Channel 4 (UK) The Event: How Racist Are You?

[MarkCorrigan]

Just watched a disappointingly short but intriguing documentary on Channel 4 where Jane Elliot, creator of a psychological experiment on racism wherebay people are seperated into those with brown eyes and those with blue, and an aparteid scenario is constructed with the blue eyed discriminated against conducted this test with a group of British adults.

I wondered if anyone else saw it and what people thought? I was amazed by the stunning racism of the (white, blue eyed) schoolteacher who kept stating she was absolutely not a racist and hated discrimination, and yet revealed she felt mild surprise when a black child in her class fell, scraped her skin and underneath was revealed to be pink. She also kept pushing how she thought the child was a beautiful little girl and was oh so wonderful. It smacked absolutely of the "My best friend is black" defense.

As a white person living in an almost all white villiage in an almost all white area (barring the major cities nearby like Leicester and Birmingham) I can genuinely say I was surprised by the attitudes of a number of the white participants. One man who was slightly overweight stated he was discriminated against because of his size, and compared the difficulty of being able to find a shirt to fit him to the kinds of discrimination the black participants were discussing facing every day. He then stated, which totally threw me, (paraphrasing) "I just have to say 'oh well, guess I have to live with it'", as if this made any form of discrimination better because it's there and we just have to make do.

I was stunned by the level of racism on display. I didn't change my mind on whether there was still institutional racism in the UK, there is and I know there is, but it certainly opened my eyes as to just HOW pervasive it is. Just how blind a lot of white people are, to the point at which they don't believe racism exists because they don't see lynchings and they don't see discrimination.

Any thoughts?

 

[sphenisc]

I'd have thought on a sceptic's forum there would be a lot of support for people who don't believe something exists if they don't see any evidence for it.

Apparently not.

 

[richardm]

I was amazed by the stunning racism of the (white, blue eyed) schoolteacher who kept stating she was absolutely not a racist and hated discrimination, and yet revealed she felt mild surprise when a black child in her class fell, scraped her skin and underneath was revealed to be pink.

I didn't see the programme myself, but is this racism or ignorance?

 

[Roboramma]

I didn't see the programme myself, but is this racism or ignorance?

That's what I was thinking. I don't see how it's racist to be unaware of the physiology of skin colour.

Actually, I didn't read anything in the post above that sounded racist to me, though the OP may simply not have mentioned the particularly racist bits.

 

[KarlG]

I honestly thought the teacher was a plant to stir up tensions within the group, some of the things she said were so stupid. I fully expected this to be revealed at the end of the show. One thing she said was that she had suffered discrimination because she was blonde and that this was equal to the discrimination suffered by black people.

One of the guys on the show, a mixed race guy, said he didn't pick up his light skinned daughter from school as he didn't want his daughters schoolfreinds to know he was her father as she might be discriminated against. He said he chose to conform in this way to help his child. The teacher said that we all conform similarly and said that her husband conforms by wearing a nice suit to work as it is expected that he will do so. She actually thought that the 2 things were the same.

One of the black women on the show explained how she had suffered from racism in the past and the teacher asked her what she was going to do about it. The person running the experiment pulled her up on this and told her she was blaming the victim. The teacher then lied and said she had said "what are WE going to do about this". She showed a complete lack of empathy and understanding, completely disregarding anything anyone said that did not suit her.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Nothing of what the OP talked about is racism. ETA: Except this, of course:

I was stunned by the level of racism on display. I didn't change my mind on whether there was still institutional racism in the UK, there is and I know there is, but it certainly opened my eyes as to just HOW pervasive it is. Just how blind a lot of white people are, to the point at which they don't believe racism exists because they don't see lynchings and they don't see discrimination.

Righty. "Lots of white people" are so blind they don't believe racism exists at all. What does "Lots of white people" mean here? 1%? 5%? 50%? 75%?

For more on the subject, though, please watch PBS Frontline's A Class Divided, available on their web site.

 

[sphenisc]

The programme is viewable here :

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-event-how-racist-are-you/4od#3005915

Though ironically foreigners won't be able to access it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

though ironically foreigners won't be able to access it.

racism!

