Read this, and give your thoughts...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
I scannned too, I would need well-chilled bong to fully enjoy that piece.
The premise has validity but the presentation has too much muddled emotional 'science' in it.
[edit]THe idea that a child does not see race is right. The paths drawn from there . . . . ?[/edit]
Walks like a duck
The premise has validity but the presentation has too much muddled emotional 'science' in it.
[edit]THe idea that a child does not see race is right. The paths drawn from there . . . . ?[/edit]
Walks like a duck
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Gonz said:Well, hell. I skim real good
Man, do I hafta go on?
This had better get better real quick.
SOrry Gato...that's all I can take.
Now see, if I didn't start skimming I'd have missed where it got better
Ugh oh, we're going backwards.
So, if I gave you a math problem, you'd get the wrong answer because you got bored reading the equation? I don't agree with everything he says, but the psychological aspects of it do have some merit...and, yes, I read the whole thing.
RM...
The whole premise is based upon observation, and a good bit of psychology. When dealing with a product like racism, he seems to go on about parallels with other societal problems, though. I can see how racism and sexism can be determined and learned through observation of individuals, but homophobia cannot because you cannot determine someones sexual preference by sight alone. Homophobia must be learned in a different manner...My opinion.
Now if you deal only with parental influence, racism becomes an individual problem. Once you add in things like media, and the three branches of our government, judicial, executive, and legislative, you have a societal problem. If the courts, the legislature, and the president have to enact a law to allow basic rights to a group, then you can see the scope of the problem.
ClaireBear
Banned
I couldn't stand to read it anymore... the terrible terrible grammar!!! Sure I can't write in Danish but still!
I think he's trying to get at the point that racism is indoctrinated by our social experiences from home, family and the outside world.
Children make up "models" and ideas at they follow throughout life... that people aren't born racist... children often say and do things that we consider racist "why is your skin a different colour?" "Your hair is funny!" But its not "racisim" it is their way of broadening their experience and learning... childish innocence! A parents reactions to such comments will form a child's attitudes to race.
Is that what he's trying to say?
Cos really I could only take so much of it!
I think he's trying to get at the point that racism is indoctrinated by our social experiences from home, family and the outside world.
Children make up "models" and ideas at they follow throughout life... that people aren't born racist... children often say and do things that we consider racist "why is your skin a different colour?" "Your hair is funny!" But its not "racisim" it is their way of broadening their experience and learning... childish innocence! A parents reactions to such comments will form a child's attitudes to race.
Is that what he's trying to say?
Cos really I could only take so much of it!
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
The article begins with developmental behavioral science then it goes into liberal sociology theory that someone dreamed-up and it "sounded good".
Racism is a learned behavior, it is not a basic natural instinct, and it’s not hard-wired in other words. Sucking on a breast is hard-wired for a child, if they don’t have this instinct it it’s indicative of a catastrophic biological-neurological problem and the child will not naturally live. Behavior is based on the full exposure of life in all areas; you learn 99% of your behaviors.
When a fine woman gives you certain signals you may become erect. This is not behavioral but instinctive; you have little control to refuse the rise. (Parasympathetic nervous system)
Racism will occur at some level no matter what the social norm is; it‘s just something you can’t fully avoid. Someone that shows aggression against race has been programmed to do so. Similarly some one that shows aggressive violence (verbal or physical) at homosexuals also have had influences in their life that create the idea that this behavior is OK when its not. That is homophobia
Most people are not homophobic but have a principled disagreement of the behavior, yet they are tolerant of it. Again that does not mean they are homophobic.
The question is not of instinctive behaviors of nature but developmental behaviors and social norms. The two are situations are markedly different from social/moral/evolutionary points of veiw.
Where as a Blackman wakes up everyday as a Blackman (‘cept M.Jackson), a person can change their sexual orientation during their life. There is a fundamental difference between sexuality (a behavior) and pigmentation (a genetic physical attribute).
I could rewrite that story to blur other socially unacceptable views and it would still sound good. I can see the parallel lines that they are trying to draw, but the subjects are not the same, it’s far more complex than a simple 'notion' of parallelisms.
