.... this is America , discrimination and education
Posted: Thu 18 Jun 2020 1:51 pm
Came across this recently (thanks to the person who's fb repost led me too it, you know who you are). It is old and also entirely current imo.
The most active English Speaking Expat forum for North Cyprus
https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/
https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=51690
Well those that experienced her experiment as young children all seemed to speak well of it 15 years later ? The improvement in education attainment seemed real as well, not just short term but long term as well. I also do not think she is seeking to prove division. I think the division post Luther King being shot and today for that matter is pretty self evident. Seems more like she was seeking to find an effective way of teaching why division based on something as arbitrary as eye colour or skin colour is so problematic and how that feels if you are on the loosing end of it and exactly how reinforcement or such arbitrary stereotypes works. Not just to children but to adults as well. I certainly learnt stuff just from watching the documentary.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Thu 18 Jun 2020 8:33 pm
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... -elliott-4
The woman’s a zealot who seems to create division to prove division.
The way the ‘experiment’ was set up was contrived rather than natural but I guess when you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Why not just be colour blind rather than focus on colour and over compensate.Keithcaley wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 6:48 am
I thought that it increased the children's awareness of what discrimination feels like, and of how unfair and arbitrary it is.
Wan't that the main aim?
Isn't that a good thing?
Why argue about anything else?
(unless you just want to argue )
I see nothing wrong in teaching children what it feels like to be unfairly treated just because of some physical distinction. In teaching them how easy it is to construct false reasons and narratives as to why people with such characteristics are deserving of such treatment and bring it on themselves. You are right that no child is born with a inherent in built to discriminate based on arbitrary groupings based on physical characteristics. They are taught and learn such things. Spending a couple of days in an attempt to inoculate them from the worst impacts of such learning over their lifetime is a valid and useful thing to do imo. I see her lesson as being about teaching children about empathy, not in theory but in actual practice, as much or more than it being about teaching them about racism. I think it is something we should teach more and in this specific way - thorough experience and not lecture. I see no reason why such a lesson should not be experienced by every child. We are talking 2 or maybe three days out of a lifetime of education. I think the benefits gained warrant that. The direct and immediate impact on educational performance was startling and even if that was the only benefit it would imo justify such an exercise being part of a standard curriculum for all children. I am also not convinced by arguments from people who had themselves not experienced the lesson as a child saying that such an exercise is unnecessarily and disproportionately cruel and damaging to children, when matched against the views of those who have experienced it. Nor do I think this kind of exercise, unlike so many others that are taught in schools, teaches that discrimination exits or what the degree of it is. It teaches what such discrimination feels like when you are on the receiving end of it and how easily justification for such discrimination is reinforced. Thus I think it avoids entirely the risk seen in so many other approaches based on 'theory' alone of creating division. Whether and to what degree discrimination exists is not the same as what does discrimination feel like. These are separate things imo and it is my view that understanding what discrimination feels like can only help an individual better judge to what degree it exits or not.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 8:23 amWhy not just be colour blind rather than focus on colour and over compensate.Keithcaley wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 6:48 am
I thought that it increased the children's awareness of what discrimination feels like, and of how unfair and arbitrary it is.
Wan't that the main aim?
Isn't that a good thing?
Why argue about anything else?
(unless you just want to argue )
Did you read the link? I think it gives a flavour of the woman a bit better.
Young kids will naturally play together no matter what their colour. In all likelihood if it is the first time they have seen a person who is a different colour they will naturally be curious about it and ask eachother questions. At this point the likes of Jane Elliott will "ooops" down the conversation calling it a micro aggression or some such nonsense.
The majority of people are fair and decent if maybe a little insular. There are very few racists around these days but it is in some people’s interests to keep promoting it if it is as bad as ever.
I think change happens when enough people decide they want change and make that clear. That is how I see the protest and expressions of support for them that are going on globally. I see your question as no different from asking has the movement for gender equality helped divide us or bring us together ? Has the union movement ? I think large numbers of ordinary people across large parts of the globe are expressing a desire for change on a range of interconnected issues. Expressing that they are not content or satisfied with the degree of change achieved in these areas to date. I think 'we' ignore them and their voices at some considerable degree of peril.
For me the very language you use here is symptomatic of a failure to properly understand or appreciate what the actual issue is and not because you are a bad person. In turn this leads to you then setting up a 'rather' based on that same failure of understanding.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 8:23 amWhy not just be colour blind rather than focus on colour and over compensate.
A very simple question, totally avoided. What’s new?
Personally I don’t count up the number of different races in a picture because personally I think that is divisive.erol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:00 amFor me the very language you use here is........EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 8:23 amWhy not just be colour blind rather than focus on colour and over compensate.
