Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Dear Joyce,
    
        Disliking a group of people no matter for what reason by 
        blanketing an opinion for the whole generation or race
        because of a personal experience is called prejudice.
    
        It induces hated, fear, and creates an atmosphere of 
        anxiety.
    
        Is it much easier to keep an open mind about individuals
        until they demonstrate differently to what we expect?
    
          Better yet why not start off liking them.  It might
          be just a better place to live.

    re: .0
    
    No, I am not trying to start something.  But the second paragraph
    says that such a person is a bigot (eg: person who is prejudicial).
     But if you will notice, you can substitute the word 'bigot' for the
    word 'children' in that paragraph.
    
    One who is bigoted towards bigots, is a bigot themselves.
    
    My opinion.
    jim
    

    re .0

>Disliking a group of people shows a lack of respect...and that is where
>abuse starts.  

    I don't think this is necessarily true.
    
    It depends upon what form your "dislike" takes.  (I think this topic
    will get a lot of discussion because of the semantics of this word.)
    If I dislike children because of their emotional immaturity, as
    I believe was given as an example in the "single parent" topic,
    I can still respect them as human beings, having the same right
    to life, liberty etc.  It *definitely* does not have to lead to
    abuse.  As I said, it depends upon your meaning of "dislike," and
    it depends upon the individual who is disliking.
    
    - Dave

    A lot of this dislike has, at its root, a general problem people
    in our society have with patience.  We are not taught patience
    as children.  We do not have it as adults.  We fly off the handle
    easily.  We are not willing to deal with people who need an extra
    dose of patience.
    
    Patience is a form of courtesy which is, in all its forms, sadly
    lacking in our society.  Courtesy is, simply stated, a respect for
    life in all its forms, a belief that no form is worthless and that
    none is inherently better than all others.
    
    Patience can improve with practice.  We have to learn that, when
    we feel this impatient buzzing in our brains, we need to take a
    deep breath, and look at the largeness of the situation and the
    pettiness of our resentment.  Perhaps then we can act kindly.
    
    --Louise

    Re .4, very nice.  I agree.  Patience is very underrated in our
    society.  
    
    Re .2, frankly, I think that the argument you give that to hate
    bigotry makes a person a bigot is absurd.  If I hate the Ku Klux
    Klan, if I hate Nazi's, am I a bigot???  No, I'm not.  I'm simply
    recognizing that these groups have perpetrated some of the most
    vile acts against humanity ever known.  They *deserve* to be hated.
    
    I suppose you think that to execute a murderer makes the judge and
    jury murderers, too?  It doesn't.  It's justice, maybe even revenge.
     
    Bigots and murderers deserve what they get.  Prejudice is dangerous
    even when it isn't acted on right away.  It sits in people's minds
    and later on can cause trouble.  How do you think the Nazi's got
    the people of France, for example, to turn over their Jews to them
    to be exterminated??  Because of prejudice they had never acted
    on before.
    
    There are only two groups of living creatures I make blanket statements
    about - I love cats and I hate snakes.  Other than that I try to
    keep an open mind.  There's good and bad in everything - even kids.
     I've met some I like a lot and some I can't stand.  Just like adults.
    
    Lorna
    

    Are we losing perspective here?  A few people have made they statement
    that they don't like children.  The strongest statement made was
    that these people try to avoid being around children.  It seems
    to be a rather gross extrapolation to go from "I dislike children"
    to a discussion of murder, genocide, etc.
    
    Claude A. Bench
     

    We have forgotten what is was like, haven't we?
    
    As a child I smelled everything much more intensely.  My senses
    were developing and everything was exciting.  My mind wasn't 
    blocked with things that kept me from learning, and I accepted 
    people as they were because I knew no better.
    
    Emotionally immature?  I think I have met more adults who are
    emotionally messed up than child.  Love children and most likely
    they love you back. Love and adult and pray that they don't hate
    you for it at best let you.   
    
    I have a lot to learn from children. For we are ignoring the
    bright ones and treating the rest in our terms not theirs.  We
    are building them a confusing world full of mixed messages, and
    contradictions.  AND on top of it we tell them we don't like
    them.  WE made and then we abandon them. We send food to 
    drought stricken lands then walk out on marriages forgetting
    children are part and parcel of a marriage.
    
