" - How Racist Are You?"

[puca]

Anybody else watch this?

It's shocking, but really thought provoking. How people attempt to resist seeing how racism is still prevalent in the UK. Apparently, other countries had a greater divide between the groups.

"What people are failing to recognise, is the issue of power."

How did you feel about it?

[Mr Flibble]

I was honestly not that impressed by it

[Windfall]

I wasn't either tbh, I thought it would be very educational and eye-opening, and all i wanted to do in the end of it was to strangle that woman who ruined the whole thing by just being a whingy and not listening, they should have taken her out.

[hullabaloo]

The programme really annoyed me if I am honest. I hated the implications and assumptions that were made. That woman basically implied that only black people are victims of racism (and essentially implied all whites are racist) and that all white people had no concept of the scale of racism in this country today and were ignorant towards it because it doesn't affect them. It also annoyed me that anyone who spoke up against her methods apparantly did so (in this woman's opinion) because they did not fully understanding how prevalent racism is in the UK, when really they just felt that they did not need to bully/be bullied in order to understand. I personally would not have been able to be in the "brown eyed group" and treat the blue-eyed people like they were below me because of their eye colour. I also would not have accepted being bullied had I been in the blue-eyed group, I too would have made a stand agasint it. Now to me, that does not mean that I am ignorant to racism. It means that I stand up against discrimination no matter what kind it may be. I know that it was only an experiment but, as far as I am concerned, bullying and discrimination are not acceptable under any cirumstance.

[Buddha Belly]

Is it worth watching on On Demand?

[gutts]

I don't really think the experiment translated well onto an adult group in 21st century Britain. Firstly, I think her style became more confrontational and generally belligerent as a way of quelling the inevitable rebellion of adult minds, which became a hurdle to people understanding what she was trying to achieve. Secondly, the individuals selected were too diverse for this particular experiment from the perspective that their arguments didn't always seem coherent or well understood by others in the group, preventing some of the foundational ideas being well fleshed out. There were flashes of interesting debate, for example the guy who was ashamed to pick his kid up from school. But overwhelmingly the basic ideas failed to resonate within the group because the experiment just didn't work very well, imo.

gutts

[Mr Flibble]

Is it worth watching on On Demand?

depends if you like femdom or not i guess

[Buddha Belly]

Hee hee, glass of wine and dimmed lights. See you all laters

[Prawnil]

all i wanted to do in the end of it was to strangle that woman who ruined the whole thing by just being a whingy and not listening, they should have taken her out.

I thought so too. The set up itself wasn't that well structured and the footage edited together seemed a bit mismatched, but the experiment aside, it was really a case of watch this middle class white teacher miss the point for an hour and basically prove the premise in her own case. Her pointless, humiliating anecdote about the 'beautiful little 'half caste' () girl' turned my stomach.

[gutts]

I thought so too. The set up itself wasn't that well structured and the footage edited together seemed a bit mismatched, but the experiment aside, it was really a case of watch this middle class white teacher miss the point for an hour and basically prove the premise in her own case. Her pointless, humiliating anecdote about the 'beautiful little 'half caste' () girl' turned my stomach.

Yeah, the thing she said about being surprised that her skin was pink underneath. I blinked and the only thing that crossed my mind was, "Holy fsck, she's a teacher." Poor kids.

gutts

[puca]

I thought it was an interesting experiment. It also disturbed me how some people were not willing to go through the experiment, or even listen to the woman speak about her experiences of racism.

Whatever the experiment proved (or didn't), I think that it opened up some interesting dialogue and discussion about racism and how people can be so blind to it.

[pat sommer]

...saw the original experiment which is decades old.

Not having watched the above, I still flinch at the perhaps overuse of the word racism.

For every shade of preconception, discrimination (positive or negative) or stereotype, there is only one term hurled about: racism.
Very few actually believe that one race is inherently superior to another, right? Those nutters we all recognize.

The rest of us try our best to be fair and unbiased regarding age size class colour wealth and so on. Individually and as a society, it is a work in progress. To imply that we are infected with the disease of racism, well, them's fightin' words.

[BlackCats]

...saw the original experiment which is decades old.

Yes, I have seen that experiment before. I think that woman seems to be talking about the US specifically and that experiment probably wouldn't translate to a British audience. I think every person has some prejudice but I wouldn't say that every white person is racist. I find that quite offensive actually.

[xrodolfox]

For every shade of preconception, discrimination (positive or negative) or stereotype, there is only one term hurled about: racism.
Very few actually believe that one race is inherently superior to another, right? Those nutters we all recognize.

The rest of us try our best to be fair and unbiased regarding age size class colour wealth and so on. Individually and as a society, it is a work in progress. To imply that we are infected with the disease of racism, well, them's fightin' words.

I think that this all depends on how we use the term "racism".