 

[Ove]

The programme is viewable here :

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-event-how-racist-are-you/4od#3005915

Though ironically foreigners won't be able to access it.

Ohhh yes we can If we know our way around that little stoppage there.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'd have thought on a sceptic's forum there would be a lot of support for people who don't believe something exists if they don't see any evidence for it.

So there might. However, there will be very little support for people who don't believe something exists because they've decided in advance that only evidence of a certain class will convince them of its existence, and therefore reject any other evidence, however valid.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

So there might. However, there will be very little support for people who don't believe something exists because they've decided in advance that only evidence of a certain class will convince them of its existence, and therefore reject any other evidence, however valid.

Dave

Such as?

 

[bluesjnr]

To answer your question on a scale of 1 - 10 I'd have to say probably about 7. By your standards (reading your OP) I'd be off the scale.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Such as?

Their own attitudes, for one.

Dave

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I haven't read much of this thread, so I don't know if these points have been raised, but the programme seemed silly to me.

In fact, though I generally like Channel 4 documentaries, this programme had elements of stupidity so aggravating that I couldn't bear to stay till the end. So if it got better, unfortunately I missed it. Frankly, the commentators on the experiment made themselves look like ridiculously rigid thinkers without the ability to see any perspectives that differed from their narrow prejudices. Here are some examples of what I mean:

When a man refused to take part in the humiliation of the blue-eyed group, the commentators were certain it must be because he was white and didn't want to humiliate other white people. It seems they entirely failed to even consider the possibility that he wouldn't have wanted to take part in the humiliation of anyone at all!

One of the blue-eyed group responded to someone in the other group who was complaining about racism by suggesting that instead of complaining, she should suggest solutions. This was idiotically interpreted by the commentators as "victim blaiming". They interpreted her as meaning that the victims of racism ought to take on the full responsibility for solving the racism problem. Stupidity! It seemed obvious that she was merely employing a technique that all cognitive therapists would laud, of trying to shift the perspective of the conversation to one where more constructive dialogue could ensue, which some good ideas might come out of. It seems clear she used the word "you", not because she had some absurd notion that the one complaining was the only one who should be responsible for solving the problem, but simply because the "you" in question was the one doing the complaining! The fact that the commentators didn't even see that as a possible alternative way of interpreting what they were hearing frankly makes them look like bigoted idiots incapable of thinking of perspectives that don't match their prejudices.

Jane Elliott also seems guilty of rigid thinking. I've been interested in hearing about the experiments she did with children all those years ago when she taught them that people with certain eye colours were inferior, to teach them what it felt like to be discriminated against, since I first heard about them. But I think it was the wrong approach here. She spoke as if she truly believed the blue-eyed group would be each individually guilty of racism. When they argued with her, it was interpreted as them being used to power and a sense of entitlement. That was stupid. Has she ever tried the experiment the other way around and found out if black adults protest against her attempts to humiliate them just as much as the white ones did? If she was put in an experiment herself, not knowing what to expect, and she was verbally humiliated by someone else, would she argue with them, or just accept it? If she argued, would she conclude that she must be a collaborator in an oppressive system, used to power? If I'd been in the blue-eyed group and she'd tried to mock me or order me around like she did with them, I'd have given her a much harder time than they did! Would that mean I was used to power? Why yes! But mostly only because I'd think I'd encountered her kind so often on Internet forums I'd grown arrogant through discovering how contemptible their arguments are and thus how easy and deserving they are to be smacked down! If you look at interactions between black people and others on Internet forums or elsewhere, I'm quite certain you won't find them all sitting back, reluctant to make their case in an argument! Would she think they thus must be white people in disguise?

If the commentators on the experiment or Jane Elliott herself were here reading what I'm writing, do you imagine they could read the bits where I criticise them without wanting to react with indignation? Is it not quite possible they would in fact react so?

