Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed

[JamesBYoung]

White privilege twisted knots that we are seeing here as people try to justify the PH was rejected by the church leadership shows us the problem.

We need an outright "this was wrong' from the 15.  Yes, the PH ban was wrong, with BY and JFSSr and Jr. leading the pack of wrongies.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, JamesBYoung said:

White privilege twisted knots that we are seeing here as people try to justify the PH was rejected by the church leadership shows us the problem.

We need an outright "this was wrong' from the 15.  Yes, the PH ban was wrong, with BY and JFSSr and Jr. leading the pack of wrongies.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I like mine more than I like yours.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks, I appreciate that you took some time to look at it. I about c/p'd most of it and then deleted it, especially since you at least looked through so hoping Smac and Scott will too, and give me their opinion as well.

I read the article. I share Smac’s conclusions, so I won’t bother to restate them. 

Typical of the muddled thinking reflected in the article is this definition of racism quoted early on. 

“So, what is racism? One helpful definition comes from Matthew Clair and Jeffrey S. Denis’s ‘Sociology on Racism.’ They define racism as ‘individual- and group-level processes and structures that are implicated in the reproduction of racial inequality.’”

So, restated in a condensed form, racism is processes and structures that perpetuate racism. Huh? I’ve never seen a clearer example of circular reasoning or begging the question. 
 

I was bemused by clear evidence that the man in Smac’s video was acquainted with the article — or at least with some of the material on which it was based — and was not in the least impressed by it. He even mentioned the silly matter of flesh-colored Band-Aids and seemed to find that too ridiculous for serious consideration.

I stand by the sentiment reflected earlier in my quote from the Praeger U video that Smac posted: “White privilege” in concept is the promotion of victimhood mentality and is thus a cynical and manipulative ploy by the left to solidify its power base by dividing the nation on the basis of race. 

Fortunately, our society has been blessed with a cohort of young, intelligent, black Americans who are not taken in by the victimhood mentality and refuse to have their potential hamstrung by it. The man in the video Smac posted is one such person. Candace  Owens is another. I hope she runs for president someday, though I’m afraid she’s too young at the moment to meet eligibility requirements. Besides, she has said she wants to have a family first. 

Finally, I think it worth observing that the “linked-arms” alliance forged this past year between our church and the NAACP is based in part on the work the Church is doing under the auspices of the NAACP to teach and promote principles of self-reliance among black Americans in the inner cities. You don’t encourage self-reliance by telling people they are doomed to suffer forever some sort of ethereal victimhood. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think the statements have been crafted in a way to allow a plurality of perspectives, that intuits [sic] some kind of intention on the part of leaders for double speak ... I don't think the current position of the church is intended to mean two different things to different audiences.

Ambiguity is not duplicity ... unless one is a rigid, black/white thinker.

I personally can't think of a better approach to a matter that is so thoroughly entangled with politics, histories, ideology, personal identity, personal experience and so forth, but what would I know?

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps God has reasons for this that are justifiable.  I personally don't believe in a God that would institute a racist practice, that isn't a satisfactory concept for God from my vantage point, as I believe all are alike unto God. 

And this is the nut of the matter, really. You won't believe in a God who doesn't think or act exactly like you do. It's not possible for your God to have a 'vantage point' more elevated -- or more capable of dealing with logistical and temporal complexity -- than your own.

Quote

I think the challenge is for more traditional believers.  How do they reconcile these things.

And yet it is not 'traditional believers' -- either in this thread or in my real life -- who are worrying about this matter to the degree you are ... or at all.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why have members been so programmed that they seemingly can't think for themselves.

Thanks, mate. I literally laughed out loud when I read this this morning! 

I earnt my bachelor's degree in literary studies, but it's been a long time since the concept of a 'self-deconstructing text' came to mind.

Because of course the evidence that members 'can't think for themselves' is that they stubbornly refuse to think like you do. Too wonderful!

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read the article. I share Smac’s conclusions, so I won’t bother to restate them. 

Typical of the muddled thinking reflected in the article is this definition of racism quoted early on. 

“So, what is racism? One helpful definition comes from Matthew Clair and Jeffrey S. Denis’s ‘Sociology on Racism.’ They define racism as ‘individual- and group-level processes and structures that are implicated in the reproduction of racial inequality.’”

