Posted on 07/16/2006 1:27:10 PM PDT by Lorianne
One of the first studies ever to examine the development of "modern racism" in children finds that by fourth grade, children are making decisions about fairness that take race into account. This finding, from researchers at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., is published in the July/August issue of the journal Child Development.
Research shows that many adults make decisions about hiring, healthcare benefits, etc. that are biased against African Americans even while believing that all people should be treated equally, notes lead author Ann V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, Ph.D., the Marshall R. Metzgar Professor of Psychology. "Nevertheless, under some circumstances adults discriminate even when there is no racially based reason for their behavior." This behavior is not traditional hostile racism, she says, but reveals a subtle racial bias known as "modern racism."
To identify whether this bias affects children's reasoning about fairness and, if so, when it appears, the researchers evaluated 87 white children, 52 second graders and 35 fourth graders. They chose these age groups because second graders are at an age when racism and other negative attitudes that increase through preschool years have begun to diminish, while by fourth grade, children tend to develop group identification that shows strong ethnic/racial preferences even as they say they're not racially prejudiced.
The researchers told two stories about three characters who produced artwork. One produced more artwork than the other two, i.e., was more productive. One was poor, i.e., needy, while the third was the oldest, i.e., age-entitled. The characters' teacher sold their artwork at a fair, resulting in an unexpected reward. The teacher gave the money to the characters and told them to divide the money among themselves in the fairest way.
With the stories, about one-third of the children saw pictures in which the oldest character was black, one-third saw pictures with a productive black character and one-third saw pictures with a needy black character. In each case, the other two characters were white. The children were asked to allot the money to each of the story characters in the fairest way and explain why their choice was fair. Finally, children rated the fairness of different patterns of distributing the money based on four different principles of justice (age entitlement, equality, equity and benevolence).
Second graders' responses were based on equality principles and didn't vary with the character's race. Fourth graders' responses, however, showed children considered the characters' race. For example, they gave a greater share of the money to white needy characters than black needy characters, while black productive characters received greater shares than white productive characters.
The findings suggest that 9- and 10-year-old white children take race into account as they decide what is just and fair.
"There are several implications to this finding," said Dr. McGillicuddy-DeLisi. Among them:
* Everyday interpretations of events are likely to be influenced by race in subtle ways that children, parents, teachers and practitioners who work with children don't recognize.
* Minority children who see outcomes that disadvantage or advantage them compared to white children may attribute the motives of others' behaviors and the possibility of success to espoused strategies such as hard work and productivity.
* White children and adults, perhaps unaware of their biases, may believe in equality principles while behaving in unacknowledged racist ways.
The implications of this work suggest that "a focus on the developmental progression of modern racism may hold the best possibility of addressing its effects," notes Dr. McGillicuddy-DeLisi. "There has been little research that focuses on effective prevention of modern racism. This study suggests there may be a developmental window of opportunity for intervention in the early years of elementary school, a time when children's moral reasoning is strongly tied to principles of equality. By the time children are 9- to 10-years-old, however, this window of opportunity appears closed."
Excuse me, but my BS meter is pegging. Children learn by what adults around them do, if it's using foul language, discrimination, even driving skills. It's the "Monkey see - monkey do" that influences children.
A kid will not learn this garbage unless someone teaches them that principle. The same holds true for many other things and at all ages while they are growing up and learning.
First we must, as individuals and groups, judge cultures. I personally believe that western culture is the one that provides for the most individual, economic, and social freedoms and the most stability. I reject other cultures as primitive and self-defeating, and will continue to struggle in the defense of the superior culture.
What to do? Defeat slave/collective cultures when they threaten Western Culture. I am a culturist.
So, as I see it, nobody thought of giving each artist the money that his/her/its art sold for?
What a concept!
That's definitely true but it still leaves the battle between indoctrinators tenured through the school system opposing what wiser parental tutelage grants them. Children learn at an ever-decreasing rate as they get older (solidification of values?) so those not gifted with genius must be put on a solid path toward good citizenship early on instead of the path toward anarchy that most modern educators want to inculcate.
Fourth graders' responses, however, showed children considered the characters' race. For example, they gave a greater share of the money to white needy characters than black needy characters, while black productive characters received greater shares than white productive characters.
While not mathematically impossible, the results do seem somewhat inconsistent. One possibility follows. Conclusion: If you're white and old, it's best to be surrounded by needy blacks and productive whites. ;)
Black Needy .3
White Old .4
White Productive .3
====
White Needy .5
Black Old .2
White Productive .3
====
White Needy .5
White Old .0
Black Productive .5
The fundamental premise stinks.
The booty to be distributed isn't earned, it's CHARITY.
The racist premise of the creators of this study is that black people can't earn things, they can only depend upon charity.
If there was a farmer needing help getting hay into a barn before a storm, we all worked together to get that done before the storms hit.
On example was Indian Joe. He was one of the last Native Americans in our community. Believe me, nobody messed with Indian Joe. That Indian was about 5' 5" / 220 or 230 and had no problem lifting a 55 gallon barrel full of oil or fuel. If there was a fight, you wanted to have him on YOUR side.
You may have noticed that my example data was racially unbiased. The expected return to the black artists was 1/3 of the total.
I'd like to know how much of the difference is actually bias.
[It's the "Monkey see - monkey do"]
Oh man! I'm surprised that the "monkey" reference didn't send the "racist meter" pegging! :}
I've watched Fourth Graders at play and they are relatively free of racial separation but by junior high they seem to break off along ethnic lines and this practice tends to continue through college due to PC groupthink and identity politics.
After college you see much of that peer fascism evaporate and by mid adulthood most folks with any sense of openess have discarded the race chauvinism of their youth and mix frequently in social situations.
I just don't understand that. What is a "racially based reason"?
I haven't signed on for a couple of days, and I should have used another example. Just like a baby fawn learning everything from its mother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.