Even Babies Discriminate Racially

[Stingo]

Newsweek’s article on children, babies and racial attitudes should open the eyes of liberals. But it should also open the eyes of those who claim that ours is a colorblind society. Avoiding the topic of race can do a great deal of harm, even to the attitudes of babies. Such an ethic has already harmed countless adults, eh?

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2009/09/08/even-babies-discriminate-racially/

[ejpoeta]

1. that's ridiculous. children LEARN to discriminate. they learn by watching others

and how others react to things.

[Ms. Toad]

2. That headline is misleading

It is the implication intended by the headline and subheading (which references making judgment based on race), but if you read the article when they use discriminate with respect to babies what they tested was discriminate meaning distinguish among races. When they hit age 3 they switched to discriminate meaning judge/treat negatively based on race.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Bingo - The specifics of the article address "young children" NOT "babies."

:thumbsdown:

[marmar]

3. The headline is completely misleading....

Racism is a LEARNED behavior.

[varelse]

4. "At the Children's Research Lab at the University of Texas,

a database is kept on thousands of families in the Austin area who have volunteered to be available for scholarly research. In 2006 Birgitte Vittrup recruited from the database about a hundred families, all of whom were Caucasian with a child 5 to 7 years old."

1) Texas? Really? :rofl:
2) The study is based on interviews with 5-7 year olds, not babies
3) The kids interviewed were all white

:shrug:

[Stingo]

5. Yes, kids

and the study looked at babies as well.

[crim son]

6. Discrimination: the ability to make distinctions.

Babies also "discriminate" between familiar and unfamiliar faces... smart babies, eh? There is no value implied except familiarity.

[Ms. Toad]

13. The article actually uses both meanings of discriminate

but the headline (and the thrust of the story) implies that they are only using the one with negative connotations. Buried in the article, you see that when they are talking about children under 3 they mean distinguish; at age 3 they switched meanings (how many white people are good v. how many black people are good type questions).

[On the Road]

7. That is Very Thought-Provoking

The study design does not really support the kind of conclusion the authors were trying to reach, but it seemed worthwhile nonetheless.

Tribes, villages, and societies naturally fall into an us-versus-them pattern. There's no reason it has to be along ethnic lines, but if the society is de facto segregated that will happen naturally.

I would say that multiculturalism is a learned behavior. And that it has to be addressed. I agree with the sentiment that simply avoiding race isn't the solution.

[ShortnFiery]

8. It has nothing to do with racism but what babies are used (patterns) to seeing.

Social Psychology has also demonstrated through numerous studies, that people are able to differentiate individuals BEST within their own race.

For example, eyewitness testimony is most accurate when the witness is of the same race. People can discern subtle differences within "their own" frame of reference.

As a little girl of four in a small midwestern town, I was exposed ONLY to people of Caucasian or American Indian Ancestry. When my brother came to visit us from college, I ran away in fear when he introduced his friend of Korean ancestry. Was I racist? No, but I had not ever remembered seeing an Asian person before. My brother was so embarrassed and wanted to beat me senseless but my mother and his friend intervened. They understood that it just was fear of something new - the unknown - not racial hatred. :shrug:

[izquierdista]

10. Being "colorblind"

Humans are very visually oriented animals, so they can't be "colorblind". They take in color as an observation to be processed in the brain. Humans will never be colorblind, as it is a useful distinguishing feature. If humans had dog-like vision, with no cone cells in the retina, and better senses of smell, then observations wouldn't turn on color, but odor. Even people who are truly color blind because of a genetic defect learn to compensate by noting other visual cues that don't rely on relative hue.

It's not the sensory observation, but the reaction to that observation that needs attention. If color gets associated with a predictable response, then it becomes a primary stimulus to elicit that same response. If a large brown man is always called upon to administer corporal punishments to a group of children, they will soon elicit a fearful response to all large brown men -- it's simple psychology.

What's also simple psychology is that the human mind often creates associations where none exist, in the search for a pattern to understand the world around them. Such associations give rise to stereotyping and racism: if someone with a distinctive skin tone does something bad, that sets up the pattern that ALL people with that skin tone do bad things and should be avoided. The process of education is responsible for clearing out these false patterns before they get too ingrained. If the same group of children in the last paragraph also see Santa Claus as a large brown man, then they can learn that their first association that all large brown men will spank them is false and that color is not a reliable indicator and they need to get more information.

This article has a great deal of sophistry, since it has been known for a long time that one of the first things that infants do is to start processing facial features. So if mom comes back from the tanning booth looking the color of John Boehner, the infant might get frightened and start crying. The article does reinforce the need for integration and diversity; the wider the range of experiences, the less likely that false associations based solely on some visual feature will be made.

[xchrom]

11. even babies could write a better title.

and understand what they're experiencing isn't racism.

of course if you're trying to stir up shit -- you could always say those things.

[varelse]

19. I nominate this reply

as the winner of this (sadly rather lame) thread.

:yourock:

[BlueMTexpat]

12. As the grandmother of a beautiful Asian-American baby, I

concur with those who say that babies "discriminate" by what is familiar, but discriminate is too harsh a word. Differentiate might be better. Depending on the behavior of those who are familiar to them, babies learn to react accordingly. Both my daughter-in-law and son are dark-haired, as are the in-laws; I am blonder (and grayer!) but my grandbaby bonds with me because he knows me. He always hesitates with my husband because my husband is quite tall and the baby is more accustomed to people of less height. But once he is lifted or my husband sits down, all is well. Blondes or redheads also cause him to hesitate somewhat, but once he knows and recognizes them, everything is fine. He seems more comfortable upon first meeting people with darker skin and darker hair than those with lighter skin/lighter hair but, in every case, it is the behavior of those persons towards him that determines his reactions to them.

[mule_train]

14. now we're witchhunting babies? good night nurse

really

[Stingo]

16. Who is "we?"

[Aragorn]

15. only 1 race

you speak of prejudice. And the study MIGHT show that kids are taught early, in some cases at least, to be prejudiced.

[struggle4progress]

17. A paradox underlies discussions of "race." On the one hand, "race" is not a scientific concept;

it is a purely social construct, often contaminated by superstition. On the other hand, this social construct has had real and persistent effects on our culture. The social construct and superstition did not arise spontaneously: it was designed to justify and to reproduce a system of economic exploitation. Thus, any productive discussion of "race" must be a discussion of the material history and economic relations that lie behind our present culture

[bemildred]

18. What a bunch of dishonest horseshit. nt