What affects our interaction with people?

[kain]

I would like some clarification on this issue that has been bothering me for a while.

Is it necessary or important to know of people's past experiences due to race/color/ethnicity when we are interacting with them? Should their experiences affect how we deal with them as individuals?

[Kurious Rose]

When interacting with people on a day to day basis, it may not be possible, or even necessary, to extract the personal histories of everyone. However, a general understanding of issues relating to race, class, color and other ethnicities could help when interacting with people. People should learn to generally respect others which cannot be done without a general awareness of people's histories and how social issues impact on all of us. From there, people could learn to understand the benefits of interacting with others who are more sensitive to issues based on their experiences with race, color, gender etc.

[kain]

Then this would mean that no one will be treated equally and for us to reach the point of universal love, every one must be treated equally as everyone comes from the same roots, it is only because of migration patterns that there are different races due to adaptation to the climate where people settled. As such, there everyone is mixed race because of invasions, migrations etc. So I don't think that it is necessary to know a person's past when we interact with them.

[Blue]

All human interactions are subjective and while an understanding of someone's personal history may or may not influence how we interface with said individual, surely it isn't a generalised necessity?  Equal human rights are after all a separate concept to equitable treatment and as such are fairly easy to apply.  While I do advocate for equal human rights, I don't engage to treat with all persons equally.  Some are in greater appreciation/need of my care/attention/dialogue while others are more independent.  To standardise how one treats with all persons may stymie personal growth which relies on the evolutionary ability to adapt.

That said, it is a fact that we are all tied to our racial/colour/ethnic identities in varying degrees and while a sound knowledge base of historical race/colour/ethnic relations will always prove an asset and open how we communicate with each other in a global society, there is no way to standardise our personal interactions to any hard and fast rule.  The individual circumstances will determine the relevance of said individual's history to the specific interaction.  One's ability to recognise when and how it would be relevant is a communication skill worth developing.  

[baseman]

So I don't think that it is necessary to know a person's past when we interact with them.

When I wanted to understand the love affair most people have with light-skin complexion, I had to study history. I discovered how Indian people's love affair with light-skin complexion had to do with attempting to escape lower caste system stereotypes and trying to be more associated with Aryans. I discovered that other races have been so colonized that their sense of beauty ape European ideals. I could have been confused about what I was witnessing in terms of color preferences or I could have gone along with this type of self-hate. Knowing people's history helps to make sense of the world.

[kain]

I think that people should accept me for the quality of the person that i am and not based on physical factors and , as such, I always try to remember this when interacting with anyone. My grandfather has roots in Madras, India and he was dark skinned so from an early age he taught me to look past skin color and physical attributes to try to see the "soul" of the person.

Now I am not perfect, far from it, but this is why i don't think that it is necessary to know someone's background in order to interact with them. We should try to accept people as they are and strive to lead by example and, if they are progressive, they will understand that this is the way to make the world a better place.

[Kurious Rose]

Kain,

You are missing the point that is being made here. No one here remotely suggested that the sole determinant of a person’s character could or should be based on how they look. However, the way that we look and therefore how we are perceived does affect how we are treated and how we treat others.

Due to long histories of poor socialization we may casually dismiss people who are deemed unattractive or who fall outside certain bogus societal standards. On the other hand, persons who are deemed pretty/handsome – usually persons who are light-skinned etc. – or who may be materially affluent may be given preferable treatment without people thinking twice.

People often feel that they are above negative prejudice but upon reflection, they are not. If people fail to recognize these issues and cultivate better ways of interacting with others based on a constant evaluation of their own conduct, then they could easily fall into the trap of being dismissive of or idolizing people based on inculcated prejudices.

Also, if we are to accept people as they are then we should accept rapists, murderers, child molesters, liars, thieves etc. for who they are. No, we do not have to accept people as they are. Nor should we accept our own poor behaviors. We should strive to improve ourselves. Recognizing areas of negative prejudice and working to better our interaction with others is a positive step towards perfection.

