On 11 Nov 2009 at 9:41, Max Wagoner wrote:

> At 02:34 PM 11/9/2009, you wrote:
> >Claire wrote:
> >I have come to know, first-hand, of people of certain cultures and
> >religions who place no value to human life.
>
> Sherryl and Robert:
>
> While I don't necessarily agree with Claire I'm afraid that the world
> is becoming such a "politically correct" place that we can't see (or
> believe) and we certainly can't "speak" of evil even when we know it is there.

Let me have a crack at this, since it is certainly HR relevant, and
your argument is a common one for negative comments about various
groups (ie. women, or whoever)

We CAN speak of evil, and we should speak of evil, but without
generalization (inaccurate by definition).

It's one thing to say: "I have come to know, first-hand that people
who work in HR, are mad, powerhungry megalomaniacs who are out to
screw employees".

It's another to say: I have met two people in different HR
departments who refused to meet with me to discuss some problems I
was having (whatever, you get the point).

It is one thing to describe specific behavior one has seen or
experienced, and another to take that behavior and generalize about
an entire group.

It's one thing, for example to report on violence and specify the
skin color of the perpetrator (even though s/he was caught) when
there is no purpose in doing so, as compared to talking about the
perpetrator independent of skin color. (It used to be and may still
be common to mention the race of minorities, but never mention
"white" in news reports about similar behavior.)

If someone said: "The murder rate in India is x/per capita compared
to y/per capita in the U.S, so one has to wonder why...?

That seems factually based. It's the inferences and conclusions that
are the problems, NOT the fact, or talking about  them.

In case you are wondering India ranks 26th in murders per capita
while the USA is 24th. There are significantly less murders per
capita in India than the USA, and Canada, has a rate 1/3 that of the
USA!

(as per http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-
murders-per-capita) for whatever that's worth)

Those are the numbers (let's assume they are correct)

It's one thing for me to quote those and to ask the questions: What
might that mean?

It's another to say: Americans are murderous barbarians who don't
value human life. (I might add we could look at infant mortality
rates in the USA which would be consistent with not caring about
children too).

Do you see the difference? At least in my view?

And, in addition, racists use every cognitive distortion in the book
to justify their conclusions about groups they think "less of".
Experience with these folks makes it pretty easy to sniff out the
distortions and rationalizations, and hence the challenge this time
around.

Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

Thank you, Robert.  Well said.

Joyce

On 11 Nov 2009 at 9:51, Max Wagoner wrote:

> Not exactly.  In Western Countries (not sure the US qualifies
> anymore) it is usually one deranged individual.  In many non Western
> countries it is mobs of like minded individuals.

For some reason, your post reminded me of the multitude of mob
violence instances in North America (and actually around the world in
so called civilized western countries) about SPORTS, and sometimes,
mob violence and riots to CELEBRATE championships!

I can't recall if there have been any deaths, but for some reason,
some people remember mob violence in "those" countries, but don't
recognize it in "our" countries.

Anyway, just an observation on selective perceptions that affect
human beings.

Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

>Anyone who's been on this list any length of time knows that the
>exchanges between Claire Belilos and Robert Bacal often get testy
>and that's okay.  However, sometimes they become extremely
>bitter.  That can escalate if the moderators aren't on top of things.

Fred and Paul:

It's good to know you two are still around.  Apparently I don't
really agree with either of you that Anything should be nipped in the
bud; but, then again I was going to dump this list.  So, how come I'm
the one clearing bouncing members every morning?

I still believe that moderation of this list in any way would be a
mistake.  And, particularly when we are talking about an issue that
is PC.  PC is destroying the world in which we live and that's my opinion.

Fight hard, play hard, go and have a drink together.  I don't need to
agree with you to like you; but, I appreciate knowing your views no
matter how extreme.


Max

Claire:

"At the risk of being excommunicated from the list, may I ask why Max
Wagoner, the moderator (or "owner") of this list allow Robert Baccal
to insult me, insult my integrity and propate hateful lies about me
on this list?"

First of all I have been ill over a week and just got back on line today.

Second of all, I don't "moderate" the list.  PERIOD!!

In fact, I was going to turn it off a few months back because there
was almost no communication on here.

Nobody can speak their piece without being challenged.  If you
disagree with the challenge of Robert or Sherryl then state your
piece and let the members decide.

Claire, if he is wrong there are slander and liable laws; but, I'm
not the arbitor of that.  It's for the courts to decide.


Max

Robert:

I usually agree with you and, to a point, I supposed I do here too.

I'm certainly not agreeing with Claire; but, I would rather that
those that are bigotted and prejudice open their mouths.  What scares
the bejeesus out of me is all the political correctness that won't
see the truth because of their rose colored glasses.

I at least want it out there discussed without pulling punches.

Your analogy to "Hells Angels" and then somewhere turning that into
"bikers" was somewhat disingenuous though.  No Nice neighborly guy
should join the Angels, The Diablos, the Cripps etc... just to do their thing.


Max

At 06:35 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>Did anyone read about the former employee (an Engineer) from an
>Engineering firm in Orlando, Florida (definitely a Western City!)
>returning with a gun and killing one person and wounding a number of
>others?  The individual was educated (had an engineering degree) and
>was "westernized".  Doesn't this say much the same thing as the
>article did?  And doesn't it prove Claire's responses were ill advised?

Hey Joyce,

Good seeing you over here.

Not exactly.  In Western Countries (not sure the US qualifies
anymore) it is usually one deranged individual.  In many non Western
countries it is mobs of like minded individuals.

Max

At 03:55 PM 11/9/2009, you wrote:
>Please take this discussion off list.