So, restated in a condensed form, racism is processes and structures that perpetuate racism. Huh? I’ve never seen a clearer example of circular reasoning or begging the question. 
 

I was bemused by clear evidence that the man in Smac’s video was acquainted with the article — it was at least with some of the material in which it was based — and was not in the least impressed by it. He even mentioned the silly matter of flesh-colored Band-Aids and seemed to find that too ridiculous for serious consideration.

I stand by the sentiment reflected earlier in my quote from the Praeger U video that Smac posted: “White privilege” in concept is the promotion of victimhood mentality and is thus a cynical and manipulative ploy by the left to solidify its power base by dividing the nation on the basis of race. 

Fortunately, our society has been blessed with a cohort of young, intelligent, black Americans who are not taken in by the victimhood mentality and refuse to have their potential hamstrung by it. The man in the video Smac posted is one such person. Candace  Owens is another. I hope she runs for president someday, though I’m afraid she’s too young at the moment to meet eligibility requirements. Besides, she has said she wants to have a family first. 

Finally, I think it worth observing that the “linked-arms” alliance forged this past year between our church and the NAACP is based in part on the work the Church is doing under the auspices of the NAACP to teach and promote principles of self-reliance among black Americans in the inner cities. You don’t encourage self-reliance by telling people they are doomed to suffer forever some sort of ethereal victimhood. 

Systemic racism in the US is a reality that still impacts individuals today on measurable scales. Awareness of it and learning to work for change is not mutually exclusive with self-reliance. 

Framing it as victimhoid and partisan politics is the cynical approach. Kindness to others means learning of their perspective and experience and doing hard work that is often uncomfortable. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Systemic racism in the US is a reality that still impacts individuals today on measurable scales. Awareness of it and learning to work for change is not mutually exclusive with self-reliance. 

I don't live in America, but I do live where racism is systemic, and I hate it!

One of the families I minister to consists of a mother and daughter. I started tutoring the daughter when she was in year 9 and failing or barely passing most of her subjects. By year 10, she was regularly getting A's and B's, and I was no longer needed. Good stuff.

Then she went to senior secondary college, with a plan to enter university after year 12, and everything got much harder. She went to the counsellors for help. They could have offered her academic supports. They could have provided her with pastoral care. What did they recommend instead? That she drop out of her tertiary package. End result: she completed school without a university entrance score.

When I realised what had happened, I reminded her that there are alternate pathways to university entrance and foolishly (!) told her to ask the counsellors at the college for help accessing those. She went to the counselling centre five times and requested a meeting. The response each time: we'll get back to you. They never did!

When I heard this, it all finally clicked. This girl is the child of two migrants. The counsellors in her school had looked at her and assessed that she was not going to uni. I don't know if this was even a conscious process, but I'm confident that's what happened.

So back in November, I contacted the local university that offers her desired course (nursing), and they walked me through what we needed to do. I then spent many hours in December helping this young woman apply for alternate entry. The result is that they've offered her a place in a one-semester bridging course. If she does well at that, then she can matriculate straight into nursing. In my letter of reference, I pointed out that she may need both academic assistance and pastoral care, but that's what a bridging course is designed to provide. And if it doesn't, I'm on top of things this time, and I'll do all that myself.

I suspect some may think I'm wrong to have identified the problem as 'systemic racism', but I've been through this scenario before with one of my former Young Men. He spent both years of his college telling the counsellor he was going to uni. He earnt straight A's in tertiary mathematics. But the counsellor never got him into the other subjects necessary to get a university entrance score. Again, a son of two migrants.

Thankfully, in the end, I helped him get a scholarship to a private university in America, and one year ago he finished his degree in software engineering.

But the clearest evidence I have is from a friend who used to work for our Catholic university. She contacted the counsellors at our public colleges and asked if she could come speak with migrant children about alternate pathways into uni. Not a single college took her up on the offer, and the head counsellor at the college that my ministeree just graduated from actually told my friend, 'G---, be realistic. These kids aren't going to uni. We need to help steer them into likely careers'. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

That judgment would depend on the definition of racism each person used.  I believe all people are part of the same race... the human race, the race of men, the race of God, or any other term referring to the kind of being we are...  and that even though we are all part of the same race we still have some differences between us.  We are not all the same and some people when speaking in regard to matters of choice like some things about some of us more than they like some other things about some of us, or vice versa.  Meaning some people do not like some things about some of us that some other people do like.  So the issue is complex at the fundamental level even without talking about what we like or don't like or think is better than some other thing.

