quote:There is a difference between self-imposed limitations and external limitations. Many black people are denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on something they cannot change: Their skin color.
If you can't get a cab, it's simply because you were too shy to raise your hand.
That's a potentially offensive stereotype right there. You don't choose to be introverted any more than you choose to be gay or black. It is not something you impose upon yourself. And introverts are not only denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on their minority status, but also potentially friends, marriages, and many other significant relationships in a world where the majority are extraverted, where things are set up to favor extraverted ways.
But there are even far more discriminated minorities than that. Consider ugly people - people who don't conform to society's ideal for beauty though no fault of their own. Studies have shown these folks are discriminated against nearly everywhere - from childhood to old age. Consider fat individuals, many of which are fat for genetic reasons. Consider short people. Consider the challenges faced both by the mentally gifted and the mentally disabled. Consider people with speech impediments or accents. Consider people with obscure and socially unaccepted passions. I suspect each of these faces more fundamental daily problems than a Native American would simply for being Native American, and none of these categories are a matter of chocie. And the list probably goes on....
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The people to whom the images are associated are NOT offended, mostly, and have NOT repeatedly asked it to stop. It's whites, not Indians, that try to stop this. It can't be that easy to convince somebody without a full head, that naming your child, or a building, or a team after them, is degradation.
Will B., while the issue is complex your statement is just not true. It took me less than a minute of searching on google to come up with Native American complaints about the use of "mascots."
quote: "It's the behavior that accompanies all of this that's offensive," Clyde Bellecourt told USA Today. Bellecourt, who is national director of AIM, said "The rubber tomahawks, the chicken feather headdresses, people wearing war paint and making these ridiculous war whoops with a tomahawk in one hand and a beer in the other-all of these have significant meaning for us. And the psychological impact it has, especially on our youth, is devastating."
While team names like "braves" or "chiefs" may get mixed reviews in Native American circles, I think you'll be hard pressed to find fans of Tomahawk dances done by a mascot.
I've been meaning to post, but wanted to do a little research before I did. Never a bad idea on an issue like this.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the reason we have so much unrest over these issues is precisely because people have an inate sense of what's fair. If two kids are born side by side and don't have the same advantages, the chances are that they will end up in very different places over their lifetimes. You could say "well one kid's parents were rich and the other's were poor, so there ya go."
But why the economic disparity? Was it because kid A's parents worked hard, or did they inherit? Did kid B's parents have a run of bad luck due to health problems, or were they just lazy?
It used to be that everyone "knew their place" and one of things ascribed to "God" was some sort of social preordination. Kings were kings because of Providence. Peasants were in their place because of the same divine will.
Not that many people believe that now. At least not in America, where opportunity is not supposed to be handed down along with the family fortune, although we know it is.
At the bottom, or on the outside, life can seem pretty darned unfair. And it's probably pretty easy to ascribe much of the personal bad consequences to the operation of people who seem to be getting everything or already had it three generations ago.
Certainly at some level, this must be true. The inequalities of birth persist and influence our lives so that equal amounts of hard work pay off more handsomely for the wealthy than for the poor. The unequal distribution of resources alone would account for the greater likelihood of success for some rather than others.
But there's also the group dynamic too. That real "haves" all seem to be white (with rare exceptions) and the real have nots all seem to be in the minority group that one is constantly exposed to (with exceptions of course). So, a rational being, untrained in logic or the scientific method, is likely to draw certain conclusions from the (apparent) facts at hand. And from those conclusions, make further deductions about the world and life in general.
That's what we humans do. It's how we think, whether we're trained in proper logic or not.
I come at this from a slightly different perspective. What portion of the inequality is necessary? If we had a different way of running our society, would the problems be worse, or would they be alleviated? If we had a true meritocracy, what would that do? If everyone had truly excellent education, what would that do?
Then I compare that idealized state to the one we have. And then I wonder why we aren't where we could be.
And there is often enough an answer that does point right back to the people who ARE privileged in our society not necessarily comfortable with giving up their perks in order to pursue greater equality for all.
And so, to the extent that there is resistence to true equality, and fairness, and justice, then the blame can and most certainly MUST be placed with those in power. It is from them that the changes must flow in times other than revolution.
So...back to the indian-themed mascots. It's a frequin' sports team. Get over it. Both sides seem to be saying that. Well, guess what. The change should come from those in power. It is unfair and derogatory to those whose images are being used. It is MORE than a sports team to them. It is their identity. The school will still have a sports team when all is said and done. It might have a cute new rubber suited mascot too. How great will that be?
Something tells me that in a few years time, we'll look back on this and wonder why it took so long to get it straight.
It should've happened within a few months of being asked the first time, IMHO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the NCAA should also be careful about speaking for groups without their permission. It is one thing when a Native American group has said that a mascot is offensive...but not all of the cases are like that. The Florida State Seminoles are one of the schools that is banned from using its mascot in post season play. However, the Seminole governing council in Florida recently unanimously endorsed FSU's use of the Seminole as their mascot. Supposedly the team represents the fighting spirit of the tribe. Yet, the NCAA knows better than the Seminole tribe in Floria about whether the use of the tribes name is offensive to those in the tribe?