The programme did say racism in the UK tended to be more subtle and less extreme than it is in America so maybe a different approach would have been more appropriate for Jane Elliott to have taken. I personally suspect a far better approach than making people feel antagonistic towards each other and start raising their voices would have been if they had all sat down together in a cordial environment, and the non-white people had talked about their experiences of racism and how it made them feel. That may well have drawn empathy from those who'd never been on the receiving end, instead of the defensiveness which was frankly a natural response to the antagonistic environment. A few of the blue-eyed group did seem to have had racist tendencies; but the point was lost in the air of farce the commentators brought about by interpreting every bad reaction from any of them towards their treatment as a sign of a racist attitude or one indifferent to racism. In fact, such an aggravatingly generalistic set of monotonous interpretations of everything as racism could play straight into the hands of the BNP, among people who were irritated by it. Ironic indeed, but any extremist who heard the commentators might well conclude that if that's the kind of attitude black people tend to have towards white people, the BNP are perhaps right to be suspicious of them.

The commentators correctly observed that what some of the group were saying indicated that they clearly didn't realise the depth of the racism problem, but stupidly implied that this meant they were somehow culpable, when the plain and simple fact is that if you haven't actually experienced something for yourself, the likelihood is that you won't recognise the extent of the problem, not because you're wilfully ignorant, but simply because if it isn't a feature of your every-day life, the probability is that you plain and simply just won't have ever given it much thought, and simply won't be aware of it. Does the fact that most people won't be aware of all these many terrible things and so won't recognise them as problems mean that we have on this forum a bunch of wilfully ignorant insular self-absorbed bigots who are apathetic about things going on in foreign lands, the racists?! No.

That is why an informative session where various people spoke about their experiences of racism might have been far more of a valuable learning experience than an experiment where antagonism was raised and it turned into a shouting match.

ETA: Oh dear. Sorry about my emotionally-charged form of expression there. I think I need to go and have a cup of tea.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I honestly thought the teacher was a plant to stir up tensions within the group, some of the things she said were so stupid. I fully expected this to be
revealed at the end of the show. One thing she said was that she had suffered discrimination because she was blonde and that this was equal to the discrimination
suffered by black people.

Some of the things she said were indeed silly; but the thing about being looked down on because she was blonde might be more understandable if you consider that there are a lot of horrible fatuously mocking blonde jokes around. There are websites with whole sections on them. Of course that isn't equivalent to being passed over for a job because you're blonde or something - although I did read a post on here once about someone who said she sometimes wasn't taken seriously by some of the men in the science profession she'd been aspiring to get into because she was blonde and they assumed it meant she was a bimbo. So it may be that the teacher had sometimes been treated like one, or like a sex object. But even if she had only been subjected to stupid jokes on a regular basis, I can imagine it might feel bad to be on the receiving end of a few too many of those. Jokes are often disguised malice, probably repeated by the jealous or those who feel a bit inferior themselves and want a means of making themselves feel superior.

In fact, oddly enough, your attitude to her could be interpreted as the same kind of attitude she had towards black people - a lack of recognition of the problem. Understandable, since being male, you won't have been on the receiving end of it, just as being white, she won't have been on the receiving end of white-on-black racism. But you're right that some of the things she said indicated more ignorance than that.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I didn't see the programme myself, but is this racism or ignorance?

Ignorance, that is true. However, I found the fact that she simply assumed that it was not pink to be a little....unusual. Why assume that it is different? It just seemed to me to be a rather racist assumption.

As for the assumption that because some people don't see it, we, as sceptics should accept it may not exist, I would echo Dave Rogers' comments. These people, who are white (no, not all white people; I am white, remember?) think about racism in terms of major discrimination, sitting at the back of the bus, refused service in bars etc. whereas the black people on the show told tales of various times they had been racially discriminated against in lots of little ways, such as the vocal woman who stated that she had been in line somewhere anbd had been ignored by a member of staff in favour of a white family who had just walked in, or how she was with a group of friends, and someone told a joke causing the whole group to laugh, and she realised she was the only one who knew the joke was racist.

