anyone remember this little ditty??? “Brown eyes, Blue eyes”. from Jane Elliott??

https://tkam.fandom.com/wiki/J...Blue_eyes_experiment

On April 5, 1968, Jane Elliot implemented the exercise. When her class arrived at school, she asked them what they thought about negroes. the children responded with various racist stereotypical comments such as negroes are stupid and can not keep a job. She then asked the children if they would like to experience the life of a negro child to which the children agreed.

On that day, Elliot decided to make the blue-eyed children the superior ones first, giving them extra privileges like second helpings at lunch, being able to play on the new jungle gym and giving them an extra five minutes at recess.She did not allow the brown-eyed children to drink from the same fountains as the blue-eyed ones. She would offer praise and commendation to the blue-eyes for being hardworking and intelligent while the 'brownies' were treated like rubbish, being continually put down. They also had to wear ribbons around their necks.

At first, there was resistance. Elliot countered this by using a pseudo-scientific explanation stating that the melanin that made blue eyes blue also was responsible for their intelligence and ability. The 'brownies' did not have this pigmentation and therefore lacked these qualities. Shortly thereafter, the resistance faded away. The effects of the criticism led to the blue-eyed children becoming bossy, arrogant and unpleasant towards their 'inferior' classmates. Their grades also improved, doing mathematical and reading tasks that seemed out of their reach before. A transformation also occurred with the brown-eyed children. They turned into into timid and subservient children, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children’s academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.

The following day, Elliot reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. They were not as unpleasant towards the blue-eyed children unlike what the former did to them on the previous day, and it was much less intense. At 2:30 on that Wednesday, Elliot told the blue-eyed children to take off their collars and the children cried and hugged each other. She then told then to write letters to Coretta Scott King and to write compositions about the experience. The exercise changed her life both as a teacher and personally. Her reflections on what she had witnessed would influence how she would approach race relations and teaching. “She had not told her pupils to treat each other differently, only that they were different; and yet they developed the characteristic responses of discrimination. Jane Elliott felt that they did this because they had already absorbed discriminatory behavior from their parents and other adults.” Their willingness to accept the "inferiority" of a group of people was due to the fact that children believe what adults, including teachers, tell them and then follow their examples. However, when the brown-eyed children were ’superior’ they modified their behavior to be much less intense, because they already knew what it felt like to be ‘inferior.’

and there’s more in this article.......

Last edited by Goldie
@Pikes Peak posted:

I suspect that there is a a bit of racism in some (most?all?) of us. It is how we react to it and learn from it that is important.  Two guys from the same era, same area come to mind, LBJ and Strom Thurmond.  One knew he was a racist and did his best to overcome it, the other, not so much.

Simple, old time sayings are worth remembering and worth striving to achieve, treat others as you wish to be treated and walk a mile in my shoes are two that come to mind.

 

 

 

Strom Thurmond was a racist POS who also had a black daughter (with one his family's maids) that he hid from view for her entire life. 

@GreenBayLA posted:

So Nate Boyer speaks for all who served in the military because they all think and believe the same things? If anyone feels differently its "just manufactured outrage." That's BS.

This is still America and we all have the right to our opinion and free speech. But it comes with a cost. 

 

 

The cost is that if you kneel quietly for the national anthem you will blackballed, but if you beat your wife/girlfriend, threaten to kill them, or just plain up essentially murder a guy (Ray Lewis) that's OK. Unless it's on video (Ray Rice), of course. 

If the year that the Packers had to play Hundley for all those games, they've have signed Kap instead, would people have stopped being Packer fans? Kap would have given them a better chance to win. But Kap came with baggage that all teams claimed would have been a distraction. 

Yet, when the Packers signed a guy like Letroy Guion, hardly anyone batted any eye. He wasn't a star either so it's not like he was so talented teams would look the other way, but it seems a lot of fans that are OK with signing someone with a problematic history of domestic violence would have been outraged signing someone who kneeled for the national anthem. I think that says a lot about us as a culture.

https://www.packersnews.com/st...suspension/98853554/

Guion had been charged in criminal cases three times prior to his arrest as a member of the Packers, and these included a stalking charge and two domestic violence incidents that resulted in three counts of battery. In one of the domestic violence incidents, Guion was charged with hitting the mother of his child in the jaw.

@srkbadger posted:

I can guarantee you this: if kneeling during the anthem was the current norm, the same crowd would be berating the people standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. I just wish the same people that profess such reverence for the flag would read, understand, and respect the constitution as much as they revere the flag. Without that document and the ideas within it, the flag is just a piece of cloth.

