|menu/||PREJUDICE: MENTAL POISON|
change the world
others without valid reasons
WHERE DOES PREJUDICE COME FROM?
Prejudice is a premature judgment - a positive or a negative attitude towards a person or group of people which is not based on objective facts. These prejudgments are usually based on stereotypes which are oversimplified and overgeneralized views of groups or types of people. Or, a prejudgment may be based on an emotional experience we have had with a similar person, sort of our own personal stereotype. Stereotypes also provide us with role expectations, i.e. how we expect the other person (or group, like all Japanese) to relate to us and to other people.
Our culture has hundreds of ready-made stereotypes: leaders are dominant, arrogant men; housewives are nice but empty headed; teenagers are music crazed car-fanatics; very smart people are weird, and on and on. Of course, sometimes a leader or housewife or teenager is somewhat like the stereotype but it is a gross injustice to automatically assume they all are.
Prejudice, in the form of negative put-downs, justifies oppression and helps those of us "on top" feel okay about being there. Prejudice can be a hostile, resentful feeling - an unfounded dislike for someone, an unfair blaming or degradation of others.
It is a degrading attitude that helps us feel superior or chauvinistic.
Of course, the misjudged and oppressed person resents the unfair judgment.
Discrimination (like aggression) is an act of dealing with one person or group differently than another. One may be positively or negatively biased towards a person or group; this behavior does not necessarily reflect the attitude (prejudice) one feels towards that person or group. You might recognize your prejudiced feelings are unreasonable and refuse to act in unfair ways.
Common unfavorable prejudices in our country involve blacks, women, Jews, Arabs, Japanese, Germans, poor (welfare), rich, farmers, rednecks, obese, handicapped, unattractive, uneducated, elderly, Catholics, Communists, atheists, fundamentalists, homosexuals, Latinos, Indians, and lots of others.
When we are prejudiced, we violate three standards:
2. Justice; and
We are unreasonable if we judge others negatively without evidence or in spite of positive evidence or use stereotypes without allowing for individual differences.
We are unjust if we discriminate and pay men 1/3 more for the same work as women or select more men than women for leadership positions or provide more money for male extra-curricular activities in high school than for female activities.
We are intolerant if we reject or dislike people because they are different, e.g. of a different religion, different socioeconomic status, or have a different set of values.
We violate all three standards when we have a scapegoat, i.e. a powerless and innocent person we blame for something he/she didn't do.
Prejudices are hard to change most of the time and hard to recognize part of the time. Gordon Allport (1954) illustrates how a prejudiced person resists "the facts" in this conversation:
Mr. X: The trouble with the Jews is that they only take care of their own group.
Mr. Y: But the record of the Community Chest campaign shows that they give more generously, in proportion to their numbers, to the general charities of the community, than do non-Jews.
Mr. X: That shows they are always trying to buy favor and intrude into Christian affairs. They think of nothing but money; that is why there are so many Jewish bankers.
Mr. Y: But a recent study shows that the percentage of Jews in the banking business is negligible, far smaller than the percentage of non-Jews.
Mr. X: That's just it; they don't go in for respectable business; they are only in the movie business or run night clubs.
A prejudiced person, like bigot Mr. X, is so inclined to hate Jews that a few facts won't stop him/her. Sounds bad and it is. Are we all prejudiced? Probably, in some ways. Certain prejudices are so ingrained in our society it would be hard to avoid them.
Examples of negative prejudices you might not think of: against eating grasshoppers, caterpillars, or ants, against a female doctor (we think she is less competent than a male), against a man in a typically female occupation like nursing or typing, against a person who has just lost (we see losers as less hard working or less competent--especially males who lose because males are "supposed" to be successful), and against a couple who decide to reverse the usual roles, i.e. the wife works while the husband stays home with the children.
Historians would contend that prejudice can not be understood without a sense of history. For example, slavery 150 years ago is related to today's anti-black attitudes. Likewise, the religious wars 400 years ago between Catholics and Protestants that killed thousands are related to today's distrust of each religion by the other. Almost 800 years ago during the Crusades, Christians on their way to wars in the Holy Land slaughtered (in the name of the Prince of Peace) thousands of eastern European Jews.
