I am having an immensely frustrating morning. Immensely. Aaargh. Okay, this week's reading: Plessy v Ferguson, the infamous 1896 Supreme Court case that decrees that "separate" can be "equal", and there is nothing unconstitutional about making black people ride in separate railway carriages. The opinion contains such gems as:
"...underlying fallacy... the enforced separation of the two races stamps the coloured race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found but soletely because the coloured race chooses to put that construction upon it."
and
"If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."
Then comes Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), possibly the most famous case in American jurisprudence, which decides that separate is not equal and thus segregation in schools is unconstitutional. I apologise for the Legal History 101 going on here. Anyway, the point of it for my purposes at the moment is that it made the use of social science evidence in courtrooms mainstream. The study in question, the Clark doll study, involved two groups of black children - about 200 of them from the segregated South, and another group from somewhere in Massachusetts, where schools were integrated. Each child was given two dolls - one white, with yellow hair, and one brown with dark hair. They were asked which doll they wanted to play with, which doll has a nice colour, and which doll was "bad", etc., and were told to hand the relevant doll to the experimenter.
Of course, a significant percentage of the children in both groups picked the white doll - the white doll is "nice", the white doll is the one I want to play with, etc.
Then came a cute study, done by some high school students. Here it is - it's quick and telling. Same idea, same methodology, same results, only now it is not 1954. Small children are socialised, at an early age, into believing white is good and anything else is bad. Hi, I could have told you that. I wasn't a playing-with-dolls kind of child, but I do remember the only brown doll I ever had. It was wearing a sari - do I, or the brown people I know, wear saris every day? - and was probably called Exoticism Barbie or some such thing.
But the class were very impressed. Oh, the things that you learn! Isn't it surprising, and interesting that small children should think that even now! I mean, it's not like anything in their culture might make them thing that being brown was bad, for heaven's sake! It's not like everyone on TV is white and everyone in authority is white and brown people are exotic, angry, foreign, strange and ugly, or anything like that, is it!
You know, it's amazing how often I find myself moved to quote from Angels in America, but, seriously, I am trapped in a world of white people.
What do you even do, though? If you jump up and down and shout, "hi, you are all WRONG, about EVERYTHING", you come across as the freakish foreign brown girl, again.
Oh waaaaaaail. I want a muffin and a chocolate bar and for everyone to just GO AWAY.
"...underlying fallacy... the enforced separation of the two races stamps the coloured race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found but soletely because the coloured race chooses to put that construction upon it."
and
"If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."
Then comes Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), possibly the most famous case in American jurisprudence, which decides that separate is not equal and thus segregation in schools is unconstitutional. I apologise for the Legal History 101 going on here. Anyway, the point of it for my purposes at the moment is that it made the use of social science evidence in courtrooms mainstream. The study in question, the Clark doll study, involved two groups of black children - about 200 of them from the segregated South, and another group from somewhere in Massachusetts, where schools were integrated. Each child was given two dolls - one white, with yellow hair, and one brown with dark hair. They were asked which doll they wanted to play with, which doll has a nice colour, and which doll was "bad", etc., and were told to hand the relevant doll to the experimenter.
Of course, a significant percentage of the children in both groups picked the white doll - the white doll is "nice", the white doll is the one I want to play with, etc.
Then came a cute study, done by some high school students. Here it is - it's quick and telling. Same idea, same methodology, same results, only now it is not 1954. Small children are socialised, at an early age, into believing white is good and anything else is bad. Hi, I could have told you that. I wasn't a playing-with-dolls kind of child, but I do remember the only brown doll I ever had. It was wearing a sari - do I, or the brown people I know, wear saris every day? - and was probably called Exoticism Barbie or some such thing.
But the class were very impressed. Oh, the things that you learn! Isn't it surprising, and interesting that small children should think that even now! I mean, it's not like anything in their culture might make them thing that being brown was bad, for heaven's sake! It's not like everyone on TV is white and everyone in authority is white and brown people are exotic, angry, foreign, strange and ugly, or anything like that, is it!
You know, it's amazing how often I find myself moved to quote from Angels in America, but, seriously, I am trapped in a world of white people.