While I actually do agree with BN that Ms. Elliot is too black and white in her thinking, and I certainly disagree with her when she claims that all white people are raised to be racist, I think it was telling just how far a number of the blue eyed group (and one idiot in the brown eyed group, also white) pushed the idea that racism was simply non-existant in the UK. That the issues that may or may not have been left over really WERE comparable to not being able to find a shirt that fits, or having to wear a suit to work. Even when others confronted them by illustrating that the man's weight or a business dress code were easily changable things, whereas skin colour is not.

They refused to accept the anecdotes the non white people were telling were real, or so it seemed. They were so adamant that there was no racism in Britain (obviously barring some racist groups that are still active) that they refused to listen to anyone. No matter what anyone said to them, they did not change their minds one iota. To me, THAT was racist. THAT was the issue. It was not that they were ignorant when they went in, but that even after education they persisted in their ignorance and refused to accept the truth from people who lived it every day. The fact they made utterly moronic statements throughout the show (the schoolteacher in particular was a total imbecile) simply made it worse.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Some of the things she said were indeed silly; but the thing about being looked down on because she was blonde might be more understandable if you consider that there are a lot of horrible fatuously mocking blonde jokes around. There are websites with whole sections on them. Of course that isn't equivalent to being passed over for a job because you're blonde or something - although I did read a post on here once about someone who said she sometimes wasn't taken seriously by some of the men in the science profession she'd been aspiring to get into because she was blonde and they assumed it meant she was a bimbo. So it may be that the teacher had sometimes been treated like one, or like a sex object. But even if she had only been subjected to stupid jokes on a regular basis, I can imagine it might feel bad to be on the receiving end of a few too many of those. Jokes are often disguised malice, probably repeated by the jealous or those who feel a bit inferior themselves and want a means of making themselves feel superior.

In fact, oddly enough, your attitude to her could be interpreted as the same kind of attitude she had towards black people - a lack of recognition of the problem. Understandable, since being male, you won't have been on the receiving end of it, just as being white, she won't have been on the receiving end of white-on-black racism. But you're right that some of the things she said indicated more ignorance than that.

But you can change your hair colour. Ok, you might not want to, and yes, there is a certain level of discrimination, but my god, comparing blonde jokes to institutionalised racism?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Ignorance, that is true. However, I found the fact that she simply assumed that it was not pink to be a little....unusual. Why assume that it is different?
It just seemed to me to be a rather racist assumption.

Hardly racist. I imagine it would be far stranger to just assume it would be the other way around- i.e. that black people just must surely have a bit of lighter skin on their persons. Imagine how racist a person could be accused of being if black people were black from the tips of their toes to the tops of their heads, and someone said, "Surely black people must have some white or lighter skin on them!" How imperialist they'd be accused of being!

As for the assumption that because some people don't see it, we, as sceptics should accept it may not exist,

sphenisc didn't say that, but:

I'd have thought on a sceptic's forum there would be a lot of support for people who don't believe something exists if they don't see any evidence for it.

... such as the vocal woman who stated that she had been in line somewhere anbd had been ignored by a member of staff in favour of a white family who had just walked in,

Did she actually say that to one of the group? I remember that as being given as a hypothetical example by someone commentating on what white people might well not be aware of in society, not as something one of the group actually said. Then again, when they were all trying to talk over each other, I didn't hear much of what anyone said.

I think it was telling just how far a number of the blue eyed group (and one idiot in the brown eyed group, also white) pushed the idea that racism was simply non-existant in the UK.

Did they really? I didn't hear anyone express that sentiment. Did you watch that Channel 4 programme several days ago where two Pakistanis pretending to be a couple who couldn't speak good English but in reality working for Channel 4 moved into a neighbourhood in Bristol reputed to be racist and got all kinds of abuse from some teenagers and children? The woman said she wanted to test out a statement made by the very head of the former Commission for Racial Equality himself, Trevor Phillips, black himself, that racism wasn't really a problem in Britain nowadays. The woman said she'd grown up in Manchester and had never found racism much of a problem. She said she'd received more abuse on that estate in Bristol in eight weeks than she'd received throughout the whole of her childhood in Manchester.

Don't generalise from the attitudes of 2-3 people in a shouting match in an experiment to attitudes in Britain in general.