Perhaps you could rethink your grandfather’s sentiments. If he is/was dark-skinned, then he would have experienced negative discrimination as a result. His good deeds may have been overlooked because of his color; his misdeeds may have been penalized much more severely than lighter skinned ones based on the same negative prejudice. He may have also observed how dark-skinned persons in society or even within his own family were mistreated by those of higher castes due to color and status. Knowing this, he may have imparted to you the message of not judging people’s character based on how they look because of his experiences.  Thus, you were bequeathed a lesson resulting from the experiences of a dark-skinned person based on his physicality.  So when you interact with dark-skinned people in the classroom, in the bank, or walking down the street, you may have some idea about how they may be treated based on the experiences of your grandfather. Moreover, when you see and interact with lighter shades of people you can have an idea about how easy it is for them to dismiss others because they lack certain sensitivities resulting from light-skinned privilege. This does not mean that you know if they are good or bad simply  based on how they look. It just provides a basis for understanding people on deeper levels.

The quality of person that you are would be based partly on how you could extract information from history and the people you interact with and how you use this to improve you.

Kurious Rose.

[kain]

I understand what you are saying, i just don't think that a person's background should matter when interacting with them. As to the point with accepting child molesters, rapists etc, yes we have to accept them as they are and be non judgmental in order to help them, then the next step would be for them to accept the help so if we go into that situation with a certain mindset it will affect how we interact with them and therefore affect the level of help and development that they may or may not be able to achieve.

As to your other point about my grand father's good deeds being over looked and bad deeds being condemned, it does not matter that other people praise or condemn, or even notice my actions all that matters is that i know what i did. If i did a good deed, I don't need praise or acceptance, in fact i would prefer not even be mentioned at all. And if i do something wrong, all that matters is that i learn from my mistakes and don't make the same mistakes twice.

Through teaching, I have learned a couple of things:
1) You can't "save" everyone, only the ones that want to be saved
2) Nothing is wrong with making mistakes, so long as you learn from your mistakes and don't make the same mistakes twice

So, I do get your point but i don't think that we need to know a person's background in order to positively interact with them. Knowing would give us a better understanding, yes, but it should not affect our interactions

[Kurious Rose]

Kain,

"I understand what you are saying, i just don't think that a person's background should matter when interacting with them."

I contend that you do not understand what I am saying.

You keep stating that people's backgrounds should not matter when interacting with them even while acknowledging that “Knowing would give us a better understanding.” You should explain why you  have maintained your view and why you think that knowing would provide better understanding.

"As to the point with accepting child molesters, rapists etc, yes we have to accept them as they are and be non judgmental in order to help them…"

If we are to believe that we should accept child molesters, murderers, rapists etc. as they are then why help them? Or why arrest them? Why not leave them be among the population at large? It is because of our collective ability to recognize the dangers that they pose to society that they are removed from the general public and incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized. Further, the reason we believe such people should change is that we do not accept them as they are. We believe they are flawed and should change. We are using our judgment of right and wrong to make that determination. To even state that one step in the hypothetical interaction is for them to accept help implies that you made have a judgment about them. Perhaps your use and meanings of words are different  from my own.

Basic ideas of right and wrong are taught even to children. Adults, parents, teachers, guardians, elders etc. do make judgments to determine if a child does right or wrong. They don't just accept children as they are and leave them to do whatever they feel.

“...then the next step would be for them to accept the help so if we go into that situation with a certain mindset it will affect how we interact with them and therefore affect the level of help and development that they may or may not be able to achieve.”

If we approach people with “a certain mindset” based on a deeper understanding of societal issues such as racism, colorism, gender issues etc., then that is a good mindset to have. That could improve the level of  interaction and help if it comes to that.

"it does not matter that other people praise or condemn, or even notice my actions all that matters is that i know what i did. If i did a good deed, I don't need praise or acceptance, in fact i would prefer not even be mentioned at all."

On a general level it does matter how others view your actions and how they respond to your deeds or misdeeds. This is not to say that people should do good for the sole purpose of personal glory or vanity. However, if there is a general trend of people who look certain ways getting heaps of praise and admiration and others being slighted then we can assess that there is a societal flaw that has to be addressed. People who work hard to qualify for job positions or promotions and who are overlooked because they did not fit a certain look, or someone who is penalized tenfold for a similar crime that another committed because of her race are issues that people have to deal with daily. Do you think that this should be accepted or not mentioned? One can take the position that it does not matter to them but it matters to a lot of people who are affected by how they are negatively treated. 

“And if i do something wrong, all that matters is that i learn from my mistakes and don't make the same mistakes twice.”

If one does wrong it does not only matter that one learns from his mistakes and not repeat them, but if one's wrong affects others, then one must also be held accountable and pay retribution.