Hitler reflected their attitudes. Anti-Semitism still lives. History accounts for many cultural stereotypes, but our own personal history accounts for many of our biases too, e.g. you almost certainly have a unique reaction to women who remind you of your mother. Gordon Allport (1954) has deeply influenced psychologists' thinking about prejudice, namely, that it is a natural, universal psychological process of being frustrated or hostile and then displacing the anger from the real source to innocent minorities.
This explanation implies that prejudice takes place in our heads. On the other hand, ninety years ago, a great black scholar, W. E. B. DuBois, reminded whites that prejudice doesn't just spring from the human mind in a vacuum (Gaines & Reed, 1995). It is exploitation, not just a mental process, that contributes to prejudice against the minority and to self-doubts within those discriminated against.
For example, Blacks, women, orientals, the poor, the unattractive, etc. are all discriminated against and, thus, constantly reminded that they are a minority. Blacks, as a result of extreme prejudice, have dual identities; they are both "American" and "Black" but neither identity is entirely acceptable to many blacks. Thus, many blacks have ambivalent attitudes about both "Americans" and "Blacks," and about who they are.
White America is devoted to individualism; African culture emphasizes caring for the group. For Blacks, this is a no-win situation, a choice between trying to be like Whites (and better off than others) or being Black (and worse off than most Americans).
Following DuBois, many sociologists see prejudice as caused by social problems, such as over-crowding in urban areas, overpopulation, unemployment, competition between groups, etc. It has been found, for example, that persons who are low in socioeconomic status or have lost status are more prejudiced, perhaps because they look for people to blame - for scapegoats.
Rural and suburban America have always looked down on the poor, urban dweller - 80 years ago it was the Jews, Italians, and Irish, today it is the blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc. In effect, the victims of city life were and are blamed for the crime and deterioration there. That's not fair, is it?
Also, competition between groups, as we will see, increases the hostility: Jewish and black businesses compete in the slums, black and white men compete for the same intensive-labor jobs, men and women compete for promotions, etc.
Experimentally created prejudice The Zimbardo "Prison Experiment" created negative, prejudiced attitudes just by placing some people in power over others who were powerless. One might wonder if the same thing happens between management and workers in industry?
There are other examples of instant prejudice. One third-grade teacher in Riceville, Iowa, gave a lesson in discrimination. The teacher divided the class into two groups: blue-eyed and brown-eyed.
Each group got the same special privileges and praise on alternate days.
On the days their group was favored, the students felt "smarter," "stronger," "good inside," and enjoyed keeping the "inferiors" in their place.
The same children on the deprived days felt tense, unsure of themselves, and did poorer work.
They learned within a few hours to feel and act negatively toward "friends."
Humans seem much better at learning prejudices than math. In a famous study, Sheriff and others (Sheriff & Hovland, 1961) designed a boys' camp to study relations between two groups. The boys did everything with the same group, soon friendships and group spirit developed. Then the psychologists had the groups compete with each other in tug-of-war and various games.
At first, there was good sportsmanship, but soon tension and animosity developed. There was name-calling, fights, and raids on the "enemy" cabins. Anger was easily created via competition, but could the experimenters create peace? The psychologists tried getting the groups together for good times - good food, movies, sing-alongs, etc.
The anger continued. The groups threw food at each other, shoved, and yelled insults. Next, the psychologists set up several situations where the two groups had to work together to get something they wanted. There was a break in the water line that had to be fixed (or camp would be closed). The food truck broke down and it took everyone's cooperation to push it. When they worked together on these serious, important tasks, they didn't fight. Indeed, friendships developed.
Just as competition led to friction among equals, cooperative work led to positive feelings.
Ask yourself: when did our country last cooperate with the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, or the Cubans to educate or feed hurting people? Or, when did you last work meaningfully with the people you view negatively?
psychologists have other explanations
Psychologists suggest we learn prejudiced attitudes via several other processes. Examples: We may learn to discriminate because prejudice pays! Slave owners certainly profited greatly from slaves. In the past, parents profited from having lots of obedient children. Factories profit from low paid workers. Bosses profit from bright, able secretaries who work for 40% less than males. We can impress certain people and curry favor with them if we are prejudiced, e.g. a prejudiced parent, friend, or boss likes us to hold the same views.
Prejudice also comes as part of our familial inheritance! As children we may identify with bigoted parents and adopt prejudiced attitudes without thinking. Most families utilize certain stereotypes, such as "only men go to bars," "women can't fix mechanical things," "old people are boring," etc.
