Log In | Register
A 5-year-old girl in Georgia is being asked a series of questions in her school library. The girl, who is white, is looking at pictures of five cartoons of girls, all identical except for skin color ranging from light to dark.
When asked who the smart child is, she points to a light-skinned doll. When asked who the mean child is she points to a dark-skinned doll. She says a white child is good because "I think she looks like me", and says the black child is ugly because "she's a lot darker."
As she answers her mother watches, and gently weeps.
Kids' test answers on race brings mother to tears
Seeded on Wed May 19, 2010 6:04 AM EDT
Article Source: CNN- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (223)
Interesting article, with several interesting videos attached. Both white and black children tended to view the lighter dolls more positively, but to different degrees.
- 8 votes
In recent months, Newsweek had a cover article about whether our very young children are racists. That was a tough read for me.
Whatever are our children's preceptions on racism, bear in mind that those perceptions are not totally home grown. Their perceptions come to them from every aspect of our culture where blacks present racial negativities as well as whites.
- 15 votes
Tom I will say without a doubt, that though this story reflects from the surface racism, we can not conclude the child is racist by any means. all humans are tribal in nature and to assume that a child reflects her self in a doll does not make her a racist. As a word racist is totally wrong, what happened to the days of the word bigot? remember when any one who dismissed or refused the acceptance of another religion or ethnicity was considered a bigot?
This word racist is as that of bigot, and to categorized as either is justifying both words and stereo typing as either. This test and the authors of the test are just as much racists as any of us or any of us who will care to admit.
I say this as the husband of a Chinese wife, and son who is half native American from a previous marriage. We must all realize that who ever we are we are prone to accept those who resemble us mostly, especially in inanimate objects such as dolls
this so called experiment has nothing to do with actual acceptance and equality of race, but rather a give me type of answer of what a child will do with dolls. A more reliable test would have been brief conversations with actual people and the child's responses.
would the results been the same if the child was Asian African or any other race. I think not a doll or image is what a child is most comfortable with and that usually reflects its surroundings and family.
Maybe the true test with dolls could be of a mixed marriage, but even there it will reflect the child's favorable admiration to the parent.
Bottom line is racism is real but it is a natural as the air we breath, though I do not like racism on the levels of hate groups and fanatics, I do feel that environmental conditioning inclusive to "normal" home life does reflect and adjusts judgment.
- 12 votes
Humans, like animals, are born with the instinct to recognize and trust those that share their features, and fear or mistrust ones that do NOT share their features. Without this instinct, baby giraffes would try cuddling up to a lioness - with pretty predictable results.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a vestigial instinct at play here. Same = family/tribe = safe; good for me. Different = strangers = unsafe; bad for me. We still see the remnants in this when people automatically feel a kinship toward people that share their blood heritage, which is why an Irish-American who has NEVER set foot in Ireland somehow feels connected with people in ireland. That whole "proud to be Irish/Italian/African/Spanish" etc. philosophy is very tribal and primitive. Again, it comes down to "him x-nationality mean him good. Him safe".
- 39 votes
Now we drag 5 year olds into the race game and basically call them racists also. Most 5 year olds dont even know the meaning of the word and most dont have the ability to comprehend it either. This study is useless and was only used to stir up emotions.
- 17 votes
While I agree with Bonos' analysis, it emphasizes the issue, rather than explaining it away. As a group, whites in America have more power, money and education than blacks, and if our children instinctually fall into the same patterns of racial profiling and preferences as the nation has historically exhibited, we are in a never ending cycle of creating disadvantages for blacks. I hope this study leads to some progress.
- 16 votes
hmm, doubt it is genetic.
I think, however, everyone can agree that a baby doesn't come out of the womb racist.
And while you can make the argument that it is the home that fosters much of what a child will believe, children do not live in a bubble, and other factors must be added into the equation.
This was not a fun article to read.
- 4 votes
1.7 - "While I agree with Bonos' analysis, it emphasizes the issue, rather than explaining it away. As a group, whites in America have more power, money and education than blacks, and if our children instinctuallly fall into the same patterns of racial profiling and preferences as the nation has historically exhibited, we are in a never ending cycle of creating disadvantages for blacks. I hope this study leads to some progress."
I do not know any "white" people, do you? The term, "white" is racist. It needs to be replaced with a better, more precise term like Caucasian - the scientific identification.
My sons did not exhibit the type of thinking this little girl does in the video at all. They did not hear racism from me in my home. Though their dad's family is racist - I strongly discouraged it - my children knew. Nonetheless, the racism this young person displays is derived from exposure to racist terminology and racist attitudes in her home.
She heard terms that denigrated people of color - her selections are not instinct. I taught preschoolers. Racism is dependent upon behaviors evident in the parents. Children are not instinctively racist.
- 1 vote
I have a 7 yr old daughter. She has a wonderful big heart. She is kind and shows love and compasion for everyone around her. I never grew up with racisim poison being fed to me by my family. I have never fed my child this poison either.
When the last presidential election was going on my daughters school had a mock election for all the kids. We were in the car that week when Julia was telling me about the class voting for the new president. I asked her who she voted for ( I am a, and come from a very left winged family). She answered in a very honest and matter of fact voice " I voted for the one guy who has the same color skin as ours" ( we are white). It threw me for a loop ! It was not the fact she voted republican, hell, she has no idea what that means. I believe everyone has a right to choose their party. I did'nt even know what to say to that, I am seldom at a loss for words, LOL. Her decision was'nt racially motivated but, where did it come from?
This may not be a big issue to some people but, it bothered me to the core.
- 17 votes
Case in point biasing is every where. It is normal even down to a posters name
- 2 votes
A Sergeant's Mom
Comment collapsed by the community
Comment collapsed by the communityPlease spare me .... My Mothers first husband was black. You have no reason to attack me, what is it you are so mad about ?
You can believe that I taught my 'fake' daughter racisim, thats fine. Remember opinoins are like a##holes, everybody has one !! At least, she will be taught to have enough sense to be KIND and RESPECTFULL, have a nice day :)
- 25 votes
Emily @10.10
You were as surprised as the mom in the video. You and your family is not and will not be the only infludences in your child's life. Your daughter wasn't thinking about how you would vote, she was most influenced by her peer-aged buds.
- 5 votes
No, babies are not racist from the womb, but they will cry if they see a stranger's face. So something instinctual is at play. I don't think it's based on color - just based on not being familiar. That doesn't give people an excuse to BE racist, though. As adults, we should be using our intellect, not our base emotions. You can't live in a modern, civilized society and rely on primitive instincts to get by...it just doesn't work.
Case in point biasing is every where. It is normal even down to a posters name
Yes, I've gotten race-bashed because my name sounded ethnic to someone - I was told I couldn't be white with a stupid name like this. On a board about racism, no less, where the poster was denying being racist. Go figure.
- 11 votes
If instinctual attraction to sameness was the case, why do black children also view the lighter dolls more positively?
- 12 votes
1.13 - Hmm. I wonder why the need to differentiate in public.
"She answered in a very honest and matter of fact voice " I voted for the one guy who has the same color skin as ours" ( we are white)."
No child instinctively makes these remarks without coaching from adults. Few would make the statement, period.
- 1 vote
Happy and Bonos,
I agree with both of you. I know in the bottom of my heart it was not something based on racisim or hatred. It makes you wonder though when as a parent you try very hard not to teach your child these things and, you hear a statement like that. I'm sure completely innocent but, we as adults read alot into these kinds of things. Strange !!
- 7 votes
1.18 - whatever...racists often try to conceal it by making those who are not seem racist. Do trust - I grew up in a very open-minded region of the United States - and was not exposed to racism until we moved to another part of the country where Jim Crowe "stuff" still happens.
Didn't have to try hard to teach my sons anything - they had open hearts and open minds - as most people do until they learn hate.
Some can attempt to call healthy strange - but those who know can see right through the crap. Spinning is transparent.
Sorry to disappoint your theory, if your comment was directed my way.
- 1 vote
in regards to 1.15
Bonos, I agree whole heartily with your comment. People in general will form a consensus opinion of some one based on their name, looks, or even accent.
While posting I notice people flock and agree with certain posters, just because the poster claims the most responses. True a good story gets the most posts and responses. though when examining the posters stories it is usually posters of similar views and blog affiliations who keep the poster popular or post directed to the posters view point.
People do tend to be tribal, and stereotyping of those out side the group is the best defense.
all people would like to claim being without prejudice to others but especially in the blog world there is always prejudice, knowing or unknowing.
Name sounds too patriotic, name sounds too ethnic, name has been mentioned as a good liberal or conservative view. this one is anti this or that. Any way I get your point and also for some odd reason my name USA1 always comes up as being an ultra conservative, which I am not.
