Without question our country has a prevalent de facto race problem.

De facto racism is particularly insidious because it often occurs without conscious acknowledgment, and certainly without official sanction. (Officially sanctioned racism defines de jure racism which characterized our state-of-affairs prior to civil rights legislation.) When institutionally based de jure racism ended, however, de facto racism (racism in fact) remained. Numerous studies have demonstrated how widespread this form of racism is. Remarkably, studies is racist discrimination show it to be much more common than people generally regard themselves to be. For the most part, people believe themselves to be non racist or even "colorblind." Patently bigoted views are rare compared to observed race-based discrimination. What appears to be the case is a conscious affirmation of openness and tolerance toward people of a different race. Unconsciously, however, many people will subtly discriminate against the person who is of a different race. It's as if race were a silent cue for one to either "approach or avoid." But given the cue is silent, an unconsciously regarded stimulus, the person can be observed blatantly discriminating and yet tell you with a straight-face that they harbor no racist point-of-view. And, in fact, consciously they appear not to! One avenue of interpreting this disconnect between how people view themselves as non-racist and the observed discrimination that actually takes place, is to explore a deeper seated cognitive mechanism at play than just racial discrimination. This deeper seated mechanism is xenophobia (the fear of strangers). It has been observed that xenophobic behaviors occur early in childhood, in what appears to be a natural cognitive aside to the child learning that people within the world are indeed different; only a few are truly "known" and only one is mom (or mom for practical purposes). A child who has learned this social demarcation can be observed displaying classic xenophobic responses: they'll run for what is safe (typically mom), they will avoid interactions with strangers and strive to remain in a zone of maternal safety. Fortunately, this period of childhood passes and the typical child will learn to live and thrive in both kinds of social worlds the family and with others apart from the family. Though the xenophobia appears to be overcome, perhaps the learned response of anxiety towards strangers somehow remains "hardwired" within the brain. After all, the response is learned in an early, formative stage of development. Once learned, one does not easily forget, particularly if the learned behavior is fraught with anxiety and fear. In later life perhaps the xenophobic response still resides unconsciously. On the outside a cosmopolitan persona will be on display; our xenophobic (reactionary) selves, on the other hand, may be acknowledging environmental stranger cues and quietly employing escape and avoidance strategies that were learned early in life. The xenophobic responses, of course, are silently executed so as not to upset the ever so diplomatic persona with its ever so cosmopolitan point-of-view. One environmental cue, very easily recognized by our "unconscious reactionary" is race. To our reactionary selves a differing race is clearly a stranger cue, a cue that calls forth, subjectively - fear and anxiety, objectively - escape and avoidance. Remarkably, the reactionary has its way. More remarkably still, it has its way without being noticed by the person who has just executed a race-based act of discrimination!

Properly, however, the foregoing is not racism in its essence; it is xenophobia. Race just happens to be one kind of stranger cue. There are, of course, others: people with turbans is certainly a stranger cue for those who do not wear them, as are people who may display a differing lifestyle - homosexual pride perhaps.... Race is very obviously a stranger cue to our reactionary self. No thinking is required: a person with a different skin color is, by definition, a stranger as far as our reactionary self is concerned. A differing race is highly susceptible to being regarded as a stranger cue because the trait is permanent and distinctive; the reactionary self can make quick and easy demarcations. By viewing our de facto race problem as primarily a problem of xenophobia instead of as racism per se, we may be able to delve a little deeper into the issue. The problem of xenophobia is serious, and in many respects more difficult of a problem to address. If xenophobia is to some extent hardwired in the brain, then one can argue that such a noxious trait is "natural" and "normal" when one is exposed to others of a different race. This, of course, is not an optimistic assessment of humanity: naturally occurring cues that stimulate naturally occurring racist responses! On the other hand, if we regard de facto racism as primarily a naturally occurring xenophobic response, we may at least know what we are up against and thus strive for a more insightful interpretation of the whole issue. Biology, after all, is not destiny. But by accepting biology as a certain vector in the shaping of our demeanor, we may better understand and change ourselves. We may prove to be better change-agents by accepting our noxious proclivities toward xenophobia given that such a disposition will no longer need to be regarded as a "chosen" path on the part of the xenophobe. By recognizing the reactionary self in all of us, we can approach the problem much more diplomatically. One is almost sure of a defensive reaction if another is accused of perpetuating racism when, in fact, they absolutely believe that the charge is unfounded. Their conscious attitude, remember, is not reactionary; it is open and cosmopolitan. Their response will be either denial, or they will shell up for fear they will be seen as "politically incorrect" if they dare defend themselves against the charge. Much stronger the case, perhaps, if the xenophobe (which is all of us to a degree) is alerted to the intrinsic disposition of the xenophobic trait, whereby racism is only but an example, albeit a pervasive one. If the notion is accepted as being a part of human nature, as say, a response to cold weather is shivering, we may get somewhere. This approach can be particularly useful for children. Children are more instructive to "sensitivity training" than are adults, who may feel such instruction to be condescending. As to the bigot, all the foregoing is not applicable. The bigot, in contrast to the xenophobe, "elects" for one reason or another to amplify his/her xenophobic tendencies into some sort of social message. For the bigot, the reactionary is embraced and consciously affirmed. Indeed, the bigot actively seeks opportunities to reinforce the adhered-to message. Occasionally this reinforced message may develop into a full-blown ideology, replete with organizational hierarchies, rituals, validating literature, etc.... When such development occurs, the pedagogic tactic of xenophobic awareness will be thoroughly eschewed. It is likely that such an approach will somehow be regarded as evidence of political mischievousness. For the bigot, then, nothing short of an epiphany can rectify their absurd views. Fortunately, our society's population is not characterized with high numbers of bigoted people. Unfortunately, their views are widely heard. People are intrigued by extremist views just as they are by tabloid journalism. A free

democracy, of course, allows this sort of expression - as it rightly should. An educated polity, hopefully, can generally regard such views as the nonsense it is and not be tempted to employ such dogma as necessarily evidence of a thoroughly racist society. The best antidote for bigotry, perhaps, is not to be unduly alarmed by it. This only seems to give such views undue legitimacy. As for xenophobia, on the other hand, the tactic must be the opposite: we need to make explicit what is generally implicit. The non-pathological forms of xenophobia are extremely common, as common as smiles and frowns. We need to consciously recognize this very human trait, accept its existence, acknowledge its adverse impacts, and then affirmatively change our xenophobic responses as they pertain to race.