To Be Human: Or perhaps to be sapient. The first step of being an overlord is to deny the equality of others.

     I, along with two of my children, have been watching One Piece for a while. Having just finished the seventh episode in the live action version, I am encountering a familiar story. We have the fishmen denying the rights of humans as the result of humans having denied the rights of fishmen. Oh, the cycles — everywhere the cycles. This has been a motif throughout history for people. Oh, not with fishmen. That is just our imaginations extending current behavior into worlds of fantasy.

     In each war, the “other” becomes less than human. They have to be. No one sane would attempt the murder of their own children and family. That is the path of self-destruction and annihilation. But the other tribe — once they are no longer our cousins and part of the family of humanity — they are fair game.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ways to Divide

     There are lots of methods used for this division and people are somehow easily enticed into believing them. One of my uncles brought home a wife, of Japanese birth, from his travels in the Navy during World War II. Since it was after World War II, she was not subject to the concentration camps and theft of property that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were subject to — but she encountered resistance and active discrimination. I never saw her get angry and she always just smiled and continued along.

     But she was probably already used to dealing with discrimination — against women. It hasn’t been that long (less than 50 years) since most women in the US had to have a male’s (husband, father, guardian) signature on any paper to buy property or get a credit card. It is still bad. Many women, still believing in the “traditional” subservience of women to men, continue to vote for misogynistic legislators. (“The Handmaid’s Tale” is possible — with the active support of women.)

     Within the US, there was initially dehumanization of the First Nations. They were called “savages” although the conquerors of the Americas committed far more savage acts. But, the tribes of the First Nations were not human so it was okay. Then the importation of blacks, as slaves, via European and African traders. They were even less human since property has no rights and it is perfectly fine to sell off a chair (child) from the set around the table (parents). Even after the 15th Amendment was passed, people actively continued to treat blacks as a lesser variant of human and, often, still do.

     There was decimation of the Ainu population on the Japanese islands as they were overcome. “Fifth line” (named for the line number indicating nationality on USSR passports) Jewish people were murdered by Stalin and the Jewish population was even more horribly reduced by Hitler in the Holocaust. The citizens of Gaza have been severely culled in recent clashes. And there were the mass Armenian murders. And tribal conflicts in Africa. And so on and so on. Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to dehumanize others.

     If I have left out your specific discriminated-against division, I apologize. There are just SO many.

     Gender, skin color, religion, ethnicity, which side of the railroad tracks, political beliefs. Humans seem to be able to divide ourselves in all kinds of ways. I wonder whether we will be able to behave better if we encounter (or recognize) sapients from other worlds or galaxies?

The United States; a Nation of Immigrants

     In the United States, we are all immigrants or descendents of immigrants. Actually, in the Americas, it seems that none of us originated in the Americas. The First Nations are believed to have crossed to the Americas via the Bering Strait and via boats from Polynesia and Africa.

     But, even though we are all descended from immigrants, we currently seem to be embroiled in controversy about how long ago, and from what countries, our ancestors have immigrated. Who is valid, and an appropriate human, and who is not.

     Consider the current President of the United States. Two of his wives are immigrants. His mother was an immigrant, His paternal grandparents were immigrants. Certain changes in laws, under consideration, would remove the citizenship of several of his relatives. At best, the following of correct immigration procedures for some of his relatives is unclear. At worst, they were situations that did not follow proper procedure at all.

     Somehow, in spite of the history of the United States and the Americas, it seems that how and when we arrived is now more important than the many contributions immigrants have always made and continue to make. It is just one more rationale for division.

Transient division and the category of “whiteness”.

     Although the concept of race is an imaginary set of categories that was created to justify colonialism and slavery, the definitions are variable depending on the politics and power structure of the times. The category of “white” is the name given to those who are currently included within the power group. In the 1960s, there was a great uproar over the candidacy of John F. Kennedy because of his religion (Roman Catholic). Those who hated him said the Pope would take over the United States. Roman Catholics were not “white”, then they were. People from Ireland were not white — then they were. Same with Italians.

