# How racist are you



## silverfish (Oct 29, 2009)

what ever colour that old birds eyes are I'd slap her round the ear if she gobbed off at me like that


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2009)

I can't believe people are still making programmes like this. What next, how claustrophobic are you? How allergic to wheat are you?


----------



## futha (Oct 29, 2009)

silverfish said:


> what ever colour that old birds eyes are I'd slap her round the ear if she gobbed off at me like that



Do you mean Jane Elliot? I have been reading about her for my course at the moment. Will have to catch up on this on 4OD.


----------



## silverfish (Oct 29, 2009)

yep

isn't this more about group psychology than racism?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 29, 2009)

not at all, i hate everyone equally


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2009)

silverfish said:


> yep
> 
> isn't this more about group psychology than racism?



Isn't racism a product of group psychology?


----------



## DJ Squelch (Oct 29, 2009)

TBF people with blue eyes are thick cunts though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 29, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Isn't racism a product of group psychology?


nope.it's £4.99 for a double pack down homebase atm.


----------



## silverfish (Oct 29, 2009)

fair one but its a very loaded experiment wouldn't shoe colour show a more random result

What is the objective of the experiment?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> nope.it's £4.99 for a double pack down homebase atm.



Buy some bigotry, get some jingoism free.


----------



## futha (Oct 29, 2009)

silverfish said:


> fair one but its a very loaded experiment wouldn't shoe colour show a more random result
> 
> What is the objective of the experiment?



She wanted to teach the children about racial discrimination. She helped prove the theory that all it takes is the formation of an in group and an out group to create prejudice between the two.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 29, 2009)

Eh, that seems fairly obvious tbh...

Interesting show, I found the two observing psychologists to be extremely obnoxious and the experiment itself slightly flawed in that it should really have had a mix of blacks and whites in both groups


----------



## Iguana (Oct 29, 2009)

futha said:


> She wanted to teach the children about racial discrimination. She helped prove the theory that all it takes is the formation of an in group and an out group to create prejudice between the two.



I saw a movie like that on tv in the mid 80's.  It was a high school experiment where the kids had to choose a colour from a box.  If they were blue they were the superior group.  If they were green they were in the middle and if they were orange they were inferior.  And it created prejudice, so she's hardly cutting edge.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> I saw a movie like that on tv in the mid 80's.  It was a high school experiment where the kids had to choose a colour from a box.  If they were blue they were the superior group.  If they were green they were in the middle and if they were orange they were inferior.  And it created prejudice, so she's hardly cutting edge.



The 80's were 12 years after she first did the experiment last time I checked


----------



## hungry 4 kicks (Oct 29, 2009)

The fact is it got some people in the blue eyed group to start accepting they have racist views and so in that way was effective at getting people to confront the issue at a level they probably hadn't before....


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Oct 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> I saw a movie like that on tv in the mid 80's.  It was a high school experiment where the kids had to choose a colour from a box.  If they were blue they were the superior group.  If they were green they were in the middle and if they were orange they were inferior.  And it created prejudice, so she's hardly cutting edge.



Considering she first done it in the 1960s I think you'll find she was cutting edge.  She's a hard woman no doubt but I think what she has done since then 1960s is a very worthy endeavor.  Particularly as it highlighted the continuing denial that racism still exists.  One woman was trying to equate it to her being discriminated against for wearing different clothes.


----------



## hungry 4 kicks (Oct 29, 2009)

Smoky said:


> Considering she first done it in the 1960s I think you'll find she was cutting edge.  She's a hard woman no doubt but I think what she has done since then 1960s is a very worthy endeavor.  Particularly as it highlighted the continuing denial that racism still exists.  One woman was trying to equate it to her being discriminated against for wearing different clothes.



I agree.....The fact that racism is discrimination against something people can't change was missed by all those that implied victims of racism could do something about it....

In the best TV show on race i ever saw they profiled people's DNA and confronted racists with the fact that they did not have pure European blood, which made them completely re-assess their views (which were based on the notion they had 'pure blood'....


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 29, 2009)

The only one who came off well in that program was the South African woman, few of the blue eyed people acted terribly rationally and even fewer of the brown eyed people actually spoke. The main one reminded me very much of an old (white) teacher of mine.


----------



## Red Faction (Oct 30, 2009)

you can view the initial video on youtube

just type in 'blue eyes brown eyes'


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 30, 2009)

this was quite an interesting show. if not a bit of a shambles. it seemed to fall apart a lot, and it didnt really manage to stick to its rules. I guess this is because it was a test originally done with kids (with good results).

The black and asain people seemed to get the point and the whites seemed to be a a bit stupid - claiming racism towards ethnic minorities to being similar to prejudice to skin heads and fat people. or maybe it was cut together to look that way.

But I guess the less easy her hypothesis is to prove, then the more we are moving in the right way. maybe.


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2009)

I remember when urban was free of these persian dogs, but first darios and now Artaxerxes have ruined it for me.


----------



## gavman (Oct 30, 2009)

it certainly made my blood pressure rise

 i felt that the central premise of the exercise was, in itself, racist
 i have personally stood on the front line and taken licks for my mixed race brothers, so why is that because i'm white, i'm racist?

 that in itself shows a segregationist perspective.

 i believe the exercise would be useful in a polarised society like the southern us in the sixties, south africa under apartheid or modern israel. but i fundamentally reject the concept that i'm guilty because i'm white. other white people may be guilty but i have no more kinship to them than i do to my rasta neighbour. less, in fact

 modern britain is beautiful because of it's ethnic diversity. london is the best city in the world because of the race mix, and that's what makes it appealing to me personally. i was born in kensal green, and there, notting hill, ladbroke grove and brixton are my natural haunts. all made vibrant by the different cultures who've made it their home

 so i really disagreed with the point the dude with the dreads made. he said that he avoided collecting his daughter from school as he was mixed race and his daughter looked white; as long as he wasn't seen, she would be regarded as white and the other parents wouldn't look down on her.
 the thing is, the opposite is true for me. if i was looking at prospective schools for my kid and saw a dread collecting his offspring, that would make that school MORE not less appealing. equally those areas of london i love so much are pretty expensive to buy a house in, meaning that english people WANT to live somewhere with an exciting cultural mix

 as for the point made by the middle aged black lady about some jokes being subtlety racist, well i'm sorry, i'm irish, and ALL the jokes i heard when i was growing up in the 70's were blatantly racist against me and my family and i didn't even bat an eyelid, enjoyed them even, and told them myself. 
 as far as employment goes, we have black female judges and many female non-white qc's. private companies just love to have non-white women representing them as it makes them look progressive in modern britain. likewise advertising. however the mediocre will never blame themselves for their own situation, that is true whether you're a lumpen proletariat voting bnp or a passed-over for promotion teacher or social worker

 for me the lewis hamilton/jensen button situation just perfectly underlines where modern britain is. you couldn't turn on the tv without seeing lewis bloody hamilton during his successful year, and his success in f1 was greeted like england winning something or other. when he was subject  to racist abuse in spain we basked in the smug superiority of the knowledge that we were different, we had notting hill carnival etc
 so lewis was feted, sponsored from on high, but whe poor old jensen won NOT A BLOODY DICKY BIRD. to quote jensen himself (at the winners press conference) 'for fuck's sake. is this it?'
referring to the lack of attendance, and that has been representative of his reception since- i don't need to tell you that. 
(don't get me wrong, i prefer it that way, i think there's too much commercialism in sport, but it just shows that hamilton was gold dust whereas jensen is less highly in demand)

 point is, that in modern britain lewis' face fits. he is the one in demand with the advertisers, and not just to sell trainers. and that tells you all you need to know- advertiser aren't trying to make the world a better place, they're just trying to sell you your dreams, and in our dreams we want to be mixed race. if it was a sign of racist attitudes in germany when non-white workers were airbrushed out of ford ads in the 1990's then the opposite is true now

 so of course there is racism. but to say that i'm responsible for the behavior of other white people is in itself, racist


----------



## gavman (Oct 30, 2009)

silverfish said:


> what ever colour that old birds eyes are I'd slap her round the ear if she gobbed off at me like that



^^^^that


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

I thought the premise of the experiment was to demonstrate to the brown-eyed people how easily they could be manipulated into disliking another group of people, but at the end the moral seemed to be 'Yeah, now those blue eyed cunts know what it's like.'


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

dp


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

Santino said:


> I thought the premise of the experiment was to demonstrate to the brown-eyed people how easily they could be manipulated into disliking another group of people, but at the end the moral seemed to be 'Yeah, now those blue eyed cunts know what it's like.'



This. And what Gavman said. 

The programme really wound me up.  The excersise presumed that Britain is and was like America in the 60s.  Or south Afrcan apartheid.  It just isn't like that any more.

The black woman wound me up the most.  Her tone seemed to me to be that blue eyed white people needed "teaching a lesson" (her words) and all she seemed to want was retribution on a few people that fit the mould.  That view is kind of racist in itself, but the programme never really bought it up.

There were some sensible people in both groups.  I particularly liked the South African girl who stayed, and gave the game away about the exam, and the boy that left early saying that you don't have to stay and bully others.

If anything it showed how much more close nit people had become and how people really are more willing to stick by their principles when it comes to bullying.

I wish that they had shown, as Santino said, how easily it is for those in a more powerful majority to be manipulated. But I think there have been better experiments, such as the prisoners and the prison guards, which powerfully shows what happens when people are given a bit of power.  This, in the end, just seemed to turn into an excersize of retribution, and was so flawed on so many levels that I ended up screaming at the TV.


----------



## girasol (Oct 30, 2009)

I watched that experiment on Oprah years ago! 

You can say what you like about the validity of the experiment, but that woman is quite a character and there is STILL a very valid point to make, in this day and age!  About conforming, about accepting things without questioning, and about being put in a position of disadvantage by the system just because of a physical characteristic you can do nothing about.

Oh, and that blonde teacher - a teacher!!! - was one of the most ignorant people I've ever seen on tv, how embarrassing! 

and I'll quote this because it's good!



Smoky said:


> Considering she first done it in the 1960s I think you'll find she was cutting edge.  She's a hard woman no doubt but I think what she has done since then 1960s is a very worthy endeavor.  Particularly as it highlighted the continuing denial that racism still exists.  One woman was trying to equate it to her being discriminated against for wearing different clothes.


----------



## girasol (Oct 30, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The black woman wound me up the most.  Her tone seemed to me to be that blue eyed white people needed "teaching a lesson" (her words) and all she seemed to want was retribution on a few people that fit the mould.  That view is kind of racist in itself, but the programme never really bought it up.



You got wound up by the person with the better arguments, and herself a victim of racism?

She was just trying to make people understand what it feels like, a lot of people there didn't even seem to understand what racism means, or what it does to people


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> You got wound up by the person with the better arguments, and herself a victim of racism?
> 
> She was just trying to make people understand what it feels like, a lot of people there didn't even seem to understand what racism means, or what it does to people



Her point was that in order to understand you MUST go through it, and as a consequence supported and encouraged the segregation.

The point is, that you don't have to go through something to be able to empathise with the person going through it. Or disagree with its principle.

The "they have to go though it to understand" thing, doesn't wash with me.  And i got wound up because it's a bollocks argument.


----------



## girasol (Oct 30, 2009)

I think going through it will help some people understand it, especially the ones who think racism doesn't exist, or don't even understand what it is...  And if you can make some people understand it better, that's progress.

Like she said, she's been in situations where racist remarks were made and no one but herself realised it, and I have wondered if I have been subconciously racist, I think we can all be sometimes.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Oct 30, 2009)

gavman said:


> it certainly made my blood pressure rise
> 
> i felt that the central premise of the exercise was, in itself, racist
> i have personally stood on the front line and taken licks for my mixed race brothers, so why is that because i'm white, i'm racist?
> ...



Gav, I think you missed the whole point of the exercise.

You can post and pat yourself on the back for how unracist you are til your blue in the face but the fact is you still live in a system that is unfairly stacked against ethnic minorities.  I think the woman made an extremely good point when she said white people are socially conditioned for white superiority and I agree with her.  

I don't doubt for a second that you're not racist on the surface, i'm not racist on the surface either but we still uphold a system that is and there's a high chance we still make excuses for racism.  In fact you've done exactly what she said white people do "Oh we've got black judges now that shows how non racist we are" completely ignoring the fact how black people are more likely to be poor and/or imprisoned than any other ethnic group "Oh those jokes against me were racist but I was OK with it" do you not see how you're just making excuses for it?  That's exactly the point she was making.

I guarantee you're more racist than you think you are, I probably am too and that's the point she was making.


----------



## girasol (Oct 30, 2009)

I think a lot of people missed the point of the exercise...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

I think Avenue Q got it spot on....


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Her point was that in order to understand you MUST go through it, and as a consequence supported and encouraged the segregation.
> 
> The point is, that you don't have to go through something to be able to empathise with the person going through it. Or disagree with its principle.
> 
> The "they have to go though it to understand" thing, doesn't wash with me.  And i got wound up because it's a bollocks argument.





Except that the problem about the kind of pervasive subtle racism, as I think quite powerfully shown by this programme, was that many white people just don't "get it" even when they are put in a situation where they are discriminated against.  That awful schoolteacher was a prime example.


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm reluctant to judge anyone on the basis of their behaviour in that contrived and badly-executed exercise. Put someone under pressure and they'll come out with any old shit.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> I think a lot of people missed the point of the exercise...


Ain't that the truth!

People were way too quick to take things personally, as if they personally were being accused of a personal choice to be intentionally racist.  This attitude destroyed it as an exercise.

The point was purely and simply to allow people in the blue-eyed group to understand emotionally what it is like to be systematically and instritutionally discriminated against.  Not because they were horrible people.  Not because they were proto-klansters.  Not because they think of blacks and whites in different ways (although a lot of them actually _did_ think this way, despite thinking that they didn't).  But purely because _they would otherwise never know what it was like_.  And understanding this on a visceral level is the first step towards changing the system.