This is preconditioning also where as if any one who respects and loves their country is misconstrued as a right winger, PS I twice voted for Clinton rejected Bush policies, and made sure my absentee vote for Obama was filed in 08, and still support our president (see my past posts)
Though not all could imagine a person through a name such as yours Bonos, from your posts I know you are a good person, no matter what ethnicity,or religion (or secular) you are from.
- 2 votes
1.16 - I believe firmly that is a question to direct to the parents of the children. Sorry - but the home is the foundational environment from which all originate.
- 2 votes
1.22 - Why instigate trouble when there is none?
Absolutely unfounded. I will, however hold my ground on my statements. I am educated and in fact, do know what I am talking about.
Just because you might disagree with my statement does not make my statements incorrect or imprecise.
So - perhaps, it would be prudent to return the question to yourself.
- 1 vote
Sergeant's mom thinks she has all the answers, just like many people do. The woman who's daughter chose the president who "looked like her" didn't necessarily learn something like that at home. She is 7 and most likely has been in school a minimum of 2 years. Like it or not, once our children get to a certain age, strangers have influence over them far more hours out of the day than we do. If we shove them in daycare from birth, then it is their whole life. That is just the way it is. I didn't teach my kids anything about racism one way or another. Honestly, we lived in a small town and there was not a single black family. When that happens you can go one way (racist) or another (develop a sense of everyone being "like me", meaning we are all the same no matter the color of our skin). We went the second way. One of my daughters ended up marrying a bi-racial (black) man (he turned out to be pure evil, but that has nothing to do with skin color) and I have two bi-racial grandsons who, other than being gorgeous, you could never tell they were anything but white. We teach them to embrace both of their ethnicities. The rest of our family is white, they are around white people 99.9% of the time, yet from infancy both of them have had an affinity for black people, which is wonderful. But these two boys have never been in daycare, so they have learned only our values.
- 14 votes
Sgts mom...whatever
Stir up trouble, insult people, accuse them of lying....then say "ME?"
Sorry, Emily, I feel you....
- 15 votes
vttova and youngatheartgrandma,
Thank-You, and I value your posts :)
- 4 votes
The questions were poorly done and unfair.
It's why giving people a "line-up" photo and asking which person there is the one is unfair -- the mental heuristic is naturally that there IS a right answer. Thus the reasoning is that "if there must be a right answer, I'll have to use arbitrary 'non-reasons' to rationalize my choice". That might be classed as the Anchoring and Representativeness heuristic classes because the question IMPLIES that one of the figures MUST be bad or good or smart of dumb, etc..
Be honest, if a person gives and answer like A or C or E, then you "have an answer" and that's what you, as the questioner expects. If the person says "well, because you phrased the question as such, there is no appropriate answer since everyone knows that two dimensional images can not manifest sentience nor behave." then we all mentally think "well this child is just being trouble" -- isn't that really what we think when the child chooses "your question is wrong"?
Here's a sample of how the self-placement method works : Ask yourself if you think capital-punishment is right or wrong, then ask about abortion, homosexuality and divorce. Then ask yourself what God "really" thinks of the same issues.
In the vast majority of people surveyed (ones that believe in a god) they overwhelmingly seemed to thought their opinions on the topics were strongly compliant with their god, while not being strongly compliant with each other.
People find themselves to be the archetype of morality, even if they acknowledge that their actions may betray that opinion.
That's not racism, it's a simple combination of two mental heuristics classes.
- 4 votes
1.24 - No Ma'am I do not claim to have all the answers, and I kindly appreciate it that you not speak for me. But I do have answers that have been founded in much scientific research and study - I see clearly that education is not at all valued at Newsvine - but it claims it is where people learn.
I strongly urge those uninformed to do so.
The theory you present is disrupted if the children are home-schooled, which an increasing population are. Further, to call an individual, "evil" is a very harsh word. How odd that the person you refer to, is African American.
Have a great day!
See 15.
- 1 vote
Both white and black children tended to view the lighter dolls more positively, but to different degrees.
I think it's pretty obvious. Since the non-white children, "to different degrees", still viewed the lighter dolls more positively, it's obviously a problem with the dolls.
Here's what I think. The lighter doll, was holding a doctorate degree in one hand and a lollipop in the other. The darker doll had a scar on her face, a handgun in one hand and a broken beer bottle in the other.
It's pretty obvious which one a 5-year old is going to pick. The only reason it's not unanimous is because some of the children thought the darker doll had "street-smarts" and would protect them.
[sarcasm off]
Interesting findings. Not sure it means anything particular - but - it could lead to some of the non-white children maybe having already discussed racism in the home, so that instinctual "pack" mentality has already been challenged.
- 3 votes
the older video is more moving.. i suggest yall watch.
you know the right likes to go off on the fact that African Americans have a slightly higher crime rate than other "races", even when you account for factors like poverty. I suggest some of it comes from believing you are "bad" from a very young age. Institutional racism.
- 10 votes
Now we drag 5 year olds into the race game and basically call them racists also. Most 5 year olds dont even know the meaning of the word and most dont have the ability to comprehend it either.
While they may not have the vocabulary I am sure most children know how to discriminate. They prefer what is familiar to them. With all the precautions placed upon children to be afraid of people they do not know if they do not have someone living in their home who is of another race they may discriminate against people of other races.
Adults who think children are not aware are in deep denial and maybe need to come off their meds so they can face reality. I think most children are much more aware than most adults.
- 4 votes
Further, to call an individual, "evil" is a very harsh word. How odd that the person you refer to, is African American.
sergeant's mom - This man nearly killed his 3 week old son by bashing in his skull and shaking him, and tortured his toddler from infancy to 19 months while the mother was at work. I don't care what color his skin is, I think that earns the "evil" label.
No Ma'am I do not claim to have all the answers, and I kindly appreciate it that you not speak for me.
I'm not speaking for you, I'm calling it like I see it. Apparently quite a few others see it that way too.
But I do have answers that have been founded in much scientific research and study - I see clearly that education is not at all valued at Newsvine - but it claims it is where people learn.
Then show some links. No matter what research there is, it still doesn't dismiss the fact that the majority of those with children in this country have someone other than them (parents) spending more time with their children than they do.
The theory you present is disrupted if the children are home-schooled, which an increasing population are.
Yes, but this test wasn't done on home schooled children, was it? And the percentage of home schooled children is minute comparted to those who are stuck in daycare and then go on to public or private schools.
- 12 votes
A Sergeant's Mom:
My father was EXTREMELY racist and smothered me with his views while I was growing up. I am not racist AT ALL! I knew for a fact he was just a bigot and WRONG....By your reasoning, I would also be a racist bigot becaused I learned it in the home....
- 8 votes
"Adults who think children are not aware are in deep denial and maybe need to come off their meds so they can face reality."
Yea sure go ask a 5 year old what racism means and see what kind of an answer you get. Do kids descriminate sure they do but the 2 words dont have the same meaning racism/descriminate are not the same and when a 5 year old descrimnates it usually isnt because they are acting racist. You need to have your meds checked my raising kids days are over for me they are all adults now and we didnt even have to have dolls to run tests on them to stir up BS like this when they were kids. I am in a mixed marriage and have been for years and have seen racism before just like many others have but to claim 5 year olds are racist yea right go take some more valium and go to bed.
- 3 votes
I agreee with people not putting to much into this...I think it depends on how the child was raised for the most part. I think it is probably more of a color association. Early in life we associate good with the color white and evil with black. Black magic, white magic, etc...it is in stories..... If you colored the kids red and blue which one do you think the girl would say was the "hot" one? UNLESS the child is actually taught racist BS i think it is just color association.
- 4 votes
1.18 - whatever...racists often try to conceal it by making those who are not seem racist. Do trust - I grew up in a very open-minded region of the United States - and was not exposed to racism until we moved to another part of the country where Jim Crowe "stuff" still happens.
You have either led a very sheltered life or that is complete bull. I've lived in eight states, and lived in South, the Midwest, and the Northwest. Racism exists everywhere.
- 13 votes
I have two children (as many viners know)...daughter's about to turn 9 (they grow up so fast) and son is 7, 3rd and 1st grade respectively.
My children learned from day one that we are all the same. My wife is "white", and I have a Mexican lineage (along with Scottish, but appearances lean towards the Hispanic).
So while they were in church-based pre-school, everything was great...no one was picked on, no one was bullied, etc. Everyone loved everyone - all races were represented so it wasn't like "separation caused harmony" or anything.
