The study found that people hesitated longer to shoot an armed white target (and they were more likely to accidentally not shoot). Participants were quicker and more accurate with black armed targets but there were more “false alarms” (shooting them when they were unarmed). These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly
“These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly”
You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s total bullshit. If you’re going to shoot an unarmed black person and then claim to not have discriminatory views …What a crock of shit.
got that a little bass ackwards there, I think…first the subject claimed no (explicit) racial biases, and THEN they took the test which proved that, yes, they *did* have (implicit) racial bias
TBH though, focusing on that part of the study is, for me anyway, nearly beside the point —it’s like burying the lede: A Black man holding a wallet is more likely to be shot by the police
than a White man holding a gun. That sentence is troubling enough without reading beyond the word ‘police’
Like I almost don’t give af about the whys, that experiment is proof enough that racial bias causes unjustified shootings (as if anyone seriously needs more convincing) and I just want it all to stop before more Black people like me are shot for no other reason than the color of our skin
but…if we gotta examine that last sentence, there’s nothing problematic with it, unless you’re interpreting it to say that the participants (or the authors meant that the participants) were not racist
It didn’t say that, and that’s kinda the whole point of the study: will your (white people) actions really match up to your claims?
…like why even bother running this experiment on people who ALREADY freely admit to being virulent racists? What would that even prove?
breaking it down:
A) “These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views”
translation: test subjects *thought* they aren’t racist because they don’t use the n-word or voted for PBO or some ish like that —a lot of racists actually believe those two things alone eternally exempts them from being a racist
B) “…and wanted to treat all targets fairly” again, what the participants said, allegedly thought, or claimed they “wanted” doesn’t really count after they took a test which blatantly exposed that their actions proved every bit as racist as the actions of…well, a racist
the “Read More” link (in the original post above) and it’s article about Kofi Adu-Brempong goes into it a little more and isn’t giving any white person a pass for being “not racist” it just shows that implicit racial bias can manifest in the same way—and is frequently just as deadly—as explicit racial bias
The link between blackness and criminality has deep historical roots in the country. As pointed out by Khalid Muhammad in his book The Condemnation of Blackness, the notion that blacks have a propensity for criminality was established in the 19th century. The connection, therefore, between blackness and criminality has been embedded into the consciousness of white Americans for over a century.
There has never been a shortage of violence committed against African Americans ever since the first slave ship arrived on American shores. This violence resulted in the deaths and subjugation of millions of people. In some parts of the country, many black males were lynched. Even worse, those lynchings were a social event. None of these terrifying acts of violence was perpetrated by people of color. So it’s logical to ask, why are African Americans the only group that is carrying the burden of criminality in America, despite being the victims and not the perpetrators of the most atrocious acts of violence that took place in the country’s history? — Criminalizing Blackness: Why Whites Commit Crimes, But Blacks Are Criminals (via odinsblog)