The programme depressed me, but only because it showed just how far we still have to go.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Smoky said:


> Gav, I think you missed the whole point of the exercise.
> 
> You can post and pat yourself on the back for how unracist you are til your blue in the face but the fact is you still live in a system that is unfairly stacked against ethnic minorities.  I think the woman made an extremely good point when she said white people are socially conditioned for white superiority and I agree with her.
> 
> ...



I agree with this 

Great post


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> The point was purely and simply to allow people in the blue-eyed group to understand emotionally what it is like to be systematically and instritutionally discriminated against.


Was it? Because the whole thing seemed to change direction halfway through, as if it had gone wrong and the organiser retroactively changed the purpose of the exercise.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> Except that the problem about the kind of pervasive subtle racism, as I think quite powerfully shown by this programme, was that many white people just don't "get it" even when they are put in a situation where they are discriminated against.  That awful schoolteacher was a prime example.


Totally right.

"It's just the same as my husband!  He was a rugby player but now he has to wear a tie!"

Until she understands why this statement is fundamentally stupid, she'll remain part of the problem, not matter how much she *thinks* that she isn't racist.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Santino said:


> Was it? Because the whole thing seemed to change direction halfway through, as if it had gone wrong and the organiser retroactively changed the purpose of the exercise.


It was, as shown by the clips of the exercise performed in other countries.

It went wrong for a number of reasons, not least of which was the deliberate sabotage of the exercise by a white woman who apparently thought she knew better than the person that had spent years constructing the experiment and conducting it with considerable success.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

*FUCKING* racist, just put it that way.


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It went wrong for a number of reasons, not least of which was the deliberate sabotage of the exercise by a white woman who apparently thought she knew better than the person that had spent years constructing the experiment and conducting it with considerable success.


Given that they all knew it was an experiment, I wonder how many of them thought - in advance - that the 'correct' response was to disrupt things or refuse to go along. That would certainly have been in my mind.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Totally right.
> 
> "It's just the same as my husband!  He was a rugby player but now he has to wear a tie!"



You just couldn't make it up could you? 





kabbes said:


> Until she understands why this statement is fundamentally stupid, she'll remain part of the problem, not matter how much she *thinks* that she isn't racist.




and the awful thing is that the UK is full of people like her, they are in the majority, and they are extremely defensive about their racism. 

In fact some of the worst culprits in this respect IME are people who actually work professionally in equal opps. 

Just off the top of my head I once met a schools equality officer (a Jewish man) who after a few post conference drinks, opined that Islam was a religion entirely based around the oppression of women.  I was also at a workshop where a professional consultant on race (an Asian woman) made a horrifically racist statement about "scary big black men". 

Thing is we are all racist to some degree, the degree to which we are unconscious of it and to which we defend against being conscious of it, is proportional to the control our racism has over us.  

Just acknowledging the pervasiveness of unconscious racism is a huge step forward and I felt really depressed that so many of the blue eyed people  couldn't even reach first base re looking at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

I don't think the majority in this country are racist at all.  I think most people would sit down for a drink or a cup of tea with most people and to presuppose that the majority are racist is some pretty fucking snooty bullshit imo.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Santino said:


> Given that they all knew it was an experiment, I wonder how many of them thought - in advance - that the 'correct' response was to disrupt things or refuse to go along. That would certainly have been in my mind.


I would have wanted to see where the experiment went.  Otherwise what was the point in volunteering for it?

The blue-eyed people were literally being asked to experience this for two hours of their life.  It is understandable that they would react negatively to it, although it is depressing the degree to which their defensiveness caused them to miss the point.

The sad thing, however, is the way that so many of the white brown-eyed people were unable to help it through for just two hours.

I do genuinely think that they were on the cusp of something before that fucking stupid brown-eyed white woman fucked it up.  As we saw from the clips, it is experiencing the instutitional and power-based discrimination that the test serves as a metaphor for that is the catalyst to an understanding of what minorities go through.  Without this, the experiment fails on its arse.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I don't think the majority in this country are racist at all.  I think most people would sit down for a drink or a cup of tea with most people.


What do you understand by the word "racist"?  Do you really think it just comes down to who you are happy to spend some time with?


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

It was an interesting programme to me, if not perfect by any means.

What was perhaps most telling is some that folks felt so uncomfortable and defensive about the whole idea, a belief that somehow they didn't need this learning. There's often a tacit acceptance that Britain is fairly sorted when it comes to racism, especially compared next to the more confrontational USA, but the urge to sweep things under the carpet and be more dismissive about the possibility that racism still seriously affects lives here is far more palpable.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What do you understand by the word "racist"?  Do you really think it just comes down to who you are happy to spend some time with?



For me, I've always understood racism as being a resistance or reluctance to engage with groups of people on the basis that they are inferior, dirty, stupid etc. etc.  Or, from a distance, to feel that other racial groups are in some way inferior to your own.  I don't for a second dispute that those feelings exist in the UK but I haven't seen anything anywhere to make me feel that it is a majority view.


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

It was very unclear how the experiment was supposed to play out, and how many different versions of it she had prepared. Obviously done with an all-white audience it would have a very different structure. With a mixed race audience it brought out existing tensions, but the original exercise created arbitrary distinctions between a previously uniform bunch of kids.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> For me, I've always understood racism as being a resistance or reluctance to engage with groups of people on the basis that they are inferior, dirty, stupid etc. etc.  Or, from a distance, to feel that other racial groups are in some way inferior to your own.  I don't for a second dispute that those feelings exist in the UK but I haven't seen anything anywhere to make me feel that it is a majority view.


Right, well I think you only have a surface understanding of the word then.

Racism is discrimination.  This discrimination can be subconscious.  It can be institutional, i.e. inherent in the social systems.  It can be systematic.  It doesn't have to be personal.  It doesn't have to be a conscious decision.

It's very, very, very easy when you are one of the non-discriminated against to simply handwave the whole issue away and say that it doesn't really exist.  You aren't even aware of it existing, because for it isn't part of your world -- for you, it literally doesn't exist.  But this is a dangerous road to go down, which is why this experiment was attempting to make those from the privileged group feel what it was like.

If you want to know if discrimination exists, ask those who are discriminated against and then actually listen to their answer.  Don't just decide from within your own privileged group that they must be wrong just because the people you know don't think of minorities as dirty.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

The programme, incidentally, was yet another reminder of how perfectly we are conditioned by our environments, to the extent that we actively hide this conditioning from ourselves.  It's like people insisting that they aren't affected by adverts or films or peer pressure.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadly I still think you're a little wrong there Sadken. The fact that people say that they treat people as equals - or even that they'll tolerate a cuppa with them - is not the same as actually treating them the same. There's a danger of being complacent, as if being polite (rather than frothing racist) to ethnic minorities really has led to equal opportunity and treatment to all. People can be personally friendly with you, but still hold racist views - it's strange how people can disassociate their preconceptions of race ('you're one of us now') from you personally, but still come out with discriminatory corkers in the next breath. I've seen it all too often.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

They don't even realise that their corkers are discriminatory either.  With the very next breath after that, they will be insisting that we're all treated the same now and this is how it should be.


----------



## g force (Oct 30, 2009)

Agree with Tarannau...I think you're way off Ken both in your idea of discrimination, its use in every day life and how it affect people.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

I've been discriminated against myself, mate.  I don't need to ask around for an understanding of what the word means - as a jewish kid in an all catholic secondary school I took a fair bit of flak, although I imagine anti-semitism doesn't "count" as being racist to the mind of a lot of urbans.  I also lived for a year in Japan, which is a pretty crazily racist country in its own adorable little way.  

I don't really see how discrimination is any different from what I described in any event.  

I also didn't say that racism doesn't exist.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Sadly I still think you're a little wrong there Sadken. The fact that people say that they treat people as equals - or even that they'll tolerate a cuppa with them - is not the same as actually treating them the same. There's a danger of being complacent, as if being polite (rather than frothing racist) to ethnic minorities really has led to equal opportunity and treatment to all. People can be personally friendly with you, but still hold racist views - it's strange how people can disassociate their preconceptions of race ('you're one of us now') from you personally, but still come out with discriminatory corkers in the next breath. I've seen it all too often.



I wasn't saying that whether you have a cup of tea or not is the single determining factor, but that the fact that most people would with most people demonstrates that racism isn't ingrained or a default setting for most people in the UK.  

I know it's possible for people to smile to your face and still hold horrible views about your ethnicity, however, I just don't see the evidence that the majority of people in this country are racist.  I think it's liberal apologist self hatred stuff, really, and, in my experience, it doesn't reflect reality.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Of course it counts that you experienced it yourself.  

So why are you denying it?  If you understand what it is like to have to fight every day just for the right to be you -- if you actually have experience of going through the very thing yourself -- what on earth are you doing saying that it isn't a problem?

And if you aren't saying that racism doesn't exist, what actually are you saying?  That we shouldn't worry about it?

Not to mention that there's a classic thing that goes on -- "I have a problem too, so why are you complaining about your problem?"  As if the existence of another issue somehow renders the first issue null.  But that's a race to the bottom.  Instead we should be trying to resolve ALL discrimination, not saying that some discrimination is OK because other discrimination exists.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I just don't see the evidence that the majority of people in this country are racist.


Once again, I think you are not encompassing the full meaning and import of racism.  It is not just about consciously thinking that other people are less than you.  It is about the inherent structures and systems.  It is about the way people are made to feel by the society they live in.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

I think you're fooling yourself and belittling the experiences of other there Sadken. Yes, we don't have the NF thugs of my youth terrorising streets and whole areas, but you only have to look at the vast differences in educational and career achievement to suggest that things aren't as rosy underneath

Racism isn't just Klan style hoods and blantant discrimination - it's far more subtle than that.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Of course it counts that you experienced it yourself.
> 
> So why are you denying it?  If you understand what it is like to have to fight every day just for the right to be you -- if you actually have experience of going through the very thing yourself -- what on earth are you doing saying that it isn't a problem?
> 
> ...




Because race is an issue that has always interested me because I've always had a fascination with other countries, cultures and it's something that I talk about a lot to a lot of people.  For instance, I spend a LOT of my working life sat around for hours at court with people of all ethnicities and race is usually a good time filling conversation.  The vast majority of immigrants I have spoken to have been overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the vast majority of UK people.  

I'm not saying it's NOT a problem, I'm just saying that the majority of the UK population are not racist.  I think the fact that that counts for a controversial opinion on here says a fair bit.  Where is the evidence?


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> It was an interesting programme to me, if not perfect by any means.
> 
> What was perhaps most telling is some that folks felt so uncomfortable and defensive about the whole idea, a belief that somehow they didn't need this learning. There's often a tacit acceptance that Britain is fairly sorted when it comes to racism, especially compared next to the more confrontational USA, but the urge to sweep things under the carpet and be more dismissive about the possibility that racism still seriously affects lives here is far more palpable.



I think that was the most valuable thing to come out of the programme. Not what it set out to achieve, but very informative nonetheless.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Once again, I think you are not encompassing the full meaning and import of racism.  It is not just about consciously thinking that other people are less than you.  It is about the inherent structures and systems.  It is about the way people are made to feel by the society they live in.



I think the same discrimination applies to poor white people though.  The same structures exist, the same prejudices...trust me, they really do.  Especially among barristers.  The wankers.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Yes, on top of race discrimination in this country we also have class discrimination.  They are interwoven and their interaction generates a whole new wave of issues.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you are a black boy you're multiple times more likely to be stopped and searched than if you are a white boy, even when this is normalised for location.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I think you're fooling yourself and belittling the experiences of other there Sadken. Yes, we don't have the NF thugs of my youth terrorising streets and whole areas, but you only have to look at the vast differences in educational and career achievement to suggest that things aren't as rosy underneath
> 
> Racism isn't just Klan style hoods and blantant discrimination - it's far more subtle than that.



Where and how am I belittling anyone?  And, like I say, the social structure stops poor white people progressing too, doesn't it?


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes, on top of race discrimination in this country we also have class discrimination.  They are interwoven and their interaction generates a whole new wave of issues.
> 
> Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you are a black boy you're multiple times more likely to be stopped and searched than if you are a white boy, even when this is normalised for location.



That I definitely do accept, but I think that is a totally different issue.  We're talking about lay people, not the police who, I think we can all agree, are generally made up of the nuttiest kids in school who somehow managed to avoid getting sent down when they left.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Because race is an issue that has always interested me because I've always had a fascination with other countries, cultures and it's something that I talk about a lot to a lot of people.  For instance, I spend a LOT of my working life sat around for hours at court with people of all ethnicities and race is usually a good time filling conversation.  The vast majority of immigrants I have spoken to have been overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the vast majority of UK people.



I'm not having a go but a lot of people will read what you just wrote and will understand it as a variation on "some of my best friends are black"

It seems like you are feeling defensive and perhaps the most useful thing at this point is to understand where that feeling is coming from and why you seem to feel the need to claim that most of the people in the UK are not racist when so many people, especially people in minorities who have suffered discrimination based on skin colour, see things differently


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> I'm not having a go but a lot of people will read what you just write and will understand it as a variation on "some of my best friends are black"



Don't be a fucking idiot.  So, because I have personal experience of coming into contact and discussing this specific issue under discussion at the moment with a lot of people from a lot of different ethnicities as part of my job and I repeat what they've said - which is directly relevant here - then I am a closet racist?

And saying "I'm not having a go" doesn't really work when you subsequently have a go.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Don't be a fucking idiot.  So, because I have personal experience of coming into contact and discussing this specific issue under discussion at the moment with a lot of people from a lot of different ethnicities as part of my job then I am a closet racist?
> 
> And saying "I'm not having a go" doesn't really work when you subsequently have a go.