    We hype love with music, movies and books.  Then can't figure 
    out what to do in the real world because we are so used to acting.
    Stop next time you go to the beach and talk to some kids who are
    playing and they will make you their friend and ask you to join.
    Take a close look at your date's kid and you will see that they
    are a lot alike.  You can find that if you really love the person
    you are dating you will see enough of them in their children to 
    love their kids too.
    
    Or you can just say I don't like this and that. And not experience
    human kindness.  

         I would like to interject a comment about semantics.
         I *agree* with the *feel* of the .0 note, emotionally
         I'm with you all the way...; but I cannot
         agree with the logic of the *text*.
         
         I submit that *we all* have legal and moral *rights*
         to *dislike* whomever and whatever we choose.  And
         a right to do so "uninformedly" if we so choose.
         That is called *freedom*.  DISLIKE is a passive verb,
         it infers no *action* against the object of its use.
         If we choose to dislike *unwisely* (in my or your
         opinion) than the damage we do is more to ourselves
         than to others.
         
         I submit *we all* have legal and moral *obligations*
         to not *prejudice* anyone or anything. (Yes, it
         *is* a verb...%^>) Prejudicing is an active verb
         and infers judgement without information which can
         cause great harm and pain to the prejudicee.  If we
         choose to prejudice...the damage is to the object
         of our prejudice. 
         
         I feel a necessity to *rush to the defense* (can't
         you just hear the cavalry charge...) of any person's
         right to harbour ill thoughts of distaste for what
         they have found distasteful.  The logic that supports
         .0 the way stated, would also include other *groups*.
         Such as prostitutes?  Such as pimps?  Such as White
         supremists?  How about the Klu Klux Klan?
         
         If we respond to the above with "but, *those* groups
         are not like children or the elderly or the handicapped
         at all"...we have exorcised our right to *dislike* groups
         by our understanding and information about them.
         Have we not?                                      
         
         *I* see very little in common between *children*
         as  group and *pimps* as a group....I like children;
         I dislike Pimps.  On the other hand, I have an *equal*
         obligation to both children and pimps to see that
         they are treated fairly by the law...etc.
         
         Because .0 was introduced using *groups* that many
         folks have strongly positive feelings about; [children
         *are* charming to a lot of people, the elderly *are*
         particularly discriminated against emotionally and
         legally, the handicapped *are* treated unforgivably
         because of a superficial situation they have no 
         control over] I suggest that we are overlooking the
         *subject* in light of the *examples*.
         
         Change the examples and see if they still make you
         feel emotionally aroused to support "freedom, justice,
         and the American way":
         
         Is it all right to say we do not like "terrorists"?
         
         Is it all right to say we do not like "drug pushers"?
         
         Is it all right to say we do not like "Nazi's"?
         
         I think it *is* all right to *dislike*.  I sometimes
         even regret that is is *not* all right to prejudice
         (given the above list of groups my morbid little
         mind came up with...)
         
         But, that is my *judgement* talking...and It has
         been proven to me before, that my *judgement* *can*
         be faulty. 
         
         %> Mel
         

    Is it all right to say "I don't like caring for someone who
    is ill or handicapped?"  I sometimes get quite irritated when
    my SO has a headache and doesn't feel like shopping with me.
    I recognize my limitations--I have not gone into a field of
    work where I spend time caring for people who cannot
    adequately care for themselves.  Were someone personally
    close to me to have an extended illness or permanent
    disablement...I would cope with it as best I could, and seek
    therapy should the frustration level get too high. 

    Is it all right to say "I mostly don't like being around
    kids?"  I have a nephew who seems to get his kicks out of
    watching adults lose their tempers, and to my shame I nearly
    hit him one day recently when he decided that I didn't need a
    nap, I really needed a good solid punch in the chest.  I know
    he's growing, learning, doing the best he can given what he's
    learned so far in his short life.  But I don't have to like
    him while he's doing so.  On the other hand, I have a niece
    who is "practically perfect in every way" and although she
    also sometimes frustrates me, I like her. 

    Is it all right to speak sloppily and say "I don't like kids"
    or "I don't like sick people?"  When I hear this, I assume
    the speaker really means "I don't like coping with most
    children" or "I don't like taking care of someone who's
    sick."  When I'm talking about children, or the elderly, or
    some handicapped people, or people with debilitating
    illnesses, I'm talking about groups of people who *do* have
    certain conditions in common that mean I *must* react
    differently to them than to many other people.  I can't treat
    Great-Aunt Elsie "just like anybody else"--she's used a cane
    or walker for 40+ years, she really *can't* go to the
    amusement park with me, or spend a day strolling the shopping
    malls. But she's got a wicked sense of humor, and I don't
    play card games with her that involve money instead of
    matchsticks. ;)  I can't treat my neice "just like anybody
    else"--she's two years old, and she also tires easily at,
    say, the amusement park or the shopping mall.  But she's
    fascinated by *everything*--the shape and arrangement of
    rocks in the garden, the feeling of the breeze when riding a
    swing, or the antics of a squirrel in a tree--and I find
    myself recapturing that fascination with her. 

    And yet I say (sloppily) "I don't like kids."  I just don't
    think it means what it says on the surface, and I really
    don't think it can be compared to class prejudice.

    -- Linda

    RE: .8
    
    Unwisely.  Disliking unwisely would most likely be not taking
               everything into consideration.  Then it is prejudice.
               Just disliking for the sake of disliking IS prejuducial. 
               Is affected when talking about that person or group,
               affects other people's views when we talk about them,
               and alters our perceptions about many associated things
               i.e. homosexuals/AIDS, children/immaturity, race/integrity.
    
               Try to wisely dislike something.  I can wisely disapprove
               of a person's actions but my dislike is emotional. 
    
               If you dislike what some children do and then say you
               dislike children because of that, then you are letting
               your emotions keep you from enjoying people.

    
    
    Why are those who adore children trying so very hard to
    convince those who don't care for children, to change
    their mind?  I have a child.  I think he is the most won-
    derful person on earth.  Period.  I appreciate and value
    children overall, although there are some individuals that
    could fall off the face of the earth and I wouldn't miss
    them.
    
    I also love my dog.  I like dogs overall.  Although there
    are some dogs that could go to doggy heaven and I wouldn't
    miss them at all.
    
    To those of you who don't care to be around children, and
    to those of you who have no interest in my beloved dog-hey,
    that's ok!  I don't mind one little bit!!  I will still
    love my child and I will still love my dog, and it's ok
    by me that we don't share the same views and values.
    
                      Deb
    
    

    Putting on my moderator's hat, I'd like everyone to take a deep
    breath and count to 10, or maybe 1000.  I can see how some of the
    phrasing Joyce chose in the base note can be misunderstood, but
    I would hope that people would respond to the opinions directly
    stated rather than finding ominous overtones of genocide in it.
    
    As I personally see it (moderator hat off), Joyce's position is that 
    disliking a generic group of people because of a shared trait is wrong.
    I feel that the real issue is that people are lazy and will say
    things like "I don't like children" when they really mean "certain
    things that many children do bother me".  Similarly, Joyce perhaps
    made an unfortunate choice of words when she said "no place on this
    earth" - a phrase I can't seriously see anyone taking literally.
    
    Most forms of prejudice stem from fear - usually a fear that
    the person has no first-hand basis for having.  In the case of
    groups like children or the handicapped, it's often a fear of
    obligation.  But we don't want to admit that, so we simply say
    we "dislike" the group in question.  It would be better if more
    people could be more honest about their "dislikes" and perhaps
    find that some of them aren't necessary at all.
    
    					Steve

    I find the replies to this note very interesting.  And had I the
    background I would go into the subject even further.
    
    I know I feel that my comments are valid...and I have no doubt that
    others feel theirs are also.  I stand by my feelings...maybe I will
    change the phrase "no place on earth" to "the earth would be a better
    place".
    
    Comparing a group of people who are in a condition that they have
    no control over (childhood) to pimps, terrorists and the likes is
    not even comparing apples to oranges.  One is a condition another
    is a behavior.
    
    In my inept way I have been suggesting that the communication is
    not appropriate...not liking a group of people is prejudicial and
    there are very few people who would dare say "I dislike blacks"
    and yet somehow the comment "I dislike children" is okay.  
    
    Liking and having children are two different things.  If you do
    not *like* the responsibilities of children why don't you just 
    say that.  If you do not like undisciplined children say that.
    If you do not enjoy drooling infants say that.  
    
    And if you still want to say "I dislike children" then expect people
    like myself to question such a blanket statement...it is prejudicial.

    
   > Comparing a group of people who are in a condition that they have
   > no control over (childhood) to pimps, terrorists and the likes is
   > not even comparing apples to oranges.  One is a condition another
   > is a behavior.
    
