Correction officers need corrective lenses.

For this blog, I wanted to share an experience of a friend on campus. He will remain unnamed for privacy, but I wanted to share this story because it relates to (not to the drug war) one of the main topics in Alexander's book The New Jim Crow: the black man being targeted. It also shows how very real the "new" Jim Crow is and how systematic and unauthorized it truly is. I am not sure how many of you have any experience with/ know anyone who has been the subject of unnecessary policing (because of skin tone), so for those who don't know anyone (and you have not been) I wanted to show how very close to "home" structured racism is being (pretty overtly) exercised. I'm sure (or hoping) you all are aware of the racism within our government and police force, but it changes when you see and experience the affects of what you have always been around. Anywho, here is what happened in our own backyard to one of our fellow UC students.... whom is black and male. 

He, who shall not be named, took his car (which was recently gifted to him from his mother) to Wawa. The wawa that is walking distance from the school--the one which, I feel I could safely say, about 85 percent of the UC population goes to weekly. On his way out from the parking lot from this Wawa the police decided to put on their sirens and stop him. So far, the man has done nothing wrong. The police go through the standard "pulling over" process but not without adding a touch of extremely racist precautions. They asked who's car this was and made it clear they did not think it was his. After giving the car's registration (which is under his mother's name as he tried to explain) this made the police think even more that this black man before them was a criminal. The person tried to explain it was his mother's name, who has a different last name, but he can provide documentation. He also tried repetitively to explain that he went to Ursinus college, RIGHT THERE. Their response? "Yea. Right. Sure you do." When he tried to show them his ID from the school they refused to even look at it. I keep referring to the cop that pulled him over as "they" because the cop did call for back up--where two more cars showed up. Now, I have been observing the Collegeville area, and I even saw an accident where only ONE cop car was at the scene. I remember noting how unusual this was, because back where I am from, no matter the situation cops call for at least one more car to assist. However, Collegeville didn't seem to function like that...until this particular case. They made him get out of the car, asked him in their "asking voices" to search the car, and did accordingly (of course with his helpless permission to do so). After having him sit there for a couple of hours, for no rhyme or reason in the first place... they finally let him go to the on campus job he said he was going to be late for in the first place. They tried every trick to pin something on this man at the Wawa where drunk, high, and mostly white college kids treck in and out of every single day of the week at all hours of the day. Times that are much more suspicious than 10pm on a week day. 

I did not want to share this just because I wanted to show you that this was happening right outside our gates, but I wanted to purpose a question: What could he do, we do, anyone do to fight back? I told him to write a letter to the police department. Although it will most likely get dismissed, if everyone who was subject to, or saw someone being subjected like this, spoke up somehow, a pattern might be revealed, exposed to the public eye, attract media, and hopefully starting righful action that cases akin to this all over America are calling for. Otherwise, it's another case brushed under the bed, disregarded, and accepted to be the American way of life for colored people.  

Colorblind: fools-gold

In passing, Celia mentioned to me how susceptible to identity we are on campus. Because of the campus’s small nature, we are unable to slip into the crowd and walk faceless, anonymous to those around us. In order to combat this, she along with a few other people, dressed up in full body (including the head) suits. Still, even with their bodies and faces masked, I found that their veiled self distinguished them from the population far beyond what their true identity ever served. In this sense the removal of identity was unsuccessful. With this, they undertook two roles:  the elephant in the room and the open focus of everyone’s attention.  This is what colorblindness does. The blind are not just blinding themselves, but they are cloaking the identity of those who they refuse to see.  In a nation that is so utterly white and systematically enforces its whiteness, it is impossible to erase the ink that marks our history. Colorblindness is the refusal to read it—to recognize the individuals, whom have been silenced for so long. Unable to erase, white Americans’ cap this pen and disown the identity it marks. My reflection picture project embodies how ridiculous the idea of colorblindness is. It singles out those with an identity and removes it. The very idea of who are colorblind and who face the blind eyes emphasizes the inequality of the whole movement. White people are not blind to white people. White people are blind to colored people. Since whites are the majority, it leaves the minorities to be the elephant in the room. Ignored, but the focus—the center of everyone’s attention.