Sorry Jeff:

You have a delete button.


Max

>Do you suggest that we deny what we hear on daily news and even see
>on TV, and dismiss books on the subject?  Women being killed for
>falling in love with someone the family does not approve of, and
>both men and women being flogged and beheaded even for minor
>accusations, of hands of thieves being chopped off, of women being
>raped, of very small girls being sold or wedded to someone against
>money, etc. etc.?

I kinda like the idea of hands being cut off thieves.  We just need
to start with our governments.  :)

At 02:34 PM 11/9/2009, you wrote:
>Claire wrote:
>I have come to know, first-hand, of people of certain cultures and
>religions who place no value to human life.

Sherryl and Robert:

While I don't necessarily agree with Claire I'm afraid that the world
is becoming such a "politically correct" place that we can't see (or
believe) and we certainly can't "speak" of evil even when we know it is there.

Max

As one of the other moderators/owners, I'll echo what Paul says and add to it
the following:  I believe the topics of racism, etc, are appropriate for an HR
list.  I also believe that the discussions of such topics occasionally become so
heated and personal as to be inappropriate and that's when the moderators have
to step in.

I've been occupied with other matters and haven't paid as much attention to
HRNet as I should have.

Anyone who's been on this list any length of time knows that the exchanges
between Claire Belilos and Robert Bacal often get testy and that's okay. 
However, sometimes they become extremely bitter.  That can escalate if the
moderators aren't on top of things.

So, my apologies to the list for not nipping this one in the bud.

Fred Nickols
nickols@...
Owner/Moderator

--- In HRNET@yahoogroups.com, "Paul OLeary" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> As one of the moderators on the list, I'd like to remind everyone, here is the
description of this group:
>
> HRNET is devoted to HR professionals and others with an interest in human
resources management. HRNET provides a place where HR professionals can exchange
ideas and discuss issues of concern.
>
> I think that we as Professionals should move on to other topics.  If someone
wants to set up another yahoogroup to discuss this issue, please let the
moderators know.  If this topic continues to be discussed in this forum, we'll
take appropriate action.
>

I will have to take exception to some views and say that I believe that
there is merit to this conversation or topic.

Some on this list have approached this subject with viewpoints that seem to
suggest that they might harbor or believe in some for of racism.

Some have almost violently denounced others that they suspect may have less
than "perfect" views.

Others have approached it more calmly.



I guess its time for my two cents worth.  I believe that almost every one
has imbedded in them at some level negative feelings about a group of
people.  These can come from early childhood.  Parents, relatives, friends,
etc. can influence you from the time you are born, and some of it is going
to stay with you no matter what.



Some people, at the slightest hint of anything they don't consider perfect,
blow up and rant and rave as has been demonstrated on the list.  I sometimes
wonder if people like that are overcompensating?????



  Violent reactions might tend to suppress on the surface the expressions of
such, but do nothing to help the person overcome.

I think that understanding and helping someone work through these "negative"
thoughts would be far better.



Of course, the older we are, the more likely we are to harbor some feelings.
To me, one of the all time best movies was  "Driving Miss Daisy".  I am old
enough, and southern enough to completely understand the movie.  Others who
are younger and from other areas of the country will not have a clue what it
is really about.  Rent it, watch it, and see if you can really figure it
out.



John Lewis







   _____

From: HRNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:HRNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Bacal
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:37 PM
To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [HRNET] HR Mgr Killed by Angry Workers







On 10 Nov 2009 at 20:43, George Moskowitz wrote:

> You have the wrong end of the stick, and please don't try to start another
pointless thread. I do not think the discussion of racism is inappropriate.
I do, however, think that personal attacks on other list members and
accusations of hating one another is.

I would suggest, in the interest of clear and good communication,
that if you have SPECIFIC objections to things, that you direct your
specific feedback to the person, in private or public, whatever is
your choice.

Simply saying it's "inappropriate" without providing details isn't
helpful or clear. Or do you care?

Once again, what is a "pointless" thread to you?

If you have a problem about how the use of the word hate has been
used, take it up with who wrote what bothers you, like an adult and a
professional.

As for the personal attacks, I have a feeling that if one person
states that another has made racist comments, there is no way to make
it "not personal".

In the fight against hatred, racism, discrimination, harrassment and
a number of other workplace things that happen, I'm sad to say that
there are times when there's no way to have the conversations so they
aren't personal.

Which is why, I'd bet so much of these kinds of workplace issues get
ignored or swept under the rug, or worse, are allowed to continue
despite damage to targets.

All this may be pointless to you. Perhaps you'd rather talk about how
the Xmas holidays are going to work, and more power to you.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10 Nov 2009 at 20:43, George Moskowitz wrote:

> You have the wrong end of the stick, and please don't try to start another
pointless thread.  I do not think the discussion of racism is inappropriate.  I
do, however, think that personal attacks on other list members and accusations
of hating one another is.

I would suggest, in the interest of clear and good communication,
that if you have SPECIFIC objections to things, that you direct your
specific feedback to the person, in private or public, whatever is
your choice.

Simply saying it's "inappropriate" without providing details isn't
helpful or clear. Or do you care?

Once again, what is a "pointless" thread to you?

If you have a problem about how the use of the word hate has been
used, take it up with who wrote what bothers you, like an adult and a
professional.

As for the personal attacks, I have a feeling that if one person
states that another has made racist comments, there is no way to make
it "not personal".

In the fight against hatred, racism, discrimination, harrassment and
a number of other workplace things that happen, I'm sad to say that
there are times when there's no way to have the conversations so they
aren't personal.

