Changes for page Research at a Glance


on 2025/06/19 02:53


on 2025/06/19 19:12
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. AdminAngriff1 +XWiki.XWikiGuest - Content
-
... ... @@ -647,6 +647,427 @@ 647 647 648 648 = Dating = 649 649 650 +{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}} 651 +**Source:** *Social Forces* 652 +**Date of Publication:** *2016* 653 +**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass* 654 +**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"* 655 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007) 656 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior* 657 + 658 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 659 +1. **General Observations:** 660 + - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site. 661 + - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**. 662 + 663 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 664 + - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts. 665 + - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**. 666 + 667 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 668 + - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings. 669 + - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**. 670 +{{/expandable}} 671 + 672 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 673 +1. **Primary Observations:** 674 + - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities. 675 + - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**. 676 + 677 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 678 + - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men. 679 + - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**. 680 + 681 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 682 + - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way. 683 + - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized. 684 +{{/expandable}} 685 + 686 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 687 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 688 + - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**. 689 + - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**. 690 + 691 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 692 + - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning. 693 + - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism. 694 + - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups. 695 + 696 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 697 + - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it. 698 + - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds. 699 + - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating. 700 +{{/expandable}} 701 + 702 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 703 +- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating. 704 +- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**. 705 +- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**. 706 +{{/expandable}} 707 + 708 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 709 +1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection. 710 +2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**. 711 +3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection. 712 +{{/expandable}} 713 + 714 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 715 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]] 716 +{{/expandable}} 717 +{{/expandable}} 718 + 719 + 720 +{{expandable summary="Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}} 721 +**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity* 722 +**Date of Publication:** *2020* 723 +**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter* 724 +**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"* 725 +**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232) 726 +**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior* 727 + 728 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 729 +1. **General Observations:** 730 + - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070). 731 + - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners. 732 + 733 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 734 + - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**. 735 + - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**. 736 + - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability. 737 + 738 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 739 + - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.” 740 + - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. 741 +{{/expandable}} 742 + 743 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 744 +1. **Primary Observations:** 745 + - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality. 746 + - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations. 747 + 748 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 749 + - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes. 750 + - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites. 751 + 752 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 753 + - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties. 754 + - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**. 755 +{{/expandable}} 756 + 757 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 758 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 759 + - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences. 760 + - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases. 761 + 762 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 763 + - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior. 764 + - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races. 765 + - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**. 766 + 767 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 768 + - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites). 769 + - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability. 770 + - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits. 771 +{{/expandable}} 772 + 773 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 774 +- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community. 775 +- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing. 776 +- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones. 777 +{{/expandable}} 778 + 779 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 780 +1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted. 781 +2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships. 782 +3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races. 783 +{{/expandable}} 784 + 785 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 786 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]] 787 +{{/expandable}} 788 +{{/expandable}} 789 + 790 + 791 +{{expandable summary="Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}} 792 +**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* 793 +**Date of Publication:** *2024* 794 +**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon* 795 +**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"* 796 +**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978) 797 +**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility* 798 + 799 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 800 +1. **General Observations:** 801 + - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**. 802 + - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**. 803 + - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**. 804 + 805 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 806 + - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas. 807 + - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions. 808 + 809 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 810 + - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites. 811 + - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors. 812 +{{/expandable}} 813 + 814 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 815 +1. **Primary Observations:** 816 + - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables. 817 + - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression. 