Color Aroused Ideation Led to Underestimation of Obama's Potential

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

Earlier this year, some blogs as well as Clintons surrogates argued that Barack Obama would have a difficult time winning the presidential race simply because of his skin color. However, the graphic above (full of actual facts) tells a different story. Ten governors of US states are for Clinton, but 13 (30% more) have endorsed Obama. Governors, as we all know, are super-delegates, and so their opinion counts whether they are from caucus states, big states or small states. Of course Clinton and her surrogates will assure us that this fact does not matter, and is not indicative of meaningul support for Obama.

The graphic also shows that while Clinton has the support of 13 US senators, Obama has the support of 17 senators. Obama has five more US senators than Clinton does!

Now, Clinton has the support of 73 members of the US House of Representatives, while Obama has 71, or only two less.

Regardless of our hopes, I suspect that few of us, except perhaps Barack Obama and his campaign aides, believed that Barack Obama's campaign could find itself in this position today. In addition to Clintons strong position going in, also no Black person has ever been elected president. It was natural that our learned experience had taught us that a Black person would have difficulty being nominated and then elected president.

Thus, our historical experience helped conditioned our ideation - what we would believe and refuse to believe, think and exclude from our thinking. In addition, we have all been told, explicitly or implicitly, throughout our childhoods and adult lives that there was only so much that Black people could expect to achieve in our society. The question, "Is American ready for a Black president?" is another way of saying, "America has never in the past elected a Black president and there is significant doubt whether America will do so now."

Of course, there was also significant doubt four years ago whether Massachusetts and New York would ever have Black governors. We may never have believed that a Black man would win the Democratic primaries in Vermont and Iowa. We have all learned that, thankfully, our past does not entirely determine our futures in America, individually or collectively.

It is fair to say however, that just by perceiving or becoming aware of Barack Obama's skin color, many of us had learned beliefs about what was possible for him and what was possible for us with respect to him. These beliefs that were automatically aroused by the perception or awareness of his skin color are called "color-aroused ideation." "Color-aroused ideation" is ideation that automatically occurs in our heads when we perceive the "cue" or "stimulus" of skin-color.

Like a horse is followed by a carriage, color-aroused ideation is often followed by color-aroused emotions. When we have the color-aroused thought that "A Black man can't possibly win", this thought may arouse in us feelings of shock (e.g. that he would run), anger (e.g. that he is taking a place that would have been for someone else); fear (that he will win the nomination but, because of his color, he will lose the General Election), etc. We call these color-aroused fears because, just as lighting a wick leads to the ignition of the dynamite, arousing color-based ideation may often lead to the arousal of color-aroused emotions.

Here's an analogy: The mere perception that my wife is out late (stimulus, cue, perception) may lead to the thought occuring to me that my wife may be cheating on me (ideation), and then I may become angry, fearful and jealous (emotion). Regardless of whether my ideation and emotion become manifest in visible behavior, just having this ideation and emotion can be a problem for me, whether or not I express it to my wife or to anyone else.

It certainly would be a waste of my time to have this jealous and angry ideation and emotion based on a misperception of the facts. And yet we know that some people are habitually jealous, perceiving deception where it does not exist and then ruining their lives and others', and missing opportunities, when they act upon these mispercerptions.

Likewise, the mere perception of the skin-color of ourselves and/or of another sometimes arouses ideation that leads to emotion and sometimes to color-aroused behavior. Some people would have us believe that the mere perception of Barack Obama's skin color should cause us to access our historically learned conditioning and other beliefs (ideation) about the role and expectations of Black people in our society. They say that our color-aroused ideation ('he can't win, he's taking someone else's spot, he doesn't deserve it') should cause us to experience emotions (fear, anger, envy) that would be manifested in our color-aroused behavior (voting against or otherwise not supporting Barack Obama).