I think you're over-dramatising the whole thing and making it out to be much worse than it was. It even seems as if we could have been viewing very different programmes, although I did leave before the end. But what I got from it is that in a shouting match, no one gets heard properly. I suspect that a less antagonistic environment would have been more suitable to points being taken in.

But you can change your hair colour. Ok, you might not want to, and yes, there is a certain level of discrimination, but my god, comparing blonde jokes
to institutionalised racism?

Neither I nor you know what that woman's past experiences were. Yes, you can change your hair colour, although why you should have to is beyond me! But how do we know that she hadn't been on the receiving end of a few distressing experiences where men in bars had unexpectedly come up to her and harassed her, seeming to presume she'd be an easy lay, and it seemed to be just because her hair was blonde? What if she'd had a few kids in every class she'd tried to teach refusing to take instruction from her because they'd assumed her to be a bimbo who didn't know anything intelligent? You could change your hair colour, but that wouldn't change the emotional impact those things had had on you. The point is that people shouldn't be so quick to judge people.

 

[Skeptic]

He then stated, which totally threw me, (paraphrasing) "I just have to say 'oh well, guess I have to live with it'", as if this made any form of discrimination better because it's there and we just have to make do.

I don't think that's necessarily the implication. Just because someone makes an analogy -- both fat people and blacks are discriminated against -- it hardly means he thinks the analogy is perfect in all respects, or that he thinks that the level of discrimination is equal.

On the contrary: it seems reasonable from him to take whatever discrimination he faces for being fat in stride, instead of demanding to be recognized as another of the growing list of "victim" groups.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Ignorance, that is true. However, I found the fact that she simply assumed that it was not pink to be a little....unusual. Why assume that it is different? It just seemed to me to be a rather racist assumption.

Until I started living with and around black people, I didn't know that the skin on their palms and soles were dramatically lighter than the rest of their skin. It wasn't an expression of racism, superiority, or anything like that. I just wasn't familiar enough with black people to know everything about their bodies. Wasn't aware of all the hair issues at first, either.

 

[Fiona]

As for the assumption that because some people don't see it, we, as sceptics should accept it may not exist, I would echo Dave Rogers' comments. These people, who are white (no, not all white people; I am white, remember?) think about racism in terms of major discrimination, sitting at the back of the bus, refused service in bars etc. whereas the black people on the show told tales of various times they had been racially discriminated against in lots of little ways, such as the vocal woman who stated that she had been in line somewhere anbd had been ignored by a member of staff in favour of a white family who had just walked in, or how she was with a group of friends, and someone told a joke causing the whole group to laugh, and she realised she was the only one who knew the joke was racist.

Interesting. We have had that exact same assertion in relation to feminism on this board more than once. Apparently there are no problems left.......

<snip>

I think it was telling just how far a number of the blue eyed group (and one idiot in the brown eyed group, also white) pushed the idea that racism was simply non-existant in the UK. That the issues that may or may not have been left over really WERE comparable to not being able to find a shirt that fits, or having to wear a suit to work. Even when others confronted them by illustrating that the man's weight or a business dress code were easily changable things, whereas skin colour is not. [/quote]

Gender is not easily changeable though.......

They refused to accept the anecdotes the non white people were telling were real, or so it seemed. They were so adamant that there was no racism in Britain (obviously barring some racist groups that are still active) that they refused to listen to anyone. No matter what anyone said to them, they did not change their minds one iota. To me, THAT was racist. THAT was the issue. It was not that they were ignorant when they went in, but that even after education they persisted in their ignorance and refused to accept the truth from people who lived it every day. The fact they made utterly moronic statements throughout the show (the schoolteacher in particular was a total imbecile) simply made it worse.

We don't seem to make much progress on those kinds of people when we discuss gender issues on this board either.

Having thought about it I wholeheartedly agree with you Mark: these were deeply racist people and those who mirror that behaviour on this board are deeply sexist. Not

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Tell you what, Mark: Here's something about racism you can really get horrified about. It's a lot worse than a few silly comments made by defensive people in an experiment. It lists 60 disturbing-sounding press reports about hate crimes - violence or threats of violence. It might also give you a few ideas for things to campaign for at the bottom, where it makes some interesting observations and suggestions for government intervention: UK Recession increases Hate Crimes.