818 + 819 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 820 + - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation. 821 + - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes. 822 + 823 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 824 + - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades. 825 + - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects. 826 +{{/expandable}} 827 + 828 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 829 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 830 + - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse. 831 + - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources. 832 + 833 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 834 + - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly. 835 + - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility. 836 + 837 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 838 + - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas. 839 + - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends. 840 +{{/expandable}} 841 + 842 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 843 +- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis. 844 +- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**. 845 +- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism. 846 +{{/expandable}} 847 + 848 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 849 +1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change. 850 +2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making. 851 +3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**. 852 +{{/expandable}} 853 + 854 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 855 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]] 856 +{{/expandable}} 857 +{{/expandable}} 858 + 859 + 860 +{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} 861 +**Source:** *Porn Studies* 862 +**Date of Publication:** *2015* 863 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika* 864 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"* 865 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389) 866 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique* 867 + 868 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 869 +1. **General Observations:** 870 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women. 871 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality. 872 + 873 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 874 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**. 875 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.” 876 + 877 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 878 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue. 879 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.” 880 +{{/expandable}} 881 + 882 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 883 +1. **Primary Observations:** 884 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity. 885 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men. 886 + 887 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 888 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism. 889 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**. 890 + 891 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 892 + - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification. 893 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics. 894 +{{/expandable}} 895 + 896 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 897 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 898 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds. 899 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia. 900 + 901 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 902 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media. 903 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison. 904 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard. 905 + 906 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 907 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres. 908 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media. 909 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. 910 +{{/expandable}} 911 + 912 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 913 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment. 914 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity. 915 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**. 916 +{{/expandable}} 917 + 918 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 919 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**. 920 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**. 921 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men. 922 +{{/expandable}} 923 + 924 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 925 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]] 926 +{{/expandable}} 927 +{{/expandable}} 928 + 929 + 930 +{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}} 931 +**Source:** *Social Science Research* 932 +**Date of Publication:** *2009* 933 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie* 934 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"* 935 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004) 936 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy* 937 + 938 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 939 +1. **General Observations:** 940 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California. 941 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles. 942 + 943 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 944 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men. 945 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women. 946 + 947 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 948 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**. 949 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. 950 +{{/expandable}} 951 + 952 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 953 +1. **Primary Observations:** 954 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context. 955 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**. 956 + 957 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 958 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping. 959 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race. 960 + 961 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 962 + - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary. 963 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.** 964 +{{/expandable}} 965 + 966 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 967 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 968 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles. 969 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**. 970 + 971 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 972 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users. 973 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.** 974 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.** 975 + 976 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 977 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**. 978 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**. 979 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites. 980 +{{/expandable}} 981 + 982 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 983 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**. 984 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized. 985 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites. 986 +{{/expandable}} 987 + 988 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 989 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race. 990 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism. 991 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites. 992 +{{/expandable}} 993 + 994 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 995 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]] 996 +{{/expandable}} 997 +{{/expandable}} 998 + 999 + 1000 +{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}} 1001 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis* 1002 +**Date of Publication:** *2009* 1003 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*)) 1004 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"* 1005 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication* 1006 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* 1007 + 1008 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1009 +1. **General Observations:** 1010 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study. 