Anti-Racism Test for Whites Only Fails Most Users

Anti-Racism Test for Whites Only Fails Most Users

A questionnaire designed by American researchers to measure racism among the white population has resurfaced with force on Spanish forums. The result is nearly unanimous: those who answer honestly are portrayed as racists, while those who respond ironically boast of achieving a hundred percent. The test, named by its authors as the scale of general, socio-historical, and perpetual foreigner racism, starts from a premise that many readers dispute: that racism is an attitude exclusive to whites towards non-whites. Based on this, the questionnaire does not measure if one is racist, but how guilty one feels about being so.

What the test measures exactly and why it angers those who take it

The instrument, developed by researchers Liang, Li, and Kim, breaks down racism into four scales: general, socio-historical, perpetual foreigner, and total. The questions address everything from racial stereotypes to the belief that non-whites are less advanced than whites, including the idea that they will never truly become Western. Up to here, the theory. The problem arises when the Spanish reader encounters questions about accents on US television or minority representation in Hollywood, contexts that feel light-years away.

"I think the test is crap, but nonetheless...", summarizes one of the first comments. Another dismisses it in two lines: "I didn't get past the second question. A test to detect if you're retarded.". The most repeated complaint is not that the test is difficult, but that it is designed so that any answer makes you a racist. "If you answer logically, you are definitely a racist," argues a participant who gives a concrete example: if 95% of the non-whites you have met speak Spanish poorly, how are you supposed to answer a question about accents?

Origin bias: only whites can be racist

The most repeated criticism points to the very design of the questionnaire. "The test only considers whites to be racist," summarizes a comment which adds that anyone who has traveled to Asia or the Middle East knows this is not true. The accusation has basis: the instrument relies on the premises of critical race theory, which, in the words of another participant, equates to "a feminist test based on the postulates of intersectional radical feminism."

The argument is reinforced with examples of racism among minorities. "The Chinese people I've known are a thousand times more racist than the standard white man," states a comment, adding that many Latin Americans are "hyper-racist among themselves." The conclusion drawn from several messages is that the test does not describe reality, but rather constrains it in a single direction: the guilt of the white man.

Results: from zero percent to absolute full marks

The results shared by participants range from mockery to vindication. Some boast of a zero percent in the four scales, others stay at 52% and lament "cowering," and some directly celebrate having reached 100% in all categories. One participant ironizes that their result is that of someone who "started CO2 tank engines in Treblinka," and another assures that "I can still improve."

The recurring joke is treating the test like a video game: "those are beginner numbers," "those numbers need improving." Behind the joke lies a political position: if the test is going to call you a racist anyway, better to be one with pride. "You have to smash these tests correctly," declares a comment claiming to have scored 83%, 100%, 100%, and 94%.

Suspicion regarding the questionnaire's origin

According to several messages, the test comes from the University of Santa Barbara, in California. "Full of rich snobs and whiteys, you don't see a damn black person, Moor, or Chicano even by chance," criticizes a participant who adds that "USA is screwed up by the complexes they carry around." The irony is evident: an instrument designed to measure white racism comes from an environment where, according to these criticisms, there is barely any real diversity.

Another message points to a fundamental problem: "The West is not a homogeneous entity." The example given is the colonization of North America versus the Spanish one: "the Anglo-Saxons devastated North America," while "Spaniards paired up with indigenous women, formed families with them, and turned them into Spaniards with full rights." The conclusion is that the test lumps together incompatible historical realities.

The question the test doesn't answer: what about everyone else?

The debate shifts to a broader issue: if racism is universal, why is it only measured in one direction? "Any race in the world can be racist towards others," argues a comment comparing the attitude to "every mother believing her child is the most handsome." Another participant proposes that a xenophobia test would be more interesting because "deep down everyone is, since it's normal to distrust anyone coming from outside."

Some go further and vindicate racism as a form of conservation: "being racist is being conservative: conserving your lineage, your blood, your phenotype, your environment, your culture, your race, your language, your people, your homeland." This is the most extreme position appearing, coexisting with others that simply demand symmetry: "whites are not allowed to conserve their race and culture," whereas "all other races in the world have that right."

The test as a symptom of an era

Beyond the specific questionnaire, several messages point to a broader phenomenon: the conversion of anti-racism into a test of ideological loyalty. "Today, if you don't suck off the immigrant, you're already a racist," summarizes a comment. Another recalls a prejudice test taken at their company: the first question was "do you consider yourself a prejudiced person?" and answering yes was mandatory to continue. "If you got it wrong, you had to repeat the entire section," they recount.

The anecdote illustrates the mechanism: the test does not seek to measure, but to confirm. "The purpose of the test is not to obtain a descriptive result," notes a participant. In practice, the result is that a questionnaire designed to detect racism ends up generating a competition to see who gets the highest score, as if it were an achievement. "That 90% worries me highly," writes someone between joking and concern.

The test will continue circulating. And it will continue measuring what it measures: each person's willingness to feel guilty. With these elements, the discussion about actual racism—the kind that exists in all directions—remains, once again, unaddressed.