You know discrimination is not a negative word. A discriminating person dresses well, shows some class in how they act toward others, and keeps good company. I can't comment on your experience because I'm not a black guy in America today. I can comment on my experience though and it seems any time any standard of any kind is enforced on blacks there are always some who say it's racist, even if that same standard is applied equally across the board to all people. If you think people should be held to the same standards I agree. But all to often what I hear sounds like an argument for no standards.
White folks have been quick to accuse blacks bring up discrimmination (which in this context is a negative word) of playing the race card, as if their conclusions have been reached not because of careful consideration of the facts as they see them, but rather, because of some irrational (even borderline paranoid) tendency to see racism everywhere.
The regularity with which whites respond to charges of racism by calling said charges a ploy, suggests that the race card is, at best, equivalent to the two of diamonds.
In other words, it's not much of a card to play, calling into question why anyone would play it (as if it were really going to get them somewhere).
Secondly, white reluctance to acknowledge racism isn't new, and it isn't something that manifests only in situations where the racial aspect of an incident is arguable.
Fact is, whites have always doubted claims of racism at the time they were being made, no matter how strong the evidence.
So, whatever "card" claims of racism may prove to be for the black and brown, the denial card is far and away the trump, and whites play it regularly.
What media? The only media I know of goes out of its way to portray black males as harmless and the same as all other guys.
This is a joke,right?
See: African American men as “criminal and dangerous”: Implications of media portrayals of crime on the “criminalization” of African American men found here:
Invalid Link Removed
Also see: Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266-275
An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans increase the likelihood that whites will make negative social perception judgments of an African-American (but not a white) target person.
Forty white subjects were exposed to comedy skits featuring stereotypical or neutral portrayals of African-American characters. Subjects then read a vignette describing an incident in which a college student was allegedly assaulted by his roommate. In half of the conditions, the alleged offender was assumed to be white; in the other half he was assumed to be African-American. Subjects rated the likelihood that the alleged offender was guilty of the assault. Guilt ratings of the white target did not differ significantly between the stereotypical and the neutral comedy skit conditions. In contrast, guilt ratings of the African-American target were higher in the stereotypical comedy skit condition than in the neutral comedy skit condition.
Television portrayals of African-Americans and other minorities have been shown to influence whites’ perceptions of those groups. Greenberg (1972), for instance, found that over half of the white children sampled reported that television was a principal source for information about African-Americans. Furthermore, children who experienced a high degree of exposure to African-Americans on television were particularly likely to believe that the portrayal of African-Americans was "true to life" (p. 13). Television’s portrayal of minorities, then, can serve to create, reinforce, or change disparaging stereotypes (Dates 1980; Scherer 1971).
Not surprisingly, much research has been conducted over the years examining the ways that minorities are depicted on television (e.g., Banks 1977; Baptiste 1986; Donagher et al. 1975; Greenberg 1986; Poindexter & Stroman 1981). Little research, however, has directly investigated how television portrayals of African-Americans affect person perception—impressions of individuals. Therefore, in the present research, I address a relatively neglected question—how do stereotypical portrayals of African-Americans on television affect the way whites think about and respond to individual African-Americans?
Television Portrayals of African-Americans
African-Americans and members of other minorities appeared on prime-time television with increasing frequency throughout the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. Greenberg 1986; Seggar, Hafen, and Hannonen-Gladden 1981; Wigel, Kim, and Frost 1995). Weigel et al. (1995) performed a content analysis of prime-time television programs during the 1989 season. The found that the amount of time African-American characters appeared on the screen increased from 8.3 percent of the total human appearance time in 1978 to 17 percent in 1989.
Unfortunately, however, these advances are largely limited to appearances in situation comedies with predominantly African-American casts. Weigel et al. (1995) report, "Fully one-third of the black appearance time in the 1989 sample of prime-time programming was concentrated in six situation comedies that constituted less than 6 percent of the overall program time" (p. 230). This finding is consistent with research by Reid (1979), who examined prime-time programs during the spring of 1977 and found that "virtually all regularly appearing black characters on television were on comedy programs" (p. 466). Similarly, Baptista-Fernandez and Greenberg (1980) found that half of the black characters in a one-week sample of programs, but only one-third of the whites in that sample, appeared in comedies.
