That is a pretty interesting story, and I’m glad you had the courage to share it. I have heard the same thing from a lot of people and I just can’t imagine being the parent in that situation. I also agree that we should take this “study” with a big grain of salt, for the reasons you mentioned. It just isn’t possible for us to know why exactly these kids chose the white or black doll, or whether it was race-related or something else. There was a mention of a scientific study but I still think that could be left up to some interpretation. However, regardless of whether the results in the video were scientific, I still tend to believe that they are mostly accurate.

Interesting lectures today for many reasons. I can’t believe the responses of the black children to the doll test in “A Girl Like Me.” I wasn’t aware at all of this phenomenon. For some reason I just assumed that all children would choose the doll that looked physically similar to them. For that not to be the case with the black children means that these problems with race are much deeper than I ever imagined. So I guess it’s really true that black children are made aware of race at a much earlier age than white children, which is saddening. I didn’t recognize race for a really long time growing up, and even when it became apparent to me it didn’t have any sort of good/bad value judgment attached to it, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the case for the kids in the video.

Second, I was interested by Richards’ discussion of homophobia among blacks. I’ve definitely heard of this stereotype before – I work in politics, and this is something that a lot of people in my field are aware of. In the 2008 general election, Barack Obama won both California and Florida. However, at the same time, anti-gay marriage amendments were passed into law in both states by statewide referendums. A lot of people wondered how a state could vote for both the Democratic presidential candidate and for a “conservative” amendment banning gay marriage. Many Democrats blamed blacks for this apparent discrepancy. Most polls showed that while most non-black registered Democrats voted for Obama and against the amendments, a majority of blacks voted for Obama and for the amendments. So this is definitely a source of tension within the Democratic Party, because while the party platform is in strongly favor of expanding gay rights, it seems that most blacks (who tend to vote for Democrats about 95% of the time) don’t support that goal.

Also, I’m glad that Richards discussed HBCs and HCUs. Growing up in Daytona Beach, Florida, I was always aware of Bethune-Cookman College, but I never really knew how an HBC like that came into existence or what the function of it was. Honestly, my only conception of these places was from the movie Road Trip, when the main characters (all white guys) visited an all-black fraternity at a black college. Now that more minorities have been accepted into traditional universities (compared to historical percentages) I can see how these colleges would have some difficulty staying relevant, so it’s no surprise to me that they are apparently recruiting in white communities now. But at the same time I don’t think they’ll ever disappear completely. They have too much history, and with their alumni bases, I’d imagine lots of people would be upset if the school that they got their degree from closed down.

I have never heard of this before, either side of it. Total surprise to me as a white person. Personally I used bar soap when I was a kid, and when I finally figured out how gross and unsanitary that seemed, I switched to gel body wash. Never really used a washcloth at all, so file me under the wet dog category I guess. It’s probably just a parental thing, right? Do you remember how you got started using a washcloth? I don’t think my parents ever mentioned it, so I’m guessing that’s why I never used one. I just wonder how it got started and how it developed so that it’s apparently such a segregated thing now.

“Guilt” was an important part of these lectures and I’m glad Prof. Richards discussed this topic. I think it’s inevitable that white people will feel guilty if they have any type of conscience. I’ve talked to a few people who originally did not feel any guilt whatsoever, but once you explain that even though they aren’t personally responsible for historical repression of blacks, they’ve still benefitted from it as a group, they feel it too. We all have to realize this. The guilt that goes along with it can be complicated, and it shouldn’t be used to “get back at” white people or anything like that, since we’re not the ones that did anything wrong, even though we indirectly benefited from it. I’m definitely not opposed to some social programs that recognize all of these facts and attempt to correct these injustices.