Which is why, I'd bet so much of these kinds of workplace issues get
ignored or swept under the rug, or worse, are allowed to continue
despite damage to targets.

All this may be pointless to you. Perhaps you'd rather talk about how
the Xmas holidays are going to work, and more power to you.

All,
Since I seem to have inadvertently (and, believe it or not, unintentionally)
started this flurry of debate, I will take some responsibility for it, and will
defer to the moderators' request to "move on."

But as the unintentional "instigator" I do need to respond to one item:

Gary Lear said to Robert Bacal:
"Yes, we need to speak up against bigotry, but, again, the original statement
that you reacted to didn't contain any. It only made a general statement with
no specific reference to any group or country. "

Gary, it was I who originally chastised Claire for her comments on the list,
which I read and yes, perceived as prejudicial and distasteful. While I might be
able to accept that I completely "misinterpreted" Claire's meaning, I somehow
doubt it. I owned my perceptions up front and made it clear that I am not in any
position to influence Claire, the list moderator(s) or anyone else. I certainly
don't need to "win" this one.

I value Robert's professional contributions, I've always admired his willingness
to take the heat when he won't compromise his values on a position. I definitely
value yours and many of the others here. I'll also readily admit that I can't
comment objectively on Claire's professional contributions because I can't get
past her communication "style", "content", "approach" or whatever it is and
delete 98% of her posts without reading them. That's my choice and has nothing
to do with the true value or legitimacy of Claire's participation. I'm fine with
that simply because this list is not my responsibility. I'd suggest that each of
us here truly only responds to the contributions of those others that we have,
for one reason or another, developed a certain professional respect for. I'm
sure there are readers who delete 98% of my posts, or 98% of Robert's... that's
their choice too. No forced participation here. The law of two feet is alive and
well on HRNet :-). I think the fact that I responded to a contribution from
someone I typically don't bother to read or respond to, says more about my
inability to "stay silent" about my reaction to her post than anything else.

I could have questioned Claire more about her meaning before snapping at her
(and I readily acknowledge that I snapped at her). If I had never interacted
with her before or didn't know her, I probably would have tried to engage more
clarifying dialogue. But at some point, one kinda gets to know what a person
means based on a history of experience. Frankly, I shudder to think how she
might have elaborated on what she really meant in her comments, but if Claire
wants to take a stab at explaining what she meant by her comments and how they
directly related to the original news story that Terry Seamon posted... I do
promise to not respond and leave that to the moderators. If in fact, I learn
that I completely misconstrued the implicit meaning of Claire's post, I will be
the first to apologize for my part in the misunderstanding.

Sherryl Stalinski




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robert,

You said: "Perhaps the better example is re: the "biker" culture, since there is
indeed one. Hell's Angels are bikers, and so is Ned, the guy down the street who
works for the government, lives in a bungalow, and on the weekend, gets on his
leathers and climbs aboard the Harley.

"To say that bikers have a culture of violence is a good example of the same
kind of prejudice and bigotry that Claire has exhibited here, and on Odnet
repeatedly."

Actually, I believe that I used the term "biker gang" to refer to a specific
group, as opposed to the term "biker culture."  Coupled with the use of the
groups "Skinheads," "Crips," and "Bloods," I didn't feel the need to be any more
specific and indicate that I was referring to the 1% of motorcycle riders that
belong to outlaw motorcycle gangs.  In fact, since there is actually a biker
gang that calls themselves the Outlaws, it might even get more confusing, huh?
Anyway, in law enforcement circles we simply referred to them as "biker gangs,"
just as we refer to many of the other gangs collectively as "street gangs" or
"prison gangs," depending on where they originally came into being.

As a biker who has leathers and all the regalia, who rode a cruiser but not a
Harley, and was a former law enforcement trainer who's area included Daytona
Beach and Bike Week, I can tell you that there is indeed, in fact, a difference
between "biker" and "biker gang."  And if you don't believe that biker gangs
have a culture of violence, then you don't know as much as you think you do
about violence.  I won't bother to share any of the gory details that we used to
hear about every year as we received our updates in preparation for bike week.


You see, this is a perfect example where it causes a lot of confusion and
animosity when people jump to conclusions, twist what was said, aren't sure of
terminology, and make a big deal out of something that isn't what was said at
all.  And this was exactly what I was trying to point out in my previous post.


As for the rest of what you shared, while I might agree with you on many things,
there is so much rhetoric there, and most isn't really germane to the point I
made.

As for forcing someone to change, you might force a change in behavior, but you
are not going to force a change in their hearts and minds.  It doesn't matter if
we are talking about the workplace or society in general.  Of course, I would
imagine that there are some that you will never change, but that isn't something
that I can readily do something about in society (outside of law enforcement).
It is only in the workplace where we can really deal with those issues, but most
organizations aren't really set up to deal with them effectively.

Yes, we need to speak up against bigotry, but, again, the original statement
that you reacted to didn't contain any.  It only made a general statement with
no specific reference to any group or country.  Perhaps the generality provided
guilt of hyperbole rather than bigotry.  Perhaps you jumped to your own
conclusions and perhaps those were based on previous encounters; and perhaps
those previous encounters were based on erroneous conclusions, as well.  I don't
know.  All I have seen is what was shared here.  I've seen an awful lot of
finger pointing and little asking to seek clarification on a very broad
statement that has resulted into backing a person into a corner and then we
start getting irrational comments from both sides.  (Gee, sort of sounds like
politics as normal in America, huh?)

