Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm, Im not sure I agree with this. I will admit that kids are very open to having a favorite singer, athlete, and various other entertainment figures... But it is mostly in these environments where they may have "respect", or dont show signs of being racist, or bigoted. A kid can easily claim this football, or basketball player, as being amazing, and their favorite athlete... But in real life, there are still many different cues being thrown out by society. I worked at a camp this past summer, and heard a crazy amount of "mexican jokes"... For no apparent reason, these children would just rant about them. There is still a complex system of superiority/inferiority as it relates to race. Its not necessarily something that is being verbally (although is can be) taught. Lets be real, many people know their place in this society. (or I should say, how they are perceieved stereotypically, and perhaps who they really are).
I think you're talking about small kids who may be reflecting parental attitudes. The "kids" I'm referring to are actually young adults - college age to mid-20s. By that time, at least where I live (DC Metro) they just don't see any point to being racist, ethnocentric or homophobic, since in all likelihood they have friends of just about every type.
I think you're talking about small kids who may be reflecting parental attitudes. The "kids" I'm referring to are actually young adults - college age to mid-20s. By that time, at least where I live (DC Metro) they just don't see any point to being racist, ethnocentric or homophobic, since in all likelihood they have friends of just about every type.
With the doll test, they were younger children... But at the camp, I worked with teenagers between the ages of 13-17. I dont think kids, nor adults think about being racist, or prejudiced in rational manner. Considering how society (ironically) veiws/prosecutes bigots, many people arent maliciously racist. I believe quite a bit of it is subliminal. I think people also assume because there a few people going around being quite blunt, using slurs, and telling offesive "jokes", that the ideas havent been subconsciously planted. Most of the racism, bigotry, and prejudice today are not overt.
Referring back to what you said, I dont really think most parents are sitting down, teaching children to be a certain way. Sure Mom might comment on a group of thugs every now and then, or openly speak about immigration policies... but she sure isnt giving the race lectures parents gave kids 40 years ago.
And to briefly get back to how complicated racism can be, I have another example. Next to Mexicans, my kids got a huge kick out of talking about Asians. Now usually, when people talk about another group of people there is something they claim is wrong, or doing bad... But in this case, there was nothing. Im not saying there is nothing (or something) wrong with Asians, but the joke would simply be based on them being Asian... One of the punchlines was "well thats why your Asian". Now im not sure what value (or lack of ) there was in being Asian, according to them, but clearly it wasnt high.
These kids went to the same high achieving schools, lived in the same upper middle class neighborhood as these Asian kids, and were in the same classes. (we went throught year books sometimes) So there was no class difference, many were 2nd generation, so fully assimiliated... Even when trying to "rationalize" reason for their attitude, I found no legit reason for why Asians were the punchline of the joke.
Its weird, other minority groups have bad reputations, and some of them are legit, and coupled with the lack of exposure to Blacks/Hispanic, its easy to gather how they labeled those group in a negative fashion. However, most people would be so quick to talk about the "smart, nerdy Asian". Yet the smart, well off, assimlated Asian was still somehow devalued.
sorry about changing the topic
Last edited by dreamgirl84; 11-27-2010 at 11:27 PM..
With the doll test, they were younger children... But at the camp, I worked with teenagers between the ages of 13-17. I dont think kids, nor adults think about being racist, or prejudiced in rational manner. Considering how society (ironically) veiws/prosecutes bigots, many people arent maliciously racist. I believe quite a bit of it is subliminal. I think people also assume because there a few people going around being quite blunt, using slurs, and telling offesive "jokes", that the ideas havent been subconsciously planted. Most of the racism, bigotry, and prejudice today are not overt.
I think, in general terms, the tendency to be cautious around any person or animal that is "unfamiliar," "different" or "strange" may be hard-wired. The details and specifics, however, are learned.
Earlier I posted about how we view, regard and react to people whom we perceive as "different". From the time of our earliest memories (ages 2 through about 5, depending on the person) we are surrounded by people who generally look, think and behave alike -- siblings, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, neighbors, etc. These people teach us what is good and what is bad from their perspective. From this we develop the "yardstick" by which we judge and govern our own behavior. We also apply the yardstick to others within this group (particularly siblings and cousins ).
