On Racism: Unconscious & Reverse
Richard Thompson Ford, professor of law at Stanford University and author of The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse, walks us through the definitions of several of the more commonly cited types of racism and offers his opinion as to whether they deserve the label. I picked two to quote:
Unconscious racism
Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji has developed a test designed to smoke out unconscious racial bias. The test requires the subject, under intensive time pressure, to match black and white faces with value-laden terms such as good, smart, and diligent or bad, stupid, and lazy. If you find it easier to match white faces with good terms and black faces with bad terms, you have exhibited what Banaji calls an implicit association between race and merit or virtue. Although she scrupulously avoids using the term herself, almost everyone else has predictably described the results of her research in terms of unconscious racism. And the results are disquieting: Almost 90 percent of whites exhibit some unconscious racism against blacks, while around half of all blacks exhibit anti-black bias.Banaji’s research suggests we have a way to go before we get to a post-racist utopia. But she warns against using the test to try to prove individual bias; in fact, she has pledged to testify against anyone who tries to use her work to prove discriminatory intent in court. Other psychologists have questioned the whole approach. For instance, U.C.-Berkeley psychologist Phillip Tetlock thinks that Banaji’s test doesn’t prove anything about discrimination in real-life situations: “We’ve come a long way from Selma, Alabama, if we have to calibrate prejudice in milliseconds,” he argues. [...]
Reverse racism
Glenn Beck took the fear of anti-white racism to new extremes when he accused President Obama of being a racist, but political hacks have for decades used accusations of reverse racism as part of a well-documented, cynical political strategy. For instance, in 1990 North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms turned the polls around in his race against challenger Harvey Gantt* by playing the reverse race card. In Helms’ advertisement, a pair of white hands crumples a rejection letter while ominous music plays and a voice-over intones, “You needed that job … but they had to give it to a minority.”There are real instances of anti-white racism, such as Louis Farrakhan’s crude diatribes against “white devils.” But they are relatively few and rarely amount to more than impotent blustering. Affirmative action—often tarred as reverse racism by its opponents—doesn’t qualify. Affirmative action is an imperfect but pragmatic effort to promote integration in the face of the effects of past and ongoing discrimination. There’s plenty of room for legitimate criticism, but suggesting that affirmative action is a form of racism is disingenuous and turns what should be a level-headed debate into a shouting match.
Do we agree?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
34 Responses to “On Racism: Unconscious & Reverse”
I disagree with the very term of “reverse racism” – racism is racism regardless of the person/group doing it, or the person/group it is directed towards. That's one of the terms that gets stuck in my craw.
Affirmative action—often tarred as reverse racism by its opponents—doesn’t qualify.
Affirmative action may indeed be an imperfect but pragmatic to promote integration, but if you define racism as “a policy of discrimination on the basis of skin color,” AA clearly qualifies.
Even if you pick a tougher definition that requires prejudice, such as “a belief that inherent differences among races determine cultural or individual achievement,” AA still qualifies. It's based on the notion that whites' historical privilege will give them an advantage over blacks and determine their achievement.
I agree with mlhradio that reverse-racism is an oxymoron. Racism between whites, asians, or blacks (in any order) is racism plain and simple.
We have made great strides in my generation (Gen X) against racism. Although not rampant, it still exists substantially. It will never disappear as long as division is being exploited and race baiting is being used. Organizations like Nation of Islam, Aryan Nation, and even the Rainbow Coalition, owe their livelihoods to continued division among the races.
Democrats use racist agendas to bring blacks and hispanics to the polls. Repbulicans use racism to embolden whites with fear of impending minority overthrow.
It's all got to stop. As long as we keep empowering these racists (both religious leaders and politicians), then racism will never disappear. I, personally have devoted myself to the teachings of Christ (and Martin Luther King, Jr), whereas I judge only by the content of a man's character and not by the color of his skin. Shouldn't we all expect that from our leaders?