I think you need to stop and think about what you are feeling and why


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> I think you need to stop and think about what you are feeling and why



I am feeling angry and upset that you have uncovered my dark secret.  Plum.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

Poor white people aren't often immediately apparent by site, or even by a quick view of a name though Ken. Neither would I try and extrapolate your experience of working in barrister circles as typical. Nobody's denying that the UK has difficulties with class, but there's an additional barrier with race too.

It's not just police either, it's everything from schooling to your local sports clubs and pub doormen. I'm pale, priveleged and respectable enough these days to not personally experience much overt nastiness, but it still doesn't stop me witnessing racism pretty much every day in some form or another.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 30, 2009)

gah i missed this......

4od time


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Poor white people aren't often immediately apparent by site, or even by a quick view of a name though Ken. Neither would I try and extrapolate your experience of working in barrister circles as typical. Nobody's denying that the UK has difficulties with class, but there's an additional barrier with race too.
> 
> It's not just police either, it's everything from schooling to your local sports clubs and pub doormen. I'm pale, priveleged and respectable enough these days to not personally experience much overt nastiness, but it still doesn't stop me witnessing racism pretty much every day in some form or another.



I was joking about barristers.  Quite obviously, I thought.

Once again, I am NOT saying racism doesn't exist in the UK - I have NOT said that about 5 times now - but I am arguing against the idea that the majority of people in this country are racist.  Nothing in my personal experience has led me to think that that is true, nor has anything in the experience of the people I have spoken to about racism in the UK.  I know you can't base everything on subjective experiences but when the majority of those subjective experiences give the same story then I think that is getting close to being fair enough.

And doormen are just cunts, regardless of race.  I would be very, very careful about using them as an example to be applied to the UK population at large.

Re: local sports clubs - golf clubs do seem to be quite racist from what I've seen and heard but they also seem to be very classist too.  Like I say, I think it is just a certain strain of white superiority that allows those that subscribe to it to look down on white people as well as black, asian etc.  That maybe doesn't make them racist so much as just plain old fucking idiots, to my mind.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I am feeling angry and upset that you have uncovered my dark secret.  Plum.




FWI, just to put things in context

I think that I am racist, just like everyone else is. 

I am not a proud racist, I am not happy about my own racism, but by acknowledging it, I am at least less likely to be under its control and more likely to be able to examine it in myself if confronted about it.  At least I hope so.  I do the best I can which is all that any of us can do   

I believe that we all have this thing called an unconscious, I also believe that we can be ruled by the more primitive aspects of ourselves, especially when we are stressed, frightened or in a large group of excited people.

Racism is just one of the powerful unconscious forces that all of us have and that none of us, IMO, is completely free of.

The collective denial that racism is endemic in our country is perhaps the most harmful thing to people on the receiving end.  It can literally drive people mad.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

And I equally strongly disagree with you Sadken - the majority of Britain is racist imo, albeit mostly not in an overt or particularly vigorous way. I think you underplay the subtleties and pervasive nature of racism and preconceptions all too easily.

I'd also wager that the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances agree with me.I'm a mixed up Heinz 57 from a very mixed up town maybe, but I can only say what I see and hear every day


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Floating while intoxicated?


----------



## strung out (Oct 30, 2009)

i wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of this country is a screaming racist, but i would say that the majority of the people in this country overtly hold certain racial prejudices of one kind or another.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> And I equally strongly disagree with you Sadken - the majority of Britain is racist imo, albeit mostly not in an overt or particularly vigorous way. I think you underplay the subtleties and pervasive nature of racism and preconceptions all too easily.
> 
> I'd also wager that the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances agree with me.I'm a mixed up Heinz 57 from a very mixed up town maybe, but I can only say what I see and hear every day



So we have an explicitly racist political party - why are they outsiders if the majority of Britain is racist?  The option is there to usher in a party that will do things the right way for the "majority" of people - why have they not taken up that option?  Especially given the dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

I think that the issue of whether the majority of people are or are not overtly racist is a completely irrelevant red herring.  It misses the point by a country mile.

It's like saying that there is no problem with class because the majority of people are not overtly classist.

It's instructive that it always seems to be white people insisting... something.  I'm never even sure what they are insisting, actually -- it seems to be a purely defensive reflex action.  But whatever it is, it always seems to come down to "let's not talk about this, because, hey, we're all friends here aren't we?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> I think that I am racist, just like everyone else is.


I don't think it's useful to see racism like that. I do think that most white poeple in Britain are at least a little bit racist, often without realising it. But their racism manifests itself in very definite symptoms. You see those symptoms here on Urban frequently – people not seeing the problem with black people being stopped and searched more than white people, for instance. And yes, people do become very defensive about it.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm not even saying don't talk about it - there clearly is a problem that still exists - just don't get hysterical and talk bullshit about it and claiming "the majority of people in the UK are racist" is made up bullshit that rests on self loathing flavoured jelly.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> So we have an explicitly racist political party - why are they outsiders if the majority of Britain is racist?  The option is there to usher in a party that will do things the right way for the "majority" of people - why have they not taken up that option?  Especially given the dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties?



You are equating over / proud racism with pervasive unconscious racism 

They are not the same thing.  Obviously


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

I agree that quite a few posters completely missed the point of the excercise, but I would also point out that the excercise itself is deeply flawed if it's that easy to disrupt. 

The results reminded me of the show that tried to recreate the Millgram(?) experiment with gaurds/prisoners - the guards refused to brutalise the prisoners, and the prisoners revolted. Here you have the same thing - many of the participants refuse the premise of the experiment and thus render it useless.

So you need to redesign the experiment. Seemples.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

And to be fair, I can't believe Ken's area is that peaceful and sorted either.

Jeepers, in the days when I was running pubs in Mitcham and other NF heartlands, a lot of the most unpleasant fuckwits did their 'white flight' thing out to Essex way.

Maybe people feel less qualified to badmouth folks in front of legal types, maybe he mixes in more positive and sheltered circles, but Ken's accounts don't tally with my life experience.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> You are equating over / proud racism with pervasive unconscious racism
> 
> They are not the same thing.  Obviously



Right, so the majority of people in the UK are racist and don't even know it themselves?  Isn't that just a mechanism to just allow you to make massive kneejerk generalisations the likes of which - if they were directed against, say, muslims - you would be up in arms about?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

IME the vast majority of _people_ are a 'little bit racist' in the UK, regardless of their skin colour, and regardless of their experience of racism at the hands of someone else.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> And to be fair, I can't believe Ken's area is that peaceful and sorted either.
> 
> Jeepers, in the days when I was running pubs in Mitcham and other NF heartlands, a lot of the most unpleasant fuckwits did their 'white flight' thing out to Essex way.
> 
> Maybe people feel less qualified to badmouth folks in front of legal types, maybe he mixes in more positive and sheltered circles, but Ken's accounts don't tally with my life experience.



No, I grew up in Essex, I have a very strong estuary accent and I don't just talk to my clients.  Sorry to disappoint the prejudice, but I know a lot of Essex white people who are every bit as anti racist as anyone on here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I agree that quite a few posters completely missed the point of the excercise, but I would also point out that the excercise itself is deeply flawed if it's that easy to disrupt.
> 
> The results reminded me of the show that tried to recreate the Millgram(?) experiment with gaurds/prisoners - the guards refused to brutalise the prisoners, and the prisoners revolted. Here you have the same thing - many of the participants refuse the premise of the experiment and thus render it useless.
> 
> So you need to redesign the experiment. Seemples.


I only saw about five minutes of it, but the problem to me seemed to be transferring from the US to the UK. Racism in the US and UK is similar, but also different.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

How is suggesting that racism in the UK is still widespread and pervasive self-loathing though Ken?

It's more an acceptance of the reality imo, not some kind of hand-wringing introspective behaviour.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I'm not even saying don't talk about it - there clearly is a problem that still exists - just don't get hysterical and talk bullshit about it and claiming "the majority of people in the UK are racist" is made up bullshit that rests on self loathing flavoured jelly.


You're the one who brought up the issue of whether or not the majority are racist, at least in the conscious way that you mean.  

I've said that it is a red herring from the beginning.  We're talking about structures and institutions here, not who people will have a cup of tea with.  And yet even when presented with an obvious, overt example -- the police -- you are keen to sweep it under the carpet by saying that "they were just the nutty kids".  A joke, obviously, but revealing nonetheless.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You're the one who brought up the issue of whether or not the majority are racist, at least in the conscious way that you mean.
> 
> I've said that it is a red herring from the beginning.  We're talking about structures and institutions here, not who people will have a cup of tea with.  And yet even when presented with an obvious, overt example -- the police -- you are keen to sweep it under the carpet by saying that "they were just the nutty kids".  A joke, obviously, but revealing nonetheless.



No, I didn't bring it up.

I just don't think the example of the police can be applied to the people at large because most people at large aren't like the police.  That's a very, very fucked up institution.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> IME the vast majority of _people_ are a 'little bit racist' in the UK, regardless of their skin colour, and regardless of their experience of racism at the hands of someone else.


Not my experience. IME fewer black people, particularly in the older generations, are racist.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> *and the awful thing is that the UK is full of people like her, they are in the majority, and they are extremely defensive about their racism. *



This was before I joined in.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I agree that quite a few posters completely missed the point of the excercise, but I would also point out that the excercise itself is deeply flawed if it's that easy to disrupt.
> 
> The results reminded me of the show that tried to recreate the Millgram(?) experiment with gaurds/prisoners - the guards refused to brutalise the prisoners, and the prisoners revolted. Here you have the same thing - many of the participants refuse the premise of the experiment and thus render it useless.
> 
> So you need to redesign the experiment. Seemples.



Quite a sensible post imo.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Right, so the majority of people in the UK are racist and don't even know it themselves?


Well the majority of people in the UK live in overwhelmingly homogenious neighbourhoods dominated by white people and the only real experience they have of minorities is what they see on television, which is overwhelmingly -- if not exclusively -- dominated by images and tales of ethnic stereotypes.

Saying that this will have no effect on the psyche of the watcher is to deny decades of experience and research into the effect of advertising on the viewer.  If you are totally submerged in a particular mode of thought, it would be astonishing if that didn't affect you.  You would have to be a superhuman.  As Elliot said on the programme, we are programmed from birth to buy into the myth of white supremacy.  This is generally a totally unconcious thing.

So yes, I think that -- in very simplistic terms -- the majority of people everywhere are racist and don't even know it themselves.  It's a subtle thing though, not the overt thought process you are making it out to be.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> IME the vast majority of _people_ are a 'little bit racist' in the UK, regardless of their skin colour, and regardless of their experience of racism at the hands of someone else.



And this.  This is also true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> No, I didn't bring it up.
> 
> I just don't think the example of the police can be applied to the people at large because *most people at large aren't like the police*.  That's a very, very fucked up institution.


Sadly, I don't think that's true. Most of your friends may not be like the police. Mine certainly aren't. But we choose our friends.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I just don't think the example of the police can be applied to the people at large because most people at large aren't like the police.  That's a very, very fucked up institution.


Nevertheless, they are a very powerful institution that is fundamental to society.  Having such an institution systematically prejudiced against you is really rather important, wouldn't you say?

And that's just one institution.  You think that others don't have other ways of embedding some form of racism within them?  No matter how reasonable the people on the ground are, hey, their hands are tied by the rules, no?

And that was the point of the experiment.  To let the blue-eyed group experience that kind of systematic prejudice.  Shame it broke down before it got there.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> This was before I joined in.


That isn't talking about overt, conscious racism though.  I'm sure that woman would also be happy to have a cup of tea with minorities.  I know for a fact that she claims not to be racist.

So she actually fits your mould perfectly.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

I just think that is bullshit and in itself a lil bit racist, tbh, mate.  To write off people as being racist because they don't come into contact with people of different ethnicities ignores a lot of other factors, makes a huge generalisation that would be considered outrageous applied anywhere else and plays up to issues of intellectual or cultural superiority that I don't subscribe to myself.

I don't think there is any difference in levels of racism across any ethnicity, myself.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not my experience. IME fewer black people, particularly in the older generations, are racist.



Well your experience and my experience clearly differ. I have the unedifying privilege of regularly listening to Pakistanis slagging off Indians, Afro-carrbeans slagging off Africans generally, and Africans of different nations slagging off each other (and FWIW almost universally slagging off Nigerians as thieves)

Perhaps I've been unlucky, perhaps the people I've worked with from BME groups have been unrepresentative of wider views, but I hear bile spewed forth from all sources, be that based on skin, nation or faith. It's why, as I've said on threads like this before, it's a problem that_everyone_ needs to deal with.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 30, 2009)

I feel like there should be some sort of established scientific scale for racism so that we can categorise and demonise people appropriate to their actual levels of genuine racial bias.  Actually, I'll make it.

I thus present the Eggsy Ethnicity Concern Scale.  I expect it will soon be the standard document.