 

[Trojan_Jockey]

Elliott developed this exercise over 40 years ago. At that time in large parts of America, black people were denied basic civil rights, lived in segregated communities and went to segregated schools. They were told where to sit on the bus, and lynchings were still a regular occurrence.

Trouble is, 40 years later and her exercise hasn't changed one bit. Here she is trying to apply it in the UK. A multiracial country that never experienced segregation, lynchings or slavery. The point of telling the blue eyed people to sit down and shut up is so they experience (in her own words) "what black people face everyday". Does she really believe this?

Her exercise is outdated and unable to address the subtle aspects of racism that exist in modern Britain. It is a sledgehammer approach that serves to alienate most people, and I would suggest that most of those people are fully conscious that discrimination is wrong. The exercise would be useful in making white people aware of the unfairness of aparthaid South Africa for example, but again, that's 20 years ago. If we truly lived in a society where black people had to give up their seats to white folk, then her exercise might make a difference.

In addition, she seems to have developed an exercise that is almost impervious to criticism. Anyone who doesn't like her style, her approach or her tactics is "unable to handle the truth" about racism. If you don't like what she's doing then that's because you are unaware of racism. If you walk away, then it shows you are unable to deal with the truth "whitey's don't like it when they get abused", well, is there any homo-Sapien who does? I think some of the phrases, such as "acting white" were incredibly suspect, but what motivates her we can only guess.

I think she now genuinely believes that anyone who dissents during the exercise is evidence that her exercise is exposing their racism. It's a completely outdated exercise, is inflexible and cannot be successfully applied to cultures beyond those of the American South, but I suspect criticism of it provides her with another belly full of justification. In that sense, she can never fail.

 

[Brian-M]

I certainly disagree with her when she claims that all white people are raised to be racist

I agree with your disagreement. Claiming that all white people are racist is itself a racist remark. (Racist against white people, that is.)

They refused to accept the anecdotes the non white people were telling were real, or so it seemed. They were so adamant that there was no racism in Britain (obviously barring some racist groups that are still active) that they refused to listen to anyone. No matter what anyone said to them, they did not change their minds one iota. To me, THAT was racist. THAT was the issue.

That is not racism.

Their failure to accept the existence of "racism in Britain (obviously barring some racist groups that are still active)" is not racist at all. It's actually an example of confirmation bias.

The confirmation bias that leads people to see no racism where racism exists is hardly any different from the confirmation bias that leads people to see racism where no racism exists.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I agree with your disagreement. Claiming that all white people are racist is itself a racist remark. (Racist against white people, that is.)




That is not racism.

Their failure to accept the existence of "racism in Britain (obviously barring some racist groups that are still active)" is not racist at all. It's actually an example of confirmation bias.

The confirmation bias that leads people to see no racism where racism exists is hardly any different from the confirmation bias that leads people to see racism where no racism exists.

Hmm. You know, I think that I did rather overreact.

Meh, I've been a bit funny for a while, so I'll put it down to me being in a strange mood.

I still consider it to be a rather negative thing though.... Oh well, guess I got my ass well and truely handed to me here. Feel free to kick my ass over this. Seriously though, I genuinely feel embarrassed about this. I can be such an idiot when I'm (I will say rightfully, I think) upset by something.

I wholeheartedly agree that the experiment itself was outdated and rather irrelevant though.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

No need to feel too embarrassed; you know what they say: You can respect a person who quickly realises a position they held was too extreme and retracts it; it's much more difficult to respect someone who sticks to an extreme position despite everything.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Elliott developed this exercise over 40 years ago. At that time in large parts of America, black people were denied basic civil rights, lived in segregated communities and went to segregated schools. They were told where to sit on the bus, and lynchings were still a regular occurrence.

Trouble is, 40 years later and her exercise hasn't changed one bit. Here she is trying to apply it in the UK. A multiracial country that never experienced segregation, lynchings or slavery. The point of telling the blue eyed people to sit down and shut up is so they experience (in her own words) "what black people face everyday". Does she really believe this?