[...] See the original post here: On Racism: Unconscious & Reverse [...]
The term racist does not mean “anything based on terms of race”. If it did, then choosing an African-American actor to play Malcolm X in a movie is racist. If someone happens to find black hair more attractive than lighter colors, then they could be racist. The term becomes meaningless.
Anyway, I too am someone who's deeply skeptical of the methodology used in the implicit association tests. I don't work in that exact field, so I'm not deeply read in the literature, but I do conduct experimental work in cognitive science and am familiar with Reaction Time measures, which is what they are using. You just can't rule out the task effect in that work, meaning the task itself is making people be slower at certain times, but it's not getting at what the researcher is hoping to get at.
I dropped out because the experiment was making me say things I didn't want to say, i.e., black = bad. People who don't drop out could be having their reaction times affected, not by the implicit associations, but by being forced to say something you don't wish to say. If that happens, you are measuring the effects of conscious resistance upon reaction time, not associations between race and value judgments.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dell Henry. Dell Henry said: On Racism: Unconscious & Reverse: If it did, then choosing an African-American actor to play Malcolm X in a.. http://bit.ly/4BhTLa [...]
pacatrue
I agree with your analysis and also wonder how blacks faired under this test. If they associated the “good” words with the black faces, does that mean they were racist too? Perhaps this test merely demonstrates that we as humans associate what is “good” with what is familiar.
Whites will call other whites “trailer trash,” Easterners will talk about “hillbillys,” and everybody talks about the snobby French
. That's the point, humankind suffers from a parochial perspective. One may wish it were not so, or one may accept each others foibles and move forward.
Hey Hemm — It did talk about how black people faired in the test. In fact, it said that while 90% whites seemed to have an anti-black bias, 50% of blacks also had an anti-black bias. Yes, and anti-BLACK bias.
DrJ — where did you get those definitions of racism? Your first definition could, indeed, be a small part of racism, or related to racism, but is both overbroad (“skin color”) and not broad enough (“policy”). In addition, the corrolary that you draw from your second definition (even were it apt) doesn't in any way follow from that definition.
Dictionary.com. But if you don't like those definitions, perhaps you could offer one? If ever a subject hinged on semantics, this one does.
Roro80-
“50% of blacks also had an anti-black bias. “
Sorry, I missed that. So 50% of blacks showed anti-black bias….
Or not, if the test merely measures familiarity and “good,” 50% of blacks may merely select by different criteria than color. Integration has shown that familiarity removes fear, we may just see that here.
The author of the test seems right to me that when they refuse to endorse any conclusions from this study. There are way too many unaccounted variables to show bias based upon skin color.
“Democrats use racist agendas to bring blacks and hispanics to the polls. Repbulicans use racism to embolden whites with fear of impending minority overthrow.”
That's probably the best concise description (which avoids the typical far-left nonsense that anything obviously not racist actually is racist, just “encoded”). It does neglect the bigger tactical advantage that the Democrats and liberals have possessed and exercised in earnest since the 1930s, that of “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect” (to quote an original 1930s architect himself), that is, buying the votes of the easily sold through entitlements paid for by “society” or by Somebody Else.
Hi DrJ — I'm not an expert on the subject, nor am I particularly adept at these things, so I'm having a hard time coming up with a good definition. I can tell you where I have a hard time with your definitions, though, knowing and acknowledging that I'm failing at coming up with anything better.
“a policy of discrimination on the basis of skin color”
I called this “not broad enough” because racism doesn't need to encoded in a policy to be racism. A racial epithet (say, the n-word) would certainly be considered racist in our culture, even though that word has never explicitly been used in any policy. It's also not broad enough because racism isn't always a strict matter of “race” when used commonly. The easiest example (with the threat of Godwin-ing the thread) is to point to the case of Hilter and the Jews; ethnic Jews are certainly within the white race, but I don't think there's anyone who would argue that as a corrolary, Hilter couldn't have been racist against the Jews.