Are you making an argument for moral relativism?  Usually I'm the one pointing out that things are vary quite a bit and need to be considered more relative to circumstance, interesting to see a more conservative poster making this argument. 😃  

In this hypothetical example, its a quiz and you have to make your best judgment based on the information you have accumulated prior to taking the quiz.  What would you answer?  Usually when taking quizzes with two options, I've tended to try and pick the answer that most closely fits the definition, even if things are more complex and might vary somewhat depending on circumstances and situations. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Systemic racism in the US is a reality that still impacts individuals today on measurable scales. Awareness of it and learning to work for change is not mutually exclusive with self-reliance. 

Framing it as victimhoid and partisan politics is the cynical approach. Kindness to others means learning of their perspective and experience and doing hard work that is often uncomfortable. 

If “systemic racism in the U.S. is [present tense] a reality that still impacts individuals today on measurable scales,” you ought to be able to cite one or more of those “measurable scales” from, say, the last five years or so. Can you do it without using facially absurd indicators like the preponderance of flesh-colored Band-Aids at the local Rite-Aid?

And I reject the false dichotomy that one cannot be kind to others without swallowing whole the ideological dogma of the “woke” mentality. Which, in itself, is racism of the paternalistic sort, the kind that presupposes the unfortunate subject can’t succeed through his own efforts without political advocacy from the leftist, because the person is, after all, a victim of “systemic white privilege.” But don’t let the person get so uppity as to think he can throw off the paternalism and succeed without the “kindness” of leftists. 

I can see why some black Americans, such as those in the “Blexit” movement, are angered by such a mindset. I would be too. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't live in America, but I do live where racism is systemic, and I hate it!

I don’t doubt this. But Meadowchik was explicitly referring to alleged “systemic racism in the U.S.” 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ambiguity is not duplicity ... unless one is a rigid, black/white thinker.

I personally can't think of a better approach to a matter that is so thoroughly entangled with politics, histories, ideology, personal identity, personal experience and so forth, but what would I know?

And this is the nut of the matter, really. You won't believe in a God who doesn't think or act exactly like you do. It's not possible for your God to have a 'vantage point' more elevated -- or more capable of dealing with logistical and temporal complexity -- than your own.

And yet it is not 'traditional believers' -- either in this thread or in my real life -- who are worrying about this matter to the degree you are ... or at all.

Thanks, mate. I literally laughed out loud when I read this this morning! 

I earnt my bachelor's degree in literary studies, but it's been a long time since the concept of a 'self-deconstructing text' came to mind.

Because of course the evidence that members 'can't think for themselves' is that they stubbornly refuse to think like you do. Too wonderful!

I'm tempted to respond back with the same kind of disrespectful snark as you consistently have responded to me.  But, I'm not going to.  I'm done with the exchange.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

In situations where opportunity and privilege is determined only by sex, that is sexism.

But people come to situations with different assumptions and while it may appear obvious to one person something is only determined by sex, others may see it as something different.

Is it sexism, for example, that women are the ones who have babies?  Or do biological requirements remove that from sexism to just the way the world works?  If sexism is defined as opportunities and privilege that is determined by sex when it isn't required by nature, then it removes defining sexism from simple to complex because what is "required" is based on assumptions.

And what are and are not reasonable assumptions is seen very differently...plus even getting the assumptions identified in a conversation may be very difficult. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

White privilege twisted knots that we are seeing here as people try to justify the PH was rejected by the church leadership shows us the problem.

We need an outright "this was wrong' from the 15.  Yes, the PH ban was wrong, with BY and JFSSr and Jr. leading the pack of wrongies.

It would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen with Oaks and other leaders who've made a pledge of allegiance to authority figures, rather than an allegiance to principles of the gospel.  They even have the audacity to believe that allegiance to their own authoritative status is a principle of the gospel, and have articulated such with talks about how criticism isn't useful even if its true, or how there can be no loyal opposition. 

I won't make any comparisons, but there have been some pretty awful regimes in the history of this world built on similar ideals. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not much.  It's muddled.  It can't even bring itself to define the term. 