Now, a tricky question arises that has, when posed otherwise, confounded theoreticians for at least two generations. Is it possible for a Black person to have color-aroused ideation, emotion and voting behavior against a Black candidate? Well, just ask yourself whether it's possible for a Black person to vote against Obama in the belief that a Black person cannot win the General Election. Of course that is possible! When a Black person permits the mere skin color of another Black person to elicit color-aroused ideation, emotion and/or behavior, then that Black person has color-aroused ideation, emotion and/or behavior.

Many of us, (in fact, most Democrats who have voted) however, are no longer willing to accept the premise that the mere perception of the skin color of ourselves and others would invariably determine our voting ideation, voting emotion and voting behavior. We insist upon gathering all of the information that we would gather in any election before making a decision, not letting the mere perception of skin color short circuit or predetermine the result of this process.

This determination to make decisions based on present-day evidence rather than based on historical conditioning, color-aroused ideation, emotions and behavior is the basis of all hope for progress. And today, as the chart above demonstrates, there is a lot of cause for hope.

Why the "Race" Word is Wrong

In the days following our AfroSpear Black blogger group's successful organizing in the Jena Six Justice March, one of the things that angers me about the otherwise excellent press coverage is the constant use of the words "race," "racial" and "racist" in these articles. Although many highly respected minority thinkers strongly disagree with me, including Professor Ridwan Laher and the renowned Black blogger Field Negro, still I insist that although the sociological "race" concept can stay, still the word "race" itself must be conclusively abandoned.

I believe that the phrase "Black race" is nearly synonymous with the phrase "Black people." The greatest difference is that white supremacist groups prefer the word "race" because of its discredited biological connotations while the phrase "Black People" evokes Black self-determination. The phrase "Black People" is used to signify a political group.

Here's what the white supremacist "Nationalist Party USA" says about "race:"

The Nationalist Party embraces the differences in Cultures and races, and allows for each group to embrace their own heritage -- while recognizing the right to live separately, if we choose; and to preserve our unique Culture and heritage. Nationalist Party USA

Clearly their belief in different races rationalizes, in their minds, their belief in and advocacy for segregation. And why not? Do we segregate dogs and cats at the dog pound? As soon as you concede that we are from different "races" you have conceded a fundamental point in their argument that we should live separately (and unequally).

Here's another quote from the same white supremacist website:

"Michael Levin's long-awaited book on race has finally arrived, every bit as powerful and insightful as his admirers had hoped it would be. Why Race Matters does exactly what the title promises -- it removes all illusions about the insignificance of race, and explains what racial differences mean for a multi-racial society. It is a thorough, overwhelmingly convincing treatment of America's most serious and least understood problem. Like the work of Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton, it destroys the egalitarian myth, but Prof. Levin parts company with other academics in his willingness to tell us what biology means for policy. Facts imply conclusions, and this book draws them.

"The question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal, but why anyone would believe them equal."

As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: "To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal." For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways." Nationalist Party USA

So, there you have it! White supremacists agree with Blacks who insist that we must keep using the word "race"! White supremacists believe it is essential that we maintain our belief in "race," and they want to continue using that very word, precisely because science will never offer them any empirically-based substitute. The belief in the biological concept of "race" is the seemingly immortal brother of long-since discredited "phrenology."

The phrase "Black race" has historically been used by white supremacist groups in their battle to isolate and marginalize Black people. In fact, Barack Obama's effort to win the presidency is hobbled by whites' and Blacks' continued acceptance of the proposition that he is from a different "race" from whites. Whites have never elected a president whom they believe to be from a different "race." Those who are willing to consider voting for Barack Obama are only willing to do so because they have realized that he is NOT from a different "race," he merely has a different skin-color.

However, the mainstream media and white supremacist groups will continually use the words "race" and "racial" and "racist" over the next 14 months to create a sense of fundamental biological difference between Barack and America that actually has no basis in biology. Yet, this is very effective propaganda, because Americans don't like to elect people who are perceived as "different." They want to elect people who they believe are like them.

Every time Black people and white people use the word "race" instead of the term "the Black people" they give credence to the proposition that race is biological as well as political and cultural.