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with the name, The Braves. I live in Atlanta, and despite having absolutely no interest in spectator sports, I have taken my son to a Braves game, when we were given free tickets.
But, putting myself in other people's shoes is my specialty, so look at it this way:
The mascot tomahawk dances, feathered headdresses and so forth are a part of some people's RELIGION.
Geez, people, how would some of you feel if there was a mascot running around in exaggerated Sacred undies, doing parodies of purification rituals or something?
I do honestly think it is a tempest in a teapot, since sports like this are almost entirely irrelevant to me and my life. But I can see whay people would be offended.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Geez, people, how would some of you feel if there was a mascot running around in exaggerated Sacred undies, doing parodies of purification rituals or something?
Yeah, I remember seeing an interview years ago of someone - I think it was Sherman Alexie - talking about this issue - cartoon-like parodies of rituals and revered figures. Whether it was Alexie or not, the guy wondered if white people would be good sports if people on reservations started waving around "stuffed toy" figures of Jesus on sticks, whooping it up and drinking. He wondered if Christians would be good sports about it and see it was just "harmless fun." Maybe even a compliment.
Here are some interesting comments from Alexie that make me think it was him I saw interviewed:
quote:Q: How do you feel about the sport mascot debate?
Alexie: They're certainly racist, but more than that, they're blasphemous. Those songs and feathers and drums and dancing --- that's Indian religion. Seeing somebody dressed as an Indian, in an Indian headdress, running across the floor at a football stadium is akin to somebody dressed up as a Jesuit tossing communion wafers into the crowd.
posted
Yep... How can this go on past the first request for it to stop?0
Lupus: re: the Seminoles -- can you provide a link? I'm particularly interested in what the Seminole governing council might've said about mascots, behavior, respect, etc. Or even what they might not have said. I'm thinking they might've put some conditions on their endorsement that could align pretty well with what we're talking about here.
And, in the case of a team using a mascot with approval (and in an approved manner) from the tribe which it is named after, I think the NCAA should allow it.
I'm not so sure that the "Indians" or the "Braves" are going to find it easy to get EVERY tribe's approval or the list of conditions to satisfy.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd wager that there's nobody here, and probably nobody anywhere, who has never lived as a minority.
A couple of years ago I spent a summer in Mozambique. I am a very white woman, and it was really the first time in my life (other than a few jaunts through inner-city neighborhoods), that I knew what it was like to be noticed and judged constantly only on the basis of the color of my skin. In the cities, the people were used to us "Mazungos," but out in the very rural areas I was regarded with fear--some children crying at the sight of scary me. On the other hand, I will never forget all the beautiful children I held who would just pile on top of me, hungry for a hug, combing their fingers through my light, straight hair, or just laughing and pointing at such a curious sight.)
But I was not a minority in the sense that we use the term in the U.S. Because I was still viewed as a member of a dominant race: powerful, wealthy, educated, etc. People who didn't know me at came to me with heart-wrenching problems, looking to me as a source of a solution. It was definitely a humbling thing, because I certainly had no power or wealth to offer; I really only had enough money to maintain my own existence for the months I was there, and was too selfish to part w/ the comforts I'm used to and live the kind of life the people around me had known since they were born. And I certainly wished I had more wisdom.
I remember having a conversation with one young man at a university who was going on and on about how his country drove out the white people and what they really needed now was the white people back, etc. etc. And I felt awful that he had this view that was distilling all the complications down to a matter of race and discounting the educated and capable people of African descent, and tried to tell him that it was education, training, experience and resources that his country needed, and that those did not necessarily have to come from "white people." For sure, the white people who lived there for 500 years didn't do so much for them (and I love the Portuguese, as I love my own American people, so not a blanket condemnation, just just saying that what we did to the Indians they did to the Africans).
Anyway, this is way off track from the initial post, but it just made me think of my experience living as a "minority" and truly understanding what a privilege and responsibility it is to be blessed with SO MUCH just by having been born in the circumstances I was born in.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sndrake: This article you provided mentioned a Sports Illustrated survey about this subject.
The survey (taken in 2002) said that 87 percent of American Indians who lived off Indian reservations did not object to Native American mascots or nicknames. Of the Indians who lived on reservations, 67 percent were not bothered by the nicknames.
That seems to put a damper on a large portion of that argument.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
IIRC, that was a survey of Sports Illustrated readers who were Native Americans. That is a biased sample which is far far far from representative of the community as a whole. You can't justifiably generalize from "just SI readers who are NA" to "everybody who is NA."
So, from that study, perhaps one could generalize from that sample to the conclusion that "out of Native Americans who are Sports Illustrated enthusiasts, x percentage believe that y," but I wouldn't even take it that far. The only guarantee that the respondents were Native Americans was that they said so on the survey -- and I can think of plenty of self-interested reasons for some non-Native American SI readers to try to skew the results.
It would be nice to know the wording of the questions asked and how the polling was done. (These are important issues - a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center did something interesting. They polled people on assisted suicide using two different types of wording. When the word "suicide" was used in the question, supporters fell short of a majority. When that word was avoided, supporters increased to a majority of the people polled - linky.)
