Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Both end up disliking the other.

    
    
    ...doesn't one side already believe, that the other side didn't like
    them to begin with? 
    
    Does the side  doing the accusing, use the same prejudice they are
    accusing the other side of i.e.
    
      Purple persons says  " All orange people are the reason we suffer".?
                            
      Is personal freedom and equaltiy only possible when you first stop
    asking for it ?
    
    David  
    
                          

.0> What is the effect of  one race/gender  blaming/exposing another
.0> race/gender for alleged wrongs?
    
    The effect is racial/gender division.
    
    When you blame people for things just because of their race or sex,
    you alienate them.

    Polarization.  As long as the fingers are pointing, no common 
    ground can be found.  I also find that when group A puts down
    group B for a particular behavior, look closely enough and all
    except group A will find that group A is also guilty of what
    they accuse group B.
    Christine

    
    well, polarization can definitely happen.
    
    If the purples state the oranges are opressing or wronging them, then
    the oranges will definitely be unhappy.
    
    There are two things available for the oranges to do:
    
    1. Listen for any truth, and if there is act to correct it.
    2. Ignore any possible truth and pretend nothing is wrong and the
    		purples are just scaring up trouble.
    
    There are two things available for the purples to do:
    
    1. State their case as clearly as possible, adding as much information,
    		proof, data, or background as they can, and if the
    		opportunity arises for changing the situation be open
    		to the possibility of doing so.
    
    2. State their case in as heated a way as possible and ignore any
    		attempts on the side of the oranges to listen or
    		change things for the better.
    
    
    -Jody
    

    too true Jody.  Unfortunately, with hot topics, in my experience,
    the behavior is too much like both your number 2 scenarios.

    
    Jody,
    
      Good points.
    
     What do the oranges do when the purples begin to expose some truths(and
    oranges respond n good faith), but then the purples take advantage of
    it and claim to much, or blame to much, on the oranges. 
    
      Oranges pay for purples college education.
      Purples drop out at a high rate.
      Oranges confront the purples with this.
      Purples blame there failure on the oranges, because, the oranges
    uprooted the purples which in turn destroyed there family base.
    
      The oranges begin to get the feeling that the purples are becoming
    experts at blaming others, as opposed to taking personal responsiblity.
    
    thanks for your replies,
    David(an orange :-) ) 

    The purples in your college example are doing what most people are best
    at, i.e., shifting the blame.  It is always easier on one's own psyche
    to believe that the fault in any given interpersonal situation lies
    with the other person or persons.  Admitting one's fault to oneself is
    not an easy thing for anyone.
    
    	"You broke my toy car."
    	"Well, it's your fault, you know.  You should have kept it locked
    up if it was so precious."
    
    	"My contest entry was late.  Why didn't you mail it sooner?"
    	"It's not my fault!  If it was so important to you, why didn't you
    mail it yourself?"
    
    	"You aquas had no right to beat up that bunch of lavenders."
    	"It's the lavenders' fault; they shouldn't have been at the
    stadium."
    
    And on and on and on.

   It seems that there is a good possibility that Oranges might real
   soon start blaming the Greens across the sea for all their problems.

   Or the browns or the yellows or the....

   Nobody has a monopoly on blaming others for their problems....Remember that
   everybody does it. It all depends on how miserable you are.

   

    
    
    -1
    
      Agreed,but, we do have control over the amount of appeasment we offer
    the purples here in this country. We must become competitive again.
    This requires all the oars(sp) in the water pulling to the same drum
    beat. In the past when the oranges ruled, or rather dominated the
    workforce, we were more productive as a nation. Now with the
    introduction of criterias other than "best over all" hiring practices,
    we have fallen short. I do not mean to suggest that the oranges are
    incapable of being the best. I do suggest that they come into the game
    (lets say golf) with a healthy handicap. If we use a marathon race as
    an analogy what I mean may be more clear.
    
