by DoTheMath

Created on: December 28, 2009   Last Updated: December 29, 2009

Prejudice literally means "to prejudge".  To unlearn it implies that it is there to begin with so, while I guess we can replace one notion of prejudice with another, we can't "unlearn"... well, anything.  But I suspect that this question is more intended to apply to race, and most specifically to prejudices against all races except white. 

So long as prejudice against whites is acceptable (and defending them is impermissible) then prejudice against whites will never die.  The likelihood that the races will eventually be able to get along while prejudice against some groups is discouraged but against whites it's only enflamed, is about as high as the likelihood that siblings will learn to get along if their mother blatantly blames one child for everything, whether or not he is honestly responsible. 

Only when treatment of the races is fair will they be able to get along.  Fair treatment of the races means that they get the same results for the same behavior.  It means they get the same educational opportunities across all schools and the same quality of upbringing.  After this, however, their actions will detemine what becomes of them on a "this equals that" balance that applies to all races equally.  If they get good grades/test scores, they go to top schools, but if they commit crime, they serve prison time.  If they commit murder, they get the death penalty for equally heinous acts, and if they graduate Summa Cum Laude from an Ivy League, they get to be CEO.  In order for this to ever be possible, each race woud have to begin with the same opportunities, explanations and training early on.

That's where the more social negative conclusion about our ability to "unlearn prejudice" comes from.  Children's opportunities are determined by their parents' ability to give those opportunities, as well as willingness to.  A father who already has an Ivy League education can give more than one who has only a high school education, and a father who sticks around is deciding to give what he has to offer while one who walks out is giving nothing, even if he happens to be Ivy educated. 

A father who commits crime, ending up in prison, gives worse than nothing because he also gives a poor example.  But if he is compelled to commit crime because he has no other options, he leaves the legacy of no opportunity and only a criminal solution to his child.  Absent a communal vacuum

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>