PDA

View Full Version : Race and Children. Are Children Colorblind? Racist? Video + Studies



Wei Wu Wei
05-19-2010, 06:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYCz1ppTjiM

Anderson Cooper is doing a special on this, these are new studies recently conducted that show that white children have a white bias, as do black children (albeit less so).

What does this demonstrate about race in America today?

djones520
05-19-2010, 06:41 PM
Video doesn't seem to want to work for me.

patriot45
05-19-2010, 06:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYCz1ppTjiM

Anderson Cooper is doing a special on this, these are new studies recently conducted that show that white children have a white bias, as do black children (albeit less so).

What does this demonstrate about race in America today?

Didn't work for me either.
My first guess would be nothing! Are you a racsist?

MrsSmith
05-19-2010, 07:10 PM
it most likely demonstrates that children are more relaxed with familiar things...be it people's faces or whatever. If someone looks different than what the child considers "normal," he or she won't be sure it's safe right away.

My kids grew up in Nebraska, where there was far less racial tension than down-South. They had friends of every race...and disliked people of every race. Some of the kids they really disliked happened to be black, but the conflicts came because the father of those particular black kids was from the South, and he taught his kids that whites wouldn't like them (even though their mother was white...or maybe because their mother was white.) I know this because I went to college with the mother, and she complained about it all the time.

So while most of the kids were pretty much color-blind, that particular family had all kinds of race-based problems...because the kids expected it, searched for it, and even started it...especially with white kids, far less with Hispanic kids.

For a lot of people, children included, it's attitude that makes the difference, not race.

JB
05-19-2010, 07:38 PM
Video doesn't seem to want to work for me.It works. It looks like CNN is laying in their own video viewer or something. I have a blazing fast connection and it took a bit to load.

JB
05-19-2010, 07:41 PM
What does this demonstrate about race in America today?Chicago researchers. Most likely liberals. What it demonstrates to me is that they probably fit the test to meet their expectations of bias. I call shenanigans right now.

And where was the results of the black students in that video? It was limited to just the white kids. Looks like they led us too.

Lager
05-19-2010, 07:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYCz1ppTjiM


What does this demonstrate about race in America today?

Absolutely nothing, to be perfectly honest.

Troll
05-19-2010, 08:26 PM
these are new studies recently conducted that show that white children have a white bias, as do black children (albeit less so).

What does this demonstrate about race in America today?

It demonstrates that all white people are born racist. Don't you keep up with the news? :confused:

Wei Wu Wei
05-19-2010, 09:28 PM
Well I can't find a way to just post the links without them automatically embedding. I think they're easier to view on the youtube page.

Here are more from the segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQACkg5i4AY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfpo-gUDSuE

BadCat
05-19-2010, 09:39 PM
Honestly, who cares what kids "think"?

Jumpy
05-19-2010, 10:04 PM
I wonder if this is the same test I listened to on NPR... where little black children pointed out black dolls as being bad, and white dolls as being good. It really was a shame. This particular study had been done (if memory serves) in the 60's or so, and some highschool student did it again, expecting different results. Unfortunately the little black girls still chose the black dolls as being the bad ones, and the white as being good.

Wei Wu Wei
05-19-2010, 10:14 PM
Honestly, who cares what kids "think"?

They know less about what's "proper" and speak more directly what they see and believe. They are the best prisms of our own culture because of their relative innocence.

NJCardFan
05-20-2010, 12:05 AM
Show me in the video where the children said that whites were genetically superior than blacks. Stop bastardizing the word racist already.

PoliCon
05-20-2010, 12:46 AM
You have to watch the video on youtube.

It's not worth the watch the way the study is being conducted is hardly unbiased or reliable. Kids are most comfortable with that which is most familiar. And when you have 5 dolls to choose from and the one is ghost white and the other is burnt toast black - of course kids are going to react negatively to those two extremes. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-20-2010, 12:47 AM
They know less about what's "proper" and speak more directly what they see and believe. They are the best prisms of our own culture because of their relative innocence.

Culture? :rolleyes: It's natural bias. It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with instinct.

Wei Wu Wei
05-20-2010, 01:05 AM
You have to watch the video on youtube.

