Tolerance of Racism?

[Thorgnor]

Reactions to racism not as strong as we think: York study

TORONTO, January 8, 2009 -- One reason racism persists is that many people imagine they would respond strongly to a racist act but actually respond with indifference, a new study led by York University shows.

Published in the Jan. 9 issue of Science, “Mispredicting Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism†examines why acts of blatant racism against blacks still occur with alarming regularity, even though being labeled as a racist in modern society has become a powerful stigma.

“People do not think of themselves as prejudiced, and they predict that they would be very upset by a racist act and would take action,†said lead author Kerry Kawakami, a psychology professor in York’s Faculty of Health. “However, we found that their responses are much more muted than they expect when they are actually faced with an overtly racist comment.â€

Kawakami led the study at York with graduate student Francine Karmali. University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, an expert on people’s ability to predict their future emotional responses, and Yale University professor John Dovidio, an expert on prejudice, are co-authors.

In the study, students who think they are waiting for an experiment to begin are exposed to racism. Specifically, a white confederate makes a racist comment about a black confederate when he briefly leaves the room. When he returns, the actual participant is asked to choose a partner to work with on a subsequent exercise.

“What we found was that students were more likely to choose the white confederate as a partner (63 per cent), despite the fact that the white person had made a racist comment about the black person,†said Kawakami. “And the racist comments ranged from moderate to one of the most powerful anti-black slurs in the English language.â€

The findings may seem surprising at a time when America is about to inaugurate its first black president, but the election of one black man does not mean that racism is dead or that people will no longer tolerate acts of racism, Kawakami said.

Notably, there has been little research done on how people respond to prejudice toward others. However, University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, one of the authors of the Science article, studies people’s ability to predict their own affective and behavioural reactions.

“People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur,†said Dunn. “One of the ways that people may stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to re-construe the comment as a joke or as a harmless remark.â€

Further studies currently being conducted by these researchers are investigating how characteristics related to the racists and the target of prejudice increases or decreases emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions to racial slurs. Examining people’s perceptions of both the white and black confederate may provide important clues as to when people do and do not stand up against racism.

Media Contact:

Keith Marnoch, Media Relations, York University, marnoch@yorku.ca

Janice Walls, Media Relations, York University, 416 736 2100 x22101 / wallsj@yorku.ca

[SaggyBalls]

Depends on how much a racist 'comment' is a racist 'act'

Freedom of speech skews the validity of this study and pulls the Political Correctness card.

What is a 'Racist Act'?

Is it a display of anger and hatred?

Is it anything that exhibits 'racism'?

"“People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur,â€"

What deems a situation where a racial slur is involved as being 'bad'

Perhaps the overall situation is more of a gauge than the slur itself.

How is someone to know the intended meaning of a racial slur?

How different then could 'Fatso' be than 'Nigger' in some situations?

Disrespect is disrespect. Creating the idea of exclusion based upon outward physical appearance is unfair and overwhelmingly accepted.

This is a point worth considering.

[AD]

politics?

[SaggyBalls]

ethics and morality.

Something often missing from politics.

[Thorgnor]

I was trying to avoid bothering the type who reads the main forum ONLY for music news.

YT, this is "Beyond Political Correctness", it's hard to link the literature here though. By their standards a racist act is judged by the oppressed not the person who feels it's ok to make jokes. When the comments of some offend due to race or ethnicity, the comments are racist, tough nuggies on the intention of the speaker.

[Thorgnor]

Disrespect is disrespect. Creating the idea of exclusion based upon outward physical appearance is unfair and overwhelmingly accepted.

Word.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

When the comments of some offend due to race or ethnicity, the comments are racist, tough nuggies on the intention of the speaker.

Tough nuggies on everybody.

Intent to me is entirely important, but as far as I know, I don't marginalize people in the contexts that would be applicable to this thread.

After all, is it up to me to scold someone for being an idiot when I can just move on? If it escalates and remains a constant, then there is more of a basis on which I may be justified to act or not.

I think that if we accept one kind of disprespect, we must accept them all.

It's ultimitely fair. Not ultimitely kind, but fair.

It might be more important to have compassion for the racist, as there could be far more suffering in his/her life than the 'oppressed' person that had just left the room.

Immediate action is not always the wisest plan of action.

[Thorgnor]

That's the whole point of the study. Allowing the racist to walk away without letting them know they have offended someone supports their ignorance and legitimizes their anti-social behaviour... rights are not meant to absolve responsibility. It is all of our fault if we let it fly. Every time comments have a chance to reach an unintended audience, if we hold intention as important, there's a chance to piss someone off. We tend to react badly when someone defends the popular whipping boy.