I like that Richards also talked about how difficult it can be to “prove” your race credentials to someone else, like the example of the woman who called him out. As a white person, I can take all the race or sociology courses there are to take, and learn as much as I can on the historical injustices done to other races by whites -- but still, there’s the possibility that I could interact with someone who is going to view what I’m doing negatively. I guess you can’t let it discourage you, just because one member of a group looks down on what you’re trying to do, just like you can’t make an assumption about a whole group because you see one member of that group doing something wrong. It reminds me of when I’ve traveled in a foreign country. Sometimes I’ve tried to speak Spanish or French. Some people appreciate the gesture that I’m trying to communicate in their native tongue, while others may frown or make fun of me. But just like Richards, I’m going to keep doing it, because I like it, it helps me learn, and I think it’s the respectful thing to do when you’re in someone else’s country.

The part about the “Prussian Blue” girls makes me sad more than angry. I feel like when you have someone that is that far gone, even at such a young age, there’s little that can be done. The parents should be ashamed for their views, of course, but I guess when you look at it a certain way, they’re really just doing what all parents do: indoctrinating their children with their own views. How many young kids actually choose for themselves to become involved with a certain church or cheer for a sports team? Most of the time it’s the parental influence. Hopefully these girls will go to college and get themselves right.

No doubt about what you said – these stereotypes exist. Check out this video advertisement being run in a California special election for Congress right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv_WG0v_kO0. This is the kind of ad that just leaves me speechless. So, count all the stereotypes here. The black people are gangbangers and criminals who just want money to buy guns and spend frivolously. The woman in the ad (the Democrat who the ad is attacking) is portrayed as an exotic dancer who owes money to the black guys (her pimps?). She is also “ignorant” like a white person because she wants to give public funds to gang members, despite the fact that they’ll just use it on illegal activities. Really disgusting that these stereotypes still exist.

I liked the discussion of majority vs. minority and how this concept affects the way people think about themselves and others. It’s a really useful way to think about race relations and helps me understand people better. However, Prof. Richards made it clear through his anecdotes about height and disability that this concept doesn’t necessarily just apply to race. There’s a huge range of ways that people can be defined. For example, my wife and I have pretty much made up our minds against ever having children. We don’t have anything against kids; we just have personal reasons for not wanting any. Anyway, this is somewhat uncommon, so I’d say we are in the minority. And you know what? This majority/minority principle definitely applies. I do think about this issue more because I know that most other people probably feel differently. I would say that not wanting kids defines me more than wanting kids defines a “normal” person. On some issues, when you are in the minority, it seems to me like you define yourself more by what you aren’t than what you are.

It’s also important to understand how a person’s experiences affect them. There’s this concept I learned about in my political science classes (although it probably applies to many different fields) about how people see the world. Basically, different people live in different existences based on their own personal experiences. It sounds like common sense, but it’s really powerful. The “filter” of a person’s experiences helps them make sense of the world and obstructs their understanding of things. It helps explain why a white person would not think about race at all while a black person becomes aware of it at a very young age. If you are a white person who grows up in a “normal” middle-class white town, there’s just no way you’re going to have the same understanding of race as a black person of the same age. It just isn’t a part of your life in the same way as it is for a minority. It isn’t really anyone’s fault, unless you deliberately shield your eyes to it, but it is a palpable obstruction that you have to work to overcome.

I think this is why so many people (myself included) feel uncomfortable around people with “special needs” or mental health issues. For most of us, we grow up not dealing with anyone like that on a daily basis, since the percentage of people who suffer from something like that is so small. We never really get the experience dealing with them or understanding them, so when we meet someone like that later in life in a public setting, we sort of just avoid it to preserve our comfort level. It’s just like how white people default to political correctness when dealing with race issues. All these concepts we’re learning about don’t just apply to race. They are just ways that people deal with “difference”, and race is just one example of what makes people different.

