Posted by Stephen (4/7/12):This issue came up on our Facebook account, and clearly needed to get its own blog post. In the Facebook discussion, essentially Matt's position could be summarized by the following:
Stereotypes exist but should not lead to rational decision making. Many bear the scars of discriminatory legacies and should be looked past if they are to be overcome. A kid in a hoodie is just that and only that - a kid in a hoodie. Wearing such should and ought to have no other connotations.My thesis for position I will take could be summarized as this: "Stereotyping is an inevitable faucet of the human condition and must be understood and controlled."
The case breaks down as follows:
- Stereotypes (while perhaps unfortunate) are inevitable as they are ingrained in human evolutionary psychology and biology.
- Stereotypes (more often than not, and the ones I will be defending) are often based on reality, and so are further difficult to break from
- Our perception of reality inevitably will impact our future view of the world.
- It would not be reasonable to expect that our future actions ought not be shaped by past experiences
- Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect to "overcome" stereotyping
- Since, stereotyping is both ingrained in human nature and a successful evolutionary tool, it cannot be considered irrational behavior nor eliminated behavior
- Therefore, since stereotyping cannot be reasonably eliminated, we must seek another way to control the negative impacts.
Now let's get to the meat of the case:
1- Stereotypes are ingrained in human evolutionary psychology, thus their existence is unavoidable
The first, and probably most important argument in this case - if stereotyping is an inherent flaw of the human condition, then trying to eliminate it is a fool's task as it will not go away. I submit to you the follow quote from this article in Psychology Today:
2-Stereotyping comes from past experiences
We are in agreement that outright racist themes must be eliminated from society. But when was the last time you encountered white supremacist propaganda out in public? I'm yet to ever see this. So, I think we can then agree that the cause of these cognitive biases is not from a public campaign of racism (as was the case in prior generations). It could be from pure in group/out group associations, though this would not actually explain why Professor Banaji (if we are using white = in group, black = out group) would associate with the in group. The case I present, then, is one of stereotyping based on self association. As anyone who has gone to high school can attest, there are "high school stereotypes" (and about a million Facebook quizzes to find out which one you belong to). In a period such as high school, when everyone is looking to belong, stereotypes give a really easy guide on how to belong. You want people to think your a preppy kid - wear a polo; a gangster? well, I won't go there. The gangster stereotype (to get all Jungian on us) is one of rebellion - the gangster (in present and past) is the outlaw who is loved by the people for fighting against the power. This, for high school students, is probably a pretty powerful stereotype to attach oneself to. And hey, want to know how to look like one? Just go watch your favorite rap video. Now, the young person who is attaching himself to this stereotype is attaching himself to a culture of violence. This is not a racist comment, it is an empirical one - how many rap songs talk about how they have or will murder people? Rob or steal? Do/sell drugs? Like it or not, the rap culture gangster is associating him or herself with a culture of extreme violence. We can talk all we want about why that violence is occurring, but I do not believe there is much room to dispute its violent nature. Hell, look at any Jay-Z video... when he wants to be a gangster he dresses in hoodies, bandannas etc and when he wants to discuss his vast wealth he wears a $10,000 suit. He knows there is a difference in perception.
3- Since stereotyping is an evolutionary successful/useful tool it is not irrational.
Not irrational to play the odds based on what you know of a certain type of dress. If we didn't do this, we certainly would not be able to identify neo-Nazi or Klansmen. Would it not be just as bad to assume that everyone in their garb must be a white supremacist? Actually, no it would be entirely rational and people have such decided that in order to not be associated with this culture of violence, they will avoid dresses as such (this is ultimately my point - black leaders should be telling their youth to stop associating with a culture of violence, not explaining why the culture came about - I understand why - or that we should all be free to wear what we want. Yes, in an ideal world we could. But we don't live in an ideal world and what we do/say/wear does, in this world, tell a great deal about ourselves "don't dress for the job you have, but for the job you want"). Finally, it is not irrational if its incredibly predictable. Since, stereotyping is incredibly predictable because members of all races and socio-economic classes can identify various stereotypes, it is a universal and rational process. I would find it hard to believe that black mothers would not know that a certain type of attire is akin to gangster/thug culture, and would not subsequently be more proud of their child wearing a suit.
