expected, Obama is between a "rock and a hard place" now. And to think we have to put up with six more months of this mean spirited garbage, having nothing to do what so ever with what any of the candidates do once they take office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at the two posts that support the article -- they both contain pure politics (of the worst, thought-free kind) and no science, and thus once again confirm that UnScientific American has become something hardly more than a vehicle of the destructive political radicalism à la Wright-Moyers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting observation; anymore than three people and you have politics. And what defines "pure politics"? Of course anyone that doesn't have your particular viewpoint is "thought - free"? Oh, and to go one step further; anyone who doesn't bury their head in the sand is guilty of "destructive political radicalism"! Free thought be dammed, is that your message??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispierrelegrand and teller - as long as we are being logical and "scientific" we might note that, yes black men committ 7 times more murders proportionally (i am making the assumption that's correct), but those murders taken in the context of how and when they occurred pose little risk to those of our ilk (assuming you are socially advantaged - pretty likely). I am, of course, making the assumption that you are not cavorting around at 2AM, in a socioeconomically deprived neighbourhood, and involved in the procurement or distribution of drugs. Removing those situations from the equation more than likely changes the reality that you'll experience violence from that segment of the population any more than from any other segment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in a rural area, where there are virtually no blacks. However, as I recall, the last four reported cases of murder or near-murder were committed by two blacks, apparently not residing here. The probability that such a thing would happen at random is at most 1 in 10,000, making a pretty generous assumption that blacks constitute 1% of the local population.
So, what should one's natural reaction be when he sees an unfamiliar black man here? Should we work on suppressing such a reaction, as UnScientific American instructs us?
Of course, you can say that the chance that one will be in fact murdered in such a case is still low, perhaps 1 in 10,000. But, if one's life is worth $3 million (a wikipedia estimate -- I'd say, pretty low), the expected loss is about $300. I'd expect that a rational person would exert some discernible effort not to lose even such a moderate amount of money Also: no, I'd not trade my life for $3 million, nor would (I believe) my wife or children.
> <
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>
> >
>
> I live in a rural area, where there are virtually no
> blacks. However, as I recall, the last four reported
> cases of murder or near-murder were committed by two
> blacks, apparently not residing here. The probability
> that such a thing would happen at random is at most 1
> in 10,000, making a pretty generous assumption that
> blacks constitute 1% of the local population.
> So, what should one's natural reaction be when he
> sees an unfamiliar black man here? Should we work on
> suppressing such a reaction, as UnScientific American
> instructs us?
>
> Of course, you can say that the chance that one will
> be in fact murdered in such a case is still low,
> perhaps 1 in 10,000. But, if one's life is worth $3
> million (a wikipedia estimate -- I'd say, pretty
> low), the expected loss is about $300. I'd expect
> that a rational person would exert some discernible
> effort not to lose even such a moderate amount of
> money Also: no, I'd not trade my life for $3
> million, nor would (I believe) my wife or children>>.
But I think that you are missing the point of the article. I am a black male who was raised in the south. I exhibit an extrremely strong agressive reaction to white males especially in the presence of my two young daughters because I have always been raised to be wary of white males becuase they will probably be racist. And I agree with you that my family is more important to me than others sense of injustice. However, when I am in the work place and am taken out of that situation with my daughters, does it make sense for me to continue to view every white male I interact with the same way? I think the point of this article is that if you are walking down the streets of Detriot, then it would be extremely prudent to be aware of your circumstances. But, if you are walking through your office building, then by what measure are you justifying any apprehension you have towards black males?
Amadou Diallou was in front of the vestibule of his building when the police were cruising around looking for the suspect. He wasn't in his apartment when they shot him. They were all on the dimly lit area outside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/02/02/diallo.trial.02/index.html
We all have some held prejudice against any sort of people, whether it is racial or not. I agree with the article saying that we need to hold off our prejudices at bay before coming to any conclusions about a person. Paranoia and quick-judgment are not healthy in the first place. But the apparently inherent lack of common sense makes me sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople do need to be cautious of other people depending on context. If a person is in a street close to skidrow in L.A., and encounters a shabbily dressed black or Hispanic person, you are bound to be wary until proven otherwise. However, if you meet a black or Hispanic in a University campus or at a business meeting, you won't think they will pull a gun and shoot you to take your wallet. A person is driven by their situation to act in violent and unlawful ways, race is not the issue.