Gender roles may also have been assumed (and taught by example) in your family - the women and girls always did the cooking and the housecleaning and the men always fixed the cars and joked about sex.
These biased views are deeply embedded in our mind. Larry King (1971) in Confessions of a White Racist exemplifies this subtle learning of prejudiced stereotypes from parents, siblings, and friends:
"Quite without knowing how I came by the gift, and in a complete absence of even the slightest contact with black people, I assimilated certain absolutes: the Negro would steal anything lying around loose and a high percentage of all that was bolted down; you couldn't hurt him if you hit him on the head with a tire tool; he revered watermelon above all other fruits of the vine; he had a mule's determination not to work unless driven or led to it; he would screw a snake if somebody would hold its head. Even our speech patterns were instructional ... One's more menial labors could leave one 'dirty as a nigger' or possibly 'sweating like a nigger at election.' ... I don't remember that we employed our demeaning expressions in any remarkable spirit of vitriol: we were simply reciting certain of our cultural catechisms, and they came as naturally as breathing."
Such beliefs are a terrible injustice and an insult to human intelligence. Belittling beliefs are just as destructive as being hit with a tire tool or refused a job; yet, the beliefs were learned and used without realizing the ignorance and unfairness involved. This unthinking conformity to beliefs of our social group happens frequently.
As we saw with Mr. X, these stereotypes are resistant to change. By their unpleasant, hostile nature, stereotypes discourage intimate contact with the "target" persons so that one doesn't discover what individuals of that type are really like. However, if one does have contact, the prejudice may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
For instance, if you falsely believe that supervisors or teachers are uninterested in you, then you may approach them in such a shy, uncomfortable way that they avoid interactions that make you uneasy; consequently, they seem uninterested - just like you expected.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968) observed, in a famous experiment, the self-fulfilling prophecy in the class room. They told the teachers that certain students would be intellectual "late bloomers" during the school year. Really these "bloomers" were chosen at random.
Because the teachers expected them to do better, they did!
This was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another interesting finding in regards to prejudice was that the predicted and actual "bloomers" were liked by their teachers, but the students who were not expected to bloom but did were not liked by their teachers. Apparently, we humans like to be right. When others don't behave as we expect them to, we don't like being wrong (and don't like the people who prove us wrong).
personality + prejudice
During World War II, Hitler's Germany openly declared war on most of the world and secretly murdered six million Jews. Hitler had been elected by claiming his country was threatened from within by rioting students and from without by Russian Communists; he called for law and order. Jews were Germany's readily available scapegoat. Hitler became a strong, authoritarian leader and many of the German people accepted his control.
Why do some people idolize leaders? Why do some parents demand obedience and harshly punish any misbehavior, especially anger towards them? Why are certain people more "straight," stern, distant, intolerant, and hostile while others are nonconformists, tolerant, and loving? What kind of people would follow an aggressive, arrogant, critical, prejudiced leader?
The classic book on this topic is The Authoritarian Personality. These authors (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950) described several traits of authoritarian leaders, like Hitler, and their followers, like the German people:
1. Rigid, unthinking adherence to conventional, middle-class ideas of right and wrong. The distinction has to be made between
- (a) incorporating universal values, and
- (b) having blind allegiance to traditional social-political-religious customs or organizations.
Examples: an egalitarian person who truly values one-person-one-vote, equal rights, equal opportunities, and freedom of speech will support a democracy, not a dictatorship. A person who says, "I love my country - right or wrong" or "America - love it or leave it" may be a flag-waving, patriotic speech-making politician who is secretly an antidemocratic authoritarian (similar in some ways to Hitler).
For the authoritarian the values of respecting and caring for others are not as important as being a "good German" or a "good American" or a "good Catholic" or a "good Baptist." Important values to an authoritarian are obedience, cleanliness, success, inhibition or denial of emotions (especially anger and even love), firm discipline, honoring parents and leaders, and abhorring all immoral sexual feelings. This was the German character.
Authoritarian parents tend to produce dominated children who become authoritarian parents. Egalitarians produce egalitarians.