I didn't see the program, and I'm not from the UK, so my understanding of racism is perhaps quite different, even though the sentiments expressed in this thread seem familiar here in the USA. I hope I'm not gauging the context incorrectly.

In my experience, everyone is a bit racist. That includes me. That doesn't make me intractable in my racism, and it doesn't make me a bad person. It just means, as has been, said, that I'm a work in progress.

But personal racism, especially the small bits, really pale in comparison to the still present institutional racism, and legacy racism that persists. For example, in the 1950's, housing regulations were such that non-whites had to pay higher mortgages, for smaller houses, with lesser values, in worse neighborhoods with worse schools, than white folk. This was done by many institutions, but "red-lining" by banks was a huge cause (local neighborhood covenants being another). Sixty years later, most of those houses are paid off... but the results still persist, and that structural racism still persists.

As a result, two families that earned the same wages, in the same jobs (which still isn't a given), but where one was black and the other white, had quite different economic outcomes. The black family took home much less, due to higher mortgage prices. Thus, they accumulated much less wealth. When it was time to sell the house, the white family got a lot more. When the kids were going to school, the white kids had better schools with better support that gave them direct access to better colleges. The black kids could go to college, but had to fight a lot more, and were on average, less prepared to succeed than the white kids. This is due to de facto segregation in banking and housing. When it came to send the kids to college, the white family had built a much bigger nest egg.

Two generations down, it seems like a lot of the difference in the two families is all about hard work and choice. There is that illusion. However, for that black family to keep up with the white family, it would've have had to do quite a lot more, and had a lot more luck, and had to fight a lot more institutions. No doors were closed, per se, but surely the floor was sloped.

And it still is. At least here in Detroit, and in Michigan, and I'd wager, the rest of the USA. Racism is still real, and it most often isn't in the shape of an individual, but in the shape of cities, jobs, and schools, and the inertia they have as institutions.

To stamp out racism, pretending that everyone is the same seems like a reasonable approach. However, from my perspective as a non-white person living in a society that is generally favored against me, I feel that fighting racism is the opposite: acknowledging the differences, and valuing them.

I'm ambivalent about the use of the word racism to refer to individuals. I think that overusing it out of context weakens the word and the idea. There is surely a difference between someone like me, who actively works against personal bias, and someone who believes that one race is inherently more valuable than another. I sympathize with pat sommer in that.

But at the same time, I think that eschewing the reality, that I still occasionally benefit from racism, and that I reject all institutions that have racist legacies (I still use banks, after all), and that I have no unfair biases, is just not true. I have to take responsibility for who I am. So in practice, I rather acknowledge the fact that I'm certainly not a racist like those folks in the KKK (they wouldn't let a brown guy like me in it anyway), but I'm certainly no saint, even though I'm working on it. For me to eschew the term "racist" is to claim victory before the war is won. I know that leaving that open, linguistically, has allowed other to challenge me on my -ism's", and in at least three cases, has elicited positive change in my life, and in my encounters. Not rejecting outright the charge of "racist" has allowed me to listen to those claims openly, and to be a better, more honest person.

At least that's how I see it, at this moment.

[pat sommer]

I agree with your perspective but I want to keep to a strict definition:

Dictionary.com

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

[xrodolfox]

sure sure.

I'm usually not keen on definitions by dictionaries being thrown around, because words change in usage much more quickly than dictionaries, and dictionaries often have the most "conservative" use of words rather than in ways used around academia or in activist circles. Words are living, after all. Especially powerful, culturally sensitive terms like "racism".

If I was writing up my own definition, I'd switch "cultural of individual achievement" to "value as a person". I'd take out the part about "usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.", because as I've seen lately, there is definitely a trend in the past few decades for people to be racist towards their own race/ethnicity. Perhaps I'd add something there about power and context.

It is something quite different for a poor, disempowered person of a non-dominant race/ethnicity to say hateful things to a person who lords power over them... compared to a powerful, dominant group person creating policy or making decisions based on hatred of another race/ethnicity.

[Hemlock]

It's a sensitive subject to this day. I come from a mixed race family, I'm white, my mum married an Indian man when I was three and I have two mixed race sisters.
We have never discussed rascism or race, none of us are comfortable 'going there'. I'm not sure I even thought about it when I was growing up - only in later years. Certainly it would never have been used as a weapon by any of us even in the most vicious family argument as there is a general feeling that it would be unforgivable.
A couple of years ago my sister asked me if I thought she had been discriminated against by a rude cashier in the supermarket because of her colour, I said no it was because she had gone out in burberry looking like a chav That was the end of her burberry experiment.
I think every race is a bit rascist and tends to gravitate towards their own kind in general.

[gutts]

I think that this all depends on how we use the term "racism".