     It hasn’t always been explicit. But there are often signs (literally) that show “IRISH need not apply”, “NO CHINAMEN”, or (mostly in other countries) “NO Palestinians”. Of course, we were not happy with those of British ancestry (many of the “Patriots” were also of British ancestry) during the Revolutionary Way but, with such close ties still, it was more of a “civil” war than an “us versus them” war. Our current occupant in the Oval Office (called, by colleagues, “the biggest slumlord of New York”) was fined, along with his father, multiple times for the practice of “redlining” in the 1980s. Redlining draws borders to segregate according to race, or some other characteristic. This practice officially ended in the 1990s and 2000s but I suspect it still exists.

     In each case, justification continued by making the other group not-human — particularly when a powerful person says they come from “shithole countries”.

The family of humans

     There are a lot of feelings about the origin of humanity. They started from a couple called Adam and Eve. They evolved from a sequence of beings represented by “Lucy” discovered in Africa. They started from an unknown ancient ancestor in China. In Norse myth, Ask and Embla were made by the gods from a couple of trees.

     I am not going to try to say what is “right”. It really doesn’t matter. The one thing that all origin stories have in common is a beginning from a long-ago couple of beings. In a way, it is a “chicken or egg” type of story — as there may have been OTHER couples in addition to the couple that origin stories say were the beginning. It doesn’t matter. There was a beginning. And it continued.

     A need for expansion of area, plus an inherent curiosity, moved groups of people around the globe as human population grew. As they settled into each area, small differences popped up as they adapted to their new area. But they all came from the same beginning and they remain family. Family doesn’t always get along but we try to make it work.

     Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all remember that “we are family” is not just a song made famous by Sister Sledge?

Please share, or restack, if you find this discussion valuable. Thanks!

A good manager? What makes a good manager?

 

     LinkedIn is a place for lots of polled surveys. A recent survey asked (more or less) -- "what percentage of your managers have been good managers?". This brought up two questions within me. First, of course, is how would I answer the question? Second is "what IS a good manager?" Each person knows whether or not they believe that their manager is a good one but is there some set of criteria that most people would agree upon?

     Managerial duties will, in part, depend upon development methodology. If an Agile methodology is in use, then the managers (and I will use the same term for whatever level one may be working at) have much less input into task assignments and routing of requirements. For SCRUM, those duties will spread to the product owner, scrum master, and development team. Since a manager is responsible for primary evaluation as to how someone is performing, they do have to monitor team and individual developer progress and bug rates -- but not for assigning.

     Since titles and processes will change names depending on the development and managerial methodology being followed, I will present my views on evaluation of managers in a more generic fashion.

     There is one task that is required of all people fulfilling a managerial role -- ensuring that information about needed tasks are distributed to those who will be doing them and making sure that the tasks are done and results reported. Visually, this is a horizontal spread of information. Although tasks are likely to come from an "upward" direction, this may be hidden in some organizations. This set of tasks also includes evaluation and passing along information needed for individual improvement.

     If a person is NOT doing this task then, in my opinion, they are NOT being a manager. If they are supposed to be a manager then they are a very bad one if they don't perform these tasks. It is also possible they have a poorly chosen title and they are not meant to follow the requirements of being a manager. Perhaps their title SHOULD be something like "function coordinator"?

     Beyond the foundation of horizontal information movement, there is vertical movement. Note that some organizations consider themselves to have a "flat" organization -- but few, if any, are completely "flat". In the downward direction, tasks are involved with productivity and career growth and development of individuals. Minimal tasks are for the company. Optimal tasks extend to doing things to work with the employee. Such actions often also provide benefits to the company as a whole.

     The other vertical direction is towards "upper" layers. This is movement of product and corporate ideas. Some movement may return from upper layers but ideas, suggestions, product and methodology improvements, and other items to improve the company as a whole may use the manager as a conduit. The manager's job is to keep the information in motion and to make sure appropriate groups, or individuals, retain history and credit for such improvements.