4 - Since stereotyping cannot be reasonably eliminated, we must find another way to control its effects.
And here is the crux of my argument. Stereotyping, as I've discussed, will not go away. It is ingrained into our basic genetic hard-wiring. It has kept us alive, and regardless of its usefulness in modern society, is something we are born with. Therefore, instead of trying to change a hard-wired process, could we not try to change the inputs to the process? So if every time I see x I do this a, and y I do b - a is an act that could lead to unnecessary human suffering, but b is an act that will not. Now, we can change x & y (by educating our young to not admire rappers but instead Presidents, university professors, lawyers, and all the other successful members of society who are black - and mind you would not dress like the competing group, because they do not view themselves as a member of that group). So if we could change x & y we would eliminate the negative output of a. Why could this not be a solution to the problem, instead of calling on racism, protests and attacks against some systematic problem that may or may not actually exist? What is the worst thing that could happen if young black teenagers wore polos instead of hoodies? What would be the worst thing that could happen if they wore business attire to school (like I was told to do at my private high school - one of the few things I cherish about my high school experience)?
In conclusion, I find this argument very similar to the liberal-conservative debate over sex-ed: human nature is stronger than will; our biological impulse is to engage in sexual activities after puberty; the method that controls said impulses (safe sex) is more likely to be successful than the one that says deny them (abstinence). Why? One of these acknowledges the existence and superiority of biology and nature while the other hopes we can just overcome it with the strength of our will. Which one do you think was more successful?
Posted by Matt (4/9/12):
Steve, in my mind you have very eloquently and effectively laid out the case for where stereotypes come from, why it's natural to stereotype, and why people of every color and creed do it mostly unconsciously. As individuals, we are nothing if not collections of all our experiences, past and present, and live to interpret those experiences and act accordingly. If we see something over and over again - or more accurately, hear it over and over again (despite criticizing the media in the opening to this post, I don't think you pay appropriate heed to the role of media and popular culture in fomenting racial biases) - we are likely to internalize it.
Where I disagree with you is in how you interpret this undeniable truth. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong) that while "we must seek to control the negative impacts" of stereotyping, the onus is on the stereotyped, not the people doing the stereotyping, to adjust. In your words:
Here's my problem: what about assigning some responsibility, any at all, toward the person who acts on a snap judgment that will be completely wrong an overwhelming amount of the time? Does the next Trayvon Martin have to put on a polo every time he goes to the convenience store in order to avoid being followed by an idiot with a gun? I'm frankly appalled at the degree to which some people (and I'm not lumping you into this) seem to be going in order to justify George Zimmermann's decision to pursue Martin that night. As far as hoodies go, guess what my (white) roommate just wore to go buy some ice cream. Should he dress up next time, too?
The point is that what sets us apart as human beings is our ability to elevate ourselves above our animal instincts. And while the action of stereotyping may itself be rational in the evolutionary context you have outlined, the stereotypes that we assign to others are not. It is our responsibility as thinking beings to recognize this and rise above our natural tendency to judge others. If you dress like a nerd in high school, and hang with the nerds, does that automatically mean you're socially awkward?
Many pages of ink have been spilled, and many more reels of film rolled, telling stories that confirm the notion that things are not always what they may seem. In some ways, what happened to Trayvon Martin (this is a facile comparison, considering in one situation someone actually died) is reminiscent of the final scene from Crash, where a misunderstanding between an off-duty white cop and a young black hitchhiker turns fatal when the man reaches into his pocket to grab a figurine and the cop shoots him at close range, assuming he's about to pull a gun. Of course, the rest of the movie reminds us that our pre-judgments are sometimes true (like when the Los Angeles DA and his wife get carjacked). Over the course of the movie, however, these judgments are proven wrong more than they are proven right. Either way, the message at the end is the same: things are often not what they seem.
