Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:17:28 -0400
> Even more surprising is how much "bigotry" is
> actually driven by well-meaning people who are just plain ignorant.
> Saying, "let's make up a test so that we can rank students on their merits
> rather than social or familial status and thus equalize opportunity"
> sounds like a great idea. Until you realize that the person suggesting
> the test never really thought about how someone who wasn't a
> native-speaker would score. It never crossed their mind, because this is
> America, and our native language is English, right? Everybody speaks
> English, right? Even foreigners learn English, right? Wrong, but you see
> the problem.

Case in point:

I took Physics in college from Paul Bamburg, one of the guys who helps write
the Physics Advanced Placement test for high school students. The AP
committee wrote a question where two kids were carrying a heavy metal bar as
shown in a diagram, with each kid holding the bar in a different place. I
think one held it right at one end, while the other held it in between the
opposite end and the center. (I don't remember the specifics of the
question, but the point was that one kid would do more work than the other.)

Now, the AP test committee, deciding to foster a sense of multi-gender
involvement in physics made one of the kids a boy and the other a girl. This
caused a debate among the committee as which sex should be shown doing more
work. On the one hand, if you had the girl do the most work, you might
offend someone with the idea that maybe the girl was not smart enough to
figure out that she was doing more work. On the other hand, if you made the
boy do more work, you might offend someone with the idea that maybe the girl
was weaker, and needed the boy to do extra work.

In the end, the committee decided that they would switch who did more work
each year. That way, if they offended someone for the above reasons, they
could at least justify their decision to rotate.

The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.

It's always something.

Wordman
Message no. 2
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 00:22:31 -0400
Wordman wrote:

> <SNIP>



> I took Physics in college from Paul Bamburg, one of the guys who helps write

> the Physics Advanced Placement test for high school students. The AP
> committee wrote a question where two kids were carrying a heavy metal bar as
> shown in a diagram, with each kid holding the bar in a different place. I
> think one held it right at one end, while the other held it in between the
> opposite end and the center. (I don't remember the specifics of the
> question, but the point was that one kid would do more work than the other.)
>
> Now, the AP test committee, deciding to foster a sense of multi-gender
> involvement in physics made one of the kids a boy and the other a girl. This
> caused a debate among the committee as which sex should be shown doing more
> work. On the one hand, if you had the girl do the most work, you might
> offend someone with the idea that maybe the girl was not smart enough to
> figure out that she was doing more work. On the other hand, if you made the
> boy do more work, you might offend someone with the idea that maybe the girl
> was weaker, and needed the boy to do extra work.
>
> In the end, the committee decided that they would switch who did more work
> each year. That way, if they offended someone for the above reasons, they
> could at least justify their decision to rotate.
>
> The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
> Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
> that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
>
> It's always something.
>
> Wordman

No one complained because the boy was stronger than the girl (obviously, any
brain surgeon knows that the average male is both taller and more muscular than
the average female) and thus the results were skewed? I ask this because of this
reason:
Say you have someone (Person A) who can move 80 pounds around without any
problem. Then you have someone (Person B) who can move 40 pounds around without
a problem. If you have both move an 80 pound bar the same distance in the same
manner, Person B does more work, right? BUT, if Person B figures out a way to
carry the bar in a more efficient manner and it is like he/she (it doesn't
matter) is moving a 40 pound bar, then both do the same work, am I correct? And
if Person B discovers a way to hold the bar to make it seem like it is 20
pounds, then he/she is doing LESS work than Person A!
To get back to the gender thing, if the boy is carrying the bar one way and the
girl is carrying it a more efficient way, but you don't know the strengths of
the people or the weight of the bar, you CAN'T figure out who is doing more
work!!!
Does this make sense, or is it completely wrong and stupid? If it is dumb, then
please respond privately.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 3
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:40:34 +0200
According to Wordman, at 23:17 on 17 May 99, the word on
the street was...

[snip story]
> The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
> Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
> that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
>
> It's always something.