     I started off this blog with the notice of a survey. What were the general results of such? What were my answers? I'm not certain that the survey is closed but, at the time that I last looked at results, it seemed that people felt that only less than 25% of their managers had been good managers. Their definitions of good managers may not be in sync with my thoughts above but such a viewpoint should be very sobering. It does, however, seem to be in agreement with other surveys concerning morale and employment work commitment.

     As for me, I have had six (6) managers over my career. It is a low number because a large part was spent as an independent contractor (without a manager) and as the co-founder and co-owner of my own company in which I had no manager. Nonetheless, there were six people who acted as managers. I had one who was great, one who was good, two who were mediocre, and two who were awful. So, this would give me an "above average" amount of 33% of my managers being "good" managers.

      My great manager performed all basic and proactive functions of a manager very well. Note that -- probably not coincidentally -- they continued to do very well with promotions and expansion of responsibilities and duties as their career has progressed. The good manager performed the horizontal tasks very well with vertical tasks done when thought of -- not proactive but still responsive. I have lost touch with that person so I do not know current status.

     The two mediocre managers took care of the basic horizontal tasks but really ignored both their employees as developing people as well as corporate directions and projects. Ah, but the two awful ones. They didn't even fulfill basic horizontal tasks. They were bothered by a disability of mine which did not affect my work but did create embarrassment for them. Unable to do anything directly since it was protected by the U.S. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), they chose the routes of passive-aggressive refusal to assign work and mark it on reviews as my not doing work while failing to mention their refusal to assign work. Their actions did not do the primary aspect of setting tasks and distributing them. They certainly did no improvement upon my path. And they failed the company in deliberately not making use of my experiences and capabilities.

     People have their own stories. They will not necessarily match up with the categories which I have listed above. There will be awful managers -- perhaps basing their actions out of various -isms (sexism, racism, ethnicism, ...) Or just having reached just a little bit past their level of competency. The best reaction is often to "vote with the feet" but hope springs eternal.

     What stories do you have?

Gender equality: A built-in bias

 

     Within the U.S. and in many countries of the world, women make less money than men for the same work, have less mobility, and less chance of advancement. At the same time, they often have to work harder and do a better job in order to be perceived as doing as well as men. Many, probably most, agree that this situation is not a fair one nor is it a productive one. Yet, except for a couple of valiant countries which have made the situation a top issue, little progress is made from year to year.

     I believe that this is all part of traditional, and expected, gender roles. It is generally understood that most families can no longer financially support themselves on one paycheck -- yet the woman's paycheck, and career, is often the one sacrificed for children, family, and emergency needs. Managers expect that, within a couple, the woman will be the one who will have to push aside work in order to take care of children or handle other family requirements. Currently, although often true, it is not always the case. Yet, the expectation continues to exist. This carries over to evaluations. If I have the expectation that one person is not going to be always accessible and always able to perform their work duties and I have the expectation that another person IS going to be always accessible and able to perform -- then who will get the most visible assignments? Who will be considered for promotions first?

     Note that this perception is often not true (but IS true more often than might be desired) -- but the bias remains and affects evaluation, mobility, and treatment. So, even before possible work disruption actually happen, the perception is already working against the woman.

     Changes to society take a while and perception changes even more slowly than statistics. But a good approach to reducing, and someday eliminating, the perceptional bias is to take up the reins for full support of the family.

     Current medicine leaves no choice but for a child to be borne by a woman. But, beyond that, there are many things that can be done to even the responsibilities and perceived responsibilities. Parental care -- to be able to be taken by women AND men -- is an important item. Safe, affordable, affirming childcare needs to be generally available. Flexible hours, and necessary sick and emergency time, needs to be available for all.

     Changing the laws and benefits are not sufficient, of course. If parental leave is available for both parents and only women use it -- it will NOT improve perception (in fact, it validates it). If flexible hours and necessary sick and emergency time is available to all but only the women use it, or use it much more often than men, it will NOT improve perception.