They started in public school last year (recession killed my business) and while it is rated an 'A' school, in that year alone they've been bullied by a total of 5 different children (boys and girls, different instances). One was "white", four where very dark skinned, and their taunting continued through the year. We noticed that our kids went from seeing everyone based on their person, to being skiddish of people based on skin color (based on their personal experiences).
We've worked hard to break their link between color and fear and while we're making serious headway, my wife getting her purse stolen by a man with very dark skin didn't help matters.
We continue to work with them to break the connection that has been created by their personal experiences....it just takes time.
I'm not saying that's the case for all people, I can only speak to what we're going through personally.
- 5 votes
It's why giving people a "line-up" photo and asking which person there is the one is unfair -- the mental heuristic is naturally that there IS a right answer. Thus the reasoning is that "if there must be a right answer, I'll have to use arbitrary 'non-reasons' to rationalize my choice".
I couldn't help picturing the scene in Men In Black where Will Smith shoots the little blonde girl because a six year old in a bad neighborhood with a calculus book is undoubtedly up to no good, while everyone else shoots the scary aliens.
- 5 votes
So far there hasn't been much discussion of the fact that the black kids also chose the white dolls over the black dolls. Something is seriously wrong if the black kids have such poor images of themselves. Skin color is just skin color - it isn't indicative of intelligence, goodness, morality or criminality. Culture plays a much larger factor in our behavior. Why is it that all of our society has negative thoughts when it comes to darker skin color?
One of the worst crimes in history was perpetrated by white people against other white people in the Holocaust.
Behavior does not come about because of skin color but our perceptions are skewed. WHY is that?
- 5 votes
I don't think the study showed anything beyond as Bonos Ramas suggested an instinctual gravitation for those who are like you. What happens after that determines actual prejudice or racism. Gravitating toward what you are like, was a probably a genetic favored behavior in young children as it promoted survival. The behavior in the black children showed still the natural inclination to prefer yourself, but already showed the effects of societal influence. It what we teach our children as they grow up that matters.
I have to go back and find that link again, but another seed had a link to a video done by a teacher years ago in which she began teaching what discrimination is. She told her young students that their eye color determined how smart and good they were. On the days that blue eyed children were 'good' she would praise the blue eyed children and put down brown eyed children. The favored eye color received a longer recess. On the days the blue eyed children were 'bad' they scored lower in simple academic tasks and became withdrawn. When they were back to being 'good' and 'favored' their test scores leaped again. Children began name calling and hurting the other 'bad' eye color. At the end of the lesson she would ask the children to describe their feelings. And then years later she brought back the children who were now adults. Her lesson had created adults who led their lives without discrimination or prejudice. One little boy during the lesson became very mean to the bad eyed children. As an adult he said that he did that then because he found he could vent all his negative emotions and feelings onto the bad children. A very unexprected outcome happened though and was consistent through her years of doing this: afterwards all the children started scoring higher on tests then they did before the lesson. Teaching what discrimination is and how it feels, seemed to actually increase their academic performance afterwards.
- 1 vote
http://digital.films.com/play/FAXL9W Here is the link. I think the comment suggesting the influence already of our presentation always as dark being evil and light good such as in black magic etc may have had a role in the study.
- 1 vote
I did read this, and then I read the comment section, and frankly those who wrote comments were not wrong regarding this "experiment."
People associate with what they know. People associate with like people, whether in religion or color, or whatever else. The testing was not taking into account if by chance the students used had any problems with people of whatever color in their class. Nothing.
I think the one thing that really disturbed me the most, according to the article white parents or whatever are not teaching about race, are not really making a fuss or concern over it. Yes black parents are making the massive concern over it at the kids young age, almost as if setting up the divisional walls of race. What are black parents teaching their young kids about race I do wonder? As white people, according to the article are not teaching their kids about race.
Also as other people did post in the comments section, they are 5 year old kids or what have you. You really think they are able to really make the full, comprehension between what is good and bad and have learned this from life? They are 5 they haven't learned about life all that much.
Also remember kids have been taught of the boogeyman, kids have been afraid of the dark, shadows, etc. I was afraid of the dark when I was younger. I had a nightlight. So ya know what that is another equating factor as to why they would have picked the white cartoon. Scary things, kids learn, hide in shadows, are hiding in the darkness. Etc. I don't think the kids would even understand the real concept of race.
Ya know I am really curious what would happen if they used rainbow colored cartoons, blue, purple, red, white, yellow, orange, pink, black, gray, brown.....
So I am sorry I find this test to be lacking any truth and certainly it is not about race in the sense of racism.
- 1 vote
I am in a mixed marriage and have been for years and have seen racism before just like many others have but to claim 5 year olds are racist yea right go take some more valium and go to bed.
Me too my son is bi-racial. He grew up around all kinds of people from allover the world and is a world traveler. He is an adult now and he is just great. BTW I did not "claim" 5 year olds are racist. I will claim this :
Children learn what they live!!!
- 2 votes
I saw the video on CNN. It's so clear that those particular kids' racial preferences had been taught.
Humans, like animals, are born with the instinct to recognize and trust those that share their features, and fear or mistrust ones that do NOT share their features.
Not being confrontational, just curious: how would this fit with the results among black kids that expressed more favorable impressions of the lighter-colored figures? The tribal preference idea doesn't explain everything.
- 3 votes
Humans, like animals, are born with the instinct to recognize and trust those that share their features, and fear or mistrust ones that do NOT share their features. Without this instinct, baby giraffes would try cuddling up to a lioness - with pretty predictable results.
Really,, so what possessed Europeans (largest transfer of human population in modern history) to flee to land with folks without shared features. Were they acting against their own instinct?
Seems to me if shared features are instinctive humanity would have perished eons ago.
Our ancestral legacy says our human instinct is survival.
Angela, the European folks were fleeing persecution (if you mean the Mayflower crowd). So those people were employing a preservation of a shared-identity (their religion and general ideology).
- 1 vote
Wow. this one took off!
It should be pointed out that I'm not claiming that the kids are "racist" and, as far as I remember from the articles and videos, neither is anyone else.
It's an interesting study that raises some interesting questions about a number of issues, for both black and white children and their parents. I don't see it in any way as an attempt to "bring race into it" or "drag five year olds into the race game". Clearly 5 year olds aren't racist.
Just as interesting for me as the responses from the white kids were the responses from the black kids. If the black kids view the black dolls more negatively then that would have a number of implications when it comes to things like eduction, goals and achievement.
I hope commenters treat it as an interesting article not some cause for anger, offence or attacks.
- 1 vote
Angela, the European folks were fleeing persecution (if you mean the Mayflower crowd). So those people were employing a preservation of a shared-identity (their religion and general ideology).
Acting on instinct of shared features persecuted are compelled to flee to populations with shared features.
Instinct of shared physical traits (features) is involuntary. example= flamingos instinctively cluster on land masses.
Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited.
This type of study dates to the 1930s, when Kenneth and Mamie Clark became famous with their "doll studies." It was studies like this that galvanized our society and lead to the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954, eliminating legal segregation. However, segregation remains, and it is not self-segregation. Most telling is that despite efforts to eliminate discrimination and segregation, we remain deeply and thoroughly fixated on race. I would wager that few people actively teach their little children that white is better than black, but little children learn this perspective early and thoroughly. That this happens says an awful lot about the state of our society and its weak, halfhearted attempts to "teach tolerance," and "diversity."
What I object to in this sort of work is how the questions encourage us to focus on internalized racial attitudes. Rather than looking at the scope and character of our society, we are encouraged to focus on the "attitudes" of small children. It's not the children who hold poor attitudes, or racially charged attitudes. They learn and replicate what already exists in the world and generally stick to their learning in spite of efforts to reinstruct them. Race remains a powerful concept. Redoubling our efforts to teach "tolerance" will not result in significant change as long as we exist in a divided and unequal world.
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed May 19, 2010 6:50 AM EDTIt's not the children who hold poor attitudes, or racially charged attitudes. They learn and replicate what already exists in the world and generally stick to their learning in spite of efforts to reinstruct them.
Good point...and so true. We allow our culture to have constant reinforcements of racial stereotypes and attitudes...then are shocked when our little human sponges pick up on those attitudes. But when we try to fix our negative cultural attitudes, then the screamers come in "they're trying to take over"..."affirmative action discriminates against whites"...."hate crime laws are racist"....and all that other BS.
- 5 votes
redsfan and demosthene
thank you, thank you, thank you
bravo.....
Well my fellow viners, the perspective from an 'not-by-choice-did-I-ever-want-to-be-hit-by-a-rich-but-drunk-black-man-in-Detroit and get stuck here.....
