The study found that people hesitated longer to shoot an armed white target (and they were more likely to accidentally not shoot). Participants were quicker and more accurate with black armed targets but there were more “false alarms” (shooting them when they were unarmed). These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly
“These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly”
You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s total bullshit. If you’re going to shoot an unarmed black person and then claim to not have discriminatory views …What a crock of shit.
actually it’s really important that these people are acting in a racist way and being completely unaware of their own racism, if they knew they were being racist this study would be way less important. they literally believe they have no discriminatory views, and this is concrete evidence that they do. that’s fuckin hugely important, are you kidding?!
The effects of a colorblind ideology…
Sep. 28 2013
Manju is 34. She lives in Kolkata, India, and has two school-age children. She works as a cook in six different homes, making a salary that enables her children to live in a reasonably safe place. Manju cooks many delicacies for the different families she works for, yet her children make do with a basic rice and lentil dish for most meals. They don’t starve, but if Manju can’t work, food is the first thing they will miss.
Manju and her family are luckier, however, than four-year-old Surjo Basfore who lives with his seven-year-old sister on Platform No. 4 of the Kalyani Railway Station in Kolkata. They beg for a living. A usual breakfast is about half a puri (a staple of fried flour cake), which brother and sister share. Lunch is about two handfuls of dal (boiled lentils) and rice.
Surjo Basfore and Manju are the human face of India’s grim hunger epidemic and the dismal health conditions of those too poor to afford even basic food. The National Family Health Survey for 2005/06 stated that more than 40 percent of Indian children under the age of three are underweight, 33 percent of women aged 15 to 49 have a body mass index that is below normal, and nearly four out of five children aged 6 to 35 months are anemic.
It is for these people that the Indian government recently announced an ambitious $19.5 billion National Food Security Bill. Passed by the legislature in the first week of September, the bill promises heavily subsidized wheat and rice for those who live below the poverty line — about 67 percent of the population.
As reported in the legislation, a total of five kilograms of food grains per month will be provided at a fixed price of Rs 1-3 ($0.02 to $0.05) per kilogram through ration shops across the country. If the food security bill works as planned, it will become one of the world’s largest welfare schemes.
“This bill makes the right to food a law,” says Chintan Kalra, a food security activist from Mumbai. However, Kalra is aware of the many ways the bill can fail, which is why “implementation will play a huge role in what the bill really achieves.”
Overall, the legislation has aroused perhaps more skepticism than hope. While the bill’s supporters say it is a welcome and needed change, critics call it a shameful tactic to win elections scheduled for early next year.
Do discussions about issues affecting women of color overlook Asian-Americans? One writer says yes and wants to change that.
Recommitting Feminism To Multiracial Solidarity
Roxane, Jill and Mikki-
After I shared an article that addressed the conspicuous lack of women of color on magazine, a friend exclaimed, “Let’s not forget there is a lack of our Latina and Asian sisters.” That comment, while coming from someone with all the best intentions in the world, prompted me to ask a series of awkward and sobering questions: When people say “women of color,” am I included in that equation, or does it not apply to Asian-American women? What about Hispanic women? Do they have more of a claim to that label than Asians do? Or do they also not count? Do people really want to hear from someone who looks like me when they engage in conversations about racial justice?
Advocates for a more inclusive feminism cannot be content with calling attention to the tendency of feminist circles to focus solely on the issues that matter to privileged, white women. We must also rethink the ways we use the term “women of color.” Our community needs conversations that explicitly demonstrate how the struggles of Asian, Latina and other women who fall outside the black-white binary are inextricably linked with the oppression of others. While I thoroughly appreciate the discussions that came from #solidarityisforwhitewomen, we must work even harder to ensure solidarity with all women who experience life at the intersections of race and gender.