1011 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex. 1012 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization. 1013 + 1014 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1015 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men. 1016 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order. 1017 + 1018 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1019 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture. 1020 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative. 1021 +{{/expandable}} 1022 + 1023 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1024 +1. **Primary Observations:** 1025 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**. 1026 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness. 1027 + 1028 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1029 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism. 1030 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism. 1031 + 1032 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1033 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression. 1034 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**. 1035 +{{/expandable}} 1036 + 1037 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1038 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1039 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon. 1040 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory. 1041 + 1042 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1043 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative. 1044 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish. 1045 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.” 1046 + 1047 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1048 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being. 1049 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**. 1050 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism. 1051 +{{/expandable}} 1052 + 1053 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1054 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**. 1055 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**. 1056 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance. 1057 +{{/expandable}} 1058 + 1059 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1060 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**. 1061 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men. 1062 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**. 1063 +{{/expandable}} 1064 + 1065 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1066 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]] 1067 +{{/expandable}} 1068 +{{/expandable}} 1069 + 1070 + 650 650 {{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} 651 651 **Source:** *JAMA Network Open* 652 652 **Date of Publication:** *2020* ... ... @@ -1122,66 +1122,206 @@ 1122 1122 1123 1123 = Whiteness & White Guilt = 1124 1124 1546 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}} 1547 +**Source:** *Psychological Science* 1548 +**Date of Publication:** *2014* 1549 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.* 1550 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"* 1551 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812) 1552 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning* 1553 + 1554 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1555 +1. **General Observations:** 1556 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test). 1557 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias. 1558 + 1559 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1560 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly. 1561 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**. 1562 + 1563 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1564 + - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective. 1565 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change. 1566 +{{/expandable}} 1567 + 1568 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1569 +1. **Primary Observations:** 1570 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors. 1571 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations. 1572 + 1573 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1574 + - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario. 1575 + - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness. 1576 + 1577 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1578 + - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias. 1579 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations. 1580 +{{/expandable}} 1581 + 1582 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1583 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1584 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types. 1585 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone. 1586 + 1587 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1588 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**. 1589 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups. 1590 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized. 1591 + 1592 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1593 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change. 1594 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups. 1595 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.” 1596 +{{/expandable}} 1597 + 1598 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1599 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**. 1600 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios. 1601 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies. 1602 +{{/expandable}} 1603 + 1604 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1605 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. 1606 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. 1607 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. 1608 +{{/expandable}} 1609 + 1610 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1611 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]] 1612 +{{/expandable}} 1613 +{{/expandable}} 1614 + 1615 + 1616 +{{expandable summary="Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}} 1617 +**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)* 1618 +**Date of Publication:** *2020* 1619 +**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg* 1620 +**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"* 1621 +**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517) 1622 +**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* 1623 + 1624 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1625 +1. **General Observations:** 1626 + - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**. 1627 + - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools. 1628 + 1629 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1630 + - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context. 1631 + - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**. 1632 + 1633 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1634 + - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy. 1635 + - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades. 1636 +{{/expandable}} 1637 + 1638 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1639 +1. **Primary Observations:** 1640 + - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. 1641 + - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students. 