If you are touching on slavery and the still felt effects of slavery lets look at some facts there that don't get much airing:erol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:00 am
We should indeed not focus on colour because that is not the problem. We should imo look at how we have historically used grouping of people based on colour as an arbitrary but convenient means of justifying historic power relationships between groups of people and how that legacy still continues today leading to outcomes that most ordinary normal and essentially good people are not content to accept or ignore any more.
What you see as totally avoiding your question I see as you just not being satisfied that I am not giving you the answer you specifically designed the question to try and solicit from me. I just think the question itself is stupid and loaded and essentially meaningless in the context of what I am talking about.
The exercise is nothing to do with trying to show or understand if there is unconscious bias or not. It is simply and clearly designed to teach children how discrimination based solely on an arbitrary physical characteristic FEELS. I see no issue in teaching children this in this way. I see much benefit in doing so.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:56 amThat would be worthwhile and help us understand whether there is unconscious bias etc.
This is just imo a massive straw man argument. We all use such arguments to some degree but I personally think you use them to an exceptional degree of both frquency and intensity. I do not think there is anyone who is saying discrimination based on race is as bad today as it ever was. To suggest they are is sheer and utter nonsense imo. I think vast numbers of people are questioning why we are continuing to see certain negative outcomes continue to happen over and over again even in 2020 despite all the progress that has been secured.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:56 amTo have a narrative where we are told racism is as bad now as it ever was is both ridiculous and insulting to those who risked and sacrificed so much to get us to where we are today.
And what happens if you consistently tell them it IS their fault and not because of anything they themselves might do or do not do but simply because of some unchangeable physical attribute ?EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:56 amIf you consistently tell people they can’t do something but it isn’t their fault then don’t be surprised if they don’t achieve much with their lives.
I think you just fundamentally misunderstand what the phrase white privilege actually means. Try thinking about 'female privilege' or in your case probably more effective 'non Jewish privilege' and you might get a better perspective imo. It means the advantages you do notice and can only really notice and feel when you are not in the privileged group.
I just do not trust your figures at all. Certainly no where near as much as I trust these https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... lds/latest by comparison. They seem entirely made up to me ?EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:56 amIf you want to examine what is holding black people back maybe look at the lack of a family unit. Something like 80% of black families have one parent. This has increased from 20% in one generation and is significantly higher than white families.
For over 350 years lasting until even my parents lifetimes 'white anglo saxon' nations by necessity constructed a false narrative that some groups of people based on skin colour were inherently better than others. Smarter, more hard working, more godly, more creative, more entrepreneurial, more moral, more civilised and cleaner. This narrative was needed to be able to justify using some people as slaves and the colonisation of their lands and countries. The wealth and power that accrued from this subjugation of other peoples , that required the construction and maintenance of this mass belief that some people were better than others based on nothing more than skin colour, was vast. The idea that we have today entirely removed this notion built up and reinforced over 350 years in a mere 60 years is to me not rational or backed up by evidence. I think a vast mass of genuine and good ordinary people are starting to accept and recognise this historical reality and question the role this legacy is still playing in the persistent problems we are still seeing in places like the US and UK. In unprecedented numbers and to unprecedented degrees. To me that is self evident. That you are not one of these people is neither here no there really.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 11:24 amIf you are touching on slavery and the still felt effects of slavery lets look at some facts there that don't get much airing:
So no Barbary Pirates then?erol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 1:16 pmFor over 350 years lasting until even my parents lifetimes 'white anglo saxon' nations.........EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 11:24 amIf you are touching on slavery and the still felt effects of slavery lets look at some facts there that don't get much airing:
OK shall we ask some 4 year old children that if you took two cats and beat and starved one and pampered and fed the other one would the outcome be the same? 99% of them would get the answer correct proving there is zero educational merit in this contrived experiment,
I fundamentally can smell BS a mile away its one of the few gifts I have.
Well Walter Williams seems to think soerol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 12:51 pmI just do not trust your figures at all. Certainly no where near as much as I trust these https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... lds/latest by comparison. They seem entirely made up to me ?EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 10:56 amIf you want to examine what is holding black people back maybe look at the lack of a family unit. Something like 80% of black families have one parent. This has increased from 20% in one generation and is significantly higher than white families.
The systemic social problems that ordinary people in places like the north coast of Algeria and Tunisia experience today in 2020 nor the relative wealth of those places today are not connected to their histories as nations to historic slavery and colonialism in the same way they are in place like the US and UK and Australia. As far as the systemic social problems they have there are connected to their history of slavery and colonialism then they too will need to honestly recognise this history if they hope to address those problems, just as we are recognising we need to do.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 1:37 pmSo no Barbary Pirates then?erol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 1:16 pmFor over 350 years lasting until even my parents lifetimes 'white anglo saxon' nations.........EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 11:24 amIf you are touching on slavery and the still felt effects of slavery lets look at some facts there that don't get much airing:
Slavery/racism is a white anglo saxon invention?