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me that much - the activist part of many minority groups can be at odds with the nonpolitical people in the minority. For example, the African-American community is far from unified in opposing the death penalty, but just about every African-American advocacy group that has a position is opposed.
It doesn't keep it from being a real issue at all. And there's the other side of the equation. One of the articles I came across earlier today mentioned some not-so-laudable motives of schools attached to those mascots. One school's largest donor has strings attached to his money - if the school changes the name of the team, he'll take his money back (the article made it sound like it was written into the contract).
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this to be interesting from the Indianz link that sndrake provided:
quote:"We have bigger things on our agenda, like the health, education and housing of our own tribal members," Shore wrote, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.
Seriously, there ARE bigger issues out there for the tribes (and tribal councils) to work on. My sense of this issue remains, however, that if a school was asked by a tribe to change their name, they should, immediately and without a fight. It's enough that they ask, IMHO.
If the request is coming from some group speaking "on behalf of native Americans" then I'd be inclined to ignore it too. The tribal folks I've encountered aren't really all that cohesive a group, and they certainly don't seem to enjoy having people speak on their behalf.
But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that team names are less important than the sensibilities of a group of people.
But then, I think sports are given far too much importance in this country and the best thing we could do is abolish professional sport altogether and churn the money back into education.
I'd like to see college athletics be turned into something less like a money machine too.
Not very likely, but then, I don't run the world either.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, thanks for doing some research! It's always to the better to have some real facts! However, I don't think you've proven your point. You can find Indian protests on Internet; I believe it. I can find proof that Bigfoot exists, on Internet. Now, I did say "mostly"; I am sure there are some Indians, somewhere, who object. But when I go to a powwow, nobody's interested in saying the Seminole tribe was wrong to endorse the FSU 'Noles. They complain about Peltier being in jail, and Custer, and Columbus, but not sports teams; so I think it's reasonable to conclude that most Indians don't care. Especially the ones that were consulted by the universities, and said they didn't care.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the subject of stereotypes, white males are made fun of in commercials and ads on tv more than any other group.
Yes. The white man in America has it really, really hard. All the constant mocking must be a real strain, especially when he has to work so hard maintaining the government, the financial establishment, and most of the popular culture.
quote: I think it's reasonable to conclude that most Indians don't care.
On the grounds that you know most Indians? It seems to me that the most you can say here is that "the Indians I know personally don't, as a rule, appear to care." Which is something entirely different.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't choose to be introverted any more than you choose to be gay or black. It is not something you impose upon yourself.
I disagree. People can definitely step out of their shell if they want to. One of my good friends is terrified of public speaking. When she became an attorney, she decided that she had to overcome this fear or risk never making partner at a law firm.
She joined the Toastmaster club and made short speeches at her weekly Toasmaster meetings. After a year she was able to improve as a public speaker and never let public speaking bother her again.
Unless you have some kind of serious phobia about interacting with people, I don't think the "discrimination" introverts suffer is greater than, or even equal to, the discrimination suffered by black people.
quote:And introverts are not only denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on their minority status, but also potentially friends, marriages, and many other significant relationships in a world where the majority are extraverted, where things are set up to favor extraverted ways.
Jobs - It is possible that certain jobs require a person to be friendly and outgoing. Everything else being equal, if I had a chance between hiring a quiet person and a friendly person, I would hire the friendly person. It is good for office morale.
Housing - As a landlord, I would much rather rent my apartment to the mousy graduate student than the partying frat boy.
Marriages, friendships, and relationships - These are private relationships unrelated to the type of systematic discrimination that Blacks suffer. There is no law that says introverts and extrovertss cannot marry or hang out together. But there were laws forbidding interracial marriage and many private clubs still deny membership to Blacks, Jews, or women.
Edited to add: Just out of curiosity Tres, would you rather be an introverted white guy or an extroverted black dude living in America?
[ August 06, 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will B, there are definitely significant numbers of Indians who do care. Point to as many Indians as you want who don't; you don't change that fact.
For numbers to be relevant at all, first we need to determine what the proper percentage is of like v. dislike before we make a change. Divide the Indians into three groups: those who are offended, those who don't care, and those who would be offended if it were changed.
I know there are some of the third group, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they are outnumbered by the first group.
Do people who don't care count in this equation? As much as someone really, really offended? If a mascot is tribe-specific, does only that tribe count?
Why don't you propose the circumstances under which you would agree that a school should change its name. If you think it shouldn't take Indian opinion into account at all, then it would be specious to continue arguing about what that opinion actually is.
Edit: For that matter, I'd like to hear what everyone who has on opinion on this thinks is the appropriate framework for making the decision, particularly with respect to proportions in those three groups.
posted
Disclaimer: My knowledge is almost wholly of the issues facing the indigenous peoples of Canada. I make these comments assuming my common sense is right and many issues are largely the same in the US.
quote:I suspect each of these [ugly, short, fat, mentally disabled/gifted, etc people] faces more fundamental daily problems than a Native American would simply for being Native American, and none of these categories are a matter of chocie. And the list probably goes on....
