Has Fergussun Proved the Futility of Ending Racism?

[JimBowie1958]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

The elites will let you know that they are white, after a few drinks. They look at the mixed race and blacks in Brazil as gutter trash and over the past few decades the police have been notorious for killing street orphans of mixed race out of hand, like a hunting game or something.

 

[Rotagilla]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability should be the ONLY qualities considered....for anything.

But there's still the intelligence differences between negroes and whites. "Whiteness" sets a standard of achievement that "blacks" just can't meet without government assistance.
It'll always be a problem.

 

[EverCurious]

The way you explain your positions strongly signals that you have a very binary position on race - if your are black, then you must possess X, Y, Z, etc. Black women have an elevated risk of ER negative breast cancer than do white women but this doesn't mean that every black women by virtue of her race will develop breast cancer.

Race is a group concept, not an individual concept, and so because of the group nature we're dealing with DISTRIBUTION of traits. The best and most widely documented aspect of this is IQ - mean black IQ is 85 compared to mean white IQ of 100. This doesn't mean that every black person has an IQ of 85 because they are black. One of six black people has an IQ of 100 or higher.

Maybe what you're trying to say is that you can't walk up to stranger, see that they are black, and KNOW anything about who they are as a person. Does that individual have an IQ of 85 or 100 or 110? Knowing that they are black doesn't tell you the answer. However, if you were allowed to play the odds, your safest bet would be to claim that this person's IQ was between 80 and 90 because that range centers around the mean and so captures the most black people, thus increasing your chances of guessing correctly.

To explain this succinctly, race doesn't dictate anything, it signals the odds for many things.

I am an 'out of the box' person so, no, I don't generally think of people in terms of 'groups.' I might say 'I'm a gamer' and folks might assume that puts me in the basement of my parents house, but the truth is I am not defined by being a 'gamer' alone. I'm also a mother of 5, a manager, a business owner, and I retired wealthy at age 20, got bored and went back to work again.

Statements made about 'groups' are almost always flawed so I do not use, nor agree with them. I admit that if I see a gang (of any color) that doesn't look like 'safe' people, I try to avoid them cause I don't want any trouble, but that's really about as far as my judgment of 'groups' goes. It is therefore troublesome for me to understand using a 'group' as a basis for anything, much less how I interact with someone.

When I walk up to someone on the street I don't really think about their IQ. I mean, I guess, if I am being completely honest, I already know that they're IQ isn't at my level so I don't 'need' to think about that, but that doesn't really enter my mind. When 'I' walk up to someone on the street I am more interested in wanting to know more about them; where'd they come from, what do they do... ah, basically how is their life different from mine and what can I perhaps learn from their experiences and knowledge. Though, given, that might just be me cause I am "EverCurious," its the way I was raised.

I prefer to deal with people as individuals, rather than as a 'group' with 'group' definitions. I'll attempt to clarify my position in saying that I do not believe it is 'group' politics we need to resolve racism and the welfare state, but rather policies that can help the 'individual' get out of that lifestyle. When I look at 'ghetto culture,' I see a bunch of individual people who want attention and respect. 'Group' based policies cannot address providing the individual with positive attention and respect, which is why I believe they fail.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Conscious racism can be eradicated through education and experience (though will probably take another century or so at this rate).

Is it the role of government to transform people or to govern the people as the are? You seem to be arguing that government should be training people, through carrot and stick or maybe only through stick methods, to not be racist. Does this also apply to government training people to not be liberals, to not be homosexuals, to not be feminists? You don't like some people, racists, OK, that's fine. Where though do you get off implying that government change them into non-racists? I hate liberal totalitarians so it is now fair game for me to suggest that government power be used to train these people into becoming human rights respecting conservatives?

However, subconscious racism is a lot more difficult to get rid of, as it is discrimination that you aren't consciously aware of i.e. avoiding sitting at a park bench because there is someone of a different color/ethnicity sitting there, or simply avoiding people because they aren't 'your race'.

Again, why is it your business to impose your moral values on people who don't want them? Why do you even believe that race neutrality is a preferred outcome? There's no evidence for that. This is entirely a faith-driven proposition, identical to believing that Angels and Demons are guiding and influencing your life.

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of saying that they find it difficult to approach people of a different culture, ethnicity, or religion; I still find it awkward to be around African Americans and Muslims. People saying what they feel out in the open helps, as it allows the community to discuss misconceptions and mediate disputes more easily - this is why even though I have an obvious distaste for racism and discrimination, I prefer it out in the open so I can confront it.