Why I would say the definition is too broad is harder, and it's where I'm having a hard time coming up with a good definition. It has to do with power, and privilege, and, well, history. I know that's not satisfactory, but I'll try to think on it and come up with (or steal from someone who knows more about these things) something better.
“a belief that inherent differences among races determine cultural or individual achievement”
Again, not broad enough, for easily discernable reasons, but at least this one seems correct in the areas it does cover. But my main point was that your conclusion (“whole premise is that whites' historical privilege, and blacks' historical underprivilege, will determine their relative achievements”…and therefore AA is “racist”) doesn't follow from this at all. In fact, I'd say that historical factors are exactly the opposite of “inherent differences”. There's nothing inherent about blackness or whiteness that necessitated the history that occurred. The history of institutional bias based on race did occur, and continues to occur, and has been/is responsible for a privileging of whiteness over blackness, with all sorts of effects on acheivement, but there's nothing at all “inherent” to the races that meant that this must be true. Had history occured in a much, much different manner, it seems at least plausible that black people could have enslaved (etc) white people instead of the other way around.
Had history occured in a much, much different manner…
Sure, but history is what it is, and the impact of history on the races is now “inherent” in the sense that there's nothing we can do about it.
It's also not broad enough because racism isn't always a strict matter of “race” when used commonly.
The word is commonly used so broadly as to amount to original sin. Whites are born with it, can't cure it, and even the best-intentioned of them still practice unconscious or institutional or environmental racism. An “inherent trait” precisely.
I find such expansive, diffuse definitions of the word worse than useless. They sow discord by encouraging people to call each other “racist” on any pretense. And they ultimately cheapen a word we ought to reserve for serious problems. If everything is racism, nothing is.
That's pretty much the opposite of the definition of “inherent”, DrJ. I'm not saying that history isn't real, it's just not “inherent”; just like events that have happened in the past affect racial bias, so will events in the future affect how racial bias is carried out in the future. Like the difference between mass and weight — one is inherent, one depends on circumstances, both are real with real-world effects.
“Whites are born with it, can't cure it,”
No, they aren't! It's taught, and can be untaught, although the unteaching is much more difficult. And even those who unlearn poor behavior still make mistakes. That's not the same thing as not being able to cure it. Haven't you ever believed something that you later learned was untrue? It takes a while to reincorporate the new idea, but it's not impossible, and it's usually worth the trouble.
“And they ultimately cheapen a word we ought to reserve for serious problems.”
Who is to decide what is a “serious problem”? I believe the fact that people of color tend to do much more poorly in school to be a serious problem. I believe that the fact that violent crime against gay and trans people is so much higher than that of straight and cis people is a serious problem. I believe the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men is a serious problem. These all come from bias that is taught by our culture, taught by our experiences, taught by our parents or peers or the government or whomever else. Specifically NOT inherent. If you don't think they are “serious problems”, well, I guess that's your right, but people who are on the short ends of those sticks likely have a different opinion on whether or not they are “serious”.
“If everything is racism, nothing is.”
I'm not even sure what to say about this statement, as it really doesn't have any meaning, and I'm not saying “everything is racism” anyway…
No, they aren't! It's taught, and can be untaught.
Oh really? Then please point me to case studies of ex-racists–people who are now certified free of all the various forms of blatant and latent racism.
Who is to decide what is a “serious problem”?
We all are, of course. And I'm certainly concerned about our schools failing kids of any color and can deliver many sermons on the reasons for their failure. I wouldn't call any of them racism, though.
roro80
“
“Whites are born with it, can't cure it,”
No, they aren't! It's taught, and can be untaught, although the unteaching is much more difficult. And even those who unlearn poor behavior still make mistakes.”
Just jumping in , but based upon our earlier exchange, isn't racism a problem taught on both sides of the issue? I certainly agree with your sentiments in your comments to Dr J, but isn't it humankind itself that must embrace that tough new concept?