As a Korean-American woman, I am sometimes hesitant to participate in conversations like #solidarityisforwhitewomen, because all too often, no one seems to be quite certain where I belong. In college sociology classes, when I asked to see the perspectives of Asian-Americans in our studies, some professors told me to look at the statistics on white people, or insinuated that Asian-Americans had no bearing on racial justice. I’ve been told since high school that Asian-Americans are not relevant, that our voices and experiences matter only when high-schoolers turn their pages to the obligatory paragraphs in their world history readers that briefly address Chinese railroad workers. The Asian-American experience, despite spanning several generations of struggle and oppression, is rendered invisible.
When I confront my friends and family — Asian-Americans are just as capable of internalizing and perpetuating anti-Asian racism as anyone else — for participating in casual, anti-Asian humor, I am told I have no right to be offended, since we are doing so much better than everyone else and should be grateful (as if our ethnicity, which comprises a multitude of racialized experiences and socioeconomic backgrounds, can be generalized into one, harmonious, high-achieving blob). Mikki Kendall states that “we use umbrella terms referencing race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but we are all aware (or should be anyway) that no community is a monolith.” In , however, the Asian-American community has always been portrayed as a monolith of kung-fu fighters, loose women and unscrupulous small-business owners.
I am aware that certain segments of the Asian-American community do enjoy more privileges than other people of color. But I am also keenly aware of the ways that I, like other people of color, am yoked and burdened by the existing structures of power and privilege. I am oppressed both as a woman and as a person of Asian descent. My body is constantly orientalized and hypersexualized by people who are more comfortable seeing me on television as a giggling, sexually repressed schoolgirl or whip-carrying dragon lady/tiger mom than they are with seeing me as an empowered individual with a dynamic history and voice.
This dismissive attitude toward Asian-Americans causes a dangerous rift in the ever-evolving journey toward true solidarity and the dismantling of racial and gender hierarchies. It’s difficult, for instance, to feel like an ally when so many prominent feminists around me choose to praise and write about Orange Is the New Black for its portrayals of gender and race, but make almost no mention of the lazy, racist depiction of the lone Asian female character. Unlike the other characters in the series, Chang is given no substantial backstory or opportunity to redeem herself. She functions only as a vessel of cheap humor that draws from her awkward, accented English.
Similarly, it’s hard to say I stand in solidarity with my feminist allies when feminists have railed against singer Chris Brown for his misogyny and violence, but have said very little about his incredibly racist song and music video, “.” When Chris Brown releases a popular song that exoticizes Asian women, takes all the liberties in the world with “Asian culture,” and perpetuates every racial trope that has ever existed in the Asian-American community, his actions should warrant further conversations about racism, appropriation and misogyny.
The idea of working “outside the binary” — not looking at race as a simple matter of black and white — has been hashed and rehashed within the social justice world, but we need to push for more than the occasional misguided ode to the “model minority” of “hard-working Asians.” Roxane Gay is right: “We have a painful, infuriating history to reconcile — one where the concerns of heterosexual, able middle-class white women have too often been privileged at the expense of everyone else.” But in our respective fights to be heard and empowered as women of color, we must be careful not to further stigmatize and marginalize other voices in our midst.
I am writing from the perspective of a college-educated, Korean-American woman who was privileged enough to be asked to join this conversation. Because I have felt excluded from discussions concerning women of color, I am certain that there are many other voices out there — Latina, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Native American — that also have felt left out, even under the all-welcoming label of “women of color.” Joining Mikki Kendall’s “endorsement of listening, of not always trying to be the leader, and instead handing the proverbial reins over to others” is the only way we will ever build a culture of true solidarity. Our efforts and agitation toward the dismantling of racial hierarchies make sense only when we include, legitimize and strengthen the voices of all women of color.
From later in the article:
Two separate videos look at the two major private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the country’s largest operator of private prisons, and GEO Group. Both companies made headlines in September upon the release of a report by In the Public Interest that scrutinized the “occupancy requirements” commonly found in private prison contracts. Last year, CCA sent letters to forty-eight governors, offering to take their prison systems off state hands in exchange for a guarantee that their states would keep their facilities up to ninety percent full—regardless of crime rates.”
