Racial Stereotypes

[WinePusher]

I've heard many apologists for Trayvon Martin in the media bring up issues regarding racial profiling. They'll either say something like:

1) Had Zimmerman been black and had Martin been white then Martin would have been convicted and sentenced to prison.

or

2) Had Trayvon Martin been white instead of black, Zimmerman would have never followed him in the first place.

These two statements are stereotypes. They imply that the only reason why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin was because of his race, and the first implies that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks.

But the real question is why do these stereotypes exist in the first place. My opinion is that a racial stereotype exists because many members of a certain ethnic group behave or act a certain way, and this trait/feature is extrapolated to the entire ethnic group.

Questions:

1) If you were walking alone in a dark alley and saw a group of hooded black men walking your way, would you be scared?

2) If you were walking alone in a dark alley and saw a group of teenage girls walking your way, would you be scared?

3) Do you yourself engage in racial profiling and stereotyping in your everyday life?

[Danmark]

The reason stereotypes exist is because humans are prone to fear strangers, and especially people who aren't like them. Skin color and clothes are the easiest cues that the person may not be of your "clan".

The OP is race baiting. It's an attempt to make us think there might be something to the idea of the "savage black man".

Poverty and drugs are more indicative of whether the person you meet in a dark alley is dangerous, but those things aren't easily recognized.

The OP is dripping with racism. It's a sign of how institutionalized; how systemic, racism is, especially in certain areas of the country, and among certain people of limited education and intelligence.

I agree with the comment that it is 'race baiting.' This type of thing has long been practiced by people speaking in code or to rile up others and appeal to their fears and prejudices.

"Prejudice" is an interesting concept. Everyone has prejudices. There is probably a very gradual continuum from ignorant, almost groundless prejudice, thru understandable prejudices that are at least partially based in fact, to clearly supportable beliefs based on thorough education.

We simply don't always have the time or opportunity to research everything absolutely and have to make quick assumptions sometimes, particularly in an emergency. Stress and fear can easily make one revert to a prejudice on the first part of the spectrum.

Frequently we are not aware of our prejudices, they are unconscious and we are not aware of them until they are pointed out by objective observation or personal reflection. This is the case in the Harvard study where physicians were horrified to discover theirs. It was demonstrated to their own satisfaction that they had racial prejudices re: how they treated white patients vs. black patients despite the fact most of them did not intend to discriminate.

A new study from Harvard suggests that racial bias affects the treatment that many African-American patients receive in hospital emergency rooms.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=12253244

To discuss racism, we should first define it:

Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.
In history, racism was a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the US in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights
_ Wikipedia

It is easy to make prejudicial judgments that may be unfair.
For example:
The fact that WinePusher has started the topics "Affirmative Action Is Racism!" and
"Racial Stereotypes" and "Should An Islamic Mosque Be Built At Ground Zero?" [where his OP says "This is completly outraegous [sic] and infuriating...!" implying that since Muslims were involved in 911, no Muslim should have a Mosque near the site]; and states:

We do not see Asians dropping out of school, we do not see many Asians wallowing in poverty. And that's because the Asian culture promotes values such as hard work and respect, something the Black culture does not. :

... the observer might be prejudiced that he has an unhealthy racial agenda or obsession. This might be a completely unfair and prejudicial assessment, or it might be spot on. Determining whether it is mere prejudice or fact may depend on how much time and effort one wishes to devote to studying the issue.

[Danmark]

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

"Reality is complicated and messy," Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist wrote. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

[dianaiad]

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.

I find that people who start writing about the intelligence level of others really should be more careful of writing conventions, including basic grammar. Not doing so causes a disconnect and a mental shock to the reader, and thus messes with the writer's credibility. Ordinarily such things do not matter to the content of the post, but when discussing the possible or probable mental and intellectual shortcomings of others, not paying attention to such things says something about the writer that the writer probably doesn't want said.

Just sayin.'

These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

"Reality is complicated and messy," Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist wrote. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

Odd, (just musing here and not in any way justifying racial stereotypes or prejudice) how the folks who most prefer simple solutions (Ockham's razor, anybody?) and insist upon using this perspective in viewing religion and religious thought, eschew simplicity for any philosophy of which they approve.