Michelle Alexander speech--a nice foundation for upcoming reading

For this blog post I wanted to provide everybody with a summery of the speech that Michelle Alexander gave at UPenn. I took pretty detailed notes, and I think that her speech stands to be a great introduction for and foundation to her book The New JimCrow. It makes clear her aims and goals that she will unfold throughout the text are reading. Also at the end I offer some advise of how we might need to approach our group projects. My advise comes from what I have gathered through people and observations of how Michelle delivers her speech so to  different audiences. She slightly alters her speech based on the audience--so that she can offer the most affective delivery every time. One can't afford to lose any followers due to an audience's slight disconnect to the content provided--especially when the delivery could be altered, even if only slightly, to better target and captivate that given audience. Anywho here it is:

     Michelle Alexander began her speech by telling the audience that we must have a dialogue with ourselves. Between our conditioned self (by society) and our true self. We must ask is this who we are? Or is this our conditioning? Is this our genuine moral as a human being? Or is this a moral that has been driven into us since day one.

            From there she introduced a little about her book and then spoke about this sense of self within the black community. She was saying that there is a sense of self-blame within the black community. You often here things like “pull up your pants, get a job, be a father, etc., then there will be no problem”. This might not be a drastic as black on black crime (which she goes into as well) but it adds to this unconscious understanding that they ARE the problem, when what she is arguing, is not the truth.  It is really everything that is going on around these communities that add to their predicament acting as subliminal advertising to train this way of thought.

            Alexander also touched base on the “get tough” movement, as she is working towards the main point of her speech. She talked about how the few black politicians that joined this movement only added to this ideology. Now there were figures to idolize, one’s that were actually part of a movement that was to further misplace these inner city communities. Along with this movement and capitalism seeking cheaper labor, these communities were even further situated in poverty and seeking some way to live. Labor moving overseas took thousands of factory jobs away from these inner-city livers leaving them with nothing. Jobless they turned to anything to support themselves and a family. Most of which was illegal activity, which this “get tough” movement was focusing on. This is what turned the bias towards inner cities.

            This led to where we are now. Where the media provides the sensational stories of “gangsta life” replacing menstrual shows that were popular during a time where overt racism was accepted. It provides for this dramatic and sensational “show” on the news that really appeals to the white audience. I actually thought this connection was amazing and well sanctioned. These lines can be drawn, and they are more obvious than one might think.

            She ended the speech talking about how before we achieve civil rights, we MUST gain human rights. We cannot jump the gun as Americans to civil rights, because we are overlooking so many other problems that would make it unachievable. An empty dream is worthless and effort made for no reason. This is where the decriminalization of ALL drugs comes in hand. Starting off towards this first goal of human rights, so we as America can finally truly start working towards civil rights.  Overall, her speech was amazing. Michelle Alexander is a great speaker, her content was interesting and factual, and she really speaks to her audience. I spoke to a classmate who heard has heard her speak before at a Christian conference. He said, while most of the information was the same, she altered it to focus more on the religious community. While at this UPenn event, she spoke to a more intellectual and aware audience, with the assumption that at least most of the people there read and are more aware of the issues at hand. This ability to tend to the audience at hand is extremely valuable. Otherwise the movement she is promoting could be harmful or mean nothing to an audience that finds no relation to it. She encourages her movement of decarceration and drug decriminalization through finding its relevancy to her audience. This is something I think we should learn from and try to practice during our group projects. We will make more of an impression and hopefully activate more thought, if the audience can find familiarity or relevancy in what we present to them.

smh

Halloween has just passed and yet the ridicules costumes are still making their way to the media. Blackface has consistently made its way into the halloween costumes of racist ignorant white people. But of course native americans, mexicans, and other radicalized costumes have also always made its way into the Halloween scene.  This year however, Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman seem to make its way to be the most popular costume of racist bigots this year. I have also seen pictures of suicide bombers--depicted as arab of course, and today my friend showed me a picture of someone who dressed up as one of the Boston marathon bombing victims. I also saw a news clip where a young 7 year old boy dressed as a KKK member and went trick or treating. His mothers only warning is, "people might say things, if you're ready for that". I also sent that news clip to the class, where fox news covers a story on a universities warning about these costume choices. Yet it seems that the news casters were insinuating that these choices are okay... because of freedom of speech. Your boss might just not like it in the future.... unless its Fox. One cannot say that overt racism does not exist anymore. Because if someone dressing up in blackface, a smile, a bloodied shirt, and a bag of skittles for the halloween costume as an innocent murder victim who is still a child laughing along side their friend who is the murderer--is not overt racism... then I don't know what the heck is. This was a terrifying Halloween.