This is the lesson that I was trying to share.  Rather than to jump to
conclusions we should ask others to clarify their message.  Once we are clear
about what they are sharing then we are free to act, rather than simply reacting
from our own ignorance where we make things up to fit the situation (such as Ned
on his Harley, or worse riding on a Honda Silver Wing; yeah, that would
definitely not be a biker gang bike <wink>).

As for HR folks doing the right thing, I would hope that they would ask a lot of
questions to fully understand the situation for themselves, and help others
fully understand the situation, as well.  I've often found that doing this
resolves a whole lot of problems because most problems come from
misunderstandings, not intentional evil.  Of course, as I share in my book,
those who destroy Trust can't stay. And there are a lot of ways that Trust can
be destroyed, including bigotry or blaming others without fully understanding a
situation.

Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts.

BTW, also for what it's worth, I do believe that Fred Nickols is the list owner
now, not Max.  I have no idea who else is involved with helping run the list
now.

Make a Great Day!

Gary Lear, President & CEO
Author of Leadership Lessons From the Medicine Wheel: The Seven Elements of High
Performance

Resource Development Systems LLC
Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)

gelear@...   www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com

(c) 2009 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way
other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.

As one of the moderators on the list, I'd like to remind everyone, here is the
description of this group:

HRNET is devoted to HR professionals and others with an interest in human
resources management. HRNET provides a place where HR professionals can exchange
ideas and discuss issues of concern.

I think that we as Professionals should move on to other topics.  If someone
wants to set up another yahoogroup to discuss this issue, please let the
moderators know.  If this topic continues to be discussed in this forum, we'll
take appropriate action.

You have the wrong end of the stick, and please don't try to start another
pointless thread.  I do not think the discussion of racism is inappropriate.  I
do, however, think that personal attacks on other list members and accusations
of hating one another is.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10 Nov 2009 at 20:29, George Moskowitz wrote:

> This kind of personal vitriolic exchange has no business on this list.  If you
can't resolve your private issues off line, then I suggest you table it and stop
beating a dead horse.  It is quite inappropriate for the list, unpleasant for
the rest of us and quite counter-productive, in terms of the list's mission. 
Max, perhaps you can step in here.

George, I don't have any argument with your opinion, but I'm
interested in why you think the discussion of racism, and it's twin,
discrimination, is inappropriate to an HR forum.

The issues of racism and sexism in the workplace are issues that many
of my HR friends deal with, if not on a daily basis, certainly on a
weekly one. What we have live here is a situation where many of the
questions fundamental to how to handle these situations in the
workplace can be explored, questions asked, and answers sought.

IMHO.

There are many questions here identical to those faced in HR.

What constitutes unacceptable aspersions on races, countries and
cultures talked about in the workplace?
What actions are appropriate?
How do you change work cultures to diminish the occurences of
racially or culturally offensive remarks?

and on.

So, George, why is this inappropriate? It's not like this list is
used for something, so if you don't find it relevant to you (which I
don't quite get), why not just skip the notes?

World's Greatest Training and Development Search Engine
http://thetrainingworld.com/trainingsearch.htm

Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

This kind of personal vitriolic exchange has no business on this list.  If you
can't resolve your private issues off line, then I suggest you table it and stop
beating a dead horse.  It is quite inappropriate for the list, unpleasant for
the rest of us and quite counter-productive, in terms of the list's mission. 
Max, perhaps you can step in here.

George Moskowitz
Principal
GCM Consulting

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10 Nov 2009 at 14:19, Claire Belilos wrote:


> I know you think that such controversy and hate messages makes, in
> your eyes, the list attractive, but this is a professional list and I
> am really surprised at your letting it be used as a vent for Robert's
> hatred of me (which began long long long ago).

I have no hatred of you. I am embarrased to come from the same
background and country as you, but that said, I challenge you when
you make racist remarks, which you have done for  a long time. I'd
suggest you ask, and listen to the comments of the many people who
won't tell you how they feel about your remarks about Muslims, Arabs,
Africans, Asians and anyone from countries you view as uncivilized.

I think you are misrepresenting the position of list owner folks
here, and the fact you sent it publicly to try to prevent me from
challenging your racist remarks says a lot.

Your desire to stop me from expressing my opinion is reminiscent of
the  1930's and 40' in Germany something both of us should know.

World's Greatest Training and Development Search Engine
http://thetrainingworld.com/trainingsearch.htm

Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

At the risk of being excommunicated from the list, may I ask why Max Wagoner,
the moderator (or "owner") of this list allow Robert Baccal to insult me, insult
my integrity and propate hateful lies about me on this list?  I know that in
past correspondence regarding this tolerance for hateful messages from Max he
had told me that such controversy makes the list interesting.  But Max, it is at
MY expense.  I thought that after the first few hateful and spiteful messages of
Robert, attributing to me words I did not say, that you would have clearly seen
that he overstepped boundaries and woul, have told him off.

I know you think that such controversy and hate messages makes, in your eyes,
the list attractive, but this is a professional list and I am really surprised
at your letting it be used as a vent for Robert's hatred of me (which began long
long long ago).

On other lists they did not tolerate Robert's hateful postings.