I didn't see the program, and I'm not from the UK, so my understanding of racism is perhaps quite different, even though the sentiments expressed in this thread seem familiar here in the USA. I hope I'm not gauging the context incorrectly.

In my experience, everyone is a bit racist. That includes me. That doesn't make me intractable in my racism, and it doesn't make me a bad person. It just means, as has been, said, that I'm a work in progress.

But personal racism, especially the small bits, really pale in comparison to the still present institutional racism, and legacy racism that persists. For example, in the 1950's, housing regulations were such that non-whites had to pay higher mortgages, for smaller houses, with lesser values, in worse neighborhoods with worse schools, than white folk. This was done by many institutions, but "red-lining" by banks was a huge cause (local neighborhood covenants being another). Sixty years later, most of those houses are paid off... but the results still persist, and that structural racism still persists.

As a result, two families that earned the same wages, in the same jobs (which still isn't a given), but where one was black and the other white, had quite different economic outcomes. The black family took home much less, due to higher mortgage prices. Thus, they accumulated much less wealth. When it was time to sell the house, the white family got a lot more. When the kids were going to school, the white kids had better schools with better support that gave them direct access to better colleges. The black kids could go to college, but had to fight a lot more, and were on average, less prepared to succeed than the white kids. This is due to de facto segregation in banking and housing. When it came to send the kids to college, the white family had built a much bigger nest egg.

Two generations down, it seems like a lot of the difference in the two families is all about hard work and choice. There is that illusion. However, for that black family to keep up with the white family, it would've have had to do quite a lot more, and had a lot more luck, and had to fight a lot more institutions. No doors were closed, per se, but surely the floor was sloped.

And it still is. At least here in Detroit, and in Michigan, and I'd wager, the rest of the USA. Racism is still real, and it most often isn't in the shape of an individual, but in the shape of cities, jobs, and schools, and the inertia they have as institutions.

To stamp out racism, pretending that everyone is the same seems like a reasonable approach. However, from my perspective as a non-white person living in a society that is generally favored against me, I feel that fighting racism is the opposite: acknowledging the differences, and valuing them.

I'm ambivalent about the use of the word racism to refer to individuals. I think that overusing it out of context weakens the word and the idea. There is surely a difference between someone like me, who actively works against personal bias, and someone who believes that one race is inherently more valuable than another. I sympathize with pat sommer in that.

But at the same time, I think that eschewing the reality, that I still occasionally benefit from racism, and that I reject all institutions that have racist legacies (I still use banks, after all), and that I have no unfair biases, is just not true. I have to take responsibility for who I am. So in practice, I rather acknowledge the fact that I'm certainly not a racist like those folks in the KKK (they wouldn't let a brown guy like me in it anyway), but I'm certainly no saint, even though I'm working on it. For me to eschew the term "racist" is to claim victory before the war is won. I know that leaving that open, linguistically, has allowed other to challenge me on my -ism's", and in at least three cases, has elicited positive change in my life, and in my encounters. Not rejecting outright the charge of "racist" has allowed me to listen to those claims openly, and to be a better, more honest person.

At least that's how I see it, at this moment.

Some very good points, especially about institutionalised racism and established privilege. As someone who's partner is from a different racial background, I've seen racism in a more intimate setting. For example, some members of her family have made derogatory comments about "white people" without considering that I might identify with said group. To them I'm part of their family, so my identity is largely deracialised and they don't consider me part of that larger "white" group. What struck me as interesting is that I wasn't offended and furthermore can't remember ever having been offended by racial slurs directed against me. To me, this speaks volumes about my identity as a white man in a rich country - when you have assumed power and privelege, you don't tend to feel threatened easily and can afford to ignore or laugh off insults. But what if the shoe was on the other foot, and those comments meant real social exclusion for me, limited opportunities, even physical insecurity for myself and my family. Not so easy to ignore then. Furthermore, does my own reaction (or lack thereof) constitute a certain arrogance on my part, founded in the assumed superiority of my own racial origin. Not so easy to ignore now.

Race is a construct, it's not real in the sense many percieve it to be because people are individuals and not absolutely part of clearly identifiable monolithic groupings. Each individual arbitrarily defines what constitutes the boundaries of each race. So in essence it is a refusal to consider others as individuals by means of a honed mechanism of compartmentalisation we install into our minds.

When considering 'race'; it's so loaded with negative history that it tends to descend into an exercise in social othering or attempting to positively or negatively shift the attitude towards one race or another. I unreservedly support people who are the victims of racism (or other forms of bigotry, for that matter) because it is always wrong. I do feel, however, that there is a need to educate young people across all groups (both victim and oppressor) so that they don't let their identities be shaped by historically negative artificial constructs.