I know from my personal blogging experience that if there is anything about which many white people and Black people are in agreement, it's that the word "race" is essential to how we see ourselves and our definition of our relationship to one another. And that's precisely why we have to abandon the word "race." The word (not the concept of a sociologically distinct people) is the linguistic clothing of slavery, but we are Blacks are still wearing it centuries after it was forced upon us by our slavemasters.

I know that there are a lot of good and great leaders (like Field Negro) who disagree with me about this, perhaps because they cannot separate the word "race" from the sociological concept of "race." And so they cannot see how we can abandon the one without abandoning the other. But, it's really simple. Just stop using the word "race" and, as for the concept, describe what you mean with particularity instead of using once overarching words (like "race" and "racist") as a linguistic crutch.

As I've said before, there is no pot of gold in the treasure map where the word "race" marks the spot. There is no magic to that four letter word, and the belief that our world will change radically for the worse if we abandon the word while keeping the concept is a superstitious belief. Keep the sociological concept, but loose the word!

I can accept that many people don't agree with me. I just remind myself that most humans once agreed that the world was flat, while many white scientists once agreed that white people's head shape (phrenology) was indicative of intelligence while Black people's head shape was not. I trust that the inevitable march of science will compel us to abandon the word "race" as we abandoned the word "phrenology."

So, when I challenge canons, I couldn't care less that they are canons. I only care whether they are true or not. If they are true, then they can stand on their own two feet, without having to remind anyone who long and how hard we have held these particular words in great esteem. If they are false, like the belief that the world is flat, then no amount of precedent can change the fact that the belief stands as barrier to increased knowledge.

The most blatant area in which I challenge received wisdom is my insistence that we must end the 43-consecutive term white male monopoly of the American presidency in 2008. If anything is received wisdom in the United States, this is it, and it has to go. I am so determined about this that I believe I will not return to the United States (from Brazil) until the 43-consecutive term white male monopoly of the presidency has come to an end.

Now, I need to apologize to professor Ridwan about something: It's not the concept of "race" as a sociological matter that I believe needs to be abandoned, and so I am not urging the abandonment of "the canon" in its entirely. I am merely urging the abandonment of a word "race" and its derivatives, in favor of empirical description of what we see in our world.

What I see is skin-color-based historical and systemic oppression, subjugation and marginalization of people on the societal level, as well a learned color-aroused emotion, ideation and behavior disorder in individuals, a mental illness that is "nurtured" in the American environment (as well as in too many other places).

In this area, as in all of science, careful description rather than broad generalization is our friend. It leads to greater agreement. When we conclusively abandon the word "race" then the age of science will have begun in this crucial area of intellectual endeavor.

Why Whites Insist hat the Word "Black" Not Be Capitalized

Some whites express that they are terribly offended by the capitalization of the word "Black". This is an example of their color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior.

While we can only speculate based on the information at hand why the capitalization of the word "Black" offends them so, I suspect it is because they think that "Black" is a merely a skin color and not an ethnic group. Of course, we regularly capitalize the words "Irish" and "Hispanic" and "Italian" because we recognize that the names of ethnic groups should be capitalized.

However, because Blacks were brought to the United States and so many other countries as slaves, we don't know the individual African countries from which we came, otherwise we could refer to ourselves as "Angolans", and that would of course be capitalized.

The term "African-American" is capitalized, however many Black people are not American, although most of us are African.

During American slavery and slavery elsewhere, it was more important to whites to distinguish us from themselves, by referring to the fact that our skin was darker, than it was to permit us to maintain a knowledge of our specific origins in African countries. They stole this knowledge from us as part of the enforcement of slavery.

Now, having stolen from us the African country name that would be capitalized when referring to our origins, they ALSO want to take advantage of that historic abomination to deny many of us the right to capitalize the ethnic name which we carried for decades, before the term "African-American" came into vogue.