     In order to reduce gender bias, laws and benefits must be in place for all employees. With that as a foundation, society then must make active use of such so that all can be perceived with the same needs and reliabilities. The existence of the support must be present and then women AND men must make use of them in order for biases and assumptions to slowly disappear.

Blowing your own horn: A cultural and personality exercise in group responsibility

 

     "Blow your own horn".  Or "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Not sure how widespread these sayings are. They are certainly well distributed in the United States and I think the general sentiment pervades business within much of Europe and the rest of the Americas. (No idea about Africa, I'm sorry to say.) However, in Japanese culture, the saying is the opposite ("The nail that sticks up gets pounded down") -- a direct effort to raise one's own recognition over that of the group is considered very negatively.

     No matter what the culture is or how shy, or extroverted, a person is -- there is a need for recognition for effort. In the United States (currently, it may be changing) that is primarily reflected in monetary recompense. The distribution of recognition between money/public recognition/awards/perks and so forth vary from place to place, company to company, and culture to culture. But, whatever the form, I feel quite sure that everyone wants to be recognized for their efforts.

     Everyone is unique in how they want to be recognized, however. A direct "thank you" may be enough for many people. A smile, a clap on the back, or a shake of the hand may be appropriate for someone else. Some will not feel recognized unless they have a plaque on the wall saying "Employee of the Century". I know that, when I received the first departmental recognition award back in the Stone Ages with Bell Labs, I felt both a desire to melt into the walls and at the same time the feeling of wanting to grin until my mouth would split.

     I also felt the desire to attempt to do even more -- until my supervisor at the time brought me back down to earth when she said "don't think this reward is going to help you at merit review". My peers recognized my contributions but management did not.

     And that is a problem -- for many people in many companies. Depending on personality, and business/social culture, people can make their contributions more visible -- but that doesn't mean they do such or do such effectively. Another supervisor (my all time favorite in my career) told me "until your office was moved next to mine, I had no idea just how many people you were helping every day".

     But is it the employee's responsibility to do their own promotion? Personally, I don't think so. Even in countries/cultures where it is approved to do such -- people are able to do it better, or worse, depending on many factors. For me, there was always the naive assumption that my management was aware of my work. But I knew how/what people could do to be better recognized -- my mentees over the decades have gone on to higher positions than I ever did.

     So, is it the responsibility of management? Yes, I think it is always one of the responsibilities of management -- to be aware of the contributions of people around them whether they work for them or are peers. Is it ONLY the responsibility of management? While it is, in my opinion, required of management it certainly should be encouraged for peers to recognize peers as part of the corporate culture.

     In many business cultures, this applies even more greatly to the accomplishments of women and minorities. A woman makes a suggestion and nothing happens. A male colleague makes the very same suggestion and it takes off without any acknowledgement of it being the woman's initial idea. The same can also happen with minorities.

     It is an inherent failing of power hierarchies. And it reduces the effectiveness, productivity, and profitability of companies. In most such power hierarchies, it requires a proactive approach to reduce these effects. That doesn't require different treatment of those who have not been well treated -- it "just" requires process that applies equally to all. (Much more easily said than accomplished.)

     So what happens with that "squeaky wheel" or "horn blower"? They are difficult to not recognize. For some cultures, such as in Japan, that recognition is negative. For many more, it means their name comes to mind. They are not only recognized but they are often taken at their own proclaimed value. (This is very similar to professional politicians.) So, they may advance faster than other, more productive or valuable, peers. And that is just the way it is -- until an atmosphere of peer recognition becomes part of the culture.

     A "squeaky wheel" MAY be highly productive and capable -- and they may not be. But, I will give good odds that their peers know what is real even if their managers do not. They know if someone is doing their own great work or taking credit for what others have done. They know if they are well regarded within the peer workspace and would be someone they would respect and be a leader they would want to follow.

     We can all learn, grow, and improve. But we need to be aware of those aspects to work on to be able to achieve it. Proper recognition of contributions is one such area that needs continued evaluation and improvement.