If a post-racial society is the aim, then my opinion is that we should work at fundamentally deconstructing race, rather than propping it up as an idea that shapes identity of individuals and adds / removes the value of arbitrarily defined groups in society. This is more complicated than it sounds and I realise the above is a bit of a ramble, touching on lots of things that came to mind as I began typing, but I thought I'd throw it out all out there to add fuel to the debate.

gutts

[leedsveg]

Nothing I want to add except to say thank you for some thought provoking postings.

leedsveg

[xrodolfox]

I know my aim isn't a "post racial" society.

I already feel my history being erased into a void where the dominant history of the people in power becomes my history as we Latinos become more "white". Not into it.

I think that the memories of insitutional racism, and the history of colonialism might be convenient to forget, especially for those instutions in power, but my aim is to transform society to fit people, not rewrite histories or forget paiful pasts to accomodate a common history; which ultimately is written by those in power.

My ideal is a world where we can value the differences and different histories so we don't make the same mistakes that we've made in the past. My identity as a Latino is shaped by my immigration story, my otherness, and by historically negative contructs, as well as identity, community, and struggle. That's akin to telling a deaf person to forget that they can't hear because they manage to communicate so well. To put it in clear, by hyperbolic terms, it would be akin to me putting on "white-face" if I were to work in a white public school.

My Latino-ness might be a liability at times, but it is also a great gift. Same for any other racial and ethnic identity. By going "post racial" into a world where those historical differences disappear, we might loose the liabilities, but we also loose the gifts.

The problem isn't the idea of race, or more purely, the problem isn't the shared histories and identities. The problem is the allocation of power along racial lines. Getting rid of race shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to rid the world of injustice.

[gutts]

I know my aim isn't a "post racial" society.

I already feel my history being erased into a void where the dominant history of the people in power becomes my history as we Latinos become more "white". Not into it.

I think that the memories of insitutional racism, and the history of colonialism might be convenient to forget, especially for those instutions in power, but my aim is to transform society to fit people, not rewrite histories or forget paiful pasts to accomodate a common history; which ultimately is written by those in power.

My ideal is a world where we can value the differences and different histories so we don't make the same mistakes that we've made in the past. My identity as a Latino is shaped by my immigration story, my otherness, and by historically negative contructs, as well as identity, community, and struggle. That's akin to telling a deaf person to forget that they can't hear because they manage to communicate so well. To put it in clear, by hyperbolic terms, it would be akin to me putting on "white-face" if I were to work in a white public school.

My Latino-ness might be a liability at times, but it is also a great gift. Same for any other racial and ethnic identity. By going "post racial" into a world where those historical differences disappear, we might loose the liabilities, but we also loose the gifts.

The problem isn't the idea of race, or more purely, the problem isn't the shared histories and identities. The problem is the allocation of power along racial lines. Getting rid of race shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to rid the world of injustice.

I'm not sure if the term is loaded differently in the US political discourse, but it seems you're blurring race with ethnicity. To me, ethnicity defines many of the characteristics which you've mentioned as identifying with. Race, on the other hand, has biological underpinnings (from its inception scientifically) which makes it a poor tool for social identification of people, imo.

For example, if I were to adopt a Chinese baby as a white Englishman and raise it in Mexico, the baby would still be racially Chinese. However, is this biological / racial classification particularly of much consequence in the context of understanding how the child may think, communicate or behave? The fact is that the child would probably identify almost exclusively with Mexican culture, not his fathers culture, or his biological ancestors. This is also the case with mixed race children. The more "races" mix, the more difficult it will become to use race as a useful tool to categorise people.

Racialisation doesn't provide us with a good foundation for understanding one another, because it compartmentalises groups of individuals into blocks of colour. Ethnicity (at least from a cultural perspective) might seem more fluid and less easily definable, but still maintains a shared heritage for groups of people who identify with one another for a number of reasons - be they shared history, ancestry, etc. But crucially, doesn't anchor anyone to a group based on a random physical characteristic they have no control over.

To be clear, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to identify yourself ethnically as Latino (encompassing history, social characteristics, language, etc). We are all one race, the human race. We are made up of many cultures, languages, varying skin shades and facial features. Some of these attributes tie together loosely into ethnicities, but can't be be accurately bound by the strictured foundations of biological races.

gutts

[BlackCats]

We are all one race, the human race.

[xrodolfox]

The thing is, that race is conflated with ethnicity, as it is experienced.

They might not be the same, but there is a big difference between a white person who is Latino, and a black person who is latino in terms of experience.

Scientifically speaking, race is a social construct, same as ethnicity. Race is something that we've all made up. But that doesn't mean that we don't still experience it differently than ethnicity. In fact, race is often tied to ethnicity.

I don't seek to end the idea of race. I seek to value our treasures and differences. We might all be the same human race, but we certainly experience it through the shared experiences of our race and ethnicities.