I have to reply to this first because it incensed me the most. Dude. The entire way Western society *works* is contrary to the Native American worldview. Why are so many NA citizens in jails? Among a load of other reasons like unemployment rates, low education rates, and high alcoholism rates, another reason is because lying or not telling the whole truth or not emphasizing and acknowledging the wrong one has done is seen as contrary to healing and spiritual recovery from committing crimes. This is an unusual quality in a defendent and the justice system is biased against it. Why are there so few NA university students graduating? One reason is that the Westernized university style of teaching and learning is not easy to adapt to at all for those raised with more traditional views. Western society focuses on the linear. Aboriginal society focuses on the cyclical. Think of the challenge of taking a history class taught in a manner that does not emphasize chronology or verified versions of events whatsoever. Tough, eh?
I could go on. Point being, it is far harder to live in a world where one's everyday values and very conception of life are different from the majority than to live with a physical difference that merely inhibits one's ability to participate in a world they agree with.
Also, regardless of such innate difficulties, there are also the difficulties still resulting from severe racial mistreatment of old, such as residential schooling. Abuse often helps spawn abusers, a well-known fact, and hard work is being undertaken to combat this trend but it is not conquered yet. Thus, this generation is still undergoing pain and suffering from mistreatment at the hands of 'our' ancestors. That pain began because of views that Aboriginal people were 'savage', 'uncivilized', and 'unintelligent'. Stereotypes like the Cowboys and Indians type Indian and the tomahawk-bearing, war-dancing, feather-wearing, whooping Brave were born then and it came to be synonymous with the idea of the savage, uncivilized and unintelligent Native. This is why it's important TO stop the use of such images as sports mascots and other widely publicized logos.
If everyone who ever saw the Braves logo knew the history of the outfit the man wears, its sacredness, its symbolism, and its religious and cultural meaning, and consciously acknowledged it such as a symbol of bravery and courage and sacredness to the Native American people, then I would have no problem with its being used, and fewer Native Americans would either I imagine. I mean, do the mascots themselves know which dances they're allowed to do, and which ones are more sacred so they don't perform the wrong ones by accident? However, without this conscious acknowledgement and knowledge on the part of dare I say the majority of North Americans, it is a mockery of their culture and perpetuates unkind stereotypes from long ago that have only served to cause problems ever since.
Sure, the folks who come here and read Hatrack can all say "No, no, I never think of Native Americans as drunken, lazy, unemployed bums like the stereotype would have me do" but for every one of you, there's an ignorant person out there who does think that, and these logos and dancing mascot mockeries of sacred prayer dances on TV help him or her believe he or she is right.
It is unfathomable to me that people hold the nostalgia and 'college heart and soul' which the Western custom of using unacceptable stereotypes has made into tradition dearer than the desire to stop misunderstandings between cultures. Yeah, people get riled up and feel like a unified crowd of happy brethren by all chanting the age old chants of "Go Kill 'Em, Redskins" or whatever together, but would you hold the same kind of togetherness surely felt by the members of the KKK chanting whatever they chanted dearer than the desire to stop their racism? Is there a difference? Maybe. Should there be? I don't know.
Whew. I can be long-winded when I have something to say.
Oh, and Will, buddy. It's been said but I have to reiterate that your Indian population polling skills are not approved by Representative-Samples-R-Us.
Is that what's required? Really? Most Indians don't know most Indians. Pollsters don't know most poll-ees. On this basis, I am not qualified to say whether most Americans are members of al-Qaeda, since I don't know most Americans.
I expect better of you than that.
--
What many of you seem to forget is that we do have mechanisms for determining the will of the Indian people: tribal councils. These councils not only are democratically controlled (in the tribes I know about), they have the authority to speak for Indians. Finding the Miami Indian tribe's position on this is no more mysterious than finding Israel's position on the Gaza Strip: you can just ask them. (Miami U did. The tribe didn't care.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are you saying that the mechanism for determining offensiveness should be the tribal councils, and that if a tribal council objected a school should change the mascot?
What about situations spanning more than one tribe (Indians, Braves, etc.)?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I ran the X High School Chippewa, say, and the Chippewa tribe asked us to change the name, I would try to make that happen. Why not? It's their name, after all.
If this response surprises you, I think one problem may be in the way you phrased that: "mechanism for determining offensiveness," as if there could be a way to decide, for everyone, what they thought. Tribal councils don't have a right to determine for the rest of us what's offensive (nor would they try); conversely, whites don't have a right to tell Indians what they are offended by. This is an act of cultural shortsightedness: assuming that if something would offend me, it would offend any reasonable person. Human, but not exactly accurate, or humble.
It's OK for Indians to be different. They are what they are, and one thing they are not is PC.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an Othodox Jew. If a sports team, even one from a Jewish school, decided that they would have a team name and mascot that represented my people in a stereotypically unfavorable light, then I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about it. But if they were respectful of my people, I'd be fine with it.
So,"The Moneylenders", "The Kikes", and "The Yids" would be offensive, but "The Maccabees", "The Matza Balls", or "The Zions" wouldn't.