African-American characters are not only limited to roles in select comedies, but are also frequently based on disparaging stereotypes (e.g., Banks 1977; Baptiste 1986; Greenberg and Atkin 1982; Poindexter and Stroman 1981; Seggar and Wheeler 1973). Seggar and Wheeler (1973), for instance, found that African-Americans (and members of other minorities) were more likely than whites to be portrayed in menial "personal service" occupations. Similarly, Greenberg and Atkin (1982) reported that only one-third of African-Americans on television were depicted as having an identifiable job, whereas one-half of all white characters were depicted as having a job. Furthermore, African-Americans were more likely to have low socioeconomic status.
The stereotypical portrayal of African-Americans has traditionally been more pronounced in programs with predominantly African-Americans casts. Banks (1977), for instance, found that African-Americans in situation comedies with predominantly African-American casts (e.g., Good Times, That’s My Mamma, Sanford and Son) were particularly likely to be characterized by traits that are stereotypically associated with African-Americans, such as "fun-loving," "happy-go-lucky" (clownish) and "poor."
Recently, critics in the popular press have also lamented the stereotypical portrayal of African-Americans in situation comedies (e.g. Hammer 1992; O’Connor 1991). In a 1992 article for Newsweek magazine, Hammer argued that too many comical black characters (e.g. Vidal in Out All Night) are simply "one-note stereotypes" portrayed as buffoons and libidinous lechers (p. 71). Hammer also reported an interview with Bill Cosby in which Cosby accused the networks of presenting images of African-Americans that "reinforce shallow stereotypes" (p. 70).
The Effects of Stereotypical Portrayals on Person Perception
The level of activation or accessibility of a construct stored in memory determines how readily people use that construct to encode person information (e.g., Brunr 1957; Higgins, Rholes, and Jones 1977; Srull and Wyer 1979). Higgins et al. (1977), for instance, found that subjects interpreted a target person’s behavior in terms of applicable trait constructs made momentarily accessible through priming—that is, recent activation of those constructs in memory. Social judgement can also be influenced by trait constructs made chronically accessible through frequent activation over time (Higgins, Bargh, and Lombardi 1985; Higgins, King, and Mavin 1982; Srull and Wyer 1979, 1980).
Television and other media can be powerful priming agents, activating constructs that subsequently influence social judgements (e.g., Berkowitz and Rogers 1986; Hansen 1989). Relevant to the present research, stereotypical television portrayals of men and women have been found to increase the accessibility and subsequent use of sex-role stereotypes to interpret behavior. In a study by Hansen and Hansen (1988), for instance, subjects watched either sex-role-stereotypical music videos portraying women as sex objects or neutral music videos. The subjects then viewed a tape of an interaction between a man and woman who were getting to know each other. During the interaction, the man made a number of sexual advances (i.e. he touched her blouse and made subtle sexual comments). Afterward, subjects who viewed the sex-role stereotypical videos rated the woman (who reciprocated the man’s advances) as more sensitive, more sympathetic, more sexual, and less dominant than subjects who viewed the neutral videos. Similarly, Hansen and Krygowski (1994) exposed subjects to a short commercial of a male model demonstrating exercise equipment after they viewed a music video that depicted either a "sexy" or "nonsexy" male character. Subjects who watched the "sexy" video rated the model as sexier, less aggressive, and more amusing than subjects who watched the "nonsexy" video.
Priming research has consistently shown that to influence judgements, primed constructs must be applicable to the target of judgement (Higgins, et al. 1977). In regard to trait priming, applicability is considered in terms of semantic meaning. Priming a trait such as "friendly," for example would be expected to affect judgments of a target on descriptively similar dimensions (e.g., intelligence) (Erdley and D’Agostino 1998). Indeed, Devine (1989) primed subjects, to varying degrees, with negative stereotypical African-American traits (e.g., "poor," "lazy," "hostile"). Subjects were then asked to make judgments of a race-unspecified person who performed ambiguously hostile behavior. Ratings of the target person on hostility-related traits (e.g., "hostile," "unfriendly") were more negative insofar as subjects were primed with the stereotypical traits. Ratings on traits unrelated to hostility were not affected by priming.
Hansen (1995) and Hansen and Krygowski (1994), however, argue that stereotypical television portrayals of social groups do not simple activate a single trait construct in memory; rather, they activate a broader, abstract mental representation or schema of those groups. Such schematic representations are thought to consist of general knowledge and expectations that provide an organizational framework for processing social information (Fiske and Taylor 1991; Taylor and Crocker 1981).