It's not worth the watch the way the study is being conducted is hardly unbiased or reliable. Kids are most comfortable with that which is most familiar. And when you have 5 dolls to choose from and the one is ghost white and the other is burnt toast black - of course kids are going to react negatively to those two extremes. :rolleyes:

How do you explain the black children also having a bias towards light skin, both in this new series of studies and the 60's era study that inspired these?

Rockntractor
05-20-2010, 01:08 AM
How do you explain the black children also having a bias towards light skin, both in this new series of studies and the 60's era study that inspired these?
Why don't you just tell us with your many years of accumulated knowledge!:rolleyes:

nightflight
05-20-2010, 01:14 AM
The kids have plenty of time to learn that white is evil.

Sonnabend
05-20-2010, 07:08 AM
What does this demonstrate about race in America today?Nothing except that race card is in play yet again, this time trying to brainwash children.

Sod off, swampy.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 08:50 AM
They know less about what's "proper" and speak more directly what they see and believe. They are the best prisms of our own culture because of their relative innocence.

So, what you're saying is. Human beings in their purest form prefer white people over black people, until outside influences (liberals, media, schools) teach them that white people are evil.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 08:51 AM
How do you explain the black children also having a bias towards light skin, both in this new series of studies and the 60's era study that inspired these?

Sounds like a problem you should take up with black people.:rolleyes:

noonwitch
05-20-2010, 09:01 AM
These are not new findings. Similar findings have been reported in past studies.


I live in a place where black Barbies and other dolls are easily found. Most Detroit area kids of any race have plenty of both black and white dolls. My neices used to ask me to get the black Barbies for birthday or X-mas gifts, because they lived in an area where they were harder to find.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 09:08 AM
My neices used to ask me to get the black Barbies for birthday or X-mas gifts, because they lived in an area where they were harder to find.

Is it dangerous where black Barbies live? Or was she just hiding? :D;)

noonwitch
05-20-2010, 09:14 AM
Is it dangerous where black Barbies live? Or was she just hiding? :D;)


No, but I live in the Detroit area. They live in West Michigan. Because there are a lot of black people around here, all the stores sell black Barbies. Not that many stores there do.


I've been looking for a black light-up Santa for their yard at Christmas-it should get a reaction from their neighbors. My sister lives for those kinds of confrontations. Sooner or later I will find one in Detroit. I've found wrapping paper with black Santas, and black nativity sets.

Gingersnap
05-20-2010, 10:10 AM
Well, there's nothing ground breaking here. These types of studies have been done around the world for the past 50 years and the results is generally the same: human beings prefer lighter skin tones when everything else is equal. Men, in particular, value lightness in women. Even in groups who have uniformly dark skins (like certain sub-Saharan Africans), there is an in-group preference for comparative lighter skin tones.

Why? Probably because skin tone lightness is less common and therefore more valuable. If you are a fan of evolutionary biology, for most human beings (outside of Northern Europe) mating lighter means giving offspring a wider pool of genes since a light individual among dark individuals would automatically imply a slightly different/very different genetic heritage. There's your hybrid vigor.

As far as imputing other characteristics to lighter skin like intelligence, friendliness, or favoritism from adults - that's probably less irrational bias than it is just experiential in that kind of school setting. Public schools take all children, including children who are stupid, angry, or unfriendly. Black children do have higher rates of disruptive behavior in public schools due to a variety of factors. That children notice this isn't surprising.

How the friendliness, intelligence, favoritism questions would have gone if the tests had been done at private schools is not known. Since those school can select-out troublemakers, the academically unprepared, and the disruptive, skin tone may not be much of a factor in that setting.

It's interesting to note that after 40 years of relentless indoctrination, teenage students in public school settings still self-segregate when they are left alone at school. And I mean they all do. The Asians don't sit with the whites, the Hispanics don't sit with the blacks, if there is a large enough presence the segregation will be even more specialized with Puerto Ricans ignoring Mexicans and Somalis ignoring African Americans.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 10:17 AM
No, but I live in the Detroit area. They live in West Michigan. Because there are a lot of black people around here, all the stores sell black Barbies. Not that many stores there do.


I've been looking for a black light-up Santa for their yard at Christmas-it should get a reaction from their neighbors. My sister lives for those kinds of confrontations. Sooner or later I will find one in Detroit. I've found wrapping paper with black Santas, and black nativity sets.

It sounded like black Barbie is hard to find where she lives?

