Friday 30 December 2011

Extra Credit: Wade Davis Culture Ted Talk

"All of these peoples teach us that there are other ways of being, other ways of thinking, other ways of orienting yourself with the earth." - Wade Davis

1. Why is language loss a problem?
Wade Davis explains that language is the vehicle for a particular culture. He says that language loss, or the new generation not speaking a language of the previous generation, makes it impossible for that old generation to explain its culture - its myths and stories, its ancestors, and its significance. On one level, language loss causes a disconnect between generations (my own conclusion). More importantly, language loss causes the loss of cultures.

2. Are these people “Noble savages” or a “Valuable Resource for Humanity”? What do we lose when ancient cultures die out? Isn’t this just natural selection? What’s the urgency?
We don't want to lose these ancient cultures, because it causes death of people as well as destruction of a group of people's beliefs and ideals. We want to live in an interesting "polychromatic world of diversity." Having fewer cultures makes people more narrow-minded and less able to develop a large array of ideals as a whole species. Wade Davis makes it clear we do not "have all the answers to all the questions that will confront us in the coming millennia," so we need these varied ideas and thoughts, and therefore, these people of other cultures are a "valuable resource for humanity."

3. Why was Canada’s Nunavut decision so courageous?
Canada's decision was courageous because it went against how all other countries were treating their native cultures. It was also courageous because it could have upset a large population of Canadian people who might have wanted that land or those resources for themselves. A lot of Candians could have benefitted from the land and resources and the country's economy could have created benefitted from the land, but it was instead returned to the Nunavut group, which I think is very courageous.

Tuesday 13 December 2011

Was Malcom X a "human rights activist" or a "terrorist"? What are your thoughts about Malcolm X and his methods to address inequalities and oppression during the Civil Rights Movement?

Malcolm X is a terrorist. Though I do not believe he used violence himself, he did encourage it and he did use threats to intimidate whites and coerce blacks to follow his beliefs in Black Nationalism. 
I grew up not knowing much about Malcolm X, only know that he promoted violence whereas Martin Luther King Jr did not. I viewed it as very black and white: Malcolm X is bad and Martin Luther King Jr is good. However, this is not the case; there are certainly shades of gray. Some of what Malcolm X says in his "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech does make sense. He was beginning to convince me when talking about how all past revolutions have been bloody, including the American Revolution. I recognize that as someone in the 21st century I am viewing this very differently than someone in 1964, in a period of time where they didn't believe peaceful action would work, as we know now. I have always been a pacifist, and reading Malcolm X's speech made me doubt that for a moment, especially when he was talking about revolutionary history. However, even if I was in 1964, experiencing everything as it happened rather than looking back on it now, I would recognize that much of his views are wrong.
Malcolm X is a terrorist, because he believes that African Americans - and blacks in Africa - are superior to white people. Even if I were a black person at the time, I would have been a follower of Martin Luther King Jr, because he was a proponent of equality. Malcolm X called whites his "enemies." MLK may have thought that white people are dragging down blacks just as Malcolm X did, but he had the view that people everyone is equal and should be treated that way, not that blacks should take revenge on those who have oppressed them. Therefore, I do not agree with his methods of addressing inequalities. 

Wednesday 7 December 2011

What was the major breakthrough legislation from the Civil Rights Era?


A major breakthrough in the Civil Rights Era was the Civil Rights Act, which was backed by John F. Kennedy. It banned racial segregation, therefore limiting chances for Americans to discriminate against African Americans openly and in public. More specifically, it outlawed the entire idea of “separate but equal”; it was no longer legal or accepted to allow public facilities such as water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, and stores. This extended to schools. Education was no longer separated between whites and any other races, and all children, no matter their race, were allowed to attend public schools.  It also secured the right for African Americans to vote and provided African Americans with equal opportunities for employment. The entire Civil Rights Act aimed to prevent discrimination against and segregation from African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and other minorities. 

Tuesday 6 December 2011

Letter From Birmingham Jail

Martin Luther King Jr wrote a lot about religion in his note. He said that he was disappointed in the church, because he thought they could have done more to help. There were a lot of religious references made throughout the letter. He also strongly encouraged nonviolent action and that was one of the major purposes for the letter, because it got his message across.

Monday 28 November 2011

Libertarianism

I completely agree with the idea of choice and freedom, but I do not agree with the Freedom Principle in its entirety. I think we should have moral legislation in some cases. I think marriage age is a reasonable thing to have laws about, but I also take a pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I am for laws that protect people from harming themselves through seat belts and helmets. I do not think there should be a free market entirely. Therefore, I am conflicted about some of these libertarian views, and would not be able to identify for or against the Freedom Principle.

Scenario 9: Selling a Kidney
I think there should be a regulated market for kidneys. It would help the thousands of people that are dying, and if not enough people are donating their kidneys now, this sounds like a solution. It would also help people to receive the money - a farmer getting money for her daughter. Additionally, it could allow people to get a large sum of money reasonably quickly but in a way that is not illegal or harmful to the country (such as taking out a loan from from a mob or something to a similar effect), but instead helpful to a person. However, the kidneys must go to hospitals and not elsewhere.
I think people on death row should be allowed to sell two kidneys. They are going to die anyway, and selling the kidneys would help people.