As a Hispanic female, I find myself being wary at white "redneck" males who might act aggressive to me as a woman or who might hold a racial bias. I also hold some waryness towards some Hispanic males who have chauvinist and disrespectful behavior in public towards women. Not to say that this is a Hispanic token behavior, Italians are also famous for public chauvinist behavior towards women.
People naturally hold a bias or prejudice based on the information we receive about a "group." Less thought of groups such as blonde females, Jewish people, or teenagers holding guns in school. I believe people need to differentiate based on the person's circumstances and context, instead of the group they belong in.
Is this Scientifc American or Politics American? At least it allows that "people of color" are as racist and bigoted as the next guy. Maybe we can all stop pretending that "people of color" are not racist & bigots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychologists persist in spouting anecdotal nonsense. Studies of the neuron functions in real time reveal that assumptions of conscious decision making are false and the human brain has evolved an unlimited imagination far exceeding our cognate capacity or our ability to access , correlate and react successfully to the few perceptions we are aware of at any one time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe learn to develop beliefs, convictions of safety and security by adapting behavior acceptable to the family, tribe and culture. We develop an identity, a self awareness based on a comfort zone of virtual reality in which all responses are subjected to the emotional attachment of sensations to memories. The human animal is a herd animal.
We may modify behavior through coercion, fear or duress, but we cannot change belief through reason or will.
This article is so incredibly moralistic. So-called "implicit" associations are charcterized with negative words:"insidious", "infect", "burned into our psyches", "how to override them," "unwittingly," "undermine values that we hold dear", etc...This sounds like Sunday school moralizing. What are these "implicit" associations? Does he mean "unconscious" versus the noble "conscious" values. But the first example of Jesse Jackson shows that the bias is not unconscious at all, because Jesse Jackson is able to express it very explicitly to a large audience. Most of the brain associations and thinking is "implicit", nothing surprising about it. We become conscious only under the pressure of the interactions with the environment. Our consciousness of any association becomes conscious under the goading of the present needs of our organism towards our environment, physical or social, or intellectual. Etc..,etc..this article would be so much better if cleaned of its implicit moralizing bias. ROO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does all of the research answer the what has been and is happening in Africa and the Middle East for centuries? If we are hardwired for prejudice, then perhaps it has something to do with the 5 million plus or minus development of us as a species. Questions such as these would be very interesting if they could be answered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question should be why.....
Articles about how racism is bad almost never talk about facts, do they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlacks make up a seventh of the population, and commit half the violent crimes.
There, see, those are two [b]facts[/b].
EDIT:
[quote]For instance, about two thirds of whites have an implicit preference for whites over blacks, whereas blacks show no average preference for one race over the other.[/quote]
Well, I guess I shouldn't be suprised at the lack of facts, when there are a few outright lies. "Blacks show no preference for one race over the other"? Really? Does that even deserve the effort of a refutation?
--
Edited by AaronC at 05/07/2008 10:49 PM
The article might have mentioned somewhere that the black homicide rate is seven times the white homicide rate, according to the department of justice:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
The black homicide victimization rate is six times the white homicide victimization rate (see link above).
These facts may be interpreted in any number of left-wing or right-wing ways, but it's ludicrous to think they're irrelevant to the science discussed in the article.
"they are weakling cowards that know they are inferior", "subhumans", "murderers and cowards", "treason pure and simple", "must be crushed without mercy" -- is it really surprising when the one who fills his post with little except for such terms is telling us that he has "grown up in a Klan family"?