The Buttons On Men's Button-Up Shirts are on the Opposite Side of Women's. It's Hard Putting on A Men's Button-up Shirt.

Towards the beginning of chapter 3, Wise refers to a major change in his social life that took place during his adolescent years. Before Junior High school Wise mentions that he wasn't, "really close to any white people"(59). He recollects a time where the demographics of his friend group began to change. Not because he consciously wanted more white friends but because he entered a school that systematically made his friendships less possible. This was operated by tracking, which made (makes) segregation legal in schools. Wise goes on to say that he, "was having to relearn everything: how to make friends, how to interact with people whose interests were different, and how to basically be white again"(59). I found this passage particularly interesting being that I can somewhat relate. This shift he had to deal with was made within the same community system he has been part of his whole life. It's just that now, it is directly affecting him on a more extreme level. As he mentions previous to this in his book, even in early elementary school he noticed the segregation. Although he chose to interact with the black students early on, the presence of whiteness, their presence as the majority, and their identity was still ever present from kindergarden--onwards. While my experience of that differs because the town and school I was raised in is extremely colorful (blacks being the "majority" and whites the "minority) I can identify with having to relearn certain ways of acting. Because of the community I grew up in and probably a few other factors, my environment nurtured me into my self that finds it hard to relate to the white community. I have had some exposure (pre-college) to being placed in a white community. But even for the short amount of time/few times I was in that situation, I felt disconnected and uncomfortable and felt that people made cliques where they all "clicked" and I couldn't find people I could click with. Now looking back, and having more experience, I understand what I thought was me not having friends because people didn't "like" or "get" me. Times when I was in a white-majority situation was like when I went to camp. Everyone came from different places but similar backgrounds. And their background I hardly relate to. Upon entering college I was also suddenly surrounded by so many white people. At camp it was different. It was not my home, and the people there were not my friends--because my friends were at home. Now being situated in a place, where everyone came from different places, like camp but now my new "permanent-ish" community,  forcing to be in a space of whiteness and making it my "space" too--I found, somewhere in the back of my head, of how to interact or be friends with white people. Similar to how Wise had the idea that he shouldn't or should like something. I have no idea where these ideas came from, but I took being friends with white people as being polite, submissive, and oddly more passive aggressive. Basically, the relationship I have with most white people here I would label as acquaintances. Thinking consciously now, I only have one white friend. As Wise said, "I wasn't really sure how to be white, but I figured I could fake it"(60).  I became conscious of little things that prevented fluid relationships. Like what I say (or even how I say it) (because I was realizing that what I would say normally was not "white language". My old roommate once told me that she could not understand my two friends and I half of the time she was around us).

From what I gathered the way Wise reacts to trying to change his identity as he describes, I think holds more general meaning. Because he could not relate to white music and felt he should not like black music he, "just stopped listening to music altogether". This might stand as an allegory to describe more generally how he couldn't relate to what he was trying to adjust his identity to, so he'd rather dismiss it all together.

babies are crying.. my computer is dying.

(fyi) This is going to be a pretty short prompt because I have 13% battery and no charger... So my apologies for the not so in depth-ness of my post. Anywho, Tim Wise's White Like Me, offers a very different perspective from Taylor's. He involves much more of his personal history, which in this case, I think is the more appropriate rout. It allows the targeted reader to find grounds of relation--which statistics cannot do. The old saying is right, there is a difference between showing and telling. To tell allows the other person to block off or choose what they here. But to show does not allow the other to make any excuses for misunderstanding. It also some how forces the viewer to look back the same way he is critically looking back at his lineage. I thought it was pretty interesting how one side of the family has been rooted in America since what seemed like forever. And contrastingly his other side with Jewish heritage provides a different perspective on the white foundation of America's whiteness. I think that allows this reading to lend itself to a greater audience, whom otherwise would have discredited his point of view in relation to their own groundings in America. I'm really interested to go, not just further with the reading but to see how our class discussions move in conjunction with it. So far this first chapter (still working on the second, but wanted to get the blog in before my computer goes night night) has really set a tone that seemingly will be beneficial overall. As a side note, I do enjoy his writing as well. It's almost novel-like. Taylor was interesting because the philosophical and statistical information he presented, while Wise says things in an interesting way... with interesting stories of information. Definitely a switch up. Next week's blog won't be cut short by my computers impending death.