Natives do experience the covertness of color-blind racism that limits life opportunities. Under the logic of colorblind racism, if I don’t make as much money as a white woman who does the same job, it’s because I’m not as experienced or competent. If Natives, on average, have less college attainment, it’s has nothing to do with the 500+ years of internal colonization and genocide or the eras of removal, relocation, reservation internment, and forced boarding school attendance. It’s because Indians are lazy drunks. No thought is given to historical context or constrained opportunities. Race scholars admit that marginalized groups still experience inequality, but argue that racism is expressed increasingly without direct racist terminology.
But this certainly does not hold true for Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. We also routinely experience overt racism in the form of racial epithets like redskin, injun or squaw and horribly distorted depictions of Natives as mascots, reminiscent of the propaganda used against black, Irish and Jewish people in the 19th and 20th centuries. And this overt racism is not confined to hate groups, but is visible in everyday communication and throughout the media….
While minstrel shows have long been criticized as racist, American children are still socialized into playing Indian. Columbus Day celebrations, Halloween costumes, and Thanksgiving reenactments stereotype Indigenous Peoples as one big distorted culture. We are relegated to racist stereotypes and cultural caricatures.
Why is racism against Natives hardly recognized or pointed out by non-Native people, especially non-Native scholars?
.A lovely piece about what consent culture might look like.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, extracts oil and gas from deep underground by injecting water into the ground and breaking the rocks in which the valuable hydrocarbons are trapped. But it also produces wastewater high in certain contaminants — and which may be radioactive.
In a study published today (Oct. 2) in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers found high levels of radioactivity, salts and metals in the water and sediments downstream from a fracking wastewater plant on Blacklick Creek in western Pennsylvania.
Among the most alarming findings was that downstream river sediments contain 200 times more radium than mud that’s naturally present upstream of the plant, said Avner Vengosh, a co-author of the study and a professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University. Radium is a radioactive metal naturally found in many rocks; long-term exposure to large amounts of radium can cause adverse health effects and even diseases like leukemia.
The concentrations of radium Vengosh and his team detected are higher than those found in some radioactive waste dumps, and exceed the minimum threshold the federal government uses to qualify a disposal site as a radioactive dump site, Vengosh told LiveScience. While the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility removes some of the radium from the wastewater, the metal accumulates in the sediment, at dangerously high levels, he added. Radium can make its way into the food chain by first accumulating in insects and small animals, and then moving on to larger animals, like fish, when they consume the insects and smaller animals, Vengosh added. But it’s not known to what extent this is happening, since this study didn’t address that question, he said.
For two years, the team monitored sediments and river water above and below the treatment plant, as well as the discharge coming directly from the plant, for various contaminants and levels of radioactivity. In the discharge and downstream water, researchers found high levels of chloride, sulfate and bromide.
Levels of salinity in the plant’s discharge were up to 200 times higher than what is allowed under the Clean Water Act — and 10 times saltier than ocean water, Vengosh said. But fracking wastewater is exempt from that law, Vengosh said.
The high bromide concentrations that were found were particularly concerning, since bromide can react with chlorine and ozone — which is used to disinfect river water and produce drinking water — to yield highly toxic byproducts. But there’s no direct evidence that this has happened yet, Vengosh said.
Several of these contaminants, particularly radium and bromide, may be present in high enough concentrations to cause harm to human health and the environment, but that wasn’t addressed in this study, Vengosh said.
At the same time that society hates mental illness, though, it’s surprisingly vocal when it comes to the use of psychiatric medications and therapy to manage mental illness. Taking pills makes you ‘weak’ and not able to ‘just handle it,’ while therapy is useless and suspect, something that people are only brainwashed into thinking is useful. People who pay to talk to someone for an hour (or more) a week are clearly, well, you know. Crazy, and the entire mental health profession is obviously raking it in by deceiving all these people with their silly notions of ‘treatment’ and ‘management.’