1 - Genuinely unthreatened and comfortable with other races.  Always willing to learn and attempt to understand.  Is not a cultural relativist and not afraid to criticise some behaviours of other cultural groups as it is not the race or group that upsets them but the action.
2 - Is concerned by their own lack of knowledge and integration into multiple cultural and racial groups and is more likely to offend through trying too hard not to offend.  Will ask black people where they're from and get embarrassed when the reply is "Walthamstow, mate".  Might own unpleasant ethnic tat.
3 - Holds a few lazy stereotypes through lack of contact and analysis but is generally unconcerned by differences in skin colour.
4 - Will happily employ non-whites as long as they can speak good english and don't expect to be treated special.
5 - Middle class liberal
6 - Thinks the words Paki and Wog are acceptable because people call us limeys and Brits.  Has no concept of cultural understanding as they should fit in if they're gonna come over here.  May enjoy genuine foreign food occasionally, wouldn't want to live next door to an ethnic.
7 - Has coloured friends who are like proper british people and don't smell of curry but hates the ones who aren't like us, thinks miscegenation should be a crime because the races should be unique.  Believes whites are discriminated against in British society.  Uses the BBC's forums to express opinions.
8 - Occasionally participates in racist behaviour such as racial abuse or a bit of rough and tumble with an ethnic after the pub; may belong to a organisation that claims not to be racist.
9 - Active member of racist organisation
10 - Has actively participated in ethnic cleansing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

It's not a question of writing people off. People aren't static – we're not born racist and we can lose our racism. I know for a fact that my dad had some racist attitudes when I was younger, but he met, liked and completely accepted my black wife. He has changed.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I just think that is bullshit and in itself a lil bit racist, tbh, mate.  To write off people as being racist because they don't come into contact with people of different ethnicities ignores a lot of other factors, makes a huge generalisation that would be considered outrageous applied anywhere else and plays up to issues of intellectual or cultural superiority that I don't subscribe to myself.


You misunderstand completely.  I am not "writing people off".  I'm saying that it is fundamental to human psychology to absorb the messages given to them on a daily basis.  We can only fight against these messages by being aware of them and of their impact.

You are making this a personal issue, as if I am condemning people.  How can I condemn them?  We're all in the same boat.  It is telling that the communities most afraid of minorities are those communities with almost no minorities in them.  Why should that be?  Where are they getting the message that there is something to be afraid of?  Why are they absorbing that message?


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a question of writing people off. People aren't static – we're not born racist and we can lose our racism. I know for a fact that my dad had some racist attitudes when I was younger, but he met, liked and completely accepted my black wife. He has changed.



Right!  And racism, for me, is ingrained, generally.  Your Dad is not a racist, he maybe didn't have to confront the issue directly and when he did then he saw that racism is fundamentally ridiculous.  I genuinely believe that most people now feel that way and that the UK population is no more or less racist than any other.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

Once again, I'm going to have to ask you to describe what you mean by "racist".


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm still waiting for Ken to explain the self-loathing comment myself.

I don't quite get why he's being so defensive in general, but that comment seems a bit of a dismissive slur to say the least.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You misunderstand completely.  I am not "writing people off".  I'm saying that it is fundamental to human psychology to absorb the messages given to them on a daily basis.  We can only fight against these messages by being aware of them and of their impact.
> 
> You are making this a personal issue, as if I am condemning people.  How can I condemn them?  We're all in the same boat.  It is telling that the communities most afraid of minorities are those communities with almost no minorities in them.  Why should that be?  Where are they getting the message that there is something to be afraid of?  Why are they absorbing that message?



It just seemed a bit off to me to use the example of white people living in majority white communities to illustrate some sleeping racism in this country when, in fact, the majority of people in this country are still white.  The vast majority, in fact, I think.  Seemed a bit unfair and twisted to me.

As to the second half - I think it's primal stuff, isn't it?


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I'm still waiting for Ken to explain the self-loathing comment myself.
> 
> I don't quite get why he's being so defensive in general, but that comment seems a bit of a dismissive slur to say the least.



I'm not getting defensive.  As I've said, I've experienced racism directed at me personally so why would I be defensive?  I just don't agree with things just because they are the consensus view if they don't sit right with me - not saying that is what you are doing but it explains why I care.

The self loathing thing is self-explanatory, I'd have thought.  UK citizens slagging the UK population?  It's pretty common - for instance - the people who move to Spain and set up British enclaves over there with cafes selling their own English breakfasts etc are regularly demonised and looked down upon by the self same people who promote racial and cultural diversity in this country.  For me, you can't have it both ways - white british culture is every bit as valid as any other culture so why should white british people living abroad not be able to buy their papers, watch their football, eat their fryups etc?  I've never understood that one at all.

I'll expect to be depicted as a BNP voter any second now.  I'm not at all, I live in Mile End and I love the cultural diversity of the area pretty hard but the same rules have got to apply across the board as far as I am concerned and if I support pakistani, bengali communities in the UK then I'm bound to support british expat communities abroad.  Derail derail.


----------



## IMR (Oct 30, 2009)

'Experiments' as depicted in that program, or as carried out in Zimbardo's pretend prison, or Stanley Milgram's pretend electric shock training regime, are more like modern-day morality plays than scientific investigations.

What hypothesis is being tested? That people can be unpleasant towards one another on the basis of arbitrary distinctions? Anyone who's read a history book will know the answer to that already.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm still at a loss about your definition of self-loathing Ken, or why you brought that up.

It isn't all UK citizens slagging off the UK for a start, nor do I see how Spanish expats are particularly relevant. It was a shitty term to use imo, and an even shitter justification/explanation


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I'm still at a loss about your definition of self-loathing Ken, or why you brought that up.
> 
> It isn't all UK citizens slagging off the UK for a start, nor do I see how Spanish expats are particularly relevant. It was a shitty term to use imo, and an even shitter justification/explanation



Oh well.


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

IMR said:


> 'Experiments' as depicted in that program, or as carried out in Zimbardo's pretend prison, or Stanley Milgram's pretend electric shock training regime, are more like modern-day morality plays than scientific investigations.
> 
> What hypothesis is being tested? That people can be unpleasant towards one another on the basis of arbitrary distinctions? Anyone who's read a history book will know the answer to that already.


The scientific investigation vs. moralising is interesting. On the one hand people are being told that they are inevitably racist because of their environment, and on the other hand they are being told off for being racist, as if they chosen to be so.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Right, so the majority of people in the UK are racist and don't even know it themselves?




exactly 



Sadken said:


> Isn't that just a mechanism to just allow you to make massive kneejerk generalisations the likes of which - if they were directed against, say, muslims - you would be up in arms about?




Not sure what you are saying here but let me ask you a question 

As a Jew do you think that antisemitism is just about burning synagogues and desecrating Jewish cemeteries?

If someone said to you that there was no antisemitism in their town because the synagogue had never been bombed and the cemetery never desecrated would you think that they were perhaps just a little naive about antisemitism?


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Yes, I would, however, in the absence of anything like that I'd say it was a similar leap of faith to just infer seething anti-semitism as the hate that dare not speak its name.


----------



## IMR (Oct 30, 2009)

Santino said:


> The scientific investigation vs. moralising is interesting. On the one hand people are being told that they are inevitably racist because of their environment, and on the other hand they are being told off for being racist, as if they chosen to be so.



I don't really mean moralising to particular individuals, more like that there's a tradition of such 'experiments' in American social psychology which don't really tell us much about how people behave that we didn't know already.

Rather, they are like plays or stories which are performed and then related to wider audiences. Aesop's Fables told by people in white coats.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

'Oh well' seems a bit of a piss weak answer to be honest Ken. Why is it self loathing for anyone of an ethnic minority to say that they still find Britain racist?  I'm proud of who I am and my roots - where's the self-loathing? It sounds like a buzzy phrase that you've plucked out of your arse and can't justify.

I find it weird that Americans, for all their gung-ho positivity, can more readily admit a problem in their society. We Brits may believe, with some justification, that our society is perhaps more successfully integrated, but to dismiss the problems and accuse those experiencing racism as suffering from self-loathing seems more than slightly dismissive and insulting.,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Yes, I would, however, in the absence of anything like that I'd say it was a similar leap of faith to just infer seething anti-semitism as the hate that dare not speak its name.


It's not seething necessarily, though, is it? It's largely unthinking and may not be intended to be nasty at all. For instance, a passing comment saying 'don't be Jewish' when you think someone's being tight – was quite common to hear years ago, although I haven't heard it said for a while, but doesn't imply hatred of Jews, just casual, ignorant anti-Semitism, of a kind which, if confronted, may be extinguished.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Yes, I would,




Good

So can you not understand how racism can work in the same way?

Just because there are not people in white pointy hats burning crosses in people's back gardens and just because the BNP is not the most popular party, does not mean that the majority of people in the UK are not racist. 



Sadken said:


> however, in the absence of anything like that I'd say it was a similar leap of faith to just infer seething anti-semitism as the hate that dare not speak its name.



I'm a bit confused about this as I'm not sure what you mean


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

IMR said:


> I don't really mean moralising to particular individuals, more like that there's a tradition of such 'experiments' in American social psychology which don't really tell us much about how people behave that we didn't know already.
> 
> Rather, they are like plays or stories which are performed and then related to wider audiences. Aesop's Fables told by people in white coats.


Yeah, I was just grabbing your point and running with it.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not seething necessarily, though, is it? It's largely unthinking and may not be intended to be nasty at all. For instance, a passing comment saying 'don't be Jewish' when you think someone's being tight – was quite common to hear years ago, although I haven't heard it said for a while, but doesn't imply hatred of Jews, just casual, ignorant anti-Semitism, of a kind which, if confronted, may be extinguished.



And also the kind of comment that will inevitably, if challenged, generate a response of "Oh but I wasn't being racist / antisemitic!  I'm not like that!"


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> Good
> 
> So can you not understand how racism can work in the same way?
> 
> ...



Right...I just don't see how a lack of overtly racist behaviour can be seen to be evidence of the existence of racism in the majority of people.  That is what I was saying.  It seems like a bit of a non-point.


----------



## g force (Oct 30, 2009)

define "overtly racist" - pitchforks and burning torches? The point is racism is subtle in many instances but sublety doesn't mean it doesn;t exist because as a white man I doubt you're subjected to it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Right...I just don't see how a lack of overtly racist behaviour can be seen to be evidence of the existence of racism in the majority of people.  That is what I was saying.


Thing is, you often can't tell for sure that someone's being racist. If you're treated badly in a shop, it _might_ be just because the person in the shop is rude to everyone or having a bad day. But if you experience this kind of rudeness, say, ten times a year if you're black but only twice a year if you're white, you can say that of the ten who were rude to the black person, there was on average a racist component in eight of them. But which eight? You can't know. A person can experience a society as racist without being able to point to any single individual and say 'this person is racist'.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Right...I just don't see how a lack of overtly racist behaviour can be seen to be evidence of the existence of racism in the majority of people.  That is what I was saying.  It seems like a bit of a non-point.




The lack of overt (at least to many people) racism is not evidence of racism, but (and this is important) it is not evidence of lack of any other kind of racism.  Just re your post about most people in the UK can't be racist as if they were more would vote BNP


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

> If you're treated badly in a shop, it might be just because the person in the shop is rude to everyone or having a bad day. But if you experience this kind of rudeness, say, ten times a year if you're black but only twice a year if you're white, you can say that of the ten who were rude to the black person, there was on average a racist component in eight of them.



Or alternatively you as the person being insulted by shop staff could be a complete twat to everyone you meet, and thus invite rude responses.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Or alternatively you as the person being insulted by shop staff could be a complete twat to everyone you meet, and thus invite rude responses.


you've spectacularly missed my point. 

Another example that might be clearer: 

You are a man walking along the street late at night. You see a white woman on her own walking towards you cross to the other side of the road.

She may have just been crossing anyway.

She may have crossed because she felt safer avoiding you, a man, late at night.

If you are black, she may have crossed because she felt safer avoiding you, a black man, late at night. 


She herself, if she did cross because she had an urge to do so in order to feel safe, may be quite unable to judge the relevance of your skin colour to her decision. But if, as a black man, you experience this a lot more than as a white man, you can be sure that there will be, in many cases, a component of racism – quite possibly internalised and subconscious racism – that leads a white woman to feel more threatened by a black man than by a white man.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

g force said:


> define "overtly racist" - pitchforks and burning torches? The point is racism is subtle in many instances but sublety doesn't mean it doesn;t exist because as a white man I doubt you're subjected to it



If you can't be bothered to read what I've posted so far on the thread, I can't see why I should be bothered to respond, really, other than to draw your attention to that fact that to assume makes an ass of u and me.


----------



## Sadken (Oct 30, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> The lack of overt (at least to many people) racism is not evidence of racism, but (and this is important) it is not evidence of lack of any other kind of racism.  Just re your post about most people in the UK can't be racist as if they were more would vote BNP



Seems like a cul de sac in the discussion to me...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

No I haven't missed the point, and I know where you're going with it, just that your explanation of it is shite. You can't turn around and say that because X person gets insulted more than Y person because person X has black skin that it's an example of a racism. All it shows is that person X gets insulted more often; without knowing how person X interacts with people in relation to person Y you can't draw any kind of conclusion from it - well you can, but it would potentially be erroneous.

What everyone on this thread is missing, quite specatacularly, is that in a society where most of the racism is unconcious, non-ideological and picked up as a cultural artefact rather than as a widely accepted social truth (as racism was in 1960s America, for example) is that both this kind of test, and the 'Everyone is racist but don't know it' statement are equall unhelpful and unproductive at getting people to both understand, comprehend _and_ deal with their racism because many/most people hearing it would respond with 'Don't call me a racist.'.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

Isn't that kind of the point though? To get people to challenge the complacency when it comes to their own racism?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No I haven't missed the point, and I know where you're going with it, just that your explanation of it is shite. You can't turn around and say that because X person gets insulted more than Y person because person X has black skin that it's an example of a racism. All it shows is that person X gets insulted more often; without knowing how person X interacts with people in relation to person Y you can't draw any kind of conclusion from it - well you can, but it would potentially be erroneous.


This shows me that you have missed the point. I am of course talking of a generalisation that normalises all other factors. Look at my other example to see what I mean. Are you _really_ saying that when black people speak of this as their experience of racism, that they're making it up, or seeing things, or being over-sensitive?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What everyone on this thread is missing, quite specatacularly, is that in a society where most of the racism is unconcious, non-ideological and picked up as a cultural artefact rather than as a widely accepted social truth (as racism was in 1960s America, for example) is that both this kind of test, and the 'Everyone is racist but don't know it' statement are equall unhelpful and unproductive at getting people to both understand, comprehend _and_ deal with their racism because many/most people hearing it would respond with 'Don't call me a racist.'.