I'm sorry, but it's not someone's responsibility to dress differently in order to reassure anyone else. It is YOUR responsibility (I mean the royal you) to exercise your ability to think, and reason, and realize that your idea of what a thug, or a good kid, or a jock, or anything else should look like may not always be accurate.
No one is saying this is easy. As you note, we are hardwired to do the opposite. But when we come across a situation, particularly one that ended as tragically as this one, that challenges our thinking about stereotypes and cultural bias, the response should not be to further entrench ourselves and demand that others represent themselves in a way that hews more closely to our pre-existing notions. It should be to use this tragedy as an opportunity to recognize the flaws in our own judgment and better ourselves accordingly. If there is any hope - other than a fair trial for George Zimmermann - that should come out of this, it is that the next neighborhood watch captain who deems someone to be "suspicious" might do so out of that person's actions, not their appearance.
I don't think George Zimmermann is a racist, and I don't think that about anyone who would defend him. But I can tell you this: it is clear that by following a kid doing nothing but holding a bag of Skittles and talking on the phone to his girlfriend, he acted on a snap judgment about race and personal appearance, and it is clear that this judgment was wrong.
Human nature may well be stronger than free will (that's another debate), but I can tell you regardless that I sure don't want to live in a world where free will doesn't at least fight back. When we resign ourselves to stereotyping, we limit our ability to maximize our potential as human beings responsible for treating one another with decency and respect. You can go all Hobbesian Wilderness on me and argue that things like respect and decency are pie-in-the-sky notions that do not reflect the way people are naturally inclined to treat each other. In a country, however, that prides itself on continually becoming "more perfect," we should strive to do better.
Posted by Stephen (4/11/12):
1- Stereotypes are ingrained in human evolutionary psychology, thus their existence is unavoidable
The first, and probably most important argument in this case - if stereotyping is an inherent flaw of the human condition, then trying to eliminate it is a fool's task as it will not go away. I submit to you the follow quote from this article in Psychology Today:
Mahzarin Banaji doesn't fit anybody's ideal of a racist. A psychology professor at Yale University, she studies stereotypes for a living. And as a woman and a member of a minority ethnic group, she has felt firsthand the sting of discrimination. Yet when she took one of her own tests of unconscious bias. "I showed very strong prejudices," she says. "It was truly a disconcerting experience." And an illuminating one. When Banaji was in graduate school in the early 1980s, theories about stereotypes were concerned only with their explicit expression: outright and unabashed racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. But in the years since, a new approach to stereotypes has shattered that simple notion. The bias Banaji and her colleagues are studying is something far more subtle, and more insidious: what's known as automatic or implicit stereotyping, which, they find, we do all the time without knowing it. Though out-and-out bigotry may be on the decline, says Banaji, "if anything, stereotyping is a bigger problem than we ever imagined."Thus, we find that stereotyping is an inherent mental shortcut taken by us all. The evolutionary reason for this should be simple: our ancestors who saw a tiger needed to quickly know - without the long analytic process (which psychologists would call the "Optimization Model" - a complex mathematical model where we take in all the facts) if it was a threat. Now, our ancestors who did not notice a difference between the tiger and butterfly (or took too long to figure out the difference) did not survive and thus did not pass on their genetics that could not distinguish between a threat and non-threat. Similarly, this instant stereotyping decision served our ancestors well when they met other groups of humans -- flee from those with a spear, welcome those looking to trade. So, if we want to say that all stereotyping is racist, well then I guess we are all on some level racists. Everyone single one of us. But I don't think that's what we really mean. For there must be some difference between someone who has a slight cognitive bias against minorities, like Professor Banaji, and someone who attends Klan rallies. Right? If you'd like to find out how you score on a test like the one Professor Banaji did you can try this one (we can go on and on about Heuristics - the mental shortcuts we take - and why Affirmative Action actually convinces those its supposed to help they aren't truly worthy, but that's another story).
