Nothing says love like two skeletons hugging.
People who wonder why the president does not talk more about race would do well to examine the recent blow-up over his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Inveighing against the barbarism of ISIS, the president pointed out that it would be foolish to blame Islam, at large, for its atrocities. To make this point he noted that using religion to brutalize other people is neither a Muslim invention nor, in America, a foreign one
There were a fair number of pretexts given for slavery and Jim Crow, but Christianity provided the moral justification. On the cusp of plunging his country into a war that would cost some 750,000 lives, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens paused to offer some explanation. His justification was not secular.
Now, Christianity did not “cause” slavery, anymore than Christianity “caused” the civil-rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion’s share of American history.
That this relatively mild, and correct, point cannot be made without the comments being dubbed, “the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” by a former Virginia governor gives you some sense of the limited tolerance for any honest conversation around racism in our politics.
Federal data released in March 2014 show that black students are suspended at three times the rate of their white counterparts. Research from the collaborative reveals that these disparities routinely aren’t explained by more serious misbehavior by black and brown children: White children doing the same things often get less punitive consequences.
Excessive discipline comes at a steep cost. Studies show a single suspension in the ninth grade is correlated with a doubled chance of dropping out and that suspended or expelled students are three times as likely to end up in the juvenile justice system.
In both schooling and policing, then, young people of color—especially black girls and boys—are disciplined and punished excessively far too often for minor behaviors, with consequences lethal to their life prospects.
The researchers asked the subjects a series of questions about certain behaviors they had encountered while shopping or advertisements they had noticed, and broke out the results by race. They found that across the board, non-white Americans—and especially black Americans—were more likely than white Americans to pick up on things they deemed discriminatory, whether it be in advertising or at the store itself.
Unfortunately racism is still apart of our society, and will most likely be for a long time to come.
There is a bitter debate over racism these days — specifically, whether or not it still exists in a way that actually matters. The argument against goes something like, “Sure, there are neo-Nazis and KKK and YouTube comment sections out there, but we’ve got a black president, for Christ’s sake! Racism has been banished to the craziest fringes of society.”
But science says that’s just not true — the prejudice persists, we’re just less aware of it, and there’s tons of proof that we’ll get into starting … now:
(CNN) — Charles Barkley — who once said he doesn’t create controversies, he just brings them to our attention — is at it again.
The basketball analyst for Turner Sports and former NBA great isn’t backing away from comments he made on the radio recently that people who torched buildings in Ferguson are “scumbags” and some blacks degrade successful African-Americans too often as not black enough.
Barkley also agreed with the grand jury’s decision not to indict former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, for fatally shooting an unarmed black teenager.
In an interview with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on Tuesday, Barkley repeatedly came back to one point: He doesn’t believe that white cops are out to shoot black people because of racism.
I admire Charles Barkley for speaking out on this.
More at: cnn.com
Jon Phillips takes on Nicholas Wade’s claims, and proves once again that so called “scientific” racism is little more than a pseudoscience. This was originally posted in September 2014 edition of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, ( Under the Title, Troublesome Sources ) and than cross posted at Alternet.
Nicholas Wade’s new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, is only the latest in a long line of works arguing that humans can be divided into discrete races, and that between those races, there are differences in behavior, temperament, intelligence, and even political and economic structures. Although the specifics of the arguments change, what remains constant is the idea that white people of European descent are inherently smarter, better, more “civilized” than members of other races, especially black Africans and their descendants. Wade’s work is no exception.
This book’s failure as a work of popular science has been well documented by biologists and anthropologists. This review will focus on another problem with Wade’s book, one just as damning as its scientific errors: its uncritical reliance on and legitimization of fringe racist theories masquerading as mainstream biology.
Wade, a former science writer for The New York Times, attempts to fabricate a sense of scientific credibility for his outlandish theories with the division of his book into two very different sections. The first half is intended as a survey of the history and science of research into human evolution, race, and genetics, and Wade supports most of his claims with citations to scientific literature.
In the second, more “speculative” half of the book, Wade’s claims about human genetics and evolution continue, but the scientific sources disappear. It is in this part of the book, for example, that Wade explains modern history through the claim that “European populations” have a genetic predisposition to “open societies and the rule of law to autocracies,” while the Chinese are inherently “drawn to a system of family obligations, political hierarchy, and conformity.” He posits that white Europeans and East Asians are innately more intelligent than Papuans or members of other “Stone Age societies” because “intelligence can be more highly rewarded in modern societies because it is in far greater demand.” Although he acknowledges at the outset that these portions of the book are intended to be speculative, in the text he presents these racist, hackneyed ideas as though they are simple facts, uncontroversial and incontrovertible.
What is interesting about this is it calls into question just how early children start prejudging based on race:
In addition to asking whether infants consider an individual’s prior history of fair and unfair behavior in making their social selections, we asked whether information about the social category membership of an individual affects infants’ social selections. In the current study, we operationalized social category membership in terms of the race of the individuals, as adults systematically use race as an indicator of social category membership (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990; Hewstone et al., 1991; Stangor et al., 1992). Evidence suggests that same-race social preferences are in place by the school-aged years: elementary-aged children reveal a racial bias in their friendships and in peer nominations, preferring same-race peers (Aboud et al., 2003; Bellmore et al., 2007). Work using experimental paradigms also demonstrates that the impact of race on children’s social preferences can be traced back to at least the early preschool years. Three- to five-year-old children systematically select same-race unfamiliar peers and adults as potential friends over those of another race (Katz and Kofkin, 1997; Kinzler and Spelke, 2011). Moreover, children prefer others who exclusively affiliate with members of their ingroup: Caucasian preschoolers selectively preferred characters in vignettes who were depicted playing with other Caucasian characters as potential friends, rather than those depicted with Black characters (Castelli et al., 2007). In addition to possessing race-based social preferences children as young as three also show adult-like implicit race biases in an age-appropriate version of the Implicit Association Task (Dunham et al., 2013).