I look for kind, not fair, fair is judgement, kind is intention.

[SaggyBalls]

"Specifically, a white confederate makes a racist comment about a black confederate when he briefly leaves the room."

I read that as the white confederate makes the comment while the black confederate is away, not makes a comment and dashes, leaving time to process the action with the other person there.

What were the racial makeups of the respondants?

What were the reaction of the black confederates?

Perhaps there's more relating to body language and sociality to the further choices than racism.

"Further studies currently being conducted by these researchers are investigating how characteristics related to the racists and the target of prejudice increases or decreases emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions to racial slurs. Examining people’s perceptions of both the white and black confederate may provide important clues as to when people do and do not stand up against racism."

I think it'll be more important to understand the outcome of the 'further studies'.

Also, another important thing to ascertain is what these people believe to be an act of racism DURING THE ACT, not before or after. A slur may be able to be defined on paper as an act of racism, but a slur, while disrespectful and maligned, may not be entirel hateful and therefore not deemed to be an ACT - especially since it is a comment and not a specifically targeted plotted decision.

Manslaughter versus Murder...it's still a death but how much of a killer is the person?

"“People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur,†said Dunn. “One of the ways that people may stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to re-construe the comment as a joke or as a harmless remark.â€"

Another way that people stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to do nothing about it, and then vastly overestimate their responses.

Kind is more being than intending, TB.

"Allowing the racist to walk away without letting them know they have offended someone supports their ignorance and legitimizes their anti-social behaviour... rights are not meant to absolve responsibility. It is all of our fault if we let it fly."

Since there's now a blame on all of us 'if we let it fly' you're essentially laying a judgement - and while fair, is hypocritical...unless you take into account that you have PRE JUDGED...which makes you prejudiced.

In all of this I'm not saying that we SHOULD tolerate racism, but to choose our battles.

Racist behaviour is not anti-social. In fact it seems that it is purely social. Bred of poor interpersonal relations and misunderstandings, kept alive purely by social means. Maybe it's not positive, but it's not antisocial.

It's not all black and white and yellow and red.

I know you mean well, TB but what's your point in posting this in the politics forum?

" By their standards a racist act is judged by the oppressed not the person who feels it's ok to make jokes."

Well by the standards of our 'free society', how can small boundaries be laid around the joke makers, as they would essentially be oppressed if their freedoms are infringed upon.

The more rules in a society, the fewer freedoms that stand therein.

[Thorgnor]

Your right. I should have posted something about Kosher grocers instead.

Pre-judging words like "nigger" based on their historically contextualised meanings seems reasonable. Saying that when somebody brushes against a black person while they are leaving the room and calls them a nigger is taking a "possibly racist act" out of context is like saying it's ok to call them a nigger because you weren't there to judge if it's ok.

So yeah, I'm EXTREMELY prejudiced, against bigotry... I'll worry about the "hypocrisy" part when your comments make sense.

Relating that someone's right to use the word nigger may be a different level of offence in different contexts is fine but by your manslaughter analogy still leaves a "dead body" that needs to be dealt with under the law.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

The more rules in a society, the fewer freedoms that stand therein.

That's a truism, like the more water in a glass the fuller it is. That's awfully perceptive of you... thanks dude.

I suppose a better question now would be does your right to "freedom" overrule and outwiegh the rights of others to live free from "inhumane" behaviour. You know, like the idea that skin color determines your level of humanity.

As far as I understand it we have a right to education, not ignorance.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Guest

[d_rawk]

politics?

I know you mean well, TB but what's your point in posting this in the politics forum?

Feels appropriate to me *shrug*. It is a political issue, even if somewhat indirectly. And you guys are having one hell of a conversation that wouldn't play out quite the same way in the main forum. This place feels to me like something of a catch-all for political/social/religious issues that would be otherwise awkwardly out of place on jambands.

(Bouche's hidden agenda: hide the nerds)

[Thorgnor]

word

[SaggyBalls]

"As far as I understand it we have a right to education, not ignorance."

Exactly, but education isn't just 'listen to this it's right'

Just as much as that one "n" word wasn't the only one used in the study.

Yours Truly Said:

The more rules in a society, the fewer freedoms that stand therein.

That's a truism, like the more water in a glass the fuller it is. That's awfully perceptive of you... thanks dude.

So how would you presume to solve this issue of the tolerance of racism? imaginary, implied rules, or clearly defined, legislated ones?

My asking why wasn't a 'you shouldn't have posted this' sort of thing - it was more of a 'what are you getting at' sort of thing.