1642 + 1643 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1644 + - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions. 1645 + - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics. 1646 + 1647 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1648 + - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**. 1649 + - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects. 1650 +{{/expandable}} 1651 + 1652 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1653 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1654 + - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**. 1655 + - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials. 1656 + 1657 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1658 + - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples. 1659 + - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored. 1660 + 1661 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1662 + - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students. 1663 + - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact. 1664 +{{/expandable}} 1665 + 1666 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1667 +- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**. 1668 +- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic. 1669 +- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit. 1670 +{{/expandable}} 1671 + 1672 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1673 +1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**. 1674 +2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism. 1675 +3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children. 1676 +{{/expandable}} 1677 + 1678 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1679 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]] 1680 +{{/expandable}} 1681 +{{/expandable}} 1682 + 1683 + 1125 1125 {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} 1126 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* 1127 -**Date of Publication:** *2019* 1128 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* 1129 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"* 1130 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140) 1131 -**Subject Matter:** *Race andSports,HigherEducation,InstitutionalRacism*1685 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* 1686 +**Date of Publication:** *2019* 1687 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* 1688 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"* 1689 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140) 1690 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing* 1132 1132 1133 1133 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1134 1134 1. **General Observations:** 1135 - - Analyzed **47collegeathlete narratives**toexploreracial disparitiesinnon-revenue sports.1136 - - Found threeinterrelatedthemes:**racialsegregation, racialinnocence,andracialprotection**.1694 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports. 1695 + - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance. 1137 1137 1138 1138 2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1139 - - **Predominantlywhitesportsprograms**reinforcecialhierarchies incollegethletics.1140 - - **Recruitment policiesfavor white athletes**from affluent,suburbanbackgrounds.1698 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**. 1699 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**. 1141 1141 1142 1142 3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1143 - - White athletes are **socializedtoremainunawareofracialprivilege** intheir athleticcareers.1144 - - Mediaand institutionalnarrativesprotectwhite athletesfromdiscussionsonraceandsystemicequities.1702 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome. 1703 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria. 1145 1145 {{/expandable}} 1146 1146 1147 1147 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1148 1148 1. **Primary Observations:** 1149 - - Colleges **activelyrecruit whiteathletes**frommajority-whitecommunities.1150 - - Inst itutionalpolicies**upholdwhiteness**by failingto challengeracialbiasesinrecruitment andteam culture.1708 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness". 1709 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball. 1151 1151 1152 1152 2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1153 - - **White athletesshowlimited awareness**of theirracial advantagein sports.1154 - - ** Black athletesareoverrepresented**inrevenue-generatingsportsbutnderrepresentedinnon-revenue teams.1712 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**. 1713 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration. 1155 1155 1156 1156 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1157 - - Examines**howsportsserveas a mechanismformaintainingracialprivilege** inhighereducation.1158 - - Discussesthe**roleofathleticsinreinforcingsystemicsegregation andexclusion**.1716 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes. 1717 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race. 1159 1159 {{/expandable}} 1160 1160 1161 1161 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1162 1162 1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1163 - - **Comprehensivequalitative analysis** of race incollege sports.1164 - - Examines **institutionalconditions**thatsustain racial disparitiesinathletics.1722 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect. 1723 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants. 1165 1165 1166 1166 2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1167 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions. 1168 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics. 1726 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation. 1727 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity. 1728 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context. 1169 1169 1170 1170 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1171 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**. 1172 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**. 1731 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit. 1732 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead. 1733 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically. 1173 1173 {{/expandable}} 1174 1174 1175 1175 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1176 -- Providesevidenceof**systemic racialbiases**incollegesports recruitment.1177 -- Highlights **how institutionalpoliciesprotect whiteness**in non-revenueathletics.1178 -- Supports researchon**diversity,equity,andinclusion(DEI)effortsinsportsandeducation**.1737 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved. 1738 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists. 1739 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics). 1179 1179 {{/expandable}} 1180 1180 1181 1181 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1182 -1. Investigate how**racial stereotypesinfluencecollegeathleterecruitment**.1183 -2. Examine **the role ofmediain shapingpublicperceptionsof raceinsports**.1184 -3. Explore**policyreformstoincreaseracialdiversityinnon-revenue sports**.1743 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation. 1744 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**. 1745 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**. 1185 1185 {{/expandable}} 1186 1186 1187 1187 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} ... ... @@ -1189,66 +1189,70 @@ 1189 1189 {{/expandable}} 1190 1190 {{/expandable}} 1191 1191 1753 + 1192 1192 {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} 1193 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* 1194 -**Date of Publication:** *2016* 1195 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt a, M. Norman Oliver*1755 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* 1756 +**Date of Publication:** *2016* 1757 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* 1196 1196 **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"* 1197 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) 1198 -**Subject Matter:** * HealthDisparities, RacialBias,Medical Treatment*1759 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) 1760 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias* 1199 1199 1200 1200 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1201 1201 1. **General Observations:** 1202 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**. 