Substitution: A spotlight on biases and prejudices

 

     There is a difference between direct, active biases and prejudices and indirect, passive biases and prejudices. The difference is largely one of being conscious of the situation. If you are aware that you have biases and prejudices and you take no action to eliminate, or reduce, them then you are actively encouraging them. Certainly, there are people and groups in this category.

     But there are many more situations of passive bias and prejudices. Being passive and indirect, and part of everyday life, these types of biases and prejudices become part of the general environment. It is necessary to recognize these situations and bring them to the conscious level in order to struggle against, and eliminate, them.

     How can this be done? One method that I suggest is that of substitution. This is another way of saying "walk in their shoes" but it is more of a general exercise than a specific example. No matter how much it might be desired, it is truly impossible to be part of the society, the history, and the world,  of another person. There is no way to live another's life.

     The best that we can do is to recognize that we treat others differently. In the case of substitution, we take a situation and "substitute" various factors to determine whether it changes the way we think about it.

     Changing the use of the word "mailman" to "postal carrier" was ridiculed. But, in the years since that change was made, we now have a large number of female postal carriers in addition to male postal carriers. The change of word did not matter but the change in thought did. Language directly affects the way we think.

     In other areas, if a person uses a pronoun for a position or job category, what happens if you substitute a different pronoun? If you are used to saying "he did a good job", how does it change the way you think about it if it is now "she did a good job"? Does the change in pronoun make you uncomfortable? Do you find it hard to visualize someone different in that role? Once upon a time, in the U.S., nurses were mostly men. Then they became female. Then we started to consciously make it a position for men and women. The same is true for secretaries (now, often, administrative assistants).

     Doctors, CEOs, department heads, directors, business owners -- substitute the pronoun used and see if you look at the position differently. Note that changing the title to a non-genderized form is not sufficient. CEO is not a gender specific word, but people do not sufficiently use "she" or "her" with the title. Since, in English, pronouns are what specifies gender, use of alternating genders is needed to retrain expectations. In other languages, the gender is often directly part of the title but not always.

     Substitution methods do not stop at pronouns, language, and gender. You see a group of young people doing something in a store or on a street. Change their skin color, or external religious symbolism, or the way they are clothed within your mind. If you make that change, do you react, or think about them, differently? If you find yourself reacting differently, you can notice it. Once consciously aware, it is a situation you can now address.

     This is not just a mind game. Studies have been performed showing photos of people in various normal activities and situations. The photos have people in the driver's seat of a car, shopping, walking in a high-priced neighborhood (or low-end neighborhood), talking with a teacher, and so forth. When the researchers kept all other factors the same and just changed one in the photos (it might be the way they are dressed or their skin color or external religious indication or whatever), there were significant differences in the way people described the people in the photos.

     Recently, the same tests were performed with police officers of several cities. In spite of being aware of the general subject of the tests, the description of the people in the photos differed dependent on skin color, gender, and other aspects.

     When job applications are stripped of identification markers, the pool of acceptable candidates change. Things such as names, addresses, specific affiliations are removed or substituted with generic items. The person reading the application cannot determine gender or ethnic or religious heritage. And it makes a difference.

     Photos, of course, make a considerable difference. Since face to face interaction is a large part of being able to perform most jobs, it is difficult to know just how this factor can be made generic within in-person job interviews. It is necessary to know how they speak, how they listen, their body language, and general conduct.

     Perhaps the best we can do, at present, is to keep the first levels of applications, which are not in person,  generic. Any suggestions?