Finally, I suspect that capitalizing the word "Black" means that we are a people, a political group, however subjugated we may be, rather than just a skin color, and that's what offends some whites. When "Black" is not capitalized, it conforms to the idea that there is a "black race" that is fundamentally biologically different from the "white race", biologically in significant ways, ways other than skin color. When Black is capitalized, it is an assertion that "Black" is really a different political and social identity rather than a biologically different sub-genus of the human species.

Whites insist that we must be considered different, but it must be based on our skin color, not based on a common identity, which is something they find terribly threatening and arrogant of us. Capitalizing the word "Black" implies and creates the threat of a Black political and social force. Fearing this, whites insist upon NOT capitalizing the word "Black", lest they admit the existence of social and political forces that they do not understand and cannot control.

These, I believe, are some of the color-aroused ideational, emotional and behavioral aspects of whites' insistence that we not capitalize the word "Black" and that they will not capitalize the word "Black."

Do Geraldine Ferraro's Comments About Obama Reflect "Racism" or Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder (ECA)?

Geraldine Ferraro has left Hillary Clinton's Finance Committee after saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" of beating Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. The Washington Post reports her saying:

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen." She signed the note, "Gerry."

Ferraro was the vice presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket in 1984. In what has become only the latest controversy involving provocative remarks by Democratic surrogates, Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Rather than ask if Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Barack Obama were “racist”, I prefer to ask whether they were reflective of Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECA). Do Ferraro’s comments constitute color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior and, if so, do her ideation, emotion and behavior rise to the level of "extreme"?

Well, let's ask ourselves the following questions in order to make a layman's judgment as to whether she needs psychiatric evaluation for ECA:

Is skin color the focus of her comment?

Is the perception of another’s skin color the cue or impetus that aroused Ferraro to have the ideation and emotion that she expressed? Of course, the answer is yes.

Did Ferraro’s skin-color-based ideation and emotion prevent her from seeing things as they are? Virtually everyone agrees that they did.

Did her color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior impair her in one or more significant areas of her life? Well, it certainly made it impossible for her to continue on Clinton’s Finance Committee and it has made her the laughing-stock of most of the Democratic Party, permanently damaging her reputation. This, in my layman’s opinion, makes her ideation, emotion and resulting self-destructive and antagonistic behavior “extreme.”

In addition, she made the same remarks about Jesse Jackson twenty years ago, so it is apparent that this thought process, the emotions and expressive behavior are of the sufficiently longstanding nature typical of a diagnosable mental disorder.

So, it doesn’t matter whether we can determine whether her thoughts are “racist”, which nobody can define with any precision anyway. We have already determined, at least to our own satisfaction, that Ferraro’s remarks were aroused by the skin color cue and reflect ideation and emotion that are distorted by her perception of, and reaction to, the skin-color of another person. That's a mental illness, if the facts are as reported and the symptoms are as extreme as they are reported to be.

She seems to me to be suffering from Extreme Color-Arousal Disorder (ECA), and I think she needs a psychiatric evaluation.

We should all take ECA very seriously, because some people who show symptoms of ECA subsequently kill a dozen people in their workplace based on their skin color and the skin color of their associates.

Francis L. Holland, Esq.
Editor, The American Journal of Color Arousal (AmJCA)

"Afrosphere" or "Blackroots"? Two Synonymous Names for the Same Movement.

Dear Kinfolk:

With the advent of the term "blackroots", there has been some confusion as to what difference, if any, exist between the terms "blackroots" and the "afrosphere," both of which terms describe a portion of the Blacks who participate in blogging. In fact, the terms are synonymous, as is explained and documented in this article.

As I observed at my blog back on June 13, 2007, in a comprehensive article entitled, "An Essay on AfroSpear Nomenclature: What We Call Ourselves and Why":

(2) The "AfroSphere" on the other hand, is the term that we have developed over the last few months to mean "Blacks on the internet, at Black blogs and websites, working for Black cultural, political and social self-determination, renewal and advancement and sharing generally similar goals, even if they do NOT know one another and and have NOT become part of an organization to pursue these goals in unity and collaboration. Being part of the Afrosphere reflects a choice to pursue the goals of Black self-deterimination, but without necessarily hav[ing] joined any particular group to do so as part of a collaborative. "An Essay on AfroSpear Nomenclature: What We Call Ourselves and Why," June 13, 2007.