[Thorgnor]

I was hinting that the idea of tolerance itself is entirely inadequate as a baseline for acceptance of others. We must move beyond caring about words to caring about their meanings, hiding behind laughter isn't any less than condoning the behaviour, as you said. You also pointed out that racism is a social issue (and only anti-social when it drives people apart I suppose) and that means that to condone this kind of behaviour is to democratically support their behaviour as socially acceptable, therefore your resistance to anti-racism makes racism ok, and legitimizes your view that it's too big to fight it all. Start somewhere, start everywhere.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Guest

[can-o-phish]

[color:purple]With role models like Harry the British youth are gonna be just fine...

Raghead Harry

[SaggyBalls]

"You also pointed out that racism is a social issue (and only anti-social when it drives people apart I suppose) and that means that to condone this kind of behaviour is to democratically support their behaviour as socially acceptable, therefore your resistance to anti-racism makes racism ok, and legitimizes your view that it's too big to fight it all."

I did point out that racism is social, but none of the rest of that stuff (which, gramatically you linked me to and is in itself not entirely correct)

It is anti-social when it is INTENDED to drive people apart - so as a comment to someone in ththis example, is not antisocial - unjust and unfair, yes - but not antisocial.

To condone that behavious democratically would require a specific vote for it rather than lacking a specific vote against it at the time.

You're twisting it all, seemingly justified but still twisting it in a very politically correct manner as it is a very politically incorrect issue that is very personal and difficult, thus driving people to easy answers and concepts to be the most socially just - which might not be always the most intelligent or wise, even if it is seemingly fair to those directly involved in the moment.

My 'resistance' is really not resistance. It's not blind acceptance of a relatively vague preliminary finding in a multifaceted study.

My desire to question this anti-racist post demands discussion of this entirely polarized issue.

"does your right to "freedom" overrule and outwiegh the rights of others to live free from "inhumane" behaviour. You know, like the idea that skin color determines your level of humanity."

the issue of humanity is very important, as people are dehumanized and demoralized in countless ways, not just through acts of racism, often on a daily basis.

When laws are passed to 'ensure' that people live free from your presumed definition of inhumanity are passed, they will most certainly find their way to restrict social freedoms.

I don't know if they'll adversely affect people like you and I but there is a distinct possibility that they could.

" start everywhere. "

Yeah - start EVERYWHERE...so attacking 'racism' instead of 'disrespect' is just starting 'somewhere', which really hasn't moved us very far. This issue is not new.

and to really start 'everywhere' then it takes a hollistic approach at ficing the ails of society, not its symptoms, of which racism is just one.

I'm only trying to point out that this is a very difficult issue that needs more than a 'this is right this is wrong' mentality.

"So yeah, I'm EXTREMELY prejudiced, against bigotry... I'll worry about the "hypocrisy" part when your comments make sense. "

"I look for kind, not fair, fair is judgement, kind is intention."

I'm only pointing out YOUR comments, and for you to not hold true to your own comments through the range of intention, really holds a lot of integrity up to the light.

You're bigoted against bigots?

The world needs a lot more compassion and understanding instead of polarization and restriction without postive direction.

Give yourself a hug and maybe it'll get off to a good start for once.

Compassion and understanding will never be able to be forced upon people.

...after all, I can't make you hug yourself.

Education is crucial, but so is integration of societies and cultures.

There's a lot more to an individual's assertion and concept of humanity and underlying avenues of respect than an utterly topical, potentially superficial issue of racist remarks.

However - that's not to say it's of absolutely no importance - but actions speak a lot louder than words. The respondants tested overexaggerated their responses to racist acts. Perhaps they had a different understanding of an 'act' and would be more likely to act out if the issue wasn't a passing comment - as negative as a passing comment could be.

The rest of this study will be very interesting to see when you post it.

[Thorgnor]

First off, let's leave integrity out of it, this is a discussion on the internet. I've made no lighthearted comments about massacre and mutilation. You want me to continue the discussion, stop insulting me.

However - that's not to say it's of absolutely no importance - but actions speak a lot louder than words.

Hate for you to be last in on the joke, but words are actions, they are ideas made into vibration. Every word you say conjures and shifts space and time, you magician you.

The second action taken was to ignore the racist comment.

democratic racism

speak up or show your support

[SaggyBalls]

TB I wasn't throwing around any insults, just bringing up your own quotes that contradicted themselves.

It's sad that modern day ethics incite people to villify themselves, or lead others to label others as bigots, those that either choose to not speak up or would prefer to just move on.

