Nigel Farage claims we no longer need anti-racism laws because the United Kingdom has become blind to skin colour except where legally forced to see it. I disagree that the country is colour-blind. However, a more relevant question is whether that is even a goal worth aiming for – at least in the short-term. Should we, rather than seeking to remove discrimination from our systems seek out exposure to the groups we unconsciously least identify with?
As I previously posted, consciously including the “other” is socially beneficial; not because we need positive discrimination to achieve a fair society or because a statistically representative mix of people is implicitly fairer, but because each perspective we add expands our knowledge of how to achieve goals. So Myers suggestion that we seek to better understand what we fear/avoid/&c. makes sense to me as both an ethical aspiration and a way of achieving tangible benefits myself.
As is shown by Myers own example of seeking directions: if we remove the fear of race, gender, nationality, then we see them as equals rather than lesser; but we also both gain a greater pool of potential resources and clear away the false markers that cloud the instinctive identification of real threats.
As with many talks about equality and discrimination, Myers is probably preaching to the choir; but what particularly interests me about this talk is that she is preaching a message the choir will benefit from.
I found the association tests on race and other topics at Project Implicit both interesting and helpful. As I don’t think equality should be a competitive sport, I am keeping my results to myself.