2-Stereotyping comes from past experiences
We are in agreement that outright racist themes must be eliminated from society. But when was the last time you encountered white supremacist propaganda out in public? I'm yet to ever see this. So, I think we can then agree that the cause of these cognitive biases is not from a public campaign of racism (as was the case in prior generations). It could be from pure in group/out group associations, though this would not actually explain why Professor Banaji (if we are using white = in group, black = out group) would associate with the in group. The case I present, then, is one of stereotyping based on self association. As anyone who has gone to high school can attest, there are "high school stereotypes" (and about a million Facebook quizzes to find out which one you belong to). In a period such as high school, when everyone is looking to belong, stereotypes give a really easy guide on how to belong. You want people to think your a preppy kid - wear a polo; a gangster? well, I won't go there. The gangster stereotype (to get all Jungian on us) is one of rebellion - the gangster (in present and past) is the outlaw who is loved by the people for fighting against the power. This, for high school students, is probably a pretty powerful stereotype to attach oneself to. And hey, want to know how to look like one? Just go watch your favorite rap video. Now, the young person who is attaching himself to this stereotype is attaching himself to a culture of violence. This is not a racist comment, it is an empirical one - how many rap songs talk about how they have or will murder people? Rob or steal? Do/sell drugs? Like it or not, the rap culture gangster is associating him or herself with a culture of extreme violence. We can talk all we want about why that violence is occurring, but I do not believe there is much room to dispute its violent nature. Hell, look at any Jay-Z video... when he wants to be a gangster he dresses in hoodies, bandannas etc and when he wants to discuss his vast wealth he wears a $10,000 suit. He knows there is a difference in perception.
3- Since stereotyping is an evolutionary successful/useful tool it is not irrational.
Not irrational to play the odds based on what you know of a certain type of dress. If we didn't do this, we certainly would not be able to identify neo-Nazi or Klansmen. Would it not be just as bad to assume that everyone in their garb must be a white supremacist? Actually, no it would be entirely rational and people have such decided that in order to not be associated with this culture of violence, they will avoid dresses as such (this is ultimately my point - black leaders should be telling their youth to stop associating with a culture of violence, not explaining why the culture came about - I understand why - or that we should all be free to wear what we want. Yes, in an ideal world we could. But we don't live in an ideal world and what we do/say/wear does, in this world, tell a great deal about ourselves "don't dress for the job you have, but for the job you want"). Finally, it is not irrational if its incredibly predictable. Since, stereotyping is incredibly predictable because members of all races and socio-economic classes can identify various stereotypes, it is a universal and rational process. I would find it hard to believe that black mothers would not know that a certain type of attire is akin to gangster/thug culture, and would not subsequently be more proud of their child wearing a suit.
4 - Since stereotyping cannot be reasonably eliminated, we must find another way to control its effects.
And here is the crux of my argument. Stereotyping, as I've discussed, will not go away. It is ingrained into our basic genetic hard-wiring. It has kept us alive, and regardless of its usefulness in modern society, is something we are born with. Therefore, instead of trying to change a hard-wired process, could we not try to change the inputs to the process? So if every time I see x I do this a, and y I do b - a is an act that could lead to unnecessary human suffering, but b is an act that will not. Now, we can change x & y (by educating our young to not admire rappers but instead Presidents, university professors, lawyers, and all the other successful members of society who are black - and mind you would not dress like the competing group, because they do not view themselves as a member of that group). So if we could change x & y we would eliminate the negative output of a. Why could this not be a solution to the problem, instead of calling on racism, protests and attacks against some systematic problem that may or may not actually exist? What is the worst thing that could happen if young black teenagers wore polos instead of hoodies? What would be the worst thing that could happen if they wore business attire to school (like I was told to do at my private high school - one of the few things I cherish about my high school experience)?
In conclusion, I find this argument very similar to the liberal-conservative debate over sex-ed: human nature is stronger than will; our biological impulse is to engage in sexual activities after puberty; the method that controls said impulses (safe sex) is more likely to be successful than the one that says deny them (abstinence). Why? One of these acknowledges the existence and superiority of biology and nature while the other hopes we can just overcome it with the strength of our will. Which one do you think was more successful?
