[23328] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] support or focus groups for non-dominant subgroups
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Licata)
Mon Dec 23 11:31:30 2002
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:31:03 -0800
Reply-To: Jeremy Licata <dcnblus_apo@yahoo.com>
From: Jeremy Licata <dcnblus_apo@yahoo.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021221114327.02ddec60@pop.east.cox.net>
> After all, members of non-dominant subgroups *have*
> to be sensitive to the issues and cultural norms of
> the dominant subgroup(s) to fit in, so why should
> people from dominant subgroups have the "special
> privilege" of not having to make that effort?
Sorry, but I do tend to subscribe to the theories of
social Darwinism.... social evolution is predicated on
change, but it is the "dominant subgroup" that sets
the parameters for that change. Should that "dominant
subgroup" weaken, then a stronger subgroup will take
it's place and rewrite the mandates for changes. It is
the nature of any "dominant subgroup" to retain it's
position as the "alpha".... the dominant group had to
fight for what it achieved, and is not likely to let
go without a fight.
And, frankly, in some pockets of this country, that
change is taking place -- groups that were the
"dominant subgroup" now find themselves being a
"non-dominant subgroup." And in the corporate world,
it is expected that the "dominant" culture of the
"white male" will no longer be dominant in the next
twenty years (at least this is what the HR department
where I work has found in their research).
And this is occurring simply by attrition... the
"non-dominant" subgroups are growing faster than the
"dominant" ones (the basis of the sentiment that the
US needs to close its borders)
> Frankly, people in non-dominant subgroups spend
> their lives stepping on pins and needles to be part
> of the larger group. Now you get a chance to feel
> the same emotions that the majority of people in
> non-dominant subgroups feel every day. How do you
> like it?
Is that what this is all about?? The "so there, see
how you like it" theory of diversity? I don't buy
that. I had to think about my corporate life... took
me a minute to realize that there is a woman from
Kenya working in my building. I work with her every
day, so you'd have a hard time convincing me that she
is part of a "non-dominant subgroup." And all the
other people that I've ever worked with -- I guess I
just saw them as part of my culture.
Maybe I'm part of the "non-dominant subgroup" that
does not judge people on their external
appearances....
> One approach I have seen work well is having focus
> groups. These are different than support groups.
I could see focus groups being useful, as long as the
group remains focused on the issue being discussed...
a tough task for the faciliator/moderator in some
discussions.
> There are bigoted, uptight, militant, arrogant
> idiots among any group, even ours. That does not
> mean that we should paint all members of a group by
> the brush of a dumb few.
True. Tho, I did try to justify my generalization --
all those that I have actually met have been that way.
Not that I've met a statistically representative
sample of those groups, but it's enough to make me
wonder about the nature of the organization to which
those people belong. I do try to give each person the
individual opportunity to prove themselves
otherwise...
It truly is a shame that we have those types of people
in our organization tho. I thought ^&@ was all about
the higher standard... Just goes to show that there is
no standard for determining who gets to exemplify the
higher standard.
> May I ask what you consider to be "entitlement
> crap"? I'm not being facetious. You've hit a
> sensitive issue that needs to be clarified.
"Entitlement crap": the sentiment that, "I am entitled
to more benefits than you because it was your
ancestors that oppressed my ancestors." Current case
and point involves a major lawsuit seeking reparations
for slavery and other injustices that occurred between
140 and 300 years ago. However, it's not just this
case, but the prevailing sentiment in the culture that
I am in the midst of that seems to believe that they
are entitled to do whatever they want because of the
color of their skin -- their rationale seemingly based
on the concept of "turning tables." After all, their
ancestors oppressors did it for so long, why shouldn't
they do it now.
So that's what I mean... the focus of life needs to be
on the present and the future. Past abuse and
injustice occurred; tho, yeah... i know... there is
still a civil right issue even today, so it's not that
much of just a "past" issue is it. But part of the
problem with addressing the current issue is that the
past ends up dragged into the discussion...
> Guess what? You've identified the emotions that most
> people in non-dominant subgroups in American society
> live with every day.
Again, is that the point? Does that mean that the only
way to make "white" people more sensitive is to
oppress them so that they "identify the emotions."
That seems to be the opinion of the "entitlement"
culture...
> And you probably haven't experienced a fraction of
> what members of these subgroups have experienced.
I don't know... getting beat up in 6th grade because I
was tricked into saying a racist joke... Being
ridiculed for the color of my hair... being critisized
for my pagan beliefs... denied promotions because of
my age and not my skills...
I am theoretically part of the "dominant subgroup" and
have experienced quite a bit of discrimination. Should
we really begin to comparatively quantify what are
"less" and "more" fractions of experience. Comparisons
lead to competition... and I would argue that
competition leads to the opinion that one group has
experienced more and therefore deserves special
treatment from the group that experienced less -- ie
entitlement. And I've already said I don't like that
idea...
> Nothing wrong with that - Celtic heritage is
> amazingly rich and interesting, and very poorly
> understood in this country. I've studied a bit of
> it, and find it fascinating.
It is very rich... unfortunately, the majority of it
has been lost -- the Romans did quite a number on it,
whether under Caesar or under the guise of the Roman
Catholic Church. Perhaps I should seek reparations
from the Roman Catholic Church, as the last thread
(however sparse a thread it may be) of the Roman
Empire, for the systematic destruction of the Druids??
> The idea is not to create separate A Phi O's for
> each different subgroup. These sort of subgroup
> assemblies help to *UNITE* a larger group, if done
> right, and they are not intended to divide or
> exclude.
It's all about the practice. Theory and ideas are
great, but who's to say if it gets "done right." There
is a fundamental segregation -- right from wrong.
Everybody is going to have a different idea of the
"right" way to have such an assembly... and that's
where we start to get into the concept of diplomacy --
placating enough people to come to a table that they
think is subjectively "right" for them.
Tho, I thought that ^&@ already had a "diversity
forum" program. Oh well... perhaps we need to make
sure that we have such a forum program established?
Our place is not to broker peace -- it is to exemplify
peace. But unity seems to be easier achieved when
there is a common enemy...
:tanner
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
