Brown-eyed children are idiots and worthless

reply to post by andy1033


There is no such thing as 'reverse racism' that concept in itself is racist because it makes it seem as though you see some people as being above others to where they can't possibly experience 'regular racism'.

Sorry to say even that is good old fashioned racism.

This experiment can apply to everybody. Even different sexual orientations and religions. It's mainly about people being put in each others shoes in the hopes that the frontal lobes will be used in interactions with people who happen to be outside your comfort zone.

Also, if you are really interested in understanding this part of the human psyche and not just trying to start a fight / trolling, look at the article I posted earlier... replace the different races with what applies to you and your outlook and it should probably help you understand a bit more.

edited because I suck with punctuation...
edited again because I can't spell punctuation either...

[edit on 11-3-2010 by EminenceofAeon]

[edit on 11-3-2010 by EminenceofAeon]

reply to post by Kandinsky


Wonderful lesson to be taught. The kids learned the lesson in a very real way and it was effective. Had the teacher not explained herself and simply left it at one group being better than the other of course there would be problems.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


This was done over the course of 2 days. It wasn't the weeks that somebody had mentioned. That would have very detrimental effects on the kids. Only one day or mild discrimination and look at how the kids felt. The video mentions a few times that it was over a two day basis. Just tryin' to clear things up.

reply to post by Tiger5


I think a similar lesson could be taught today, but the teacher and school would have to have the lesson plans shown to all the parents and each of them sign some sort of waiver and so on so forth. If the parents were involved, they would probably encourage it so long as they weren't racist themselves.

reply to post by zaiger


How is it supposed to be a lesson on discrimination? Because that's exactly what it was. You don't have to be lynching people to think you are better and worth more than them. Where do you think those extreme instances and ideas originated from? The core sin of pride and feelings of being better than your fellow man. This teacher addressed this issue in a very effective way.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Smoking, drinking and obesity...
Those are all things that you choose to do and is very different from discrimination on the basis of your genetics. Of course, some people have a disposition to some things based on the addictions of their parents and some diseases lend themselves to obesity. Your skin, hair and eye colors have no effect whatsoever on the environment around you. Your chosen addictions/activities do. And no, I'm not saying that people that do those things have lesser value or are less human. If I get lung cancer because you chose to smoke around me, I've got a problem with it. Of course, I had better not walk next to you in line when you are smoking and complain,as I have no right to since you were there first.

If I like playing my music really loud at all hours of the night and the neighbors can't sleep, am I being discriminated against when the law decides that I am disturbing the peace?

Nice marketing skills to the OP, definitely got some looks with a title like that.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Mykahel]

reply to post by Merriman Weir
Hiya MW, I've enjoyed many of your posts on ATS. I consider you a critical thinker and often share the same views.

In this thread, I've starred all the posts and disagreed with your assessment of Jane Elliot and the credibility of the experiment. As it relates to the videos in this thread, the experiment was successful. It affirmed the empathy of the children and reinforced tolerance for other creeds and colours into their adulthood. That's a positive IMO.

The character of Elliot is open to opinion just like anyone else. From my perspective, she was working in the period severe racial inequality and within the confines of her community too. Many parents in the area stopped their kids from being taught by a 'n**** lover.' She received a lot of abuse for her stance and ultimately left teaching despite having the support of her school.

Standing up against racism in a white community was still a brave thing to do. You've been in anti-fascist groups and know how much courage it takes. It took even more courage and commitment back then.

The context of the experiment keeps being coloured as a race issue. I disagree with that interpretation. I think the experiment applies to ignorant prejudice in general. Until last year, I've shown the videos to teenagers from 'difficult' backgrounds and they always generated lively debate.

There's no 'cure' for hatred and extreme prejudice, but Elliot's experiment helps some people to develop empathy. It can put children in someone else's shoes and that's rarely a bad thing.

We don't need a melting pot in this country, folks. We need a salad bowl. In a salad bowl, you put in the different things. You want the vegetables - the lettuce, the cucumbers, the onions, the green peppers - to maintain their identity. You appreciate differences.

Jane Elliot

Originally posted by andy1033
What about reverse racism, where the whites are haressed for being white.