What you've described is NOT racism. Racism is a bad thing and it takes conscious thought to implement. The core of racism is to believe in the superiority of one race and the blanket assignment of attributes to all people of a race and then any decisions which intersect with racial issues must be motivated by those two beliefs. Most people ARE NOT racists.

Now with discrimination all you're really pointing to is freedom of association. When a woman doesn't want to be examined by a male gynecologist she is sexually discriminating against the man. Are you prepared to paint her as a devil for exercising her right to associate only with female gynecologists?

 

[Bush92]

I think if you took a White liberal from Minnesota and transplanted them to Mississippi for a couple of years...they would vote Republican.

 

[Bush92]

I do see a rise in the number of Black Republicans in the South. The split will be in the Black community. The hard working segment of the population, against the slackers who glorify gang life and act like savages. The latter will always vote Democrat.

 

[hipeter924]

Is it the role of government to transform people or to govern the people as the are? You seem to be arguing that government should be training people, through carrot and stick or maybe only through stick methods, to not be racist. Does this also apply to government training people to not be liberals, to not be homosexuals, to not be feminists? You don't like some people, racists, OK, that's fine. Where though do you get off implying that government change them into non-racists? I hate liberal totalitarians so it is now fair game for me to suggest that government power be used to train these people into becoming human rights respecting conservatives?

I am not arguing that at all, it is a natural social transition over time, that doesn't need government input to move things in a particular direction - though a government can try and slow a social transition through legislation or punishments. Racism will phase out in areas where there is limited conflict i.e. obviously in areas that aren't war zones or disputed areas between religious or ethnic groups that haven't be resolved.

Again, why is it your business to impose your moral values on people who don't want them? Why do you even believe that race neutrality is a preferred outcome? There's no evidence for that. This is entirely a faith-driven proposition, identical to believing that Angels and Demons are guiding and influencing your life.

You can't 'impose' social changes, sure it is plausible that government policy could encourage a social change to move faster or slower, but you can't force a social change like say towards the end of certain types of discrimination any more than you can force someone to accept an ideology or religious view.

What you've described is NOT racism. Racism is a bad thing and it takes conscious thought to implement. The core of racism is to believe in the superiority of one race and the blanket assignment of attributes to all people of a race and then any decisions which intersect with racial issues must be motivated by those two beliefs. Most people ARE NOT racists.

Racism doesn't require conscious thought, any more than any other form of discrimination requires conscious thought - it is biological in the same sense that birds and non-sentient species discriminate on basis of color and so on for mates. That said, if you educate and put a group in an environment for a sufficient amount of time then it is plausible that such discrimination can be bred out i.e. an environment with limited discrimination won't promote discrimination as much. Most people are not conscious racists, but subconscious racism has a way to go.

Now with discrimination all you're really pointing to is freedom of association. When a woman doesn't want to be examined by a male gynecologist she is sexually discriminating against the man. Are you prepared to paint her as a devil for exercising her right to associate only with female gynecologists?

No, not really. When a woman doesn't want a male gynecologist she isn't sexually discriminating, it is plausible that since she is female, and the gynecologist is female that she might feel more comfortable - so this would be more of a occupational bias (that a female gynecologist knows more about the female body) than discrimination as such.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think if you took a White liberal from Minnesota and transplanted them to Mississippi for a couple of years...they would vote Republican.

We don't even have to do that. Minnesotans actually volunteered to host Somali refugees. Idiots. Repeat that process to the point where Somalis represent 40% of the Minnesota population and you'll see white liberals in Minnesota fleeing from the Democratic Party towards the Republicans.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am not arguing that at all, it is a natural social transition over time, that doesn't need government input to move things in a particular direction - though a government can try and slow a social transition through legislation or punishments. Racism will phase out in areas where there is limited conflict i.e. obviously in areas that aren't war zones or disputed areas between religious or ethnic groups that haven't be resolved.

Are you on crack or something? I'm laughing at the ludicrousness of your assertion that this is all natural and doesn't need government interference. Look at the Boston Bus Riots. That was government forcing integration and Boston liberals rioted in the streets to keep from having to send their white children to be schooled alongside black children.

The natural state of affairs is to segregate.

Racism won't phase out where there is limited conflict because the human formula that is operational is as follows - Diversity + Proximity = War. Don't want war? Easy, simply remove either diversity or proximity from the equation.

Now with discrimination all you're really pointing to is freedom of association. When a woman doesn't want to be examined by a male gynecologist she is sexually discriminating against the man. Are you prepared to paint her as a devil for exercising her right to associate only with female gynecologists?