           Many orange and purple people are at the starting blocks
          of a 10k race Just prior to the start of the race the referees
          hobble the legs of some of the oranges. The arguement follows
          because of some Oranges past prejudices, some purple persons
          were denied the Equal Opportunity to be the best. The starters
          gun is shot and the race ends with some of the oranges in the
          front of the pack, along with the purples. The news commentators
          (we will call them social scientists) declare in a loud voice"See
          this is proof that the purples are as capable as the oranges".
    
    David
                

       As humans we feel isolated.  Who we are and why we are here remains
       a mystery to us.  We don't see our relationship to a Diety, the
       planet or in this case other humans.  We see life through a set of
       eyes that are trained to see differences instead of similiarities.
       We were taught and we continue to teach our children this technique.

       If you want to experiment with this ask someone to describe you to
       a third person.  Tell them that they can only describe you in terms
       of what you have in common instead of differences.  This is quite a
       challenge to most but eventually you will see that in most cases the
       differences are a moot point.

       patrick

    RE: .10  David
    
    > I do not mean to suggest that the oranges are
    > incapable of being the best. I do suggest that they come into the game
    > (lets say golf) with a healthy handicap.
    
    Could you explain your meaning here a bit more, please?
    
    > If we use a marathon race as
    > an analogy what I mean may be more clear.
    
    This didn't help.  (It sounded like you were saying that the only
    way purple people could hope to compete with orange people is if
    orange persons are hobbled.  I'm sure you don't mean this, because
    it would imply that you think purple people are inherently inferior 
    to orange people in the work force.)
    
    Earlier in your note, it almost sounded as if you were suggesting
    that the integration of purple people into the workforce has degraded
    the workforce (which also sounds like you think purple people are
    inherently inferior in the workplace, which I'm sure isn't what you
    meant to say.)
    
    Please explain.

    re -1
    
    		Get a life Suzanne. You DO NOT want an explanation you want
    the person to resond so you can attack them. 
    
    
    			Wayne 

    RE: .13  Wayne
    
    David will discuss this if he feels like it.  He doesn't need your
    protection.
    

    
    839.12(conlon)
    
     Purples are not inferior to oranges. But purples cannot claim to do
    as well as oranges as long as they except the handicap. Example:
    
      A long time ago they used to have the sports show " battle of the
    sexes". in one particular competition the male and female competitors
    were to decide who was the best at a cycling competition. The male was
    allowed to only use third gear. The female was allowed to use the
    entire range of all ten gears. She won, and the announcer claimed that
    " women were the better at this sport". 
    
     I believe that as long as the purples are provided a handicap they
    will not be scene as equal. In football, or any athletic competition,
    the players are picked for primarily one criteria, merit. The workplace
    is not the place to balance a social injustice, it is the place for the
    best to rise to the top. Purples must be given very advantage to be the
    best. Education and so forth. However, once the competition begins we
    must simply select the best..
    
    David

    RE: .15  David
    
    > Purples are not inferior to oranges. But purples cannot claim to do
    > as well as oranges as long as they except the handicap. 
    
    When you compare an individual orange engineer to a purple engineer
    (who are both doing their jobs,) if the purple engineer excels to
    the same degree or better than the orange engineer, it wouldn't be 
    fair to say that the purple engineer cannot claim to be doing as well 
    as the orange engineer simply because of the color of the purple
    engineer's skin.  (It would be prejudice.)
    
    > A long time ago they used to have the sports show " battle of the
    > sexes". in one particular competition the male and female competitors
    > were to decide who was the best at a cycling competition. The male was
    > allowed to only use third gear. The female was allowed to use the
    > entire range of all ten gears. She won, and the announcer claimed that
    > " women were the better at this sport". 
    
    I don't remember the show or the announcer, but I do know that the
    announcer's words didn't change the status of men or women in the 
    workplace in our country.  It sounds like a game show.  (So what?)
    