Posted by Matt (4/9/12):
Steve, in my mind you have very eloquently and effectively laid out the case for where stereotypes come from, why it's natural to stereotype, and why people of every color and creed do it mostly unconsciously. As individuals, we are nothing if not collections of all our experiences, past and present, and live to interpret those experiences and act accordingly. If we see something over and over again - or more accurately, hear it over and over again (despite criticizing the media in the opening to this post, I don't think you pay appropriate heed to the role of media and popular culture in fomenting racial biases) - we are likely to internalize it.
Where I disagree with you is in how you interpret this undeniable truth. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong) that while "we must seek to control the negative impacts" of stereotyping, the onus is on the stereotyped, not the people doing the stereotyping, to adjust. In your words:
Why could this not be a solution to the problem, instead of calling on racism, protests and attacks against some systematic problem that may or may not actually exist? What is the worst thing that could happen if young black teenagers wore polos instead of hoodies?So again - correct me if I'm interpreting your position inaccurately - if you don't want to be stereotyped, don't be so stereotype-able.
Here's my problem: what about assigning some responsibility, any at all, toward the person who acts on a snap judgment that will be completely wrong an overwhelming amount of the time? Does the next Trayvon Martin have to put on a polo every time he goes to the convenience store in order to avoid being followed by an idiot with a gun? I'm frankly appalled at the degree to which some people (and I'm not lumping you into this) seem to be going in order to justify George Zimmermann's decision to pursue Martin that night. As far as hoodies go, guess what my (white) roommate just wore to go buy some ice cream. Should he dress up next time, too?
The point is that what sets us apart as human beings is our ability to elevate ourselves above our animal instincts. And while the action of stereotyping may itself be rational in the evolutionary context you have outlined, the stereotypes that we assign to others are not. It is our responsibility as thinking beings to recognize this and rise above our natural tendency to judge others. If you dress like a nerd in high school, and hang with the nerds, does that automatically mean you're socially awkward?
Many pages of ink have been spilled, and many more reels of film rolled, telling stories that confirm the notion that things are not always what they may seem. In some ways, what happened to Trayvon Martin (this is a facile comparison, considering in one situation someone actually died) is reminiscent of the final scene from Crash, where a misunderstanding between an off-duty white cop and a young black hitchhiker turns fatal when the man reaches into his pocket to grab a figurine and the cop shoots him at close range, assuming he's about to pull a gun. Of course, the rest of the movie reminds us that our pre-judgments are sometimes true (like when the Los Angeles DA and his wife get carjacked). Over the course of the movie, however, these judgments are proven wrong more than they are proven right. Either way, the message at the end is the same: things are often not what they seem.I'm sorry, but it's not someone's responsibility to dress differently in order to reassure anyone else. It is YOUR responsibility (I mean the royal you) to exercise your ability to think, and reason, and realize that your idea of what a thug, or a good kid, or a jock, or anything else should look like may not always be accurate.
No one is saying this is easy. As you note, we are hardwired to do the opposite. But when we come across a situation, particularly one that ended as tragically as this one, that challenges our thinking about stereotypes and cultural bias, the response should not be to further entrench ourselves and demand that others represent themselves in a way that hews more closely to our pre-existing notions. It should be to use this tragedy as an opportunity to recognize the flaws in our own judgment and better ourselves accordingly. If there is any hope - other than a fair trial for George Zimmermann - that should come out of this, it is that the next neighborhood watch captain who deems someone to be "suspicious" might do so out of that person's actions, not their appearance.
I don't think George Zimmermann is a racist, and I don't think that about anyone who would defend him. But I can tell you this: it is clear that by following a kid doing nothing but holding a bag of Skittles and talking on the phone to his girlfriend, he acted on a snap judgment about race and personal appearance, and it is clear that this judgment was wrong.