Who( the 3 time dunk that paid for his license to be returned under the table) said it was one less whitey to worry about. when he was IN court....
I fear you are sugar coating the idea that stereotypes are not valid.
They are, for they exist in droves.
The lower class wage workers(blacks) are more than arrogant and hostile, the playground of the school across the street, sees screaming and fighting daily between the few whites and many black children that attend the kindergarten thru 6th grade. I cannot see how anyone can weep for a nation wide segregation that is perpetuated by the children, when NO adults are around.
Do I think this qualifies as racist?
NO
I think they just have learned the distrust, hate and fear .. and with some of these situations, with good reason.
8 yr olds brought guns in pockets of hoodies, held them sideways on the play ground and said they wanted to be just like the gangsters.
REAL guns... they took from home.
Fired at things, were knocked back on their rears, and police called.
Business as usual.
I cannot wait to get out of here to a more civilized part of the states again. But with the Other threats being welcomed in... is there any parts that are safe anymore?
Sorry if this offends, it IS how things are in this area. There is purposeful segregation, and both colours seem to teach be afraid and avoid, to the children at a young age, if not by words, then by the examples set.
- 2 votes
We still have a long way to go in regards to the issue of race.
- 4 votes
I agree that we have a long way to go on race. I don't accept the declaration that we are post-racial because we elected a bi-racial president who self-identifies as black.
- 6 votes
Why wouldn't he self-identify as black? You would identify him as black if he stole your wallet. You would NOT identify him as a white man or a biracial man. You would faint away if your daughter brought him home to dinner and said she was going to marry him. You wouldn't tell your friends that your daughter brought home a nice white man to marry.
In this country, it's always been the rule that you are what you LOOK like. Don't fault him for following your rules.
Let me ask you this. What race do you identify Muhammad Ali as? Or Al Sharpton? If you said black, you have no right to be annoyed at Obama...both of those men have white ancestors, too.
- 17 votes
great response boons. no matter how many times you explain this to the peanut gallery, they just don't get it. This society made the rules now folks do seem to get up in arms when folks follow them. there are a whole lot of biracial folks out here myself included that have been identified as black by society because of how we look.
- 11 votes
bonos, B.S. response. Do you even know happytoseeya? How do you know he/she would faint if her daughter brought a black man home for dinner, or how she would react to anything else for that matter? Does he/she just happen to be your neighbor? An old friend who gave up because he/she was racist? How do you know? And you are completely entitled to your opinion, but that does not mean it is fact. It is MERELY the way YOU see things. obama is racist because he avoids his white HALF, and we are talking half, not just some white ancestors in the back ground.
ming - if people identify you as black because of how you look, then it is up to you to correct them. If you reject your white side and call yourself black, then you are racist. There are no rules, there may be trends, customs, etc., but those can be changed. You can't expect tolerance when you don't give it yourself!
My two little bi-racial grandsons are white as can be, but we teach them that they are bi-racial and they are blessed to have two ethnicities/cultures to embrace. Will people look at them and assume they are white? I'm sure they will. I'm also sure those two little boys will correct them and say "I'm bi-racial" because they have been taught that BOTH sides of them are equally important.
- 5 votes
@ granny
ming - if people identify you as black because of how you look, then it is up to you to correct them. If you reject your white side and call yourself black, then you are racist.
Who the hell are you to tell ming how to live her life? Do you know Ming? Does he/she happen to be your neighbor? An old friend who gave up because he/she was racist? How do you know? And you are completely entitled to your opinion, but that does not mean it is fact. It is MERELY the way you see thing? Take your own advise and answer your own damn questions.
obama is racist because he avoids his white HALF,
Really? I see him around white people all the time.
Bonos, great post!
- 7 votes
ming - if people identify you as black because of how you look, then it is up to you to correct them. If you reject your white side and call yourself black, then you are racist
yeah that is some highly offensive and ignorant crap. why dont the right have a clue what racist means? See what they are alluding to is the fact that obama who has been called and treated like a black man all his life, called himself black.. much like tigerwoods who has been treated like a black man all his life.
There isnt even such thing as race, and this person wants you to believe that it is racist to self identify the way others see you.
freaken crazy.
- 5 votes
grandma, it is not my responsibility to go around with a sign telling everybody I am biracial. People assume what they want and I owe no one including you an explanation. I identify myself as a human being and let folks assume what they want. It is your society that labels us. For you to assume I am racist because I do not wear a sign of my heritage is ignorant. You have no idea how your two young grandchildren will identify themselves once they are older. You are only guessing. I doubt you know anything of what it is like to be raised black or biracial in this society. It is up to the individual how they see themselves and how they want to identify. You have nothing to do with that
- 9 votes
lizliz, get a life. MING is the one who was complaining about being black and I simply said it was up to him/her to correct them if he/she didn't like it. I hardly think that constitutes telling him/her how to live his/her life. Are you hard up for someone to get pissed at this morning? Have some coffee, maybe that will help (oops, now I am going to get the "how dare you tell me how to live my life by suggesting I have some coffee" rant).
and joules, kind of hypocritical when the left CONSTANTLY accuses people of being racist for simply not liking obama. obama was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, so its quite a stretch to say he was "treated like a black man all his life". Whatever B.S. gets you through the day, joules. If it were the opposite - if obama had turned out fair skinned and called himself white, you can bet your ass that the black people would be crying RACIST loud and clear. It is highly unlikely he would have even been elected!
- 3 votes
grandma, it is not my responsibility to go around with a sign telling everybody I am biracial.
Ming, you are absolutely right. And I was in no way saying that you SHOULD. The tone of your original post seemed to be that it irritated you that people identify you as black because of how you look. My response was that it is up to you to educate people of the truth, what was unspoken in my response was "if it bothers you that they identify you as black because you are bi-racial". If it doesn't, then do what you do. I do believe it is racist to identify with one or not the other, and I am entitled to that belief. If you, or anyone else doesn't agree with me, then y'all are entitled to that as well. For now, we still live in a free country, and we do have that right.
- 3 votes
MING is the one who was complaining about being black
No, Ming did not, but you sure are complaining quite a bit about Ming's life.
I hardly think that constitutes telling him/her how to live his/her life
Oh really? I must have been mistaken, or did this not come from your post:
if people identify you as black because of how you look, then it is up to you to correct them. If you reject your white side and call yourself black, then you are racist.
Have some coffee, maybe that will help
I'm more of a tea person granny, but thanks for the suggestion.
Are you hard up for someone to get pissed at this morning?
No, but you seem pretty angry. You really need to work on your communication style.
- 2 votes
oh liz liz, you are throwing great big boulders in a crystal glass house ;-)
Go back and re-read the posts, then get back to me when you have it straight, k?
- 3 votes
Oh granny, I got you straight the first time around. K? ;-)
- 2 votes
no liz, to get me straight, you have to get the story straight. and by your responses it is crystal clear you didn't read all the posts clearly, if at all. So like I said, re-read, then get back to me.
- 2 votes
why dont the right have a clue what racist means?
the left doesn't have a good grasp these days either on the actual definition. considering how much the word in thrown around when it doesn't actually apply. everyone needs to get a dictionary.
- 2 votes
I see nobody touched my comment about Muhammad Ali's ethnicity...if you don't look at him and see a white or biracial man, you proved my point.
- 2 votes
First of all, I touched on it, go back and read. Secondly, we are not talking about what others see in you, we are talking about what you embrace in yourself. If I found out that Muhammed Ali was bi-racial, then saw comments he made about his choosing not to embrace his "white" half, then I would call him a racist.
- 2 votes
Did you grow up embracing sides in your family dynamic young hearted grandma? hell I never heard anyone describe our family as having sides. Dragging the color line across a child's heart is abuse.
- 1 vote
Just because you never heard of it doesn't make it bad. Your interpretation is on you. If you choose to take it negatively, then you are pretty hard up to look for excuses to complain. (I can only infer you are taking it negatively because of your uncalled for closing comment.)
As far as dragging a color line across a child's heart being abuse, I don't even know what you mean by "dragging a color line across a heart", but I can tell you one thing, right now my grandsons are about as far from being abused as you can get, so don't even go there and spare me your psycho babble bull@!$%#. They are being raised by their mother (and with a little bit of help from me right now) to embrace each "SIDE" of their family and not to identify with one or the other, but to identify with BOTH SIDES because that is who they are, and that is what makes them wonderful. And that is what makes my daughter wonderful as well, because you see - their father did abuse them, nearly killed the baby when he was 3 weeks old, and his father abused him, and so on and so on. Many people in my daughter's shoes would not do the same thing.