2. Respect for and submission to authority - parents, teachers, religion, bosses, or any leader. This includes a desire for a strong leader and for followers to revere the leader, following him (seldom her) blindly. It was believed by the psychoanalytic writers of The Authoritarian Personality that recognizing one's hostile feelings towards an authority was so frightening that the authoritarian personality was compelled to be submissive. There is an emphasis on following rules and regulations, on law and order. Everyone has a proper role to play, including gender role.
3. They take their anger out on someone safe. In an authoritarian environment (family, religion, school, peer group, government), the compliant, subservient, unquestioning follower stores up unexpressed anger at the authority. The hostility can't be expressed towards the authority, however, so it is displaced to an outsider who is different - a scapegoat.
Unconsciously, the authoritarian says, "I don't hate my father; I hate Jews (or blacks or unions or management or ambitious women or Communists or people on welfare)."
The "good cause" to which one is dedicated often dictates who to hate, who to be prejudice against.
4. They can't trust people. They believe "people who are different are no good." If we believe others are as bad or worse than we are, we feel less guilt: "Everybody looks out for #1" or "Everybody would cheat if they had a chance."
Such a negative view of people leads to the conclusion that harsh laws and a strong police or army are necessary. Also, it leads people to foolishly believe that humans would "go wild" and be totally immoral if they lost their religion.
5. Because they feel weak, authoritarian personalities believe it is important to have a powerful leader and to be part of a powerful group.
Thus, they relish being in the "strongest nation on earth," the "master race," the "world-wide communist movement," "the wealthiest nation," the "best corporation," the "best part of town," the "best-looking crowd," the "best team," etc. The successful, the powerful, the leaders are to be held in awe. And the authoritarian says, "when I get power, I want to be held in awe too. I'll expect respect, just like I demand it from my children."
6. Over-simplified thinking. If our great leaders and our enormous government tells us what to do, if our God and our religion directs our lives, then we don't have to take responsibility for thinking or deciding. We just do what we are told. And, in general, we, "the masses," are given simple explanations and told the solutions are simple by authoritarian leaders.
- "The source of the trouble is lenient parents (or schools or laws),"
- "God is on our side,"
- "Get rid of the Jews (or Capitalists or Communists or blacks or Arabs)."
For the authoritarian if things aren't simple, they are unknowable, e.g. he/she endorses the statement, "science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind."
7. Guard against dangerous ideas. Since the authoritarian already has a handle on the truth, he/she opposes new ideas, unconventional solutions, creative imaginations. They believe an original thinker is dangerous; he/she will think differently.
It's considered good to be suspicious of psychologists, writers, and artists who probe your mind and feelings - such people are scary. Governments who observe subversives are OK, though. Indeed, censorship of the media may become necessary, especially if the media becomes critical of our leaders or sexually provocative.
A businessperson produces needed products; an intellectual is a threat.
8. I'm pure, others are evil. The authoritarian represses his/her aggressive and sexual feelings, then projects those traits on to stereotyped persons in the outgroup.
For example, it was Larry King's and other white men's dishonesty, laziness, hatred, and sexual urges that got projected to the black man (see quote above). The authoritarian, therefore, feels surrounded by people preoccupied with sex and/or violence.
The psychoanalysts who wrote The Authoritarian Personality say the sexual fears come from an unresolved Oedipus or Electra Complex. The hostility comes from childhood, too, and throughout their lives authoritarians expect criminal acts nearby and terrorists' attacks around the world. They become paranoid, believing many people want to hurt them (which justifies their aggression?).
9. Ethnocentrism: Everything of mine is better than yours - my country, my religion, my kind of people, my family, my self. Research has also shown the authoritarian is more prejudiced and more prone to punish people (including their own children) to get them to work harder or to do "right" (Byrne & Kelley, 1981). This picture of an authoritarian isn't pretty. How many of these people are there? Zimbardo's "prison study" suggests that the potential for authoritarianism may be quite high, given the right circumstances. It is estimated that at least 80% of us have prejudices. Hostility (especially the you-are-not-my-equal and I-don't-care-about-you type) abounds in the world. Milgram's study of obedience suggests 65% of us would physically hurt someone if told to do so by an authority. Also, in that chapter we will see that most of us conform to social pressures in dress, in opinions, in behavior. Maybe there are parts of an authoritarian personality inside all of us.
how prejudice is learned + unlearned
Like all behavior, prejudice has multiple causes Duckitt (1992) summarized the causes of prejudice:
(1) universal psychological processes in all of us, such as displacement of anger, projection of our undesirable personality traits to others, disliking people who are "different," etc.,
(2) dynamics between groups, such as competition for jobs, exploitation of one group by another, etc.,
(3) passing on of prejudiced attitudes, such as family-subgroup pressures to favor and discriminate against certain types of people, explanations of behavior (crime, desertion of family, drug use) are handed down to young people, etc., and
(4) certain individual tendencies to be critical and unfair, such as authoritarians, angry people looking for someone to attack, persons with low self-esteem, etc. Since the causes are complex, the solutions may be complex too.
integration: does it reduce prejudice?