    > I believe that as long as the purples are provided a handicap they
    > will not be scene as equal.
    
    Unfortunately, as long as our culture tries to attain equal rights
    for purple people, some orange people will see it as an excuse to
    look down on purple people (as a way to try to get them to stop
    seeking equal rights.)  If the purple people don't acquire equal
    rights, they'll still be looked down upon by some orange people,
    so why not go for the rights?  It makes the most sense.
    
    > The workplace
    > is not the place to balance a social injustice, it is the place for the
    > best to rise to the top.
    
    The problem was that many orange people believed with all their hearts
    that a person had to *be* orange to be the best (so the orange people
    had a built-in bias in their favor which many of them passed on to other
    orange people, sometimes known as 'the good ol' orange network.')
    
    When a group of people firmly believe (in all sincerity) that they
    are inherently superior to another group, they just naturally assume
    that any integration of non-orange people is going to ruin the quality
    of the workplace.  The orange-biased people assume that all they have
    to do to keep their status (and free the workplace from inferior
    work) is to fight for "the best" (which equates to "being orange.")
    
    Meanwhile, the purple people are born in a society that tells them
    (every way it knows how):  "Purple is bad.  You are less than the orange
    people.  You can't even compete with orange people unless we sacrifice
    all hope of quality in the workforce in order to hire you.  We only
    do it to appease you, but you don't deserve it."  As much as the purple
    people know that this is a pack of lies, it's a message they have to
    live with in a prejudiced society.
    
    > Purples must be given very advantage to be the
    > best. Education and so forth. However, once the competition begins we
    > must simply select the best..
    
    When more orange people truly understand that it doesn't take *being
    orange* to be the best, more of the best people (who just happen to be 
    purple) will get the success they deserve.  Until then, we still need
    to work on educating the orange people about their assumptions and
    mistaken impressions about purple people.  
    
    When the orange people say that we can't accomplish equality until
    we stop asking for it, to me it sounds like a 'tactic' to get purple
    people to simply give up on the idea of equal rights.  I doubt that
    many purple people will fall for it.  :>

    
    >if the purple persons excels to the same degree
    
     If! If the the selection of the person to fill a position had not been
    limited to some quota, excuse me I was not politically correct, if some
    selection criteria had not been based upon making the workplace look
    like a microcosm of the community, then perhaps the best would have
    been an orange who would have excelled far beyond the purple. This in
    turn would have made us more competitive and more profitable. I suggest
    the next time ( God forbid) you need surgery, you apply your reasoning
    to the selection of a surgeon. Tell your Doctor " I want my surgeon to
    be the best within this narrow group here." With regards to all the
    rest you have stated ( succinctly and eloquently) you yourself are
    guilty of prejudice. You see to suggest that all oranges are prejudice
    by default, and that they are ignorant ( euphamistically (sp) suggested
    by suggesting they need education..
    
    David

    
    
    
    ....and furthermore I agree that the definition of best can inherently
    be prejudicial. That is why  gender/race neutral test must be given.
    Can anyone really imagine two persons competing for a math prof position
    encountering a prejudicial math test??
    
    David                  p.s. A divided nation will not stand. 
                              
             

    RE: .17  David
    
    >> if the purple persons excels to the same degree
    
    > If! If the the selection of the person to fill a position had not been
    > limited to some quota, excuse me I was not politically correct, if some
    > selection criteria had not been based upon making the workplace look
    > like a microcosm of the community, then perhaps the best would have
    > been an orange who would have excelled far beyond the purple.
    
    If (IF!) you automatically see a purple person and assume that some
    better orange person was denied a job to make way for this inferior
    person, it's a matter of prejudice.
    
    > This in turn would have made us more competitive and more profitable.
    
    It sounds like you're blaming purple people for a company's ills.
    Can you imagine what it might be like if your coworkers saw your
    orange skin and thought, "IT'S HIS FAULT that the company isn't
    profitable - he's a damn orange person!!"
    
