That doesn’t mean institutional racism isn’t a problem. I just think the described behavior is not indicative of it and that eliminating institutional racism will not prevent the describe behavior.
Again, based on this, I think your personal experience is not common in the US.
But it’s not like I have statistics in front of me. I could be wrong.
I’ve lived in 9 states all across the country, including big cities, suburbs, college towns, and small towns. I’ve worked with elementary school children, been one myself, and raised my own in these different places. In none of them was it common for kids 0-5 not to have significant interaction with non-family kids. They saw and interacted with other kids on playgrounds, at churches, at daycares, at swimming pools, in back yards, at birthday parties, etc. I’m certain that experience isn’t universal. Just common. More often than not it is that way.
“saw and interacted” is not significant interaction.
I find characterizing the situation described as racism or structural/systemic racism to be pretty weak. Like, so weak my reaction is more like, wtf than anything else. I have a hard enough time teaching my own kids to keep their hands off each other and learning the concepts of personal space, along with kids in their pre/school that I think touching is fairly normal to a certain extent. I can’t remember how many times I had to say, “No touching other people’s private areas!”
I would discount Bell’s assessment regarding racism in other areas based on the assessment described here.
Is there any point at which you consider that your own experiences might possibly blind you to possible bigotry and other difficulties that others might experience?
For example: Afro-textured hair is not part of the experience of the vast majority of non-black people. There’s tons of history and effort that go into the styling of black hair, and a huge portion of it is based on European standards of beauty – that natural afro-textured hair is inherently unattractive and undesirable. This has led to a huge industry, but more relevant to this particular issue it’s led to a very significant amount of black people not wearing their hair naturally. This means that far fewer non-black people have experience being around black people with natural afro-textured hair than would otherwise, which means that such hair is novel to many non-black people (including many children) when it wouldn’t be otherwise.
Thus, I hold that it’s entirely reasonable to consider that historical racism could be involved in the phenomenon of non-black people being eager to touch black people’s hair.
Always - individual experience will always influence how they perceive the world. Implicit bias can come into play, well, implicitly.
It’s possible, but I think a much more likely scenario among five year olds would be that they being five years old, are simply curious and haven’t learned boundaries like adults are expected to have done. I have actually said out loud, directed to another five year old, “it’s not okay to touch another person’s butt hole”. There was no racism involved.
I get where you’re coming from, but it feels like quite a reach. And I don’t agree with those who think this needs to be explained to 5 year old kids. They aren’t racist, they’re just rude.
Your argument seems non-responsive to the points raised in this thread. No one is disputing the premise that young kids get handsy.
What’s in dispute is (1) whether the interest the white kids took in this particular black girl’s hair was the result of the white kids living in segregation and therefore finding natural black hair to be a novelty worthy of exploration; and (2) whether such results of structural racism count as “racism.”
I don’t think most of the arguments here have been that the five year old is racist, but more about other racism leading to the current situation.
What led to the segregation? I think the answer to that also answers the question of whether or not this is racism.
No personal racism, most likely, but the fact that many of those children might have found black hair very novel could be due in part to societal/historical racism.
Thus I think your criticism (and doubt for Bell’s reasonableness) is over the top and perhaps unreasonable in itself.
If they wouldn’t dream of randomly touching a Japanese person with unusual features (and my guess is that they wouldn’t), then yes, it probably is at least a bit disrespectful. I don’t think you should have been insulted, but it wouldn’t have been wrong to be annoyed.
More importantly, what was a one-time thing that you experienced as a kid at Disney World is really a different thing when you experience it day in, day out, relentlessly, without any way to stop it. Would you find it novel and amusing to have people trying to take your picture when you are in line at the pharmacy buying cold medicine? Hot and sweaty walking home from the store? On the way to a funeral? Getting the morning paper in your driveway?
It may start out fun, but in my experience most people rather quickly get tired of their everyday life being treated like a free freak show.
And I’d like to know what ideas there are to address and change this societal racism?
