Child Abuse, Racism, and Counter-culture

Here is an example of a raced body and a cultural practice that we denounce in our society being pinned on racial groups. For Dyer, this image reinforces the notion that white is the 'norm' or 'typical' view of our society, and that such a practice is pinned on heritage (unjustly, but present none the less). But what is it that really forces us to describe this as such? In this case, the boy is wearing a polo shirt reminiscent of a school uniform, and a simple chain that looks like the kind one would wear to hold their school ID in primary schooling. So we aren't looking at a classed body necessarily, as usually a school uniform is more mandatory in private schools, so the only thing that sets the boy apart from the 'norm' is that he's beaten, and his skin is slightly dark. It's almost impossible to pin a definite heritage to the body by looking at the picture, whether on purpose or not, and forces us to just assume 'foreign' based on the white norm Dyer so describes.

So what are we saying? That foreign peoples with darker skin beat their children, and the practice will just perpetuate? What about all of the immigration into the US in the last century? This ad is designed to target the 'white norm' individual and attempt to push them into action to protect children based on their own selfish need to prevent a practice from spreading. Let us never forget though before we go further that this pertains almost primarily to the United States. Other countries have different laws, culture, and practices that 'intervention' cannot come from the outside, but must come from their own, as so states the modern theories on economic and anthropological development.

Now lets analyze this a little differently, with some background information and actual research done on the topic. First off, according to childhelp.org, 78% of child abuse is recorded as neglect. Not a bleeding lip, ruffled hair and color, but neglect. In fact, only 10% of child abuse even relates to physical abuse. According to the childwellfare.gov annual report, 44% of child abuse comes from people who associate as white. This backs up Dyer and his theories on white 'norm' (as it should, given that of the readings Dyer has the best tested theories); it's more 'normal' for 'whites' to beat their children!

But in our day and age, how do we really classify individuals anymore? Educated environments disprove most theories on differences between peoples with different amounts of melanin in their skin. "Racism" as it was known through the 20th century is only bred into socially isolated, uneducated groups in modern society. If we know that the difference of skin does not indicate intellect, ability, or any judgments, what is the first thing we turn to (being our heavily visual selves?). Clothing! Discrimination no longer comes from a skin color, but how you dress and what you wear. People associate with those who look and talk similar to they do, and thus a person in a suit will probably be, so to speak, 'racist' against someone wearing shoddy, ripped clothes and vice-versa, but the color of skin hardly matters anymore.

Thus, advertisements such as this one do horrible justice to what we consider in a modern society, and falsely represent the direction of cultural norms as we know them in our day and age. I had to page through five pages of images to find the first image of a non-white child being shown for child abuse, which supports not only the government census of child abuse but also provides evidence for the theory that our cultural norms are changing for a more accurate representation of what actually occurs in our society.