[Danmark]

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.

I find that people who start writing about the intelligence level of others really should be more careful of writing conventions, including basic grammar. Not doing so causes a disconnect and a mental shock to the reader, and thus messes with the writer's credibility. Ordinarily such things do not matter to the content of the post, but when discussing the possible or probable mental and intellectual shortcomings of others, not paying attention to such things says something about the writer that the writer probably doesn't want said.

Just sayin.'

I'll forward your remarks to the author, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

Perhaps you could tell me specifically the 'writing conventions and basic grammar' she violated so I will accurately represent your opinion. I'm sure as a 'Senior Writer' she will appreciate your constructive criticism.

I had no idea you could suffer 'mental shock' so easily.

[Danmark]

duplicate

[Danmark]

These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

"Reality is complicated and messy," Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist wrote. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

Odd, (just musing here and not in any way justifying racial stereotypes or prejudice) how the folks who most prefer simple solutions (Ockham's razor, anybody?) and insist upon using this perspective in viewing religion and religious thought, eschew simplicity for any philosophy of which they approve.

You are conflating two concepts. One is the reliance on simple ideologies to solve complex problems, the other is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic. Ockham's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

When applied in a religious context, I would add that unnecessary assumptions of a supernatural nature are particularly suspect.

[dianaiad]

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.

I find that people who start writing about the intelligence level of others really should be more careful of writing conventions, including basic grammar. Not doing so causes a disconnect and a mental shock to the reader, and thus messes with the writer's credibility. Ordinarily such things do not matter to the content of the post, but when discussing the possible or probable mental and intellectual shortcomings of others, not paying attention to such things says something about the writer that the writer probably doesn't want said.

Just sayin.'

I'll forward your remarks to the author, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

Perhaps you could tell me specifically the 'writing conventions and basic grammar' she violated so I will accurately represent your opinion. I'm sure as a 'Senior Writer' she will appreciate your constructive criticism.

I had no idea you could suffer 'mental shock' so easily.

Is THAT who you quoted? I knew it was someone, though you didn't give her credit. Thank you. As a 'senior writer,' I'm sure she will be chagrined to see that this slipped past the sharp eyes of her proofreader.

As to the grammatical error she committed, well...the sentence: "
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.' should read "....more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes than adults."

The proper idiom is NOT "more likely--as,' but "more likely--than." Comparisons can be tricky. I'm certain that it was a simple error of continuity, one that anybody might have made. English is a complicated language, and idiomatic as well as subject/verb errors are incredibly easy to make.

However, they are also incredibly easy to spot and fix in the proofreading process. My point is that, given her topic, which was to disparage--or at least to note and promote disparagement by someone else--the intelligence and understanding of others, she should have actually done that proofreading.

Whether it is true or not, readers tend to pick up on errors such as the one she made, and use them (rightly or wrongly) as an indication of the writer's intelligence, erudition or education, or lack of same. Therefore it behooves a writer who is commenting on that lack in others to not give readers that sort of ammunition against her.

As to why I am prone to suffering 'mental shock' upon reading such errors made by writers disparaging others, well....I'm an English teacher. That sort of thing sticks out at me, rather the way my nephew sees two rocks and can instantly tell what sort of rock they are, approximately how old they are, where they came from and part of their history, and all I see is two rocks.

It's all in how we are trained. Mind you, the error she made probably jumps out at any English speaker who actually paid attention in high school.

oh....and before you go anywhere else with this, yes, I make such errors all the time. I'm especially prone to do so here and I don't catch 'em all, and the point I made with this writer also holds for me.

[Danmark]

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.

I find that people who start writing about the intelligence level of others really should be more careful of writing conventions, including basic grammar. Not doing so causes a disconnect and a mental shock to the reader, and thus messes with the writer's credibility. Ordinarily such things do not matter to the content of the post, but when discussing the possible or probable mental and intellectual shortcomings of others, not paying attention to such things says something about the writer that the writer probably doesn't want said.

Just sayin.'

I'll forward your remarks to the author, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

Perhaps you could tell me specifically the 'writing conventions and basic grammar' she violated so I will accurately represent your opinion. I'm sure as a 'Senior Writer' she will appreciate your constructive criticism.