Again, this isn't a “disease” to be “cured”, it's a thought process which manifests as actions, both of which can be changed. If you're looking for someone who, through personal effort and the teaching of others has become less racist, I'll happily raise my hand and say that I am but one of many many examples. I do make mistakes, but when I do, I can generally recognize them, apologize, and move on a little more aware.
I know that you generally stick up for gay people when that subject comes about, so perhaps that's a good example. I'm sure you can think of people you know (and maybe including yourself) who either had never met a gay person or for some reason used to use gay slurs or think that gay marriage or protection of gay people from violence (pick a gay cause — whatever) weren't “serious issues”. Surely some of these people, after meeting and knowing gay people as individuals instead of as a series of stereotypes, decided to stop using the word “fag” and started to advocate for the rights of their gay brethren. This is my meaning when I talk about unlearning bias and the behavior that accompanies it. The idealistic goal is to become “free of all the various forms of blatant and latent racism”, and the realitic process is to start with the blatant, and move on the latent, and to be open to new learning on the subject. We're not talking penicillin here.
“I wouldn't call any of them racism, though”
Well, quite frankly, whoop-dee-do. That doesn't mean that racism isn't a real factor. Unless, of course, you're implying that people of color are inherently stupider than white people? I know that's not what you mean to imply, but taken the given that people of color do more poorly on average than white people in our schools systems, even when we account for confounding factors like poverty, if it's not racism, and it's not inherent dumbness of people of color, what do you propose as a possible cause? Of course, we're not just talking about schooling, we're also talking about health, wealth, violence, etc.
“isn't it humankind itself that must embrace that tough new concept?”
Of course it is, but when something is as prevelent in a culture as racism, it's pretty easy to internalize. For example, when the Spaniards came to the Americas and slept with native women and then left, some white blood would get into the indiginous gene pool, and would occasionally manifest itself as, for example, blue eyes. As white people immediately became more powerful and gradually also became more numerous, blue eyes became a rare and highly prized “beatiful” trait among the native peoples themselves, even though the genes had generally been introduced by rape. This is just a very tiny (but hopefully illustrative) example of internalization of privilege even among the unprivileged.
In addition, isn't it pretty easy to see in this particular case who has the most power to change attitudes among white people? By nature of a problem where one group is privileged and one isn't, the group with the most power to change that system of bias is also the one gaining the most benefit from it, and therefore less likely to fight for it. This is why there's never been a civil rights movement of the unprivileged without allies in the privileged class; not that the privileged carry most of the weight (certainly not), but they do need to be there, especially if the privileged class is also the majority, as it is with race.
roro80
We seem to disagree upon the nature of racism. You seem to make two points:
” As white people immediately became more powerful and gradually also became more numerous, blue eyes became a rare and highly prized “beatiful” trait among the native peoples themselves”
Those indigenous people are guilty of racism every bit as much as their “masters.” Racism is a neurosis that works in both directions. You may wish to blame the Spanish for the preference in native people, but they are the group who held that value.
You don't exterminate racism by addressing it in only one group, both sides must come to see the same situations through a new paradigm. Without a new paradigm, nothing exists to take the place of the old ways to seeing things.
Also:
” In addition, isn't it pretty easy to see in this particular case who has the most power to change attitudes among white people? By nature of a problem where one group is privileged and one isn't, the group with the most power to change that system of bias is also the one gaining the most benefit from it, and therefore less likely to fight for it.”
This concept is itself based in the same neurosis as racism. If people change their own attitudes, people must make allowance for that change. Insisting that the change must take place in the powerful group merely gives that same group more power. We can't change racist attitudes unless the white man changes his attitudes first is self-defeating.
The current belief by many inner city blacks that succeeding in school is playing the uncle tom role shows just how easy it is to keep oneself down by blaming another.