1203 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals. 1764 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**. 1765 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**. 1766 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**. 1204 1204 1205 1205 2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1206 - - **50% of medical studentssurveyed endorsed at least one false belief aboutbiologicaldifferences**.1207 - - Participants whoheldthese false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’painlevels**.1769 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings). 1770 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**. 1208 1208 1209 1209 3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1210 - - **Black patients were lesslikely toreceive appropriatepaintreatment**compared towhitepatients.1211 - - The studyconfirmedthat**historicalmisconceptionsabout racialdifferences stillpersistn modernmedicine**.1773 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience. 1774 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data. 1212 1212 {{/expandable}} 1213 1213 1214 1214 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1215 1215 1. **Primary Observations:** 1216 - - False b eliefs about biologicalracialdifferences**correlate with racial disparitiesin paintreatment**.1217 - - Medical students andesidentswhoendorsed thesebeliefs**showedgreaterracialbias intreatment recommendations**.1779 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment. 1780 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases. 1218 1218 1219 1219 2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1220 - - Physicians who**didnotendorsethesebeliefs**showed**noracial bias** intreatmentrecommendations.1221 - - Biaswas**strongestamongfirst-yearmedical students** anddecreasedslightly inlateryearsoftraining.1783 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**. 1784 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**. 1222 1222 1223 1223 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1224 - - Study participants**underestimatedBlackpatients'painandrecommendedlesseffectivepaintreatments**.1225 - - The study suggeststhat**racialdisparitiesinmedicalcarestem,inpart, from theseenduringfalsebeliefs**.1787 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care. 1788 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them. 1226 1226 {{/expandable}} 1227 1227 1228 1228 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1229 1229 1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1230 - - **First empirical study to connect falseracialeliefswith medicaldecision-making**.1231 - - Utilizesa **largesample ofmedicalstudentsandresidents** from diverseinstitutions.1793 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**. 1794 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**. 1232 1232 1233 1233 2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1234 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored. 1235 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**. 1797 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health. 1798 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study. 1799 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**. 1236 1236 1237 1237 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1238 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**. 1239 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**. 1802 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework. 1803 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest. 1804 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing. 1240 1240 {{/expandable}} 1241 1241 1242 1242 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1243 -- Highlights **racialdisparities inhealthcare**,specifically inpain assessmentand treatment.1244 -- Supports **researchonimplicitbiasanditsimpactonmedicaloutcomes**.1245 -- Provides evidencefor **theneedtoaddressracialbiasin medicaleducation**.1808 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. 1809 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”** 1810 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. 1246 1246 {{/expandable}} 1247 1247 1248 1248 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1249 -1. Investigate **interventionstoreduceracial biasinmedical decision-making**.1250 -2. Explore**howimplicit biastrainingimpacts paintreatmentrecommendations**.1251 -3. Conduct ** real-worldobservationalstudiesonracial disparitiesinhealthcare settings**.1814 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. 1815 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. 1816 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. 1252 1252 {{/expandable}} 1253 1253 1254 1254 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} ... ... @@ -1256,6 +1256,7 @@ 1256 1256 {{/expandable}} 1257 1257 {{/expandable}} 1258 1258 1824 + 1259 1259 {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} 1260 1260 **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* 1261 1261 **Date of Publication:** *2015* ... ... @@ -1324,72 +1324,75 @@ 1324 1324 {{/expandable}} 1325 1325 1326 1326 {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}} 1327 -**Source:** * Journal of Ethnicand MigrationStudies*1328 -**Date of Publication:** *2023* 1329 -**Author(s):** * Maurice Crul, FransLelie,Elif Keskiner,LaureMichon,IsminthaWaldring*1330 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* 1331 -**DOI:** [10.10 80/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)1332 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, MigrationStudies, Integration*1893 +**Source:** *Urban Studies* 1894 +**Date of Publication:** *2023* 1895 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar* 1896 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* 1897 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057) 1898 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics* 1333 1333 1334 1334 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1335 1335 1. **General Observations:** 1336 - - Studyexaminestheoleof **peoplewithoutmigrationbackground** in majority-minoritycities.1337 - - Analyzes **over3,000surveyresponsesand150 in-depthinterviews** fromsix North-WesternEuropean cities.1902 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities. 1903 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”. 1338 1338 1339 1339 2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1340 - - Exploresdifferencesin**integration,social interactions,and perceptions of diversity**.1341 - - Studiesow**class,education,andneighborhoodcomposition** affectdaptation tourbandiversity.1906 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony. 1907 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change”. 1342 1342 1343 1343 3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1344 - - The studyintroduces the**Becominga Minority (BaM) project**,a large-scaleinvestigationof urbandemographicshifts.1345 - - **Peoplewithoutmigration background perceive diversitydifferently**,withsome embracingandothersresistingchange.1910 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”** 1911 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics. 1346 1346 {{/expandable}} 1347 1347 1348 1348 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1349 1349 1. **Primary Observations:** 1350 - - Thetudy**challengestraditional integrationtheories**,arguingthatnon-migrantgroupsalsoundergoadaptationprocesses.1351 - - Some residents**strugglewithdemographicchanges**,while othersee diversityasansset.1916 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”** 1917 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary. 1352 1352 1353 1353 2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1354 - - Young, educatedindividuals inurban areas**aremoreopentoculturaldiversity**.1355 - - Olderand less mobileresidents **reportfeelings ofdisplacementandsocial isolation**.1920 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.