    > I suggest the next time ( God forbid) you need surgery, you apply your 
    > reasoning to the selection of a surgeon. Tell your Doctor " I want my 
    > surgeon to be the best within this narrow group here."
    
    My reasoning would have me ask my doctor, "Who is the best for this
    type of surgery?" (not "Who is the best, and is the person orange???")
    If my doctor told me the person was purple, my reasoning would *prevent*
    me from thinking, "OH GOD, NO - this person probably got to this position
    by denying opportunities to a string of more qualified orange people!!
    It's probably this purple person's fault that the hospital isn't as
    profitable as it should be!  I must have an orange surgeon!!!"  By my
    reasoning, it would be too big a risk to go off searching for an orange
    doctor while I already had the best possible person (who happened to
    be purple) available.  It wouldn't make sense.
    
    > With regards to all the rest you have stated ( succinctly and 
    > eloquently) you yourself are guilty of prejudice. You see to suggest 
    > that all oranges are prejudice by default, and that they are ignorant 
    > ( euphamistically (sp) suggested by suggesting they need education..
   
    In my note, I tried to stick to the term "some orange people" as often
    as I could.  I missed a few spots.  Mea culpa.
    
    Obviously, I don't believe that all orange people believe that purple
    people are inherently inferior.  I do think that increasing awareness
    of these issues helps, though (even for the orange people who already
    believe that humans of all colors can be as capable and talented as
    any other human being.)  We *all* need to keep up this awareness, IMO.
    
    It may sound insulting to hear that orange people need more education
    about these societal matters, but it doesn't have nearly the impact
    on orange people that would occur if orange people had been subjected
    to centuries of assumptions that orange people are inherently inferior.

    
    
     Susan,
    
     It may sound insulting, but here goes. Most orange poeple are good
    decent honest persons who EARNED there position. Orange people were
    not born with silver spoons in their mouths. I, as an orange person,
    did not get a higher grade on my math test because I oppressed someone
    of the purple persuasion. PROVE the PREJUDICE in every case. DO not
    define Orange people as prone to prejudice En Mass( thats what EEO and
    AA do). And as far as education goes,  GREAT! I have been to those
    classes. I liked the little stories about the baby food  rejected by the 
    Zimbawme tribeswoman  because it had a picture of a white baby on it,
    and they thought it meant that inside the jar was a white baby. There
    are PREJUDICES, your belief that some orange people may actually reject
    the best Doctor becase he is purple is a classic example. It never
    ceases to amaze me that when someone is pointing a finger at someone
    there are usually three fingers on the pointers hand pointin right
    back at them. 
    
    Now shush up and get in the kitchen :-) :-)  ( that was a joke ) 
    David

    RE: .20  David
    
    > It may sound insulting, but here goes. Most orange poeple are good
    > decent honest persons who EARNED there position. 
    
    Hopefully, you also know that this statement doesn't only apply to
    orange people.  I hope you know that your purple coworkers also
    had to work very hard to EARN their positions.
    
    > Orange people were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. I, as 
    > an orange person, did not get a higher grade on my math test because 
    > I oppressed someone of the purple persuasion.
    
    "Higher" than whose math test grade?  Surely you don't presume that
    you got a higher grade than all the purple people who took the test.
    
    > PROVE the PREJUDICE in every case. DO not define Orange people as prone 
    > to prejudice En Mass( thats what EEO and AA do).
    
    Even with EEO in place, it's almost impossible to prove prejudice
    (especially since most prejudiced people don't seem to know that they
    are prejudiced.)  Many assume that most purple people didn't earn
    their way (while having no idea that this assumption itself is actually
    prejudice.)
    
    The existence of cultural prejudice against purple people is a proven
    fact.  We can ignore it and say, "Gee, let's not do this anymore, ok
    promise????" and wait several hundred years to see how it all turns
    out.  Or we can do something about it, even if it upsets orange people.
    