Victim Mentality: How NOT to improve your situation

     First, let's state up front that there IS such a thing as being a victim. This occurs when there is an imbalance of power, real or perceived, between two people or groups. There may not be an identifiable quality that differentiates between the people or groups. Or it may be "justified" because of difference in body shape, amount of money, skin pigmentation, gender or gender identification, sexual orientation, religion, genealogy, political branding, attitudes towards social or political situations, and so forth. It can be primarily between two individuals (bullying or a crime done to you) or two or more groups (-isms).
     I do not have the chutzpah to try to define all victims or to identify causes or cures for various victimizing situations. But I was a co-editor of a minority newsletter at work for about three years and I left after I started detecting a persistent and demoralizing pattern. About 80% of the articles were about what "they" do and the effects of what "they" did. The articles generated some anger but, often, more of a sense of hopelessness. Anger can be used as a source of energy to create positive, proactive, change. Hopelessness does just the opposite.
     Victim mentality basically says "I have no power" and "the person, or people, abusing me is the only one that can change the situation" and "all of the power rests in others". While there is a sense of familiarity in giving up -- a comfort in the situation that says you can expect ongoing victimization to which you already used to -- it also means that nothing will improve. Even external attempts to improve the situation will be defeated because, in reality, you have the primary power and if you believe nothing will improve -- it won't.
     During my cross-checking research for this blog, I ran across a number of articles concerning how to get out of victim mentality -- but not very much on just why victim mentality is so counter-productive. These are a few of the components from the articles that I once read that ended so mired in victim mentality.

• One person does not define everyone. A person has done something to you. Possibly even a set of people has done something to you. This still leaves 8.6 billion, minus the people who did something to you, as NOT having done anything to you. You against the world may be the feeling that you have -- don't make it the reality. Make allies instead of enemies.
  
• Don't exclusively focus on what you do not have. A number of the articles seemed to have the general theme of "count your curses" rather than "count your blessings". As a legitimate victim, you have things that have happened that are bad. But isn't there anything good?
  
• In many of the articles, there was an emphasis on people, who were chosen by the victim, doing bad things to them. That's indeed terrible. But why were they chosen? Do you often make such choices? Can you start making better choices?
  
• Often there is a direction of "all or nothing". Sounds great -- except for the "nothing" part. Break up the goal into a bunch of parts (the smaller they are, the more easily attainable some of them will be) that add up to your "all" and then start woking on the various "parts". You may never reach the "all". Maybe your great-grandchildren will. Who knows? in the meantime, things are improving and you have stopped concentrating on what you don't have.
  
• Search for alliances, support, and helpers rather than sympathy. Many articles seemed to cry out "poor me". OK, I am sorry for what happened. Now how can I help you help yourself? What is needed by you, or within your environment, to help prevent what has happened from happening again?

     I would love to never read another article that appears to be based out of a victim mentality. Until that day comes, I will do my best to help in the ways that I can.

Equal opportunity -- that fragile illusion

     Most people think that everyone should have equal opportunities -- opportunity for financial success, opportunity for professional success, opportunity to be and do what they want, opportunity for happiness (in whatever way it is defined). There are those few who feel that they can have what they want only by denying others -- but I believe that most feel that equal opportunity is a good goal.

     There are also people who state that they believe that this is reality -- that there truly is equal opportunity for everyone. If someone is poor, it is because they just haven't worked hard enough. If someone doesn't have health care, it is because it wasn't really important to them to achieve. If someone has not achieved the professional and career level that they want, it is because they aren't good enough and/or haven't worked hard enough.

     As is often true of perceptions, there is a bit of reality mixed in. All the above COULD be true -- maybe the person did not work hard enough, maybe they weren't good enough, maybe something wasn't important enough for them to choose -- they chose something else of equal cost that was of more immediate importance for them. But the idea of equal opportunity is that each person has EQUAL access to the opportunities that allows them to succeed in whatever definition that may be.

     As I said earlier, most people think this should be and there are some who feel that that is the way that it is. It is a fragile illusion and is just not true for most people. Obstacles exist and not everyone has the same obstacles, or the same amount of obstacles, or the same ease of working through obstacles. While it is still possible for someone with many, many, obstacles to achieve "success" they may need to work many times harder AND encounter rare opportunities that many in their situation do not encounter (that is, they have to have "luck") as opposed to another person who has to work very little and have many opportunities presented.