The complexities of a fear and shame infused society.

I think you skewed the term 'democratic racism' for this thread.

It would be far more fitting for that term to refer to political and legislative process, creating laws and guidelines of practice that are less than equal to all ethnicities...like, oh, say...in the '80s when crack dealers got higher sentences than coke dealers, thus being a huge target for slums and inner cities...which were less white than the areas where powder cocaine was more prevalent. to me that's democratic racism, and that's probably closer to what you'll find already written about 'democratic racism' which is very little.

"but words are actions,"

Actually, speaking/communicating is the action.

The words are only part of its content, along with body language, inflection, intention, and creative license.

Didn't you say this?

"We must move beyond caring about words to caring about their meanings"

Sure I've made some strong comments in a lighthearted manner, but i also find it rather funny that you bring up another discussion to , essentially 'deflect' your contradictions.

those intensely grave comments are pretty well aligned with the content of this thread as well, and I find it entirely laughable that you're fighting me on this one.

racism and prejudice are vile, foul, and intensely unjust, yet there still remains a 'bubble' around various ethnic and cultural groups, essentially feeding the racist beast even more. While people of various backgrounds keep to themselves, as there's strength in numbers, the potential for sharing and growth is continually stunted and restricted.

instead of celebrating our differences and similarities, and having the rights to voice our concerns and ideas there is more of a focus put on the flip side of the coin far too many times, because in the nearly 50 years of north american civil rights, we've been shocked and terrified by negative displays of intolerance.

So when there's a belligerant, angry racist loudmouth on the bus or on the street yelling at people and most people walk past, allowing him to look like a crazy fool, my yelling back or shoving the guy into an alley it's alright,

What of all the people that walk past, not knowing how to react out of fear or confusion? Racists?

If at the beginning of a business meeting, I don't voice emphatically that a 'joke' - entirely funny or not, is inappropriate then I'm automatically the democratic racist?

Or if a comment is entirely terrible, instead of giving the guy a look and saying 'come on', then I'm suddenly the bad guy...or almost not the bad guy cause that's relatively accepting...

So what of jokes that play upon stereotypes but don't entirely demean the characters? Is anything less than entirely positive now suddenly unlaughable and wrong?

I understand this is a little bit askew from the study, but really, if it's all democratic racism then it of course applies.

What about a comment about, say, a cute little phillipino lady that was my neighbour - in a bad phillipino accent, or a comment like 'I'm not at all suprised that she made the best BBQ chicken'...maybe that's not so bad, but if I were to question why she didn't make a sauce with coconut in it am I naughtier?

Am I a democratic racist for talking about someone else outside of my WASPy bubble using stereotypes?

If it's about intention, and what the content was, and how it was said...then awesome. By your JUDGEMENT I'm probably fine.

But if it's merely about the words...as they somehow are what shifts time and space...then I'm a bad person?

" We tend to react badly when someone defends the popular whipping boy. "

Exactly.

If you say 'Speak up or show your support'

and here I am saying 'well...here are some problems with that...'

then of course I'm not suprised you're reacting badly and adding nothing new to the discussion except holding to your side of the 'debate' which really just serves to water down the issue and continue to keep this discussion irrelevant to the needs and sensibilities of an ever changing and forward-moving society.

So when I comment that there's more to this than passive tolerance to racist language, it isn't to make an argument or knock you off your high horse, but to maybe make you put something into this that I and others could learn something from.

I'm glad that you seem kind...in a way.

...but since racism is a social disease, it is not entirely fair to be completely bigoted against those afflicted.

[Thorgnor]

In this thread you have called me a hypocrite and questioned my integrity, those are insults, they are personal, and they were unnessecary for the purpose of either debate or discussion.

I posted this so you could read it, if you learned nothing, tough. I created the thread, you add to it other than to try and "knock me off my high horse" which if you knew me, other than by a glance and a "goofy grin", would seem pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps I posted this as a heads up for those who may not have heard of it. Why question every fucking post when you're the one who claims skepticism "for the sake of it" is ubiquitous and useless? First you say, "ethics and morality" next you question why I post this in the politics forum... read above.

[Hal Johnson]

So, ya, I'd have to agree, I see a growing tolerance of rasicm in my day to day life. Interesting study.

[Thorgnor]

word.

Hal, I miss you, let's party soon.

[Hal Johnson]

Absolutely, but no camel-jockey jokes

[Thorgnor]

Try to keep the shrill celebration noizes to a minimum.

[SaggyBalls]

Glad that I got that first 'Word' from ya, TB.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Guest
no want bad