The disdainful attitude when it comes to managing mental illness is at utter odds with social attitudes about mental illness. If crazy people are so awful, if we’re told that it’s ‘okay to be crazy so long as you act sane in public,’ how are we supposed to be less crazy if we can’t actually get any treatment? This paradoxical attitude is widely in force in society and people don’t seem to realise how absurd it is; if they think that, for example, schizophrenia is a scary and dangerous disease that turns people into monsters, uh, wouldn’t they want people with schizophrenia to be able to access whichever treatments help them manage their mental health condition most effectively?
The notion that being poor is mentally taxing has implications for how society addresses poverty
The mere circumstance of being poor can reduce a person’s cognitive abilities by consuming precious mental resources, a study finds.
Researchers gave intelligence tests to two very different groups, demographically speaking — shoppers at a New Jersey mall and farmers in rural India — and found that mental performance decreased markedly when financial pressures were weighing on them. The findings suggest money woes leave the poor less brainpower for other tasks.
"We’re not saying the poor are dumber," said study researcher Sendhil Mullainathan, an economist at Harvard University. "It’s as if being poor is like pulling an all-nighter, every night," Mullainathan told LiveScience.
Money on the mind
Mullainathan compared doing mental tasks while being poor with surfing the Web while a movie is downloading in the background. “It’s going to be much slower,” he said.
Some studies have shown people who are poor are less productive workers, less attentive parents and worse money managers. Explanations for poverty often focus on people’s lack of effort or a rigged social system, but Mullainathan and his colleagues wondered whether mental resources played a role.
In the New Jersey mall study, the researchers gave an intelligence test similar to an IQ test to about 400 shoppers with a median annual household income of $70,000 and lowest income of $20,000; the incomes were normalized to the number of individuals in a household and then the researchers divided that group in half to represent the “rich” and the “poor.”
In one experiment, participants earned real money for correct answers.
Before the tests, the researchers primed some of the participants to think about their financial woes by asking them questions such as how they would deal with an inexpensive car repair compared with a costly one.
When the repair cost was low, the rich and poor performed equally on the IQ tests that followed. But when the repair cost was high, triggering financial worries, the poor shoppers scored as badly on the tests as if they had stayed up all night, researchers reported online on Aug. 29 in the journal Science.
Next, the researchers studied the effect of poverty on cognition in a very different setting, in rural Tamil Nadu, India. Sugarcane farmers in India are only paid once a year, after their harvest, so the researchers gave about 460 farmers a numerical intelligence test twice, once before the harvest (when they were “poor”) and once afterward (when they were “rich”).
The farmers performed almost as much worse on the test before the harvest compared with after the harvest as losing a full night’s sleep, the results showed. Across both the mall study and the farmer study, the state of being poor caused an equivalent drop of 9 to 13 IQ points.
Poverty to blame?
The researchers ruled out other factors that could explain the improvement in the farmers’ cognitive performance, suggesting the difference had to do with the amount of money the participants possessed. For instance, the improvement was not due to having more time available, better nutrition or better work ethic, they found.
Nor was mental performance linked to stress — at least not by biological measures. Farmers were more stressed, as measured by heart rate and blood pressure, before the harvest, but this did not account for their lower performance on the tests. In fact, stress has been shown to heighten cognitive ability in some studies.
"I thought it was a very interesting study," said Kimberly Noble, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, who was not involved with the research, adding, "I liked how they combined both a laboratory setting and much more realistic setting."
Prudence Carter, a sociologist at Stanford University, questioned whether age or sex differences between the rich and poor shoppers in the mall study may have affected their performance on the intelligence tests. But she found the results convincing. “What’s important is they show that both the poor and the rich [perform] the same when there’s no pressure on them,” Carter told LiveScience. “It’s only when the poor were subjected to more strenuous economic conditions that they performed less well than the rich,” she said, adding that the notion could explain why poorer children often do worse in school.
The notion that being poor is mentally taxing has implications for how society addresses poverty. For example, a child care program for low-income families could not only free up time for parents to pursue other responsibilities, but could actually provide a cognitive benefit.
The mental effects of poverty apply to scarcity more broadly, whether it’s money, time or food, Mullainathan said. “When you experience scarcity, your mind focuses on that one thing.”