>
>
>
>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet, the post does present some points (which I believe are all wrong) and asks some questions (which are not quite relevant to the article's subject). So, leaving aside the mentioned colorful rhetorics of the post, some elaboration might be useful here.
<
I did not say that the article presented no facts. Rather, I said the article was unscientific, as it (apparently intentionally) ignored the well-known, striking, and most relevant facts of crime statistics -- and thus tried to reduce the issue to matters of perception.
<
This is also incorrect. If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I did present both facts and reasoning -- which, in particular, suggest that blacks may present a level of real danger many times higher than the rest of the population -- even in such settings as a small university town.
<
This question is not the one raised by the article -- which, once again, failed to even mention the fact that "black males commit more violent crimes". That's why this question was not a subject of the discussion around the article.
However, it is a fair question, and in fact I had thought and read about this matter quite a bit. I don't have a perfect answer to this question; there are many hard facts and many speculations here.
My own two cents: even assuming no negative genetic effects and no negative cultural influences -- from without (such as paternalistic attitudes: affirmative action, etc.) or from within (such as militant anti-intellectualism), what kind of people would have been more able to survive slavery: first being selected to be bought into slavery, then transported over the ocean in extremely unfavorable conditions, and then (if surviving all that) subjected to work on plantations? Would the survivors of all that be mainly the kind of people with superior physical abilities or with superior intellectual abilities? Of course, this suggests only statistical trends, and there are certainly intellects among blacks as good as about anywhere else.
<
This looks like complete nonsense to me. From what I read, it certainly appears that murder rates among women are many times less than those among men.
The debate has been fascinating although but little to do with the article. I am reminded that the most important learning tool is conversation - when we talk to each other, we learn from each other. So, it is with interest that I noted that Teller was more thoughtful and less vituperative than some of those who disagreed with him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not agree with Teller but I could not hope to get him to see things my way by calling him names or assuming that a divergent opinion implies reduced intelligence.
I think Teller, you miss the point of the article. If these biases are "implicit" (a very different thing from "unconscious") in the way that research suggests, then statistics about participation of particular racial groups as perpetrators or victims of crime are irrelevant as these biases exist in those unaware of these statistics. To rail against the results of research you disagree with as being unscientific is, of course, not legitimate discourse. To recognise that there are implicit biases in the thinking of the researchers is, on the other hand, perfectly legitimate.
Perhaps Teller's argument boils down to this: wherever the bias comes from, it just might save my life. Indeed, as a young man, walking through the streets of London after midnight, I crossed the street to avoid passing a group of black youths, So, I have become aware of the bias in myself.
In sum, the article asks us to think. Should we be made aware of these implicit biases and then, having become aware, what should we do about them? Do they act ito help perpetuate the situation that made us fearful in the first place.
The job of science is to do the research, and the job of us, as thinking beings, is to ponder the consequences and to have conversations about them - with respect, thoughtfulness and judgement.
(I cannot, however, believe that PearlGirl is for real. Am I missing the point of some subtle satire? Is Monty Python alive and well?)
A poster writes:
>
>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<
I guess most people don't think, and maybe are even unable to think, in statistical or any scientific terms. However, I believe most people are not completely devoid of common sense. If, as in the example that provided in an earlier post, in a small rural town with almost no blacks in residence, where homicides in general are exceedingly rare -- all the last four reported murders (or near murders) were committed by blacks, how should a person react on seeing an unfamiliar black man? Or how should people react when they read about the euphemistically called "inner-city" crimes or the present-day cannibalism in Africa? -- Do they need to be aware of any specific statistics?
But even if it is a fact that people are unaware of these statistics, it does not make the statistics irrelevant -- as these statistics surely reflect people's experience -- while the very point of the article is to ask us to disregard such experiences or such statistics as "harmful", "impict" "biases"! (Even the very terminology used in the article is incredibly biased and suggestive: "bigot" in the very title, "biases", etc.). The other reason why one should certainly expect an article in _Scientific_ American to cite such statistics is to set the issue in a proper framework and quantify the problem -- especially given that the statistics are so striking.