Utter crap. If it is unconscious and non-ideological, it is even more important that it should be pointed out – otherwise how will people know they are guilty of it? And yes, many people do become defensive, search for alternative explanations, etc, just as you're doing here. But maybe, just maybe, despite their protestations, it will make them think and change their attitudes. People don't like admitting they are wrong. Doesn't mean they won't think about what you say and take it on board. What else do you do? Stay silent and just put up with it?


----------



## Santino (Oct 30, 2009)

Over on another thread, people can't even agree on what the word 'meal' means. What hope do you lot in this thread have?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Isn't that kind of the point though? To get people to challenge the complacency when it comes to their own racism?



As was demonstrated both in the show and on this thread, it's a completely ineffective approach. It gets people defensive and closed off instantly. Better to give people a scenario, let them react to it and then analyse the response, which is what most contemporary 'sensitivity' (for want of a better word) excercises do. An example: during my induction at my current employers, we were given real life examples of actions by medical staff and asked to assess whether we thought that racism - either overt or unconcious - was part of the decision making process. At no point did anyone ever turn round and make an accusation of racism - but several people in the induction group had their views challenged and were better made aware of how their own minds worked. Which _is_ the point.



littlebabyjesus said:


> This shows me that you have missed the point. I am of course talking of a generalisation that normalises all other factors. Look at my other example to see what I mean. Are you _really_ saying that when black people speak of this as their experience of racism, that they're making it up, or seeing things, or being over-sensitive?



This shows that you have forgotten that you can't abstract stuff like this out of the world and into a theoretical landscape just to make a point. Not to mention making a whole straw man about what I'm saying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> This shows that you have forgotten that you can't abstract stuff like this out of the world and into a theoretical landscape just to make a point. Not to mention making a whole straw man about what I'm saying.


So look at my other example, then, if you're not happy with my first one. 

What are you saying? I'm genuinely confused by your reaction. Why on earth would you pull up my example in such a way if you aren't trying to deny the reality of it?


----------



## girasol (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Well your experience and my experience clearly differ. I have the unedifying privilege of regularly listening to Pakistanis slagging off Indians, Afro-carrbeans slagging off Africans generally, and Africans of different nations slagging off each other (and FWIW almost universally slagging off Nigerians as thieves)



Where do we draw the line between racism and xenophobia though?  That puzzles me...  Fine line, and I think a lot of things which are seen are racism could be interpreted as something else, like negative stereotypes based on nationality or any other differences...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Utter crap. If it is unconscious and non-ideological, it is even more important that it should be pointed out – otherwise how will people know they are guilty of it? And yes, many people do become defensive, search for alternative explanations, etc, just as you're doing here. But maybe, just maybe, despite their protestations, it will make them think and change their attitudes. People don't like admitting they are wrong. Doesn't mean they won't think about what you say and take it on board. What else do you do? Stay silent and just put up with it?



So you just didn't read the first paragraph of my last post then?

Didacticly telling someone they're a bad thing does not make them confront it. Getting them to analyse their reactions and understand themselves does. All that's happened on this thread, and all that happens in the excercise on the show, is get people's backs up. 

It comes down to sales psychology - you can get someone to buy something by telling them they should, but they won't feel good about it and might reject the product next time. Get someone to think they made the decision themselves and they're far happier about it.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Didacticly telling someone they're a bad thing does not make them confront it. Getting them to analyse their reactions and understand themselves does. All that's happened on this thread, and all that happens in the excercise on the show, is get people's backs up.
> 
> It comes down to sales psychology - you can get someone to buy something by telling them they should, but they won't feel good about it and might reject the product next time. Get someone to think they made the decision themselves and they're far happier about it.


Racism aside, I don't actually agree with that.  There is no chance that they will agree with you then and there.  But if they are put through an emotional wringer, they may well analyse and synthesise the experience after the event and gain a different perspective accordingly.

I often am convinced I'm right at the time of arguing but afterwards reassess the situation.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

OK, well as a member of our trust's Equality and Diversity committee, and having sat through, and guided, several gender, race and sexuality workshops (you should try working somewhere with a high number of muslim and christian employees and deal with their attitudes toward homosexuality) I will say now that directly telling people they're racist _doesn't work_.

And while you might not agree with the psychology I've used as an example, my experience of both sales and E&D training is that it does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> OK, well as a member of our trust's Equality and Diversity committee, and having sat through, and guided, several gender, race and sexuality workshops (you should try working somewhere with a high number of muslim and christian employees and deal with their attitudes toward homosexuality) I will say now that directly telling people they're racist _doesn't work_.


But that's not what I was talking about. Whether they are themselves racist or not, people deny that there is a problem with racism, and don't actually understand how racism can manifest itself. I don't see any way of dealing with that false perception other than by first pointing out how it is wrong. It's about trying to make people understand how racism affects others, not shouting 'racist' at them.

Your reaction – to instantly look for an alternative explanation – is typical, and I've done it myself in the past. Doesn't mean you're racist, but probably does mean that you don't properly understand the problem.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

> I don't see any way of dealing with that false perception other than by first pointing out how it is wrong



By getting them to work it out for themselves, which is kind of the point. 

You don't change unconcious process by making an appeal to the conscious mind; you have to address the process directly by making people see where the problem lies - seriously mate, I've seen it happen with people - some only take one or two examples, others more, before they see it _in themselves_, and once they've got that far making the claim 'There is an ongoing problem with racism' isn't taken personally, it's taken as it's meant to be taken.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's not what I was talking about. Whether they are themselves racist or not, people deny that there is a problem with racism, and don't actually understand how racism can manifest itself. I don't see any way of dealing with that false perception other than by first pointing out how it is wrong. It's about trying to make people understand how racism affects others, not shouting 'racist' at them.
> 
> _Your reaction – to instantly look for an alternative explanation – is typical, and I've done it myself in the past. Doesn't mean you're racist, but probably does mean that you don't properly understand the problem_.



No, the reason I did that was to highlight how useless abstracted examples like that are in actually dealing with this - as with any good sales pitch, you close down as many paths to irrelevant objections (such as my comment would be IRL) as you can and as far as possible steer people into realisation.

But hey, I'll leave practical experience to one side on this issue since everyone else here knows more...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No, the reason I did that was to highlight how useless abstracted examples like that are in actually dealing with this - as with any good sales pitch, you close down as many paths to irrelevant objections (such as my comment would be IRL) as you can and as far as possible steer people into realisation.


Ok, I accept that, although it wasn't clear that this was what you were doing.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> By getting them to work it out for themselves, which is kind of the point.
> 
> You don't change unconcious process by making an appeal to the conscious mind; you have to address the process directly by making people see where the problem lies - seriously mate, I've seen it happen with people - some only take one or two examples, others more, before they see it _in themselves_, and once they've got that far making the claim 'There is an ongoing problem with racism' isn't taken personally, it's taken as it's meant to be taken.


And that was the exact point of the experiment -- to have people experience what institutional racism feels like, so that they will be able to recognise it in real life.

It was emphatically not about slinging insults at people.  What would the point of that be?  Those people weren't there to be labelled as racists by someone they'd never met before.  They were there to be shown how something they have never experienced feels in the flesh.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

kabbes said:


> And that was the exact point of the experiment -- to have people experience what institutional racism feels like, so that they will be able to recognise it in real life.
> 
> It was emphatically not about slinging insults at people.  What would the point of that be?  Those people weren't there to be labelled as racists by someone they'd never met before.  They were there to be shown how something they have never experienced feels in the flesh.



Yes, and as was shown it doesn't work in the context it was used in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are a man walking along the street late at night. You see a white woman on her own walking towards you cross to the other side of the road.
> 
> She may have just been crossing anyway.
> 
> ...



I'm quoting this again, because I think this is exactly the point that well-meaning people often try to deny, to excuse or to underplay. I've seen it on these boards many times, and it often results in black posters being told they're being oversensitive. How do you confront this except by pointing it out? And I agree with kabbes that the point of the programme, however clumsily realised, was to make people understand this point. And it is not what they say at the time, but what they think about it weeks later, that matters. At the very least, the programme gave black people the chance to talk about something that most of the time they will feel they should keep quiet about.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

Now that example makes far more sense than the shopping one, altho it's abstraction still renders it open to endless irrelevant objections (the best one being 'What if it was a black woman crossing the road, and they did it more for black men, how can that be racist?' ).



> How do you confront this except by pointing it out? And I agree with kabbes that the point of the programme, however clumsily realised, was to make people understand this point.



By getting the person concerned to work through to your conclusion themselves, not by 'pointing it out'. As I've tried to explain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Now that example makes far more sense than the shopping one, altho it's abstraction still renders it open to endless irrelevant objections (the best one being 'What if it was a black woman crossing the road, and they did it more for black men, how can that be racist?' ).


Well the answer to that is that black people can internalise racist attitudes as well as white people. Again, something I've seen – at a club owned and run by black people but with mostly white people there, where my friend was treated much more rudely than he would have been if he had been white.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> By getting the person concerned to work through to your conclusion themselves.


How do you do that if they don't see the problem in the first place?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2009)

The conclusion is that they recognise the problem - but they've got there, made the journey, completed the process _on their own_. Not by being told, or crudely demonstrated 'how it feels'.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 30, 2009)

I think it was a little simplistic, but so is the idea that there's a 'correct' way to do things that works equally well for all.

Some may have responded to this approach, others not
<shrugs>


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 30, 2009)

There's a youtube video of the experiment here.  Not a voiceover documentary like the one yesterday, but the proper full on test.

It's actually much more interesting than last night programme, and makes more sense.

Perhaps channel 4 should have just shown this in its entirety

http://www.youtube.com/user/ClemenFelix#p/c/AFC6EFFD45B23344/1/j9ahEoxNjHA


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The conclusion is that they recognise the problem - but they've got there, made the journey, completed the process _on their own_. Not by being told, or crudely demonstrated 'how it feels'.



Communicating how it feels to be on the end of this or that "ism" can be an effective way of helping people to understand the oppression of others  provided that they have the internal strength to tolerate the inevitable feelings of shame and guilt that accompany awareness. 

There also needs to be some structure in place, like the training session / experiment shown on TV, so that the events and feelings generated can be seen in context. 

I think it's extremely rare that people "get it" at the time, but afterwards, given time to reflect, many people do deepen their awareness.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 30, 2009)

god i wish i hadn't chosen such an intense thread to post an intelligent yet irreverant aside on  .


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Yes, and as was shown it doesn't work in the context it was used in.


I don't agree -- this woman has been performing this exercise for 40 years and it has had great success.  Just because this particular group had, really, one individual that screwed it up, doesn't mean that the exercise doesn't work at all.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 30, 2009)

I can't stand fervant anti-racists - give me black people any day.


----------



## camouflage (Oct 30, 2009)

Artaxerxes said:


> Eh, that seems fairly obvious tbh...
> 
> Interesting show, I found the two observing psychologists to be extremely obnoxious and the experiment itself slightly flawed in that it should really have had a mix of blacks and whites in both groups



Black people with blue eyes are extremely rare. 

I felt the programme was flawed because both groups should have been white only. Would have been abit racist mind, but scientifically correct. As it stood the exercise fell apart because the blue eyed group were of course white and the brown eyed group were mixed race. It meant the whole point of the thing never really got off the ground, it was too obvious. Not to mention that in the original experiment the in group/out group changed places between the blueys and the brownies half way through. This 'experiment' was really just claiming all white people are jerks. Alot of them did talk bollocks to be fair.

More heat than light all round.


----------



## camouflage (Oct 30, 2009)

Santino said:


> I thought the premise of the experiment was to demonstrate to the brown-eyed people how easily they could be manipulated into disliking another group of people, but at the end the moral seemed to be 'Yeah, now those blue eyed cunts know what it's like.'




This.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 31, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Well your experience and my experience clearly differ. I have the unedifying privilege of regularly listening to Pakistanis slagging off Indians, Afro-carrbeans slagging off Africans generally, and Africans of different nations slagging off each other (and FWIW almost universally slagging off Nigerians as thieves)



Oh ferchrissakes. That's not racism.

Two brilliant things that Jane Elliot said on racism (paraphrasing from memory):

1) It's about power relations
2) It's about the unthinking assumption of white supremacy

Bad mouthing other cultures is not racism. Not even close. Not even "subtle racism". Plenty of cultures around the world are shit and yes many African and Asian cultures are especially backward. Ethnic minorities just aren't crippled by political correctness like we are - they don't have to worry about appearing racist simply because they are not racist.

I should also say that there are several posters talking about "unconscious racism". I generally agree with what these posters are saying, but I don't think the problem is that racism is unconscious. Again I agree with Jane Elliot, it's about ignorance. It's about not even knowing what racism is.

I've just finished watching the show on 4oD and I was enthralled. Jane Elliot was brilliant. It shows just how backward British attitudes are - what a bunch of know nothings. I was reminded of the sorts of things "liberal" white South Africans would say about apartheid - "We were never racist ourselves, we never favoured apartheid" - as if expressing that opinion by itself was an expression of solidarity. As if racism was merely a question of saying the wrong things.


----------



## Wonky (Oct 31, 2009)

Is there a United Nations definition of what "racism" is?  If there is, then we can make a more fair and accurate determination on when it occurs and to whom...if there isn't, then things will just be endless arguments..