What do you even do, though? If you jump up and down and shout, "hi, you are all WRONG, about EVERYTHING", you come across as the freakish foreign brown girl, again.
Oh waaaaaaail. I want a muffin and a chocolate bar and for everyone to just GO AWAY.
no subject
on 2010-09-28 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 08:49 pm (UTC)Um, not that I expect this to make anything better at all, but I think it settles for once and for all that on this issue at an absolute minimum, you are very definitely not the freakish foreign brown girl.
*offers cup of tea and a biscuit?*
no subject
on 2010-09-28 05:06 pm (UTC)I hope I would have chosen differently when I was little, but who knows? I do remember that my dark haired Sindys were nicer than the blonde one who could be spiteful, and the one with short dark curly hair was a mechanic and in a relationship with the one with long dark hair, which is a whole 'nother set of stereotypes I suppose... My darker skinned doll was a Jem character (Shana?) and was larger than the Sindys so only wore her own (very sparkly) clothes, which I thought very inappropriate for daytime. Based on these I decided that she was a nightclub singer and on different shifts from the others, so she didn't interact much. People could probably read fathoms into that, which is a rather horrible thought.
no subject
on 2010-09-28 05:43 pm (UTC)Also, there's ofcourse the concept that fairer girls are more beautiful! How ridiculous is that! But even a lot of educated people I know still think this. All of this is just....aaaaaargh!
no subject
on 2010-09-28 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 07:24 pm (UTC)Not to claim that this in any way solves the issue that Barbies are skinny (and all the other things they are/aren't) but one interesting study I came across debunked the idea that Barbies are entirely disproportionate, at least - they were never meant to have the ridiculous hourglass shape they have now, in that the doll was meant to be that shape, but originally she wore cotton clothes, made in the same way as actual clothes, and you can made clothes smaller but you can't make folded fabric at waistbands thicker. Barbie originally (I think - or early on) wore a shirt and elasticated skirt, so at least three layers of cotton and the elastic at her waist - for her to have any waist at all they had to make the naked doll waist tiny.
Obviously this doesn't explain why they haven't changed it or why she ~had~ to have a waist in the first place, but it's an interesting piece of trivia if nothing else.
no subject
on 2010-09-29 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 11:58 pm (UTC)Ahem. Sorry for derail-y rant.
no subject
on 2010-09-29 09:00 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 07:09 pm (UTC)I've been living among the White Trash so long that I don't have patience for their crap anymore and I just tune them out. There aren't any non-white students in the class I'm in now; the only "minority" is a deaf student. Too many of my classmates chew tobacco and say "doo whut?" when they're confused. Somehow I know I'll cope, but I don't wish this learning environment on anybody.
no subject
on 2010-09-28 08:16 pm (UTC)*hugs*
*offers Acme Social Viewing Correction HammerTM*
no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 08:44 pm (UTC)And you have no idea how much of a wrench the honey cake was. A work colleague bakes. I don't like cake. I had 3 slices in 1 day. 'nuff said.
no subject
on 2010-09-28 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 09:22 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 10:39 pm (UTC)So while it makes be unbearably sad, I suppose I take it as a given in this country. I will also say that while we are, obviously, still ridiculously imperfect, we are also leaps and bounds from 1856 and 1896 and 1954 and hopefully in a century there will be a group of young women shaking their heads at how close-minded and ignorant their ancestors (literal and theoretical) were.
no subject
on 2010-09-28 10:40 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-28 11:48 pm (UTC)Also, food vocabulary metaphors for skin colour are not the world's most politically correct.
no subject
on 2010-09-29 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 09:15 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:17 am (UTC)But.
I have seen that video a few times before and I do reflect on it when I'm considering best practices in my chosen career. It also demonstrates, I think, one of the key issues here (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/298714). I know - and this is reinforced in my classes - that to do my job well, I need to question my privilege, and the privilege that is still built into the curriculum constantly. Working with the age group that I do, in the community that I do, it's critical.
no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:45 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
on 2010-09-29 11:36 pm (UTC)But this, I hope, might lift your spirits. Kate Elliot wrote about an experience she had when teaching her children about Rosa Parks: http://kateelliott.livejournal.com/155934.html
no subject
on 2010-09-29 11:56 pm (UTC)