We had  2 foreign exchange students (a brother and sister) from Spain live with us for a year; one  in 2004 and  the other in 2009. They would comment on America's obsession with the flag and the military. They found it all very odd and amusing. I didn't give it much of a thought until the whole kneeling controversy. I was really disappointed that when AR asked for a show of unity by locking arms, the majority of fans chose to put their hands over their hearts instead. I took it as "you have to choose a side, and we chose the flag, which represents the military and law and order, which leaves no room for protest or anything not perceived as "white"" 

@FLPACKER posted:

We had  2 foreign exchange students (a brother and sister) from Spain live with us for a year; one  in 2004 and  the other in 2009. They would comment on America's obsession with the flag and the military. They found it all very odd and amusing. I didn't give it much of a thought until the whole kneeling controversy. I was really disappointed that when AR asked for a show of unity by locking arms, the majority of fans chose to put their hands over their hearts instead. I took it as "you have to choose a side, and we chose the flag, which represents the military and law and order militarists and mercenaries, which leaves no room for protest or anything not perceived as "white"" 

 We're a flawed/failing democracy for a reason.  Any real symbolism has been subverted.

Last edited by Henry
@bvan posted:

As you know, my daughter is half Thai. When she was growing up in AZ the other kids would ask "what are you?" Are you part Mexican? Are you part native american? etc.
The weird part was other Thais recognized her Thai-ness right off the bat. LOL

I have a close Puerto Rican friend.  She's been associated with being white, Korean, Native American, pretty much everything but Puerto Rican, which is pretty hilarious.  In my younger days when the luxurious locks were flowing I was walking through the airport with a friend, a woman stopped my friend and asked what tribe I belonged to.  People see what they want to see sometimes.

I always check my Thai-ness when I find a new Thai restaurant to make sure it's the real deal.  "Will this food melt my face off?  EAT THIS INSANITY PEPPER!"

Last edited by Henry

I have a former student whose mother it Vietnamese and white French, father is black Haitian and white British. He was going to art school in Los Angeles and discovered by a modeling agency back in the late 90s and was told he could make a lot of money because he was “ethnically ambiguous.” He could pass for just about any ethnicity from tanned honky to light skinned black dude.

People do see what they want for sure.

Being offended, no matter what side of the argument you are on, is counterproductive to truly building understanding. Being offended and lashing out at Brees is nothing more than trying to exact a pound of flesh. Dancing on the grave. Making someone "pay" for their sins. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Where has it gotten us?

Ultimately that's going to be the biggest impediment to race relations in this country. The fringes have hijacked both sides of the narrative on both sides of this equation. Until people start treating each other with kindness, shit ain't changing. Look at the Middle East. Arabs and Jews have been killing each other a lot longer than people in this country.

@Henry posted:

Just stop.  The coronavirus wasn't the problem?  This is the shit I'm talking about.  It isn't about people's lives it's about their cheap, petty personal beliefs that supersede any kind of fucking logic.  I'm guessing you're a big proponent of if you don't test or it it doesn't exist.

You get your ass run up the flag pole because it's more about your "personal freedoms" than it is about concern for anyone else.  There was a realistic solution for all of this right from the start.

We have never quarantined healthy with little chance of becoming gravely sick people in a pandemic.

You quarantined the sick and those who have a high likelihood of being severely effected, like the elderly, the infirm and other high risk people.

We didn't shut down the economy during the Asian Flu in the late 1950s. We didn't shut down the economy with the Hong Kong in the late 1960s. Why not?

Because these viral pandemics kill at risk or weakened people not normal healthy adults. We may get sick for a few days but that is generally it. And you are NOT going to stop the spread of it as hard as you try. It is going to spread throughout the population no matter what you do because people see and talk and work and play together. 

Once it's out there there really is no stopping it, just like the flu. 

But I suppose governments freaked because they all know exactly where this thing came from - a Chinese Virology Lab that was doing gain of function and gene editing work on dangerous bat viruses. They made it infect humans so they could study it and then it got loose. That's pretty scary. But it turns out it doesn't kill everyone. Pretty much only the same people that the flu kills. 

Nice screed.  Completely irrelevant and flawed.  I always find it amusing how Americans are so insular they think events are only happening here and not the rest of the world.

This is more relevant as a whole to the current state of our nation.

A third of Americans misuse bleach to prevent COVID.

Last edited by Henry
@AtTheMurph posted:

We didn't shut down the economy during the Asian Flu in the late 1950s. We didn't shut down the economy with the Hong Kong in the late 1960s. Why not? 

Actually, I believe it's because this isn't the 50's or 60's. Initial treatments of COVID-19, based on other known coronas, had little impact. Then there was the early discovery of asymptomatic transmission, which added a level of uniqueness. Also, people travel much more freely around the globe today then they did in the 50's and 60's. There is a greater level of travel between cities in the US today versus back then. The health officials were not as concerned about spread back then because the level of contact tracing rarely moved out of the county where the issue was. 

Asian Flu of '57-'58 killed 116,000 Americans, and that was over more than a year - partly due to the limited travel patterns. We are at 109,000 US deaths from COVID-19 in about 100 days. The '68 Hong Kong flu was a variant influenza that included a component of the '57-'58 virus.