     At heart, there are a number of different areas which present these uneven obstacles. Although I will present them in categories, they might fit into multiple categories or be "properly" classified in a totally different category. I won't argue about such -- what I am presenting is the idea that, because of all of these obstacles which are not the same for all people, equal opportunity is an illusion and, in order for the chance of "success", sometimes outside help is needed. Some of these areas include:

• Nutrition. We presently have young children in Flint, Michigan growing up having had excess levels of lead in their drinking water. This will affect them all their lives. With continuously deteriorating infrastructure, including water lines and treatment plants, this is not unique to Flint even though it presently gets the headlines.
  
  Although few starve in the United States, malnutrition still exists (see previous blogs on nutrition and economics) because good nutrition requires good food and time to prepare and the poor often do not invest in this. With malnutrition, the full individual potential is difficult to achieve.
  
• Income. Income facilitates many things. It allows access to better schools and teachers. It allows more time to be spent on activities for learning and relaxation rather than for survival. It provides access to networks of people who also have easy access to facilities and opportunities which can make a huge difference.
  
  Even though general attributes which may lead to success exist independent of wealth, or pigmentation, or ethnic history, income does help, and always has helped, to eliminate obstacles and ease the road to opportunities.
  
• Prejudices. Opportunities can be explicitly denied to others because of the prejudices of those with the power. While prejudices can also exist on the part of the less powerful, those with power have the ability to "close the door" to others. Prejudices may be from most recent nationality ("Irish need not Apply", "No Chinese allowed", "Wetbacks not admitted", ...). They may be based on "race" (usually applied based on skin pigmentation, speech, or body patterns). They can be based on gender (male, female, trans-sexual, etc.). They can be based on religion, or ethnic background, or any other aspect that can be used as a separating label.
  
  Whatever prejudice exists, it can be used by those with power to limit opportunity and often has, both in the past and in the present.
  
  
• Health. "People have diabetes because they choose a bad lifestyle." Sorry, but I did not choose my mother or my grandfather. Perhaps I could have eaten, or lived, in a manner that would have lessened my chance to get diabetes --  but I have no control over my genetic history, the preservatives, hormones, pesticides, insecticides, food additives, or other aspects of our environment which are now leading to rising cases of diabetes.
  
  People do not choose to be born blind, or deaf, or without use of some of their limbs. While there are many strong, courageous people who have overcome such obstacles -- they are still obstacles that others do NOT have to combat and, thus, prevent equal opportunity.
  
  In addition to birth conditions and genetically-inclined diseases, people encounter other health issues through their lives. With proper health care, most can be worked with, but many people in the U.S. do NOT have full access to proper health care. Some health issues can arise out of personal choices (smoking, drinking, illegal and legal drugs, ...) and some feel that others should not help support them in the consequences from these deliberate choices. But there are many other choices that are NOT deliberate and even the deliberate bad choices are made from an environment of unequal possibilities.
  
• Appearance. OK. It shouldn't be this way but a taller person is more likely to be elected to office. A more fit person is more likely to be offered an opportunity that interacts with the general public. Societal views of "attractiveness" gives an advantage, or disadvantage, in the getting of jobs and of the likelihood of getting raises.
  
• Access. I talked about the aspect of income of giving access to opportunities. However, there are also physical access aspects. Currently, there is debate about getting rural access to broadband Internet -- it costs more to provide such but there is reluctance to charge rural people more (similar to the issues involving landline telephone access in the early and mid 20th century).
  
  If you live an hour from the closest library and cultural centers, it will make a difference. If your local town, or neighborhood, has limited possible choices and you cannot go elsewhere, it will make a difference.
  
• Education. Beginning with the time of Benjamin Franklin, and before, the idea of public education has been an important one to improve the chances of equal opportunities. Funding has always been a handicap to providing equal education but the struggle has continued with parents and teachers advocating for better, and more equal, public education.
  