Claire


--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Robert Bacal <ceo@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Bacal <ceo@...>
> Subject: RE: [HRNET] HR Mgr Killed by Angry Workers
> To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:50 PM
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2009 at 14:20, Gary Lear wrote:
>
>
> > Would this depend on how we define "culture" and how
> large a group must be in
> > order to actually have a "culture?" 
>
> Doug has clarified this...
> >
> > Would a group such as one of the biker gangs or
> perhaps one of the other gangs,
> > such as Skinheads or Crips or Bloods, be groups with a
> culture?  If so, would
> > the cultures of those groups be considered to have
> violence as a cultural trait?
>
> Perhaps the better example is re: the "biker" culture,
> since there is
> indeed one. Hell's Angels are bikers, and so is Ned, the
> guy down the
> street who works for the government, lives in a bungalow,
> and on the
> weekend, gets on his leathers and climbs aboard the
> Harley.
>
> To say that bikers have a culture of violence is a good
> example of
> the same kind of prejudice and bigotry that Claire has
> exhibited
> here, and on Odnet repeatedly.
> >
> > Here are some of my thoughts on this discussion in
> general (and not necessarily
> > addressed to you, David).
> >
> > While we certainly don't want to cast aspersions on
> individuals simply because
> > of their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, we
> must keep in mind that
> > there are groups within all of these that could indeed
> have cultures of
> > violence. 
>
> Yes, and they exist in every country I can think of, and in
> every
> culture including those of your ancestors and mine. There
> are very
> militant, and dare I say, potentially violent people and
> sub-groups
> in Native American locales, and there are and have been
> Jewish
> Zionist extremists.
>
> I think we both know what oppression, and bigotry means to
> our
> respective peoples, Gary, and perhaps worst of all it
> happened for
> Native people in their lands (ie. HERE). And it continues
> today.
>
> >
> > And while I am not here to defend Claire by any means,
> her original statement
> > did not single out any one group in particular. 
> Perhaps we should practice some
> > of our own "tolerance" by "seeking first to
> understand" where someone is coming
> > from in their statements rather than to immediately
> chastise them in public.
>
> No. I (and I'm not alone) have spent years hearing Claire's
>
> backhanded and direct remarks demeaning others who she has
> even
> labelled uncivilized. I've had enough time to understand.
> And as I
> said, I've heard it all before.
>
> You be gentle if you want. Nice people have tried for years
> with
> Claire. You may not want to draw a line and say "Claire,
> you have
> gone over it again", but I will. Silence is not an option
> if we want
> to combat racism.
>
>
> > And I suspect that some of the things that Claire is
> mentioning in her concerns
> > would be things that most of us would probably agree
> with.  I know that most
> > deplore some of the working conditions that are
> allowed in some third world
> > countries. 
>
> I deplore the working conditions in many third world
> countries. That
> does not mean that I will say that "green people hate
> children", or
> that green people are barbaric and uncivilized.
>
> Protesting conditions is one thing. Demeaning whole
> countries as
> uncivilized or violent is another, unacceptable thing.
>
>
> >
> > We also need to keep in mind that we don't change
> peoples' hearts and minds
> > about others by telling them to think and feel
> different and belittling them in
> > front of others; but by helping everyone to Build
> Trust with each other.  That
> > takes communication, knowledge, and understanding,
> which then leads us to
> > acceptance and an overt change in behavior towards
> others.
>
> Actually, it's a nice sentiment but it's not true. In fact,
> its
> bullsh*t. You change peoples hearts and minds by making it
> clear
> certain actions, behaviors, words, are unacceptable.
> Frankly, I don't
> care if someone like Claire is racist or not. I DO care
> that she and
> others know that such remarks are UNACCEPTABLE in our
> environments.
>
> The successes of creating social change through this method
> are
> legion, from the work of Martin Luther King, to the
> present, and the
> work of many many women, and I might add, the work in
> thousands of
> companies, of HR professionals who understand that you need
> to say:
>
> NO, we do not do that around here!
>
> To those HR people who have and continue to do both the
> right thing
> in these issues, and the legal things, bravo. To those
> apologists who
> believe we should "understand" racists...well, I'm afraid I
> can't use
> the words that suggest my opinion clearly.
>
>
> Robert Bacal
> Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
> Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
>   Subscribe:    HRNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  HRNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   List owner:   HRNET-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     HRNET-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>


       __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

On 10 Nov 2009 at 14:20, Gary Lear wrote:


> Would this depend on how we define "culture" and how large a group must be in
> order to actually have a "culture?"

Doug has clarified this...
>
> Would a group such as one of the biker gangs or perhaps one of the other
gangs,
> such as Skinheads or Crips or Bloods, be groups with a culture?  If so, would
> the cultures of those groups be considered to have violence as a cultural
trait?

Perhaps the better example is re: the "biker" culture, since there is
indeed one. Hell's Angels are bikers, and so is Ned, the guy down the
street who works for the government, lives in a bungalow, and on the
weekend, gets on his leathers and climbs aboard the Harley.

To say that bikers have a culture of violence is a good example of
the same kind of prejudice and bigotry that Claire has exhibited
here, and on Odnet repeatedly.
>
> Here are some of my thoughts on this discussion in general (and not
necessarily
> addressed to you, David).
>
> While we certainly don't want to cast aspersions on individuals simply because
> of their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, we must keep in mind that
> there are groups within all of these that could indeed have cultures of
> violence.

Yes, and they exist in every country I can think of, and in every
culture including those of your ancestors and mine. There are very
militant, and dare I say, potentially violent people and sub-groups
in Native American locales, and there are and have been Jewish
Zionist extremists.

I think we both know what oppression, and bigotry means to our
respective peoples, Gary, and perhaps worst of all it happened for
Native people in their lands (ie. HERE). And it continues today.

>
> And while I am not here to defend Claire by any means, her original statement
> did not single out any one group in particular.  Perhaps we should practice
some
> of our own "tolerance" by "seeking first to understand" where someone is
coming
> from in their statements rather than to immediately chastise them in public.

No. I (and I'm not alone) have spent years hearing Claire's
backhanded and direct remarks demeaning others who she has even
labelled uncivilized. I've had enough time to understand. And as I
said, I've heard it all before.