A mascot that was a hook-nosed beggar would be offensive. A matza ball wearing a kippah would not be.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edited to add: Just out of curiosity Tres, would you rather be an introverted white guy or an extroverted black dude living in America?
Well, I'd rather be me as I am now, no matter how hard or easy I have it at the moment, but then again I'm completely biased on that matter. However, having met both introverted white guys and extroverted black dudes, I'd say introverted white guys have it harder.
For an example of why, just read your post. While I'm betting you think it's unfair to discriminate against black individuals, you seem to suggest it's okay to discriminate against introverts - you imply they are unfriendly, suggest its okay to require them to step out of their "shells", and mention that if your friend did not give up her personality she risked never making partner at her firm. Would you ask the same of a black person - to step out of their cultural heritage - to give up their "blackness" at least in public? Many times society does exactly that to black individuals, but at the very least it is frowned upon by those who recognize how difficult it is to ask a person to deny their cultural heritage. The difference for introverts is that discrimination against them is considered valid by almost everyone - few if any consider it equally difficult to ask a person to deny their own personality, but in truth I think one's personality is even more fundamental to oneself than one's cultural heritage.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd say introverted white guys have it harder.
Interesting. Just to be clear, do you really feel this way Tres or is this one of your Devil's Advocate positions?
quote:... and mention that if your friend did not give up her personality she risked never making partner at her firm.
Partners at large law firms are expected to be rainmakers and bring in tons of business. That means doing well at social functions and public speaking engagements.
When your personality trait has a real effect on your job performance, then it is not "discrimination." We call that meritocracy.
quote:but in truth I think one's personality is even more fundamental to oneself than one's cultural heritage.
I'm not disputing your claim that large parts of your life is dictated by your personality. But again, you can CHANGE your personality, but you cannot change the color of your skin.
When a black person can't get a cab, it is not due to his "cultural heritage." Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I guess I'm too pissed off to say much more than that. Maybe I can chime in later.
Oh except:
quote: But someone did post recently that the Land O'Lakes Butter box struck them as offensive, and had no real reason other than that it has a Native American woman on it.
That is not true.
She said it was offensive because the Woman was portrayed inaccurately in whatever the artist made up as thinking it looks "Indian", not in any way looking authentic. I agree that it is a pretty lame "depiction" of a Native American.
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh even if that poll wasn't a completely biased sample group (which it is)... what does it prove exactly?
Offending 36% of a population is a pretty big deal.
I did a study for a college class (Social Research Methods) in which most of the participants were from the Native American Studies Department, and the American Indian Student Services (Also clearly a nonrandom sample) 85% of 120 total participants thought Native names and imagery used as/for sports mascots should be discontinued 13% didn't care, even a little bit. The last 2% thought the mascots should be kept.
Of that 84% (which was 102 people) that wanted the discontinuation, 20% found them very offensive, 20% found them moderately offensive, 20% slightly offensive, 18% found them more ridiculous or stupid than offensive, and 22% although not personally offended, supported those who were offended.
The 13% who didn't care all said that they didn't think it was a good thing, but not important enought to waste time and energy on when Native face so many bigger problems.
The 2 percent who wanted them kept were evenly divided among 2 groups... either one or more of their favorite teams had Natve names/mascots, OR they felt that Natives were being honored by having teams named after them.
All the respondants identified themselves as Native American or First Nations (which was our target group.)
I ALMOST didn't have this available. I was taking my old College research papers off to storage unit tomorrow!
OK... this isn't the best research ever done... it was a group of college freshmen and sophomores doing the study... but it is at least as good as the study by SI
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting. Just to be clear, do you really feel this way Tres or is this one of your Devil's Advocate positions?
If I say I feel that way, I feel that way. And playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean lying for the sake of making an argument.
quote:Partners at large law firms are expected to be rainmakers and bring in tons of business. That means doing well at social functions and public speaking engagements.
When your personality trait has a real effect on your job performance, then it is not "discrimination." We call that meritocracy.
And that's one reason why introverts may have it harder - because "discriminating" against them is considered meritocratic.
(Although I might add that clients might favor whites in such a way that black partners would be less capable of bringing in business - and it would still be considered discrimination to hold back black employees.)
quote:But again, you can CHANGE your personality, but you cannot change the color of your skin.
Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
posted
My heritage is Native American, and the team names don't bother me. I admit that the mascots and some of that stuff DO bother me, but in much the same way I'm bothered by the ignorant "Squeal like a pig, boy" Southern stereotype, or the like.
However, some of the things said in this thread DO offend me, and in the interest of not having bad feelings toward some of you who are probably on in this as an intellectual exercise, I'm going to bow out of the discussion.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I say I feel that way, I feel that way. And playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean lying for the sake of making an argument.
I believe you. I just wanted to make sure.
quote:And that's one reason why introverts may have it harder - because "discriminating" against them is considered meritocratic.
If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
quote:Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
What does it mean to act less "black"? It depends on the situation.