So, why does UnScientific American not even mention the statistics or similar facts? Why does it instead in effect ask us to disregard the vital and most relevant facts? In two words: because it follows the line of "political correctness". But what does this euphemism mean in plain language? -- It means nothing but sacrificing the scientific truth in a most slavish manner on the "altar" of brute force. Indeed, the black "minority" (and other "minorities") acts as a one-issue monolith (as even the last political events demonstrate). As such, the blacks represent, not any weakness, but a huge force -- given that the rest of the people are divided about evenly on a large variety of issues.
<
I never disputed the results of the research -- which basically are that whites expect (perhaps implicitly, whatever it means) less and worse from blacks than from whites. Such conclusions cannot be disputed by any sane person and belong in the "Duh!" section of the satirical Annals of Improbable Research http://improbable.com/ (that is, in the section of "research" that spends lots of taxpayers' money to "discover" things that have always been quite evident to any sane person).
What I "railed against" is the unscientific, fraudulent, and criminally dangerous "suggestions" that we all ought to lose such "biases" -- without even mentioning the most striking facts in which such perfectly commonsense "biases" are rooted.
The term "implicit" is not defined in the article (which is just another indication of its "scientific quality"). So, I'll be using the common meaning of the term: "not directly expressed", "not readily apparent". Now, what does it mean if a bias (whether real or not) is implicit, i.e. not directly expressed? Most probably this only means that the society, for some reasons, suppresses the expression (or even the existence) of the "bias". That this is the case with our society and the "bias" concerning certain tendencies among blacks is beyond any doubt and requires no studies. So, in telling us that negative expectations concerning blacks have gone underground and become at least in part "not directly expressed" -- the SA article is simply useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is worse, the article is (at best) fallacious, saying: if you are apprehensive of blacks more than of whites, then it is a bias by itself already, then you are certainly a bigot and must lose the "bias".
However, a bias would actually exist _only_ if people expect worse from blacks than they _should_ -- upon taking all the facts into proper account. But then, if we try to detect or estimate a possible bias, it is obvious that the crime statistics are highly relevant. And again, the article fails even to mention such statistics, let alone analyze it -- in conjunction with other facts and studies.
In fact, my guess would be that a bias concerning blacks does exist in people's minds, but in the direction opposite to which UnScientific American and other media are trying to move us, thus themselves creating the bias! So, I suggest we need to be even more apprehensive than we presently are, in order to be safer. Again, the article is indeed dangerous, as it tries to make us lose necessary caution.
teller wrote:
>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<
I of course meant here "in the direction _in_ which UnScientific American and other media are trying to _further_ move us". Sorry for the confusion. It's tiresome to try to prove commonsense things! Anyway, just be cautious and try not to lose your common sense! :-)
[i]I am, of course, making the assumption that you are not cavorting around at 2AM, in a socioeconomically deprived neighbourhood, and involved in the procurement or distribution of drugs. Removing those situations from the equation more than likely changes the reality that you'll experience violence from that segment of the population any more than from any other segment.[/i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, you are making the assumption that all white people have the economic means to insulate themselves from the largely dysfunctional black subculture. Many white people such as myself do not. I live in a black neighborhood of D.C. and when I come in late from my night classes, I pray that I find parking close to my house. That isn't because I was raised to be a racist, that's because over two years of living among black people (in two different neighborhoods) has made me very anxious around them.
Is that racist? In my two years living in black neighborhoods, I have had to run from one assailant, was mugged (thankfully I had no money on me), and was told by a neighbor repeatedly that he was going to slit my throat (one reason I changed neighborhoods) because I "walked gay." None of these things have ever happened to me in the 25 years I've lived in white neighborhoods.
The author of this article has no right to judge people such as myself as bigots for making generalizations that are entirely consistent with our experiences. Now if I were out calling for special privileges for whites or for double standards against blacks, that would be something else. But I'm not, I want everyone treated fairly under the law. And I also want the freedom to be able to make personal judgments and decisions about my life, where I live and with whom I associate in the future, without being subject to moral approbation by my self-annointed superiors.