When we rida around and look at Christmas decorations. I like to see the black angels. I always tell my wife, "Look, they still have there Hallowen decoration up. See the bat."

FlaGator
05-20-2010, 10:17 AM
A few months ago there was a big deal made of a Walmart selling black Barbies cheaper than white Barbies. Walmart said the reason was not racial or a social commentary (which is what a lot of people who didn't even live in the area tried to make of it), it was due to the fact that even though the Walmart was in a racial mixed area, the black Barbies just didn't sell very well. To paraphrase an old adage, never blame on racism what can be best explained by a desire to increase sales.

noonwitch
05-20-2010, 10:46 AM
A few months ago there was a big deal made of a Walmart selling black Barbies cheaper than white Barbies. Walmart said the reason was not racial or a social commentary (which is what a lot of people who didn't even live in the area tried to make of it), it was due to the fact that even though the Walmart was in a racial mixed area, the black Barbies just didn't sell very well. To paraphrase an old adage, never blame on racism what can be best explained by a desire to increase sales.



My first Barbie was black-she was Julia, the character from the tv show. She came dressed in a nurse's uniform.

Wal Mart had a re-issue of that Barbie about a year ago, and I really wanted to buy one, just for the memory. The price never went under $40. I can't justify $40 for a Barbie, no matter how fond my memories may be.

NJCardFan
05-20-2010, 11:25 AM
No, but I live in the Detroit area. They live in West Michigan. Because there are a lot of black people around here, all the stores sell black Barbies. Not that many stores there do.


I've been looking for a black light-up Santa for their yard at Christmas-it should get a reaction from their neighbors. My sister lives for those kinds of confrontations. Sooner or later I will find one in Detroit. I've found wrapping paper with black Santas, and black nativity sets.

I don't care what the white man say. Santa Clause was a black man...

FlaGator
05-20-2010, 11:40 AM
I don't care what the white man say. Santa Clause was a black man...

Especially after crawling down and up all those chimneys.

Wei Wu Wei
05-20-2010, 12:01 PM
So, what you're saying is. Human beings in their purest form prefer white people over black people, until outside influences (liberals, media, schools) teach them that white people are evil.

Children these age aren't in their "purest form", they just aren't as shaped as adults. Once they learn language they begin categorizing, labeling, judging, ect.

Kids these age are like parrots.

Wei Wu Wei
05-20-2010, 12:09 PM
Well, there's nothing ground breaking here. These types of studies have been done around the world for the past 50 years and the results is generally the same: human beings prefer lighter skin tones when everything else is equal. Men, in particular, value lightness in women. Even in groups who have uniformly dark skins (like certain sub-Saharan Africans), there is an in-group preference for comparative lighter skin tones.

Not quite. In the past 50 years, cultures that are linked with western societies (economically) tend to show this. Untouched "primitive" cultures don't always show this trend.




[quote]Why? Probably because skin tone lightness is less common and therefore more valuable. If you are a fan of evolutionary biology, for most human beings (outside of Northern Europe) mating lighter means giving offspring a wider pool of genes since a light individual among dark individuals would automatically imply a slightly different/very different genetic heritage. There's your hybrid vigor.

A wider gene pool isn't always a good thing. In fact, evolutionary psychology has revealed that people tend to procreate with those who look more like themselves.

Also, if we are using this theory, how do we explain Northern Europe? Shouldn't they prefer darker skinned people?


As far as imputing other characteristics to lighter skin like intelligence, friendliness, or favoritism from adults - that's probably less irrational bias than it is just experiential in that kind of school setting. Public schools take all children, including children who are stupid, angry, or unfriendly. Black children do have higher rates of disruptive behavior in public schools due to a variety of factors. That children notice this isn't surprising.

What factors? Children only see "group A" "group B" and they learn by association.


How the friendliness, intelligence, favoritism questions would have gone if the tests had been done at private schools is not known. Since those school can select-out troublemakers, the academically unprepared, and the disruptive, skin tone may not be much of a factor in that setting.

So...middle/upper-middle income children compared to working/lower-income children?




It's interesting to note that after 40 years of relentless indoctrination, teenage students in public school settings still self-segregate when they are left alone at school. And I mean they all do. The Asians don't sit with the whites, the Hispanics don't sit with the blacks, if there is a large enough presence the segregation will be even more specialized with Puerto Ricans ignoring Mexicans and Somalis ignoring African Americans.