Racism is a learned behavior, it is not a basic natural instinct, and it’s not hard-wired in other words. Sucking on a breast is hard-wired for a child, if they don’t have this instinct it it’s indicative of a catastrophic biological-neurological problem and the child will not naturally live. Behavior is based on the full exposure of life in all areas; you learn 99% of your behaviors.
When a fine woman gives you certain signals you may become erect. This is not behavioral but instinctive; you have little control to refuse the rise. (Parasympathetic nervous system)
Racism will occur at some level no matter what the social norm is; it‘s just something you can’t fully avoid. Someone that shows aggression against race has been programmed to do so. Similarly some one that shows aggressive violence (verbal or physical) at homosexuals also have had influences in their life that create the idea that this behavior is OK when its not. That is homophobia
Most people are not homophobic but have a principled disagreement of the behavior, yet they are tolerant of it. Again that does not mean they are homophobic.
The question is not of instinctive behaviors of nature but developmental behaviors and social norms. The two are situations are markedly different from social/moral/evolutionary points of veiw.
Where as a Blackman wakes up everyday as a Blackman (‘cept M.Jackson), a person can change their sexual orientation during their life. There is a fundamental difference between sexuality (a behavior) and pigmentation (a genetic physical attribute).
I could rewrite that story to blur other socially unacceptable views and it would still sound good. I can see the parallel lines that they are trying to draw, but the subjects are not the same, it’s far more complex than a simple 'notion' of parallelisms.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Well...I'm one page into it (yeah, I printed it...it takes 10 pages in 8pt font), and I can tell that it's going to be a difficult read...the text is very badly written and doesn't seem to really have a flow to it. I'll carry on in a moment. I just wanted to reply to RM.
Some people have a fear of spiders. They don't understand why. It may be because they were startled by a spider when they were very young, it may be that their parent was frightened by a spider and that fear was transmitted from parent to child...it may be any number of things. Similarly, a child who sees their mother or father shying away from someone of a different colour would associate this as a normal way to behave. Same goes for signs of hatred. If such a child had had contact with someone of a different race with positive results, then this would've imprinted itself instead. Once imprinted...it's tough to reverse or change. It's and unconscious reaction.
I'll keep reading now...after I take a tylenol.
To a point, racism is both learned and hard-wired. When learning something new or expereincing something new...people will try to find something in their past experiences to try and better understand how to react to this new stimulous. This is the hard-wired part...it's how we learn. If we've been taught to fear or hate something through our past direct experience or through was has been taught to us, then that will influence our reaction.
Some people have a fear of spiders. They don't understand why. It may be because they were startled by a spider when they were very young, it may be that their parent was frightened by a spider and that fear was transmitted from parent to child...it may be any number of things. Similarly, a child who sees their mother or father shying away from someone of a different colour would associate this as a normal way to behave. Same goes for signs of hatred. If such a child had had contact with someone of a different race with positive results, then this would've imprinted itself instead. Once imprinted...it's tough to reverse or change. It's and unconscious reaction.
I'll keep reading now...after I take a tylenol.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Racism is not hard-wired; a week old baby does not care what the color the care giver is.
It's the 3~4 year old that has never had close contact with a person of another color that may react as something new and unsure, that is social influnce not hard-wired.
I remember seeing my first Hindu-woman with a red dot on her forehead in an elegant dress. My mother explained it to me in relationship to”Hadjai" on "Johnny Quest" I have never thought a bad thing about 'the dot' since. Had she explained it in negative terms I may very well have a different Idea today about Hindus.
My kids fear few critters because I have always encouraged and conditioned them to interact with most bugs and creepy things. My wife’s fear of spiders and snakes has been introduced to them and they fear spiders and are warming up to snakes. Yet they will catch lizards, scorpions and a plethora of critters they have always been told are.
The first 6-years of development are the most important in your life. Who you are by 6~7 is pretty much who you are going to be the rest of your life.
It's the 3~4 year old that has never had close contact with a person of another color that may react as something new and unsure, that is social influnce not hard-wired.