In the last 45 years we have had a lot of experience with integration as a solution to racial discrimination. We should feel proud of those efforts but how well have they worked?
It depends on how desegregation is done.
Is it true that as we get to know each other better we will see that our prejudices are untrue? Only under certain conditions. If blacks and whites live as equals in integrated housing where it is easy to have frequent and informal contacts in the laundry rooms, elevators, and play grounds, the answer is "yes," they start to trust and like each other.
Likewise, in the military service, after living, fighting, and dying as equals together, blacks and whites liked each other better than did soldiers in segregated army units. On the other hand, when schools were integrated by law and the families involved vigorously opposed integration, many students, who never interacted intimately with the other races, became more prejudiced (Aronson, 1984).
So, what are the important factors in making integration work?
(1) Cooperation between groups for shared goals, like in the boys' camp.
(2) Frequent, casual contact between equals, like in integrated apartments. Contact of blacks with their white landlord or between the black maid and her wealthy white housewife don't help much. Inviting poor folks over to your $2,000,000 house for Thanksgiving dinner, no matter how good your turkey dressing is, won't help.
(3) A long-term cooperative working relationship. In the late 1960's, there were two kinds of black-white groups at Southern Illinois University: encounter groups meeting for only a few hours and year-long groups for educationally disadvantaged students. There were many verbal battles in the encounter groups - some groups had to be terminated to avoid violence. Yet, the long-term groups, which tried to help each other survive in school, had no major racial problems.
(4) The general social environment needs to be supportive of integration and good relationships. If your family or friends think you are foolish for tolerating an outgroup or if property value is expected to go down if "their kind" move in, it is not likely that your prejudice will decrease with exposure to this group of people, unless you are strong enough to contradict your own social group.
(5) The political and community leaders should make it clear that integration is inevitable. If I know I must work with you, I will convince myself that you are OK. As long as people think integration can be "experimented with" and possibly delayed, the unthinking hate remains active inside.
Human rights are not negotiable, even if the majority of people are prejudice against you, you still have equal rights.
The Bill of Rights, in fact, is ingeniously designed to protect the minority against an unfair majority. Quick acceptance and integration of an outgroup is better than a gradual process that creates more prejudice (Aronson, 1984). ]
(6) How we work together is important - we need to become mutually helping equals. Just throwing different groups together in schools is not enough--we must work closely, cooperatively, and cordially together.
Aronson (1984) developed a teaching technique that reduced the competition and rivalry among students. He called it the "interdependent jigsaw teaching method." It is now called "cooperative learning" and it works this way: students are placed in random groups of five or six. Each student is given 1/5th or 1/6th of the lesson to learn and, then, teach to his/her small group. Rather than making fun of slow students or disregarding uninvolved students, the students now help each other grasp and communicate the information. They need each other's information.
Each student plays a vital role in helping every one do well on the exams. Furthermore, students get to know each other better, respect and like each other better, gain in self-respect, empathize with each other more, like school better, and disadvantaged students do better on exams without any loss among the other students.
Unfortunately, the forced integration of schools in the 1950's and 1960's did not result in intimate contact between the races during the 1970's and 1980's.
Few blacks are in the "advanced" classes, many are sent to Special Ed classes which they never escape. Aronson's cooperative learning method is not being used widely. Blacks dominate the athletic teams; Latinos seldom try out.
Social groups are separated by race and socioeconomic class; they gather in racial-economic clusters in the lunch room. There are still relatively few inter-racial friendships (unless they talk, dress, and act alike) and even fewer inter-racial love relationships.
Why aren't we working together as mutually helping equals?
It seems that racial biases are still strong and are getting all mixed up with old well entrenched cultural-intellectual-economic class biases. We still have a lot of work to do. It is never safe to consider individuals in groups, classes, or races.