Oh no we cannot talk about that, oh no.

Hiya Andy. One day, I'm gonna read a post of yours where we agree on something. This one comes as close as I can recall

The whole point of the experiment is to combat prejudice...that includes racism against whites too.

There was a guy in the 60s who made a name for himself preaching about tolerance between races/colours. He was always banging on about equality and despised racism. Martin Luther King was his name...they shot him on the balcony.

As appauling as the story is I would not be suprized if it was happening today.

reply to post by Kandinsky


i actually seen this when i was in juvi and i was probably 1 of 3 or 4 whites that was there the rest werre black id say 10-15...i remember after watching this feeling less tension in the room! lol

Originally posted by Kandinsky

From my perspective, she was working in the period severe racial inequality and within the confines of her community too. Many parents in the area stopped their kids from being taught by a 'n**** lover.' She received a lot of abuse for her stance and ultimately left teaching despite having the support of her school.

But Kandinsky, this is the point I'm making: you write here about Elliott's work in the past tense, when in fact, it's on-going.

As I've already stated, I not only laud her stance on racism, but I can understand how, in 1960s America (and all that entails) this had some merit.

My problem with her approach is that racism has changed whilst her's hasn't. Racism is still an issue: it's still there and it's still incredibly damaging. What isn't as clear cut as it is in Elliott's 1960s white American world is the idea that whites are racist by default (something she believes) and that only whites can be racist (another tenet that she appears to subscribe too.

1960s America, where the experiment started? Certainly. In communities such as Britain in the 2000s (where Elliott has been working too) - I'm not so sure. Much of her work is based on the ideas that whites are a privileged majority by default: something that is no longer necessarily true. We have communities where there's no go areas for a white minority (I live next to one myself). The idea that whites are necessarily economically privileged now is an absurdity and doesn't reflect the reality of a large 'working-class' and unemployed 'under-class' in this country. In this country, when it comes to education, the demographic that is being 'left behind' is male white children. In schools, children are as likely, if not more likely to be learning about non-white ethnic cultures and history than their own through celebration of festivals, foods, and educational schemes such as Black History Month.

All this undermines much of what Elliott is (still) saying: that white people don't have any exposure to ethnic cultures and that white culture and white history is the one that's taught, privileged and installed as the default one. Compare this to the issue of English identity where writers, social theorists and so on have spent over a decade writing and broadcasting on how the notion of Englishness barely exists having been lost to British whilst Welsh, Scottish identities (and also Irish when it comes to the UK) are encouraged and celebrated. Up until recently, look at how much of cultural faux-pas it was to fly an English flag as opposed to a British one. How is a white English culture truly privileged in 2010? The culture most people are part of in England is very urbanised and very much a melting pot of language, food, clothes, mixed-race relationships, music and so on.

The racial boundaries that Elliott was seeing in 1960s America, where whites and blacks couldn't sit together on a bus, aren't as stark and immediate as they were then. Again, racism has changed, but Elliott hasn't.

To reiterate: racism of all kinds is something that needs to be got rid of but I personally don't think Elliott's approach and reasoning is as applicable now as it was 40-odd years ago (at least in England where Elliott performed this experiment 6 months ago).

I found this to be quite facsinating and to be brutally honest, I had tears well up in my eyes watching that video. I thought that it was extremely powerful.

As harsh as this teachers strategy may have been, it seems like it worked out in the end, didn't it? Every student realized that judging another human being based on nothing more than the color of their skin was inherently wrong and all of them seemed to be bright and compassionate individuals.

I think this teacher came up with an idea that would fall outside of the box even by todays standards, and it ended up working.

Kudos to her.

reply to post by Merriman Weir
Hiya MW, I think we've been at cross-purposes...hence disagreement. The OP was focused on the experiment and Jane Elliot in the 60s. Your posts were focused more on Jane Elliot in recent times.

I saw her use the basic format of the experiment in the employment sector maybe two years ago. It didn't work very well. Following your posts, I've had a brief look and she has generated some criticism regarding her adult workshops. Some of that criticism makes the claim that she has over-extended her 60s distaste for racism into assumptions that all white Americans are racist. Perhaps this is true, I haven't applied myself enough to form an opinion.

