Sunday, July 26, 2020


Knowledge of History is an important part of psychological defense

 The news service in connection with Black Lives Matter shows how important it is that historical references are used correctly. In order for the public to be able to understand and assess what is being said, it is important that proper time is set aside in schools teaching the subject of history.
 Now the public and journalists may get the impression that the United States is the country that should be condemned for slavery above others, but is that true? Slavery is taught extensively in US schools, and for half a century there have been extensive social support programs for African Americans. The United States is a nation most eagerly embracing theories of multiculturalism.
 One could always argue that more could have been done, but the United States has addressed its history in a way that other countries, such as African and Asian, have not. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who previously lived in Somalia and the Netherlands and now lives in the United States, has recently stated that there is no better country to live in than today's United States for a person who is black and female. Economics professor Thomas Sowell (2006), himself an African-American, rejects slavery as an explanation for today's problems for African-Americans.
 Historically, people in all parts of the world, including Europe, were held as slaves or "unfree". An expression that professor Harrison (2015) prefers to indicate that unfreedom has had different degrees. Slaves are mentioned in the earliest texts of mankind, such as Hammurabi's law from 1700 BC in Mesopotamia. If you read researchers like Harrison, you see that northern and western Europe is an exception in the world in that freedom declined and disappeared in the late Middle Ages, and that the historically remarkable thing is not that slavery survived but that it began to be fought in the early 1800s.
 Slavery has existed not only in Africa but also in the Middle East, India and China right into the 20th century. Here we will focus on Africa. In the case of Africa, Africans have used other Africans as slave labor since time immemorial and as the main commodity along with gold and salt. A person could be turned into a slave by becoming a prisoner of war, being assaulted in a raid, having been convicted of a crime or unable to pay his debts.

 Africans were from the beginning involved in the sale of African slaves to merchants who brought them to what we now call the Middle East. To reduce the risk of escape, the prisoner was immediately removed from the home area to make it impossible for him to have any opportunity to receive help from relatives.
 The Arab slave trade went in caravans through the Sahara, with high mortality, and along the east coast of Africa from Zanzibar and Madagascar up to Egypt but also across the Indian Ocean towards India and the Indonesian archipelago. Slaves were used for household chores, as soldiers and for agricultural work. Female slaves were wanted and sometimes more expensive than men.
 The African slave trade to the Middle East began earlier and ended later than the transatlantic slave trade and is estimated to have involved slightly more people. Domestic African slave trade and that of the Middle East increased sharply in the 19th century, when Britain and the United States banned the slave trade, and it developed especially in East Africa and included, among other things, the plantation economy.
 Some African countries such as Mauritania did not make slavery illegal until 1981. Even today, the conditions of some workers in countries around the Persian Gulf have similarities to slavery. There have been no major movements to abolish slavery in Africa or the Middle East or any major initiatives to compensate the victims.
 It is seldom pointed out that Europeans have also been victims of the slave trade. In the Ottoman Empire, people were enslaved from what we now call the Balkans and Ukraine, and the word slave is considered to come from the name of the slave people.

With bases in North Africa and, above all, Algeria, slave traders hijacked between 1,500 and 1,800 European ships in the Mediterranean and turned crew and passengers into slaves. Raids were also carried out on Spanish and Italian coasts to capture slaves. The transatlantic slave trade is best documented and most thoroughly studied. It was awful like all slave trade, and although slaves were everywhere in America, Brazil was especially known for slave labor. The strange thing, however, was not that there was slavery in America, but that for the first time in human history there was a strong condemnation of slavery. In the United States and Britain, the demand for the abolition of slavery became a popular movement based on the idea of ​​the equal value of all human beings.
 After Britain and the United States themselves made the slave trade illegal, their ships patrolled the seas to force other countries to stop the slave trade. As is well known, the United States itself fought a bloody civil war in 1861–1865, in which the abolition of slavery was a major issue, and nothing similar has happened in any other country.
 The condemnation of slavery became so successful that the public has forgotten that slavery existed throughout the world and who pushed for it to be abolished. It is therefore something that rubs off with the recent protests in the United States aimed at today's American citizens. One would expect the protests to be directed at such countries, where people are still in various ways unfree. A reflection for Sweden is that we are talking about the need for psychological defense and about tracking fake news. What we should do in the first place is to study more history.

