A/HRC/14/18 colonialism. Because the collective memory reproduced those stereotypes and prejudices, teaching the history of people of African descent was of critical importance, reported the Chair. That was not a question of the past, but an issue of the present. She added that the issue of power was central to structural discrimination. A racist discourse perpetuated by the media led to prejudice becoming so-called “common sense”. 55. In terms of devising a strategy to address structural discrimination, Ms. Najcevska stated that addressing individual cases in court alone would not solve the problem. Instead, the depth and breadth of the problem needed to be made visible through statistical presentations of disaggregated data. Secondly, the heavy burden of the past needed to be recognized. Thirdly, States had to recognize their own responsibility and introduce special measures to address structural discrimination as a phenomenon that negatively impacted an entire community. At the same time, disaggregated data had to be put into context as it could be easily misused or misinterpreted, a point with which several observers agreed. 56. One NGO observer noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was planning a seminar in Brazil on the collection of disaggregated data, ahead of the upcoming census in that region.3 The Chair of the Working Group stated that she would be representing the Working Group at the seminar. 57. Mr. Sicilianos noted that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination systematically solicited disaggregated data from States, but cautioned that some European countries were reluctant to collect such data because of privacy issues, while some African countries feared disaggregated data collection could disrupt the social fabric of their societies. It was the role of the Working Group to propose strategies that could help States overcome conceptual and political objections to disaggregated data collection and analysis. 58. One observer responded that States had made a commitment to eradicating racial discrimination and that data was collected in many other spheres of life. 59. One NGO observer, on the subject of objections to data collection, stated that disaggregated data collection was no more an invasion of privacy than asking people for their name or gender. She suggested that the reluctance of certain States to collect data was rooted in the fact that they did not wish the disparities to become visible and then be forced to address them. 60. Several observers called for a future session of the Working Group to be dedicated to the issue of data collection. 61. One NGO observer cautioned against overestimating the potential of disaggregated data. Some countries, like the United States, had elaborate disaggregated statistics, yet the gap had widened rather than lessened. Statistics, he noted, was one thing, but the political will to close the gap was equally important. 62. Mr. Makanaky pointed to the following limitations of disaggregated data collection: first, the picture they presented was not comprehensive, but fragmented in substance and in time; second, resistance and sabotage by key civil servants responsible for collecting and analysing the data could impact the manner in which data were collected and the outcome. He further made the point that the asymmetry between racial groups had accumulated incrementally over generations and that differentiation needed to be considered as a necessary phase to achieve equity. 3 10 “Data collection and the use of indicators to promote and monitor racial equality and nondiscrimination: seminar for the Americas” to be held from 3 to 5 May, 2010 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.