Scenario 11: Same Sex Marriage
I feel so strongly that same sex marriage should be allowed all over the world. Homosexual people should be allowed the same rights and privileges of heterosexual people. It's about equality.
I would like to briefly discuss why I think utilitarians would not agree with option one (allowing same sex marriage). I think one major reason same sex marriage has not been allowed for so long is that politicians are aware of the strong views against same sex marriage and even if they believe it should be allowed, they do not want to upset the masses. I think it is true that same sex marriage would make the couple happy and hopefully their families happy (though, not in the case of my cousin and a lot of our family), but I think so many people would be outraged that it would not cause more happiness for more people overall even though I do believe same sex marriage should be allowed.

Scenario 8: Assisted Suicide
I think assisted suicide should be allowed. It's no different from pulling the plug from someone on life support, which is perfectly legal. I think assisted suicide is good from a libertarian and utilitarian standpoint, because it is allowing someone to do what they would like and it is also allowing for greater overall happiness, as the person is no longer suffering. There obviously has to be some regulation of assisted suicide if it were made legal in more places; it would have to be made sure that doctors were, in a humane way, killing only those who asked to die.

Monday 21 November 2011

Utilitarianism (Greatest Happiness Principle)

I think I follow the Greatest Happiness Principle quite a bit. I weigh my options and choose what will make myself or others (and hopefully it can be both) happiest. I disagree with Utilitarianism in one of the examples Dr. Richards was using about dogfighting, because I do not think harming dogs is justifiable just to make some humans happy.

Scenario: City of Happiness
Although I think it's morally wrong because of my view of equality and human rights, I think it is justifiable to keep things the way they are, because it is benefitting many people, a whole city, which is more important than one person being unhappy. Molly brought up the point during our discussion at our table, that there are many children in the world living in as terrible conditions of as child in the City of Happiness, and so if the entire world was in this situation, it would be beneficial to everyone that so many people are happy and healthy and are not living in the conditions the one child is.

Scenario: Hampsterdam
I do not think moving crime out of the public view helps in anyway. I does not fix the problem of drug crime and it could even lead to more crime. It sends the message that police officers think drugs are okay as long as it is traded and taken privately, which I do not agree with. I especially think it is wrong when relating it to Jeremy Bentham's idea of rounding up the beggars. I think that is an even worse idea than the Hampsterdam scenario, because the homeless cannot help begging. It gives off the impression that police do not think giving to those in need is a good idea, instead it is just annoying to them.

Scenario: The Price of a Human Being
This whole concept makes me feel very upset. It makes me feel like people do not value other peoples' lives, their own wellbeing, or the lives of animals. I am kind of disturbed that a company would be willing to let 180 people die and 180 people get injured and not do anything about it. It is not just a company; there are people behind the company. And these are not just numbers; there are people that were actually killed because of faulty engines or smoking cigarettes. I feel like people are just so immensely selfish. What do the companies need with all that money when human lives are at stake? And how could a person be willing to strangle a cat for money? That is disturbing and upsetting.

Has your view of the Greatest Happiness Principle changed during this class?
Yes, it definitely has. At the beginning of class when Dr. Richards introduced the idea of Greatest Happiness Principle, I recognized that some people might suffer, but that does not matter if more people are benefitting. I viewed it as just like the scenarios we went through last class: one death is better than five deaths. However, I now realize that human life and such things are not just mathematical equations. There are real lives behind it that are more important than a company or the government making money. I think anyone who is a moral person will not agree with utilitarianism because of their values, such as the value of human life.

Thursday 17 November 2011

Justice

What does the word justice mean to you?
Justice occurs when something is fairly dealt with. Justice is when someone is treated fairly according to their actions. Justice can be administered through the law and in more personal cases of fairness.
Getting justice against someone is not always the way to deal with something. In my Humanities I in Action class during my freshman year in Hong Kong, we did a unit on justice. We learned about alternative forms of justice that are not simply through the law, such as the victim talking the situation through with the perpetrator.

Scenario 1 - Price Gouging
The government should intervene in emergency situations because they are essential items. The government is responsible for protecting the people, and price gouging clearly does not have the majority in mind. This is taking advantage of people in a desperate situation.

Scenario 2 - Bank Bailouts
The government should intervene, because these companies provide jobs and keep peoples' investments safe and so provide money to the people. You could argue that it's the companies' own fault for terrible investments, but try comparing the situation to someone living off food stamps. Some argue that it's a person's own fault for not having enough money or being employed, but the government still provides them with money for food, because government tries to prevent joblessness and homelessness. The government must uphold the nation's economy and, most importantly, protect their citizens.

Scenario 3 - Trolley Driver
Five peoples' lives is more important than one person's life. Think about the effect the death of five people will have on the people they know versus the effect of one person's death on the community or their loved ones. Additionally, you have the responsibility to save lives and prevent deaths as a citizen and a member of the community.