I read: "The researchers found that individuals exhibited greater activity in a brain area involved in face recognition . . . when they viewed faces of their own racial group than when they gazed at faces of a different race."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear friends, during the Rwanda genocide many Hutus and Tutsis could tell one from the next, a task most Americans would find utterly impossible. It doesnt require fMRI to figure out that people tend to acquire social prejudices by cultural means, and that some people are able to manipulate others by exploiting this fact.
It is interesting to see what is going on in the brain, but I am skeptical that this type of study will yield new and valuable insight into social psychology. I believe the key to rooting out irrational prejudice lies in critical thinking, a broad education in the nature of this world, and the ability to direct ones mind toward a desirable endthree things that are also culturally acquired, or learned behaviors.
Many of us do not recognize race at all, others think it has something to do with the language one's ancestors spoke, and yet others think race is indicated by skin color. For example, I work with a young woman of Spanish ancestry who has stated that she is not white, despite having fair skin. In her opinion she is Latino, unlike the French, who are white. And at home: my wife is a so-called African American (a Negro), I am a so-called white man, and our daughter believes she has Black genes in her DNA no matter what her skin color or hair type.
This duplicate entry was edited elsewhere. I do not see a delete button the entry is still here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Bradley at 05/17/2008 6:11 PM
--
Edited by Bradley at 05/17/2008 6:12 PM
After reading some of the comments, I am rather dismayed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark Twain has been quoted as writing, "It is a waste of ones breath to argue with a bigot." I think the person or persons who have sent obviously racist comments of the white supremacist variety are being stupid. Sociopathy has dire consequences and is something we all should set our minds against.
For the person citing personal experience in DC, I would like to caution against over generalization and selective statistical bias. Maybe you would prefer to have Charles Manson and his friends as your neighbors because they are white. It would probably not be a good choice.
On the other side of this sort of biased ranting, there are those who complain that persons belonging to their particular ethnic group are more likely to be convicted of certain crimes, although persons from other enthic groups are also commiting similar or the same crimes without being convicted.
Not having in hand any statistics and analysis regarding the veracity or potential bias of the statistics, I do not wish to argue one way or the other.
I note that Rush Limbaugh is an admitted drug abuser, but he has probably not been added to statistics on drug abuse. He could get his drugs legally because he could pay a doctor or doctors to prescribe whatever he asked for. He also managed to exonerate himself in his own mind by negative and false references to a target group which Rush and his ilk refer to as "liberals". Not all drug addicts can afford that dubious luxury, and most are not raving psychopaths of the political sort.
There are certain persons sending comments which are no more than racial slurs. These people are deranged. I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing with people driven by hatred and delusion. A few well placed true facts can bolster their beliefs, but it is clear that they have an agenda of bigotry not amenable to reasoning or ethics.
I am aware that so-called racial prejudice is all too common among most ethnic groups in this country and almost certainly in every other country. One cannot become a more ethical person solely by pointing out that someone else is unethical. It is better to see the mistakes we and others make, and then change our behavior to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
--
Edited by Bradley at 05/17/2008 6:00 PM
--
Edited by Bradley at 05/18/2008 1:33 AM
Remember -- it is common instict all over the world, with 1000's of race-ethnic groups involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican is not the only place.
It is an unconscious brain survival instinct.
It is totally healthy.
Yet just because someone is different DNA type -- does not mean you have to run out and kill them with an ax.
Problem is, goverment has negligence to foreign border overflow and has laws and propaganda pushing people togeather, that would other wise in their fredom, stay apart.
Is there any solution?
I just try to associate with the people I am like and avoid the people that I am not like, except for special exceptions.
Peace.
SCIENCE SAVES EARTH,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly...people want to be with people like themselves. The problems occur when they are forced to live together.
