Racism or Class Prejudice?

Yesterday, in class, we discussed racism in Huckleberry Finn. In the process we touched upon racism against African-Americans in today's America. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) for racism, made by Harvard researchers, was brought up. An African-American friend of another student in our class (Lizzy) apparently, according to the IAT, is racist against African-Americans. One of our teachers, Mr. Bolos, explained this by saying that this friend of her's had probably absorbed our racist culture, while if a white -America got the same result, it means that he/she is racist. I hope I misheard or misinterpreted what he said.

I just took the IAT for racism. It asks you to fill out a questionaire, mostly questions about age, education, and location, and match words and pictures to the correct category. First, you match good and bad words with the categories Good and Bad, then pictures or blacks and whites with the categories European-Americans and African-Americans. Afterwards, they combine Good with European-American and Bad with African-American and have you match words and pictures, then they switch the combination and you match the pictures and words again. Their calculation for your preference for one race over the other is based off how quickly you match the words and pictures in the different combinations. My result: moderate preference for White-Americans.

I am not surprised, but not because I think I am racist. I believe I have a class prejudice against those who live in this country's slums and projects and ganglands; I get uncomfortable, and sometimes scared, around people who dress "gangsta", especially when passing through said areas. This combined with the fact that a large percentage of the people who live in these places have dark skin is the most likely explanation for my results on this test; and, I would argue, a very good explanation for why many people, especially of the population that would take such an online test, have a preference for whites over blacks (54% of participants had a moderate to strong preference for whites).

The Butter Battle Book

Most of my favorite books growing up were Dr. Seuss books. One of them was called the Butter Battle Book. I found it funny how the two sides were stupid enough end up at a stalemate (a word I did not know at the time) where each side had a ultimate weapon that would entirely destroy the other side. This weapon was a small black ball, that if dropped, would detonate. One member of each side was assigned to hold this weapon and drop their's as soon as the other side dropped it. (A full summary can be found at this wikipedia article.)

This sounding familiar?

Looking at the story again, in my mid-teens instead of 4 or 5, I can see a frightfully obvious metaphor for the Cold War and the arms race. The Butter Battle Book has no resolution. Everyone continues to live in fear. It is an anti-war book. The hidden moral of this story is not so hidden...at least to those old enough to understand it. Perhaps I am alone in this, but when I was first read this story, and when I started reading it myself, I simply found the story amusing. I saw nothing wrong with the ultimate weapons, ready to drop. I just found it stupid to hold the weapons forever, wouldn't they get tired? They might drop them by accident. That's just dumb.

The discrepancy between the age at which I first heard the story and the age at which I understood it as an anti-war story makes me wonder just who the 'hidden' message was for; perhaps it was actually meant for the parents reading the book to their offspring? Are there other hidden morals and messages in childrens' stories that may be meant for the parents?

Do they help?

This last week I have heard some of my classmates talk about the Names program, training to help out in the antibullying program that Freshman go through. I was reminded of another anti-... program. D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). I did not go through that program myself since I left my old school district before junior high, but my brother did.

Do D.A.R.E. and Names actually do anything to help people? Do they prevent drug abuse and bullying?  We like to think that they do. It seems like they should. It seems like they might. It seems to work adequately, so why look for another method?

I have heard sceptics of both progeams, children and their parents, that claim the programs have an overall negligible, or even negative, effect. I do not know of any solid evidence to support these claims, nor do I have any to refute them. Despite the lack of hard proof in my possesion, I do believe the sceptics have a point; have studies (repeatable, large scale, studies) been done to prove that D.A.R.E. and Names actually decrease pre-teen/teen drug use and bullying, respectively?

Since I did not go through the D.A.R.E. program myself, I will not comment on it further; however, like most NT students, I went the Names progam Freshman year. For myself and, from what I could see, for my peers, nothing changed. Well, not quite. People were a bit kinder and more careful with their words for a month or two, but soon the majority of the student population was back to the bullying, coercing, norm. (Which goes steadily down as we become older and more mature.)

Questions: Why does no one make a study of the results? (Or, why can I not find a study?) Why do we even have these programs in the first place?................(I truly do not understand why.)

"Settlements"

Unfortunately I cannot link it because I do not know how to translate the article into English, but yesterday I read an article, in Hebrew, about the jewish West Bank "settlements".

(For those of you who like to analyze my use of quotation marks, I will explain "settlements". The word settlement, at least in this context, has the negative implication of wrongfully taking and settling land that belong to someone else. As of the end of the 6-day war in 1967, the West Bank has officially been a part of Israel. To my knowledge, all "settlements", villages, and towns in the West Bank are entirely legal.)

