I’ve largely lost hope in any decisions that the University makes to improve race relations on campus. There’s not enough people here that believe change needs to happen, and even if there are, there’s not many that are willing to take the steps to fix things except for those that are actually impacted by the racism on campus and few others. I am not surprised by the University’s decision to not change the names of the building; even while I was reading the email, I had the urge to roll my eyes because anyone that understands this school could see it coming from a mile away.

As a person of color, it’s exhausting to constantly be reminded that you’re not really wanted here. Of course, I make the best of it as I can; I still enjoy most of my classes, hang out with my friends, go to events and things like that. However, in the back of my mind, and most of my black and brown peers, there is the nagging feeling that nothing we can do will change how this school operates. It’s a little upsetting; as a freshman, I was super optimistic about creating change on campus for the better. Now, after a summer full of BLM movements and repeated instances of blatant and subtle racism on campus, I’ve lost hope in Richmond when it comes to its troubling past and consistently disappointing future. I will continue to engage in conversations about the racial tension on campus and participate in activities to support my people. However, I refuse to let my mental health suffer from it; as a student and as an individual of color, it is not my responsibility to educate others on the value of my life, when it should be valued just as anyone else’s.

After listening to the podcast for this week’s blog post, I thought that the example using marijuana use was really accurate. Today, there are so many examples of how drug use is perceived across different cultures. It’s very interesting that white people are able to start businesses selling marijuana, and are praised for building that business “from the ground up.” However, it’s concerning that individuals of color are still arrested and jailed for smoking or selling marijuana on a smaller scale, like in their neighborhoods. Even white celebrities, like Seth Rogen, get to comfortably share about their weed on social media, but if it were the other way around, it would be a problem.

America has an interesting perception of drugs. In my US Borderlands class that I took second semester of freshman year, we talked about the drug trade across the US-Mexico border, and the “war on drugs.” Although many in the US tried to pin the entire thing on Mexico, the only reason that Mexican drug lords invested in travel to the States was because there was a demand for drugs. It’s not that they simply wanted to spread their influence, but those in the US are as equal to blame for what some call the “drug epidemic” as those in other countries. The US continues to spread the blame to other countries, groups, and even individuals, but much of the so-called “problems” we have with the movement of illicit drugs begins in white communities. Of course, this isn’t to say that there aren’t black and brown communities investing in the trade, but that it is necessary to recognize that it isn’t solely their fault.

In Chapter 6 of “Blindspot,” the authors talk about the cost of stereotypes, and I think that it’s something really important to note. Everyone says that stereotypes are bad, but nobody really dives into what makes them inherently bad. An example of this could be seen in the Trolley Problem we talked about in class last week. When we got to the situation that included the overweight man on top of the bridge, and scenarios became more and more intricate, some said “he may have diabetes,” or that he may have some other medical condition that would lessen his quality of life. Although someone brought up that “We shouldn’t use stereotypes,” we didn’t really go into what that could mean for the overweight man, not just in the Trolley Problem, but even mentally, after he heard us talking so bad about him (stay with me here).

There are physical and emotional consequences to stereotypes, but after the incident or situation is said and done, why don’t we dive into the long-term mental effects of stereotypes rather than naming them as bad, and ending the discussion there? I think that the authors’ attempt to dive deeper into stereotypical incidents in the U.S. was smart, and I would even argue that they could have dug deeper. There are Black men that walk around scared for their lives because of the assumption that they’re dangerous. There are Asian Americans that are constantly burdened by the stereotype that their citizenship isn’t valid. These groups are in danger in more ways than one, and I think it’s important to address all aspects if we expect to overcome these automatic stereotypes.

I decided to do an IAT Test on whether I not I implicitly associate good taste with healthy or unhealthy foods because among my friends, a lot of them keep bringing up the need to eat healthier and lose weight. My results indicated that I had a “weak” automatic associate between good or bad tasting food and healthy or unhealthy food. In fact, the results said I was “slightly faster to respond when “Good Tasting” + “Healthy Food” and “Bad Tasting” + “Unhealthy Food” were paired together than when “Bad Tasting” + “Healthy Food” and “Good Tasting” + “Unhealthy Food” were paired together.”

This was really surprising to me because as much as I like to keep my eating habits under control by “eating a salad every once in a while,” as some of my peers say, I feel like I gravitate towards unhealthy foods as a result of them tasting better (and probably much more often). I actually told my boyfriend about my results, and when I made him take it, his said the same thing.

One thing I think is that the way people eat food is always evolving. There’s have vegan soul food. There’s meatless burgers. There’s oat milk lattes (even though I still think there’s a lot of sugar but I’m not complaining). I think that people are always finding better ways to present healthy foods, and it’s taking down the common association that “healthy foods” don’t taste as good as unhealthy ones.

According to Dr.Bezio’s first podcast on ethics, relative ethics is quite literally anarchy, the absence of a governmental body or authority. In this form of ethics, there is no universal good or bad. Instead, each individual person has their own idea of morality, and although this may seem like the perfect example of individualism, I agree that even individuals in the US share at least some common ground. For instance, most people in the US would agree that murder is bad, even if there are some relativists that would say each individual person comes to their own conclusion on murder.

What I find interesting is that relative ethics, as daunting as it seems, could actually be a progressive way at understanding the world around us. As the United States becomes increasingly polarized, with the “left” versus the “right” domineering the political sphere, many would agree that what we’re experiencing is gridlock. No real change occurs unless there is serious consequences for not doing so, and everyone seems stuck in their ways because that’s what they were told to do: fit the ethical mold that’s been set for you. Approaching this problem with through the lens of relative ethics could help politicians, representatives, lobbyists and more understand that what is ethical will forever and always be relative. In that case, maybe they would come to understand that maybe their way of running things is not the only way, and that other people’s ideas could work as well.

I admit this is an extremely optimistic example of how relative ethics could be progressive, but I think that it would be beneficial to recognize the power that understanding others’ points-of-views has. Of course, like Dr.Bezio said, some people may take relative ethics and apply it to the wrong situations (i.e. murder), but there is always a bright side when you think about it.