Pretty much just like how people behave when approached as a group....hard to pin down when looked at as a whole, but still some think it is so cut and dried because they limit what is being examined.  Such a practice is not inherently confusing, but if people aren't careful about including all significant influences on a variable of behaviour (which is hard to do when we don't have access to internal influences), it can become misleading.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

racism is processes and structures that perpetuate racism. Huh? I’ve never seen a clearer example of circular reasoning or begging the question. 

Racial inequality is not the same as racism.  Racism is a way of thinking, racial inequality is the result of behaviours.  Racism causes racial inequality.  The last can be measured by removing variables such as natural abilities, though removing cultural influences on things such as education and access to opportunities is very difficult.

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you making an argument for moral relativism?  Usually I'm the one pointing out that things are vary quite a bit and need to be considered more relative to circumstance, interesting to see a more conservative poster making this argument. 😃  

In this hypothetical example, its a quiz and you have to make your best judgment based on the information you have accumulated prior to taking the quiz.  What would you answer?  Usually when taking quizzes with two options, I've tended to try and pick the answer that most closely fits the definition, even if things are more complex and might vary somewhat depending on circumstances and situations. 

You say "the" definition as if there is only one definition that is valid or true.  I don't agree with that concept in regard to the definition of words because words usually if not always have more than one true/valid definition.  And in this case that could result in people giving the same answer while having different and even conflicting ideas in their minds.  I could say the priesthood ban was a racist issue while defining racist as having something to do with our race... the one and only race that all of us are part of even though the color of our skin is not the same.  Or I could also say the priesthood ban was not a racist issue while defining racist as having to do with one skin color being inferior to some other skin color.  So I'm dropping my answers into both of your baskets.  I am choosing to use both of your baskets, rather than only one of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Racial inequality is not the same as racism.  Racism is a way of thinking, racial inequality is the result of behaviours.  Racism causes racial inequality.  The last can be measured by removing variables such as natural abilities, though removing cultural influences on things such as education and access to opportunities is very difficult.

I still say it’s begging the question. How does one define racial inequality without first establishing what racism is?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

You say "the" definition as if there is only one definition that is valid or true.  I don't agree with that concept in regard to the definition of words because words usually if not always have more than one true/valid definition.  And in this case that could result in people giving the same answer while having different and even conflicting ideas in their minds.  I could say the priesthood ban was a racist issue while defining racist as having something to do with our race... the one and only race that all of us are part of even though the color of our skin is not the same.  Or I could also say the priesthood ban was not a racist issue while defining racist as having to do with one skin color being inferior to some other skin color.  So I'm dropping my answers into both of your baskets.  I am choosing to use both of your baskets, rather than only one of them.

You’d fail the quiz question as you can’t answer twice. 😆

I think it’s hard to characterize the ban as anything other than fitting a generally accepted definition of racism.  I imagine most people here who want to say it’s more complicated and are uncomfortable calling it racism, likely wouldn’t have a problem calling this racism if it were practiced by a different organization other than the church they are loyal to.  I believe proximity and loyalty are the difference here.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm tempted to respond back with the same kind of disrespectful snark as you consistently have responded to me.  But, I'm not going to. I'm done with the exchange.

 I'm happy for readers to determine for themselves if I've engaged in substantive dialogue, as I have intended it, or in disrespectful snark, as you have perceived it.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[JamesBYoung]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I like mine more than I like yours.

I am sure you do.  And, yes, we are all entitled to our opinions.

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen with Oaks and other leaders who've made a pledge of allegiance to authority figures, rather than an allegiance to principles of the gospel.  They even have the audacity to believe that allegiance to their own authoritative status is a principle of the gospel, and have articulated such with talks about how criticism isn't useful even if its true, or how there can be no loyal opposition. 

I won't make any comparisons, but there have been some pretty awful regimes in the history of this world built on similar ideals. 

Yes, I agree.  That's why where we have our influence in our ward, our stake, our job, our friends, we move the Church toward the True Gospel.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

The article is devoid of data or reasoned analysis.  Just broad, unsubstantiated claims.

The PU video is pretty much absent of data as well except for his personal experience.  Does "it hasn't happened to me" really work as substantive evidence for what happens to a majority or significant minority of the group being examined?

The example of the young black girl with a bad attitude raising concerns...the question is would the store owner judge behaviours from a young white girl differently, such that raised voice in a black girl means aggression while raised voice for a white girl is judged as extraversion.  

By reducing judgment to very simple things, he is able to be dismissive.