Now, compare that definition to the discussion and definition of the term "blackroots" that is offered by BlackProf.Com's "professor and [Black] blogger Spencer Overton, as discussed and quoted in YahooNews on February 14, 2008:

Spencer Overton analyzed the rise of the Blackroots in a prescient post last May: While the "grassroots" are romanticized, in the past couple of decades Black politics has been hierarchical and limited by orthodoxy that constrains debate. An MLK/Malcolm model has defined the leadership styles and political philosophy of Black elected officials, non-elected figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, organizations like the NAACP, and neo-Black Nationalist commentators and figures. Those not with the program essentially had the option of becoming Black Republicans. Older Black folks often complain about complacent black youth who don't vote, march, or otherwise live up to their model. Black blogs offer not only an opportunity to break from old orthodoxy, but to do so in a way that is flatter, and allows for more engagement through comments from readers (which are often more provocative than the posts)....

He cited the successful Fox News campaign as a "significant development" that fit into a larger effort to advance wired collaboration and force "transparency [to] hold Black elected officials more accountable." During the Fox fight in April, Afro-Netizen blogger Chris Rabb questioned how the CBC could cut deals and take contributions from Fox while neglecting its own constituency:

Do these [CBC] folks know what the "netroots" is? Do they think it's just made up of by young, white college-educated geeks far removed from their own congressional districts? Do they know that the vast majority of Black voters who elected them are accounted for in the much larger population of African Americans who regularly access the Internet, approximately 20 million strong? Will they come to understand that the Black netroots community is presently a slumbering giant who, it seems, only the likes of a Fox News Channel can begin to awaken? Yahoo.Com

When you look at the definition of "Blackroots" offered by Professor Overton, as well as the groups, activities and political perspectives that he says comprise the "Blackroots", it is seems clear to me that "blackroots" and "afrosphere" are synonymous. In fact, Professor Overton says at the blackroots' BlackProf blog, in an article entitled, "A Significant Development for the Blackroots":

The past couple of months have produced a significant development among Black blogs. Many are working together to challenge conventional Black leadership. ( . . . )

Afro-Netizen and Jack & Jill Politics, for example, separately criticized Jesse Jackson for speaking out against the Fox/CBC debate, and then deferring to the CBC the next week. Jack & Jill Politics disclosed to its audience that from 2003 to 2005, Fox News gave the CBC Foundation between $47,000 and $99,000, with 2006 numbers unavailable.

( . . . )

3) The Power of Collaboration: Despite the interactive and collaborative nature of the Internet, many Black blogs have remained relatively autonomous. We've provided links to occassional posts on other sites and included other black blog sites on our blogrolls, but our interaction has been limited, at least with regard to action. And autonomy is important--the wisdom of crowds comes not through parroting, but through autonomous decisionmaking. And we all have different interests. But the CBC/Fox Issue is an important step in the evolution of network effects--the power of a broad, flat, and well-connected blackosphere. Professor Spencer Overton, "A Significant Development for the Blackroots", BlackProf, May 1 2007.

By looking at who comprises the "blackroots" and the "afrosphere," -- what our perspectives are and what we are doing -- it becomes apparent that these are but two synonymous terms for the very same "loosely organized" but "well-connected" "network" or "sphere" of people, perspective and activities. The term "afrosphere" derives from the term "blogosphere" (the "afro" part of the blogosphere) and gains its meaning in juxtaposition to the term "whitosphere". Meanwhile, the term "blackroots" is derived from the term "netroots", and its meaning is best understood in juxtaposition to the term "whiteroots", a term whose first published usage may have been by John Stodder at Althouse, on September 27, 2007.