To ascribe virtues or vices to all the individuals of a group is as senseless as it is unjust and inaccurate.
- Wings of Silver
Self-help efforts to reduce our own prejudices First of all, we must recognize what prejudice really is. It isn't limited to having an intense hatred of a group who are different, and plotting to exterminate all of them. It is much more subtle ... and, to a considerable extent, its temporary, spontaneous generation is unavoidable. But we could become intelligent enough to quickly reject those unreasonable feelings.
For example, if you hear on the evening news that a local 15-year-old girl was brutally assaulted by a huge, blond, handsome, white man, and the next day a big, attractive, white man walks into where you work, it is the nature of our species to wonder if this could be the assailant or, at least, if this man could be dangerous too. You might even be a little less friendly and avoid getting physically close. You have prejudged this stranger!
If big white men were constantly coming into your work area, your suspiciousness would quickly extinguish because most would be nice. But if white men rarely came to your work place, your prejudice might last for weeks and months ... or even grow. You couldn't have avoided the evening news.
Thus, any negative information - even false rumors - you have heard about any person or any group - murder among black men, sexual sinfulness among preachers, drinking among college students, etc., etc. - forms the basis for a prejudgment.
Likewise, any person associated with a negative life experience - the first kid to beat up on you, the first boy/girl to two-time you, the first boss to fire you - forms expectations of others who look or act as he/she did.
This acquiring of prejudiced expectations may be beyond our control. It may be a natural, innate coping mechanism of humans. And, unfortunately, in this way, we are constantly adding new prejudices to the deeply entrenched cultural and familial ones from childhood. However, reacting to these prejudgments with rational judgments may be well within our control, if we know what is going on inside of us.
Patricia Devine, University of Wisconsin at Madison, distinguishes between prejudice with compunction (guilt or regret) and prejudice without compunction. High-prejudice people without compunction respond automatically and strongly, seeing nothing wrong with their attitude and reactions.
The low-prejudice person with compunction has less of a negative reaction and often realizes that his/her emotional reaction is not "what it should be" or not rational; thus, he/she regrets his/her prejudicial attitudes or suspicions. This kind of low-prejudice people constantly tries to monitor and correct their thinking.
Examples: "Just because one big white man assaulted someone is no reason for me to suspect this man" or "okay, this person is unattractive (or handsome/beautiful), but that isn't related to how well he/she can do the job."
People with high self-esteem, optimism, and tolerance are more aware and better able to control their prejudiced judgments.
It is possible. In my opinion, since all of us have many irrational feelings (prejudices) and constantly develop new ones, all of us must learn to recognize these prejudgments as soon as possible and correct them.
It is hard, sometimes, because these prejudices show themselves in subtle ways known only to you, e.g. holding on to your purse or valuables especially carefully while you are next to a black man, being reluctant to vote for a woman or a Jew, dreading your daughter dating someone of another race, believing women shouldn't serve in combat, feeling a little resentment if a female becomes your supervisor, wondering if a well dressed black person is into crime, avoiding sitting next to an old or a fat person, feeling reluctant to work with a homosexual, etc.
Race, gender, age, attractiveness, education, wealth, ethnic background, etc. tell us almost nothing about the basic nature of a specific individual. If we prejudge a person on any of these bases, and most or all of us do, we are prejudiced.
Low-prejudice people with compunction have a good chance to correct their errors. We don't yet know how to get the high prejudiced people to see the irrationality and unfairness of generalizing from a stereotype to a specific unique individual.
But, I think they will eventually learn from the rest of us to have compunction.
Finally, we can all try to be as forgiving of others as we are of ourselves. When we do poorly, we blame the situation. When someone else does poorly, we conclude they are dumb or lazy. In competitive situations, if our rival is successful, we say he/she was lucky. In cooperative situations, we can be as generous with others as we are with ourselves, i.e. their successes are due to skill and their failures are unfortunate breaks to be avoided next time.
We could be generous towards everyone.
Copyright 2006 Understanding Prejudice
| LINKS IN THIS SECTION
Depression + anger
Learn more about Antonella Gambotto-Burke ...
The biochemistry of hope
Find your own North Star
The impact of cyberporn on men *critical reading
Alice Miller's official website
A lesson on prejudice
Prejudice + law
Race + racism in US law