This does happen often. Why do you think it is?

FlaGator
05-20-2010, 12:18 PM
Children these age aren't in their "purest form", they just aren't as shaped as adults. Once they learn language they begin categorizing, labeling, judging, ect.

Kids these age are like parrots.

But there is this little tidbit that suggests that they may be more than parrots

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=28034&highlight=morals

PoliCon
05-20-2010, 12:35 PM
Children these age aren't in their "purest form", they just aren't as shaped as adults. Once they learn language they begin categorizing, labeling, judging, ect.

Kids these age are like parrots.

What a speciesist comment.

Gingersnap
05-20-2010, 01:04 PM
Not quite. In the past 50 years, cultures that are linked with western societies (economically) tend to show this. Untouched "primitive" cultures don't always show this trend.

Yes, they do. This has been established as universal human preference. It may be stronger in association with European contacts but it's baseline normal for everybody. The degree to which these preferences actually impact the day-to-day psychology of the average person anywhere is up for grabs. It has probably near zero impact for rural cultures with no immigration and little outside contact.


A wider gene pool isn't always a good thing. In fact, evolutionary psychology has revealed that people tend to procreate with those who look more like themselves.

Also, if we are using this theory, how do we explain Northern Europe? Shouldn't they prefer darker skinned people?

People prefer to mate with those who are like themselves and who appear more attractive than average. If a man has two choices: one woman from his own culture who is darker and one woman from his culture who is lighter, he will prefer the lighter woman if all other factors are equal.

Northern Europeans also prefer lighter women if everything else is equal. The preference for lighter women is universal to all human beings. Why do you think that brown-haired Swedes dye their hair blonde? Preferences in reproduction partners may have a biological basis but they aren't necessarily affected by very recent or very temporary situations. Northern European skin tone variations are very new.


What factors? Children only see "group A" "group B" and they learn by association.

The factors most associated with poor academic performance and antisocial behavior in public school children are poverty, a chaotic family life, a lack of fathers in the home, parental drug/alcohol abuse, neglect, and a lack of parental interest in academics.

This is equally true of white children but this setting was a mixed race setting. It's unlikely in a mixed race setting that there are equal number of both black and white children with all of the factors above. It's more likely that more of the black children had more of these factors.


This does happen often. Why do you think it is?

Because children and teens are inexperienced in dealing with novel social interactions. Children are very quick to discern (and dislike) social differences. Speech, clothing, foods, manners, and family structures are all teasing fodder for kids. It's socially more relaxing to hang out with people who won't use those things against you in a public situation.

Later in life you will see people self-segregate based more on age, education, income, career types, and family style. Single utility repair guys are usually not interested in hanging out with elderly widows or political science professors. They will, however, cheerfully hang out with other single, working class guys who share the same taste in sports and beers, regardless of skin color.

Wei Wu Wei
05-20-2010, 01:29 PM
Yes, they do. This has been established as universal human preference. It may be stronger in association with European contacts but it's baseline normal for everybody. The degree to which these preferences actually impact the day-to-day psychology of the average person anywhere is up for grabs. It has probably near zero impact for rural cultures with no immigration and little outside contact.

It's a universal preference only in societies that have economic/historical ties to Western Culture. These (for obvious reasons) are the societies that are most often studied.

There was a spike in white bias during the 15th century in the rise of colonialism. During the time when Europe was too busy fighting amongst themselves, there wasn't a "light preference" nearly like there is today.



People prefer to mate with those who are like themselves and who appear more attractive than average. If a man has two choices: one woman from his own culture who is darker and one woman from his culture who is lighter, he will prefer the lighter woman if all other factors are equal.

It is true that in western culture, and specifically in America, lightness of skin color is considered more attractive. The question is why.




Northern Europeans also prefer lighter women if everything else is equal. The preference for lighter women is universal to all human beings. Why do you think that brown-haired Swedes dye their hair blonde? Preferences in reproduction partners may have a biological basis but they aren't necessarily affected by very recent or very temporary situations. Northern European skin tone variations are very new.

Right, if it were an issue of "rarity-based-value-surplus" as you suggested before, Northern Europeans would prefer darker skinned people.