** 1921 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of “invisible boundary-making.” 1356 1356 1357 1357 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1358 - - Examineshow**peoplewithout migrationbackgroundnavigatemajority-minoritysettings**incitieslike Amsterdam and Vienna.1359 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnicmajoritygroups now perceivethemselves asminorities**.1924 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.” 1925 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.** 1360 1360 {{/expandable}} 1361 1361 1362 1362 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1363 1363 1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1364 - - **Innovativepproach**byexamining theimpactof migrationon native populations.1365 - - Uses **both qualitativeandquantitativedata**forrobustanalysis.1930 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.** 1931 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.** 1366 1366 1367 1367 2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1368 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions. 1369 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**. 1934 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites. 1935 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers. 1936 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent. 1370 1370 1371 1371 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1372 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally. 1373 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**. 1939 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.** 1940 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith. 1941 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.** 1374 1374 {{/expandable}} 1375 1375 1376 1376 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1377 -- Providesa**newperspective onurbanintegration**,shiftingfocusfrom migrants tonative-bornpopulations.1378 -- Highlightsthe**roleofsocialand economicpowerinshapingurbandiversityoutcomes**.1379 -- Challenges existing **assimilationtheoriesbyshowing bidirectionaladaptationn diversecities**.1945 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life. 1946 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.** 1947 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.** 1380 1380 {{/expandable}} 1381 1381 1382 1382 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1383 -1. Study h ow**local policiesshape attitudestowardurbandiversity**.1384 -2. Investigate**theroleof economicandhousing policiesinshapingdemographicchanges**.1385 -3. Explore **howsocialnetworks influenceperceptionsofmigrationanddiversity**.1951 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. 1952 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones. 1953 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. 1386 1386 {{/expandable}} 1387 1387 1388 1388 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1389 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.10 80_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]1957 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]] 1390 1390 {{/expandable}} 1391 1391 {{/expandable}} 1392 1392 1961 + 1393 1393 = Media = 1394 1394 1395 1395 {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}} ... ... @@ -1594,107 +1594,235 @@ 1594 1594 {{/expandable}} 1595 1595 1596 1596 {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}} 1597 -Source: ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademy of Sciences (PNAS)1598 -Date of Publication: February20,20241599 -Author(s): JuliaDianaLenk,JochenHartmann,HenrikSattler2166 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research 2167 +Date of Publication: 2022 2168 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim 1600 1600 Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis" 1601 -DOI: 10. 1073/pnas.23075051211602 -Subject Matter: Advertising, Rac e,ConsumerBehavior,Meta-Analysis2170 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028 2171 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts 1603 1603 1604 1604 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1605 1605 1606 - Study Scale:2175 +**General Observations:** 1607 1607 1608 - 62studies,332 effectsizes,10,186participants (Black andWhiteAmericans).2177 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. 1609 1609 1610 - Covers theperiod1956–2022.2179 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences. 1611 1611 1612 - Cohen’sd Effect Sizes(Model-Free):2181 +**Subgroup Analysis:** 1613 1613 1614 - Black viewers:d=0.50 →strong,consistentingrouppreferencefor Black models.2183 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers. 1615 1615 1616 - Whiteviewers:d=–0.08overall;pre-2000:d=–0.16(ingroup); post-2000:d= +0.02 (outgroupleaning).2185 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones. 1617 1617 1618 - RegressionFindings:2187 +**Other Significant Data Points:** 1619 1619 1620 - White viewers’preferenceforBlack modelsincreasesby ~0.0128 d/yearce 1956 (p < 0.05).2189 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation. 1621 1621 1622 -By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers. 1623 - 1624 -Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years. 2191 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation. 1625 1625 {{/expandable}} 1626 1626 1627 1627 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1628 1628 1629 -Primary Observations: 2196 +**Primary Observations:** 1630 1630 1631 - Ingroupfavoritism is evident:BlackviewersconsistentlypreferBlackendorsers.2198 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. 1632 1632 1633 - Whiteviewers’preferences haveshifted significantlyovertimetoward favoringBlackendorsers.2200 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres. 1634 1634 1635 - TemporalTrends:2202 +**Subgroup Trends:** 1636 1636 1637 - Turningpoint: Around2002–2003,Whiteviewers beganshowing a positive(thoughsmall)preferenceforBlackendorsers.2204 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades. 1638 1638 1639 - ModeratorEffects:2206 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends. 1640 1640 1641 - Low anti-Blackprejudice and low White ethnic identificationcorrelatewith greater White preference for Black endorsers.2208 +**Specific Case Analysis:** 1642 1642 1643 - Economichardship(e.g.,highunemployment)slightlyreduces WhitepreferenceforBlackendorsers.2210 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives. 1644 1644 1645 -Identification Model: 1646 - 1647 -Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness). 2212 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations. 1648 1648 {{/expandable}} 1649 1649 1650 1650 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1651 1651 1652 -Strengths of the Study: 2217 +**Strengths of the Study:** 1653 1653 1654 -L ongest-runningmeta-analysison interracialpreferencesinadvertising.2219 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. 1655 1655 1656 - Includes multilevelmodelingand21 meta-analyticcovariates.2221 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure. 1657 1657 1658 - Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controlsforpublicationbias.2223 +**Limitations of the Study:** 1659 1659 1660 - Limitations:2225 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed. 1661 1661 1662 - OnlyexaminesBlack andWhite racialdynamics—doesn’tcoverHispanic, Asian,ormultiracialgroups.2227 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising. 1663 1663 1664 - 72% ofeffectsizesarefromstudentsamples(notfullygeneralizable).2229 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts. 1665 1665 1666 -S ocial desirability biasmay affect lab-basedresponses.2231 +**Suggestions for Improvement:** 1667 1667 1668 - SuggestionsforImprovement:2233 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance. 1669 1669 1670 - Includefieldexperimentsand morerepresentativesamples(age,class, ideology).2235 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection. 