You may be familiar with the problem battered wives experience; they are quick to say he beat because of something I did is half the problem. Women need to free themselves from the mindset that allows them to be beaten. Otherwise, a battered wife will only find another guy who treats her the same way. The husbands need to change, but the women is equally responsible for themselves.
Be it battered wives or people discriminated by race, blaming the partner will not solve the problem.
The new paradigm is the only way to escape the old one.
Roro, I understand where you're coming from. You're using a more expansive notion of racism than I find useful or fair. Why are black kids doing badly in school? Racism. How do we know there's racism? The black kids are doing badly in school.
Before we convict teachers or the educational system in general of racism, I'd want to see more than circumstantial evidence. If racism is “a thought process which manifests as actions,” what are the actions the teachers (or someone) are taking that hold the kids back? Where are the analogs to the anti-gay slurs you bring up?
There's no shortage of other suspects. Bad teachers. Mismanagement. Underfunding. Broken homes. Unsupportive parents. A subculture that undervalues education.
Any of these is solvable, and and racism in the form of specific acts of bigotry is solvable. Whereas “racism” in the broad, ambient sense is not. School performance is indeed a serious issue; unspecific accusations of racism are not a serious solution.
“Be it battered wives or people discriminated by race, blaming the partner will not solve the problem.”
Sorry, HemmD, but the victim-blaming mentality is a little more than I really have the strength to unpack here.
Dr J — I'm not saying that these are easily-solvable problems; on the contrary, it's one of those huge, complicated problems that can only be solved in small increments. That doesn't mean that it's not worth it, and it doesn't mean that denying it exists makes anything any easier. Well, it does for those on the privileged end.
To be clear, I'm not blaming the issue of undereducated people of color on racist actions of teachers in particular, although I've seen that many times, and it certainly doesn't help. Everything you listed (bad teachers, mismanagement, underfunding, broken homes, etc) does contribute, of course, but why do these things affect people of color more often than white people, and how does that affect schooling in particular? How do these factors affect other areas of success separate from the schooling issue? It's more complicated than just “racist teachers”. Why does the subculture undervalue education? Do they?
“Any of these is solvable, and and racism in the form of specific acts of bigotry is solvable. Whereas “racism” in the broad, ambient sense is not.”
Yes, I agree, absolutely! I'm not trying to solve racism in the broad, ambient sense. I perform the small tasks that I can. Specifically, I work on my own behavior by listening to the voices of those I may have hurt through my own actions, I volunteer to educate young women of color in science and math through a few different programs, I tutor in these areas, I do Spanish-English translations between patients/doctors a free clinic, and I support legislation that I think will make a dent in solving specific manifestations of racism through letter writing to my congress critters and through donations to candidates/organizations that advocate on behalf this legislation. And, evidently, I spend my days tilting at the windmills that are those that think that race (or gender, or sexual orientation, etc) isn't as large a narrative as it is within our culture. My activism is informed by larger understanding of the structure and history of race as a driving factor in a lot of these issues. If you don't find it “useful”, well, fine, but I find it incredibly useful as a scaffolding for what I do to try to help and for how I behave. I can't for the life of me figure out why it wouldn't be “fair”.
In fact, Hemm, I would urge you to reread your last comment. I was going to make a snarky comment (followed likely by cursing) about how “half the problem” of rape is women not wearing burkas and therefore not being responsible for “getting raped” by the men they tantalize, but since you seem generally to argue in good faith, I just want you to take a look at what you're saying about responsibility in that last comment and decide if it's really what you meant.
Why do these things affect people of color more often than white people?
Because those problems tend to be joined in interconnecting circles. Kids do badly in school because their parents don't demand they do better. And the parents don't because their parents didn't. People are poor because they didn't pick up better-paying skills in school, because the schools were lousy because the district was poor. Layer in the effects of drugs and violence, and the result is a thicket of self-perpetuating problems that may have nothing to do with bigotry but are still extremely hard to break free from.