Let's say a person (black or white) went to a job interview speaking ebonics. Can the company not hire the person based on that alone? Of course, if the job requires written or verbal communication skills. It has a bearing on the job performance. That is not discrimination.
But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
Edited to add:
I consider myself an introvert. I'm not the life of the party; girls notice more outgoing guys before they notice me, and most girls I date were usually friends with me before we went out; I don't feel comfortable speaking in public, but I do it, because that's my job.
But, I'm not you Tres and I'm not black. So if you really do feel that you have it tougher than a black guy, I am not going to argue against you.
For me, this is only an intellectual exercise. But I guess this is a more personal issue for you. Maybe it is best if we just agree to disagree.
[ August 07, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
It certainly wouldn't be wrong to hire in that fashion, but I do think I'd call it discriminating against certain groups. I don't believe discrimination has to be wrong to be discrimination - but that's a matter of definitions.
But regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and regardless of whether it is discrimination or not, it still does happen, and it is still unpleasant and offensive for those in the groups in question. My main point was that everybody is in a minority, and everyone has experienced "discrimination" (whether it be just or unjust.) And it IS harder for introverts, even if employers and friends do have a good justification for making it harder on them. You can't say one group's problems are not so bad, simply because you have a good justification for subjecting them to those problems.
Since everyone is a minority and could be offended by almost anything, we cannot make everybody happy and ban all offensiveness. And rather than selecting just a few minorities to whom we want to give a special right to be offended at things, I think the ideal would be to expect all minorities of all sorts, whether it be blacks or introverts, to be offended only when offense seems to be intended - not by things as innocent as sports team names, which are almost certainly not named the way they are in an effort to intentionally hurt people's feelings.
quote:But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
Different in what way? Again, it might be more justified, but that doesn't make it less harmful and offensive to the group in question.
quote:But, I'm not you Tres and I'm not black. So if you really do feel that you have it tougher than a black guy, I am not going to argue against you.
For me, this is only an intellectual exercise. But I guess this is a more personal issue for you. Maybe it is best if we just agree to disagree.
I wasn't speaking about myself - I was speaking about introverts and black individuals in general. The whole issue dissolves when you get into individual experience, because no person is simply "a black guy" or "an introvert" but rather a complicated, complete being which has problems that cannot be isolated into a single cause. If people discriminate against me, there is really no telling what their real reason is, unless they actually come out and say it.
And no, I'm never inclined to agree to disagree - I think no discussion really ends until we actually do agree. Until then, it is just on hiatus until one of us thinks of something meaningful to add. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't speaking about myself - I was speaking about introverts and black individuals in general.
I didn't mean to misinterpret your arguments. I guess I just assumed you had some personal experience in this because you said:
quote:Just to pick one of many, I am an introvert - a minority status that effects me nearly every day and in most situations, which carries stereotypes that are widely circulated, and which is often mocked publicly in the media. I am also a member of many different other minorities - some significant, some less so.
I think this is the key:
quote:I don't believe discrimination has to be wrong to be discrimination - but that's a matter of definitions.
If your definition of discrimination is this:
quote:The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Then yes, almost everyone of us "suffers" from discrimination everyday. But when we are talking about discrimination in the context of this thread--a thread about disrespecting racial minorities--I was thinking of this definition:
quote:Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit (emphasis added; both definitions from dictionary.com)
Again, I point to the employment situation where you can fairly "discriminate" against a person based on whether that person's attribute is relevant to how well he can perform a certain task.
quote:And it IS harder for introverts, even if employers and friends do have a good justification for making it harder on them. You can't say one group's problems are not so bad, simply because you have a good justification for subjecting them to those problems.
If the treatment is justified, I think we call that "life."
Tres, if you lump justified and unjustified discrimination together and compare them as if they are the same things, it cheapens the real suffering of racial minorities.
I guess I consider the reason of discrimination as more important than the results of discrimination.
Death row inmates may have it tougher than blacks AND introverts. The media portray them as dangerous killers; they can't get out of their cell; I'll bet they have a tough time getting home loans. But if they committed the crime, I have no problem with this type of "discrimination."
quote:Since everyone is a minority and could be offended by almost anything, we cannot make everybody happy and ban all offensiveness. And rather than selecting just a few minorities to whom we want to give a special right to be offended at things, I think the ideal would be to expect all minorities of all sorts, whether it be blacks or introverts, to be offended only when offense seems to be intended - not by things as innocent as sports team names, which are almost certainly not named the way they are in an effort to intentionally hurt people's feelings.
I don't think anyone in this thread has ever advocated the banning of all offensiveness. And as many people have pointed out, the NCAA is only banning offensive mascots, and not the names of the sports teams.
quote:And no, I'm never inclined to agree to disagree - I think no discussion really ends until we actually do agree. Until then, it is just on hiatus until one of us thinks of something meaningful to add.
I think I ran out of meaningful things to add years ago. But that never stopped me from offering my opinions.
[ August 07, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the treatment is justified, I think we call that "life."
Tres, if you lump justified and unjustified discrimination together and compare them as if they are the same things, it cheapens the real suffering of racial minorities.