The bandaid example is used to completely dismiss as madeup the author's ideas without examining one other concept.  Nor are we allowed to see if the bandaid example was meant to stand for a variety of behaviours in the market where it has been assumed there is no need to consider a product in the context of other races or being labeled as "normal" vs. "foreign".  While a trivial example, it can reflect more important behaviour such as not including blacks in medical studies because it is assumed that results from white college men are universal enough.

The video also ignores historical behaviour, where things are now changing, but still have an impact because those who experienced previous racism still have the memories and behaviours formed to protect themselves from it and those who didn't are often still unaware of the past impacts.

The bandaid example...it is a holdover from when there was a lot less diversity in products.  It may seem trivial now there are lots of products that are diverse, but there is still an impact when "white" or something one is not is the standard of the market and one is the 'other' that is seen as the alternative.  If it is marketed as a good thing for bandaids not to be noticeable, to not stand out...what happens when they do?  Feeling awkward for drawing unwanted attention may not be lifethreatening, but when it becomes a constant factor in one's life, it can have an effect on how one socializes, which can have an effect on one's quality of life, including income.   It may feel trivial to those who haven't experienced, it is not to those who have.

In my youth it was still relatively unusual to find dolls made in other skin tones besides white.  They were a novelty.  And when dolls and other products are marketed as helpful experiences of personal expressions for future roles as mothers, social roles (cheerleader good, math geek...nonexistent), and careers, acting as if such things are irrelevant when it comes to skin tone looks like ostrich behaviour.  Toys are pitched as aids to helping your kids grow up to be what you want them to be.  Same effects existed even if they weren't as recognized in the past...though playing with baby dolls seems to have always been recognized as helping girls learn to want to be good mothers...my mom buying my sister and I matching baby dolls with bottles and diapers when she had one of my siblings and her telling us we could take care of our babies while she was taking of hers still sticks in my head. I liked that doll, only one I remember liking actually, maybe because it was associated with a real baby in my head and not so much a toy.  Really didn't like barbies and the fancy collection dolls, there is a sense of obligation to take care of them (still have the clothes for the most expensive one as the doll's body rotted), but no love....mind wandering here. 

More mind wandering:  Don't remember my brother getting any present at the time to help him learn to be a better father, but the erector set to push him into thinking like my dad the engineer...man, I was jealous of that and would sneak into his forbidden room just to peek at it.  My dad finally talked with me about something mechanical when he taught me how to change a damaged plug the week before I left for college and an electrical engineering degree...which shockingly I dropped out of and switched to psychology because I didn't understand the basics like what a transistor was the rest of my class of guys (I was one of 4 women in a class of over 200 that year, only class that had another woman in was orientation for engineering careers...massive hall and me and the other freshman female sat together and it was so nice, but our emphases were different so no ability to help each other where it was needed and they didn't have female mentors in my dept until a few years later) appeared to know, so it was like sitting in a class listening to a foreign language at times and I was too embarrassed to ask my teachers for help and they were likely clueless I had any difficulty until I showed up in their office to drop out since I was only noticeable when I was comfortable with the material, helping my classmates with their confusion over logic and programming languages and such.  Another version of how not being viewed as "normal" for a particular role or people's expectations can alter one's life.

Back to racism and skin tone products....

The first study on skin tone impact of dolls had to paint a white doll brown because the researchers couldn't find a doll of color (1940s). The first nonwhite Barbie was made in 1967 by using the same mold as the white doll, but giving it a darker skin tone.  1968 they actually made a doll with African American features.  Nowadays dolls with all sorts of diverse features are accessible, but how does that change attitudes of women my age or older that had to play with dolls that easily conveyed "you are different" which too often gets converted by children into "you are wrong", not good enough, an outsider, etc.  Attitudes we have to first recognize and then work to avoid handing down to our kids.  I got that message of being an outsider, there being something wrong with me myself when what was given to me as presents were lacy dresses and dolls, etc. when what I wanted was my brother's erector set and jeans (able to tie the mind wandering in!).  Thankfully my parents eventually got the message and I think for my tenth birthday I got a chemistry set.  Mom was still buying me pink dresses and embroidered with flowers sweaters until she stopped buying me clothing.  Unfortunately some programming still remains as I feel like I am doing something wrong with my closet filled with what used to be seen as men's style shirts, I still automatically justify to myself there is nothing wrong with cutting my hair super short or not wearing makeup (I have to tell people my skin is sensitive instead of I just don't like it) and I am frustrated that I can only find heavier weight, plain pjs in the men's section.  