  The "successful" -- even those who have been able to make use of private education -- have equally made use of public education to provide the workers needed for them to achieve their goals. Public education is needed to provide for the various types of workers needed within a society. Debate exists about how far along financial help should be provided for education -- but educated people are needed by society and, in my opinion, society should pay for what society needs. It is certainly an area to debate but it is true that the rich cannot exist without public education even if they do not directly make use of it.
  
• Role Models. Sometimes the use of language for various positions is made fun of as being "politically correct". However, if a postal carrier is always referred to as a mailman then people WILL think of a "man" in the role -- even though the gender has nothing to do with it. Similar to a congressperson. It would be possible to refer to people as congressmen and congresswomen but, in reality, gender has nothing to do with the role and it is both easier, and more accurate, to refer to them as congresspeople.
  
  On the visual side, if people see people who come from similar ethnic or religious heritage in a particular role, they will think that that is a role in which they might find themselves at some time. If a CEO that is pictured is a woman as often as a man, then the term will become non-genderized. People find it much easier to imagine themselves in a specific role if others who remind themselves of themselves can be seen in those roles.
  
• Physical Environment. A home is much more than a house, or apartment -- but having someplace stable to call home is important to people. It is important to their sense of stability and of being able to make plans for the future. In a similar fashion, it needs to be a safe place -- no rats coming out of the toilet or patches of plaster falling off the ceiling in the middle of the night. It needs to be sufficiently warm in winter and bearable in summer so that they can study, think, and relax.
  
• Home Environment. A final (for this blog) category of obstacle is that of the home environment. This is in addition to the physical environment. Are there people to talk to? People to encourage and help? People to comfort and aid when things don't go wrong? Is there an environment of angry survival or hopeful loving comfort and support? While there is not that much, in isolation, that society can do to help in this -- it CAN be helped with the removal, or minimizing, of the other obstacles that people encounter.

     These are just a few types of obstacles that can stand in a person's way to the path of opportunities. What others come to mind for you? What are the best ways to make obstacles more even and allow something closer to "equal opportunity"?

Race: The Invented Divider

The definition of race is primarily that of running as the word comes from the Middle English word ras meaning "to rush". However, although it may be one of the lesser definitions of the word, if one talks about "race" -- without article or pronoun -- the definition that comes to mind is often that of a division of humanity into different groups.

This idea first came into being to separate groups based on observable physical traits in the 1600s and continued in increasing use, and refined definition, through the early 1800s. Although some of the scientists had neutral goals for the use of the division, it was primarily used as a method of justifying colonization and subjugation of one group over another. It is largely discredited as a useful methodology within science at the present time.

In the elementary school that my children attended, there were about 850 children. If you lined up the children according to skin pigmentation, you would have a long continually varying set of shades and colors from near alabaster to ebony. If you lined them up on a summer day, you would get a different ordering of people from that on a winter day. The same thing holds true for color of eyes, or hair, or width of nose. Each physical characteristic varies on a continuous stream -- although there are certainly areas of the world that are more homogenous (similar between individuals) than others. This is why it has been abandoned by science -- it makes no sense to have discrete classifications.

Just because race has no reasonable definition does not mean there is not racism -- bias and prejudice based on observable (or known familial) physical traits. Racism, sexism, religionism, and other bias/prejudice are forms of xenophobia (fear of "the other"). It has existed since the beginning of recorded history and most likely since the rise of consciousness. The only cure for the syndrome is knowledge -- understanding of "the other" such that the similarities become more obvious than the differences. During periods of antagonism and preparation for war, differences are accentuated (made to seem greater) by governments in order to inflame xenophobia and the inclination to distrust and fear.

Some people say that an ism can only take place by the group in greater power toward the group having less power. Thus, there can be no sexism by women having bias or prejudice about men and there can be no bias or prejudice by pigmentally enhanced people towards those who are pigmentally challenged. This makes as much sense as the original xenophobic reaction. If there exists bias or prejudice based on an observable (or known association with a group who DOES have such observable) physical traits then the relation of power makes no difference.

In summary, the best way to work with, and reduce, xenophobia in all of its forms is knowledge and understanding.