Scenario 4 - Trolley Observer
I feel very conflicted with this scenario. I don't think I would be able to actively push someone, but at the same time, five lives are still more important than one. It's true that you do not have the right to play God. I think the argument that you are not responsible for the situation is invalid, because as citizens we have all have the responsibility to act in these situations. I would like to stand by my belief in the earlier scenario that five lives are more important than one, but I do not feel as confident in that stance as I did in the previous scenario.

Scenario 5 - Afghan Goat Herders
I think the Special Forces Unit should kill the two men as it is for the good of the nation. It also provides justice against this bad man and likely stops further killings of the innocent on the bad guy's part (assuming that the bad guy was killing others).

Monday 7 November 2011

Sneetches Work with the Lower School

1. What will you remember most about your visit to the Lower School?
None of the kids mentioned race or skin color until I brought it up. They all mentioned language, hair color, height, religion, and every other difference imaginable, but not race. I will also remember that one kid was disruptive and racist. While everyone was being lovely and saying nice things about being friends no matter what a person's culture is, this one boy Jenson tried to share a joke about "chocolate people." I told him please not to share it because it goes against what we are talking about and ask him to explain why he thought that was. He refused to answer but everyone else chimed in saying everything we had said before about friendship. Also, they all had trouble with the last question ("Have you seen any situations at school or in your neighborhood that was like the story?"), so Brendan and I said that anyone who is friends with someone even though or because they are different than them is acting like the Sneetches did at the end.

2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?
I hadn't thought about how the book related to multiculturalism in London or at the school, and the kids made great connections about it that I hadn't thought of.

Wednesday 26 October 2011

Describe yourself in words and phrases for only 60 seconds

hardworking
ambitious
caring
pacifist
intellectual
philanthropist
dedicated
helpful
thoughtful

Saturday 22 October 2011

Has your attitude changed about arranged marriages? If so, how and why?

My opinions on arranged marriage have certainly changed. I now see that there are more positives to arranged marriages than to simply keep money or a good reputation in the family, something that I viewed as a superficial and ridiculous reason. I now see, for one thing, that some people need arranged marriages in order to survive at all financially, and this process should not be taken from them. Additionally, I now see how it does not typically involve forcing a women into a loveless situation against her will, but can actually make life easier and happier, because she does not have to worry about choosing her spouse. However, the biggest reason I changed my mind about arranged marriages, as I had previously been a one on the scale and am now a three, is because it is such a huge piece of many cultures. Banning arranged marriages stripes people of their culture and, like Molly said in reference to The Wayfinders, creates a monoculture. Allowing arranged marriages preserves culture and also creates a familial closeness, which is something I definitely support.

I think about how the man who can to talk to us about Aboriginals said that most native Australians do not even know any of the stories that have been passed down to only a few. The fact that these stories, this piece of their culture, is lost forever, lost to them, saddens me. I would hate for something similar to occur with Indians, for example, if arranged marriages were taken away from them. Not a single piece of anyone’s culture should be lost, and so, though I would not have an arranged myself, I understand why people do, and I respect this.

Tuesday 4 October 2011

Identify 20 "ridiculous" questions from the Literacy Test

1. What is the Constitution?
2. How many changes or amendments are there to the Constitution?
3. What is the legislative branch of our government?
4. What is Congress?
5. Can you name the two Senators from your state?
6. How many representatives are there in Congress?
7. What is the judiciary branch of our government?
8. What is the supreme law of the United States?
9. Who is the current governor of your state?
10. Who becomes president of the U.S.A if the president and the vice-president should die?
11. Who is the chief justice of the Supreme Court?
12. Can you name the thirteen original states?
13. Who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"?
14. Which countries were our enemies during WWII?
15. Who is the head of your local government?
16. According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to become president. Name one of these requirements.
17. Why are there 100 Senators in the Senate?
18. Who selects the Supreme Court justices?
19. Why did the pilgrims come to America?
20. What is the head of executive of a state government called?
21. Who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner"?
22. Where does freedom of speech come from?
23. What is the highest court in the United States?

How could these questions be viewed as racist or racially insensitive?

These questions could be racially insensitive because the only people they discuss are Caucasian men. This could be disrespectful or racially insensitive to African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans. They all played huge roles in the negative aspects of American history, and yet they are completely ignored in this test. They could have mentioned internment camps, the trail of tears, or, when they were discussing the emancipation proclamation at the end, they could have discussed the issue of slavery that President Lincoln finally addressed.

Monday 3 October 2011

Voting Registration Simulation: Third Round

The last round Ms. Bibbo threatened to arrest every African American that came up. The first person that walked up, she accused of being aggressive when she hadn't done anything. They made outrageous claims about a distant relative or friend doing negative things to them. They also distrusted the African Americans, because Dr. Richards said that one African American worked at the gas station and they thought he was being dishonest by coming in and registering to vote. Dr. Richards said he needed to check with his boss and wouldn't allow him to vote. With the last person, it was actually threatened that his younger brother would get hurt if his registered to vote. That was the most impactful thing done this entire simulation, because that would surely make anyone want to get away as quickly as they could and warn all their family and friends to not even attempt to register to vote.