You be gentle if you want. Nice people have tried for years with
Claire. You may not want to draw a line and say "Claire, you have
gone over it again", but I will. Silence is not an option if we want
to combat racism.


> And I suspect that some of the things that Claire is mentioning in her
concerns
> would be things that most of us would probably agree with.  I know that most
> deplore some of the working conditions that are allowed in some third world
> countries.

I deplore the working conditions in many third world countries. That
does not mean that I will say that "green people hate children", or
that green people are barbaric and uncivilized.

Protesting conditions is one thing. Demeaning whole countries as
uncivilized or violent is another, unacceptable thing.


>
> We also need to keep in mind that we don't change peoples' hearts and minds
> about others by telling them to think and feel different and belittling them
in
> front of others; but by helping everyone to Build Trust with each other.  That
> takes communication, knowledge, and understanding, which then leads us to
> acceptance and an overt change in behavior towards others.

Actually, it's a nice sentiment but it's not true. In fact, its
bullsh*t. You change peoples hearts and minds by making it clear
certain actions, behaviors, words, are unacceptable. Frankly, I don't
care if someone like Claire is racist or not. I DO care that she and
others know that such remarks are UNACCEPTABLE in our environments.

The successes of creating social change through this method are
legion, from the work of Martin Luther King, to the present, and the
work of many many women, and I might add, the work in thousands of
companies, of HR professionals who understand that you need to say:

NO, we do not do that around here!

To those HR people who have and continue to do both the right thing
in these issues, and the legal things, bravo. To those apologists who
believe we should "understand" racists...well, I'm afraid I can't use
the words that suggest my opinion clearly.


Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

On 10 Nov 2009 at 13:09, Claire Belilos wrote:

> We must face the truth and take an ignorant stance.

We must face the truth, and I do believe you are taking an ignorant
stance, as you yourself stated.


Awareness and non-denial would at least enable some occasional
supervisor to prevent the death of some employee.

You apparently don't know that among the many excuses for racist
remarks about groups and cultures is "Well, it's the truth, just look
around" (or read the papers, or read wikipedia (honestly, that's sad
to cite that Claire).

Your comment fit the classic pattern of racist remarks, and you've
done this on a number of lists about all manner of non-caucasians and
those that hold different values than you profess.
>
> This does not mean that everyone from a certain country or culture indulges in
mortal activities, but we cannot pretend it does not exist.

I have worked fairly extensively in the area of preventing workplace
violence, and clearly you have not, and it shows.

There is usually no need to single out any cultural or ethnic group
because (I know you won't understand this part) in any group the
intra group variance is way bigger than the inter-group variance.

You don't work in workplace violence the way you think. You take the
stance that one must pay attention to warning signs, for PEOPLE.

I actually understand what is happening with you and your
observations. You take note of violence that occurs in non-whites,
and in particular, coming from Muslims, but not limiting yourself to
just those. You see other cultures as primitive and violent, when you
have almost nothing beyond limited anecdotal experience.

Meeting a rude "green person" does not mean all green people are rude
(I use green people examples in my seminars). But you don't
understand how your prejudices result in you self-selecting what fits
into your prejudice.

..which to some degree we all do. But the problem is that you seem
ignorant of what you are doing, and how you sound, and how truly
offensive your remarks are.

...and your explanations of your racist remarks are typical of those
made by some rather nasty extremists in the white power movement, the
old KKK, etc.

Claire, many of us, particularly those that have worked to support
multicultural understanding, have heard everything you've said dozens
and dozens of times. We've heard it. We recognize it for what it is.

Don't expect to go unchallenged, and I will tell you flat out that
it's rare when people speak their true reactions to your racist
remarks to you, because they know it will just get ugly.

Someone has to stand against racist positions.

I wish more would. Then people such as yourself would have a better
chance of becoming better human beings.

Robert Bacal
Small Business Resource Center http://smallbusiness411.org/wp/
Happy Curmudgeon http://thetrainingworld.com/wp/

Gary

I believe it is the duty of each one of us to face the truth in both the
personal and professional arenas. Denying something which may lead to death of
human beings is a big disservice to individuals and society.

They are now having similar thoughts about the Fort Hood incident.

And in the wikipedia page on Honor Killings (which does take place in North
America by individuals and families coming from countries whose cultures support
that) they state the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

NORTH AMERICA
Further information: Honor killing in the United States

A 2007 study by Dr. Amin Muhammad and Dr. Sujay Patel of Memorial University,
Canada, showed how Islamic honor killings have been brought to Canada. He wrote:
"When people come and settle in Canada they can bring their traditions and
forcefully follow them. In some cultures, people feel some boundaries are never
to be crossed, and if someone would violate those practices or go against it,
then murder is justified to them." He also noted that there are hundreds of
cases annually in his native Pakistan. He added that "In different cultures,
they can get away without being punished -- the courts actually sanction them
under religious contexts"[33]

An article in the Spring 2009 edition of Middle East Quarterly[34] argues that
the United States is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are
a special form of domestic violence, requiring special training and special
programs to protect the young women and girls most subject to it. The article
suggests that the fear of being labeled "culturally insensitive" prevents US
government officials and the media from both identifying and accurately
reporting these incidents as "honor killings" when they occur. Failing to
accurately describe the problem makes it more difficult to develop public
policies to address it.

-- end of quote----

We must face the truth and take an ignorant stance.  This cause managers in
organizations to be sensitive to situations under which some employees may be
living.  Awareness and non-denial would at least enable some occasional
supervisor to prevent the death of some employee.

This does not mean that everyone from a certain country or culture indulges in
mortal activities, but we cannot pretend it does not exist.