So why didn't they use stick figures?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I can't help it...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 07:37:34 -0400
On Tue, 18 May 1999 11:40:34 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
>According to Wordman, at 23:17 on 17 May 99, the word on
>the street was...
>
>[snip story]
>> The question was used in the test for a number of years without
>complaint.
>> Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to
>the fact
>> that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
>>
>> It's always something.
>
>So why didn't they use stick figures?
>
Because then they'd claim to be biased against fat people.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

"If you just want to kill things, play D&D."

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 5
From: Quindrael d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:03:26 +0200
>So why didn't they use stick figures?

Fat people would complain that once again only the "ideal body" would be
good enough ;-)

VrGr David

This is not a signature, every mail I type it again.
Message no. 6
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:57:41 -0700
>The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
>Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
>that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
>
>It's always something.

So, by that logic, you should stop trying? Just accept that there's always
going to be whiners, and not care about their viewpoint?

Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the image of a girl walking behind a
boy might *actually* be disagreeable?

Here's another "case in point":

Ten years ago, Barbara Walters was in Kuwait, interviewing the women there
about their non-existent rights. Women walk behind the men.

After Desert Storm, Barbara Walters happened to go back and was surprised
to see women walking in front of their men.

"How did you make so much progress in such a short time?" she asked one of
the women.

"Landmines," the Kuwaiti replied.

>Wordman

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 7
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:48:20 -0400
At 01:57 PM 5/18/99 , Adam Getchell wrote:
>>The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
>>Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
>>that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
>>
>>It's always something.
>
>So, by that logic, you should stop trying? Just accept that there's always
>going to be whiners, and not care about their viewpoint?

No, I think he's trying to say that its a good thing to make the world as
fair as possible, but sometimes that's taken to extremes. That there are
problems out there that are worthwhile to spend the time fighting, and some
that are completely trivial.

Working to see that a person who does well in their job gets paid
reasonably whether a man or woman, white, black, red or green is an
important goal to work towards. I don't think that I should be paid more
for being a man than a woman doing the same job. I think that we're both
underpaid, but that she should be underpaid the same amount. But to spend
time worrying which picture is placed first seems a waste of effort.

>Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the image of a girl walking behind a
>boy might *actually* be disagreeable?

I'm sure that it was disagreeable to someone. But at what point do you stop
doing these things? I think in general American society has farther to go
in a lot of ways, although we have already come very far. One of those
things that I think needs improving is tolerance towards everyone else.
Sometimes the picture of the girl walking behind the boy isn't a symptom of
a great conspiracy of sexism in the world. Sometimes its just a picture.

>Here's another "case in point":
>
>Ten years ago, Barbara Walters was in Kuwait, interviewing the women there
>about their non-existent rights. Women walk behind the men.
>
>After Desert Storm, Barbara Walters happened to go back and was surprised
>to see women walking in front of their men.
>
>"How did you make so much progress in such a short time?" she asked one of
>the women.
>
>"Landmines," the Kuwaiti replied.

That does illustrate my point about the US, that a few other people did
mention. A lot of minoritiy groups do have it rough in the US, and they
shouldn't have to deal with it. But I also believe that a lot of people are
working to make things better. People my age seem to have a lot less
problem with race than my people my parents age do, or their parents. And
two, the US is still a hell of a lot better than a good portin of the other
countries in the world for how minorities are treated.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 8
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:00:02 -0400
Sommers wrote:

> At 01:57 PM 5/18/99 , Adam Getchell wrote:
> >>The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
> >>Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
> >>that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
> >>
> >>It's always something.
> >
> >So, by that logic, you should stop trying? Just accept that there's always
> >going to be whiners, and not care about their viewpoint?
>
> No, I think he's trying to say that its a good thing to make the world as
> fair as possible, but sometimes that's taken to extremes. That there are
> problems out there that are worthwhile to spend the time fighting, and some
> that are completely trivial.
>
> Working to see that a person who does well in their job gets paid
> reasonably whether a man or woman, white, black, red or green is an
> important goal to work towards. I don't think that I should be paid more
> for being a man than a woman doing the same job. I think that we're both
> underpaid, but that she should be underpaid the same amount. But to spend
> time worrying which picture is placed first seems a waste of effort.
>
> >Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the image of a girl walking behind a
> >boy might *actually* be disagreeable?
>
> I'm sure that it was disagreeable to someone. But at what point do you stop
> doing these things? I think in general American society has farther to go
> in a lot of ways, although we have already come very far. One of those
> things that I think needs improving is tolerance towards everyone else.
> Sometimes the picture of the girl walking behind the boy isn't a symptom of
> a great conspiracy of sexism in the world. Sometimes its just a picture.
>

Please remember that the many ARE more important than the one, at least in my
opinion. You can't please everyone, so you might as well go for the solution which
pleases the most people. White supremacists, Black supremacists, and normal people
in the middle will NEVER agree on what is fair and what is not. White supremacists
want to get rid of all Black people, Black supremacists want to get rid of White
people, and normal people just want to earn money and make their children's lives
easier than theirs. Cater to those people, not to the few who agitate (albiet very
LOUDLY).

> >Here's another "case in point":
> >
> >Ten years ago, Barbara Walters was in Kuwait, interviewing the women there
> >about their non-existent rights. Women walk behind the men.
> >
> >After Desert Storm, Barbara Walters happened to go back and was surprised
> >to see women walking in front of their men.
> >
> >"How did you make so much progress in such a short time?" she asked one
of
> >the women.
> >
> >"Landmines," the Kuwaiti replied.
>
> That does illustrate my point about the US, that a few other people did
> mention. A lot of minoritiy groups do have it rough in the US, and they
> shouldn't have to deal with it. But I also believe that a lot of people are
> working to make things better. People my age seem to have a lot less
> problem with race than my people my parents age do, or their parents. And
> two, the US is still a hell of a lot better than a good portin of the other
> countries in the world for how minorities are treated.
>
> Sommers
> Insert witty quote here.

Amen. Praise Jesus someone finally said something.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 9
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:53:09 -0700
>No, I think he's trying to say that its a good thing to make the world as
>fair as possible, but sometimes that's taken to extremes. That there are
>problems out there that are worthwhile to spend the time fighting, and some
>that are completely trivial.

The definition of "trivial" depends upon who you are. Some things, for very
good reasons, offend some people more than others. The example picture
isn't likely to be too offensive to a male.

>Working to see that a person who does well in their job gets paid
>reasonably whether a man or woman, white, black, red or green is an
>important goal to work towards. I don't think that I should be paid more
>for being a man than a woman doing the same job. I think that we're both
>underpaid, but that she should be underpaid the same amount. But to spend
>time worrying which picture is placed first seems a waste of effort.

All right, tell me this: who is working to see that everyone gets paid
fairly? Words are one thing, action is another. (Hint: Women's suffrage did
not happen because men decided it would be a Good Thing to give them the
vote, and history tends to repeat.)

>Sometimes the picture of the girl walking behind the boy isn't a symptom of
>a great conspiracy of sexism in the world. Sometimes its just a picture.

Perhaps you might understand how the inoffensive picture might be offensive
to a Kuwaiti female, for example?

When you've been discriminated against, you tend to be touchy about those
things. If you're not a victim of discrimination, you tend not to know what
the fuss is all about. If you lost a job over it, you might be more
sympathetic.

>That does illustrate my point about the US, that a few other people did
>mention. A lot of minoritiy groups do have it rough in the US, and they
>shouldn't have to deal with it. But I also believe that a lot of people are
>working to make things better. People my age seem to have a lot less
>problem with race than my people my parents age do, or their parents. And
>two, the US is still a hell of a lot better than a good portin of the other
>countries in the world for how minorities are treated.

Yes, but in the U.S. we like to pretend that the Civil Rights movement is
over, that we've fixed the problems, that there is no more discrimination,
that we're the land of equal opportunity, and that we've never done
anything wrong and don't do whatever it is we didn't do wrong anymore. As
long as you are a white male, these statements are true.

>Sommers
>Insert witty quote here.

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 10
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:02:03 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 5:54:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

<< All right, tell me this: who is working to see that everyone gets paid
fairly? Words are one thing, action is another. (Hint: Women's suffrage did
not happen because men decided it would be a Good Thing to give them the
vote, and history tends to repeat.) >>

Actually, yes it did: the WOMEN couldn't vote in the laws granting them the
vote, now could they? Yes, their male counterparts needed to be _convinced_
of the Goodness of it, but, it was the MEN who had to vote the law in, now
wasn't it? :-)

<<Perhaps you might understand how the inoffensive picture might be offensive
to a Kuwaiti female, for example?

When you've been discriminated against, you tend to be touchy about those
things. If you're not a victim of discrimination, you tend not to know what
the fuss is all about. If you lost a job over it, you might be more
sympathetic.>>

Granted. But, where does the whining (and sometimes it IS just whining) stop?

There IS a differing scale of significance. Denying someone a job, home,
medical care, protection under the laws ... those are larger in significance.

Randomly picking to put the girl _behind_ the boy in a picture is not.

After all, no matter WHERE you put her, SOMEONE will be offended. Put her in
front, the BOYS might be offended (and it'd be _every_ bit as legitimate a
sense of offense IMO). Put her BESIDE the boy, and one of the children will
be "behind" the image of the other ... unless you turn it sideways.

And YES, there are people out there SO _excessively_ sensitive that, turn the
picture so the kids are walking TOWARDS the observer, they will complain
about which SIDE of the picture, the girl (or boy) is on.

Or that one or the other is taller.

Or dressed better. Or more conservatively. Or not conservatively ENOUGH.

There are enough points of view (one or more per person in the world) that no
matter WHAT you do, you will offend SOMEONE.

Even if you do NOTHING. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 11
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:28:12 -0500
GMPax@***.com wrote:

<BIG MEGA SNIP>

> There are enough points of view (one or more per person in the world) that no
> matter WHAT you do, you will offend SOMEONE.

If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!

INMSHO

>
>
> Even if you do NOTHING. :-)
>
> Sean
> GM Pax

Grimlakin
Message no. 12
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:34:58 -0700
>There are enough points of view (one or more per person in the world) that no
>matter WHAT you do, you will offend SOMEONE.
>
>Even if you do NOTHING. :-)

Trivializing the issue may make it go away for you, but not for me, brother.

>Sean
>GM Pax

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 13
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:03:13 -0700
>If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!

So, your logic is that it's okay to be racist/prejudiced? Because this sure
sounds like a rationalization/justification for it.

>Grimlakin

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 14
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:03:11 CST
>The definition of "trivial" depends upon who you are. Some things, for very
>good reasons, offend some people more than others. The example picture
>isn't likely to be too offensive to a male.
>
Actually, that example would not be offensive to most women that I know
either! :)

Also, I think that the main point that is trying to be made here is that
the testgivers did try to take women's feelings into account. The just
didn't think of eveything. Unfortunately, too many people expect others to
think of everything. They don't seem to realize that most people are not
prejudiced (at least not up here in the Great White North) and take offense
far to easily.


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 15
From: Dave Post caelric@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:07:41 -0700
At 04:03 PM 5/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!
>
>So, your logic is that it's okay to be racist/prejudiced? Because this sure
>sounds like a rationalization/justification for it.
>
>>Grimlakin
>
>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>
>

I think maybe what he is saying is that there is no possible way to please
every single person, and no way to do something without offending someone.
If you try and do so, then what will come out is worthless. As an example,
look at the recent political correctness run amuck in the past few years.

That does not, of course, make prejudice ok. However, the least prejudiced
infividual (since there is no-one without some prejudice) can still easily
offend some. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Back to the Physics AP Test example, what would have been your solution to
the girl walking behind the boy? I bet, no matter how you fix it, I could
find a way to be offended by it.

Dave

(Who is, by the way, a white male, so I suppose my opinions are invalid)
Message no. 16
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:26:16 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 6:35:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

> Trivializing the issue may make it go away for you, but not for me, brother.

Let's both of us get some things straight: you, first of all, are NOT my
"brother." I find your attitude, including and especially your apparent
desire for militant confrontationalism, offensive and frankly, would not want
to share a table with you. And your color, or lack thereof, has NADA to do
with it; your attitude has ALL to do with it.

Second, I am not trivialising anything. I am putting things into proper
perspective.

You, however, seem to be seeing (see_K_ing?) conspiracies, plots, and such in
every shadow.

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 17
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:30:42 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >There are enough points of view (one or more per person in the world) that no
> >matter WHAT you do, you will offend SOMEONE.
> >
> >Even if you do NOTHING. :-)
>
> Trivializing the issue may make it go away for you, but not for me, brother.

I feel for ya, brother.

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 18
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:42:08 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!
>
> So, your logic is that it's okay to be racist/prejudiced? Because this sure
> sounds like a rationalization/justification for it.

This was a statement of HUMOR. I can tell a joke. ANY joke I tell can be
taken as offensive by anyone. See now you are sayting that I am justifying
racisism in my statement before you understand what I am saying. Tsk you must
be a racist.

See humor some people found that funny. But I am sure it offended someone.

> --Adam

Josh
Message no. 19
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:48:53 CST
Sigh. He was not trivializing, he was making a point. there are those who
are TOO touchy, just like there are those who aren't touchy enough.


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


>From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.edu>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.org
>To: shadowrn@*********.org
>Subject: Re: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:34:58 -0700
>
> >There are enough points of view (one or more per person in the world)
>that no
> >matter WHAT you do, you will offend SOMEONE.
> >
> >Even if you do NOTHING. :-)
>
>Trivializing the issue may make it go away for you, but not for me,
>brother.
>
> >Sean
> >GM Pax
>
>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 20
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:51:41 CST
Actually, he was trying to make a joke (I hope).

Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


> >If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!
>
>So, your logic is that it's okay to be racist/prejudiced? Because this sure
>sounds like a rationalization/justification for it.
>
> >Grimlakin
>
>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 21
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:55:58 -0700
>I think maybe what he is saying is that there is no possible way to please
>every single person, and no way to do something without offending someone.

There is a big difference between trying to please every single person and
trying to eliminate racism and prejudice.

There is a big difference between courtesy and respect, on one hand, and
hatred and oppression on the other.

There is a big difference between being offended by something someone says,
and being oppressed by something someone does.

>If you try and do so, then what will come out is worthless. As an example,
>look at the recent political correctness run amuck in the past few years.

A liberal platitude thrown by the foxes to the minorities, cf Malcolm X.

>That does not, of course, make prejudice ok. However, the least prejudiced
>infividual (since there is no-one without some prejudice) can still easily
>offend some. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

See above.

>Back to the Physics AP Test example, what would have been your solution to
>the girl walking behind the boy? I bet, no matter how you fix it, I could
>find a way to be offended by it.

Irrelevant. How many people of color get to attend a school where they can
take a Physics AP test?

>Dave
>
>(Who is, by the way, a white male, so I suppose my opinions are invalid)

Are you feeling marginalized because my opinions don't happen to agree with
yours? You're giving me a lot of power, brother.


--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 22
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:05:41 CST
>
>There is a big difference between trying to please every single person and
>trying to eliminate racism and prejudice.
>

Exactly, can you honestly say that the people who made up the test were
prejudiced because someone was offended by the placement of drawings??

>There is a big difference between courtesy and respect, on one hand, and
>hatred and oppression on the other.
>

You bet there is! But hey, everyone faces that crap! I know I have!

>There is a big difference between being offended by something someone says,
>and being oppressed by something someone does.
>

Exactly!! That's the point!

>
>A liberal platitude thrown by the foxes to the minorities, cf Malcolm X.
>

I agree that PC is a platitude. And yet it was MEANT to help? Isn't
that important as well?

>Irrelevant. How many people of color get to attend a school where they can
>take a Physics AP test?
>

THE TEST EXAMPLE WAS NOT ABOUT RACE FOR BUDDHA'S SAKE!!! It was an
example of people taking things too far.

>
>Are you feeling marginalized because my opinions don't happen to agree with
>yours? You're giving me a lot of power, brother.
>

Actually, probalby frustrated, because you are rather fixated on one
topic (albeit an important one).
>
>--Adam
>


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 23
From: Dave Post caelric@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:08:51 -0700
At 04:55 PM 5/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Back to the Physics AP Test example, what would have been your solution to
>>the girl walking behind the boy? I bet, no matter how you fix it, I could
>>find a way to be offended by it.
>
>Irrelevant. How many people of color get to attend a school where they can
>take a Physics AP test?
>

Well, lets see. At my high school, I was a minority, being white. Latinos
were the laargest group, followed by Vietnamese, followed by white, then by
blacks. And, guess, what, Physics AP was one of many AP tests offered.
Final suprise, there were representatives of all races taking even the
Physics AP.






>>Dave
>>(Who is, by the way, a white male, so I suppose my opinions are invalid)
>
>Are you feeling marginalized because my opinions don't happen to agree with
>yours? You're giving me a lot of power, brother.
>
>
>--Adam
>

No, I was trying to make the point that it seems, in my opinion, that you
will not accept something if it comes from a white male. Partially an
attempt at humour, rooted in a kernel of truth. Mixed metaphors, yep.

Dave
Message no. 24
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:27:23 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >I think maybe what he is saying is that there is no possible way to please
> >every single person, and no way to do something without offending someone.
>
> There is a big difference between trying to please every single person and
> trying to eliminate racism and prejudice.

This post that I said that to wasn't talking about racisism. It was sexism.

> There is a big difference between courtesy and respect, on one hand, and
> hatred and oppression on the other.

Oh nevermind you really are not that good of a debator because you don't
entertain. This is an entertainment medium for me. Have you not realized that
yet?

> There is a big difference between being offended by something someone says,
> and being oppressed by something someone does.

Black people opress white men and hispanics with racisism. At black owned
business and establishments what are the ratios.. hummm...

> >If you try and do so, then what will come out is worthless. As an example,
> >look at the recent political correctness run amuck in the past few years.

I agree.

> A liberal platitude thrown by the foxes to the minorities, cf Malcolm X.

Umm Malcolm X? What did Malcolm X have to do with Bill XXX Clinton?

> >That does not, of course, make prejudice ok. However, the least prejudiced
> >infividual (since there is no-one without some prejudice) can still easily
> >offend some. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
>
> See above.

What above? They are still wrong for doing it? What from above do you refer
to?

> >Back to the Physics AP Test example, what would have been your solution to
> >the girl walking behind the boy? I bet, no matter how you fix it, I could
> >find a way to be offended by it.
>
> Irrelevant. How many people of color get to attend a school where they can
> take a Physics AP test?

Who was talking color witth the Physics AP test example? See you are trying to
make everything a racial issue when it wasn't. TWO GREEN CHILDREN ONE FEMALE
AND ONE MALE... THE MALE IS IN FRONT OF THE FEMALE AND SOMEONE BECOMES
OFFENDED. THEY ARE ALL COMPLETELY HAIRLESS AND DRESSED IN POTATO SACKS. AND
THEY HAVE NO EYE COLOR. would that satisfy you?

>
>
> >Dave
> >
> >(Who is, by the way, a white male, so I suppose my opinions are invalid)
>
> Are you feeling marginalized because my opinions don't happen to agree with
> yours? You're giving me a lot of power, brother.

No he is makeing a point. A valid point. Sure I think Racisism is bad and
should be changed. And I tell people when they seem to be racist. Oh you seem
to be racist btw.

On another barely even related topic.
Do I have to pay for the sins of my father?

> --Adam

Josh<this is quite entertaining but how it pertains to Shadowrun I really forgot
a LONG time ago>
Message no. 25
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:30:43 -0400
Adam Getchell wrote:
>
> >The question was used in the test for a number of years without complaint.
> >Then, a complaint came in about the question: a student objected to the fact
> >that the girl was shown walking behind the boy.
> >
> >It's always something.
>
> So, by that logic, you should stop trying? Just accept that there's always
> going to be whiners, and not care about their viewpoint?

He's not saying that you should stop trying, but instead realize that
there comes a point in time when you are putting more energy in than
is worth the return.

>
> Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the image of a girl walking behind a
> boy might *actually* be disagreeable?

It probably did not occur to the comittee that wrote the question,
because they spent too much time determining who should be doing the
majority of work (finally agreeing on an alternating pattern). Then
again, if they put the girl in front, might someone find that
disagreeable too?

--
Iridios
"God does not roll dice"
-Albert Einstein
Message no. 26
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:40:13 +1000
Iridios writes:
> It probably did not occur to the comittee that wrote the question,
> because they spent too much time determining who should be doing the
> majority of work (finally agreeing on an alternating pattern). Then
> again, if they put the girl in front, might someone find that
> disagreeable too?

Touchstone for a sexist/racist/<substitute your pet prejudice here>
activity:

Reverse it. If you still find it offensive, you're not
sexist/racist/<substitute your pet prejudice here>. If you don't, then you
are.

If you find a picture of a girl following a boy offensive, but would not
find a picture of a boy following a girl offensive, then you are sexist.
Pure and simple. You feel that boys should be following girls. Ditto for the
other way around. If you find both pictures offensive, then you're an idiot.
(Note: my personal prejudice is showing here... I'm prejudiced against
people who can't think or use common sense, and are not intellectually
impaired)

A publication or document would only be found sexist if a pattern of showing
females (or males) in a submissive position could be established. If a
simple alternating pattern was followed (as Iridios points out), then there
can be no claim of sexism in the document.

Note: NO SINGLE EXAMPLE CAN BE TAKEN TO BE SEXIST/RACIST/WHATEVER. A pattern
has to be established for such a claim to be made.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 27
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:51:10 +1000
Adam Getchell writes:
> >No, I think he's trying to say that its a good thing to make the world as
> >fair as possible, but sometimes that's taken to extremes. That there are
> >problems out there that are worthwhile to spend the time
> fighting, and some
> >that are completely trivial.
>
> The definition of "trivial" depends upon who you are. Some
> things, for very
> good reasons, offend some people more than others. The example picture
> isn't likely to be too offensive to a male.

And it shouldn't be offensive to a woman, Adam. Case in point: Would YOU
have been offended if the girl had been in front? If not, why would you have
any reason to expect a female to be offended if the boy was in front?

If the picture had been inoffensive with the girl in front, and offensive
with the boy in front, then the people who are being offended are sexist,
not the picture. And why should you cater to their point of view in such a
scenario?

> >Sometimes the picture of the girl walking behind the boy isn't a
> symptom of
> >a great conspiracy of sexism in the world. Sometimes its just a picture.
>
> Perhaps you might understand how the inoffensive picture might be
> offensive
> to a Kuwaiti female, for example?

Nope. Kuwaiti women are used to seeing the women behind the men. If the girl
was in front, they'd be offended because it shows the guy has a callous
disregard for the safety of the girl... after all, he's using her to look
for landmines, right?

> When you've been discriminated against, you tend to be touchy about those
> things. If you're not a victim of discrimination, you tend not to
> know what
> the fuss is all about. If you lost a job over it, you might be more
> sympathetic.

Touchy = irrational. People should not have to cater to irrational
viewpoints.

> Yes, but in the U.S. we like to pretend that the Civil Rights movement is
> over, that we've fixed the problems, that there is no more discrimination,
> that we're the land of equal opportunity, and that we've never done
> anything wrong and don't do whatever it is we didn't do wrong anymore. As
> long as you are a white male, these statements are true.