Based on my first-hand knowledge of the history and usage of the term "afrosphere", and after having quickly reviewed the usage and definition of the term "blackroots", it is evident to me that"Blackroots" and "afrosphere" are two different names for the same loosely and informally organized sphere of online Black people, perspectives and activities.

Going forward, blackroots/afrosphere members may choose to agree to select one of the two of these terms to signify this concept, if only to facilitate the understanding of the news media, the public and government officials, as well as our own members. In the earliest days of the AfroSpear, we agreed to use the term "afrosphere" for this concept rather than "blackosphere" because many members believed that a term such as "blackosphere", derived from the term "Black" defined us only by our skin color. In comparison, the believed that, by adopting the term "afrosphere", we define ourselves in terms of our commitment to African-descendent-oriented people, politics, culture and history. In that sense, the terms "blackroots" and "afrosphere" differ in the same ethereal way that the terms "Black" and "African-American" differ.

For my part, Field Negro, Exodus Mentality and Asabagna convinced me that the term "afrosphere" and AfroSpear were preferable for our self-definition based on the argument above, and based on the need to select one term that all of us would use uniformly. Once having agreed with them on this point, I have always been happy with the term "afrosphere" and have never looked back. I am a member of the "loosely-organized" afrosphere as well as of the political blogger member group, governed and managed daily by consensus of the members, that is called the AfroSpear.

(3) The "AfroSpear" is our international, consciously and purposefully organized collaborative of Black bloggers and websites who develop online and offline organizations, forums, newspapers, messaging groups, chat rooms and other media to organize and mobilize the international Black Diaspora to pursue goals that will enhance and further our well-being, in all of the cities, towns, countries and continents where we live, throughout the world.

Being part of the "AfroSpear" requires that one have both adopted the goal of Black self-determination AND have decided to participate actively in this particular group to pursue these goals. Becuase the term AfroSpear has a very precise meaning, it necessarily includes substantive criteria for membership and its definition also requires that some people can only be non-members, because their views, advocacy and/or societal and cultural position simply have nothing to do with or are clearly adverse and contrary to the goals of Black poltiical, cultural and economic self-determination. An Essay on AfroSpear Nomenclature: What We Call Ourselves and Why, Francis L. Holland Blog, June 13, 2007.

To help distinguish between the term "afrosphere" and the group called the "The AfroSpear," and because "AfroSpear" is the name of a formal organization while "afrosphere" is not, therefore AfroSpear members have decided NOT to capitalize the word "afrosphere."

For those Black self-determination bloggers have been blogging for at least three months and who wish to participate in a tightly-knit Afro-descendant Black bloggers' group, with over 130 duly admitted members from half a dozen countries and four continents, with daily e-mailing, press releases, a unified and automatically updating AfroSpear blog-list, and group organs such as AfroSpear in the News and AfroSpear Freedom Technology Christmas, I encourage you to consider applying for membership in the AfroSpear: http://groups.google.com/group/the-afrosphere/about

Sincerely,

Francis L. Holland, Esq.
The Truth About John McCain Blog
"One Love, One Nation Under an AfroSpear"

The Color Arousers, A Billary Clinton Film

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dear AfroSpear Kinfolk:

As the AfroSpear's Field Negro blog reports today, Clinton surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is out telling the American people that,

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." -- Gov. Ed Rendell

Are Pennsylvania voters still so color-aroused that their voting ideation, emotion and behavior will prevent them from voting for Barack Obama simply on the basis of his color? Hillary and Bill Clinton and Gov. Rendell have to hope so, because they've made this premise the center of their campaign strategy against Obama.

If it is not true that Americans are still extremely color-aroused, then Hillary cannot become president of the United States based on this strategy. So, Billary KKClinton & Co will be criss-crossing the United States over the next two months, reminding voters that Barack Obama is Black and that his Blackness is supposed to the central fact that governs voters' ideation, emotion and voting behavior, as associated with skin color.