    > There are PREJUDICES, your belief that some orange people may actually 
    > reject the best Doctor becase he is purple is a classic example. 
    
    I read in the paper a few years ago that an airline passenger demanded
    to be let off the airplane (which had to return to the terminal) after
    discovering that the pilot was purple (during the "Hi, I'm your captain"
    speech before the plane took off.)  People booed the orange passenger
    for doing this, but he still insisted on getting off the plane.
    
    Do you honestly think that there's *never* been a case where an orange
    person has refused to be operated on by a purple surgeon?  (Really?)
    I don't know how often it happens any more than you do, but I don't
    doubt that it happens on occasion.
    
    > It never ceases to amaze me that when someone is pointing a finger at 
    > someone there are usually three fingers on the pointers hand pointin 
    > right back at them.
    
    I've told you before that I don't believe all orange people are
    prejudiced.  I do believe, however, that it's prejudice to assume
    that an orange worker earned his/her position more than a purple
    worker (or that an orange worker can be presumed to be better for
    a particular job than a purple worker.)  I also think a number of 
    orange people believe this without having any idea that it's really
    prejudice.  (And, I think it's possible for purple people to have
    a number of prejudices about orange people, too.  We're all human
    - that's the point.)

    
    
    Susan,
    
     Are some job postings placed for the purpose of hiring specific
    categories of people? I will not argue that these types of people
    may very well be the best in class, they may have been overall, but
    we really will not know this as long as they are sheltered.
    
    David

    
    under slick, proof of discrimination will require only the victims
    declaration and supporting proof of membership in an offical 
    aggrieved group.
    

    
    -1
    
      It's easier than that. If your white male, your guilty!!!
    
    David

    
    well remain where you are, someone will be along to take your
    surrender in due course.

    
    -1
       :-)
    
    David

    David, you're really orange?  Have you tried cutting back on the RIT?
    
    			Steve

    
    
    Steve,
    
      > have you tried
    
    No kiddin! Tell me Steve did drinking pink grape fruit help you with your
    liberalism..
    
    Yet another S&H stamp,
    David
    

>    
>    Yet another S&H stamp,
>    David

So, you have some 'redeeming' qualities :-) :-) :-) :-) 
    

    
    
    -1
    
      Touche'
    
    
    David

Funny, I always thought S&H stamps were green...

I've always said my favorite color was plaid...

			Steve

    
    
    ...well you have exposed atleast one of my prejudices. I thought all
    liberals favored pink :-)
    
    I am in therapy for it tho'
    
    David

    
    David? Redeming? Nahhhhh. Demeaning, maybe.
    

    
    
    > Demeaning, maybe
    
     I'm shocked!! To think of all the time I have spent at the race track
    watching you demeaning all the other racers :-)
    
    David

    
     Shocked? My apologies for neglecting to put out a :-). Dave, you must
    know that you are one of my favorite people to bust on.
    
     I must say, I am more than shocked to hear that you made it
    to the track. Why didn't you come to the pit area and partake of some
    good old male bonding? Besides, it is my job to be demeaning to other
    drivers, lest they finish better than myself.
    
    
     Your in manliness,
    
    			Tony
    
    

    
    
     I lied. Just felt defensive, after all race car drivers are so
    manly:-)
    
    David

    And the gold star for a quick, insightful observation goes to Wayne
    Linville for 839.13.
    
    Nice to see ya back, Wayne.

.23> under slick, proof of discrimination will require only the victims
.23> declaration and supporting proof of membership in an offical 
.23> aggrieved group.
    
    Clinton has expressed major concerns regarding Affrimative Action
    hiring quotas.
    
    I don't think for a moment that he'll be as bad as you suggest, and
    I cite his willingness to take on Sister Souljah while Jesse Jackson's
    guest of honor a few months ago.

    
    what? they aren't high enough?