Our family had sides, my mom's side, my dad's side, etc. I take mostly after my mom's "side" of the family in physical appearance, my dad's "side" in demeanor. A perfect blend I am very pleased with. Both sides were very different - one extremely conservative, one extremely liberal, which explains why I am the way I am, and YES, I did grow up embracing BOTH sides of my family dynamic.
Since you felt the need to attack such a simple thing that really has no negative connotation, and since you felt free to pass judgements regarding abuse in my family, it sounds like you may have a little insecurity with your identity and family angela, I wish you the best with that. But you probably don't want to hear my psycho babble bull@!$%# either.
- 1 vote
As far as dragging a color line across a child's heart being abuse, I don't even know what you mean by "dragging a color line across a heart", but I can tell you one thing, right now my grandsons are about as far from being abused as you can get, so don't even go there and spare me your psycho babble bull@!$%#. They are being raised by their mother (and with a little bit of help from me right now) to embrace each "SIDE" of their family and not to identify with one or the other, but to identify with BOTH SIDES because that is who they are, and that is what makes them wonderful. And that is what makes my daughter wonderful as well, because you see - their father did abuse them, nearly killed the baby when he was 3 weeks old, and his father abused him, and so on and so on. Many people in my daughter's shoes would not do the same thing
Moms family and Dads family is family in the eyes of the child. Psycho babble is denying sides as said in your message is skin color difference.
Psycho babble is denying sides as said in your message is skin color difference.
I'm sorry. I can't make any sense out of this statement.
I'm sorry. I can't make any sense out of this statement
Both sides as used in your message is skin color difference of the family. (sides) Children embrace love evidenced in our everyday lives.
- 1 vote
obama is racist because he avoids his white HALF, and we are talking half, not just some white ancestors in the back ground.
Name the white family members? President Obama's Grandmother's version of their lived lives does not bear witness to anything you say. Are you saying his grandmother does not know him like you do? LOL
Do you share your views on the Presidents lived life with your grandsons?
- 3 votes
obama is racist because he avoids his white HALF, and we are talking half, not just some white ancestors in the back ground.
Wow, this is one of the dumbest comments I've seen.
- 2 votes
obama is racist because he avoids his white HALF, and we are talking half, not just some white ancestors in the back ground.
He DOES not acknowledge he IS white to the half way point..... or even biracial.. so this statement is truth. Most Racist couple in White House, since history has been recording the Presidents.
Wow, this is one of the dumbest comments I've seen.
It is an opinion held by MANY MANY people, far from dumb... but you have your right to how you think as well
you must be a history scholar to know the Obamas are the most racist couple. What info do you have in order to be able to make such a statement. In regards to acknowledging the white half, you folks are full of BS. If Obama were in the State Penn, would you still be so hung up on him acknowledging a white half? people have the right to declare for themselves how they best identify. Who died and made you folks in charge?
- 6 votes
A few questions however.
First, how much of a perception of race does a 5 year old actually have? What id they had used puppies or kittens in the test.
Second, kids are taught opposites as a matter of learning. We know color opposites, black to white, red to green etc. We place positive spins on the color white, the cowboy or sheriff wearing a white hate and riding a white horse while the dangerous gunslinger is always "garbed" in black. and rides a dark horse. Curious George is a particularly well liked childhood character, yet, Curious George is not a white monkey but is depicted in his natural brown color. Compare Curious George to say the Cat-In-The-Hat who is a white character. Would a child pick the Cat over George as more or less evil?
I am a little skeptical here that the testers could take that 5-year old's answers and immediately determine she is or could potentially be a racist or at least is leaning towards a specific perception of color. A test with neutral characters/ideas other than the depiction of a person would be a better guage as to how a child perceives what is around them.
- 5 votes
#5 - Wed May 19, 2010 7:55 AM EDTI agree...
When I saw this on CNN I was actually a little upset. I appreciated the principle of this sociological experiment but in practice its seems to do little but stir up deep resentments about race in adults. To subject children to this sort of reasoning is mis-guided in my opinion and off course that little girl isn't racist. Put her in a class full of black, white, brown, yellow...etc, children for a year and I think we would all see how color blind the little ones really are. Racism and discrimination are deliberate not innate.
Shame on CNN...
- 3 votes
Good point. Most children, if put in the same room with children of other races, just start playing with each other. (Unless their parents taught them to shun kids of other races).
I still feel that if prodded into answering questions about race, that yes, maybe some vestigial instincts about "tribe" and "sameness" come out, but it seems to me that's only when prodded.
- 5 votes
My lily white 4 year old was playing in the sandbox at the park when a darker skinned girl came up and started playing next to him. Without hesitation he yanked his dump truck away from her. I was shocked and asked why he didn't want to play/share with her. Want to know what his reply was? Had not one iota to do with skin color. He replied, "girls are yucky! I don't want her getting girl stuff on my truck." When the little girl's brother sat down a few minutes later, he had no problem sharing his truck with him.
Kids are just kids. Sure some have been indoctrinated into the belief that certain skin colors are "bad" or "wrong", but from what I have seen, the majority of kids could care less about skin color until they have been in school a few years.
Now on the other side of my story above is an experience my older son had a couple of years back. He was in 3rd grade at the time and a really cute little black girl started saying she wanted him to be her boyfriend. My son was so proud to tell me that ,"the prettiest girl in his class" liked him. A few days later he came home very upset. When I asked what was wrong he told me that the little boys in his class had pulled him aside at recess and told him that he couldn't be her boyfriend because he is white and she is black. I hated asking, but felt it might make a difference, so I asked what color the boys were who told him this. His response was a weird look and slowly he said ,"brown". This just reaffirmed for me that even at the young age of a third grader, color lines are being drawn by our children. I gently explained to him that even though I personally don't believe that the color of a person's skin is important and that their actions should be what they are judged on, some people do feel that skin color matters in friendships and other relationships.
Kids learn from home, yes, but also from commercials, tv shows, movies, even cartoons what society feels they should think about other "races". I feel that this study had flaws for certain and that we as parents shouldn't get too terribly upset by this as I really don't believe a child as young as 5 could even qualify as racist.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
- 4 votes
slr....give it about 10 years or so and all of a sudden girls won't be so "yucky" :)
- 1 vote
I still feel that if prodded into answering questions about race, that yes, maybe some vestigial instincts about "tribe" and "sameness" come out, but it seems to me that's only when prodded.
I worked with teen moms with newborn infants in a residential program designed to prepare adolescent MOM s for independent living. None of the newborn/ babies reacted or as you say acted on tribal instinct. Babies watch us and they take their social cues from us. Society fosters notions of sameness despite the fact we are unique human beings. The idea that we can wish racism away is plainly foolish. Myths of race are firmly rooted in our ideas of self and others.
- 1 vote
can't get past racial issues until you look at everybody as human beings and not a color
- 7 votes
#7 - Wed May 19, 2010 8:48 AM EDTTrue, but we also need to teach children WHY people look different. If parents try to ignore race, it forces children to come up with their own reasons as to why someone is darker or lighter. But if you simply educate them that people look different because of where they come from, then they'd know that it's no big deal and move past it.
- 2 votes
Whoops.
The headline should read, "Mother did not teach daughter race relations - and it was not "misplaced."
My sons would have passed with flying colors. Yes, I'm proud of that fact. My family is from New England.
- 1 vote
#8 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:17 AM EDTi think the correct answer is to not have opinion. everyone just need to stop talking so that no one can ever be offended ever again. even if the child said they were all equal... someone would have a problem with that i bet.
a 5 year old probably doesn't have the reasoning skills to realize they can answer the question without making an actual choice which makes the "conclusions" just a tad off. The question of which is smarter already implies that one of them is thereby tainting the answer from the start.
- 2 votes
I often wonder how much of today's "racism" is actually dislike of another race or response to provocation by people who stand to profit from continued strained relations between races.
- 4 votes
#9 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:45 AM EDTThere were a whole bunch of excellent comments here.. two of which were Bonos Rama and "A Seargent's Mom" .
Bonos - that was an excellent analogy regarding the instinctual recognition that each species goes through. I would only add this.... the experiment went further in depth than simply recognizing likenesses.... the responses from the little girl were subjective. She not only recognized differences but she placed sujbective values on those differences... such as good, bad, and ugly. My thinking is... when a child is that young they develop thier understanding primarily from thier parents. Maybe the mother was weeping because her child picked up on the subtle reactions, statements and behaviors that would influence her thoughts about color and people.