We did not spend, until a mere 60 years ago, 350 + years constructing maintaining and institutionalising a consistent narrative that short people were less intelligent, less godly, more lazy, more immoral and more dirty than tall people in order to justify the enslavement and colonisation of short people and their lands.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 1:59 pmI fundamentally can smell BS a mile away its one of the few gifts I have.
Life is full of 'privileges' and advantages. Height, sex, sexuality, health, looks, race etc etc etc. They effect all but the luckiest. Generally most tick one or two boxes and not others. Some overcome them, some use them as an excuse why they didn't have more success in their life. Some use them to patronise people to convince them they need a savior and they can be it.
But equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome.
You can buy the same golfing equipment as Tiger Woods, be on the same course, with the same coach and caddy, but you wont shoot the same score as Tiger Woods.
Or they could draw a line under it and look to the future. I no doubt had relatives that were bullied at school but it had zero impact on my lack of success at school.
You first present a claim, without citing any source, that "Something like 80% of black families have one parent.". I go on to google and look for UK government statistic on this and discover in seconds that they show something entirely different. What am I supposed to think ? What would you think if I claimed that 80% of women in ultra Orthodox households suffer from physical domestic violence and you go and check government statistics and they show something entirely different ?
All I see here is someone espousing a classic conservative view point that just happens to be applied to the black community in the US but that is equally applicable to any community. The problem of the increase in single parent families, of illegitimate children, of the welfare state, of minimum wage legislation. None of these are narratives that are actually specific to Black communities and any number of conservative voice have and do make exactly the same arguments generally.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 2:24 pm://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/0 ... ck-tragedy
The idea that because there is legislation to try and prevent discrimination, this means the problem has been solved should be sending your BS detector crazy. We have had 50 years of legislation in UK to try and stop women being paid less than men for doing the same work and the problem still persists. What would indicate the problem has been solved is not the existence of legislation but the absence of it because it is no longer necessary.
I oppose unfair discrimination anywhere. To imply that I do not is just entirely untrue. As I pointed out the first time you made this unfounded attack on my character the truth is I have done more than most and more than you to try and help those subject to unfair discrimination here in the TRNC. I have done and do this as well as talking about discrimination generally and racism specifically in the UK and elsewhere, because these things are not zero sum where you can either do one or the other. You can do both and I do. None of your false accusations or false dichotomies of zero sum situations changes this reality.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 1:50 pmMaybe come up with some of your famous polls and ask why Africans and Pakistanis who had contributed into the system had to rely on charity?
Frankly I find this line of 'argument' puerile and childish in the extreme. What you chose to believe , what ever your status is or how you chose to identity, bears absolutely no relation to what reality is.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 4:13 pmOk as we all originate from Africa I’m taking up my right to identify as a black man with as much scientific weight as the majority of our trans activists. As a black man I don’t believe that, bar a minority of bigots, Racism is a problem now.
Easily sorted, a woman just needs to point out where she is equally qualified with equal experience doing the same job but is paid less than a man and any court in the land will award her a very large sum of money. But it is also easy to show that a woman CEO of a chain of 6 laundrettes is earning less than the CEO of British Gas and say the male CEO is earning x whereas the woman CEO is earning y when the comparison is apples and oranges.
So you would say there is more discrimination of minorities in America which is thousands of miles away than a little closer to home?
If you would stop trying to pretend that the affects of 350 years of intentful and necessary discriminatory narrative building and embedding that narrative in to the institutional structure of the UK does not and can not possibly still be connected a mere 60- years later to the kind of persistent lack of change in outcomes that has led to vast numbers of ordinary people across the UK protesting and supporting such protest, then I would not need to would I ?EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 4:01 pmExcellent, we agree that it was in the past. Please stop highlighting divisive dogma from 50 years ago then.
The idea that legislation prohibiting discrimination solves discrimination is about as sensible and true as the idea that legislation prohibiting knife crime solves knife crime. It is the argument of a child imo.
The experiment was 50 years ago and is very well known so it’s hardly news.erol wrote: ↑Fri 19 Jun 2020 4:58 pm
the subject of this thread the unanimous opinion of those who actually experienced the experiment as young children, 15 years on, is entirely positive. Yet you chose in this case to ignore that reality entirely and instead refer to focus on an 'ivory tower academic guardian journalist' as 'authority' on what is wrong with it.
I will not call for the thread to be closed because I do not do that but as the thread starter and given that there seems to be little interest in discussing the actual topic of this thread, I think I am done.
All I know is when I used to hire people I just used to hire the best people for the job. I hired lots of black people and much as I’d like to say I did to help cleanse the stain of slavery and hundreds of years of racism, I never gave it much thought I just hired them on ability. Maybe I was inhibiting a micro aggression or whatever is this weeks BS soundbite
Well to be honest you probably don’t believe sending a murderer to prison for life doesn’t do much to stop murders but I can assure you it will put more murderers off then giving them 5 years and a lot of rehabilitation.