Acknowledging the suffering of racial minorities and failing to acknowledging the suffering of other groups cheapens the real suffering of those other groups. This is especially true if you try to define nonracial discrimination out of existence, by saying it can only be discrimination if it is racial. It is as if, because you think their suffering is justified, that means it isn't suffering at all.
"I'm sorry, you are too fat for this job. We are justified in denying it to you, because pretty people sell better than fat people. And you have no right to claim this is any hardship on you, or get offended by the implication that fat people are bad salesmen, because it's really true and we are justified in doing it. We don't care if you are fat for genetic reasons and can't help it. That's just what we call 'life' so suck it up."
quote:Quite to the contrary, acknowledging the suffering of racial minorities and failing to acknowledging the suffering of other groups cheapens the real suffering of those other groups.
I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
quote:This is especially true if you try to define nonracial discrimination out of existence, by saying it can only be discrimination if it is racial.
Never said that. I'm not saying introverts are not discriminated against, I'm saying the kind of discrimination they suffer from really doesn't concern me as much as the kind suffered by racial minorities.
quote:It is as if, because you think their suffering is justified, that means it isn't suffering at all.
Oh, it is still suffering and deserving of my sympathy. It is just not as high up on my sympathy scale. I'm just a bit surprised that you would consider the life of an introvert as more difficult than the life of a black person. But I'll get over it, I'm sure.
quote:"I'm sorry, you are too fat for this job. We are justified in denying it to you, because pretty people sell better than fat people.
If an overweight person is being denied a job simply for being fat, then yes, that is a serious form of discrimination.
Is a fat person automatically not as good a car salesperson? Of course not. Many factors go into deciding whether a person is good at pushing merchandise.
But if the company were hiring a tv spokesperson for their new gym, then yes, I think they have the right to hire the person with the right weight.
Edited to add:
Tres, if introverts have it worse than black people, then should we legislate special protections for introverts, or should we remove the speical protections we have given black people?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
But is the suffering actually less if it is justified? I ask because of this:
quote:I'm just a bit surprised that you would consider the life of an introvert as more difficult than the life of a black person.
Does whether or not the suffering of a group is justified determine how bad that suffering is? I would argue that the two are separate - that even if the suffering of introverts is justified, that still does not diminish the amount of suffering, and therefore is no reason to say black people suffer more than introverted people.
It's entirely possible that the suffering of introverts need not be a concern of yours or mine. However, even if we aren't concerned about it, it still happens.
This digression started with the insinuation that white people do not understand what it is like to be discrminated against, because they have never been in a minority. My point was that everybody knows what it is like to be in a minority and what it is like to suffer as a result, because there are so many minorities besides racial minorities. You may say the treatment of those minorities is justified or necessary, and you may even be right in saying so, but you can't say that introverts or fat people or the ugly or any other minority group doesn't know what it's like to suffer at the hands of the majority. It may be justified suffering, but it IS suffering, and it has happened to everyone, to one degree or another.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may be justified suffering, but it IS suffering, and it has happened to everyone, to one degree or another.
But you're saying introverts suffer more than black people in general. That I do not accept.
In many circumstances, the cause of one's suffering matters as much as the result.
If I'm hungry because I'm too lazy to find something to eat, I am tecnically suffering from hunger.
But does that mean my hunger is on the same level as a child in Ethiopia suffering from real hunger because there is no food in the village to feed him?
Sure, the hunger pains may be similar, but I know I can get some food if only I walked down the street to the local Subway. That knowledge makes a difference, I think.
edited to add last paragraph.
[ August 07, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Would you please shoot me an e-mail if I said something that bugged you? I do feel as if I've only got one way to approach much of this issue -- an intellectual one. So, if something I said bothered you, I'd like to understand it.
I actually have to deal with tribal folks related to my work sometimes. Not much, and not directly...usually...but it'd be helpful to know for future reference.
quote:Sure, the hunger pains may be similar, but I know I can get some food if only I walked down the street to the local Subway.
Are you suggesting introverts can simply become extraverts as easily as walking down to the local Subway? I would argue that that is no more true than the suggestion that gay people can simply choose to be straight.
I don't think it is fair at all to compare introversion to people who are too lazy to eat, as if introverts are simply too lazy to be extraverted.
You are suggesting that the "cause" of introverts' suffering makes it a lesser suffering than the suffering of racial minorities, right? Why? What about its cause makes this true? It seems to me that both are caused by a person's nature and are very difficult to change. One is caused by skin color and one's cultural origin, while the other is caused by one's personality, determined partly by genetics and party by upbringing. Why would suffering from the former category be more painful than suffering from the latter category?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it is fair at all to compare introversion to people who are too lazy to eat, as if introverts are simply too lazy to be extraverted.
But it is fair to compare introversion to being black?
I thought the background story really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of suffering right?
Overcoming shyness is much harder than walking to subway, I admit. But it is much easier than, say, getting an full-body skin graft.
I am not using the hunger example to compare an introvert to someone too lazy to get food. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the cause of a person's suffering matters when we are considering how much sympathy the suffering person deserves.
quote:You are suggesting that the "cause" of introverts' suffering makes it a lesser suffering than the suffering of racial minorities, right? Why? What about its cause makes this true? It seems to me that both are caused by a person's nature and are very difficult to change.