Claire


       __________________________________________________________________
The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier.  Optimized for Yahoo!  Get
it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

Gary:

I agree I should have been more careful in selecting my words and defining them
in the narrow context in which I meant them and for that I apologize.  I meant
culture more broadly to encompass a nation or religion.  As to the thoughts, I
stand by them.

David Kalish

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Gary Lear <discuss@...> wrote:

From: Gary Lear <discuss@...>
Subject: RE: [HRNET] HR Mgr Killed by Angry Workers
To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 11:20 AM







 









       David,



You said: "To portray violence as a cultural trait is the kind of thing we are

HR professionals are supposed to try to stop."



Would this depend on how we define "culture" and how large a group must be in

order to actually have a "culture?"



Would a group such as one of the biker gangs or perhaps one of the other gangs,

such as Skinheads or Crips or Bloods, be groups with a culture?  If so, would

the cultures of those groups be considered to have violence as a cultural trait?



Here are some of my thoughts on this discussion in general (and not necessarily

addressed to you, David).



While we certainly don't want to cast aspersions on individuals simply because

of their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, we must keep in mind that

there are groups within all of these that could indeed have cultures of

violence.



And while I am not here to defend Claire by any means, her original statement

did not single out any one group in particular.  Perhaps we should practice some

of our own "tolerance" by "seeking first to understand" where someone is coming

from in their statements rather than to immediately chastise them in public.

And I suspect that some of the things that Claire is mentioning in her concerns

would be things that most of us would probably agree with.  I know that most

deplore some of the working conditions that are allowed in some third world

countries.



We also need to keep in mind that we don't change peoples' hearts and minds

about others by telling them to think and feel different and belittling them in

front of others; but by helping everyone to Build Trust with each other.  That

takes communication, knowledge, and understanding, which then leads us to

acceptance and an overt change in behavior towards others.



Is Building Trust of concern to HR?  I would hope so, as the culture of any high

performance organization must be built on a foundation of Trust.  Unfortunately,

too many organizations are lacking this foundation.  I think this is something

that was alluded to in the original article.  If management had built trust with

their employees by communicating with them about the things that were important,

then perhaps those employees wouldn't have become so angry and taken it out on

that HR manager.



Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.



Make a Great Day!



Gary Lear, President & CEO

Author of Leadership Lessons From the Medicine Wheel: The Seven Elements of High

Performance



Resource Development Systems LLC

Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)



gelear@rds-net. com   www.ResourceDevelop mentSystems. com



(c) 2009 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way

other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David,

You said: "To portray violence as a cultural trait is the kind of thing we are
HR professionals are supposed to try to stop."

Would this depend on how we define "culture" and how large a group must be in
order to actually have a "culture?"

Would a group such as one of the biker gangs or perhaps one of the other gangs,
such as Skinheads or Crips or Bloods, be groups with a culture?  If so, would
the cultures of those groups be considered to have violence as a cultural trait?

Here are some of my thoughts on this discussion in general (and not necessarily
addressed to you, David).

While we certainly don't want to cast aspersions on individuals simply because
of their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, we must keep in mind that
there are groups within all of these that could indeed have cultures of
violence.

And while I am not here to defend Claire by any means, her original statement
did not single out any one group in particular.  Perhaps we should practice some
of our own "tolerance" by "seeking first to understand" where someone is coming
from in their statements rather than to immediately chastise them in public.
And I suspect that some of the things that Claire is mentioning in her concerns
would be things that most of us would probably agree with.  I know that most
deplore some of the working conditions that are allowed in some third world
countries.

We also need to keep in mind that we don't change peoples' hearts and minds
about others by telling them to think and feel different and belittling them in
front of others; but by helping everyone to Build Trust with each other.  That
takes communication, knowledge, and understanding, which then leads us to
acceptance and an overt change in behavior towards others.

Is Building Trust of concern to HR?  I would hope so, as the culture of any high
performance organization must be built on a foundation of Trust.  Unfortunately,
too many organizations are lacking this foundation.  I think this is something
that was alluded to in the original article.  If management had built trust with
their employees by communicating with them about the things that were important,
then perhaps those employees wouldn't have become so angry and taken it out on
that HR manager.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.

Make a Great Day!

Gary Lear, President & CEO
Author of Leadership Lessons From the Medicine Wheel: The Seven Elements of High
Performance

Resource Development Systems LLC
Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)

gelear@...   www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com

(c) 2009 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way
other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.

I have kept silent on this subject so far but I feel I have to wade in here. 
Violence, even group violence is not limited to any racial, cultural or national
group.  Yes, sometimes people follow like sheep but that pertains to all people
of all cultures and all nationalities...even all religions, not just some.

To portray violence as a cultural trait is the kind of thing we are HR
professionals are supposed to try to stop.

David Kalish

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Claire Belilos <clairebelilos@...> wrote:

From: Claire Belilos <clairebelilos@...>
Subject: Re: [HRNET] HR Mgr Killed by Angry Workers
To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Joyce Counter" <jmcounter@...>, "Adnan Khan"
<adnankhan@...>, "SherrylStalinski"
<sherryl.stalinski@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 9:27 AM







 











Claire Belilos

CHIC Hospitality Consulting Services

Management Consulting, Training, Problem-Solving

http://www.easytrai ning.com

#2007-1011 Beach Avenue

Vancouver, B.C. V6E1T8 Canada

Phone: (604) 685-8449  PST

(Att: Same time as California)



What you seem to miss is the fact that this was a group killing, and not an
individual action.  There is quite a difference between group violent action and
occasional individual crazy actions.