I can only imagine what those feelings of wrongness can be like if the attribute is one that isn't behaviour or personal preference, but how one is made, as happens with skin tone or hair texture.  I could at least pretend to like stuff to avoid the disapproving looks of my grandmothers or disappointment of my parents (why don't you want to be pretty?).

Little things chip away at self esteem as much as the big things.  It may not be in a shock inducing way that being targeted by police when sitting in one's car in front of one's own home to finish listening to a game, but it can still have an effect.  And get enough of them in their childhood...an adulthood filled with positive feedback isn't going to remove all the embedded self doubts.

Now not all kids are going to react on that level, but there should be concern when there is evidence that it happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html

So yeah, the bandaid example is silly...unless it is one example of many ranging from minor to major.  And the video didn't even show the other examples but just showed blurs just as it didn't give examples of black men in generic, cared for clothing getting pulled over for driving in wealthier neighborhoods.  It may not have happened to the presenter, but does that mean it didn't happen to the men who claimed it did?  Why should we privilege his life experience over another's in our analysis?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The article is devoid of data or reasoned analysis

Quote

For example, programs like New York City’s now-abandoned “Stop and Frisk” policy target a disproportionate number of black and Latinx people. People of color are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses despite using at a similar rate to white people. Some people do not survive these stereotypes. In 2017, people of color who were unarmed and not attacking anyone were more likely to be killed by police.

This isn't data or reasoned analysis?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still say it’s begging the question. How does one define racial inequality without first establishing what racism is?

By establishing how race is defined and then measuring differences in treatment between races.  Seems pretty self explanatory.  Does one have to define religious intolerance before studying the differences in treatment of one religion to others?  Do you think it is impossible to measure inequalities in treatment of people with disabilities without establishing prejudice towards disabilities first?  Can't one measure the difficulty that someone in a wheelchair has to get into a store compared to someone who can walk in without any prior conclusion there is prejudice involved?  If possible for one physical attribute, why not others?  Gets more complicated, but the principle can be the same (remove variations of appearance of education or income or other social status and compare experience of different skin tones in getting medical treatment for a severe headache, for example...are tests given to rule out physical causes or not, are narcotics for pain relief given more to one group or not, etc).

Edited January 24, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

This is the original "bandaid" list (#46).  Are these all trivial experiences in posters' views or is there a mix?  

Why didn't the presenter choose one of the more serious ones as his example?

Quote

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race. 

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability. 

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have. 

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us. 

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social. 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The PU video is pretty much absent of data as well except for his personal experience.  Does "it hasn't happened to me" really work as substantive evidence for what happens to a majority of the group being examined?

The example of the young black girl with a bad attitude raising concerns...the question is would the store owner judge behaviours from a young white girl differently, such that raised voice in a black girl means aggression while raised voice for a white girl is judged as extraversion.  

By reducing judgment to very simple things, he is able to be dismissive.

The bandaid example is used to completely dismiss as madeup the author's ideas without examining one other concept.  Nor are we allowed to see if the bandaid example was meant to stand for a variety of behaviours in the market where it has been assumed there is no need to consider a product in the context of other races or being labeled as "normal" vs. "foreign".  While a trivial example, it can reflect more important behaviour such as not including blacks in medical studies because it is assumed that results from white college men are universal enough.

The video also ignores historical behaviour, where things are now changing, but still have an impact because those who experienced previous racism still have the memories and behaviours formed to protect themselves from it and those who didn't are often still unaware of the past impacts.

The bandaid example...it is a holdover from when there was a lot less diversity in products.  It may seem trivial now there are lots of products that are diverse, but there is still an impact when "white" or something one is not is the standard of the market and one is the 'other' that is seen as the alternative.  If it is marketed as a good thing for bandaids not to be noticeable, to not stand out...what happens when they do?  Feeling awkward for drawing unwanted attention may not be lifethreatening, but when it becomes a constant factor in one's life, it can have an effect on how one socializes, which can have an effect on one's quality of life, including income.   It may feel trivial to those who haven't experienced, it is not to those who have.