If a black person doesn't get a cab because of the color of his skin, there is nothing he can change about himself to improve that situation.
If a shy person is not assertive enough to get a cab, he can probably overcome that through practice, unless he has some sort of rare, heightened social phobia.
While one condition is difficult to change, the other is impossible.
[ August 07, 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought the background story really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of suffering right?
The background story does matter if it's being used to imply that the person isn't really suffering that much at all, like a person who is simply too lazy to get something to easy. That example doesn't show that the cause influences the amount of suffering. It mainly is just a way of suggesting the person being lazy isn't really suffering at all - because presumably if they were REALLY suffering, they'd stop being lazy and go get some food.
quote:Overcoming shyness is much harder than walking to subway, I admit. But it is much easier than, say, getting an full-body skin graft.
Introversion is not shyness. Shyness is a sort of fear or inhibition. Introversion is a personality type, referring to a natural preference against social intraction (as opposed to a fear or inhibition of it). There are shy extraverts, and introverts who aren't shy at all.
Shyness can be eliminated by confronting the fear associated with it, as I understand it. But I'm not sure introversion can be intentionally eliminated at all - it can only be hidden.
quote:While one condition is difficult to change, the other is impossible.
See above.
But more so, imagine if we invented a quick, easy method for black people to change their skin color to look white. If we get such a technology, do you think the black individuals will feel less pain when subject to discrimination? It might give them another alternative to escape that pain, but I don't think the capacity to change a condition makes that condition less painful. And I don't think we should ever expect black individuals to change their skin color just to avoid discrimination.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we get such a technology, do you think the black individuals will feel less pain when subject to discrimination? It might give them another alternative to escape that pain, but I don't think the capacity to change a condition makes that condition less painful.
And I don't think we should ever expect black individuals to change their skin color just to avoid discrimination.
I never said we should expect black people to change their skin color.
I addressed this point, here:
quote:If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
Tres: Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
Let's say a person (black or white) went to a job interview speaking ebonics. Can the company not hire the person based on that alone? Of course, if the job requires written or verbal communication skills. It has a bearing on the job performance. That is not discrimination.
But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
I think I've clearly differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination.
Edited to add: A black person should not be expected to change his skin color, because his skin color has nothing to do with his job performance. On the other hand, it may be perfectly acceptable to reject an introvert for a job that requires intense levels of social interaction.
quote:The background story does matter if it's being used to imply that the person isn't really suffering that much at all, like a person who is simply too lazy to get something to easy.
Again, I've already addressed this point:
quote:I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
[ August 08, 2005, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'm not sure introversion can be intentionally eliminated at all - it can only be hidden.
If one could overcome it enough to become a good public speaker, as my friend had done, then I think the introvert's plight is not as deplorable as you would have us believe.
Edited to add:
quote:Introversion is not shyness. Shyness is a sort of fear or inhibition. Introversion is a personality type, referring to a natural preference against social intraction (as opposed to a fear or inhibition of it). There are shy extraverts, and introverts who aren't shy at all.
I always thought shyness is a major attribute of being an introvert:
But I don't have a degree in psychology, nor have I studied the difference between introverts and people who are merely shy. So if you have more experience regarding the categorization of personality types, I defer to your expertise in this area.
[ August 08, 2005, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always thought shyness is a major attribute of being an introvert:
Absolutely not.
I am an extreme introvert, a fact which surprises many people that know me.
I am not shy. I am not afraid of talking with people. I don't mind being the center of attention.
But I am an introvert because while being with a group of people can be fun, I also find it draining. I find an evening alone more rejuvinating than an evening at a fun party.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
So if you do not mind talking to people, but merely prefer to be alone, then you can get a job that requires constant social interaction. You may dislike that job, but you can certainly do it.
And if you demonstrated your social skills in a job interview, there is no reason why an employer wouldn't hire you.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If one could overcome it enough to become a good public speaker, as my friend had done, then I think the introvert's plight is not as deplorable as you would have us believe.
Deplorable is not the word I'd use at all.
I said I thought the plight was harder than what an average black person might have to go through on account of his racial status - and I don't think that is great suffering. It may have been in the height of segregation, but today I think it amounts mainly to a sense of not belonging, a slight unintentional bias in certain significant areas of life, and being viewed with slightly more suspicion by a large segment of society - along with having to deal with a few more extreme racists. It is significant, unfortunate, and unfair, but it is not akin to starvation or torture or anything very severe, at least from what I've observed in my part of the country (which is all I can judge based upon.) I would call it an injustice that pales greatly in comparison to what happened in the past.
And as I said, it is definitely possible to ACT like an extravert in certain situations. But as I understand it, most intraverts find this draining and feel out of place in extraverted environments. And I think, based on the introverts I've known, that many nevertheless develop ways and mannerisms that give them away, and lead to a certain bias against them. Yes, this is not the end of the world by any means. But neither is the plight of racial minorities - let's keep it in perspective too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