Trick coin: 2-faced, 1 face; Colorblindness: 2-delude, 1 disposition. Both bear no fair finish.

On page 184 Taylor quotes a statement that a journalist made, which he claims epitomizes his post-racialist racism (in accord to politics specifically), "'In the post racial era personified by Obama...Americans start to make race-free judgments about who should lead them'".  I really enjoyed how Taylor framed this statement with such dripping sarcasm (at least thats the way I read it). Right before quoting this journalist Taylor says, "When the black-identified" (<-I find that phrasing to be particularly important, because Taylor discusses much earlier in the book that there was a movement from mulatto to identifying as black, and then the 1 drop rule) "son of a racially mixed-marriage between a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas can become president of a country built on racial slavery and a horror of miscegenation; when, moreover, he can do this in the post-9/11 USA despite bearing (what the President himself described as) a funny, Muslim-sounding name; when things like this happen, the post racialist concludes, we have put race behind us and embarked on a new phase of human social relations"(184). Making clear that Obama, himself, declared his name as, "a funny, Muslim-sounding name" acts as a slap to the reader's eyes. Many points are made just within this statement that expresses how false and misleading this post-racialist thinking is--starting off with Obama being identified and identifying himself as a "black man". That being followed with his own explanation of his name, where he identifies it as "funny" (funny-similar to ethnic-'ethnic' to the majority, 'funny' sounding-to the majority). First he, himself, identified with two different radicalized groups which, if colorblindness was a real thing he A-wouldn't have done that and B-wouldn't have needed explain what his name to americans as "funny" and "Muslim-sounding". The reason why he did, and why he most likely felt pressured to, is because America is so far from actually being colorblind. Minorities need to constantly explain themselves (i.e. Obama clarifying that his name might sound funny and a little like a Muslim name--but it's stops at just "sounding" like it. So to assure the public that he is not black AND Muslim... just black with a Muslim-sounding name), all while the majority's position is pre-secured and accounted for as a "normal" American. I.e. president Bush did not need to disclose what his name might sound like along with an adjective that could be viewed as demeaning and belittling to those who actually fall under his unwanted label. Bush had no need to put forth effort in explaining  his name and how it's 'un-American' (or just non-white) sound is just 'something-else-sounding' --in fear of being misidentified, mislabeled, mis-colored, and misconstrued as being someone of a 'funny', 'scary', or 'barbaric' nature. These small and simple instances, which might seem insignificant, actually expose the objective unconscious of how objectifying Americans still are ...especially racially. Thus completely discrediting any claims of colorblindness. Taylor then follows the journalist's quote with pointing out that, "this willingness to set race aside when it comes to questions of leadership is, for the committed post-racialist, just one example of a wider commitment to colorblindness in all spheres of human relations"(184). This statement working with the one he makes directly before the journalist's quote, work together to further emphasize how false the claim of colorblindness really is. Especially that our own president has to justify, explain, and detach the sound of his name from  a group of people that are currently being criminalized in this country. It is also indicating that if this is happening on a political level (especially so high), there is no doubt that this colorblind (but really mindblind underlining racism) concept is being implemented and mobilized through human social relations.

Guilt.. and not the chocolate coin kind.