Research by Ford, Stangor, and Dua (1994) suggests that in priming a social group or category (e.g., African-American, education major) the issue of applicability is whether or not the target person is a member of the primed category. In one study by Ford et at., for instance, subjects read a short vignette describing a young man who was either an education major or a mathematics major. To prime the young man’s social category, subjects were asked to recall and write down his major. Next, subjects read a second vignette describing either a dual major in education and mathematics or a geography major. Subjects then rated the second target person on trait dimensions associated with education majors and mathematics majors (e.g., people-oriented versus technical). They were more likely to characterize the dual major in terms of traits associated with the primed than with the nonprimed major. Priming, however, did not affect judgments of the geography major.
Although the priming procedures in the Ford et al. (1994) study did not involve stereotypical portrayals of social groups on television, one may hypothesize that in the case of priming an abstract representation of a social group in general, the target person must belong to the primed category. He or she must fit the activated stereotypical representation if priming is to influence social judgment. Accordingly, upon exposure to stereotypical television portrayals of social groups, people should be more likely to perceive individual members of those groups (but not nonmembers) through the lens of the activated stereotypical representation. Thus, in the present study, I predicted that when whites were exposed to negative stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans, they would be more likely to make negative judgments of an African-American target person. However, exposure to negative stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans was not predicted to affect their judgments of a white target person.
) of violent behavior when it was depicted in a humorous form (cartoon featuring animals acting like people) than in a nonhumorous form (realistic depictions of people). Mannell interpreted this finding as suggesting that humor activates a "playful judgmental set" in which one’s usual attitudes toward socially unacceptable actions or sentiments are temporarily suspended (p. 273). Similarly, Husband (1977) argued that humor "blunt
the critical sensitivity" of the audience to events they would normally find socially unacceptable (p. 268).
In a study more relevant to social perception, Bill and Naus (19920 found that incidents of sexual discrimination were considered acceptable (i.e., not inappropriate) by male subjects insofar as they perceived the incidents as humorous. Taken together, these studies suggest that disparagement of social groups through humor (e.g., comical stereotypical portrayals of social out-groups) may indeed create a climate of tolerance of discrimination by providing cues that discrimination is not serious or is not to be examined critically.
CONCLUSION
Stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans in a humorous context increase the likelihood that whites will perceive an AA target person in a stereotypical manner. This finding is consistent with a priming hypothesis and contributes to a growing body of research investigating the influence of priming different varieties of social constructs.
The present study also raises the possibility that some yet-unexplored mechanisms inherent in humorous stereotypical portrayals contribute to devaluating social judgment. Indeed, this research suggests that the effects of humorous disparagement deserve serious examination particularly in light of the proliferation of television shows such as Comedy Central, Def Comedy Jam, Mad TV, and Saturday Night Live. These programs often derive their humor from the stereotypical portrays of social groups.
Raw numbers, yes. Per capita black on white crime rates for all types of crimes including hate motivated attacks are all higher than white on black equivalents. See the FBI uniform crime report, The Color of Crime, etc. If the rates stayed the same and the population proportions were reversed there would be truckloads of black yahoos chaining white guys to their pick-ups and dragging them to their deaths on a weekly basis.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
Even without breaking out Hispanic victims of "black crime," your position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population .
That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized .
From 1995-2000, blacks were 65 percent of racial and ethnic hate-crime victims, while whites were 21 percent of such victims . Adjusted for population, any given black person was nearly twenty times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime than any given white. In 2001, there were approximately 4.6 times more white-on-black than black-on-white hate crimes , despite the fact that whites were between six and seven times more available in the population to become victims.
As for profiling, many seem to insist that because of higher black crime rates, it only makes good sense to focus police efforts on the black community. But this is demonstrably ludicrous. If, as the Justice Department data suggests, blacks commit somewhere between 25-30 percent of violent crime in most years (23 percent in 2002), to profile blacks for crime will result in police being wrong, between 70-75 percent of the time .
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2003. Table No. 14: 16.
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author.
Robert O'Brian. "The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes: A Reexamination." American Journal of Sociology 92(6) (1987).
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author.
United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, "Hate Crime Statistics," (various years, 1995-2000), and calculations by the author.
United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2001."
Peter Greenwood and Alan Abrahamse. Selective Incapacitation (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982); Todd Clear, "Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime," Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Center, at: Invalid Link Removed
relevance?