 
"Through teaching, I have learned a couple of things:
1) You can't "save" everyone, only the ones that want to be saved
2) Nothing is wrong with making mistakes, so long as you learn from your mistakes and don't make the same mistakes twice"

This is an overly simplistic view at best. If you are a teacher then you teach children your ideas of right and wrong in the hope of lessening the errors they make.  Making mistakes can be very costly, so something is very wrong with making mistakes that you had the ability and opportunity to learn about and thus avoid harm or injury to others. Here is where history helps.

I do not know where the point about saving everyone is coming from. However, why speak of saving people if you already are of the view that we should accept people as they are.

"So, I do get your point but i don't think that we need to know a person's background in order to positively interact with them. Knowing would give us a better understanding, yes, but it should not affect our interactions"

Your reply shows that you do not get my point as your discussion is narrowed to people's personal background as opposed to the histories of people in general and how certain ideas and attitudes evolved that impairs judgments. Especially ideas that have to do with racism, sexism, colorism, etc., and the fact is people's ignorance of different people's cultural and racial background does affect how they view and treat with each other.


Kurious Rose.

[Blue]

I’m a bit confused Kain, you mentioned universal love.   What is that?  Could you clarify that for me please?

As for the advice to look past someone’s physical attributes…well what purpose does it serve to ignore someone’s physicality?   That too confuses me.  Are you suggesting that we ignore selected aspects of a person’s identity and focus on other criteria as per the societal model of what is deemed acceptable?  I understand the experiences that might have shaped your grandfather’s advice; I’m not sure what validity such advice (which sounds vague at best) would have in practical applicability in 21st century global community living.  To make the conscientious decision to disavow someone’s cultural ancestry, to purposely deny genetic truth seems to suggest an individual lack of willingness to engage with someone on his/her most basic level.  How can you look at someone and claim to see who he/she is as a person when you can’t even see or acknowledge him/her per said individual’s racial/color/ethnic appearance?  Equally, I’m baffled that such an acknowledgement could be perceived as a negative weight against a positive or healthy interaction.  I don’t get that either and your explanations haven't clarified your position.

On the point of striving towards a state of being “non judgmental,” well, that’s another theme I’m passionate about.  I’m totally against such obscure pop culture clichés that are being popularized via mainstream media.  Being judgmental IS an important part of self development.  It illustrates the individual’s ability to practice proper situational awareness and advocating against developing this skill promotes passive acceptance of the status quo and whatever garbage is drifted to the fore.  

Jus sayin.

[kain]

Kurious Rose,

I realize that we are on different wavelengths, I am actually talking about an individual basis and not generally, sorry that i was not clear in the original question.

Blue,

Who are we to judge? All perceived morals are relative to the individual. For example, in ancient Rome, a person could, not only, obtain the services of full grown women at the brothel, but also that of young boys and girls and at the time that was socially acceptable. Just look at  Uganda and how the skewed judgement of a few has gays literally running for their lives! So who are we to say what is right or wrong? We should just be able to express our opinion and let people decide for themselves. This does not mean that we have to agree with everything that is forced down our throats just to accept the opinions put forth. 

[Blue]

Kain, you're quibbling over semantics and obfuscating your own position.

If you're going to spout pop culture values (which flood all over the internet) then substantiate them please.  Sure morals are relative to the individual...but we're speaking about judgement and the ability to assess a situation based on the facts.  Stick to the issue please.  A crooked cop confronts a fellow motorist at a traffic light for a bribe, do you submissively sit and wait for your turn because you don't judge?  A child is brutally raped, beaten and murdered by your neighbour, do you go out onto the streets and shrill for the turning of the societal cheek because, hey, judgement is wrong and who are we to judge?  Does your non ability to judge allow you to sit in smiling silence as crime spikes and criminal elements target your neighbours, your family, your students and co workers?  Will you advocate for a paedophile to teach at a school and handle the care and protection of young children because you believe in equality or in some weird notion of non judgement?  Hmm.  Clearly you've never had the benefit of being exposed to leadership training.  Judgement is required and advocated there pal, its an important aspect in learning situational awareness.  From what I've observed, you seem to be verbally reflexing for passivity based on some vague notions which you're not understanding in the proper context.  

I hinted in an earlier response that good communication skills are requisite to being able to interact with the general world.  I'd suggest that you assess why it is you're comfortable accepting/advocating a passive standardization of personal interactions and why it is you feel so daunted by the idea of acknowledging a person's race/colour/ethnicity as a valid and positive aspect of interaction.  Your grandfather's experience was his own and subsequently shaped his personal position.  What's your excuse?    