Voting Registration Simulation: Second Round

This round Ms. Bibbo appeared completely uninterested in the people who wanted to register to vote. She ignored them by reading the paper, talking to the security guard, or saying she was busy. She suggested the mundane and unimportant things she was doing (talking about apple pie) were more important than the African Americans. She made them wait, but never let them return. None of the African Americans wanted to return after they had been badly treated. Then she told one person they were closed when they clearly were not. At one point the security guard brought out a weapon to make them leave.

Voting Registration Simulation: First Round

Ms. Bibbo asked completely unreasonable questions that no one would be able to answer - even someone white. She made the African Americans that went up feel bad about themselves by saying they were uneducated, and that they should be able to answer these simple questions. She told the African Americans to come back once they knew the answer to the questions, which might give them hope, expect for the fact that she made them feel they were not good enough. They would be too ashamed to come back.

Sunday 2 October 2011

How will you treat the n-word going forward? Will you say it? Do you have it in you (in a negative way, given the situation)?

I will definitely treat it the exact same way I always have. I never want to say the word because I think it is horribly offensive and completely unnecessary for anyone to use in a way that is not historical. Even if I were referring to history, however, I would not say the actual word, because I do not think it is my place to. I don't think there will ever be an appropriate time in my life to use the n-word. I would never be in a situation, even if I was furious at an African American or Black person, where I would resort to using the n-word. It would never even occur to me to make fun of someone for their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If I ever got in a fight or was angry or upset with someone, it would be because of their personality or actions and nothing else.

Do you have a word that hurts deep? If not, why do you think that is?

I do not have a word that hurts deep. This is probably because I am a priviledged white person. Minorities are often attacked with terribly offensive words, but people who are the majority - white people - don't seem to have these words. There is the word honky, but that wouldn't have anywhere near the same reaction as the n-word, and if someone used it today, I would think they were making a joke.

There is also the word "kike,"which I was not even aware of until this unit on the n-word. Though I am not actually Jewish, because my dad - and not my mom - is Jewish, I would be extremely offended and upset by hearing someone use it now that I am aware of insulting it is. Obviously, I think anyone saying anything derogatory about a group of person is terrible, but "kike" (or "faggot" as I have family and very close friends who are gay) would affect me personally.

Saturday 24 September 2011

Is it wrong to have an all-Black student dormitory at university? What about an all-white dormitory?

I think it is wrong to have dormitories that split people into any ethnic, racial, or sexual groups. This is just as bad as the problems southern America faced in the 1960s: Black students not being able to attend the same schools as Whites, use the same drinking fountains, or sit in the same area on the bus. It prevents Caucasian and Black people from having the same privileges or sharing the same space, and there is no reason for it.

Friday 23 September 2011

In cases of adoption, agencies should try to match the ethnicity/race of children and parents, instead of doing adoptions in a racially blind manner.

I answered "not sure" to this statement, and this is not because I think that, for example, a person who is Chinese should withhold the Chinese traditions and should not accept, say, France as his/her culture. I find this question a bit difficult, because I have a lot of family friends who have adopted. One couple I know - the wife is Latina and the husband is Caucasian, so they only looked at Latino-Caucasian mixed babies. They wanted their children to look like they are actually theirs. Another close family friend adopted two gypsy children from Hungry. They have much darker skin than their parents, but I don't think that should matter. Another example is Ms. Leonard's family. She has one son by birth and an adopted daughter. I babysat Meiyi and Reid the other day, and Meiyi was talking about how people at school sometimes don't understand that even though her parents are white, they can be her feel parents, that she has other biological parents, but that doesn't make Mr. and Mrs. Leonard any less real.
I think it is reasonable to want your son or daughter to look like they belong to you. If I were to adopt, I would do it in a racially blind way or else I would adopt someone who isn't my race. I think a child in China probably needs a parents more than a white baby that every white person who is adopting might want. I think adopting someone is a good thing regardless of race, and I don't necessarily think it's wrong to only adopt someone of your race or ethnicity. However, I think it's a bit better to adopt someone of another race.
I do not think it's right for adoption agencies to only give children to people of the same race or ethnicity of the baby. I was not aware that this was even done until Mr. Richards said so in class. I think it should be the parents choice of what race they want to adopt.

Thursday 22 September 2011

Extra Credit: Have a parent take the Race IAT

I had my dad take the Race IAT tonight. His results showed "a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American."  He seemed very skeptical that this test was a valid representation of anything within his subconscious. He argued that the order that they were grouped in is what confused him and caused him to get the result he did. He said that African American and bad were grouped together initially, so he was inclined to group them for the rest of the test.
He also said he saw no reason for why him or any other non-racist white person would prefer European Americans to African Americans. I told him what Mike had said in class, that black people are more subconsciously inclined to prefer white people.
He took the test a second time - his own choice. This time, African American was grouped with good for the first round. His results showed "a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American." 

Frederick Douglass Article Questions


1. Frederick Douglass became friends with boys in the neighborhood in order to learn to read. He also traded bread with poor children in exchange for them teaching him to read. In odd times throughout the week, when he was sent on errands, or his master or mistress left the house, he found times to read. He learned to write by watcher workers by the docks carve letters into timber. From that point, he learned more letters by challenging neighborhood kids to see who could write more, knowing that the boys would know more than him, so he could learn it. He then copied down words from his master’s son’s spelling book when his mistress would leave the house.