The factors most associated with poor academic performance and antisocial behavior in public school children are poverty, a chaotic family life, a lack of fathers in the home, parental drug/alcohol abuse, neglect, and a lack of parental interest in academics.

I agree. Parental drug abuse is also worse for the poor, poor males get incarcerated FAR more often than middle class males (for non-violent crimes too, and this contributes to the lack of fathers).

Poverty tends to have strong correlations with future success and behavior. So why are darker-skinned people overrepresented in the working-poor class?




This is equally true of white children but this setting was a mixed race setting. It's unlikely in a mixed race setting that there are equal number of both black and white children with all of the factors above. It's more likely that more of the black children had more of these factors.

Right, again, why are darker children more likely to be in poor economic situations?




Because children and teens are inexperienced in dealing with novel social interactions. Children are very quick to discern (and dislike) social differences. Speech, clothing, foods, manners, and family structures are all teasing fodder for kids. It's socially more relaxing to hang out with people who won't use those things against you in a public situation.

Later in life you will see people self-segregate based more on age, education, income, career types, and family style. Single utility repair guys are usually not interested in hanging out with elderly widows or political science professors. They will, however, cheerfully hang out with other single, working class guys who share the same taste in sports and beers, regardless of skin color.

I agree that today, there is more self-segregation and determing effects based on economic class than on racial category.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 01:44 PM
Poverty tends to have strong correlations with future success and behavior. So why are darker-skinned people overrepresented in the working-poor class?

I agree with you on one point, it is easier to make money if you come from money.

It has nothing to do with behavior. I don't come from money, and I always knew right from wrong. I was also raised that while you may not have much, you work for what you do have.


As far as that last sentence, a better question may be.....So why are darker-skinned people overrepresented in the non working-check drawing class? That is where the problem lies, seriously. People who grow up poor with hard working parents understand the value of hard work. What you have is yours because you worked for it. People who grow up with lazy ass parents who sit back and draw a check from the taxpayers have children who feel entitled to what others have withuot having to work for it. Therefore, best case scenario, they get on the government dime. Worst case, they just take what they want, and in up in prison for non violent crime. Until that cycle is broken, it will continue.

Wei Wu Wei
05-20-2010, 01:53 PM
I agree with you on one point, it is easier to make money if you come from money.

It has nothing to do with behavior. I don't come from money, and I always knew right from wrong. I was also raised that while you may not have much, you work for what you do have.


As far as that last sentence, a better question may be.....So why are darker-skinned people overrepresented in the non working-check drawing class? That is where the problem lies, seriously. People who grow up poor with hard working parents understand the value of hard work. What you have is yours because you worked for it. People who grow up with lazy ass parents who sit back and draw a check from the taxpayers have children who feel entitled to what others have withuot having to work for it. Therefore, best case scenario, they get on the government dime. Worst case, they just take what they want, and in up in prison for non violent crime. Until that cycle is broken, it will continue.

How much money does Welfare pay out in your state?

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 02:40 PM
How much money does Welfare pay out in your state?

Actually, welfare is out of style. They manipulate disabilty now. Usually pays out around $600 a month, which isn't bad when you consider section 8 housing. $20 rent, $10 utilities.

Gingersnap
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
It's a universal preference only in societies that have economic/historical ties to Western Culture. These (for obvious reasons) are the societies that are most often studied.

There was a spike in white bias during the 15th century in the rise of colonialism. During the time when Europe was too busy fighting amongst themselves, there wasn't a "light preference" nearly like there is today.

Yes, there was. There has been for all of recorded European history. Evidence of female lightness value go back to our earliest roots and evidence can be found at Neolithic sites. This is true around the world. I understand that it doesn't support a particular political view but it's well known in anthropology. Is it important for anybody's ordinary life? Probably not.


It is true that in western culture, and specifically in America, lightness of skin color is considered more attractive. The question is why.

This was answered.


Right, if it were an issue of "rarity-based-value-surplus" as you suggested before, Northern Europeans would prefer darker skinned people.

Think about this Wu Wu. The preference isn't for rarity, it's for lightness. It's a human preference - not a regional, ethnic, or genotype preference. As with any preference, there are individual variations but the preference persists around the world.