This "diversity is good" line we get is a crock of crap.
I have no use for blacks, latinos, or asians...none at all. I'd rather live in a white only country. Are all whites perfect, no, but I'd much rather be paying taxes for "my own kind" than others I have nothing in common with and no desire to "get to know better" because what I do know...I don't like.
The best thing for the planet would be for everyone to "regroup", The blacks go back to Africa, the Asians to Asia, and the whites to Europe/America.
Problem is...the white people always make the better places to live...
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that people need to be cautious. Unfortunately, we can't know what others are thinking or what they will do. It's often in our own best interest to fall back on learned assumptions to keep ourselves out of (possible) harm's way.
It should be possible to apologize to someone if you assume something that isn't true; however, in our society today that is never enough.
"The author of this article has no right to judge people such as myself as bigots for making generalizations that are entirely consistent with our experiences."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you wholeheartedly. I myself grew up in an area that went from mostly white to mostly black within about 3 years. I was routinely beaten up at school for being the wrong color. But no one wants to hear about it -- instead, I am told that I need to understand the assailant's anger. Bull.
The people who label you (and I, and others) as bigots are themselves the bigots. They close their eyes to reality because it isn't what they grew up with. They don't want to sully their hands with learning that the truth is more complex and uglier than they wish it to be.
There are good and bad people of all races, ages, sexes, ethnic groups, religions, etc. No one group holds a monopoly on racism, rudeness, or just plain stupidity.
How come Mr. Whitey is always the biggest bigot on the planet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake Pol Pot -- one of the modern world' biggest biggots who genocided 1 million + people and Mr. Pot is Asain.
Take the Blacks in Africa. In the last 20 years through biggotism and inter tribal ethnic cleaning, the Blacks have genocided 1 million + of each other.
But little Mr. Whitey. A minority of population on the planet and branded by the KGB/SVB as the largest biggot in the history of the planet.
When will Mr. Whitey wake up and realize that he is a victum of bigotry by the new speak of DIVERSITY.
Racial gang up on Mr. Whitey. Foreign gang up on Mr. Whitey.
Why not worship Mr. Whitey as a God. Because without his DNA, the others would all be eating mud pies.
Peace.
--
Edited by SCIENCE SAVES EARTH at 05/19/2008 1:32 PM
Most "stereotypes" we can think of have a basis in hard facts. In science. US Justice dept. statistics show this about crime (in reference to Jesse Jackson quote) blacks engage in rape of white women at the rate of approx 38,000 a year! The white-on-black rate is ZERO. FACT, people! That's just ONE aspect of our supposed "prejudices". It is actually more science than prejudice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrejudice and bias are survival techniques. Before white aliens took over this planet, the aboriginal indigenous inhabitants lived for countless years in a symbiotic relationship with the earth had "earth wisdom" and cared for and survived on planet Earth and regarded it as their mother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs ancient mythologized histories recount, white gods came down from heaven (as space aliens) brought their technologies and spread like rodents across the planet bringing death through plagues, destruction by weapons of war, and domination through religions labeled as christianity (but is more like insanity) and their offshoots (like Islam) which compete for control. These aliens had no innate concept of "mother" earth or wisdom of how to live within her "garden" so they created a technological civilization and labeled it the cause of "original sin".
Aliens are obviously "out of context" with the earth's aboriginal indigenous inhabitants' ability to live on a planet close to the sun because of their lack of protective skin pigment. There are rationalizations for this obvious incompatible physical feature utilizing the lie of evolution. However, if evolution is applied as a factor of skin coloration, then eventually white skinned people will attain brown skin since the cold climate and limited sunlight environmental conditions under which white skin, blond hair, sharp noses and blue eyes evolved as survival mechanisms, are no longer required and therefore useless in the prevailing temperate climatic environment in which a majority of aliens now live.
As a consequence of this alien invasion the planet has been overrun by "barbarian hoards" who bring a "thing and an I" dominated culture, have no respect for the planet or its aboriginal indigenous people and, using the guise of scientific discoveries, have to re-learn and re-discover what aboriginal indigenous already knew in a context of understanding of the natural world.