2. After his mistress taught him the alphabet, he wanted to learn more, so he learned to read. This granted him immeasurable amounts of knowledge. He later learned to write, because he thought it would lead to his eventual escape from slavery. I think he also wanted to learn to read and write, because it would put him at the same level as the white people who had so much power over him.

3. Mr. Auld did not want Frederick Douglass to be literate, because he knew it would lead him to discover how terrible slavery is and what freedom might look like, as he learned from the book The Columbian Orator. He knew that if Douglass could read and write, he would think he did not deserve his current treatment and escape. His master also thought he might infect the minds of other slaves, tell them about the opportunity of freedom, and all his master’s slaves would leave him.

4. Frederick Douglass risked being abused or killed by his master or mistress by learning how to read and write.

Wednesday 21 September 2011

How should we decide what is offensive? (mascots)

In order to decide what is offensive, certain guidelines must be determined. I think something is offensive if it plays to a certain stereotype of that group, if it undermines the group, or if it accentuates stereotypical physical characteristics, among other things. These guidelines can only be assessed by the group that is in question. A council of elected officials of that group should meet to discuss each particular mascot and if they feel offended by it. Any mascot that 25% of the council or more does not approve of, should be classified as offensive and changed.

Tuesday 20 September 2011

Extra Credit: Take another IAT test or two from a different category

The first additional IAT test I took was the Sexuality IAT. Gay rights have always been important to me. Perhaps I subconsciously thought I would get a result closer to what I hoped would reflect my unconscious inclinations, since my cousin is gay and have close family friends who are gay. Homosexuality is something I have been exposed to at a young age to a larger degree, I would think, than African Americans. However, after taking the test, I got the result "Slight automatic preference for straight people compared to gay people." Although I did not get the outcome I might have hoped for, I was pleased to see that there is a higher percentage of people who are neutral than those who have a slight preference for straight people. But it is upsetting that over 50% of people have strong or modern preferences for heterosexual people.

The second additional IAT test I took was the Age (Young-Old) IAT. After visiting my great grandmother this summer, I realized how little I am exposed to people outside my age range. Even on an average day, I am surrounded by primarily 14 - 18 year olds. I have always enjoyed talking to people roughly my parents age, or a bit older or younger, but I wouldn't say I spend much time with people, say, my grandparents' age on a regular basis. Therefore, I was not shocked that I got "moderate automatic preference for young compared to old" as my result. I was also not surprised by the large percentile who preferred the young. If you just look at the TV show Doctor Who as an example. The show started about fifty years ago. But now the Doctors just keep getting younger and younger, with the current Doctor in his early twenties, even though many of the die hard Who fans are older people who have been watching the show their whole lives. This clearly shows a preference of all ages to youth.

I also took the Weight (Fat-Thin) IAT, and was pleased that this was the first test I got a "neutral" response on the first try.

Break Down the Stereotype "All Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers."

1. All Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
2. The source of the stereotype can be the news, particularly conservative leaning stations. The big elephant in the room is prior terrorist attacks - especially September 11th. The truth is that there are some Muslims who have participated or initiated terrorist attacks.
3. If someone were to gather data that might have the number of estimated terrorists in the world, and other data that has the total number of Muslims in the world, this would disprove that all Muslims are terrorists.
4. I know a few Muslims personally who either live in America or are American. I also have one Muslim friend from Hong Kong who plans to go to an American university. None of them plan to blow up anything. They are all normal, nice people, who have a lot of the same views I do.
5. There are very few Muslims who are terrorists.

Saturday 17 September 2011

50 Word Summary of "The Sports Taboo" By Malcolm Gladwell


It’s impossible to construct racial stereotypes about sports: blacks are above and below average; whites are typically average. Boy and girl academic stereotypes are similar. Regions are more important than race. Whites are athletically underrepresented, because, like girls, they believe they don’t have natural ability and can’t increase their effort.

What did you find interesting about the test? What question do you still have after this?

I found it interesting that the speed at which you click E or I determined how subconsciously inclined you were towards a certain race. I would never think that someone who automatically preferred whites would react more quickly to a photo of them, though I suppose this makes sense now.
I also found it interesting that African Americans - or any non-whites - are more likely to subconsciously prefer European Americans as well. It is understandable that a white person would prefer their own race if they are 1) more prejudice than others or 2) more accustomed to seeing people of their own race. However, at first, it didn't make sense that an African American would not prefer someone of their own race as well for the same two reasons. I suppose the few who fall into  either or both of these two categories are the 29% who did not prefer European Americans to African Americans on the IAT. I have understood what a huge influence the media has played in humans' lives, but I did not fully realize that the media also carried a large subtext of prejudice and racism (and sexism and ageism among other things) that impacts even African Americans and other people of color around the world. This is the only explanation I can think of for why non-whites would prefer European Americans: the way they are portrayed in the media.

This isn't a question exactly, but one thing I would be interested in looking into more is the media's portrayal of non-white races and non-Western cultures.
How would someone who associates for example, African Americans and Bad or Female and Family, detach the two concepts or categories?