Kudos to you for your volunteer work. You're obviously free to think of it in terms of fighting racism, but I'd associate these problems with class more directly than race.
Roro
” Sorry, HemmD, but the victim-blaming mentality is a little more than I really have the strength to unpack here.”
Rape is an entirely different subject than racism. Rape is a criminal act that has little to do with spousal abuse. A women raped on the street is entirely different than one who stays in an abusive relationship due to low self-esteem. It's been documented that abused women hold esteem issues where they tend to blame themselves and defend their abuser. This is not my opinion, it's clinical fact.
If you wish to lump racism and rape into the same bucket, that's your choice, but remember, I don't see them as the same and you can show no objective proof to your generalization that they are. Blaming me for this association merely makes you a victim of your own beliefs. The victim-blaming mentality you ascribe to me comes from your head, not mine.
Therapy has shown that abused women who don't address their own part in an abusive relationship many times pick a new partner where the abusive cycle continues. The abused women is indeed a victim and the men in her life are pond scum, but she has a part of herself that must also be changed if she is to be ever free of the syndrome. This is merely what I was pointing out about the nature of racism. How you interpret my meaning as anything else is beyond me.
Quite frankly, HemmD, you seem to know so very little about domestic violence that you feel comfortable in being not only grossly insensitive, but also highly triggering.
Let's start with this gem: “Rape is a criminal act that has little to do with spousal abuse.”
Domestic Violence is all about physical domination, control, and ultimately power of one individual over another, where the two individuals involved are necessarily in some sort of domestic relationship. Rape is all about physical domination, control, and ultimately power of one individual over another, where there is necessarily a penis involved. You still want to tell me one has little to do with another? Whether I'm drunk in a dark alley or sitting quietly in my home, the deciding factor of whether or not I get raped is *the presence of a rapist willing to rape me* and the deciding factor in whether I get the snot beat out of me is *the presence of someone willing to beat the snot out of me*.
“It's been documented that abused women … tend to blame themselves and defend their abuser.”
You mean, much like you are doing now? Blaming the woman (“half the problem”) and defending her abuser (“blaming the partner will not solve the problem”)?
“The victim-blaming mentality you ascribe to me comes from your head, not mine. “
No, “victim-blaming” is pretty self explanatory a term. “Victim” in this case refers to the abused. “Blame” means ascribing someone responsibility for something bad that happened. Therefore saying “the women [sic] is equally responsible for themselves [sic]” gives blame to the victim. That would mean “victim-blaming”. This is not some sort of code-word I'm using here; it comes directly and explicitly from your words.
“but she has a part of herself that must also be changed if she is to be ever free of the syndrome. “
You know what's a great way to do this? Blaming her for the violence. Oh wait, no, that's exactly NOT how to help this situation. You do this by first getting them woman out of the immediately violent situation, then helping her through her own self-esteem problems, digging in to why she felt she deserved the abuse, digging into how to become healthy in her view of men and intimacy. NOT BY TELLING HER IT WAS HER FAULT IT HAPPENED OR IS HER FAULT IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN.
“If you wish to lump racism and rape into the same bucket”
*I* did nothing of the sort, HemmD. YOU brought up the “black people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like battered wives should just leave” bullsh*t.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how triggering this sort of language is? Those of us women who have been lucky enough to get out of a cycle of abuse relatively unscathed thank our lucky stars that our situations were different than the other women we know cannot. Like the woman who is financially dependent on her abusive partner because he wouldn't let her get a higher education (yes, I know this woman), the woman whose kid has luekemia and no means of providing insurance for her treatment if she leaves her abusive spouse (yes, I know this woman), maybe the woman who, upon leaving, lives in more fear than before she left because her abusive husband has threatened to hunt her down and kill her and just might be crazy enough to do so (yes, I know this woman too), and of course, let's not forget the woman whose circle of friends and church think that divorce is a sin, whose own damn family doesn't believe that the abuse is really going on, and are taking her abusive yet quite charismatic husband's side so that if she were to leave, she would effectively have no support system on which to rely during her healing process (yep, I know her too).