No, not really. When a woman doesn't want a male gynecologist she isn't sexually discriminating, it is plausible that since she is female, and the gynecologist is female that she might feel more comfortable - so this would be more of a occupational bias (that a female gynecologist knows more about the female body) than discrimination as such.

When a woman chooses not to see a male gynecologist because he's male, she's sexually discriminating against the man. Cut and dried.

Of course she's more comfortable with the woman, which is why she is choosing the female gynecologist. The reason for her choice is immaterial.

Are you going to allow an employer to not hire black people because he was once mugged by a black man and now feels very uncomfortable around black people? Is he not racially discriminating? He has damn good reason to do so, just like the woman has for choosing to sexually discriminate against male gynecologists.

 

[hipeter924]

The natural state of affairs is to segregate.

Can see we aren't going to agree at all then. I don't agree with you, and I can see the argument just going around in circles with counter-points. Whatever you want to believe. I see your argument as too black and white about the whole issue, and no that isn't some in-joke about the thread - but some of the time it seems that way in this thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The way you explain your positions strongly signals that you have a very binary position on race - if your are black, then you must possess X, Y, Z, etc. Black women have an elevated risk of ER negative breast cancer than do white women but this doesn't mean that every black women by virtue of her race will develop breast cancer.

Race is a group concept, not an individual concept, and so because of the group nature we're dealing with DISTRIBUTION of traits. The best and most widely documented aspect of this is IQ - mean black IQ is 85 compared to mean white IQ of 100. This doesn't mean that every black person has an IQ of 85 because they are black. One of six black people has an IQ of 100 or higher.

Maybe what you're trying to say is that you can't walk up to stranger, see that they are black, and KNOW anything about who they are as a person. Does that individual have an IQ of 85 or 100 or 110? Knowing that they are black doesn't tell you the answer. However, if you were allowed to play the odds, your safest bet would be to claim that this person's IQ was between 80 and 90 because that range centers around the mean and so captures the most black people, thus increasing your chances of guessing correctly.

To explain this succinctly, race doesn't dictate anything, it signals the odds for many things.

I am an 'out of the box' person so, no, I don't generally think of people in terms of 'groups.' I might say 'I'm a gamer' and folks might assume that puts me in the basement of my parents house, but the truth is I am not defined by being a 'gamer' alone. I'm also a mother of 5, a manager, a business owner, and I retired wealthy at age 20, got bored and went back to work again.

Statements made about 'groups' are almost always flawed so I do not use, nor agree with them. I admit that if I see a gang (of any color) that doesn't look like 'safe' people, I try to avoid them cause I don't want any trouble, but that's really about as far as my judgment of 'groups' goes. It is therefore troublesome for me to understand using a 'group' as a basis for anything, much less how I interact with someone.

When I walk up to someone on the street I don't really think about their IQ. I mean, I guess, if I am being completely honest, I already know that they're IQ isn't at my level so I don't 'need' to think about that, but that doesn't really enter my mind. When 'I' walk up to someone on the street I am more interested in wanting to know more about them; where'd they come from, what do they do... ah, basically how is their life different from mine and what can I perhaps learn from their experiences and knowledge. Though, given, that might just be me cause I am "EverCurious," its the way I was raised.

I prefer to deal with people as individuals, rather than as a 'group' with 'group' definitions. I'll attempt to clarify my position in saying that I do not believe it is 'group' politics we need to resolve racism and the welfare state, but rather policies that can help the 'individual' get out of that lifestyle. When I look at 'ghetto culture,' I see a bunch of individual people who want attention and respect. 'Group' based policies cannot address providing the individual with positive attention and respect, which is why I believe they fail.

Yeah, but you are a white guy, which is like almost being a slaver, unless you are a liberal white guy, then you are tolerable till the revolution is over and then...well, we will see.

 

[Andylusion]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

The elites will let you know that they are white, after a few drinks. They look at the mixed race and blacks in Brazil as gutter trash and over the past few decades the police have been notorious for killing street orphans of mixed race out of hand, like a hunting game or something.

That's funny, because the BBC did a documentary in Brazil, on race relations, and oddly none of that came up from the blacks and mixed race people they interviewed.

There are always elites, in every culture. Talk to the Hutus in Rwanda.

The claims you make, are certainly not supported by anything that I have read. In fact, they interviewed a black lawyer in Brazil, and the only racist thing he could identify, was that when he first got a job, the black man at the door, checked his ID, before letting him in the court house. Other than that, he couldn't identify any racists or prejudice actions holding him back from his successful career.