A Seargent's Mom - you hit the nail on the head. Very , very.... very well put ! So much of what impacts a child is driven from the environment they live in... children are not always capable of interpreting the complex social interactions in society.. still a little too young to decipher and understand subtle nuiances in how people interact. But one thing kids do know is.. thier own parents... they watch them like a hawk... and much of thier understanding about themselves and the world around them... starts there.
Cheers!
- 1 vote
#10 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:58 AM EDTwhen you are 5 years old, you emulate those you admire, and most of the people you know at 5 years old are your family, so it just stands to reason that a five year old would only have a very small world and very little experience to base their decisions upon.....of course they are going to react that way....it is when they get into their teens and start analyzing their life a little bit---that's when critical thinking should start to come into play, and that is when an ideal society that doesn't focus upon 'tribal' anymore should start teaching them that humans come in all different shades, but we're just humans. Instead, we get politics by cheerleading for your team---yuck--it's our leaders, not the regular people that set the tone for civil discourse, and lately, that hasn't been very conducive to actually accomplishing much.....just cheerleading for your team
It would not have surprised me if my son had answered that test the same way when he was five for the simple fact that there is not a single black person in our town and he had not been exposed to anyone that looked significantly different than him. I do think that children fear things that are not 'normal' for them. If we lived in a different part of the country and he grew up seeing a diverse mix of people, and he answered that way, I would be bothered by that because I would wonder what influenced him.
#11 - Wed May 19, 2010 10:02 AM EDTFearing someone is one thing... assigning the word "ugly" to them, or "mean" or even on other similar experiments like this one done with children... where white = smart, and black = dumb...
I can't wrap my mind around those correlations being made simply because you have never seen a black person before. I was a minority kid that grew up in an all white environment.. I never thought twice about the race of the kids around me... until we got older and I realized I was different. Kids are innocent, a blank slate, in most cases we ascribe onto them our own ethics and judgement... not always verbally but non verbal cues as well. One thing children are.. is very smart !
- 3 votes
Interesting - almost a valid study. Would've been nice to see the control groups and what their responses were.
My 11 y.o. step-daughter is from Venezuela and has been in the States for four years. She told me that this was the first year she noticed that the kids at school segregate each other - color with color, white with white, and it isn't like that in Venezuela. I told her to ignore the color of the person and look into their eyes and heart - she will find less stress instead of having to battle over, literally, black and white and yellow and brown and red issues. She's intelligent, has a great heart - she'll get by just fine.
- 1 vote
#12 - Wed May 19, 2010 10:06 AM EDTFrom my experience with litters of puppies, color bias is natural, but so is tolerance between colors given the opportunity to interact (integration of primary schools). I don't know whether puppy observation can be translated interspecies, but my black poodle was bred to a white poodle for four litters during her lifetime and we got equal numbers of white and black puppies. It struck me that, when they started playing outside, they interacted indescriminately during play, but when they congregated to rest, they tended to go to other puppies of the same color. It cracked me up so I took pictures.
Since environment shapes attitudes, were I raising a child right now, I would want to be assured that my child's school was post racial and I agree that white children need to be encouraged to investigate and interact with children different from themselves in skin tone. But remember, parents, that children tend to generalize more than adults because they have fewer categories in which to place differences and that "old" children are NOT appropriate for them to play with without supervision.
- 2 votes
#13 - Wed May 19, 2010 10:40 AM EDTMy neighbors raise very happy, free range hens, for eggs. They have three different colored breeds of hens, but no roosters. The hens are free to choose to sleep wherever they want in a very comfy coop. Inexplicably, they always segregate themselves at sunset, scuttle into the coop, stuff themselves into a corner, and sleep piled up in three heaps with hens of the same color.
My neighbor is a little embarrassed that her chickens do this, and insists it is their own idea.. So, if that is the case, then is segregation a bird-brained idea?
My neighbor was also a little embarrassed that they don't have a rooster-- and she sounded a little afraid of them. It's not clear what the hens would do differently if there was a male rooster-- ruling the roost--- so, then... maybe gender differences a bird-brained idea too....?
hmmmm
- 2 votes
My viewpoint aligns with this thought -
"On the other hand, parental training which contradicts ["colorblind"
ideologies] can play a vital role in establishing positive
racial attitudes in children. ... Our data with the children of
activists suggests that a home in which the positive value of
5 [one's group] is stressed will produce children who feel positive
about their group.11 Children will "naturally" grow up to be non-racist adults only when
they live in a non-racist society. Until then, adults must guide children's antiracist
development. This will include the fostering of: 1) accurate knowledge
and pride about one's racial/cultural identity; 2) accurate knowledge and
appreciation of other racial groups; and 3) an understanding of how racism
works and how to combat it.
The first step in this process is to accept the fact that a process is
required.
Piaget's theory - that children begin with intuitive concepts based on
immediate experiences and gradually become capable of increasingly
complex and logical thinking - need not be endorsed to agree that adults
have a role to play in teaching children to be anti-racist. In order to play
this role, adults must first be clear themselves as to the distinction between
racism and racial identity. There are racial differences. We can see them.
Children can see them. We do not wish to deny them. These differences
only become racist when either inferior or superior value labels are placed
upon them."
(Derman-Sparks, Higa, Sparks, 2002)
http://www.teachingforchange.org/files/027-A.pdf
****
I absolutely disagree with the notions conveyed in this article below - which serve to displace responsibility of the parents squarely and unfairly on the developing minds of children. It is for this very reason our society has so much difficulty accepting that it tolerates racism. If adults do not accept that they are racist, then it is easy to deny it. If adults must admit to it, then he or she is accountable to answer to it.
I will note the state in which this article was published. There is a correlation. It is a state that remains highly and indisputably racist.
http://library.adoption.com/articles/young-children-and-racism.html
#15 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:03 AM EDTFrom what I can see by your posts, you are by far the most racially oriented person on this board. Your posts are seething with anger at people who are just having a conversation about insignificant tests, for which I admit I have never bothered to look at because they prove nothing. Whether you accept it or not, a five year old is more influenced by their peer associates in many basic thought processes than they are by their home environment.
Case in point: Back in the early 70s when my youngest was only 3, he came into the house one day spouting the nasty four letter word in nearly every sentence. He didn't learn it in our home. He was a preschooler so he didn't learn it in a school. The fact is, he learned it from a 4 year old who lived next door to us. This 4 year old had the mouth of a drunken sailor... and I have seen many in my 24+ years of service to know what I'm talking about.
It was difficult to break my son from using this word because he had no idea as to what bad language was about. It was of great concern to me because he was the youngest of four and our oldest was not yet 8. I had to prevent his infection of vulgarity from spreading to the rest of my children.
As for you, my perception of you based on YOUR own choice of words is that of a bitter person who carries a chip the size of Maine on their shoulder... and by the way, I am also from New England. Believe me, bigotry is alive and well in the NE and has been since I was a child in the 40s.
I shall concede that bigotry is learned behavior, just like everything else that is not right with our society. I shall also concede that the major source for learning bigotry can be the home, but I have seen far too many young people from GOOD families who were raised with care and consideration go bad. Throughout this nation, we are experiencing a plague of negative peer pressure from bullying to gang membership that is killing our children.
It's time for you to step back and re-read some of our posts and your own posts with objectivity. Like it or not MOM, you are an extremely biased person.
- 1 vote
Whether you accept it or not, a five year old is more influenced by their peer associates in many basic thought processes than they are by their home environment.
Are you saying children five years old are in the same developmental stage as teens? :::whew:::
- 1 vote
Disbelief. Â Listen to song from "South Pacific" Â : Â "You've got to be taught before it's too later. Â Before you are 6 or 7 or 8 to hate all the people your relatives hate. Â You've got to be carefully taught."
Children get their prejudices from their parents. Â My child learned all people are equal when she
was under 3. Â Teach them young; you will never have a prejudiced child. Â And, you will never
cry at her/his comments. Â
- 3 votes
#16 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:19 AM EDTSorry, but WRONG. I know of people who did not develop their prejudice until they spent time in the military or in jail.
- 1 vote
naoma, you can not say that ALL prejudices are learned from parents. Some, certainly. The majority of our children in our country are entering daycare as soon as maternity leave is over, which leaves them with people who are not the parents the majority of the time. Then they go on to school, which does the same. These children are far more apt to learn the values of their caretakers than their families.
- 2 votes
I see no reason for that white mother to cry. These tests have been done on black children many times with similar results. Every human alive today and for at least the last 300 years has been born into a world that promotes White Superiority/Negro Black Inferiority. The biggest problem is not that the white dominated world continue to maintain hard-to-prove racism. But rather that Negroes continue to daily do things that reinforce the ingrained Mental Slavery that physical emancipation did not address.