Todde







Tuesday, July 14, 2020

 Language is a telling clue to 
unacknowledged racial attitudes

 Overt racism is declining, but studies show 
that unconscious bias remains widespread



 “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” tweeted 
Donald Trump (invoking a slogan from the 1960s), when unrest 
broke out after the killing of George Floyd. “Thugs”, the 
president wrote, were disrespecting Mr Floyd’s memory. He 
almost always use ”Thugs” when some matter of race is at 
issue, either the treatment of African-Americans or in 
reference to “illegals” and “gang members”, implicitly Latinos.

 Are “looting” and “thugs” a kind of racist code? Many people 
detect a “dog-whistle” which, without saying anything 
explicitly racist, the president intends listeners to hear. 
Mr Trump forcefully disagrees. In 2015 he tweeted: “They now 
say using the word ‘thug’ is, like so many other words, not 
politically correct (even though Obama uses it). It is racist - 
bull!” Plenty of people approve of calling thugs thugs, and 
object to being labelled racists for doing so.

 The intentional dog-whistle is not unknown. But people can 
allude to race without realising it, too. Explicit racism is 
declining in America, as a pile of evidence shows. For 
instance, there is a widespread reluctance to admit racist 
attitudes that many Americans were once perfectly comfortable 
with. On the other hand, unconscious and semi-conscious 
prejudice is alive and well. When people use racially linked 
language, without overt slurs or other racist tropes, 
linguists call it “racialisation”.

 Some ingenious research has teased out the links between 
prejudice and language. A classic method for fingering 
implicit bias asks subjects to take a quick-fire, button-pushing
test that associates positive or negative words with white and 
black faces. In one such study (at implicit.harvard.edu), 58% 
of online test-takers are slower to associate positive 
language with black faces than with white ones. Just 14% 
display the opposite tendency.

 Or consider more deliberate forms of language, formulated by 
people who are generally unlikely to consider themselves 
racist, journalists. A study by Dana Mastro of the University 
of California at Santa Barbara looked at hundreds of news 
reports in three big American papers (the New York Times, the 
Los Angeles Times and USA Today) about professional athletes 
accused of crimes. Such articles were more accusatory of the 
alleged perpetrators when they were black. They were more 
likely to provide context and humanising detail when the 
accused were white.

 Praise can be racialised, too. Crystal Dunn Soubrier, a 
black player for America’s women’s football team, wrote 
recently that commentators attribute her ability to play in 
several positions to athleticism, never to her reading or 
study of the game. This seems a persistent pattern in 
sportswriting. Kelly Wright, a doctoral student of linguistics 
at the University of Michigan, used machine-learning to 
predict an athlete’s race based on words that appear in an 
article containing their name. Purely relying on the language 
of news reports, the model was able to predict that Ronda 
Rousey, a wrestler, was white with a 96% certainty, whereas 
there was only a 3% probability that Eric Berry, a National 
Football League player, was white. So it went with other 
athletes; the algorithm’s guesses were almost always loaded 
starkly towards black or white.

 When racialisation happens, words do not change their 
dictionary definition; rather, they take on associations 
with other words. Brains are statistical machines, in which 
learning involves a gradual strengthening or weakening of 
different synapses. Introduce one concept and related concepts 
are “primed”, or made more quickly available to the 
consciousness. Just because these associations are hard to 
prove conclusively does not make them less real.

 The difference between “racist” and “racialised” helps explain 
why Americans often talk fruitlessly past each other when 
discussing words such as “thug”. With overt racism waning, it 
has become painfully obvious to some people—though not all—that 
the submerged part of the iceberg, implicit racial beliefs and 
associations, plays a bigger role than was once realised. 
Overcoming those is particularly difficult because of their 
semi-conscious nature.

 A long struggle has made “racist” one of the worst things 
you can be. That counts as a great success, but the corollary 
is that the remaining problems are hard to talk about. Some 
fear being branded racist just for trying. Seeing the bias 
in even innocently intended language is a first step towards 
understanding that there is still work to do.

Also check: