Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!ut-sally!jsq From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: What ever happened to Human Rights? Message-ID: <557@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Dec-83 00:10:46 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.557 Posted: Wed Dec 14 00:10:46 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Dec-83 01:36:46 EST References: <201@ccieng5.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 164 Oh boy! Infinitely nested quotes! > and >>> are Kleinpaste. >> >TAB and no particular prefix are jsq. >From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP >Subject: Re: What ever happened to Human Rights? >Message-ID: <201@ccieng5.UUCP> > >---------- > From ut-sally!jsq: > If you think people have to give up their historical, ethnic, > or racial identity to avoid discrimination, why don't you also > propose that all blacks dye their skin? >---------- >No, no, no! I *NEVER* said that should give up any of its iden- >tity to avoid discrimination. I never said that should give up >anything at all. What I said was (from my article): >---------- Oh, no, they shouldn't give up any identity, they should just never have the effrontery to *mention* it! See below. Blacks, of course, have a bit of difficulty hiding the fact that they are black. >>>consider whether to hire a particular individual or not, I would be >>>concerned with two things: 1) Are you good at what you do? 2) Can >>>others work with you? I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, >>>pink, or phosphorescent purple. >---------- >So I don't want to be bothered with your ethnic origins. It's fine to >be pleased with (and maybe proud of) them, but I DON'T CARE. When I >hear someone discussing "his people," I immediately have to think of >which "people" that is, even though I am not concerned/bothered by it. >The natural followup is the realization that I am not a "member." What does the realization that you are not a "member" have to do with 1) or 2)? Seems like the problem is yours, not the members. >>> ...how many >>>people do you know who openly go looking for others UNLIKE THEMSELVES >>>with whom to associate? Well, if the view of "my people" doesn't try >>to separate oneself from the rest of society, I don't know what does. I openly go looking for others UNLIKE MYSELF with whom to associate. I know many others who do. Your xenophobia is your loss. >and > >>> ...if you come across to me as being >>>a member of some "other" group (pick the group; race is just the cur- >>>rent example), and I can clearly see that I don't qualify in that >>>group, it becomes equally clear that at least *I* will have trouble >>>dealing with you, since we lack some significant common ground. >---------- >I stress that this "missing" common ground is only "missing" in the >mind of the person with whom I am currently working. In the realm >of job interviews, the only common ground I want is computers. Wrong. Notice your own emphasis above. The missing common ground is in *your* mind. >What I meant by the last part quoted is that, if a member of >obviously indicates to me that s/he and I are not alike, and this fact >is obviously important to him/her, then we are going to have problems. >*I* couldn't give a darn one way or the other. If someone is deeply >into punk rock and wants to play a stereo at work, s/he and I will have >problems. If a black is so convinced that all whites are concerned with >his/her dark skin (this was the original example), then s/he and I are >going to have problems, because *I* am not concerned; I just couldn't >care less. If a woman is so convinced that all men are out to deli- >berately undercut her pay rate, then she and I will have problems; I >want a given job done, which is worth x dollars to me, regardless of >the person I pay to do it. What, pray tell, is wrong with stereos? If noise bothers you, haven't you heard of earphones? Blacks have good reason to be convinced that all whites are concerned with their skin color: you, in fact *are* concerned, as you have made quite clear. If the woman *does* the job, why should you care how convinced she is of anything? >This is the thing to which I object: that such group definitions (and, >in my opinion, limitations) are made a focal point for anything. As I >said before, I'm from Dutch and Swedish stock. I am pleased with that >fact. Not proud of it, just pleased with it. The Swedes are good peo- >ple, and so are the Dutch; I'm glad they're my ancestors. I have a >sister who is madly in love with Sweden in particular, but I don't be- >lieve she considers herself a Swede. Why should she? She's an *Amer- >ican.* You are fortunate to be descended from northern European stock. You fit into the mainstream culture, if only because your ancestors in the States have already faced down the bigotry for your ethnic groups. Such bigotry was in part founded on the idea that membership in an ethnic group was a limitation on membership in the society at large: an idea you perpetuate. >So why do the Boston Irish, southern whites, Scots, Poles, Puerto Ri- >cans, Haitians, or Cubans (to use jsq's examples) work so *hard* at >maintaining the fact that they're *different* from everybody else? >This is not to say that they shouldn't maintain their ethnic tradi- >tions; they are historically valuable, to say the very least. But >ethnic traditions are not generally the target of discrimination. >(At least, not in my experience with those who have been discriminated >against.) Ethnic traditions are not generally the target of discrimination? What world have you been living in? "No dogs or Irish," southern accents in Boston, kilts practically anywhere, pollack jokes, etc., etc. Blacks got natural rhythm, you know, and they eat hog jowls. You should read some history, or try looking around you. Those groups *are* different from everybody else. That fact will be pointed out by outsiders if the members of the groups don't do it themselves. Pointing it out yourself preempts prejudice by making it evident instead of surreptitious. Open acknowledgement of group membership makes it easier for group members to identify one another. In solidarity is strength. > But to frequently point out the fact that one is somehow >unlike the rest of the world cannot reasonably be expected to lead to >the rest of the world asking to be your closest friend. If the world cannot accept what I am then piss on the world. The world will bring it up if I don't, anyway. If someone is black, a woman, a Native American, or one of many other groups, all you have to do is *look at them* to see that! What would you have them do to keep from "frequently pointing out the fact"? You were writing of job proficiency above. What does being a "closest friend" have to do with that? >---------- > From ut-sally!jsq again: > It's not how members of the group see themselves that causes > discrimination, but how people *outside* the group see the > *group*. >---------- >Exactly! But what if those viewed as "outsiders" are given the dis- >tinct impression from the *inside* (as with a discussion of someone's >"people") that they are, first and foremost, outside? You lack imagination and perspective. Many of us are, as you alluded, Americans. Not to mention some or all of Westerners, English speakers, North Americans, homo saps, etc. Ethnicity negates none of that: it adds to it; except, of course, with those who cannot accept the idea of anybody being different from themselves. *Everyone* is "somehow unlike the rest of the world." > >Karl Kleinpaste >...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}