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Nevertheless, they are a very powerful institution that is fundamental to society.  Having such an institution systematically prejudiced against you is really rather important, wouldn't you say?
> 
> And that's just one institution.  You think that others don't have other ways of embedding some form of racism within them?  No matter how reasonable the people on the ground are, hey, their hands are tied by the rules, no?
> 
> And that was the point of the experiment.  To let the blue-eyed group experience that kind of systematic prejudice.  Shame it broke down before it got there.



ok, i'm going to say something controversial, but i've thought about it and i genuinely believe it

 racism does exist in our society. moreover, as has already been pointed out, i do believe that we're all racist to some extent

 however, there are degrees

south african society in the 60's was overtly racist, and to a lesser extent the us at the same time.

 this was a level of racism that saw black men lynched for consorting with white women, denied employment and withheld basic human rights. they could not vote, stand for public office or own property. the police were not likely to treat you as an equal, or uphold your complaint against a white citizen. the whole game was rigged against you, as the lady was trying to demonstrate in her irrelevant (to modern britain, outside of the police force) final experiment.

  we do not live in apartheid south africa, or modern israel. racism does exist in the uk, but it is at a significantly lower level than in the situation where the experiment was designed. racism reflects certain prejudices held within society (and especially by the police), but i would argue that other prejudices now outweigh racism in modern britain

 ok, i'm sure some heckles are rising, so let's cut to the chase. some will see it as a repetition of the schoolteacher's facile point about her rugby-playing husband's need to wear a tie to be accepted, but imho it's fundamentally different:

 i'm a pot smoker. have been for twenty years now and there's a strong medical reason for it- i'm bi-polar and i use it to control my mood cycles. i don't sell it and have no convictions for that, nor have i ever been charged with supply. i don't hurt anyone and i don't involve anyone else; in the past i've grown my own supply. the laws against me are based on bad science and simply reflect the prejudice of the majority. 

 the point is, if i get pulled by the police i will be treated worse than someone from an ethnic minority. my details are on the pnc & i will be stopped and searched with as much frequency as any yoot and that will inevitably lead me to jail. any encounter with the police will lead down that route, even if i'm helping someone else.
 regulars will be aware that i'm planning to leave the country, to emigrate, just to get off of this track. for i know i will always be harrassed and treated with suspicion and contempt, no matter what i do for the community or in my private life. i'm not valued as a uk citizen. this is hard for me, as i love england, but england doesn't love me

 so my contention is that the amount of harrassment i receive is at a similar level or higher than that endured by someone of colour in the uk. my point of view is neither recognised or respected and i am criminalised by the prejudices of others to the extent that i have to leave the country. my home will be broken into. i will be abducted from the street

 so clearly racism does exist, but is it worse than the many other prejudices faced, like sexism or homophobia, in modern britain?

 i would contend not. imho it's worse to be a lifelong pot smoker. and before you say i have a choice about smoking pot, have you tried the medication you would be prescribed if you had the same diagnosis as me?


----------



## girasol (Oct 31, 2009)

Of course racism in modern Britain is not as bad as it used to be, just like sexism isn't.

but it's still there, women still get paid less for the same jobs, and it needs to stop.

same for racism.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 31, 2009)

gavman said:


> so clearly racism does exist, but is it worse than the many other prejudices faced, like sexism or homophobia, in modern britain?



so what?


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

Louloubelle said:


> The collective denial that racism is endemic in our country is perhaps the most harmful thing to people on the receiving end.  It can literally drive people mad.



this is an interesting issue

 people from ethnic minorities are many times (i believe six times) more likely to be admitted to a psychiatric unit or sectioned than 'indigenous' peeps

 however this is true for any individual displaced from their home country, and it turns out that it's worst (statistically) if you're a swede living in norway; cultural alienation isn't necessarily dependent on skin colour


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> so what?



that requires different treatment

the exercise was developed in/for an overtly racist society. we do not live in an overtly racist society, but one where racism is at equivalence to other human prejudices. it is clearly more dangerous to be gay in modern britain than it is to be from an ethnic minority

clearly all prejudice is unacceptable. but to say that those from ethnic minorities face a level of prejudice beyond others in modern britain is just wrong


----------



## girasol (Oct 31, 2009)

gavman said:


> this is an interesting issue
> 
> people from ethnic minorities are many times (i believe six times) more likely to be admitted to a psychiatric unit or sectioned than 'indigenous' peeps
> 
> however this is true for any individual displaced from their home country, and it turns out that it's worst (statistically) if you're a swede living in norway; cultural alienation isn't necessarily dependent on skin colour



This is an interesting point, as someone coming from another culture to this one (but I'm of Italian/Ukranian descent), I did feel very alienated at different points in my life here.  Still do sometimes.

And I was told to go back to my own country by 3 black teenagers, when I first got here.

but it still doesn't mean racism shouldn't be stamped out as much as possible.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 31, 2009)

gavman said:


> that requires different treatment



Eh? What?

Fine, you smoke dope, I'm sure for a good reason, and you get a lot of hassle off the police for it. It's a bad situation and I know others who have the same problem and I'm all for fixing it and I have no sympathy for stupid laws against dope possession and use.

What's the relevance? I can point to dozens of fucked-up situations in society which aren't racism.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 31, 2009)

Racism exists, but can anyone honestly say this woman in the programme actually did anything to help the situation in this particular experiment?

All the blue eyed people just went home pissed off and probably thinking "fuck the anti-racist brigade"

In fact, the premise of the show was  - Treat people like 2nd class citizens they will behave like it. Low self esteem and that sort of thing. Could say the same but for racism - treat people like racists, and they will become that, and in a couple instances they did.

The whole thing is hugely floored, if you ask me (which no one did of course).

Charlie Brooker wrote a good article about it in the Guardian, in which he stated this techniche was as likely to entrench prejudices as challenge them - i agree with the boy wholeheartedly.


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Eh? What?
> 
> Fine, you smoke dope, I'm sure for a good reason, and you get a lot of hassle off the police for it. It's a bad situation and I know others who have the same problem and I'm all for fixing it and I have no sympathy for stupid laws against dope possession and use.
> 
> What's the relevance? I can point to dozens of fucked-up situations in society which aren't racism.



so would you need to be put through 'walk a mile in the pot smoker's shoes' type scenario to form that opinion?

of course not

 you're an intelligent individual with the ability to navigate an issue without being informed by the prejudices of others

qed


----------



## girasol (Oct 31, 2009)

It still gets people talking about it though!  And I bet a few of the people involved will have thought about it a lot more once they left.

yes, the experiment may be getting a little bit dated, but it's still effective.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 31, 2009)

gavman said:


> so would you need to be put through 'walk a mile in the pot smoker's shoes' type scenario to form that opinion?
> 
> of course not
> 
> ...



If you're trying to argue that the social phenomenon of prejudice against dope users is the same, and equally as transparent, with the same cultural background as race prejudice... _because both of them exist_... that's just balls, sorry.


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

November said:


> This 'experiment' was really just claiming all white people are jerks. Alot of them did talk bollocks to be fair.
> 
> More heat than light all round.



^^^this


----------



## girasol (Oct 31, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you're trying to argue that the social phenomenon of prejudice against dope users is the same, and equally as transparent, with the same cultural background as race prejudice... that's just balls, sorry.



that would be like that crazy teacher going on about her rugby playing husband having to wear a suit, and equating that with people having to conform


----------



## gavman (Oct 31, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you're trying to argue that the social phenomenon of prejudice against dope users is the same, and equally as transparent, with the same cultural background as race prejudice... _because both of them exist_... that's just balls, sorry.



nope, not arguing that at all

but it amounts to the same thing in practical terms- harassment based on bad science and prejudice that have robbed me of my freedom


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 1, 2009)

gavman said:


> nope, not arguing that at all
> 
> but it amounts to the same thing in practical terms- harassment based on bad science and prejudice that have robbed me of my freedom



so you are really arguing that then, if "it amounts to the same thing in practical terms"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

gavman said:


> but it amounts to the same thing in practical terms- harassment based on bad science and prejudice that have robbed me of my freedom


No it doesn't, because you don't walk the streets as a dope smoker. I don't defend the moronic drug laws for one second – if you've been imprisoned for possession, that's a terrible wrong that's been done to you. But it's a bad analogy – it doesn't amount to the same thing in practical terms. The fact you've been done for possession in the past doesn't mean that you're more likely to be stopped and searched just for having the temerity to walk the streets. It's really not the same thing. 

Something that I would argue is closer to the same thing is the treatment of 'crusty'-looking people by the police and others. They can suffer from the same kinds of prejudices that black people can suffer from.


----------



## gavman (Nov 1, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you're trying to argue that the social phenomenon of prejudice against dope users is the same, and equally as transparent, with the same cultural background as race prejudice... _because both of them exist_... that's just balls, sorry.



i'm arguing it's a prejudice, exercised by the same people (police and middle england) and leading to the same result ie my being locked up, home vandalised denied employment, refused immigration, scared to be on the streets after dark

 i might not be instantly recognisable as a dope smoker but that recognition is just a persons check away, and a persons check is the first thing the beast do


----------



## Knotted (Nov 1, 2009)

D'wards said:


> Racism exists, but can anyone honestly say this woman in the programme actually did anything to help the situation in this particular experiment?
> 
> All the blue eyed people just went home pissed off and probably thinking "fuck the anti-racist brigade"
> 
> ...



I think we're all (including me) ignoring the fact that what we saw was a highly selected edit. We saw very little of the actual exercise (why does everybody keep calling it an "experiment"?) and we saw very little of the responses of the people in either group except for a handful of characters who decided to rebel/sabatage the exercise. What we saw was entertaining television, not Jane Elliot's methods. Also Krishnan Guru-Murthy seemed hostile to the whole thing and his commentary was misleading throughout.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 1, 2009)

I missed this, but saw some exerpts from the American original one and found it pretty mind-blowing, tbh


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 1, 2009)

November said:


> Black people with blue eyes are extremely rare.
> 
> I felt the programme was flawed because both groups should have been white only. Would have been abit racist mind, but scientifically correct. As it stood the exercise fell apart because the blue eyed group were of course white and the brown eyed group were mixed race. It meant the whole point of the thing never really got off the ground, it was too obvious. Not to mention that in the original experiment the in group/out group changed places between the blueys and the brownies half way through. This 'experiment' was really just claiming all white people are jerks. Alot of them did talk bollocks to be fair.
> 
> More heat than light all round.



Yeah, in the US original set in a school, the kids are all white.  That makes it better, I reckon.  She did another set amongst IIRC prison staff and some of the brownies were nonwhite, which as you say, spoils it a bit


----------



## ymu (Nov 1, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> I think a lot of people missed the point of the exercise...


Innit.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 1, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I think we're all (including me) ignoring the fact that what we saw was a highly selected edit. We saw very little of the actual exercise (why does everybody keep calling it an "experiment"?) and we saw very little of the responses of the people in either group except for a handful of characters who decided to rebel/sabatage the exercise. What we saw was entertaining television, not Jane Elliot's methods. Also Krishnan Guru-Murthy seemed hostile to the whole thing and his commentary was misleading throughout.



Indeed. It's a shame that Brooker, who's normally so sharp in his dissection of t.v bullshit, didn't smell a rat here. It's definitely worth watching the documentary posted by Loulou Bell which has a much more in depth look at the exercise and doesn't feature any pointless 1 minute analyses from pop psychologists. It also shows another side of Jane Elliot - who evidently channel four wanted to portray as a zealous bitch. 

Whilst the exercise was more sophisticated than the C4 documentary showed it, I still have some concerns about its methodology and conceptualization. I may elaborate later.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 1, 2009)

On LBC right now they are having a sdiscussion on racism, as there was 40,000 incidents of racism in playgrounds this year.

These included a girl who had her parents called in cos she called another child a Chocolate Bar, and another who called someone White trash.

All the callers so far are moaning that people go on too much about racism, and that some people use it as a defence when they are attacked for their actions or an excuse for underachieving. Now, LBC callers may not be the most liberal folk, but i listen quite a lot and they do represent a good cross section of society.

Lord knows i'm not siding with them at all, but it is interesting when you listen to get an idea what the "moral fucking majority" are thinking - U75 is really its own little bubble and is in no way representitive of the UK in the slightest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

D'wards said:


> LBC callers may not be the most liberal folk, but i listen quite a lot and they do represent a good cross section of society.


They are, like all callers to talk shows, self-selecting as the kind of people who call in to talk shows to vent their spleens. I would say that such a group can never be a good cross section of society.


D'wards said:


> U75 is in no way representitive of the UK in the slightest.


Thank fuck. I wouldn't post here otherwise.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 1, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are, like all callers to talk shows, self-selecting as the kind of people who call in to talk shows to vent their spleens. I would say that such a group can never be a good cross section of society.



But they do have people of all ages/races/religions/sexual orientation/social class ringing in regularly - its not just cockney taxi drivers (though they do call in a lot).

Of course maybe they don't have callers of all the political spectrum ringing, but the odd lefty does get through


----------



## jannerboyuk (Nov 1, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not seething necessarily, though, is it? It's largely unthinking and may not be intended to be nasty at all. For instance, a passing comment saying 'don't be Jewish' when you think someone's being tight – was quite common to hear years ago, although I haven't heard it said for a while, but doesn't imply hatred of Jews, just casual, ignorant anti-Semitism, of a kind which, if confronted, may be extinguished.


i was just thinking how common the old being jewish as being tight used to be when i was a young 'un. it just seems to have died off really, not the result of a campaign or owt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

Wonky said:


> Is there a United Nations definition of what "racism" is?  If there is, then we can make a more fair and accurate determination on when it occurs and to whom...if there isn't, then things will just be endless arguments..


Words don't have 'official' meanings in that way, and when they do attain such official status, such as genocide, that serves to close down debate as much as open it up. The fact that different people mean different things by the term makes discussion all the more important. As ever, getting to the bottom of people's semantic differences is a prerequisite to resolving arguments.