1-Do not separate yourself from the herd. Don’t be the exception to your own rule. If you’re white and you make statements about white people, make sure you fully understand that you are not the exception to your statement. If you believe that all white people are racist, it’s not all white people-except for you. If you believe it, believe it for yourself as well.
2-Don’t feel obligated to teach the unteachable. Failure isn’t choosing not to sit and give your time, attention, emotion and ability to a racist. Contrary to what every after school special tells you, not everyone is racist by accident. Some people want to believe what they believe. Stop giving racists things that should be reserved for people who want to be better.
3-Know the difference. One of the biggest and important realizations you’ll come to is figuring out who is worth your time and who isn’t. This is often wrongfully attributed to those who “Agree” with you. It’s not about agreement, it’s about discourse. Those who search for ammunition in your words but never quite here you talking, are not worth your time. Discerning between the two will lift an enormous burden from your shoulders. In either case, it’s always important to let people know where you stand. Always speak up when you see/hear something racist but know who is worth more than your stand.
4-When in doubt, stay out. While you should always let people know where you stand [Read: Call out racist things you see] the level of discourse you engage in needs to be your level, whatever that level may be. If you know something is wrong but can’t quite put into words why, say you don’t approve/are not okay with what’s being said but leave it at that. Don’t give wrong information or information you aren’t 100% sure of. In a rare instance when giving information you aren’t 100% sure of, make it clear that you aren’t sure. Beware: if you say this in front of someone who’s racist they’ll likely use it against you.
5-Know you first. You can talk about, work toward and be a part of anti-racist work while you, yourself are learning. However, you should be very aware that you are in fact, learning. Don’t play the professor of a class you haven’t yet passed.
"Males who viewed sexual violence obtained higher scores both on scales measuring acceptance of interpersonal violence and the rape myth, when compared to males who viewed either a physically violent or a neutral film.
The increase in attitudes supporting sexual violence following exposure to pornography is greater if the pornography is violent than if it is non-violent….even males who are shown non-violent scenes that sexually objectified and degraded women and were then exposed to material that depicted rape, indicated that the rape victim experienced pleasure and “got what she wanted.”
¡Viva la Revolución!
Social justice doesn’t happen overnight. Social change is a continual process. Developing awareness of social issues, learning to think sociologically - these are also continual processes.
Fact: Food waste was the second largest waste material in 2011, accounting for 15% of all waste behind paper and paperboard, which accounted for 28%, according to the EPA. Of those, however, over half of the paper/paperboard was recycled while a meager 1.6% of food waste was recycled.
So how could we make it happen? Why not turn to bright spots in our own backyard?
New York recently launched pilot food waste recycling programs on select sites and is following the lead of cities like San Francisco to combine convenience, incentives and slight nudges to prompt residents to recycle food waste. A recent survey by BioCycle, a magazine that promotes recycling, found that some municipalities are offering less frequent garbage collection to steer residents away from the trash bin, according to the New York Times. Others have offered free recycling pickup services as an incentive.
Behavior change, after all, is about removing barriers and motivators to adopt the behavior. Awareness alone isn’t enough to prompt people to act. Smokers know tobacco causes cancer but they still smoke. Bottom line is that it has to be easy.
The NYT article added that apartment buildings were the most challenging as residents don’t want to come all the way down to a garage or basement to dump their scraps. “…Space for bins must be found at least on some floors. Buildings must also devote staff to removing the waste every day, or at least keep it out of sight, to avoid putting off the squeamish,” the article stated.
Portland scaled back residential garbage pickup to once every two weeks and also launched a weekly compost pickup – and got results. The volume of garbage collected decreased to 58,300 tons in the 12-month period ending in October 2012 compared with 94,100 tons of garbage collected in the same period the previous year when the program launched. Moreover, collections of compostable material rose to 85,400 tons from 30,600 tons in the same period, a figure that includes yard waste, according to a Yale Environment360 report.
Are you sold yet? What have you found to be the most effective ways to make composting successful in your neighborhood?