Human nature may well be stronger than free will (that's another debate), but I can tell you regardless that I sure don't want to live in a world where free will doesn't at least fight back. When we resign ourselves to stereotyping, we limit our ability to maximize our potential as human beings responsible for treating one another with decency and respect. You can go all Hobbesian Wilderness on me and argue that things like respect and decency are pie-in-the-sky notions that do not reflect the way people are naturally inclined to treat each other. In a country, however, that prides itself on continually becoming "more perfect," we should strive to do better.
Posted by Stephen (4/11/12):
Matt, I thank you for appreciating my explanation of how/whystereotyping came about and why it occurs. And i think we essentially agree onthe middle steps of the issue. Where it appears we disagree is on how to dealwith it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears your argument is we shouldaddress the input I'll call X (the viewer/stereotyper/actor). You believe thatthe major burden of change must be on him or her. Meanwhile, I ask to changethe input I'll call Y - or the stereotyped. Both cases address the same issues,and it seems like we agree on diagnosis, but disagree on what to prescribe toreduce the problem.
As for your interpretation of my case, I do indeed put theburden on the "stereotyped" but do not believe you can just not bestereotypable. Actually, my argument is more calling for leaders to educate onwhat these stereotypes mean and the responsibility the individual has in them.We can agree that the media can create negative images, but I doubt the abilityof the media to really drive them home. Perhaps it is not the case in NY, butcertainly is here - for every young black man who is a criminal on TV there isan equal number of crazy rednecks who are guilty of all sorts of weird crimes.Yet, this stereotype does not seem to break down along racial lines (though, ifyou asked me if one stereotypes a redneck, I would agree - but this is thepoint: the stereotyping is less racial and more localized grouping).
Essentially what I am saying here is that the stereotyping,and specially the stereotyping that lead to Trayvon Martin's death, was not somuch racial as it was social group - i.e. even if Trayvon was not a"gangster" he sure was in a gangster's uniform (see the esteemedsocial psychologist Dave Chappelle's "hoe's uniform" stand up). What,Matt, my post was calling for was for black leaders to educate their youth thatthe "gangster" stereotype that they so often try to replicate (nodoubt less because this is how they actually are, but how they wish to presentthemselves - which we can perhaps go into the issues of nonauthenticity) is infact a dangerous one. It is a group associated with violence, sure it is notrefuted by the news, but we don't have to look much further than the rappersthey are emulating to find its own self-representation. Do I need to listen tothe news to know that rappers dress like this (and were probably the reasonTrayvon dressed like this), and also openly advertise their criminalactivities? Can pressing the media be of any worth without addressing thisnegative press as well?
Matt, like it or not, how we dress says a lot about us. Justlike we would both wear a suit (or at least a dress shirt and slacks) to work,we also both know we can't run around with ancient Hindu symbols ofauspiciousness (read: swastikas). Why? well certain things are just associatedwith certain other things. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we don't livein a bubble, but rather a world where certain images mean certain things. Justlike a business suit means take me seriously (or go read up the psychology ofcolored ties...) and ancient Hindu symbols have been hijacked by violentracists, what we wear will be inevitably interpreted by others. If this is thecase, why not educate the youth that being a gangster is not something theyshould want to emulate? Why would it be wrong instead to give them positiverole models to follow (we do agree that President Obama is a better role modelthan Young Buck, right?)?
To be clear, I'm not saying this is how it would be in anideal world, but alas our world is deeply flawed. If we can't stop stereotyping(and if a minority woman who studies the psychology of stereotyping findsherself deeply cognitively biased) what hope can the common man have? I’llleave you with two quotes from the article:
To be clear, I'm not saying this is how it would be in anideal world, but alas our world is deeply flawed. If we can't stop stereotyping(and if a minority woman who studies the psychology of stereotyping findsherself deeply cognitively biased) what hope can the common man have? I’llleave you with two quotes from the article:
Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different - and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter - "good intentions aren't enough," as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count very little. "I don't think free will exists," he says, bluntly - because what feels like the exercise of free will may be only the application of unconscious assumptions.