It may seem farfetched, but I can definitely see how something as simple as the G.I. Bill could have such a long-lasting impact on race relations. That’s how important the G.I. Bill was in American history. Before the G.I. Bill I don’t think there was really the kind of strong middle class in the U.S. that now is such an important feature of American life. The G.I. Bill was instrumental in creating that middle class, it laid the groundwork for a lot of things that we take for granted. It’s true that part of its impact was felt in educational incentives, which Dr. Richards did not really talk about, but home loans were also a pretty important part of it. (Also, I’d be willing to bet that blacks didn’t exactly get a fair shake when it came to the educational provisions, either.) If blacks had been given the same opportunity as whites, certainly they would be better off as a group than they currently are – just how blacks today would be in better shape if their ancestors had been paid for their labor instead of being enslaved in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I found these lectures to be very convincing. I’ve thought about these issues before but never really been in favor of taking action to rectify the historical damage done by whites to blacks and other minorities. But it’s pretty hard to hold on to that position after watching these lectures. In order for this whole idea of “America” to make sense, we need to maximize the amount of opportunity that each person has. That means trying to create an equal starting point. And while today it may be easy for us younger people to assume that everything has been worked out, these lectures make clear the fact that historical injustices still impact our society. For all these reasons, I think some sort of continued affirmative action is necessary, if only as a gesture to recognize the huge amounts of opportunity that have been taken from minorities throughout U.S. history.
The information about the criminal justice system was upsetting to me. I’ve always thought that it sounded sort of “radical” for people to say that the U.S. system is racist, but with the sorts of statistics that Dr. Richards presented, it’s difficult to reach any other conclusion. Unfortunately the problem appears to be larger than any one individual person, so it isn’t as easy as just finding some racist judge and chasing them off the bench. Clearly, there are some huge systemic problems in our system of law and order that unfairly stack the deck against minorities. Some of the difference can be attributed to individual reasons, but there’s just no good way to explain some of these numbers, except to say that racism is alive and well. Yes, in theory, everyone is treated equal and justice is blind. But it seems like in the streets, where most people interact with the justice system, it’s an entirely different matter. It’s sadly ironic in a way, considering how the legal system has historically been a safe haven for minorities who have had their rights denied to them by local or state officials.
Lastly, the way that the criminal justice system has hardened in recent years just makes no sense to me. In my opinion, we should be spending more resources trying to rehabilitate, and less resources convicting non-violent offenders. Society doesn’t benefit by throwing the book at people who could be rehabilitated and returned to society if we just tried. Rehabilitation is impossible for some criminals, I’m sure, and we should keep them away from the rest of society, but I just refuse to believe that everyone who is currently locked up deserves the harsh treatment that they usually receive. There is no benefit to U.S. society at-large if we create a permanent underclass of individuals who are completely defined by their prison experiences. And given the way that minorities make up such a large percentage of the prison population, this has disproportionately affected them.

Thanks for your comment. Good point about the African players too. Soccer/football is truly the world game so I think it's the best one to analyze, and clearly, top players come from all over the world without regard to race. Some nations are underrepresented but that's probably just because the sport isn't popular there yet. Look at countries in Asia -- South Korea or Japan, for example, where the sport is relatively new, now are starting to produce world-class players. Back to the socioeconomic argument, there's always someone like Pique who comes from a really wealthy family, but generally it seems like most of the world's best were not rich growing up. (By the way, Pique probably played the sport as often as anyone when he was growing up. His grandfather was a vice-president of FCB, so Pique probably had lots of pressure on him from a young age to succeed.)

Agree about the Oprah clip. It’s no surprise that our society has so much inequality when watching something like that. When one kid spends 12 years in lousy school and another spends 12 years in a fabulous school, how is that unfairness supposed to be made up? In most cases, it just never happens. Generally, to be successful, a graduate from the lousy school system has to be spectacular and lucky, while a graduate from the great school system can just be average. Under those circumstances, the status quo just stays the same. Personally, I consider myself lucky because of my mother. She grew up in a tenement in New York City. She was the first in her family to get a bachelor’s degree, and then she went ahead and got a master’s and a law degree as well. She passed her intelligence on to me, and while we’ve never been anything above middle class, we’ve always put a priority on education and hard work. If not for her, we’d probably still be poor.