Taylor begins to touch upon the theory of "liberal guilt" on page 132 when referring to the white perspective. He states, "Liberal guilt is a contemporary phenomenon, available to us only after emancipatory racialism incorporated non-white perspectives into mainstream US racial projects"(Taylor 132). I think that this point is important for us as a class to expand on and come to an understanding of how guilt plays into new modern racism/our society today. Taylor touches on this point throughout the chapters, however this is the first time attaching a term to the theory (scanning back I did not find him referring to/don't remember him utilizing the terminology). He then goes on to explain further double consciousness (within different perspectives) and how race shapes a persons philosophy, but he does not necessarily expand on the issue of "guilt"--and he most definitely does not give any current examples that are applicable and how it is still channeled consistently today. As Florka pointed out in a provoking email, this guilt complex is something that our class persistently struggles with. However, even after being prodded at on multiple occasions, our class reconvenes and remains detached; completely aloof--especially in regards towards the statements made previously (by yourself, a classmate, Florka, the book). How can nobody come back to class and not feel something? Especially being that most of the students in the class come from extremely white dominated towns and still go to a dominantly white college. Especially being, I'm going to take a wild guess, that those places (and this place) does not question their white intensions in such an aggressive way. This overt inattention towards some--or, rather most of the comments expressed in class and through email portrays much of what Taylor underlines his entire philosophical theory of race with:guilt (being emphasized in accord to new modern racism). Our class feels guilty, which comes across every time someone thinks they have made a statement that possibility, might, have the slightest of potential of maybe having the probability of being understood as offensive. And maybe this is the new modern racism equivalent to the the slave owners irrational fear of their slaves revolting--so in response to themselves they asserted physical and other forms of dominance in order to relieve their guilt. Now with this modern perspective whites have not the need to submit to violence, because silence has become its replacement. If our class can get past this, I'm sure we could finally discuss some pertinent issues and actually grow as a class and individually. Maybe we can get past this theory and others akin (like color blindness being positive)--bound by this guilt, which waists away energy that refocusing could allow for a more progressive and constructive class/society. Or the idea that walking up to a table of black kids (because you feel guilty) is an act of goodwill... gracing the table with your white presence. Or making sure you secure a few black friends because the pressure of finally realizing the ever present social segregation, which was implemented way before your time, makes you feel guilty... so you serve that guilt by accounting for a few colored people within your friend circle. Once we can get past this individual and self-centered perspective we can discuss these issues that impact our nation (and world) as a whole... instead of continuing to dance around these issues, in hopes that the god of racism will rain down and color the world blind. Because doing so only upholds and reinforces this unconscious institutionalized racism (the very thing all of the above is embodying) and yet again reinforcing the condemnation of our society today. The very first step is acceptance...not going straight from (original) Jim Crow to colorblind equality, because maybe you feel a little guilt.

Loads of codes

In the beginning of chapter 3 Taylor introduces and expands upon how America's social reform pressed for the white supremacists to reorganize a new way of implementing their superiority. Their newfound political ideology materialized as a response to, what they considered, a threatening increase of minority groups in the pursuit of, and outwardly advocating for, equality. Thus these white political powers founded a new, more discreet, and even more systematic approach to institutionalizing racism. The undertaking to continue a lifestyle of supremacy became what Taylor recognizes as late modern rationalism. This is a type of racism that evolved out of understanding the faultiness behind classical racialism and that the basis of this racism is applied in a covert fashion so to allow the whites to maintain their status while conning minorities into being satisfied with their "freedom" and "equal" status. This 2.0 version of American racism was produced with one objective in mind: to delay/stop the possibility of a social revolution, which could untangle the very ties that they have knotted as the foundation of this country, and maintain their all powerful and untouchable supremacist status. Late modern rationalism was and is a maneuver of trickery a movement to deceive--to silence those who found a voice and better positioning themselves. As Taylor puts it on page 76, "Political communities established on white supremacist grounds sought to minimize the costs of maintaining themselves, by accommodating and co-opting resistance before it became too troublesome. This  accommodation and co-optation signified the shift from domination, or rule by force, to hegemony, or, crudely, rule by consent". I believe that this form of control is much worse than outward racism. Hegemony institutionalizes it to another level, making it so that those who were fighting for the cause turn around and end up working against the cause, "A hegemonic formation - the alliance between ruler and ruled that makes control without forcible coercion possible - encourages the disadvantaged to see themselves as stakeholders in the system that generates their disadvantage; it does this in part by granting concessions to them, thereby winning their consent to the system's continuation"(Taylor 77).  The only power non-whites were given was to further instill this racist system within their own communities so that there is no safe haven. No place to hide. This in my opinion is probably the most effective and disturbing type of racism.