I remember seeing my first Hindu-woman with a red dot on her forehead in an elegant dress. My mother explained it to me in relationship to”Hadjai" on "Johnny Quest" I have never thought a bad thing about 'the dot' since. Had she explained it in negative terms I may very well have a different Idea today about Hindus.
My kids fear few critters because I have always encouraged and conditioned them to interact with most bugs and creepy things. My wife’s fear of spiders and snakes has been introduced to them and they fear spiders and are warming up to snakes. Yet they will catch lizards, scorpions and a plethora of critters they have always been told are.
The first 6-years of development are the most important in your life. Who you are by 6~7 is pretty much who you are going to be the rest of your life.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
ResearchMonkey said:
I meant fear of the unknown, and the method in which we learn to react to people and situations. A week old baby may not even know what colour a person is...their vision is pretty bad at that point. For all we know...people aren't people then either. There's just the baby and its immediate surrounding which exist, some recognition of faces. Introduce a new face and you may see fear in the child's eyes. Introduce pain in association with that face (even an air bubble and needing to be burped) and repeat once...the next time that face appears...the child will associate it with pain/discomfort. Watch the tears.
I'm lucky that I have a wide variety of friends and neighbours and that my son has been introduced positivly to a plethora of races, genders, ages etc... I'm hoping that it helps form his attitude towards new things and new people.
Kinda Early-anti-racism training
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:I meant fear of the unknown, and the method in which we learn to react to people and situations. A week old baby may not even know what colour a person is...their vision is pretty bad at that point. For all we know...people aren't people then either. There's just the baby and its immediate surrounding which exist, some recognition of faces. Introduce a new face and you may see fear in the child's eyes. Introduce pain in association with that face (even an air bubble and needing to be burped) and repeat once...the next time that face appears...the child will associate it with pain/discomfort. Watch the tears.
I'm lucky that I have a wide variety of friends and neighbours and that my son has been introduced positivly to a plethora of races, genders, ages etc... I'm hoping that it helps form his attitude towards new things and new people.
Kinda Early-anti-racism training
Puh-lease.
How can a human be afraid of another human unless he/she was trained that way? A 2-3 year old will run up to a perfect stranger with no thought of harm until a parent explains the danger.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Gonz said:
When I was in basic training, one of the guys in my unit was from Maine, and had never seen a person of my race outside of television. He was apprehensive to the point of paranoia when he saw me, and the other folks of my race, living in the same area that he was in. Why? Because he thought we were all criminals. That's all he saw growing up through your great friends in the media. After 6 weeks, those ideas were completely gone. I'd like to think I had something to do with it, but I also know that I was the only person there who treated him with something outside of the usual liberal scorn for those who are 'intolerant'. Guess not everyone knows the difference between ignorance and intolerance, eh?
BTW...the main reason I said to read the whole thing is because, when a person skims, they see only the parts they object to, or agree with. Nothing else filters through. Call it my own study of human nature.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Well, being smarter than you all, I read the comments here rather than attempt what is apparently canned verbal diarrhea.
And I have to ask one simple question. If racism/bigotry isn't hard wired, in some form ... then where did it come from? African tribes would fight to the death against other tribes. So would Incan tribes. European kingdoms fought huge wars. American natives fought each other long before the white man showed up. Maybe it's nt hard wired, but a lot more people seem to have figured it out than ever discovered the wheel.
And I have to ask one simple question. If racism/bigotry isn't hard wired, in some form ... then where did it come from? African tribes would fight to the death against other tribes. So would Incan tribes. European kingdoms fought huge wars. American natives fought each other long before the white man showed up. Maybe it's nt hard wired, but a lot more people seem to have figured it out than ever discovered the wheel.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:Puh-lease.
How can a human be afraid of another human unless he/she was trained that way? A 2-3 year old will run up to a perfect stranger with no thought of harm until a parent explains the danger.
I dissagree. Children will hide behind their parents when faced with strangers. Babies will cry when presented with new faces. Racism isn't training...it's reinforcement.
