“Attitudes” is my likely too subtle way of saying “existing racist tendencies.” I doubt it would come as a shock, but a person who is raised or surrounded by those with racist tendencies would likely require a greater amount of convincing as to the existence of racism and racism being a negative to them or society.
I would agree. Vicarious knowledge of racism is dependent on the quality of the testimony.
I agree people have every right to be racist, or in less-inflammatory terms, they have every right to decide who they will associate with for whatever reason. I think in situations in which we are truly discussing the “private” sector there really is not much to discuss. Do what you feel is best for you no matter someone else’s attitudes. However, as you stated, the line between truly public and truly private no longer exists in most cases. If there is a public component to an interaction, it defaults to the public expectations on equality and racism. I do not see that changing as there is no conceivable way to change to a private system by default (do what you want regardless of the other person’s identity) or some sort of graded system based on the degree of public or private sector involvement.
So, much like you said, I don’t believe there is anything “wrong” with deciding who you associate with or do business with in a purely private setting. However, once any degree of public sector involvement occurs, it defaults to public sector standards on racism for simplicity (not the best reason) and for no realistic graded system.
Racism has many categories and definitions which are constantly changing. I believe there are personal definitions of racism and societal definitions of racism. Difficulties occur when those definitions diverge. Someone who was previously considered not racist now becomes racist because of changes to the societal definition. The options are to adjust the personal definition to match society or to continue with the existing personal definition. There is nothing inherently wrong with maintaining the existing personal definition, although the cost is rejection by society.
It’s rather crass, but examples would be someone continuing to believe in segregation after the civil rights movement or that women shouldn’t vote after suffrage. Those people could continue thinking what they wanted at the cost of rejection by society.
“Stereotype” tends to be a pejorative term. Even discussing tendencies can be difficult. There will be those in a group who do not follow the tendencies and may take offense. Also, unless there is fairly indisputable objective evidence that the tendency/stereotype completely arises from within the group with no outside forces, it will be be rejected. I think some of the arguments towards the interaction with blacks and police play that out. People can give every statistic about homicide or violent crime that they want. However, since the police and black community do not interact in a closed system, there will be confounders.
As I’ve grown older, I’ve also had to re-examine and change my interactions with others. That has been especially true in medicine. Not that I think I was ever rude or wildly inappropriate, but in my younger years I did not care nearly as much as I do now about how I will be perceived. I am a male physician working with a majority female staff. We are in an environment where accusations against me would be devastating, even if they were proven to be completely untrue. Some of my coworkers I’ve gotten to know well and have no real concerns (or maybe I’m naïve). However for rest, I make sure to talk and present myself in a particular way and never place myself in a situation where an accusation can be made (never alone with a female coworker). It’s crappy, it still scares me from time to time, but I’ve mostly gotten used to it. I see no other choice.