I had no idea you could suffer 'mental shock' so easily.

Is THAT who you quoted? I knew it was someone, though you didn't give her credit. Thank you. As a 'senior writer,' I'm sure she will be chagrined to see that this slipped past the sharp eyes of her proofreader.

As to the grammatical error she committed, well...the sentence: "
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.' should read "....more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes than adults."

The proper idiom is NOT "more likely--as,' but "more likely--than." Comparisons can be tricky. I'm certain that it was a simple error of continuity, one that anybody might have made. English is a complicated language, and idiomatic as well as subject/verb errors are incredibly easy to make.

However, they are also incredibly easy to spot and fix in the proofreading process. My point is that, given her topic, which was to disparage--or at least to note and promote disparagement by someone else--the intelligence and understanding of others, she should have actually done that proofreading.

Whether it is true or not, readers tend to pick up on errors such as the one she made, and use them (rightly or wrongly) as an indication of the writer's intelligence, erudition or education, or lack of same. Therefore it behooves a writer who is commenting on that lack in others to not give readers that sort of ammunition against her.

As to why I am prone to suffering 'mental shock' upon reading such errors made by writers disparaging others, well....I'm an English teacher. That sort of thing sticks out at me, rather the way my nephew sees two rocks and can instantly tell what sort of rock they are, approximately how old they are, where they came from and part of their history, and all I see is two rocks.

It's all in how we are trained. Mind you, the error she made probably jumps out at any English speaker who actually paid attention in high school.

oh....and before you go anywhere else with this, yes, I make such errors all the time. I'm especially prone to do so here and I don't catch 'em all, and the point I made with this writer also holds for me.

Yes we certainly make more mistakes here on this forum were our writing is informal, plus innumerable typos. I have discovered more than once I typed 'their' for 'there,' for example.

BTW, I gave attribution by giving the URL:
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html.

Nothing in that post was mine, is was all quotes, hence the italics. I just viewed it as a continuation of my post contiguous.

Perhaps more importantly, rather than assume an error in English usage, I assumed the writer meant what she wrote:

"The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults," meaning they continue to hold to their childhood prejudices when they have reached adulthood. This actually makes much more sense than 'than' because the article is about how prejudice develops.

It's also why I did not understand what usage error you referred to and asked for clarification.

[dianaiad]

Perhaps more importantly, rather than assume an error in English usage, I assumed the writer meant what she wrote:

"The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults," meaning they continue to hold to their childhood prejudices when they have reached adulthood. This actually makes much more sense than 'than' because the article is about how prejudice develops.

It's also why I did not understand what usage error you referred to and asked for clarification.

Y'know what?

You are absolutely correct. This was my own lack of reading skills, not her lack of writing skills.

[WinePusher]

It is easy to make prejudicial judgments that may be unfair.
For example:
The fact that WinePusher has started the topics "Affirmative Action Is Racism!" and
"Racial Stereotypes" and "Should An Islamic Mosque Be Built At Ground Zero?" [where his OP says "This is completly outraegous [sic] and infuriating...!" implying that since Muslims were involved in 911, no Muslim should have a Mosque near the site]; and states:

We do not see Asians dropping out of school, we do not see many Asians wallowing in poverty. And that's because the Asian culture promotes values such as hard work and respect, something the Black culture does not. :

... the observer might be prejudiced that he has an unhealthy racial agenda or obsession. This might be a completely unfair and prejudicial assessment, or it might be spot on. Determining whether it is mere prejudice or fact may depend on how much time and effort one wishes to devote to studying the issue.

The only person with an obsession here is you. You are obsessed with my posts and my previous writings on this forum. Do I think it's weird that you stalk my posts? Yes, to a certain extent. But then again, maybe it'll help you learn a thing or two about Politics and Religion.

And yes, race is an interesting topic that I enjoy discussing because it involves many academic disciplines, ie: Economics and Sociology. Again, do you even know anything about those two subjects. Whenever you try to debate them, you either end up ignoring key points or copying and pasting off of internet articles.

Oh, if you're still intent on stalking my posts I'll make it easier for you. I still think affirmative action is racism and that there should be no mosque at the ground zero site. I'm entitled to my opinion and I guess you are entitled to see the world through your distorted 'racist' lens.