I don't see this thread as an 'endless argument', for instance. I think someone reading it would be given quite a bit of information and food for thought. It is a thread that makes progress.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2009)

the only progress threads make is in the number of posts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

I disagree. There are at least four distinct definitions of racism on this thread, and those contributing have been made aware of how others are using the word differently, and why they don't use the same definition. This thread most definitely makes progress.

Different perspectives expressed here include:

Racism as the nasty explicit expression of prejudice, and the argument at this level that most people aren't racist.

Racism as the expression of prejudice through treating people differently according to their race, whether consciously or not, and the argument that at this level most people are racist. 

Racism as the inevitable prejudice against difference, and the argument that at this level we are all racist.

Racism as an expression of an implicit assumption of white superiority, and the argument that as such, it is something that, in our society at least, is a property primarily of white people. 

Racism as a term that includes not only prejudice based on the racial group physical appearance indicates, but also prejudice based on the cultural group you are perceived to belong to, in which case, logically, it ought to include prejudice such as that against crusties. There's an element of truth to this, I think, in that a black man in a hoodie will be treated differently from a black man in a suit, but I think you can confuse the issue by including all cultural prejudice in the term 'racism'.

This thread has shown that people can mean one or more of the above when they use the word, and that it is vital to distinguish how others are using the word to engage with others in a meaningful way without the discussion degenerating into misunderstandings based purely on semantic differences.

In that sense, the thread is a little like the programme – it is a groping towards a shared understanding of what racism is. Once you have that, you are a very long way towards solving the problem.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Something that I would argue is closer to the same thing is the treatment of 'crusty'-looking people by the police and others. They can suffer from the same kinds of prejudices that black people can suffer from.



I remember when I was 20 and I'd just come back to London after spending the summer grape-picking in the south of France. I had hair down to my arse and I was walking up Oxford Street. Two police officers stopped me, a male and female, and asked me to empty my pockets. I had a few receipts and a bit of chewing gum. They methodically unwrapped it all and then got on the walkie talkie to base. The man said that someone with my name was dealing heroin in London. I just looked at him in some bewilderment and told him what I'd been doing for the last six weeks. That was the first time I'd ever encountered this stupid power game, being stopped for what you looked like and them trying to scare me, for no apparent reason. It was a one off, but it gave me a small insight into how these cunts operate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I remember when I was 20 and I'd just come back to London after spending the summer grape-picking in the south of France. I had hair down to my arse and I was walking up Oxford Street. Two police officers stopped me, a male and female, and asked me to empty my pockets. I had a few receipts and a bit of chewing gum. They methodically unwrapped it all and then got on the walkie talkie to base. The man said that someone with my name was dealing heroin in London. I just looked at him in some bewilderment and told him what I'd been doing for the last six weeks. That was the first time I'd ever encountered this stupid power game, being stopped for what you looked like and them trying to scare me, for no apparent reason. It was a one off, but it gave me a small insight into how these cunts operate.


Yes, I suffered this kind of thing a few times back when I looked a bit crusty. The attitudes are similar, but infuriating as it was, I can only imagine that being treated in that way for aspects of your appearance that you were born with must cause yet another level of apoplexy.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, I suffered this kind of thing a few times back when I looked a bit crusty. The attitudes are similar, but infuriating as it was, I can only imagine that being treated in that way for aspects of your appearance that you were born with must cause yet another level of apoplexy.



The big problem with the police is that the ones on the street are generally not the brightest people in the world. We knew them at school, a bit dull, a bit thick, desperately craving a bit of influence and then lo and behold, put them in a uniform and suddenly they've got that power that they never had before, but unfortunately they don't have the brains that should go with it. And they will abuse it. And their prejudices will shine through. Thick with attitude sums it up really.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 1, 2009)

D'wards said:


> On LBC right now they are having a sdiscussion on racism, as there was 40,000 incidents of racism in playgrounds this year.
> 
> These included a girl who had her parents called in cos she called another child a Chocolate Bar, and another who called someone White trash.
> 
> ...



a summary:

The majority of people who phoned an LBC discussion about racism think that "racism isn't that big a deal" 

which is kind of the point that so many people here are tying to make


----------



## Knotted (Nov 1, 2009)

Wonky said:


> Is there a United Nations definition of what "racism" is?  If there is, then we can make a more fair and accurate determination on when it occurs and to whom...if there isn't, then things will just be endless arguments..



I don't think that's true at all. What we mean by words like "racism" isn't a value-free objective definition - some sort of check list or diagnostic tool. Really what we understand by "racism" is a function of what we think is important.

What really impresses me about Jane Elliot is that she focuses on the injustice, the discrimination, the history of discrimination and crucially white denial of responsibility. Whereas typically anti-racism focuses on negative stereotypes, prejudice and racist beliefs. In my opinion the latter is only a problem if it fuels the former.

Have a read through these typical statements:
http://www.janeelliott.com/statements.htm
And then read through this clarification of what's wrong with them:
http://www.janeelliott.com/clarification.htm

In particular look at the clarifications of statements 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

Knotted said:


> What really impresses me about Jane Elliot is that she focuses on the injustice, the discrimination, the history of discrimination and crucially white denial of responsibility. Whereas typically anti-racism focuses on negative stereotypes, prejudice and racist beliefs. In my opinion the latter is only a problem if it fuels the former.


I agree, although I'd put a slightly different slant on some of it. 21, for instance, 'I've gotten to know you so well that I just don't see you as Black anymore' is something I've heard said to me about my then partner. What she says about this – 'The speaker must deny minority group member's blackness in order to be able to relate to him/her' – isn't necessarily right, I don't think. It can also be a stage along the way to a person becoming genuinely less racist – a ripping away of one layer of prejudice.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 1, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I disagree. There are at least four distinct definitions of racism on this thread, and those contributing have been made aware of how others are using the word differently, and why they don't use the same definition. This thread most definitely makes progress.
> 
> Different perspectives expressed here include:
> 
> ...



It's very commonly argued on Urban that if prejudice is merely based upon _things_ or _behaviours_ that one finds disagreeable, e.g. burkhas, etc, then that is just as much racism as the things you mention.  So, if you're concluding that it's not racist to be anti hoodie or anti dread, then you must also think that criticising Islam is not racist too.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> So, if you're concluding that it's not racist to be anti hoodie or anti dread, then you must also think that criticising Islam is not racist too.



Criticising religion isn't racist.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 1, 2009)

D'wards said:


> These included a girl who had her parents called in cos she called another child a Chocolate Bar, and another who called someone White trash.



I once called a girl a shithead and she told me I was being racist, she then called me milk bottle boy... 

We were about 12 at the time and the insanity of it stunned me into silence


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 1, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Criticising religion isn't racist.



That isn't what i usually read on here...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> So, if you're concluding that it's not racist to be anti hoodie or anti dread, then you must also think that criticising Islam is not racist too.



Correct, that is what I think.

The idea that criticising religious belief is racist doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 1, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> That isn't what i usually read on here...



It definatly isn't racist, but it is something-ist, i'm sure.

But how can you not criticise am organisation that treats its woman like that.

If your English next door neighbour treated his missus like so you'd fucking hate him.


----------



## futha (Nov 2, 2009)

Just watched it. Very interesting indeed. That blonde school teacher seemed very deluded. The most interesting thing was how it completely went off the rails, I thought it would follow the same process as the American one. I think that might show a lot about how England is these days. One thing was niggling at me during the film, it seems like it has become bad to even mention differences between races, positive or negative. It seems like instead of acknowledging the differences people are scared to talk about them in case they are called racists. I guess it's hard to talk about the differences without stereotyping.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2009)

futha said:


> One thing was niggling at me during the film, it seems like it has become bad to even mention differences between races, positive or negative. It seems like instead of acknowledging the differences people are scared to talk about them in case they are called racists. I guess it's hard to talk about the differences without stereotyping.


What differences?  What are "the races"?

There are differences between cultures, of course.  But what do you mean by "race" and why do you think there are _any_ inherent differences between people of different "race"?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 3, 2009)

futha said:


> Just watched it. Very interesting indeed. That blonde school teacher seemed very deluded. The most interesting thing was how it completely went off the rails, I thought it would follow the same process as the American one. I think that might show a lot about how England is these days. One thing was niggling at me during the film, it seems like it has become bad to even mention differences between races, positive or negative. It seems like instead of acknowledging the differences people are scared to talk about them in case they are called racists. I guess it's hard to talk about the differences without stereotyping.



What you're describing here is the failure of multiculturalism - it's impossible to separate out the twin issues of 'culture' and 'race', so a comment on the former becomes, immediately, a comment on the latter - if it's negative it's racist, if it's positive it becomes a universal 'positive' for the whole ethnicity.


----------



## gavman (Nov 3, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thick with attitude sums it up really.



i like the phrase 'the tyranny of the mediocre'


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What differences?  What are "the races"?
> 
> There are differences between cultures, of course.  But what do you mean by "race" and why do you think there are _any_ inherent differences between people of different "race"?



Hmm.  I'm pretty sure there are innate differences between caucasian and east asian people, tbh.  The lifestyles Chinese people live are seriously unhealthy:

Food stacked with salt, fat, msg - wrong
Spending most of their lives sitting at home - wrong
A fair amount of booze with those meals - wrong
Not much in the way of recreational activity - wrong

And yet they're all skinny as fuck.

I gained so much weight in China living a 'Chinese lifestyle'.

Conversely my wife has come to the UK and she can't believe how little people basically eat here and how people are always going to the gym and stuff and yet never lose weight.


----------



## gavman (Nov 3, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> It's very commonly argued on Urban that if prejudice is merely based upon _things_ or _behaviours_ that one finds disagreeable, e.g. burkhas, etc, then that is just as much racism as the things you mention.  So, if you're concluding that it's not racist to be anti hoodie or anti dread, then you must also think that criticising Islam is not racist too.



so if i think the crusades were wrong i'm a racist?

imo the burkha is a tool of sexual repression and i would ban it.
does that make me racist?


----------



## futha (Nov 3, 2009)

gavman said:


> so if i think the crusades were wrong i'm a racist?
> 
> imo the burkha is a tool of sexual repression and i would ban it.
> does that make me racist?



The burka is religious dress though isn't it? Not racial.


----------



## Vider (Nov 3, 2009)

first one she done in the 60s i think was a incredible.


----------



## futha (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What differences?  What are "the races"?
> 
> There are differences between cultures, of course.  But what do you mean by "race" and why do you think there are _any_ inherent differences between people of different "race"?



Well certain 'races' are taller or shorter for example. Not the best example I know. I am happy to be proved wrong but there are differences that I can see. Your right though I might have been confusing culture with race a bit in my post


----------



## Vider (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What differences?  What are "the races"?
> 
> There are differences between cultures, of course.  But what do you mean by "race" and why do you think there are _any_ inherent differences between people of different "race"?



all though i don't think there are significant differences between races, your average african's skull is very different to your average chinese person's skull, for example.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2009)

Vider said:


> all though i don't think there are significant differences between races, your average african's skull is very different to your average chinese person's skull, for example.


Really?  I've never heard this before.  And are these differences definitively genetic rather than being caused by environment?

And you do realise that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than between Africa and the whole rest of the world put together, don't you?  So when you say "African", what do you actually mean?

Somehow, though, when people say "There are differences between the 'races' and we shouldn't ignore them" I don't think they are talking about height or skull shape.


----------



## futha (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Really?  I've never heard this before.  And are these differences definitively genetic rather than being caused by environment?
> 
> And you do realise that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than between Africa and the whole rest of the world put together, don't you?  So when you say "African", what do you actually mean?
> 
> Somehow, though, when people say "There are differences between the 'races' and we shouldn't ignore them" I don't think they are talking about height or skull shape.



It is obviously very difficult to prove that something less tangible than height or whatever is genetic rather than cultural. It's quite a tricky subject. If I was to say 'black people are generally better at xxx' or 'black people are generally worse at xxx' I would be on shaky ground and stereotyping. I am sure there is evidence out there to prove either way. It makes sense that humans brought up in a certain area of the world would grow accustomed to high or low temperatures for example but it would take a very long time to change how those people evolved making that resistance genetic. The old Nature Vs Nuture thing I guess. I am tired and am not massively knowledgeable on this though so I am sure I am probably talking a load of old rubbish


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2009)

You are indeed talking a load of old rubbish.  There are no subspecies of human.  Humanity has just not been around long enough, particularly outside of Africa.  We are far too finely graduated in any case to be able to draw distinct boundaries.  

The distinct differences you are talking about are actually extremely minor surface differences that only seem important to us because we are a visual species that places a lot of emphasis on things like colour.


----------



## futha (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You are indeed talking a load of old rubbish.  There are no subspecies of human.  Humanity has just not been around long enough, particularly outside of Africa.  We are far too finely graduated in any case to be able to draw distinct boundaries.
> 
> The distinct differences you are talking about are actually extremely minor surface differences that only seem important to us because we are a visual species that places a lot of emphasis on things like colour.



I didn't mean a different subspecies though  There are differences between black people, Chinese people, white people etc. From my experience people are sometimes a bit over worried when talking about race. I thought celebrating diversity was seen as a good thing.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2009)

What do you mean by "black people"?  Do you think that "having dark skin" defines a distinct group of people?  How big do you think that group is?  How dark is "dark"?

Whether you mean it or not, your implication IS that there are subspecies.  What differences are you talking about, precisely?


----------



## futha (Nov 3, 2009)

kabbes said:


> What do you mean by "black people"?  Do you think that "having dark skin" defines a distinct group of people?  How big do you think that group is?  How dark is "dark"?
> 
> Whether you mean it or not, your implication IS that there are subspecies.  What differences are you talking about, precisely?



I think your asking me to define race which is a good question and since watching this programme I have been thinking about it a fair bit. Too tired to think about it now though. Your raise some interesting issues, will see if I can answer your questions tomorrow  

What are your opinions on the matter?