.........and more labeling

At the bottom of page 36 Taylor brings attention to the concept of "who" can be racist. He expands his "pluralistic approach" of how people can execute racism (extrinsic, intrinsic, indirect) by providing a greater explanation of who actually has the ability to participate in those very acts. He first mentions the model of racism that the "PPP" was based off of: that anyone who was not white "collectively lack the power to make their prejudices operative"(36). Without having to discount this interpretation, Taylor's open position on the matter questions the validity of it acting as a general model. Instead he acknowledges the significance of which white supremacy has on the spectrum of racism and how it has "systematically and disproportionately shaped the development of Western societies. Subsequently he unfolds the contradiction, which appointing the ability to enact racism to only one race, actually counteracts the the ability for a "general account of racism" and, "obscures other ethically questionable phenomena that seem pre-theoretically to count as instances of racism"(36). By taking such a general approach to the matter, he is able to put into perspective the "variety" of those who carry on racist intentions, and the gravity to which it has on the general population this act of racism is prescribed towards. Taylor eventually comes to the conclusion that any race, can in fact be racist, if that individual consistently declares his/her hatred towards all who can be characterized as the specific race of his/her focus. Here Taylor asks a really important question, "What do we gain by refusing to call it racism?"(37) He emphasizes that there is no reason to discount the ability for any race to execute racism, rather to identify the severity of the act and the magnitude in which it effects the targeted group as a whole. So he stresses that anyone can be racist, but that does not necessarily amount to the racism of "the social ills that follow from centuries of white supremacist exclusionary practices"(36). I ask the same question as him. What is the point of excluding all but one race of have the ability of being racist? Why charge one race and ignore the others? Like he asks, "why not just say that this sort of individual racist assault pales in significance beside the systematic racism?"(37) It is important to recognize that white supremacists have implemented a systematic form of racism that governs and disproportionately benefits only those that fall under whiteness--because it is important to establish  that white supremacists have mobilized racism to such a degree that it has given them the ability and even authority to target and convict all non-whites. However, it is important to realize that an act of hate is an act of hate. A minority that targets another race other than their own is still an act of racism, just incomparable to the same degree as white racism in America. So what do you gain by condemning only one race to have the ability to "disregard" another race? Instead of grasping the gravity the difference between racists actions? The blame game does not solve any issues. Acknowledging the potential for anyone to be racist, even if it does not play a significant role to the underlying problem in America, does not, and should not change the fact that the systematic racism set by the majority is the most prevalent, and in dire need of dismantling. But to deny the ability of other races to be racist is somewhat comparable to the ideal, but faulty concept of colorblindness. The ability to "disregard" is not colorblind--just color-concentrated with whiteness.

Post 1 Assumptions and Associations

On page seven Taylor begins to touch upon the idea that different societies have different beliefs saying when, "separated by time, space, or both" these different societies, "may assign the same person to different races". The concept that different cultures view each other and others different from one another is not a hard one to grasp--especially being that I have personally experienced being placed in different categories by people coming from different backgrounds and social ideologies. To elaborate--when I disclose to certain people my Jewish heritage, some consider Judaism white while others consider it to be something....else. The reaction to this information about myself is always different, but always seems to provide some sort of explanation or category for "what" I am. Before that knowledge, I was just "white"(or whatever else people first assume I am without the knowledge of my bloodline) and after I am "Jew". But Taylor goes on with the sentence adding, "if they assign racial identities at all"(Taylor 7). The word, "If", in my eyes has a lot of emphasis in it. The idea of a place where people might not even assign racial identities is a much more difficult concept to grasp--being that I was born and raised in the United states. A place where the concept of colorblindness only emphasizes the racial tensions that this nation was founded upon. We are so racially aware and sensitive to the point where just the idea of a society that does not identify anyone as any"thing" completely baffles me. On page 17 Taylor provides an example that if we were to look at a persons face and immediately decide that he "looks smart", he concludes that this assumption is made without identifying that person with a specific racial group and that "thinking racially" has yet to occur. He then stats that if, "we think he looks smart because his facial features mark him as a member of a type of smart people, then we're on the way to race-thinking"(Taylor 17). I completely disagree (with the first half of the statement at least). How can he say that racial-thinking has not taken place during the first assumption of this person? You have to ask, why did someone in the first place assume that this "John" guy is smart? Because of our (U.S.) social makeup, I believe most racial thinking is done in an unconscious matter. One does not need to actively think of the physical attributes that made them think John looked smart, because they already had the thought that he looked smart. Assumptions do not come without associations, and in an example like the one given to us by Taylor, the association of someone "looking like" something automatically identifies that person with an attribute that is acutely related to the physical characteristics in which make up the different racial categories. Within the context of the United States, I believe racial thinking does not mean you have to physically and consciously "think" about the characteristics that explains someones initial perception of another person. I believe that racial awareness is so deeply embedded within this society that the process of racial thought has already taken place and led you to the conclusion that "John looks smart"--no additional thinking or elaboration has to take place because you have already come to a reason, with the light speed and always present process, of racial thinking. Which begins to explain why racial blindness, in America at least, is something that is as of right now, impossible. But thats another blogpost.