Rareness can equal value but it certainly doesn't have to. Very hairy individual women are comparatively rare but they aren't universally valued. Unusually tall women aren't very valued. Highly muscular women aren't very valued. "Value" in reproduction selection has it's own logic.


I agree. Parental drug abuse is also worse for the poor, poor males get incarcerated FAR more often than middle class males (for non-violent crimes too, and this contributes to the lack of fathers).

Poverty tends to have strong correlations with future success and behavior. So why are darker-skinned people overrepresented in the working-poor class?

In this country, most blacks have slave ancestry and have more recent rural roots. For years blacks were marginalized and used as political puppets while being excluded from power. When that changed, there were significant numbers of blacks who entered the middle class. Blacks self-segregated along educational/economic lines (as was predicted). Blacks who did not enter the skilled trades, small business, or the educated middle class became less influenced by educated, successful blacks since they had all left.

The same kind of economic shifts have happened frequently in Europe where (until recently) the entire population is "white" but ethnic, religious, geographic, and language distinctions divide groups. Some groups are on top and others are marginalized. Sometimes these relationships flip as a result of war or other opportunities.


Right, again, why are darker children more likely to be in poor economic situations?

See above.


I agree that today, there is more self-segregation and determing effects based on economic class than on racial category.

noonwitch
05-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Actually, welfare is out of style. They manipulate disabilty now. Usually pays out around $600 a month, which isn't bad when you consider section 8 housing. $20 rent, $10 utilities.


There's a lot more money in disability or SSI than in welfare. The full amount of SSI for a disabled person is about $750 a month.


But, if that disabled person is married to or permanently cohabitating with another disabled person, double the money. If they have a disabled kid, triple it, and so on. A family of 5, with at least one disabled parent and two disabled children will be bringing home $2100 a month. If the non-disabled parent isn't married to the disabled parent, his income doesn't count in the math, either. That's not including food stamps or medicaid, both of which are also provided to SSI recipients.

There are a lot of people who genuinely need the money, and who can't work because they are intellectually challenged or because they are physically handicapped. Unfortunately, they are fertile and have libidos, and many don't have living parents or guardians to take them to get birth control shots (at least for females). When they reproduce, some of their kids are going to inherit their conditions. There is no good way to address this issue without either sounding like a bleeding heart, welfare-supporting liberal or a cold-hearted, eugenics-minded nazi. Liberals and conservatives both don't like the idea of sterilization of the developmentally disabled. I don't think the government should be in that business, but parents and guardians should be allowed to arrange to have developmentally delayed teens sterilized. A lot of children end up in foster care because they have a mother who should have never been allowed to get pregnant.

Rebel Yell
05-20-2010, 03:33 PM
There's a lot more money in disability or SSI than in welfare. The full amount of SSI for a disabled person is about $750 a month.


But, if that disabled person is married to or permanently cohabitating with another disabled person, double the money. If they have a disabled kid, triple it, and so on. A family of 5, with at least one disabled parent and two disabled children will be bringing home $2100 a month. If the non-disabled parent isn't married to the disabled parent, his income doesn't count in the math, either. That's not including food stamps or medicaid, both of which are also provided to SSI recipients.

There are a lot of people who genuinely need the money, and who can't work because they are intellectually challenged or because they are physically handicapped. Unfortunately, they are fertile and have libidos, and many don't have living parents or guardians to take them to get birth control shots (at least for females). When they reproduce, some of their kids are going to inherit their conditions. There is no good way to address this issue without either sounding like a bleeding heart, welfare-supporting liberal or a cold-hearted, eugenics-minded nazi. Liberals and conservatives both don't like the idea of sterilization of the developmentally disabled. I don't think the government should be in that business, but parents and guardians should be allowed to arrange to have developmentally delayed teens sterilized. A lot of children end up in foster care because they have a mother who should have never been allowed to get pregnant.


My wife has been told by several of her customers that all you have to do here is apply twice. One actually said she was getting SSI because she was "tired". She has been working for the past 15 years and she's just "tired".

Lager
05-20-2010, 04:31 PM
It's interesting to note that after 40 years of relentless indoctrination, teenage students in public school settings still self-segregate when they are left alone at school. And I mean they all do. The Asians don't sit with the whites, the Hispanics don't sit with the blacks, if there is a large enough presence the segregation will be even more specialized with Puerto Ricans ignoring Mexicans and Somalis ignoring African Americans.