         On the contrary:
         
         1) .0 Note stated *NO* determining factors for the establishment
         of *groups*.  Therefore a condition would be as valid as a behavior
         in establishing a group, unless you prefer to re-write the original
         note to say what you mean.
         
         2) .12 was entitled *SEMANTICS* just because what id did was to
         attempt to explore the meaning of the words that were thrown about
         with little repect to their actual meanings and usage.  In that
         light, the note was also technically *correct* although you may
         have not *agreed* with it.  (Another semantic divergence).
         
         FLAME ON
         
         3) And perhaps most salient...any statement defining groups such
         as "terrorists", "gangs", or "prostitutes" as *only* definable
         in terms of their *behavior* without regard to the effect that
         *condition* plays in defining them, not only flies in the face
         of social and psychological research over the past century, but
         also defies logic.
         
         FLAME OFF
         
         Sigh...I am distressed by statements that *seem* to infer that
         bias of one sort...against cuddly little kids...is *less*
         inappropriate than bias of another sort...against cuddly big kids
         who want money to be cuddled.  Or better yet...against cuddly big
         kids who don't *like* cuddly little kids...%^>
         
          I truly do not think any respondant in this note
         infered that harm or mistreatment should come to any member of
         the base note groups.  They merely posited their own right to like
         and dislike where they choose.  Are any of us wise enough to pick
         which groups *noone* should dislike and which we *can*?  I do
         not want anyone choosing for *me*.  I doubt that any would want
         me choosing for *them*. Certainly not .0 ;)                        

   > And if you still want to say "I dislike children" then expect people
   > like myself to question such a blanket statement...it is prejudicial.
    
         I remain adamant that *this* statement in its emotionalism
         is as *prejudicial* as any in previous Notes expressing
         dislike for children as a group.  It begs the question.
         It condemns a blanket statement by *making* a blanket
         statement. It defies logic.

         Peace...I withdraw from the fray.  I remain sad that we all are
         really agreeing with one another and yet failing to speak the
         same language.  What a topic for Human_Relations!
         
         Mel 8^\
         
             
    

    Re: dislike vs. prejudice
    
    Is it legitimate to say "I dislike <group>"?  Yes, because that's
    how you feel.  Regardless of whether it's logical or justified,
    that's how you feel.  I've seen statements of "I dislike homosexuals;
    they make me uncomfortable and I find displays of homosexual affection
    disgusting."  I can recognize that the *behavior* is the offensive
    element, since homosexuality is otherwise indistinguishable.  However,
    the speaker has not yet made that distinction.  If they cannot
    recognize the distinction when you point it out, they are prejudiced.
    Everyone stereotypes to a degree in order to simplify casual human
    interactions to a manageable level.  You can't deal with 1000
    individuals.  Prejudice or bigotry is the inability to give up the
    stereotype and perceive the individual.
    
    Re: .5
    
    >If I hate the Ku Klux Klan, if I hate Nazi's, am I a bigot??? 
    >No, I'm not.
    
    Don't be so sure.  Someone might belong to the Ku Klux Klan and
    yet never have perpetrated any violent acts at all.  So you are
    blaming them and hating them for something they didn't do, simply
    because of a label.
    
    If you lump KKK members or Nazis or bigots into a group, assume
    that you know all about what they are like, how they will act, and
    what kind of people they are, treat them as if they have no redeeming
    qualities - then yes, you are bigoted against them.  You do unto
    them what you object to them doing unto others.

    Re .16, I completely disagree with what you have to say about my
    being  bigot because I would dislike anyone who would be in the
    KKK or a Nazi.  I am not doing the same thing to them that they
    would do to others.  I am simply reacting to a potentially violent
    action.  I am not bigoted because those people *chose* to join the
    KKK or the Nazi party.  The blacks or Jews that they hate and will
    potentially commit acts of violence against did not *choose* to
    be black or Jewish (not to say they aren't or shouldn't be proud
    to be so), but they just happened to be born into a group of people
    that these other people - the KKK and Nazis - have *chosen* to hate.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .17
    
    >I am not bigoted because those people *chose* to join the KKK or
    >the Nazi party.  The blacks or Jews that they hate and will
    >potentially commit acts of violence against
    