If you have some evidence you'd like to share, I'll be more than happy to look at it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

The elites will let you know that they are white, after a few drinks. They look at the mixed race and blacks in Brazil as gutter trash and over the past few decades the police have been notorious for killing street orphans of mixed race out of hand, like a hunting game or something.

That's funny, because the BBC did a documentary in Brazil, on race relations, and oddly none of that came up from the blacks and mixed race people they interviewed.

There are always elites, in every culture. Talk to the Hutus in Rwanda.

The claims you make, are certainly not supported by anything that I have read. In fact, they interviewed a black lawyer in Brazil, and the only racist thing he could identify, was that when he first got a job, the black man at the door, checked his ID, before letting him in the court house. Other than that, he couldn't identify any racists or prejudice actions holding him back from his successful career.

If you have some evidence you'd like to share, I'll be more than happy to look at it.

1.) Never trust the BBC. Biased as all hell.

2.) You're correct about the legal environment in Brazil.

3.) In the absence of government trying to create equality of outcomes, Brazil has very drastic inequality of outcomes. Here's a website of a black chick from Brazil complaining that she doesn't have the talent to achieve success:

In yet another stunning example of racial inequality in Brazil, a 2005 study found that 99% of Brazil’s diplomats and college professors are white. And there are those who continue to believe that implementing affirmative action policies to promote more even ethnic representation is “reverse racism”. This study doesn’t necessarily show that racism played a direct role in the color of Brazilian faculties and body of diplomats (although the idea also can’t be dismissed), it does show the inequality in access to the path that leads to these careers. Thus, besides the overwhelming whiteness of Brazil’s politicians, journalists, TV hosts, television in general, magazine covers, beauty contests, modeling runways, retail store displays and other areas, the control of knowledge, influence in higher education and representation abroad is also firmly dictated by persons who define themselves as white.
​

As I noted upthread, after California passed Proposition 209 making it illegal to use race in university admissions, the number of blacks admitted in the new school year fell to only 100 - a drastic reduction simply because too few blacks could compete on a level playing field. That's what's happening in Brazil.

The choice comes down to having a fair society with unequal outcomes or having an unfair society with equal outcomes. I chose the former.

 

[Andylusion]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability should be the ONLY qualities considered....for anything.

But there's still the intelligence differences between negroes and whites. "Whiteness" sets a standard of achievement that "blacks" just can't meet without government assistance.
It'll always be a problem.

Says who? You don't believe that claim yourself. If you come to a store, and the employees are the best skilled, most knowledgeable, best aptitude and ability.... and they treat you like crap.... are you going to frequent their store?

Or is there other aspects than "Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability" that you value?

Decades ago, when I got my first apartment, I was asking around about good local pizza, and someone recommended a place nearby that had good price, and supposedly excellent pizza. Whether they did or not, I'll never know. They wrote an insulting phrase on the pizza box, that they handed me. It was very insulting to me. I asked them 'does that say what I think it says?'. They looked at me and laughed. I said.... 'keep the pizza', and walked out. They must have been racists against white guys.

If you walk into a store, and the guy at the counter smells like crap, because he doesn't like Deoderant or something, I bet you anything you'll make choices about going back that don't include only "Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability".

I just don't understand why people like you, always seem to make demands, that you yourself, would never live up to.

 

[Rotagilla]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. Most people in Brazil refuse to even identify a race, and instead simply say they are Brazilian.

One of the reasons why, is because no one tries to use the power of government, to impose their race views on the rest of society. They have no affirmative action laws, no race quotas. No student is kicked off the university list, so they can meet their racial targets.

Trying to impose some racial goal, with the power of government, is exactly what causes racial conflict and tensions.

Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability should be the ONLY qualities considered....for anything.

But there's still the intelligence differences between negroes and whites. "Whiteness" sets a standard of achievement that "blacks" just can't meet without government assistance.
It'll always be a problem.

Says who? You don't believe that claim yourself. If you come to a store, and the employees are the best skilled, most knowledgeable, best aptitude and ability.... and they treat you like crap.... are you going to frequent their store?

Or is there other aspects than "Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability" that you value?

Decades ago, when I got my first apartment, I was asking around about good local pizza, and someone recommended a place nearby that had good price, and supposedly excellent pizza. Whether they did or not, I'll never know. They wrote an insulting phrase on the pizza box, that they handed me. It was very insulting to me. I asked them 'does that say what I think it says?'. They looked at me and laughed. I said.... 'keep the pizza', and walked out. They must have been racists against white guys.