What was your result on the Race IAT? Do you think it was accurate?

I took the Race IAT three times. The first time it said my "data suggests a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American." The second time I took the IAT, it was slight, and the third time was moderate. Regardless, it is clear that my result is an automatic preference for European American people rather than African American.

My immediate reaction was denial, and then while answering the questions, I could only think of how disappointed I was in myself, how disappointed I was in the human race. Despite the fact that each result said  "there were too many errors to determine a result," I still believe this was accurate. Upon further reflection, it makes sense that I would have a subconscious preference towards white people. Not because I think it's something that should be happening, but because I think it's something I have been conditioned to my whole life. When I was nine-years-old and younger, while living in LA, I only had two African American friends. If you look at the community at ASL, there have only been three African American students in my grade since I came in fourth grade, and you can forget about there being any black kids in Hong Kong. I am not exposed to people of color in my daily life, so I suppose it is logical that my fingers would react more quickly to something I recognize.

This has certainly opened my eyes. Already I've been smiling at people of color on the street, and white people as well, really. Dr. Richards advice seems to have reminded me how contagious smiles are. The one thing I just keep thinking of is that I will have to try my best to raise children who are not conditioned to have a preference to white people...

Wednesday 14 September 2011

How strong are your subconscious attitudes toward race?

“At a subconscious level, I would guess I have a (neutral to strong) preference toward a group that shares my skin color.”

“At a subconscious level, I would guess I have a (neutral) preference against a group that has different skin color than my own.”

What prejudices might you have?

I suppose that I might have some prejudices towards people based on social class, political beliefs, and religion.
I might think a little bit differently of someone right away if I found out they were, for example, Republican or very Catholic. However, that being said, my best friend fits into both categories.
I think probably slightly prejudge someone who is of a higher social class than me, but I would not feel any prejudice towards someone who is of my social class or lower.

Friday 9 September 2011

I used to think...

I used to think being color blind was a positive thing, but now I realize being color blind doesn't help people of color.

Summary of "Black Men in Public Spaces"


Brent Staples, an African American man, has been mistaken for a criminal countless times because of his race. The first time this happened, he scared a young white women when he turned the corner at night, and she ran off, convinced that he was “a mugger, a rapist, or worse.” Brent shares instances of people locking their car doors or crossing the street when he walked by, but he says he can’t blame them, as “young black males are drastically overrepresented among the perpetrators of… violence.” He discusses his childhood in Chester, Pennsylvania where there is “gang warfare, street knifings, and murders” that many of his friends and family have gone to prison or been killed over. He mentions two extreme situations in which he is mistaken for a burglar and tells the story of a journalist mistaken for the killer he was reporting on. Brent Staples makes it clear that these occurrences are continuous and common, and so he has had to make changes to accommodate for these terrified white people in public places by, for example, whistling classic music at night. The point he is trying to make with this article is that Caucasians have some common misconceptions about African Americans, often assuming they are all criminals, even though Brent has clearly illustrated himself as “one of the good boys.”

Thursday 8 September 2011

If there is no biological explanation for race, how did it come about and why does it continue to be important to this day?

        People originated from Africa. Thousands of years ago, humans migrated from African to the rest of the world. Initially they went north towards Egypt to Saudi Arabia, across southern Asia and even further south to Australia. Another group went north to Egypt and made their way to Europe. A third group went across Russia and up through Alaska to North America. Finally, some from that group continued on to South America. Everyone that settled near the Equator (more or less between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn), had a darker skin color than those closer to both the North and South Poles. This is because some traits evolved by natural selection in order for people to adapt to different climates or environments. Being near the Equator is quite hot, so having darker skin might make a person less likely to get skin cancer from the ever-present sun. Someone who had migrated closer to the North and South Poles would not need something in their biological makeup that would prevent them from getting skin cancer. As the biological explanation is factually inaccurate, this geographical reason for races is necessary.
        Race also came about culturally despite a biological explanation, because two people of different "races" look very different. This could be based on skin color, nose and eye shape, height, etc. Europeans who discovered new lands were curious about these differences in the natives, and since they seemed to be living more primitively, didn't speak English (or whatever the language may have been), and had not been the ones to find the Europeans, the explorers presumed they were lesser beings. When it was realized that the natives were, in fact, humans as well, these stigmas remained because they were still visibly different.
        The reason race is still important today is because people still take notice of it. Race is one of the first thing a person notices about another person. People still regularly try to fit in with "their own kind," and people still have common misconceptions about skin color and "race." Even though the Declaration of Independence in 1776 declared that "All men are created equal," many people don't believe it. Besides, when the few men who got together wrote this, they 1) neglected to include women and 2) were really only thinking of white Europeans and not those of other races. Additionally, even though humans have left their initial homes from centuries ago, there are still few enough people in one area for that group to be considered a minority. Until, the world has become properly mixed thousands of years from now, if at all, meaning minority in the way we use it today will become an obsolete term as there will be a roughly the same number of all different "races"in any given place, racism won't be an issue. (This is not to say that racism would stop existing, but I think it would be more difficult to be racist in a place where everyone is different.)