It is not entirely cut and dry:
We were motivated to investigate the impact of race on infants’ social selections as current research suggests infants show an early sensitivity to race in their attentional patterns. Evidence from visual preference studies suggests that race influences infants’ looking preferences for different faces: infants as young as 3 months of age prefer to look at same-race over other-race faces (Kelly et al., 2005). Existing research on social selections based on race in infancy, however, has yielded mixed results. On the one hand, preliminary findings using live, interactive paradigms with 12-month-old infants indicate that Caucasian infants prefer to take toys offered by Caucasian versus Asian individuals when given no other information about the individuals (Shin et al., 2011). On the other hand, Kinzler and Spelke (2011) found that 10-month-old infants selected toys associated with a Caucasian adult at equal rates as toys associated with a Black adult, providing no evidence for race-based social selections in infancy. Thus, the extent to which infants consider race in their social selections is an open question.
In conclusion, the results of the current study suggest that infants can use fairness concerns to guide their social selections. However, infants also take into consideration the race of individuals, and the consequences of the behavior of these individuals for their own- versus other-race individuals.
If we want to find a way to overcome racism - understanding how it affects young children, and why, is undoubtedly going to be the catalyst - which makes this report very important to adding to the available knowledge on how and why brains make judgments on race.
Indeed, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that when given the opportunity to select individuals on the basis of fairness, on the basis of race, or based on the consequences of the distributor’s actions for own- versus other-race individuals, infants most strongly consider the consequences for own- versus other-race members. These findings may suggest that when confronted with selecting between individuals on the basis of who abides by a fairness norm versus on the basis of who advantages own-race (versus other-race) individuals, infants may more strongly weight the consequences for individuals of their own race, and, by extension, for the self. Thus, infants may strategically select social partners who previously advantaged members of their own social category, suggesting that they may use group membership to predict the consequences of future interactions for themselves. Thus, our work is consistent with the conclusion that infants and young children may be strategic in their prosocial considerations (Dunfield and Kuhlmeier, 2010; Vaish et al., 2010; Shaw et al., 2012), factoring in not only whether an individual acts fairly, but also the potential consequences of this behavior for their own interactions with others.
This suggests the ideas we have about the causes of racism - ignorance and hatred are too simple to explain why racism appears inherent in very young children.
While education and personal experiences, which dispense with ignorance, do help to create non-prejudicial adults (They simply educate out of it) the study suggests that while education can defeat racial judgments over the long term - these are not necessarily the causes of racism. Something else, inherent in children, is.
Friedersdorf might want us all to believe it is ‘commendable’ to try and save the bigots from the ‘bigot’ stigmatization - however it fails the credibility test:
A narrow point we disagree on is the comparison of opposing interracial marriage to opposing gay marriage. Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)
Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it’s also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.*
Simply and conclusively false. If his contention were correct, then divorce, marriage after middle age, ‘Our Time’/ ‘Christian Mingle’ would all be redundant. Americans no more believe this than they believe Santa Claus is real. Marriage in the western world is a system based on love and commitment, for most people, and for reproduction for a percentage of those people.
The logic is specious at best. Turn it on its head - how many people get married for procreation alone, not love, and not commitment? How could you characterize a loveless marriage? Ridiculous - Friedersdorf is no idiot - his attempt is both nonsensical and deliberate.
Sure ,there are marriages where people have no love and are in it for procreation alone, but would you want your child to grow up in that household? Would you want to be personally in a loveless marriage? Would you wish that upon your worst enemy?
The answer is no. No. Not - arguably. It is definitively NO.
Yes - opposition to gay marriage is based on bigotry - it is based on a choice - that some Christians choose to abide bigoted doctrine does not inoculate them from the label of ‘bigotry’ - simply because many other Christians CHOOSE to not abide bigoted doctrine.
Sexuality, just like race, is immutable - however, whatever religious doctrine you choose to believe is a subjective choice. You choose to be a homophobic bigot, or you choose not to be one.
This may make them uncomfortable, but the truth is that opposition to SSM is no different than white supremacist opposition to interracial marriage. It’s just supremacy of sexuality. And it is just as immoral.
Read more if you choose - but why bother? Why Gay-Marriage Opponents Should Not Be Treated Like Racists - Conor Friedersdorf - the Atlantic
If you would like to read instead - a Christian using Christian doctrine and logic to affirm equality for LGBTI people = stltoday.com - is much worthier of your time and soul.
Racism has been a problem for a long time. We know how the belief that some “races” are inferior has been used to justify everything from slavery and segregation to genocide. In the past at times even criticizing things like how black people were mistreated was difficult
Recently here at LGF, Kragar talked how hate filled white supremacist Craig Cobb, who wants to create a racist pure white Utopia in North Dakota actually isn’t pure white himself. However this should be no surprise to anyone who isn’t a racist and who understands enough of the science of genetics. There is no such thing as “pure white” or “pure black” or “pure Latino” or “pure Asian” Contrary to what racists think race really is a a social construct, the idea of race as we think of it today, isn’t accepted by the scientific community, especially anthropologists.
American Anthropological Association outright rejects it.
Two of the best videos I’ve ever seen debunking the idea that race is an inherently meaningful biological concept, were created by youtuber C0nc0rdance. The videos are little over a year old, but He does an excellent job debunking some common racists claims about “race” and genetics.