It then asks you do identify people by race by pictures of their face. That, of course, is a false measure of "race." So it is an ignorant test per se. It said I got some of those wrong, that I was not accurately identifying who is "black" and who is "white." I did not grow up with white, black, hispanic or asian people and as an adult I was around very mixed-race people - mostly black and white blue collar. To the extend a person's racial heritage can be known by face, it is not in the darkness shade of their face - though Harvard zippy pinheads might see it that way. It more has to do with facial bone structure, something Harvard apparently does not recognize.
Since the measuring method was sooooo superficially obvious in grotesque collective stereotyping, I was curious what it say given how most of my answers screamed "liberal" and therefore NOT racist - but southern and some "conservative" and "white-like" responses - with the real complexity that I wasn't in the southern-white bigot categories racially - plus I could not accurately measure people's race by a small center square of the person's face.
It then sent me to the next test, for which I was to say whether a face was "bad" or "good." The "e" key for "bad" and "i" key for "good."
The test might have variables as I don't fall well into their stereotyping not being white, black or Latino and can't accurately identify race by face - maybe the program then required I do the bad-or-good person face test. If a person claims they can decide who is good or bad by their face - regardless of racial aspects - that person is per se prejudiced. Since I don't and can't judge people that way, I bailed out.
I can see how East Coast white liberal academics would see it as a cool test to prove white Southern Republicans are bigots. Its just crap and its core premises prove whoever created this test is/are a bigot and racist.
Preferring to be with your own kind is natural and not racist...blacks feel the same way...hispanics feel the same way...you can break that down by race or ethnicity and it will all be the same...people are more comfortable around their own and theres nothing wrong with that and it is not racist or bias.
To be racist you have to blatantly vocalize hatred or dislike for someone because of who or what they are...or outright discriminate against them against the law...but there is no moral or legal obligation to love someone else.
Didnt read the whole thread but a couple things
I majority of people are "prejudice" against race, ive seen nothing in my life time to suggest otherwise.
now with that being said prejudice is vastly different from racist, prejudice is typically easily over come with a conversation, working together, basic interaction etc etc.
Racism is substantially more concrete. Even after a conversation, working together etc that person still has a hatred for almost all people of that race or a great distrust or disgust.
I disagree with your definitions and I suppose that is why so many who are racist can get away with claiming they aren't "racist" - because they feel that as long as they don't do stupid things like lynching an image of the President, or shout "Nigger!" when they drive by an African-American walking along or behave in any other such blatant fashion, that means they must not be racists - they just prefer being around their own "kind"
More and more of America's youth are rejecting that attitude - for many of them, their own "kind" simply means people of their own age with zero regard for colour or ethnicity.
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822