The internet isn't always a great source of truth...shake the chaff from the wheat and figure it out.  Promoting mainstream acceptance of anything or everything is just dumbing down the population.  The ability to individually critically assess and measure what you're presented with is a key part to developing intelligence.

Jeez.  I really hope you aren't educating children to accept these blurry, confused contradictions on the mere merit of existence.  No one wants to be another brick in the wall mate.  

[kain]

Blue,

You seem to be confusing acceptance with agreement. Just because you accept a person's position or opinion does not mean that you have to agree with it and as to your leadership training, most training seminars are a variation on manipulation. They teach how to manipulate people to get what you want and not to take opposition from anyone. Successful leaders don't force their opinions on their underlings, they invite ideas, accept all and then everyone involved works toward the best possible outcome. Is that being passive?

[Blue]

Kain, at what point did I suggest that you ought to accept or agree with practices that are deemed unethical, dishonest or corrupt?  YOU are the one advocating for equal treatment, for non judgement and for universal acceptance as a means to achieving “universal love”, a concept you still haven’t clarified.  You aren’t substantiating your stance on any issue raised.  By the by, it’s unethical to factually state that most leadership training promotes “manipulation” then provide no factual source for such an outrageous claim.  Have you even been privy to any form of leadership training?  I see no evidence to suggest that you’ve ever had, otherwise you’d recognise what an irrational, paranoid AND slanderous statement that is.   Furthermore you then offer a clumsy negation of your own assertion that said training is about learning manipulation and "not to take opposition" by detailing how your own version of how a “successful leader” ought to manage a team.   Um, for the record, you do know that leadership and management are two entirely different disciplines yeah?  

The most interesting aspect of your last response is that despite your earlier position to be non judgemental and accepting, you've now revoked said position by engaging the discussion with a bald stereotype about leadership (or to your own mind, manipulation) training as factual grounds to support your own bias.  Confused much?  

[baseman]

I agree with Kain on this point: “most training seminars are a variation on manipulation. They teach how to manipulate people to get what you want and not to take opposition from anyone.”

Manipulation is not always a bad thing if the definition of manipulation being used is to skillfully use or handle something. Most training seminars are done from a set agenda which is usually about imparting that agenda onto trainees. People are generally trained to pretend to listen to others but to ensure, at the end of any interaction, they get their way.

I am also agreeing with Blue because I am aware of this ‘hippie’, ‘one love’ trend that very disingenuously speaks about accepting people as they are. I believe this is a way of avoiding challenges. Realistically, no one accepts everyone as they are.
 
I would not accept a point of view that I do not agree with it. I will consider all points of view though. Also, I would not use acceptance the way Kain is using it as in many dictionaries it can be akin to believing.

But to add to the theme of the debate: awareness of general history of all peoples is important and if one can get the personal history of people they have to deal with, then that would be most beneficial too. If I plan on getting involved in a close relationship with anyone then I will share my personal history with them and I expect them to be open about theirs too.
 
Without paying attention to history (ancient and contemporary) people can make many mistakes; their ideas of right and wrong can be skewed or outright wrong. Let me give two examples that I have witnessed:

A black guy has a gun in his hand and cops came on the scene. At first glance they assumed that the guy with the gun is some bandit or about to do something illegal. Their reaction was swift -- they almost killed the black guy.

In another case they were driving by and saw a white guy with a gun in his hand. They assumed that he was probably chasing some bandit or was legally entitled to carry that gun. They were not threatening when approaching the white guy but went to him only to find out if he was okay.
 
After they got more information on what transpired with the black guy, it turned out he was licensed to carry the firearm and the police did not even notice another guy who had a twelve inch ice pick which he pulled on him. After speaking to people who saw what transpired the cops eventually retrieved the ice pick and arrested the other guy. They were very apologetic to the black guy with the gun after getting the history.

In the other case they assumed the white guy with the gun was legally entitled to have one and their focus was not on him but to see if there were bandits in the area. I knew the white guy and he had a history of fooling around with an unlicensed firearm. They did not arrest him.

There are many lessons in these two examples that go beyond the blind-spots that people have as a result of unaddressed racism. It also speaks to how people’s ideas of right and wrong can be affected by history. Judging the black guy to be up to no good because he had a gun is based on a type of history which can be wrong without getting the facts of the situation. Quite often people just run with a stereotype and need to constantly reflect and get facts before rushing to judgment. I am sure people can draw many more lessons from these stories.