Later, when we begin encountering people beyond our group, we attempt to apply that same yardstick to them. If they don't measure up, we view and regard as not good, or not as good.
Are we taught to be biased, prejudiced or racist? Though this obviously differs from person to person and from group to group, the answer is probably "yes, but not intentionally".
Anyway, that happened recently, within living memory.
The people who were children then, are in their seventies now. The people who were adults then are extremely old or dead.
The people who keep the memory alive are their children and more often their grandchildren or great grandchildren.
The Holocaust will be kept as a personal grievance by their grandchildren and their grandchildren's children, and it will be no different than it has been with many blacks and slavery. And I am sure that you, as I know many Irish-Americans, who are axe-grinding over wrongs suffered by their greatgrandparents.
People love holding these grievances close because it makes them special. Blacks, Jews, Irish, etc......makes no difference. My grievance is always the one that is different, the one that should not be forgotten, that everyone should still feel personally guilty about....the one that is different than all others. And if you don't agree, then, of course, you are an evil SOB.
Time moves on, most people don't.....unless it is to buy a new gadget.
The people who were children then, are in their seventies now. The people who were adults then are extremely old or dead. The people who keep the memory alive are their children and more often their grandchildren or great grandchildren.
The Holocaust will be kept as a personal grievance by their grandchildren and their grandchildren's children, and it will be no different than it has been with many blacks and slavery. And I am sure that you, as I know many Irish-Americans, who are axe-grinding over wrongs suffered by their greatgrandparents.
People love holding these grievances close because it makes them special. Blacks, Jews, Irish, etc......makes no difference. My grievance is always the one that is different, the one that should not be forgotten, that everyone should still feel personally guilty about....the one that is different than all others. And if you don't agree, then, of course, you are an evil SOB. Time moves on, most people don't.....unless it is to buy a new gadget.
I think the natural tendency to hold onto grievances across generations is exacerbated when the perpetrators refuse to acknowledge the crimes they or their ancestors committed. Two examples would be the Armenian "genocide" at the hands of the Turks and the horrific treatment of the Chinese population by the Japanese during World War II. In contrast, Germany has paid very large sums in restitution to both individuals and to the state of Israel and in addition has prosecuted some of its own citizens who participated in atrocities. Japan and Turkey have done none of the above. The United States has never denied that slavery existed, and while cash reparations have never been paid, reverse discrimination in hiring and minority set-asides have amounted to reparations of a sort, however imperfect those things are in many respects.
It is quite astounding how long some of these grievances can be held; many Arabs still resent the European crusades to the Holy Land during the Middle Ages. Westerners are still referred to as "crusaders" by the Islamic militants.
As an aside, I placed the word genocide in quotes in the first paragraph and that requires an explanation. I have no doubt, nor does any reasonable person, that very large numbers of Armenians were killed by the Turks during that pre-World War I time, and that these killings were horrific. In my own mind, however, I'm not sure that it was a true genocide, which I define as a systematic attempt to exterminate an entire race or ethnic group of people.
As an aside, I placed the word genocide in quotes in the first paragraph and that requires an explanation. I have no doubt, nor does any reasonable person, that very large numbers of Armenians were killed by the Turks during that pre-World War I time, and that these killings were horrific. In my own mind, however, I'm not sure that it was a true genocide, which I define as a systematic attempt to exterminate an entire race or ethnic group of people.
Do you consider Pol Pot's atrocities in Cambodia to be a true "genocide", given that the overwhelming majority of the victims were the same race and ethnicity as the perpetrators?
Do you consider Pol Pot's atrocities in Cambodia to be a true "genocide", given that the overwhelming majority of the victims were the same race and ethnicity as the perpetrators?
I don't know enough about these killings to hold a valid opinion as to how to label them. Like any half-educated person, I do know that people were killed in horrifying numbers in Cambodia, and that it was sickening and disgusting (inadequate terms). So in a sense I just did label them, of course, but I'm not sure about the "genocide" label in this case. What is your opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