Negro women still do everything possible to augment and desecrate their minds, brains and bodies with toxic skin and hair products. Which only prove to others that we accept our image as flawed. And that we're willing to turn over the billions which enrich the lives of Arabs Asian and Whites. Who provide black communities with endless toxic products to correct the flaws we've been convinced, should not be socially displayed.
At least 90% of adult black women would rather go hungry and leave their sons to rot in the Jails and Prisons (who use drugs to medicate their minds from constant "cradle to grave" racism) if it means doing without Indian and Oriental hair, bleaching creams, paying tithes to appease God, and other non-essential needs.
That does not mean I am disregarding the negative programming from times when black women had to straighten hair to appease whites for jobs. Or when Negroes had no power over what the law allowed them to do with their own bodies and mind. That universal programming still infects the minds of Negroes worldwide. But unless Negroes are ready to address those corrosive default programming, the wrong problems will continue to be highlighted, therefore the wrong results maintained.
The most inhumane form of mind destruction had to be enforced to get normal humans to accept the slave-mentality that kept down the incidents of slave uprising. And that aspect of slavery has been criticized and minimized every time Negroes state that the race is still suffering from Post Traumatic Slavery Problems, which needs to be nationally addressed.
As Michelle Alexander has shown in her new book "The New Jim Crow" slavery has never ended. It has only repeatedly taken on new names. Every form of denial and restriction that slavery imposed she now proves is being imposed on Negroes today in greater numbers; by the legal system of the day.
When black men overwhelmingly start honoring black women's natural hair. And when black women refuse to wear any more Indian and Oriental hair. Then the silent statements we're teaching young black children will be changed. We'll demonstrate to the world the self-love and respect we've reclaimed for ourselves. And it will matter not then, what delusions others still choose to maintain about us, in order to feel better about themselves.
Legal Emancipation did nothing to relieve the collective Mental Enslavement that Negroes worldwide had had programmed inside their heads -about themselves. That is all that Negroes need to address, in order to end the RACISM THAT TOO FEW WILL ACKNOWLEDGE STILL EXIST!
- 4 votes
#17 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:20 AM EDTI think this study reveals something important, but not necessarily racism, particularly as it relates to young children white or non white. That is, whites in the US impact race relations more than they are even aware. The article even describes, “that black children also have a bias toward white”. White children, come to realize through the adults, that as a result of the pure numbers of whites, visible and influential positions held by whites, and positive images portrayed of whites (teachers, media, politicians, doctors, entertainers), that those things you need to survive and in many respects to succeed, such as jobs, education, religion, health will likely come from people who look like them. I believe it when it is suggested in the article that white families don’t necessarily discuss it; because they don’t need to. I don’t think as a whole it is racism, especially with the children. If the numbers and influence were different, it would have been discussed. This might even explain some of the unnecessary anger with President Obama, which might appear to be racism, but may instead be fear over the perceived shift or loss of influence by whites.
- 1 vote
#18 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:33 AM EDTAll the spending, all of the government diversity programs and they fail????? well, they meant well.
#19 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:54 AM EDTHow about this a "white" person has red hair green eyes and gets real sun burn when exposed to the sun. All others are half breds of sorts. A Black person is from the Congo and all others who claim to be Black are half breds of sorts. We will not talk about all others on earth since they are different shades of something.
Did you ever see President Obama stand next to an Black in America as Rev. Jesse Jackson says about President Obama who calls him HO that is because President Obama is not as Black as him because of his mother. If President Obama was a full white he would be called a HOnky.
#20 - Wed May 19, 2010 12:15 PM EDTIn the end it is about how we treat each other. This applies to everything from racial harassment to sexual harassment.
I've had men who reported to me that didn't believe that a woman should be the boss period. I didn't try to change their minds but I did require that they be respectful toward me as I was toward them.
We spend to much time worrying about what someone thinks vs. their behavior. I see it in all races in all area's of the country. Depending where you live there seems to always be a race that is the least respected. In some area's of the country it is worse being Mexican than Black, in others it is worse being Native American than either Mexican or Black.
In the end not only is there overt negatives coming from society there is a huge amount of subtle negatives that it is impossible to shield your kids from. The best you can do is understand not only what you say but how you react. Example: A mom is very careful about what she says about other races but whenever there is a black man in the vicinity she act's cautious and fearful. The message is that you are to be afraid of anyone who is black because they are "bad". Did this mom every say a bad word, No.
- 1 vote
#21 - Wed May 19, 2010 1:09 PM EDTThe questions were stupid, at best.
Can anyone give me the "correct" answers?
the mentalist -- you have an excellent point. this study is interesting, perhaps, but it's rigged. if you're told to select the "smart" doll or the "mean" doll, the presumption and implication is that one of the dolls is smart, one is mean, etc. a child being "tested" -- especially one so young -- is unlikely to say "none" or "they're all the same" if that's not an option given to them. Also, I'm curious but too lazy to go back to the article -- were the faces otherwise the same? In other words, were all the dolls smiling, or were some smiling, some neutral, some frowning? The methodology is flawed, to say the least.
- 3 votes
if you're told to select the "smart" doll or the "mean" doll, the presumption and implication is that one of the dolls is smart, one is mean, etc. a child being "tested" -- especially one so young -- is unlikely to say "none" or "they're all the same" if that's not an option given to them.
EXCELLENT observation Rachael!
- 2 votes
I think you guys are missing the point... The child consistently singled out darker skinned dolls for all negative traits and lighter skinned dolls for all positive traits. And this was a pattern that repeated with other children. That pattern says more than any individual answer.
- 4 votes
But another rachael acutely pointed out that the children were given "suggestive" questions. What if they had merely been asked what they thought of each doll, or how each doll made them feel? That answer would have been a much better indicator of how the child truly felt.
Sorry, but no. The questions were not "suggestive" just because "they're all the same" is not an option. That's not the point. They asked that the children, on their own, assign certain attributes to the dolls. The children consistently assigned the positive attributes to light-skinned dolls and the negative attributes to dark-skinned dolls. Nothing about the way the questions were worded implied that there would be any correlation between the positiveness or negativeness of the traits being asked about and the color of the dolls. This is a correlation the children made entirely on their own, and they consistently assigned negative traits to dark-skinned dolls and positive traits to light-skinned dolls. Just asking "which child is mean" and "which child is good" and "which child is smart", while it would imply there is some answer, would not lead children to answer in a racially biased manner. It certainly would not lead every child to answer consistently along the same racial lines.
An unbiased answer in this test does not require someone to answer "they're all the same" and thereby skirt the test entirely. It requires assigning a more nearly even distribution of traits, positive and negative, across all skin colors represented among the dolls. True color blindness, with respect to race.
- 5 votes
They were suggestive. They were asked which looked "mean" and which looked "smart". How can you say that is not suggestive? It was SUGGESTED they either looked mean or smart. A 5 year old isn't going to say "well I really think that they are all exactly the same and none look meaner or smarter than the other". Give me a break! The question should have been simple,had a single or no characteristic assigned to it, and been the same question assigned to each character. Something like "do you think this girl is nice?" and then asked it of each of the characters. THEN this "test" would have meant something.
Again, they don't NEED to say "they look exactly the same". The fact that they consistently assigned positive traits such as smart and good to light-skinned characters, and consistently assigned negative traits such as meanness to dark-skinned characters is what shows the bias. The questions were simple, they were positive or negative traits, and consistently negative traits were assigned to characters with dark skin. That DOES mean something, and is not a result of any "suggestion". The children could quite easily have assigned some positive traits to dark skinned characters, and some negative traits to light skinned characters. An even mix. They did not. They almost always assigned positive traits to light-skinned characters and negative traits to dark skinned characters.
- 4 votes
The fact that they consistently assigned
They didn't "assign" anything. The testers assigned two traits, the kids were asked to choose from those two.
As far as I know it's pretty standard scientific practice not to give a "neutral" answer in these types of studies, because otherwise you get no useful results.
From what I saw the tests were in no way leading or suggestive. Simply following standard scientific technique.
- 4 votes
grandma:
No, the testers gave the kids a variety of traits (not two; at least three were listed in the article and that was not an exhaustive list), and a selection of several dolls with varying skin tones. The kids, over and over again, picked positive traits for light-skinned dolls and negative traits for dark-skinned dolls. They were free to pick any doll to describe as "mean" or "smart" or "good", etc. Thus, they assigned the traits to specific dolls, not the testers.
- 5 votes
It's pointless to debate back and forth, neither of us is going to change our opinion. We are just going to have to agree to disagree - or at least that is what I am going to do. You are entirely entitled to your opinion, as am I.