Claire



--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Joyce Counter <jmcounter@gmail. com> wrote:



> Did anyone read about the former

> employee (an Engineer) from an 

> Engineering firm in Orlando, Florida (definitely a Western

> City!) 

> returning with a gun and killing one person and wounding a

> number of 

> others?  The individual was educated (had an

> engineering degree) and 

> was "westernized" .  Doesn't this say much the same

> thing as the 

> article did?  And doesn't it prove Claire's responses

> were ill advised?

>

> Joyce

>

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Adnan Khan <adnankhan@autosoftd ynamics.com> wrote:



> will stand with Robert and Sherryl as

> you cant generalize the actions

> and thought of someone for the whole group he/she belongs

> to..........

> Is there any society in this world where crime rate is

> zero? Certainly

> NOT......... The point is; every society is a mixture of

> every kind of

> people with varying ratio. Being HR representatives, I

> think we should

> have to cover these kind of hypotheses rather than inflame

> them......

>

> Regards,

>

> Adnan A. Khan



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new
Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger .yahoo.com/
webmessengerprom o.php




















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Claire Belilos
CHIC Hospitality Consulting Services
Management Consulting, Training, Problem-Solving
http://www.easytraining.com
#2007-1011 Beach Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V6E1T8 Canada
Phone: (604) 685-8449  PST
(Att: Same time as California)

What you seem to miss is the fact that this was a group killing, and not an
individual action.  There is quite a difference between group violent action and
occasional individual crazy actions.

Claire

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Joyce Counter <jmcounter@...> wrote:

> Did anyone read about the former
> employee (an Engineer) from an 
> Engineering firm in Orlando, Florida (definitely a Western
> City!) 
> returning with a gun and killing one person and wounding a
> number of 
> others?  The individual was educated (had an
> engineering degree) and 
> was "westernized".  Doesn't this say much the same
> thing as the 
> article did?  And doesn't it prove Claire's responses
> were ill advised?
>
> Joyce
>
--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Adnan Khan <adnankhan@...> wrote:

> will stand with Robert and Sherryl as
> you cant generalize the actions
> and thought of someone for the whole group he/she belongs
> to..........
> Is there any society in this world where crime rate is
> zero? Certainly
> NOT......... The point is; every society is a mixture of
> every kind of
> people with varying ratio. Being HR representatives, I
> think we should
> have to cover these kind of hypotheses rather than inflame
> them......
>
> Regards,
>
> Adnan A. Khan



       __________________________________________________________________
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new
Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at
http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php

Did anyone read about the former employee (an Engineer) from an
Engineering firm in Orlando, Florida (definitely a Western City!)
returning with a gun and killing one person and wounding a number of
others?  The individual was educated (had an engineering degree) and
was "westernized".  Doesn't this say much the same thing as the
article did?  And doesn't it prove Claire's responses were ill advised?

Joyce

will stand with Robert and Sherryl as you cant generalize the actions
and thought of someone for the whole group he/she belongs to..........
Is there any society in this world where crime rate is zero? Certainly
NOT......... The point is; every society is a mixture of every kind of
people with varying ratio. Being HR representatives, I think we should
have to cover these kind of hypotheses rather than inflame them......

Regards,

Adnan A. Khan
Associate Manager HR
AutoSoft Dynamics (Pvt.) Limited



Stalinski, Sherryl wrote:
>
> Thank you, Robert.
>
> I will rephrase my response:
>
> Terry posted a link to an Indian news story out of New Delhi that had
> nothing in the story about race or culture, but in fact reported on a
> labor relations-invoked incident where an HR VP was killed after
> layoffs. That incident could have happened in any company in any
> country (and has happened on many occasions in "Western countries."
> Did anyone watch the news last week?!). (Perhaps not by a group of
> union workers, but indeed it happens when an individual chooses to act
> out in 'revenge' of the 'wrongs' commited against them by their
> workplace).
>
> For those who haven't gone to the link to read the short article, it
> states:
> "Companies in the South Asian nation, despite its rapid economic
> growth in recent years, have often been faced with tough labor issues
> because of archaic laws and company policies on hiring and retrenchment."
>
> Claire was the first to respond, with these statements:
> "Terry, Nothing surprises me any more, but I was indeed shocked when I
> thought it was in the U.S. or some Western country."
> -- In other words (I'll own my interpretation of her statement), she
> WOULD have been shocked if the incident happened in a "Western
> country" but she IS NOT "shocked" because it happened in one of those
> "other countries." (her quote, again)
>
> Then she made it about religion and culture (which the story did not)
> by stating:
> "I have come to know, first-hand, of people of certain cultures and
> religions who place no value to human life. Nada! "
>
> I was offended at Claire's prejudicial remarks and I for one, would
> not tolerate language like that in my HR department or by my HR
> Managers or staff. I certainly don't find her remarks appropriate for
> a professional HR community, but that is not my call to make, at least
> not on this listserv.
>
> Sherryl Stalinski
> HR Director of Talent Management
> Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group
> 100 W Walnut, Pasadena CA 91124
> 626.440-2644
> www.parsons.com <http://www.parsons.com/ <http://www.parsons.com/>>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: HRNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:HRNET%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf
> of Robert Bacal
> Sent: Mon 11/9/2009 4:16 PM
> To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:HRNET%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [HRNET] HR Mgr Killed by Angry Workers
>
> On 9 Nov 2009 at 14:55, Jeff Tucker wrote:
>
> > Please take this discussion off list.
>
> How about if we rephrase it.
>
> To what degree should HR play a role in the workplace to lead the
> fight against prejudice, racism and bigotry, particularly in light of
> possible legal issues?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>