Because of the aliens' quest for domination, lack of insight into the obvious existing compatible living conditions of the aboriginal indigenous inhabitants, and blinded by arrogance, the aboriginal indigenous were labeled as primitive and ignorant, and as Jared Diamond's book title describes, were obliterated through "guns germs and steel".
Race is a construct to create hierarchy by white skinned aliens who place themselves at the top. Before the alien invasion everyone was colored .
Who please is Siri Carpenter? What is her background, her current position, and how can she be e-mailed? Thank you,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike Kilpatrick
mtkilpatrick@yahoo.com
a common sense approach. what ever became of the concept of operant conditioning? could it be that prejudice and bias American style is Pavolian both in its roots and it reaction? how else could we explain that young american children do not draw distinctions between and amongst themselves (racial prejudice) as they paly and learn. it is not until they become acculturated (conditioned) within our society and as they get older do they begin to asociate the color of a person's skin with sociological conditions (i.e., criminal "diadvantaged', gay, feminist, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a 50 year old white woman, and, yes, I do think about robbery when I hear footsteps behind me, turn around, and find a black man I dont know. Thats because it was a black man, not a white, Hispanic, Asian, or other male, who mugged me outside my apartment early one evening some 20 years ago. I had actually passed my attacker not 30 seconds prior and had no reaction at all to seeing a shabbily dressed black man in my predominantly white neighborhood of D.C. It was only later, when others asked, that it occurred to me that I might have suspected that this person was out of place. The fear of making that mistake again gets hard-wired in&and never goes away. I think that's a good thing. It's called self-preservation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe roots of prejudice grew from the seeds planted dehumanizing people who were needed as commodities of labor. If others were viewed as human, what loving and inclusive mindset could cause such inhumanity to its own kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat mindset is behind the hateful acts of lynching (as recent as 50 years ago) and dragging live beings behind cars till death. I doubt that the crime stats of today contribute to any more prejudice that didn't already exist yet it provides another excuse for prejudicial practices since it's an to be prejudiced towards the whole races not just the "criminal" elements.
People who are haters like other psycho-pathologies use irrational excuses to justify behaviors.
It is interesting how pesonal experiences can form deeply rooted biases, that do not necessarily come from racism but from injustices done upon yourself or those you love. I found myself disliking someone I barely knew because my dearest friend described experiences with them that mirrored my own personal hurt. I thought about it later and understood the negative side of "love is blind", and realized I hated someone based on anothers story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel while this article talks about some very important issues, it lacks the cutting edge science that helps us understand why we have hidden prejudice. I know if my best frind complains about an experience with some one I don't know and she is obviously hurt, I do not or will not like that person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am frustrated at the fact we must judge one by their race, clothes, age, gender, etc. I have been a waitress for four years, and every waitress/server knows when a group of guests walk through that door they are being looked at as a particular group and not an individual. The guests are being figured out how much are they going to TIP, and which section/who's table they should be seated at. It is frustrating, but we can help it, for it's out of experience which is repeated time and time again certain people are just down right stingy with their money (I will not name names). Yet, sometimes there's a chance slim to none you may be wrong, and they surprise yo with 30% gratuity. That is when you beat yourself up, and the next time that certain "group" of people walk into the restaurant again you seat them in your section.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sucks that when we look at someone we automatically start sizing them up, and think to ourselves, "ugh they are so nice/irritating I like/dislike them.We can't help ourselves no matter what one says. We just feel a certain way through experience, from the past, and maybe it's not all thoughts coming from our brain judging someone. What if when we meet a person or see someone it's a spiritual connection or some force that tells us... "stay away from that loser their a crack head, and their gonna take advantage of you. Or something like..." get to know that person over there,their sweet, and if you 2 meet their gonna care deeply about your feelings!" IDK!! Don't judge a book by it's cover right? Bull crap IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this