Youngartheartgrandma:
We're not arguing about matters of opinion, we're arguing about matters of fact. While you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the experiment, you're not entitled to your own facts about how it was conducted. According to an objective definition of suggestive questioning and even according to a legal definition of leading questions, the testers questions were not suggestive of any particular answer.
- 4 votes
sorry jaran, you are just going to have to accept that I am not falling into your way of thinking. It's ok, I have accepted the same about you. Again, I'm quite sure you are not the ultimate authority on what is and is not suggestive, and I know I'm not.
And again, I'm not asking you to rely on my authority as to what is and is not suggestive. I'm citing sources that define these concepts. Would you care to cite even one source that defines suggestive questions in the manner you have, where all it takes for a question to be suggestive is the implication that it has an answer (but not what that answer should be)?
- 3 votes
"Your sources" did not show that these particular questions were not suggestive. It's all in interpretation. AKA opinion.
My sources showed what is considered a suggestive question: questions which suggest particular answers. Just implying that it can be answered is not suggestive of any particular answer, ergo not a suggestive question. That's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of definition.
- 2 votes
Your sources did not show THESE questions, therefore they are still open to interpretation. And YOUR sources are just that, YOUR sources. I am sure (if I had that kind of time) that I could go in and find sources that dispute your sources. That's the problem with sources, they are really nothing more than opinion either. Fact is something that can only be applied to something that is tangible and can not be disputed. Everything else is opinion. For example, it is a FACT that both cartoon characters and dolls were referenced in this article. I only remembered seeing the cartoon characters referenced, and therefore stated that no dolls were mentioned. When you told me both were mentioned, I went back and looked, and sure enough, both were there. So I apologized to you for my earlier correction. You had FACTS to back you up.
No, grandma, they're not still open to interpretation just because they didn't use these exact questions as their examples. That's like saying that because a source on math showed 2+4=6 and 5+1=6 and didn't specifically say that 2+8=10 that you are free to "interpret" 2+8 as equaling 6 as well. The sources I cited gave the definition of a suggestive or leading question. From that, it's very simple to determine whether or not a question is suggestive. These aren't. No interpretation required.
As for the idea that all sources are just opinion, now you're just getting desperate. If that's true, then the very concept of a suggestive question is meaningless because any definition of what suggestive means is just someone's opinion. Doesn't matter if it's the commonly accepted one, the legal one, or any other standard... they're all just opinion and apparently none are inherently any better than any other. It's the same argument creationists use when they try to define creationism as a valid "theory" akin to the theory of evolution. Problem is, all opinions aren't created equal. If you have sources that back you up, cite them so that they can be evaluated. That's what discussion and debate is all about.
As for fact being "something that can only be applied to something that is tangible and can not be disputed", you'd be surprised by how many facts are intangible. Take 2+2=4. That's a fact, as long as you're working in base-ten. 2+2 will equal 4 today, yesterday, ten years ago and ten years from now. Even ten centuries from now. Yet can you touch "2"? Or "4"? You can have two of something, or four of something, but the actual abstract concepts of two and four as values are entirely intangible. Words are another good example. Words aren't tangible, but they have meanings. "Red" will never suddenly mean "blue", no matter whose opinion tries to redefine red as meaning blue. Suggestive has a meaning too, and that meaning is a fact not an opinion.
- 4 votes
sounds like you are the one getting desperate jaran. after all your hot air, I still haven't changed my mind.
I also think you have a lot of free time on your hands, I'm jealous of that ;-)
sounds like you are the one getting desperate jaran. after all your hot air, I still haven't changed my mind.
That speaks more to you not wanting to change your mind than it does to the evidence I've presented.
I also think you have a lot of free time on your hands, I'm jealous of that ;-)
Apparently no more than you do. You've been answering me this whole time, you just haven't bothered using google to support your positions. It really doesn't take much time, if there actually are sources which back you up.
- 3 votes
Youngatheartgrandma, Jarandhel is 100% correct, and has won this debate handily.
- 2 votes
I think you guys are missing the point... The child consistently singled out darker skinned dolls for all negative traits and lighter skinned dolls for all positive traits. And this was a pattern that repeated with other children. That pattern says more than any individual answer.
I agree that the pattern is troubling, Jarandhel. Regardless whether the questions were artfully phrased, it is simply the fact of the matter that the identifications made were repeated over many children. Which, I suppose, begs the question: Why? This study is informative, but it definitely does not -- nor does it attempt to -- answer the question. But it is a good reminder that the question is important.
- 1 vote
Man, I saw that on CNN last night. They showed them asking kindergarten white kids, who picked white skin, but then they asked like damn 2nd and 3rd grade black kids who gave the learned "I don't judge by skin color" answer. From what I saw, the difference was age, not race.
- 2 votes
#23 - Wed May 19, 2010 1:44 PM EDTI may get slammed for this, but here goes. First, I only read the article, I didn't watch any of the videos, but if I understand the Black children were still biased by the white "doll", just not to the extent that White children were. The White parent admits she doesn't talk about race, but the Black parent admits he does, in order to "prepare" the kids for the "obstacle" that their skin color will create. Could THAT be why there's a White bias in the Black kids, because their parents are basically telling them White is better/more powerful and Black is second rate?
I got slammed in another post for dismissing "institutional racism," a concept that I still don't buy. I think we Whites are alot less bias than the Black community thinks we are. I'm not pretending there is no racism, but I do believe that the Black community is better off than they will acknowledge - a Black man is President, for Krissakes! Voted for by the majority of WHITE people because, I assume, they just thought he was the better candidate. Not Hillary, not McCain, but Mr. Obama - the best candidate running. It's not the 1950's anymore people, we should be past some of this stuff by now.
#27 - Wed May 19, 2010 2:35 PM EDTI got slammed in another post for dismissing "institutional racism," a concept that I still don't buy. I think we Whites are alot less bias than the Black community thinks we are.
Why were blacks taken off the voting rolls in Florida ten years ago?
- 6 votes
You won't get slammed by me at all. ( for your first paragraph) lol... I totally think there is a "hypersensitivity" within blacks that is a reaction to having to face those social hurdles, professaional obstacles, and other hardships. Additionally, on the surface of our hypersensitivity is a tad bit of resentment for ever having to be considered less than equal in many respects. However coming from a black family setting I can tell you that we would much rather be included, much rather have whites become a part of our cultural experience , than have to defend it or separate ourselves because the environment is not truly as integrated as political correctness would have us believe.
You will get slammed for your second paragraph though. lol Kidding.. you have a right to an opinion. However, it is hard for you to understand what truly impacts a black person in society because you do not face it everyday. Certainly on the surface it appears that our country is the land of equality... but living the black experience means, you have a much harder time getting employed, even when you do you must totally outperform your peers just to be considered average, you have systemic racism in every facet of our culture.. from access to capital, economic opportunities.. you name it. Just think about it for a moment.. we are only 40 years removed from people being beaten with knight sticks, having dogs sicked on them, having to sit at the back of a bus, not being able to attend schools with whites or eat with them..lol The differences now are that racism has been driven underground.. certainly I won't run into many people that will publicly call me a " n igger" instead they now shake my hand and smile graciously.. then when I leave the room abhor that they met me, or deny me the job , or deny my loan app, or steer me from a good home in a white neighborhood to a big home in a black neighborhood, or secretly pray I do not end up sleeping with thier daughter, ... the list of "or"'s can go on. It is still our job to overcome adversity through excellence and not let these challenges become an excuse for failure. But by no means does Barack's election signify the end of systemic discrimination. He got here because everyone hated the guy who left ,, that much !!
- 6 votes
Simon - if what you say about my not facing what you face is true (and I'm not calling you a liar, I'm only saying IF), then I don't think we can ever have that "meeting of the minds" that could maybe finally overcome our history. I appreciate your comments. Please note I specifically acknowledged that there was still racism, but I think things have changed more than people are willing to admit. I live in OKC, and they instituted school busing in the early 1970's because, despite doing away with school segregation things were still pretty segregated. But the program was ended in the 1990's because some kind of ratio was met, and it was no longer considered necessary. Does that mean there is no racism in OKC? Of course not, but it DOES mean that the situation has changed, and it has improved. Plus, there were Black families that were suddenly wanting to preserve the "historic Black schools." Why wouldn't they? I'm just saying that I think "racism" is an easy explanation for something that is alot more complicated. I didn't vote for Mr. Obama because I'm conservative and he's a liberal, not because of race - he is half White, and Hillary is a White WOMAN like me, and I liked her even LESS than Mr. Obama.
Mental, how the hell should I know, I don't even live in Florida? Is this more of that "Bush stole the election" crap? Don't even get me started!
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