Matt, I agree with him - there is no free will. I'd be glad to discuss that in other philosophical post as well. Tommy will probably warn you to stay away from there though. Finally:
Posted by Matt (4/23/12):
We're not so far apart on this - and to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the way you dress doesn't send a certain signal. Talk to most of those black leaders you mention (or any leader, for that matter, of any race) and you'll find they pass along the same message to the young people they mentor.
Here's my problem though: I recognize the broader stereotype question isn't necessarily about Trayvon Martin, but considering the fact that his death is what spawned a national debate on this issue, it's absolutely relevant - what else should he have worn to the store that night? It's one thing to say a business suit means take me seriously, but why are we taking Geraldo Rivera's word as Gospel and pretending as if a hoodie means "view me with suspicion"? People of every race wear hoodies. The difference is that when white people do it, we're just on the way to the store, or wherever we're going. We don't get followed by men with guns.
And here's another point about hoodies - I'll bet you just as many white hipsters as so-called "thugs" wear this harmless article of clothing... many in the very same "up and coming" neighborhoods where black teens would get stopped, or at least looked at over an uncomfortable shoulder, for wearing the same thing. The bottom line is, all things being equal, if a white 17 year-old of the same size as Trayvon Martin were wearing the same clothes that fateful night, you'll have a hard time convincing me he gets stopped and followed by a rogue neighborhood vigilante. Why are the rules different?
I agree that stereotypes are mostly ingrained, and certainly don't excuse those who would do their best to insure they live up to the generalizations others make. But part of placing some responsibility on the stereotyped is acknowledging that we all have the responsibility to judge people and circumstances at face value, while at the same time recognizing one of the more beautiful truths of the world, which I alluded to in my first post - that things are not always what they seem.
To offer a twist on the old elementary school exhortation - we might get first impressions based on a book's cover, but life is a series of reminders not to judge that book too harshly without taking a look inside.
Have an opinion or contribution to one of our viewpoints? The comments section awaits...Exhortation, education, political protest - all of these hammer away at our conscious beliefs while leaving the bedrock below untouchedI, like you Matt, want to end the needless deaths. That's why we need to alert the bedrock, even if we have to pick a new site to build on.
Posted by Matt (4/23/12):
We're not so far apart on this - and to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the way you dress doesn't send a certain signal. Talk to most of those black leaders you mention (or any leader, for that matter, of any race) and you'll find they pass along the same message to the young people they mentor.
Here's my problem though: I recognize the broader stereotype question isn't necessarily about Trayvon Martin, but considering the fact that his death is what spawned a national debate on this issue, it's absolutely relevant - what else should he have worn to the store that night? It's one thing to say a business suit means take me seriously, but why are we taking Geraldo Rivera's word as Gospel and pretending as if a hoodie means "view me with suspicion"? People of every race wear hoodies. The difference is that when white people do it, we're just on the way to the store, or wherever we're going. We don't get followed by men with guns.
And here's another point about hoodies - I'll bet you just as many white hipsters as so-called "thugs" wear this harmless article of clothing... many in the very same "up and coming" neighborhoods where black teens would get stopped, or at least looked at over an uncomfortable shoulder, for wearing the same thing. The bottom line is, all things being equal, if a white 17 year-old of the same size as Trayvon Martin were wearing the same clothes that fateful night, you'll have a hard time convincing me he gets stopped and followed by a rogue neighborhood vigilante. Why are the rules different?
I agree that stereotypes are mostly ingrained, and certainly don't excuse those who would do their best to insure they live up to the generalizations others make. But part of placing some responsibility on the stereotyped is acknowledging that we all have the responsibility to judge people and circumstances at face value, while at the same time recognizing one of the more beautiful truths of the world, which I alluded to in my first post - that things are not always what they seem.
To offer a twist on the old elementary school exhortation - we might get first impressions based on a book's cover, but life is a series of reminders not to judge that book too harshly without taking a look inside.
No comments:
Post a Comment