Adam, as an outsider looking in, I don't believe that the above statement is
true. From what I can see, the US is aware that discrimination is still a
problem, and is trying to correct. Furthermore, the white heterosexual male
is the only sub-group you are legally allowed to discriminate against in
most Western countries. Most "anti-discrimination" laws tend instead to
become pro-discrimination laws, in the other direction.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 28
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 03:37:05 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 9:51:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

> Adam, as an outsider looking in, I don't believe that the above statement is
> true. From what I can see, the US is aware that discrimination is still a
> problem, and is trying to correct. Furthermore, the white heterosexual male
> is the only sub-group you are legally allowed to discriminate against in
> most Western countries. Most "anti-discrimination" laws tend instead to
> become pro-discrimination laws, in the other direction.

Amen and hallelujah to THAT. I've _personally_ been on the recieving end of
that effect countlesss times.

And I'd like to say, having been in a recent "debate" with another Canadian
who seemed to despise all things of the USA ... it's nice to have a Canadian
on the SAME side as me in this debate. :-) Diversity is a wonderful thing,
n'est-ce pas?

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 29
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:40:23 +0200
Adam Getchell wrote:
>
> >If you are not offending someone you are doing something WRONG!
>
> So, your logic is that it's okay to be racist/prejudiced? Because this sure
> sounds like a rationalization/justification for it.
>

Oh for the love of Pete!

Lighten up!!

Why is it such a big deal? Is this White Guilt (tm) surfacing? Are you
a minority? Or are you just displaying the popular American obsession
with race relations?

Oh and I find the term 'minority' to be a grossly inappropriate and even
mildly offensive. In South Africa, whites are part of the non-black 20%
minority, but still dominated blacks for 40 odd years. (ob. smiley: :)
)

Living in SA, by the way, where I (my guess) maybe 99% of the population
are racist to some degree (Including *all* race groups here) makes
sensitivity about boys walking in front of girls look ludicrous.

> >Grimlakin
>
> --Adam
>
> acgetchell@*******.edu
> "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata
Message no. 30
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.edu> writes:
> >I think maybe what he is saying is that there is no possible way to please
> >every single person, and no way to do something without offending someone.
>
> There is a big difference between trying to please every single person and
> trying to eliminate racism and prejudice.

This is starting to get old, IMHO. You've made your points,
educated the listmembers, and I think it's time to take responses to
e-mail.

There's far too much racism for you to try to eliminate it.
It's best to just get a thicker skin and pick your fights carefully.
I admit that being an Asian-American male isn't the worst out there in
America for drawing prejudice, but I've definitely experienced my
share of racism, and it comes from just about everyone except for
other Asian-Americans. Just learn to ignore all but the worst of it,
as you can't detrain 20+ years of racist upbringing when dealing with
a racist adult in any reasonable amount of time. At that point, if
they're going to be rude to you, you can't make them into worthwhile
human beings and you're wasting your time. (I'm talking about racism
here, not ignorance)

Mark
Message no. 31
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:03:20 CST
Oui, Oui monsieur! I cannot agree more!

>In a message dated 5/18/99 9:51:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>robert.watkins@******.com writes:
>
> > Adam, as an outsider looking in, I don't believe that the above
>statement is
> > true. From what I can see, the US is aware that discrimination is still
>a
> > problem, and is trying to correct. Furthermore, the white heterosexual
>male
> > is the only sub-group you are legally allowed to discriminate against
>in
> > most Western countries. Most "anti-discrimination" laws tend instead
to
> > become pro-discrimination laws, in the other direction.
>
>Amen and hallelujah to THAT. I've _personally_ been on the recieving end
>of
>that effect countlesss times.
>
>And I'd like to say, having been in a recent "debate" with another Canadian
>who seemed to despise all things of the USA ... it's nice to have a
>Canadian
>on the SAME side as me in this debate. :-) Diversity is a wonderful thing,
>n'est-ce pas?
>
>Sean
>GM Pax
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Institutional Racism and Cultural Bias, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!