1671 1671 1672 -Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown. 1673 - 1674 -Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations. 2237 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages. 1675 1675 {{/expandable}} 1676 1676 1677 1677 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1678 1678 1679 - Providesempiricalsupportforthe dynamicshiftinWhiteAmericanattitudesovertime.2242 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. 1680 1680 1681 - Directlyinformsdiscussionsaboutmediaentation,consumerbehavior,andracialidentity.2244 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” 1682 1682 1683 - Supportspolicy andcommercialargumentsforincludingmorediversemodelsinadvertising.2246 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation. 1684 1684 {{/expandable}} 1685 1685 1686 1686 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1687 1687 1688 - ExpandanalysistoLatino,Asian,andmultiracialmodels inmedia.2251 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. 1689 1689 1690 - Study real-world(non-lab)consumer reactionsoracialdiversity indvertising.2253 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. 1691 1691 1692 -Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education). 2255 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising. 2256 +{{/expandable}} 1693 1693 1694 -Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions. 2258 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 2259 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] 1695 1695 {{/expandable}} 2261 +{{/expandable}} 1696 1696 2263 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}} 2264 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication* 2265 +**Date of Publication:** *2020* 2266 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee* 2267 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"* 2268 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032) 2269 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations* 2270 + 2271 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 2272 +1. **General Observations:** 2273 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**. 2274 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites). 2275 + 2276 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 2277 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news. 2278 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”. 2279 + 2280 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 2281 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**. 2282 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**. 2283 +{{/expandable}} 2284 + 2285 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 2286 +1. **Primary Observations:** 2287 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact. 2288 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias. 2289 + 2290 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 2291 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning. 2292 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**. 2293 + 2294 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 2295 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships. 2296 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society. 2297 +{{/expandable}} 2298 + 2299 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 2300 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 2301 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling. 2302 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact. 2303 + 2304 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 2305 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias. 2306 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash. 2307 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”. 2308 + 2309 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 2310 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**. 2311 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers. 2312 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging. 2313 +{{/expandable}} 2314 + 2315 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 2316 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact. 2317 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus. 2318 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected. 2319 +{{/expandable}} 2320 + 2321 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 2322 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. 2323 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. 2324 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. 2325 +{{/expandable}} 2326 + 1697 1697 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1698 -[[Download Full Study>>attach: lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf]]2328 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] 1699 1699 {{/expandable}} 1700 1700 {{/expandable}} 2331 + 2332 + 2333 +{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} 2334 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication* 2335 +**Date of Publication:** *2018* 2336 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* 2337 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"* 2338 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021) 2339 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation* 2340 + 2341 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 2342 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study. 2343 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including: 2344 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes” 2345 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race 2346 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact 2347 + 2348 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent. 2349 +{{/expandable}} 2350 + 2351 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 2352 +1. **Primary Observations:** 2353 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups. 2354 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context. 2355 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations. 2356 + 2357 +2. **Subgroup Trends:** 2358 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”). 2359 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias. 2360 + 2361 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 2362 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively. 2363 +{{/expandable}} 2364 + 2365 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 2366 +1. **Strengths of the Study:** 2367 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception. 2368 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon. 2369 + 2370 +2. **Limitations of the Study:** 2371 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**. 2372 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality. 2373 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values). 2374 + 2375 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 2376 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity. 2377 + - Needs empirical validation of claims. 2378 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity. 2379 +{{/expandable}} 2380 + 2381 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 2382 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance. 2383 +- Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth. 2384 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation. 2385 +{{/expandable}} 2386 + 2387 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 2388 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites? 2389 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest? 2390 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it? 2391 +{{/expandable}} 2392 + 2393 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 2394 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]] 2395 +{{/expandable}} 2396 +{{/expandable}} 2397 +
- Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +472.9 KB - Content
- lai2014.pdf
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +15.4 MB - Content