The original experiment, as it relates to children, can still be applicable today. At heart, it seeks to cause a feeling of exclusion in one section of children whilst supporting superiority in the other section. Then the swapover. This needn't be focused on race/colour. It can develop empathy
at an age where it makes a difference.

I find the journey of those little kids of the past very moving. Anti-racism is a loaded concept and means too many things nowadays...perhaps simply celebrating empathy could be more useful?

Social engineering and human nature are difficult bedfellows...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Hiya MW, I think we've been at cross-purposes...hence disagreement. The OP was focused on the experiment and Jane Elliot in the 60s. Your posts were focused more on Jane Elliot in recent times.

Kandinsky, but that's what I've said all along! It's other people that seem to be confusing what I'm saying with the experiments with children. I've tried to make myself clear that whilst I applaud the 60s experiments with children in a predominantly segregated 1960s American community, it's the application of the same approach (and belief set) to modern, urban and incredibly mixed communities with adults that is flawed.

I'm not sure where you're from, but where I live in north west England school children as a likely (probably more likely) to learn about ethnic cultures and religious festivals than they are English culture or festivals.

In fact, it's fairly likely that most children in this country will actually be taught of the negative impact of white culture on other peoples through the coverage of slavery and Black History Month and so on.

The idea that it's not necessary to teach about English culture because English culture is the default one - as is the basis of Elliott's work, then and now - is a nonsense, because we live in a culture that is now very multicultural - or at least compared to the 1960s America that Elliott was raging against. Music, food, clothes, sport, television, film, education and so on all now have an 'ethnic' presence. There's no controversy about listening to 'race records' as when Elliott started, as the 'black' music is now a staple of popular music charts and programming on the television and the radio.

I saw her use the basic format of the experiment in the employment sector maybe two years ago. It didn't work very well. Following your posts, I've had a brief look and she has generated some criticism regarding her adult workshops. Some of that criticism makes the claim that she has over-extended her 60s distaste for racism into assumptions that all white Americans are racist. Perhaps this is true, I haven't applied myself enough to form an opinion.

The original experiment, as it relates to children, can still be applicable today.

Again, I'm not so sure. Maybe in some places where white communities have very little contact with any kind of non-white ethnic demographic, perhaps. In large English cities? Particularly some of the bigger ones in the North or the Midlands and London? What would Elliott's approach have to offer a white child in somewhere like Tower Hamlets, Bradford or Oldham right now?

I find the journey of those little kids of the past very moving. Anti-racism is a loaded concept and means too many things nowadays...perhaps simply celebrating empathy could be more useful?

Perhaps. I've already explained my involvement in anti-racism though in previous posts. I'm fairly certain some people were assuming as I was a closet racist earlier on because of my views on Elliott. Whereas, like Elliott, I've actually put my money where my mouth is and made a stand (and occasionally got a kicking for it - from blacks and whites).To me, all racism is wrong it doesn't matter who is getting discriminated against. And to be completely honest, the more I read, the more I'm unsure of Elliott: she's either a control freak on a very bad power trip, or she's filled with self-loathing for some reason. A few things I've come across suggest that she's a bit of a misandrist too - something that's as backward and wrong to me as misogyny.

BROWN EYES CHILDREN - ALL IDIOTS AND WORTHLESS



If you had DNA from Gordon Brown, you'd have to be a worthless idiot too.

A fascinating experiment. Yes it was about colour when it was conceived, but ultimately it was about differences.

There are similar experiments where one group is told to wear uniforms and the other group are told they are prisoners. Another experiment involved one group being told they would be given a electric shock if the answers they gave to questions were not satisfactory. and the shocks would increase after time. The people giving the shocks simply increased the voltage when they were told to, without questioning the orders or the sanity of what they were doing.

The most shocking aspect of these experiments is how easily we conform to peer pressure when put in the position of ascendancy, and how defenceless we become when we are put in a marginalised group, and in both cases, simply by being TOLD what group we fall into.

A very valuable lesson.







[edit on 12-3-2010 by MickC]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by MickC]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by MickC]