I agree. If you’re unfamiliar with the causes of neighborhood segregation in the US, you should probably learn. It’s a significant part of what continues to drive racial disparity in the U.S.
The short version is:
[ul]
[li]Persistent household wealth disparities going all the way back to slavery[/li][li]Housing subsidies that overtly excluded black people [/li][li]Racial covenants that forbid selling to black people [/li][li]Private lending that intentionally excluded black people[/li][li]Private racism experienced by people who succeeded in buying homes in white neighborhoods[/li][li]White flight from cities, in large part because of attempts to integrate schools[/li][/ul]
Lots of things can be done to remedy this. But they tend to be things white people don’t like, like strict enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, school busing, subsidized loans exclusively for people of color, etc.
Focusing on attitudes on afro-textured hair, I’d recommend decent people do the following (this is a societal and cultural problem, and I’m not sure what government could do):
Challenge any non-black person who criticizes natural afro-textured hair (i.e. “those girls look so nappy!”)
Politely complement black people who wear their hair naturally (when reasonable, of course – not strangers on the street!)
Challenge any company policies that bar the wearing of natural afro-textured hair, and consider boycotts if such companies won’t change their policies
Don’t buy (and write complaining letters about) periodicals that criticize natural afro-textured hair
etc.
This is obviously a very, very small part of racism as a whole, but I think it’s reasonable to talk about and consider how we can all, in very small ways, try to improve society.
-
Obviously I can’t know what’s in the heart of the person in the story, so there is quite a bit of supposition going on. That being said, I think the most likely explanation would be the white kids being curious because of something different. That’s not racist, nor does it perpetuate structural racism. If they had unfamiliarity with a red headed kid and they did the same thing, that wouldn’t be racism either, structural or any kind. Or a hairless cat. Or a silkie chicken. Or a burn victim. Or a person with freckles. Or an amputee. Or sea star. Or any person or thing that is different or unfamiliar - kids see something like that and they want to touch it. The fact that kids are handsey overwhelms much of the other considerations. Touching in that way may not be appropriate, but for kids, we make allowances and use those occasions to teach them boundaries.
-
I don’t think this is a result of structural racism. I’m highly suspect whether structural racism counts in any meaningful sense as racism. If it does, then near everything can be linked to structural racism. House prices, structural racism. Traffic patterns, structural racism. The same for food prices, the cost of shoes, cable channel availability, and the menu selection at the local Applebees, etc. Describing this as structural racism dilutes the descriptive power of the term.
This argument as to #1 is actually entirely dependent on your argument in #2. If you don’t regard structural racism as racism, then you will always ask whether the agent had bigotry in his or her heart. But since no one is alleging that these 5-year-olds were bigots, then you’re failing to engage with the actual argument by observing that bigotry was absent.
I agree that lots of things are linked to structural racism. Once you decide that the effects of historically racist practices count as the effect of racism, even if the current people carrying out those effects are not bigoted, then it means large swaths of American life are infected by racism.
Obviously, some of those effects are more direct or indirect, substantial or insubstantial. I would submit that residential segregation is actually really important. And if you don’t understand it as the legacy of racism, then you simply don’t understand it period.
It doesn’t “dilute” anything to observe that racism has played a huge role in many aspects of American life. It’s just the truth, sadly.
But if the issue here is societal racism having the effect of segregating whites and blacks, how do any of the things you’ve listed address that? How do we integrate populations so that the behavior of the kids in the OP is reduced/eliminated?
That’s also part of the issue, and I’d recommend the suggestions Richard Parker made.
I see what you’re saying with this and I think that’s fair. Since I discount the validity of the type of structural racism described, I think that the answer to #2 is more interesting.
I agree that large swaths of American life are infected by racism, and in some cases, its legacy. I think we may differ as to what would be direct/indirect and substantial/insubstantial. Residential segregation may be really important, depending on the context. A 5 year old touching the hair of another 5 year old in my assessment registers as very indirect and insubstantial. So much so that even drawing the linkage to structural racism, absent other evidence, is counter productive in that it weakens acceptance of the concept for other direct and/or substantial incidents of structural racism.