If you were looking for some way to talk about how people of color just need to get it together and rise above and blah-dee-blah-blah about bootstraps, maybe, just maybe, you should have picked an example that wasn't such an obvious and heartbreaking example of *why that's so much more complicated than it sounds*. In fact, the more that I think about it, it's perhaps more apt an example than you thought — just to make the opposite point.
roro,
You and I disagree A LOT. But I liked your response above conserning domestic violence vs racism.
I will say one thing (you knew it was coming)….. If people were to chose their mates with a little more caution, much of the abuse would cease to be (not all). There used to be a courting ritual that eliminated the bad apples. Now, it's based upon all sorts of superficial crap (the car someone drives, the size of breasts or penis, the amount of money in the wallet or purse). In short, our choices (not mine and yours I hope) of mates are based upon materialistic sex and money. That's just a statement about our society at present. I personally, attribute it to the elimination of God from society. You may attribute it to something else.
Hey JD –
I just want you to know that, while I disagree with you on certain parts of your comment, I do definitely appreciate what your saying on the whole. This thread has become highly upsetting to me (as may be easily discernable), and that's why I've stayed away from it today. But I do appreciate your sentiment, despite my objections to some of the implications. Maybe see you tomorrow!
I know, Roro. This is a very charging subject. For the record, I do agree with your take on racism. It is a learned behavior that can be “unlearned”. Like most bad habits (sin), unlearning is five thousand times harder to do than to not learn it at all. But to counter Hemm and/or Dr. J above, I do know of reformed racists. Every one of them came to their decision after having embraced God and becoming a person of faith. On the other hand, there are many so called “religious” people out there that are racists. Martin Luther King Jr noted this when he said, “11 a.m. Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week”. So although God requires equality in his Church, many people still don't get it.
I was raised in the 70's, where racism was still rampant. I learned the word “niggar”, and tossed it around as a child. When I joined the military, I saw minorities staying to themselves in their own groups, which still happens today. After having seen other cultures where your skin doesn't factor into your worth (Arab culture), and after having seen and heard most of MLK's speeches, I decided never to judge by skin color.
I have taught these things to my children, never pointing out that difference. If I was pointing out something toward someone, I never said “that black guy over there”; I would say “that guy over there with the green hat”.
For the generation trying to erase racism, it takes that kind of conscious effort. If that goes well, my children's generation may very well see it disappear. But we all have to do it.
And I'm sorry that you ever had to endure an abusive relationship. Very glad that you were glad to get out of it. God bless you. And may God bless your ex, by helping him find forgiveness and wisdom to break out of that tendancy. It is afterall, a coward's path.
JD, I completely agree racists can be reformed…but only if you reject the more sweeping definitions of the term.
OK, J. If rejecting those definitions is what it takes, then I'll reject them. If Malcom X and myself can reform, then anyone can. Most of the definitions are coined in some sociologists graduate thesis and are complete BS anyway. Racism is simple. Judgement based upon race. That includes preconceived notions, outright bigotry, and subconscious thoughts. The point I tried to make is that it takes individual hard effort to counter it – you have to consciously take actions to counter what you may have once held to be a “truth” about races. In my case, my daughter wanted a Barbie doll. She was five and chose the “brown” Barbie. Some parents may correct her and help her “choose” the white Barbie. I did not. The child didn't notice the difference, per se. She just knew she wanted a Barbie. Likewise, if my daughter or sons introduce me to a boy/girlfriend that is a person of color…..fine. As long as the boy or girl are respectful and Godly. That's all I ask.
Why in the world would that be the case? Did you just make up that rule yourself?
Thanks for your kind words, JD.