Part 1 Notes Questions

1. For those that have something that prevents tyrosinase from functioning in full capacity skin, making their skin unable to be biologically or genetically darker, how would their child's skin be able to look "mixed-race" (or Black by the One Drop Rule) if they procreated with someone from Africa (currently, not who migrated thousands of years ago)?
2. Why wouldn't the idea of race being a myth be exposed more widely to the world? Because of how close-minded some people are, certainly not everyone would agree with it or believe, but most people might change their thinking instead of continuing on an idea developed six centuries ago. Has this rejection of the theory of race ever been published in any papers or broadcasted on the news internationally?
3. Does the huge variety of the gene pool in Africa explain why someone people are similar genetically to some people originally from Africa? Does it mean those non-Blacks who are similar may have came from the location the Africans are originally before migration?
4. How could someone in modern times who is, for example, African adapt to living in Alaska?

Tuesday 6 September 2011

Extra Credit: See if your parent(s) will do the privilege activity...

        I did the privilege activity with my mom and sister this afternoon during dinner. Seeing as we didn't have a large amount of space to take steps forward and backward, I had them simply calculate their "steps" on their fingers, and I tallied it on the page. Although my sister didn't always take the activity very seriously, it was still extremely interesting to see how they reacted to this and hear some of their personal experiences I didn't even know about.
         For the third question (If you were ever called names because of your race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, take one step back.), both my sister and mother took a "step back." My mom told us about how, when she was a kid, children in her neighborhood would make fun of their Italian American peers, simply because of their ethnicity. She told us how her best friends Brenda and Julie were Irish, and Jeff was originally German, things about our current family friends I didn't know. It had never occurred to me to think of these people as their ethnicities, as some bullies at my mom's elementary school had thought of her. My sister also told a story in which she was called names last year in the PE locker rooms, because a boy presumed she was a lesbian. At the following question (If there are or were people of color who worked in your household as servants, gardeners, etc., take one step forward.), we all shared an unpleasant silence, because, in Hong Kong we had a Filipino "helper" that none of us felt comfortable with. But she came with my dad's job... as if she was a house or a television; it's always sickened me.
        For the question "If you were brought to art galleries or plays by your parents, take one step forward," my mom mentioned how her parents weren't very cultured and plays didn't really seem like the type of thing they'd do. However, upon further reflection, she realized they had taken her to plays as a child. Similarly, my mother comment on the fact that even though she typically finds art galleries boring, she continued to take me to them when I was younger, because she was willing to make the sacrifice for me as I enjoyed it. And even if art galleries didn't excite my sister in the same way, my mom made the sacrifice for both my sister and me, because she knew it was good for us to be exposed to. As they both took a virtual step forward, I thought about those who don't have the money to go to art galleries and plays. Then I thought about those who don't have a parent who cares enough to give them these experiences, and I further realized how overprivileged I am.
        For questions that mention "race, class, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation," my mom brought up the point that people that have had issues with ageism and prejudice against those who are heavier are excluded from those who must take a step back. She said that perhaps her answers would be a bit different if weight was included in these questions. A question like this was "If you have seen members of your race, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation portrayed on television in degrading roles, take one step back." Both put a finger down for their count: my sister mentioned women being shown and degrading roles, and my mom said the same goes for Italian Americans. At this, my sister began to recite a Family Guy episode in which Italian Americans are mocked for the way they talk. She recounted how funny it had been, but decided that maybe it wasn't as funny as she had originally thought now that she realized how it may have upset her own mother to watch.
         The question about being denied a job sparked stories by my mom and sister as well. My sister talked about how she was not allowed to join either baseball or wrestling as they were all boys sports. My mom told a story of one of her first interviews while student teaching in an attempt to get a job at a New York City school for the year after she graduated. The woman interviewing her told my mom that they had interviewed a man around the same age for the same job with the same qualifications, but they were more likely to give him the job because he of his gender. My mom did hear back from this school at all, as there are very few male teachers.
         "If you were ever accused of cheating or lying because of your race, ethnic gropu, gender, or sexual orientation, take one step back" made my sister quickly ask, "What if its' the opposite?" She said that in the past teachers have said "Well, I trust you, girls, but..."when there have situations where students in her class have behaved less than ideal in the past. I think this is a perfect example of being overprivileged.
         At the end, when we calculated the points (my mom had 7 and my sister had 5), my mother posed the question to us, "Do you think if you both grew up only in LA [where we had lived prior to moving to London the first time], you would have the same answers?"I then went through all the questions again and discovered that only two of my answers would likely have been different. The first referred to studying the culture of your ancestors in elementary school. At ASL, I learned about my culture in fourth grade when we did a project in which we calculated the fractions that make up our heritage. For example, I learned that I am 7/16ths Italian from my mom's side. Then in fifth grade, we studied Ellis Island. Had I stayed in the United States, I likely would not have learned specifically about my own ethnicity. However, I would definitely have learned largely about Caucasians.
         The second question that would have had a different answer was about not being able to afford rent. After my dad was laid off in California, there is no way we would have been able to continue paying off our house unless my dad had found the job he did in London nearly a year and a half later. But he would have eventually found some work in America as he is a middle class white male, after all. What I gathered from exploring my mother's question was that even if I'd stayed in Los Angeles, I would still be just as privileged as I am now, because I am still a white kid in a middle class family with parents who take me to art galleries.
        