Her exercise is outdated and unable to address the subtle aspects of racism that exist in modern Britain. It is a sledgehammer approach that serves to alienate most people, and I would suggest that most of those people are fully conscious that discrimination is wrong. The exercise would be useful in making white people aware of the unfairness of aparthaid South Africa for example, but again, that's 20 years ago. If we truly lived in a society where black people had to give up their seats to white folk, then her exercise might make a difference.

In addition, she seems to have developed an exercise that is almost impervious to criticism. Anyone who doesn't like her style, her approach or her tactics is "unable to handle the truth" about racism. If you don't like what she's doing then that's because you are unaware of racism. If you walk away, then it shows you are unable to deal with the truth "whitey's don't like it when they get abused", well, is there any homo-Sapien who does? I think some of the phrases, such as "acting white" were incredibly suspect, but what motivates her we can only guess.

I think she now genuinely believes that anyone who dissents during the exercise is evidence that her exercise is exposing their racism. It's a completely outdated exercise, is inflexible and cannot be successfully applied to cultures beyond those of the American South, but I suspect criticism of it provides her with another belly full of justification. In that sense, she can never fail.

All very good points. Quite an insightful analysis. Thanks.

 

[jakesteele]

Nothing of what the OP talked about is racism. ETA: Except this, of course:


Righty. "Lots of white people" are so blind they don't believe racism exists at all. What does "Lots of white people" mean here? 1%? 5%? 50%? 75%?

For more on the subject, though, please watch PBS Frontline's A Class Divided, available on their web site.

Ironically, I have found blacks, especially young black males to be by far the worse racists. What makes it worse is that they are able to hide behind the skirts of white, liberal PCism and know that white people are too intimidated to call them on it for fear of being called the dreaded R word. This is where the term "pulling the race card" comes from.

I have known several black women who had white boyfriends and were frequently harassed by black males. A couple of the black women would refer to the black guys as "Racist N*ggers!!"

I also worked in a casino on a Native American rez and they indian males also concurred that they experienced much more direct racism from young black males on the street.

 

[Normal Dude]

Had to watch an exercise of hers for a psychology class once. The "class" consisted of some corporate employees who had to attend. I'll never forgot how cruel she was to one woman who shrunk away from her insults. This women did nothing to deserve that sort of treatment, and by the time she was done with her she was in tears.

Does it strike anyone else as... ahem... racist... to pick out only blue eyed people for these exercises?

 

[gtc]

Does it strike anyone else as... ahem... racist... to pick out only blue eyed people for these exercises?

Hers would be the ideal career for someone that has the sort of personality that led them to enjoy being viciously cruel towards others.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hers would be the ideal career for someone that has the sort of personality that led them to enjoy being viciously cruel towards others.

She already was a teacher.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Had to watch an exercise of hers for a psychology class once. The "class" consisted of some corporate employees who had to attend. I'll never forgot how cruel she was to one woman who shrunk away from her insults. This women did nothing to deserve that sort of treatment, and by the time she was done with her she was in tears.

Does it strike anyone else as... ahem... racist... to pick out only blue eyed people for these exercises?

To have especially picked on someone she could tell was more-than-usually vulnerable to her insults is unethical, particularly if, as was probably the case, she had absolutely no idea whether that person thought it was OK that other people should be insulted. She seems to just assume people will. I wonder if in reality, much of her motivation consists of getting high on the power she herself feels when she puts others down. Perhaps that's the main reason she continues, as well as the heady feeling of fame it perhaps gives her. Perhaps her emotions have made her reckless as to whether there's any real need for it, but she rationalises what she's doing to herself as necessary, to justify herself. Who knows!

 

[Skeptic]

__________________

Self-Help: Depression
Marriage
Teasing
Unemployment
Addiction
Anger

Look, I've tried all your self-help. I'm married now, yes, but people constantly tease me for being an unemployed drug addict. I'm really depressed and angry about that.

 

[gtc]

__________________


Look, I've tried all your self-help. I'm married now, yes, but people constantly tease me for being an unemployed drug addict. I'm really depressed and angry about that.