What's more interesting is that behavior is actually encouraged by those who pretend their goal is actually integration.

Lager
05-20-2010, 04:44 PM
It is true that in western culture, and specifically in America, lightness of skin color is considered more attractive. The question is why.



You are so full of preassumptions. Follow the Zen Koan: You must empty your cup before it can be filled.
The color white is naturally more appealing for obvious reasons. Show kids a white house and a black house. Show them a white car and a black one. Would they rather have the walls in their room painted white or black? White is all colors mixed into one, black is the absence of light. You lefties try so hard to get the results you want from innocuous data. You know that children are always biased towards an attractive face rather than an ugly one. Why aren't you as concerned about the natural discrimination in all cultures against ugly people? I think they deserve your attention even more. Why there isn't an NAAUP organization yet, I can't fathom.

Gingersnap
05-20-2010, 07:56 PM
You are so full of preassumptions. Follow the Zen Koan: You must empty your cup before it can be filled.
The color white is naturally more appealing for obvious reasons. Show kids a white house and a black house. Show them a white car and a black one. Would they rather have the walls in their room painted white or black? White is all colors mixed into one, black is the absence of light. You lefties try so hard to get the results you want from innocuous data. You know that children are always biased towards an attractive face rather than an ugly one. Why aren't you as concerned about the natural discrimination in all cultures against ugly people? I think they deserve your attention even more. Why there isn't an NAAUP organization yet, I can't fathom.

Well, that's one theory. One would that suit Wu Wu better is the universal preference for neoteny. Human beings have a lot of neoteny compared to animals. We all have a preference for it. Which is terrific since our helpless infants exhibit the maximum amount of it.

Light skin, eyes, hair (if present), higher voices, big eyes, small jaws, unblemished skin, soft hair (if present), pink lips, and smooth body contours are all characteristic of infants and all human infants have these characteristics. That includes Dravidians, Sub-Saharan Blacks, Indigenous Australians, etc. You are at maximum possible "lightness" within 3 months of birth.

If you are a female, the more you stay young-looking, the more desirable you are. This is also true for men who are the sexual objects of other men: youth trumps everything. Even in non-sexual situations, neoteny is considered attractive since it's closer to youthful vigor than to senility.

So, you can make an argument that the inherent global bias for relative lightness is simply an inherent global bias for youth.

patriot45
05-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Well, that's one theory. One would that suit Wu Wu better is the universal preference for neoteny. Human beings have a lot of neoteny compared to animals. We all have a preference for it. Which is terrific since our helpless infants exhibit the maximum amount of it.

Light skin, eyes, hair (if present), higher voices, big eyes, small jaws, unblemished skin, soft hair (if present), pink lips, and smooth body contours are all characteristic of infants and all human infants have these characteristics. That includes Dravidians, Sub-Saharan Blacks, Indigenous Australians, etc. You are at maximum possible "lightness" within 3 months of birth.

If you are a female, the more you stay young-looking, the more desirable you are. This is also true for men who are the sexual objects of other men: youth trumps everything. Even in non-sexual situations, neoteny is considered attractive since it's closer to youthful vigor than to senility.

So, you can make an argument that the inherent global bias for relative lightness is simply an inherent global bias for youth.

Thanks! I had to look that up! Now I have a new word to forget the meaning of! :D



neoteny (n-tn-)
1. The retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species. Humans, for example, are sometimes said to demonstrate neoteny by retaining through adulthood the relatively large head and hairlessness characteristic of very young primates. The body proportions of flightless birds, which resemble those of fetal flying birds, are also considered to be evidence of neoteny.
2. The attainment of sexual maturity by an organism still in its larval stage, seen in certain amphibians and insects. Certain species of salamanders, for instance, demonstrate neoteny as they become sexually mature but remain aquatic and do not develop legs. Neoteny sometimes occurs in response to environmental stresses such as low temperature or lack of iodine (which is essential for the thyroid gland). If environmental conditions improve, the organism can often develop into a fully mature adult form


You're probably going to hell for that! ;)

Gingersnap
05-20-2010, 08:08 PM
Thanks! I had to look that up! Now I have a new word to forget the meaning of! :D

You're probably going to hell for that! ;)

Meh - take a number. :p

PoliCon
05-20-2010, 10:57 PM
There's a lot more money in disability or SSI than in welfare. The full amount of SSI for a disabled person is about $750 a month.