In my youth it was still relatively unusual to find dolls made in other skin tones besides white.  They were a novelty.  And when dolls and other products are marketed as helpful experiences of personal expressions for future roles as mothers, social roles (cheerleader good, math geek...nonexistent), and careers, acting as if such things are irrelevant when it comes to skin tone looks like ostrich behaviour.  Toys are pitched as aids to helping your kids grow up to be what you want them to be.  Same effects existed even if they weren't as recognized in the past...though playing with baby dolls seems to have always been recognized as helping girls learn to want to be good mothers...my mom buying my sister and I matching baby dolls with bottles and diapers when she had one of my siblings and her telling us we could take care of our babies while she was taking of hers still sticks in my head. I liked that doll, only one I remember liking actually, maybe because it was associated with a real baby in my head and not so much a toy.  Really didn't like barbies and the fancy collection dolls, there is a sense of obligation to take care of them (still have the clothes for the most expensive one as the doll's body rotted), but no love....mind wandering here.  Don't remember my brother getting any present at the time to help him learn to be a better father, but the erector set to push him into thinking like my dad the engineer...man, I was jealous of that and would sneak into his forbidden room just to peek at it.  My dad finally talked with me about something mechanical when he taught me how to change a damaged plug the week before I left for college and an electrical engineering degree...which shockingly I dropped out of and switched to psychology because I didn't understand the basics like what a transistor was the rest of my class of guys (I was one of 4 women in a class of over 200 that year, only class that had another woman in was orientation for engineering careers...massive hall and me and the other freshman female sat together and it was so nice, but our emphases were different so no ability to help each other where it was needed and they didn't have female mentors in my dept until a few years later) appeared to know, so it was like sitting in a class listening to a foreign language at times and I was too embarrassed to ask my teachers for help and they were likely clueless I had any difficulty until I showed up in their office to drop out since I was only noticeable when I was comfortable with the material, helping my classmates with their confusion over logic and programming languages and such.

The first study on skin tone impact of dolls had to paint a white doll brown because the researchers couldn't find a doll of color (1940s). The first nonwhite Barbie was made in 1967 by using the same mold as the white doll, but giving it a darker skin tone.  1968 they actually made a doll with African American features.  Nowadays dolls with all sorts of diverse features are accessible, but how does that change attitudes of women my age or older that had to play with dolls that easily conveyed "you are different" which too often gets converted by children into "you are wrong", not good enough, an outsider, etc.  Attitudes we have to first recognize and then work to avoid handing down to our kids.  I got that message of being an outsider, there being something wrong with me myself when what was given to me as presents were lacy dresses and dolls, etc. when what I wanted was my brother's erector set and jeans.  Thankfully my parents eventually got the message and I think for my tenth birthday I got a chemistry set.  Mom was still buying me pink dresses and embroidered with flowers sweaters until she stopped buying me clothing.  Unfortunately some programming still remains as I feel like I am doing something wrong with my closet filled with what used to be seen as men's style shirts, I still automatically justify to myself there is nothing wrong with cutting my hair super short or not wearing makeup (I have to tell people my skin is sensitive instead of I just don't like it) and I am frustrated that I can only find heavier weight, plain pjs in the men's section.  

I can only imagine what those feelings of wrongness can be like if the attribute is one that isn't behaviour or personal preference, but how one is made, as happens with skin tone or hair texture.  I could at least pretend to like stuff to avoid the disapproving looks of my grandmothers or disappointment of my parents (why don't you want to be pretty?).

Little things chip away at self esteem as much as the big things.  It may not be in a shock inducing way that being targeted by police when sitting in one's car in front of one's own home to finish listening to a game, but it can still have an effect.  And get enough of them in their childhood...an adulthood filled with positive feedback isn't going to remove all the embedded self doubts.

Now not all kids are going to react on that level, but there should be concern when there is evidence that it happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html

So yeah, the bandaid example is silly...unless it is one example of many ranging from minor to major.  And the video didn't even show the other examples but just showed blurs just as it didn't give examples of black men in generic, cared for clothing getting pulled over for driving in wealthier neighborhoods.  It may not have happened to the presenter, but does that mean it didn't happen to the men who claimed it did?  Why should we privilege his life experience over another's in our analysis?

🤗👏

Thanks for this response, I'm grateful for your stamina and intellect in putting it together. Love your story of growing up and wanting certain things that weren't all that common maybe, but probably more common than we think. Today I watched Yentl on Amazon Prime because I'm trying to watch as many movies as possible before cancelling, lol. Your comments above reminded me of Yentl!