Look at the “Daily Effects of White Privilege” List...

a) I most take for granted:
1. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.
2. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.
3. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
4. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
5. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern other's attitudes toward their race.

         It seems to me that effects that relate to hypothetical children surprise me the most. It is the idea of my children being negatively affected by prejudices of their race that scares me. Obviously, since kids seem so far away from the present day, it is not something I had given any thought to, and so I had previously taken it entirely for granted. It does make me wonder, though, if my own parents had given any thought to this or if they've taken for granted as well that they are raising white kids in a white community where we are the majority.
         Initially, I included #3 (If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.) in my list of five white privileges I take for granted. However, as I continued reading, I realized that I take many others things for granted much more so than being able to move to a place I would want to live should I have to move. Once I really think about it, I don't take things like my family's money or my cultural experience being able to live abroad for granted. I can easily appreciate these things and feel so incredibly lucky. However, before this course, I never really considered my race that much when thinking about things I know I shouldn't take for granted.
          For #23 (I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.) as well as #27 (I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.) among a few others, I feel I do not take for granted. Having lived in Hong Kong for ten months, I very much felt like I was a cultural outsider. Now, living back in London, and in the future, living in the United States, I am very appreciative of the fact that, though perhaps I am not as culturally "with it" as someone who isn't a third culture kid, I am not a cultural outsider. I did not necessarily feel unheard because of my race, but I definitely felt out-of-place and outnumbered in many situations, considered 95% of students at my school were non-whites and of that almost 90% were Hong Kong Chinese. Obviously, my experiences in Hong Kong are not the same as many minorities all over the world, but I feel I have had a taste of what this must feel like, and so I try not to take it for granted now that I am back as a majority where everyone speaks the same language as me.

b) I would be willing to give up:
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
3. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
4. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
5. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

          For the most part, it seems like the things I am willing to give up are instances where my race is not the majority and not exposed to society regularly. Much of this is guilt because my race is prominently featured in newspapers, hold high level positions excessively, and most available in my city.

Monday 5 September 2011

Which of the four fears outlined by Robert Jensen do you have?

      I suppose I am most afraid of the last two fears. The third fear of white people is that we will become a minority and be treated as poorly as we treat and have treated nonwhites. This may seem a bit silly, but I don't think it would be fair. Sure, on the whole, yes, it would be fair for one group of people to seek revenge over another group of people who suppressed them for so very long. However, I don't feel I personally have intentionally suppressed anyone. I haven't enslaved anyone. I haven't stuck anyone in internment camps. I haven't made a single racist joke. I've even told people off for doing it, told them how disrespectful and degrading it was. So I think on a personal level, if these were ever done to me, they would be undeserved. But, in the same way, no single African American, Japanese, Hispanic person deserves the treatment they've received throughout history.
      I am also most afraid of #4, which says that white people are most afraid of being seen as racist by other nonwhites. This has been a concern for me for a long time. It is true that race is very much engrained in us. Even today, I was walking my dog, and I smiled at a couple on the street. Immediately the thought came over me, "Oh no, they are going to think I was just smiling at them because they were black... Now they surely think I'm trying to hard to not appear racist and therefore they definitely think I'm racist..." All because I smiled at them! A nice thing to do - smiling. And it sent me wanting to yell back at them, as they'd walked past me now, "I didn't mean it because you're black. I'm not racist - really! I would have smiled at a white couple too!"
      For a while now, I've been much more aware of my race than before. I've been aware of the races around me as well. There are two Muslims on the bus, a black man, and everyone else is white. And I feel bad for being white. I feel bad for noticing their race, and then I worry that they notice I've noticed their race and think that's the only reason I'm looking at them from across the bus. I don't want to be seen as racist. I'm only thinking about my race and their race, because I wish things were not the way they are.

How did the privilege exercise make you feel?

      While participating in this exercise, with every question I was imagining kids our own age in these alternative situations. With each question I stepped forward for, I could feel them staying put. "Step forward if you have fifty or more books in your house... Step forward if your parents ever told you that you could do whatever you wanted in life..." and they didn't move. And every question I stood still, they seemed to move back.
      At first the privilege exercise made me feel ashamed for being so much further ahead than all the imaginary kids taking steps backwards. However, overall, I was shocked. I felt as if I was put in my place. Knowing I'm only a student at a school like ASL because my mom is a teacher there, and not because we have as much money as everyone else in the community, sometimes makes me think I am less privileged than others. Though this may be true to an extent, I realized I am still extremely privileged when compared to most other people in the world. I've done a lot of work learning about people in wheelchairs last year when I joined the Whizz Kidz Community Partnership Program. And I know a lot about the homeless and vulnerably housed because of The Big Issue, becoming friends with some of the vendors nearby. These seem like obvious conditions that would make someone underprivileged. However, to be honest, I haven't given much thought to how extremely underprivileged and handicapped simply because of their race. I'm glad to be able to see this more now, and I really am looking forward to this course opening my eyes.