Heh, heh.

That reminds me of an ambiguous billboard I saw recently - 'Heroin: Got a Problem?'.

 

[Skeptic]

Robert Ley, the notorious drunk who was the head of the Nazi "Labor Front", came up with a brilliant slogan to encourage abstinence from alcohol in the workforce: "Moderation is not enough".

 

[Skeptic]

I didn't see the programme myself, but is this racism or ignorance?

(Shrug) I can see why she would think it should be brown, not pink. She would simply expect it to be similar to the skin color. Duh. I fail to see why this is evidence of some "deep seated racism". It's mild surprise over a minor physical characteristic.

Her apologies don't sound too much like "some of my best friends are black" apologies to me, either. That is the kind of excuse for someone who advocates racist views (as in "some of my best friends are black and support segregation"). Here it's something totally different: immediate, almost hysterical, contrition at the very possibility that she might have unintentionally, in ignorance, held some minor belief that some people would consider "racist".

This is "deep seated racism"? Give me a break. Seems like the opposite, if anything.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

__________________


Look, I've tried all your self-help. I'm married now, yes, but people constantly tease me for being an unemployed drug addict. I'm really depressed and angry about that.

Oh sorry mate. What can I say? Just watch a few of the programmes Channel 4 in the UK have had on racism recently, ... and if they work like the theory I've just made up says they're supposed to, you'll feel so bad you'll want to curl up and sleep for weeks. So you'll feel better. In fact, that'll cure you! You'll come off drugs nicely; you won't be teased, - or at least if you are, you won't know it's happening; you won't care about being unemployed; and you'll be so sound asleep you won't be depressed or angry! Perfect.

There was another programme about racism on Channel 4 tonight that was much more disturbing than the Jane Elliott "Let me come over and bully blue-eyed Brits" one. It was about how just over 100 years ago, they had what they called "human zoos", where they would exhibit people from races they considered inferior in exhibitions of interesting things. It said one in America had 20 million visitors over the several months the display was on, and the programme said most of them probably went away convinced that those races that had people from them on display were inferior.

It said there were people who imagined they had good scientific reasons for thinking some races were inferior; they thought it was all good evolutionary biology! It said One man in America called Maddison Grant wrote a horrible racist book and sent it to Hitler in the early 1930s; and Hitler loved it so much he wrote back and said it was his "Bible". And it said when the Nazis came to power, some people in America wanted to emulate them.

Sorry, I told you it was horrible, didn't I. :-7

 

[Trojan_Jockey]

Oh sorry mate. What can I say? Just watch a few of the programmes Channel 4 in the UK have had on racism recently, ... and if they work like the theory I've just made up says they're supposed to, you'll feel so bad you'll want to curl up and sleep for weeks. So you'll feel better. In fact, that'll cure you! You'll come off drugs nicely; you won't be teased, - or at least if you are, you won't know it's happening; you won't care about being unemployed; and you'll be so sound asleep you won't be depressed or angry! Perfect.

There was another programme about racism on Channel 4 tonight that was much more disturbing than the Jane Elliott "Let me come over and bully blue-eyed Brits" one. It was about how just over 100 years ago, they had what they called "human zoos", where they would exhibit people from races they considered inferior in exhibitions of interesting things. It said one in America had 20 million visitors over the several months the display was on, and the programme said most of them probably went away convinced that those races that had people from them on display were inferior.

It said there were people who imagined they had good scientific reasons for thinking some races were inferior; they thought it was all good evolutionary biology! It said One man in America called Maddison Grant wrote a horrible racist book and sent it to Hitler in the early 1930s; and Hitler loved it so much he wrote back and said it was his "Bible". And it said when the Nazis came to power, some people in America wanted to emulate them.

Sorry, I told you it was horrible, didn't I. :-7

Cue Jane Elliott's new exercise.... Put the blue-eyed people in a cage and get brown eyed people to stare at them and talk about how primitive they are. This is the only way they'll learn what life is like for black people in modern America. Oh, and if they don't like it it's cos they are racist.