----------



## D'wards (Nov 4, 2009)

But there are obvious (physical) differences between people whose ancestry evolved in different parts of the world. I cannot see how this can be denied


----------



## Vider (Nov 4, 2009)

D'wards said:


> But there are obvious (physical) differences between people whose ancestry evolved in different parts of the world. I cannot see how this can be denied




because to do so you'd be a big, bad racist. you don't have to believe there are _significant_ differences between groups of people to see that, yes, when I go to certain parts of the world, the people do look different to _other_ parts of the world.  Fuck me, how would travel writers get around that one? Sorry, can't comment on the physical attributes of this tribe because that, according to kabbes, is a making out they are _sub species_.  Jesus christ.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 4, 2009)

There's  difference between noting isolated outcrops of humanity with obvious characteristics shaped by the environment (eg smaller tribesmen in dense rainforest, better adapted through generations of survival or non survival) and lumping all people of similar colour together and making crass generalisations about appearance. Africa, for example, is a huge bloody continent with significant tribal intermingling.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

D'wards said:


> But there are obvious (physical) differences between people whose ancestry evolved in different parts of the world. I cannot see how this can be denied



No it can't. But it doesn't constitute a different type of human being. The DNA of an Inuit and someone from Europe and someone from Africa are no different outside of the stuff that makes Inuit's short with high levels of body fat and a Maasai tribesman tall and lean, both of which are adatations driven by external environment.

As Kabbes says, there are no sub-species of human.

There is absolutely no biological basis for the concept of 'race' as you're describing it. 'Race' exists only as a cultural artefact, based on a combination of power politics, lack of understanding of biology etc. 

Can you see the difference between race having a biological underpinning and it having a cultural underpinning? Is it sinking in that external appearence driven by external environment _has no bearing on speciation_ whatsover?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 4, 2009)

If there's no such thing as race, why do white people in asia attract such attention?


----------



## tarannau (Nov 4, 2009)

Logical fail. You may as well say if there's a thing called a cheese string why can't I drink my squash through it?

People stare at white people in China because they look different. You could achieve the same effect by wearing a giant pink hat.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

*bangs head against wall*

NO. SUCH. THING. AS. RACE. BIOLOGICALLY.

SUCH. A. THING. AS. RACE. CULTURALLY.

There, is that fucking clear enough to everyone now? Can we work out the difference between biology (what we're made of) and culture (what we make up)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Really?  I've never heard this before.  And are these differences definitively genetic rather than being caused by environment?
> 
> And you do realise that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than between Africa and the whole rest of the world put together, don't you?  So when you say "African", what do you actually mean?
> 
> Somehow, though, when people say "There are differences between the 'races' and we shouldn't ignore them" I don't think they are talking about height or skull shape.



Nah, there are definite differences. Yes, there is much greater genetic diversity in Africa, but, for instance, the Asian body type is very distinct from most of what you find in Africa. Bones are less dense, torso is proportionately longer, and skin is a different colour. 

The problem comes when those who share certain, arbitrary attributes are lumped together (an African and an Aboriginal Australian may both have very dark skin, but the Aboriginal Australian is more closely related to pale-skinned Europeans and Asians). This is where race becomes a confused concept – the lines most people draw between races are not borne out at the level of genetics. There is no 'white' race or 'black' race or 'Asian' race. Plus, of course, those who are lumped together in this fairly arbitrary way have other, culturally determined, qualities attributed to them.

It's not a question of denying difference. It is a question of understanding what that difference is.


----------



## futha (Nov 4, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, there are definite differences. Yes, there is much greater genetic diversity in Africa, but, for instance, the Asian body type is very distinct from most of what you find in Africa. Bones are less dense, torso is proportionately longer, and skin is a different colour.
> 
> The problem comes when those who share certain, arbitrary attributes are lumped together (an African and an Aboriginal Australian may both have very dark skin, but the Aboriginal Australian is more closely related to pale-skinned Europeans and Asians). This is where race becomes a confused concept – the lines most people draw between races are not borne out at the level of genetics. There is no 'white' race or 'black' race or 'Asian' race. Plus, of course, those who are lumped together in this fairly arbitrary way have other, culturally determined, qualities attributed to them.
> 
> It's not a question of denying difference. It is a question of understanding what that difference is.




Good post


----------



## zenie (Nov 4, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It was, as shown by the clips of the exercise performed in other countries.
> 
> It went wrong for a number of reasons, not least of which was the deliberate sabotage of the exercise by a white woman who apparently thought she knew better than the person that had spent years constructing the experiment and conducting it with considerable success.


 
That woman was so awful I had half a mind to make a formal complaint after what she said! 'I have a few black and half caste children in my class, I don't even know if their skin's pink underneath when they cut themselves?!' What is an ignorant woman like this_ doing_ being a primary school teacher. 




Sadken said:


> I'm not even saying don't talk about it - there clearly is a problem that still exists - just don't get hysterical and talk bullshit about it and claiming "the majority of people in the UK are racist" is made up bullshit that rests on self loathing flavoured jelly.


 
Why not? Have you met the majority of the UK? You meet loads of white racists, all we got taught about black history at school was slavery along with ancipation and people like Martin Luther King, even that wasn't very involved and THAT WAS IT!

Some of the people in this experiment were fuckin idiots, which part of 'you're taking part in a social experiemnt' did they not understand? It's an experiment, go with it, see where it takes you, that's what you signed up for innit? 

I also think it reinforced the ideas that some white people really don't feel there's any kind of racial problems, and that people that say there is have a chip on their shoulder. They're in denial quite frankly, that's not about black/white either there is so much racism here in this country that's well under the radar. 

The woman running it had a lot of passion, it was a shame people couldn't see what she was trying to do, (even if she was a bit out of date thesedays) she wasn't saying the blue eyed people were racist to be personal she was just making a point, but they couldn't/woulnd't see it, the numpties.  

Oh I see we've moved on a bit since then....


----------



## Aravis (Nov 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Hmm.  I'm pretty sure there are innate differences between caucasian and east asian people, tbh.  The lifestyles Chinese people live are seriously unhealthy:
> 
> Food stacked with salt, fat, msg - wrong
> Spending most of their lives sitting at home - wrong
> ...



China is on track for a massive obesity epidemic due to recent lifestyle changes/urbanisation.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

> innate differences



Japanese people lack the gene that creates the enzyme that processes alcohol, which is why they get pissed quicker; also many don't have the glands that produce BO. Caucasians, generally speaking, are lactose tolerant to a degree that would poison SE Asians. Non-white people from Africa have higher levels of melanin in their skin, and even this varies between super and sub-saharan africa. Inuits have the highest level of body fat of any group of humans in the world.

None of these things are 'innate'. They are all environmentally driven variations on DNA. The DNA of someone from China and the UK has more in common than different; same goes for everywhere else.


----------



## futha (Nov 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Japanese people lack the gene that creates the enzyme that processes alcohol, which is why they get pissed quicker; also many don't have the glands that produce BO. Caucasians, generally speaking, are lactose tolerant to a degree that would poison SE Asians. Non-white people from Africa have higher levels of melanin in their skin, and even this varies between super and sub-saharan africa. Inuits have the highest level of body fat of any group of humans in the world.
> 
> None of these things are 'innate'. They are all environmentally driven variations on DNA. The DNA of someone from China and the UK has more in common than different; same goes for everywhere else.



That is a good list of differences there. I wouldn't say those were cultural differences either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

Read the last line and think about it. 

These are not innate differences, they are differences that came about as a result of environmental factors (for example, the lactose tolerance thing comes from there being lots of cows milk in the Western European diet over a _very_ long period of time). They do not constitute a different species of human, and therefore not a different 'race', biologically speaking.

Can you see the difference?


----------



## futha (Nov 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Read the last line and think about it.
> 
> These are not innate differences, they are differences that came about as a result of environmental factors (for example, the lactose tolerance thing comes from there being lots of cows milk in the Western European diet over a _very_ long period of time). They do not constitute a different species of human, and therefore not a different 'race', biologically speaking.
> 
> Can you see the difference?



I can see your point about race not existing biologically. Seems fair enough to me from what your saying. Like I said I am sadly not an expert on these things depsite being very interested in them.

Doesn't everything come about by environmental factors in the end though? Isn't that the cause of evolution?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

This should help.


----------



## futha (Nov 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
> 
> This should help.



Ta, will have a read.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 25, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, you often can't tell for sure that someone's being racist. If you're treated badly in a shop, it _might_ be just because the person in the shop is rude to everyone or having a bad day. But if you experience this kind of rudeness, say, ten times a year if you're black but only twice a year if you're white, you can say that of the ten who were rude to the black person, there was on average a racist component in eight of them. But which eight? You can't know. A person can experience a society as racist without being able to point to any single individual and say 'this person is racist'.


 
Youy're fucking barking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 25, 2010)

It's quite interesting reading a post you made ages ago. You can read it fresh as if you were reading it for the first time and assess it in a more disinterested way.

In this case, I think I expressed the thought in a good and logical way. I'm quite pleased with the way that one came out.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 26, 2010)

Blog?


----------



## tendril (Mar 9, 2012)

Just watched this after watching 'Angry Eye', the experiment she did in the US with students. The think I find most distasteful about our society today is that some people who have experienced discrimination can then go on to discriminate against others themselves. I'm thinking Stephen K Amos and the discrimination he experience as a homosexual man from members of his own culture/race/background/callitwhatyouwill. Not more than a week ago I witnessed young black boys verbally abusing an effete white man in the park, not because he was white but because they _believed_ him to be a 'batty man' (their term). I have had to sit on a packed bus going down the Walworth road with a group of Caribbean children racially abusing a group of African children with the term 'jungle bunny' and those same African kids coming back with at the Caribbean kids with shouts of 'slave baby'. It seems to me that we as a species have an innate discriminative nature to us.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 9, 2012)

black-people-in-human-nature-outrage.

defo worth a lazarus.


----------



## tendril (Mar 9, 2012)

camouflage said:


> black-people-in-human-nature-outrage.
> 
> defo worth a lazarus.


Well, I've only just seen the program. I did start another thread in philosophy and was directed to this one.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 9, 2012)

ern?


----------



## Louloubelle (Mar 10, 2012)

According to the most recent DNA testing African people are the only true Homo sapiens.  The rest of us have ancestors who, at some time or another, interbred with now extinct Neanderthals or Denisovans.  All non-African humans have some Neanderthal DNA. The indigenous people of PNG have Denisovan DNA as do Australian aboriginal people and some East Asian populations.  

It is a very exciting time for anyone interested in the evolution of modern humans as new DNA is being extracted from bone fragments all the time and genetic analysis is providing detailed information about our human ancestors that sheds light on some genetically inherited auto-immune diseases.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9094411/The-Hobbit-who-helped-us-find-our-origins.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/aug/25/neanderthal-denisovan-genes-human-immunity
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241801.php

Just wanted to share

as you were


----------



## tendril (Mar 10, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> According to the most recent DNA testing African people are the only true Homo sapiens. The rest of us have ancestors who, at some time or another, interbred with now extinct Neanderthals or Denisovans. All non-African humans have some Neanderthal DNA. The indigenous people of PNG have Denisovan DNA as do Australian aboriginal people and some East Asian populations.
> 
> It is a very exciting time for anyone interested in the evolution of modern humans as new DNA is being extracted from bone fragments all the time and genetic analysis is providing detailed information about our human ancestors that sheds light on some genetically inherited auto-immune diseases.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was wondering about that. I knew that Homo Sapiens had spread out from Africa (or the land mass that was to become Africa, not sure of the timescale of plate tectonics v human evolution) and that they most likely had interbred with Neanderthal. Didn't know about Denisovan. Still, we all share enough common DNA with all other humans to be tissue and blood compatible. What I do wonder though is why the Homo Sapian/Neanderthal mix of DNA is not physically stronger than pure Homo Sapien, given that we know Neanderthal people to be of a more robust build and are generally accepted to have been stronger than modern humans (wiki article)


----------



## Louloubelle (Mar 10, 2012)

tendril said:


> Yeah, I was wondering about that. I knew that Homo Sapiens had spread out from Africa (or the land mass that was to become Africa, not sure of the timescale of plate tectonics v human evolution) and that they most likely had interbred with Neanderthal. Didn't know about Denisovan. Still, we all share enough common DNA with all other humans to be tissue and blood compatible. What I do wonder though is why the Homo Sapian/Neanderthal mix of DNA is not physically stronger than pure Homo Sapien, given that we know Neanderthal people to be of a more robust build and are generally accepted to have been stronger than modern humans (wiki article)


 
According to the news reports I have read there was probably an initial genetic advantage to the Homo Sapiens breeding with Neanderthals as the Neanderthals had greater immunity to pathogens they had been exposed to over millennia that the Homo Sapiens had not, and thus this advantage was passed on.  The disadvantage is that, while the 2 subspecies were sufficiently genetically similar to be able to reproduce and produce healthy offspring, the Neanderthal genes may have been sufficiently alien to trigger an immune response, thus the body starts to attack itself as happens in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.  

Just my understanding of it, I am not a geneticist so my understanding may be flawed


----------



## Superdupastupor (Mar 11, 2012)

tendril said:


> . What I do wonder though is why the Homo Sapian/Neanderthal mix of DNA is not physically stronger than pure Homo Sapien, given that we know Neanderthal people to be of a more robust build and are generally accepted to have been stronger than modern humans (wiki article)



I think it's not many generations of side by side interbreeding. I think the understanding is that the neaderthal influence wouldve been sporadic quickly becoming 'onedrop' ancestry to use slightly iffy language.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 13, 2012)

Well, possibly not interbreeding at all, according to this..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19250778


----------