The official stance of the Israeli government regarding these "settlements" has changed from administration to administration. Prime Minister Olmert did not give many building permits. Prime Minister Netanyahu has given more. Despite this official difference, in practice, the "settlements" have been growing at a steady rate throughout. The majority of building permits issued to legalize the construction of housing units (apartments or houses) in the West Bank were and are issued by the local governments directly to local contractors who then just go ahead and build. So why is the federal government the one yelled at for the continued construction of "settlements"? Why does it matter what the federal government wants? Are the high-up politicians to squash the hopes of young families in the "settlements" who want their own home? Is the U.S.A., itself obsessed with housing everyone, going to continue to demand the federal government of Israel do this?

I wonder...



(I apologize if my bias ever offends anyone; however, I will not apologize for my bias. It is slight in most matters and my opinions are primarily based off fact.)

Bad Idea? I think so.

A few days ago I heard something about a "devout" muslim being appointed to a high position in the Department of Homeland Security, so I decided to look it up. This article is what I found. What I had heard is now confirmed. Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama as assistant secretary in the Office of Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security.

Why would Obama give a "devout" muslim a high level job with significant influence over our country's safety, especially so soon after the Fort Hood Shooting? Major Hasan was a psyciatrist at Fort Hood and advocated suicide bombing during lectures. He was known to believe in a violent sect of Islam, yet he was allowed, as other majors are, to carry his own firearm. It is possible that Alikhan's situation is quite similar, and could be far more dangerous.

Also, many Americans still fear muslims in general, and, to some extent, that fear is justified (unfortunately). Putting a "devout" muslim, who, it would appear, is far more likely to be jihadist, in a position to control America's safety is more certainly not one of Obama's wisest decisions. He probably wanted to say that he has increased diversity. In that case, why not appoint a devout Christian or Jew? Obama has made a mistake and his popularity continues to fall.

You call tell what I think of Obama's decision, but what do you think? Good or bad idea? Or something in between?

Soldiers versus Survivors

I suggest reading this article before reading my post.

Does compulsory army service, which demands responsibility on all levels and provides great opportunities for making connections for the future, really explain how successful Israel's hi-tech industry is compared to its size? I am sure serving in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is great training for a huge number of different jobs and scenarios. In fact, I am fairly sure that nearly everything said in the above-linked-article is accurate.

But, just how much does serving in the army affect Israelis success?
What about the culture in general?

To quote one Israeli-American; "Necessity is the mother of innovation." In the case of Israel and Jews, "necessity" brings to mind the horrors of the Holocaust and how the inmates had, essentially, nothing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of Israel's success can be traced to the mentality of Holocaust survivors; "no one's going to help us, so we had better just help ourselves." People absorb most of their parents' opinoins, values, behaviors, and general mentality on how to deal with the world, so the idea of "I don't have something, so I'm going to make it myself" could easily pass beyond just the Holocaust generation.

Okay readers, your turn. Is the article right to say that the disproportionate size to hi-tech industry success ratio is due primarily to the draft and army system? Or am I right? Can this success actually be traced back to Holocaust survivors and their attitude towards life? Are we both wrong? Are we both right? To what degree? Lastly, any other theories?

Smiles

Right now, I am reading a book called "Quirkology; How We Discover The Big Truths in Small Things" by Richard Wiseman, Ph.D.. In Chapter 2, one of the sections in titled "The Mona Lisa, Freshly Guillotined Heads, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame" and discusses smiles. It was a fascinating read.

Now, what's so fascinating about a simple facial expression? Well, I think we all know that there are different kinds of smiles and the main catigorization that can be made is between real and fake smiles. Wiseman demostrates something that I think all those who wish to deceive and those who wish not to be deceived should know. Chances are, you already know this. Genuine smiles go to the eyes, fake smiles are just the mouth. But it is not something in the eyes themselves, as some writers describe (ex. her eyes shone with joy). Looking only at the eyes, and not the skin around them, will tell you nothing. The real trick to deciphering a smile is the wrinkling around the eyes. (Maybe that's why the elderly seems happier to some people, their smiles look real.) A genuine smile gives the smiler crow's feet and often increased bagging/folding of the skin between the eyebrows and eyes as the eyebrows move lower.

There you have it. The simple and effective trick to know when a smile is genuine or fake. A great way to know if someone really likes you or is being nice to take advantage of you! Or maybe just to decipher someone's mood.

Are there other easy trick to knowing when a person is not being entirely honest?