    Ah-ah.  There you go.  First, you assume that bigots form collective
    groups.  Second, you assume that they hate.  Third, you assume that
    they are more potentially violent than non-bigots (all people are
    potentially violent, after all).  All this you derive simply from
    the label "bigot."  None of them necessarily true.  For instance,
    someone doesn't want black people moving into his neighborhood because
    the crime rate will go up.  He's bigoted, but he's not a member
    of the KKK or any similar organization.  He doesn't hate blacks,
    he just believes they have greater criminal tendencies (after all,
    look at the crime rate in the ghettoes ...).  And, being a civilized
    man himself, he's not going to commit acts of violence against blacks.
    He might talk to his neighbors and try to point out the dangers
    of this development, but he's not going to incite them to
    cross-burnings or lynch mobs.  If a black family moves in, he might
    even be civil to them, although not real neighborly.  And if they turn
    out to be nice folks, well, he'll congratulate himself on being lucky
    enough to get a couple of the good ones as neighbors.
    
    That's a bigot.  He's not what you think of as a bigot.  And in
    believing him to be a cross-burning vitriolic defender of white
    supremacy, you have done him as much of a disservice as he has done
    to his potential black neighbors.

    
    This reply is not truely flamatory (SP??), but I am sensitive to
    the topic.  I appologize if I offend anybody.  (and yes, I did count
    to 10 first  ;-)
    
    re: .5
    > Re .2, frankly, I think that the argument you give that to hate
    > bigotry makes a person a bigot is absurd.  If I hate the Ku Klux
    > Klan, if I hate Nazi's, am I a bigot???  No, I'm not.  I'm simply
    > recognizing that these groups have perpetrated some of the most
    > vile acts against humanity ever known.  They *deserve* to be hated.
    
    Sorry that you feel this way.  However, I maintain my conviction
    on the subject.  It seems to me that a goal would be to help eliminate
    bigotry, or at least reduce it where ever/when ever possible.  Hateing
    a group or individual because of who or what they are is a prejudice
    attitude and is a form of bigotry.  I am not saying that it isn't
    justified, but let's call a spade a spade.  If I hate black people
    because they are black or if I hate KKK members because they hate
    black people then I am being predudice (justified or not).
    
    If I am a bigot, I truely need help, if I realize it or not.  To
    hate polish people because they are polish is a disservice to all
    polish people and myself, as this attitude will only hurt me in
    the end.  To hate me because I am a bigot is to *not* help me. 
    This leaves me to continue my bigotry without realizing the harm
    I am doing to myself and others, while at the same time creating
    another bigot (the person who hates me).  The same can be said of
    hateing KKK members or nazis or whatever.  This hate will not do
    anything to correct or soften the problem.  You can not offer any
    help to a cause if you hate the people you intend to help.
    
    I do not hate KKK members, I pity them, as I do all bigots.  It
    is my hope that, through forums such as this, that I can make some
    small measure of enlightenment to those who are prejudice against
    a group.
    
    And no, I am not perfect.  I am a bigot too.  I don't like to admit
    it too often, but I fall into the rut too.  Mostly due to my
    upbringing, as is the case with virtually all bigotry.  I hope to
    overcome with the help of open communication and sound advise.

    Also, no one...   ...**NO ONE**   *deserves* to be hated(.)    
    > I suppose you think that to execute a murderer makes the judge and
    > jury murderers, too?  It doesn't.  It's justice, maybe even revenge.
    
    It is murder.  This is my belief.  Only God can order the taking
    of a life.  No judge or jury is empowered to hold life and death
    over another human, that is for the Creator.  It is a sin, by my
    belief, and murder to kill(.)
    
    > Bigots and murderers deserve what they get.  Prejudice is dangerous
    > even when it isn't acted on right away.  It sits in people's minds
    > and later on can cause trouble.  How do you think the Nazi's got
    > the people of France, for example, to turn over their Jews to them
    > to be exterminated??  Because of prejudice they had never acted
    > on before.
      
    And how does the hate of these *bigots* HELP????  Does hating a
    KKK member save a black person from beatings and killings?  Does
    killing a muderer bring back the dead?  Everybody hated the nazis,
    did that save the Jews?
    
    		*** NO! ***
    
    Sorry for the rambling, if that is what it was.  This is a hot issue
    with me having seen bigotry first hand all too often, along with
    its distructive results.
    jim
    

    re: .8
    
    The verb form for prejudice -- which is, incidentally, derived
    from a Roman legal term, praejudicium, previous judgement --
    is not "prejudicing" but "prejudging."
    
    Prejudging is also legal in origin.  It refers to forming a
    conclusion before the evidence is in, or before full and complete
    examination. 
    
    --bonnie