The American Journal of Color-Arousal (AMJCA), an AfroSpear blog, offers new analytical tools for understanding color arousal, as well as new linguistic concepts for speaking and communicating to others effectively about the science of color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior studies.

As editor of the American Journal of Color Arousal, it is my opinion that Barack Obama's success at the polls demonstrates that Americans have made significant progress at detaching voting behavior from skin color associated ideation, emotion and behavior. No responsible political official would base a an entire electoral campaign on the hope that extreme color-aroused illness, with its symptomatic color-determined voting patterns, would still be prevalent and determinant when voters go the the polls.

Politicians must always seek to alleviate color-aroused illness in those who still suffer from it, rather than exacerbate the illness for political purposes.

Francis L. Holland, Esq.
Editor, The American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA)
55 (73) 3288-1716

Is it "Racist" or "Color-Aroused" to Wear Black Face-Paint to a Halloween Party?

Reprinted from the Backyard Beacon, with AMJCA commentary below.

“Is it ever ok to wear black paint on your white face?” IvyGate, the Ivy League blog, asks.

Never.

Perhaps Chappelle’s Show DVD box set requires more than a Parental Advisory warning label.

According to the captions that accompanied photos on his personal Web site, a Princeton freshman and his three friends “went as ‘a shadow/rick james,’ while his friends were supposed to be Malcolm X, Nat Turner and Rosa Parks …” The Daily Princetonian writes.

Now a junior and a presidential candidate, Josh Weinstein ‘09 says that “the references to African American civil rights activists and the Dave Chappelle parody of entertainer Rick James were ‘attempts at humor,’ and apologized to any students who were offended.”

The pictures, “which depict Halloween festivities, were posted by Weinstein on his personal Web site in the fall semester of his freshman year. An anonymous student apparently saved copies of the photos, which Weinstein later deleted from his site, and submitted them last week to IvyGate, ” the student newspaper says.

Although Weinstein insists that he had “no racist intentions,” the Black Student Union (BSU) held an impromptu forum with Weinstein, his fellow presidential candidate Sarah Langberg ‘09, and BSU members Sunday.

Concerned students say that Weinstein’s inability to take responsibility for his actions indicates that he may be unable to represent racial minorities if elected.

“A visibly distraught Weinstein apologized profusely and made efforts to explain his actions. ‘I did not go in blackface — I went in black face-paint,’ Weinstein said. ‘I would never have put the two words together, but I crossed the line,’” The Daily Princetonian reports.

AMJCA Commentary:

This case provides a perfect example of why the term "color-aroused" is preferable to the term “racist”. If you ask whether it is “racist” to paint your face Black and go to a party as “Nat Turner”, you immediately run into innumerable and subjective definitions of what “racism” is and what constitutes “racism”.

However, if you ask whether the students’ behavior was color-aroused, it is clear that it was. They themselves acknowledged that their behavior was focused on skin color, so it is skin color aroused.

Now, ask yourself whether this behavior is "benign," "mildly dysfunctional," "moderately dysfunctional" or "extremely dysfunctional" for this student. In this case, it would clearly seem that engaging in an act which others perceive to be extremely insensitive to the community has endangered this student’s election to student body president; hurt his reputation and employability in some sectors; and made him virtually unelectable to elective government office in many places. His behavior, if continued, certainly would limit his potential social network, employment and economic opportunities and even family choices.

This behavior could make his school and his employers liable in actions for discrimination if they are found to have tolerated or encouraged him in committing acts of discrimination and/or creating a hostile atmosphere.

If you want to know if this behavior was dysfunctional for this student, ask yourself if you would advise him to engage in the same behavior again, in light of all that has happened to him since his first try and in light of all that could happen to him in the future. Is this optimal behavior? If it is dysfunctional behavior then he should change his course before it destroys him, his family, his community, his school and his future employers.

With so much at risk because of color-aroused behavior, does it really matter if the behavior is “racist” or not?