If you walk into a store, and the guy at the counter smells like crap, because he doesn't like Deoderant or something, I bet you anything you'll make choices about going back that don't include only "Skills, knowledge, aptitude and ability".

I just don't understand why people like you, always seem to make demands, that you yourself, would never live up to.

You invent hypothetical scenarios peopled with figments of your imagination doing and saying imaginary things that you made up in your own mind to achieve fantasy results that you invented out of thin air...and you want me to refute them...
That's quite a stretch you''re making. Careful, you'll pull a muscle.

If the most skilled, knowledgeable, apt and able person turned out to not be a good employee, you know what would happen?....they would be replaced with another skilled, knowledgeable, apt and able new hire.

 

[Unkotare]

Common culture is what allows two men who have never met each other before, to sit down and talk about American football, and instantly have common ground to communicate.....

Well, the extent of your understanding of culture is now clear. Your 'friends' from Somalia and Romania, if they exist at all, are likely taking pity on what they correctly take to be a witless idiot. They need to meet better people, and you need to meet more people.

 

[Unkotare]

.

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of saying that they find it difficult to approach people of a different culture, ethnicity, or religion; I still find it awkward to be around African Americans and Muslims. People saying what they feel out in the open helps, as it allows the community to discuss misconceptions and mediate disputes more easily - this is why even though I have an obvious distaste for racism and discrimination, I prefer it out in the open so I can confront it.

Your problem isn't something you need to confront "out in the open," your problem is something inside YOU. Confront it there before worrying about other people.

 

[Unkotare]

Racism is a cancer, likely never to be eradicated, but at least held in check by the Constitution and its case law, and the good faith of the American people, where although chronic, racism need not be fatal to our Nation.

If you look at places like Brazil, they don't really have racism. Not as we think of racism. .

Yes they do. I think you tried to pass off this BS once before. It's still BS.

 

[Rotagilla]

The natural state of affairs is to segregate.

Can see we aren't going to agree at all then. I don't agree with you, and I can see the argument just going around in circles with counter-points. Whatever you want to believe. I see your argument as too black and white about the whole issue, and no that isn't some in-joke about the thread - but some of the time it seems that way in this thread.

Humans are tribal and ethnocentric and will naturally self segregate.
You can say "nuh uh" all you like. It's a fact.

"The phenomenon of othering has its roots in our evolutionary history.
We know from primatological studies that group solidarity is exceptionally important in all of the African apes. Knowing who is, and who isn’t a member of your group is exceptionally important for reasons intimately connected to survival.
Basic evolution theory states that any behaviour or trait that confers a survival advantage will be selected for; and the stronger the survival advantage, the stronger it will be selected for.
In the case of ‘othering’ behaviour, it probably became an extremely valuable behaviour that would have become permanently fixed within our lineage millions of years ago.

Whenever territory, food, and mates were scarce (which would have been frequently, and in most cases permanently), intra-species competition would have been strong and othering behaviour would have been selected for.
Forming a group can allow you to align yourself with other individuals altruistically to maximize your own (and everyone else in the groups) ability to acquire territory, food and mating opportunities."

This psychological tactic had its uses in our tribal past. Group cohesion was crucially important in the early days of human civilisation, and required strong demarcation between our allies and our enemies.

To thrive, we needed to be part of a close-knit tribe who’d look out for us, in exchange for knowing that we’d help to look out for them in kind. People in your tribe, who live in the same community as you, are more likely to be closely related to you and consequently share your genes.

As a result, there’s a powerful evolutionary drive to identify in some way with a tribe of people who are “like you”, and to feel a stronger connection and allegiance to them than to anyone else. Today, this tribe might not be a local and insular community you grew up with, but can be, for instance, fellow supporters of a sports team or political party."

 

[hipeter924]

.

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of saying that they find it difficult to approach people of a different culture, ethnicity, or religion; I still find it awkward to be around African Americans and Muslims. People saying what they feel out in the open helps, as it allows the community to discuss misconceptions and mediate disputes more easily - this is why even though I have an obvious distaste for racism and discrimination, I prefer it out in the open so I can confront it.

Your problem isn't something you need to confront "out in the open," your problem is something inside YOU. Confront it there before worrying about other people.

It isn't anywhere 'inside me', I generally get shy around new people - especially around demographics of people that I have never had to be with or live with. That said, I have never had to confront 'racism' here as I have never seen it in the open. Glad I never grew up where I ever had to see it, except on tv and in historical films.