But, if that disabled person is married to or permanently cohabitating with another disabled person, double the money. If they have a disabled kid, triple it, and so on. A family of 5, with at least one disabled parent and two disabled children will be bringing home $2100 a month. If the non-disabled parent isn't married to the disabled parent, his income doesn't count in the math, either. That's not including food stamps or medicaid, both of which are also provided to SSI recipients.

There are a lot of people who genuinely need the money, and who can't work because they are intellectually challenged or because they are physically handicapped. Unfortunately, they are fertile and have libidos, and many don't have living parents or guardians to take them to get birth control shots (at least for females). When they reproduce, some of their kids are going to inherit their conditions. There is no good way to address this issue without either sounding like a bleeding heart, welfare-supporting liberal or a cold-hearted, eugenics-minded nazi. Liberals and conservatives both don't like the idea of sterilization of the developmentally disabled. I don't think the government should be in that business, but parents and guardians should be allowed to arrange to have developmentally delayed teens sterilized. A lot of children end up in foster care because they have a mother who should have never been allowed to get pregnant.

My sisters sister-in-law is a perfect example. She's on disability for being fat - her 'husband' is on disability for having sickle cell. She has her one son on disability for ADHD . . . . And my sister who has Lupus - has been denied disability.

Rockntractor
05-20-2010, 11:00 PM
My sisters sister-in-law is a perfect example. She's on disability for being fat - her 'husband' is on disability for having cycle cell. She has her one son on disability for ADHD . . . . And my sister who has Lupus - has been denied disability.

Cycle cell?:confused:

PoliCon
05-20-2010, 11:04 PM
Cycle cell?:confused:

What are you talking about? I said Sickle. :p

patriot45
05-20-2010, 11:06 PM
Cycle cell?:confused:

I think she is a pre-school teacher! Cycle-Sickle its all the same to 3 year olds!

Rockntractor
05-20-2010, 11:09 PM
I think she is a pre-school teacher! Cycle-Sickle its all the same to 3 year olds!

I bet Poli rides a trisickle!

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 04:23 AM
You are so full of preassumptions. Follow the Zen Koan: You must empty your cup before it can be filled.

That's hardly a zen koan, it's an old saying with eastern roots but not a Koan. It goes: if your cup is already full then it's bound to overflow.


The color white is naturally more appealing for obvious reasons. Show kids a white house and a black house. Show them a white car and a black one. Would they rather have the walls in their room painted white or black? White is all colors mixed into one, black is the absence of light. You lefties try so hard to get the results you want from innocuous data.

Exept skin isn't black or white, it's different levels of melanin in the skin.


You know that children are always biased towards an attractive face rather than an ugly one. Why aren't you as concerned about the natural discrimination in all cultures against ugly people? I think they deserve your attention even more. Why there isn't an NAAUP organization yet, I can't fathom.


attractiveness is culturally determined too

PoliCon
05-21-2010, 07:40 AM
attractiveness is culturally determined tooBULLSHIT. :rolleyes: There are cultural trappings that are added to the baseline - but in all cultures the baseline of demonstrativeness is genetically determined.

Lager
05-21-2010, 07:10 PM
Exept skin isn't black or white, it's different levels of melanin in the skin.



Oh yes, and I'm sure those children know that explanation. It's just in our genes I guess, to discriminate against colored people. There's no arguing with your brilliant explanation.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 07:38 AM
Oh yes, and I'm sure those children know that explanation. It's just in our genes I guess, to discriminate against colored people. There's no arguing with your brilliant explanation.:rolleyes:

I never suggested racial discrimination or prejudice was genetic.

Honestly I think this thread would spark more interesting discussion on a liberal board where people believe they are, their children are, and everyone should be "colorblind", an idea which does more harm to their shallow liberal cause of multiculturalism and 'tolerance'.

Lager
05-22-2010, 05:55 PM
Very well. Then if we agree that it is not genetic, then it's not inherent racism if children have different views of colored dolls or figures. And it's not cultural yet, because although it's likely that racism is spread primarily through biases passed down from parents or absorbed from immediate society, we can assume that most children this age haven't had time to absorb it yet.
Therefore, this experiment doesn't say much about racism in children at all.