"The point is, privilege is as much a psychological matter as a material one. Whites have the luxury of not having to worry that our race is going to mark us negatively when looking for work, going to school, shopping, looking for a place to live, or driving for that matter: things that folks of color can't take for granted."

]]> http://germainequek.wordpress.com/?p=27 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:13:52 +0000 germainequek http://germainequek.pl.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/identity-racial-lines-in-singapore/ Everybody who has gone through the Singaporean education system generally regards racial discrimination in Singapore as non-existent. With Racial Harmony Day in place and the absence of racial conflict, Singaporeans perceive themselves as a tolerant society. Racial politics are also greatly frowned upon here (we treat our neighbours as an example of what not to do). With the 1964 racial riots long a part of our history, racial issues are no longer on the forefront of public debate; economic issues are more pressing. How did the government change a multi-racial society to think along non-racial lines? Are underlying racial discrimination and prejudices still evident in Singapore and what does it mean to be a truly multi-racial society? The Government has played a large part in seemingly resolving this, defining racial harmony to be the absence of racial tensions. This definition, however, can be problematic.

The Singaporean identity has always been the overarching emphasis of the Government. In the beginning stages of independence, dialects and other minor languages were phased out. Mandarin was instituted as the common official language for the Chinese, Bahasa Melayu for the Malays and Tamil for the Indians. Furthermore, English became the mode of instruction at most schools and was treated as the first language of Singaporeans. This forced the races to put aside certain crucial identifying, and also differentiating, aspects of their culture and be united by the use of a foreign language instead. This also allowed the language barrier among races to be bridged and facilitated better communication. Also, with public housing, villagers were relocated to a flat that allowed them to live in close proximity to members of other races, destroying pre-conceived prejudices. Racial Harmony Day was also introduced in schools and celebrated by a fusion and showcase of ethnic festivities. The Singaporean government has introduced these policies in order to reduce racial segregation among Singaporeans. The emphasis on education in schools is also that of National Education rather than on an individual race’s progress in society. This helps Singaporeans think of themselves as Singaporeans, rather than as their separate races. It is because of these measures that racial harmony, as defined by all Singaporeans, has deemed to have been achieved. These policies have blurred the appearance of racial discrimination in Singapore.

The problem of this definition is that Singaporeans have defined racial harmony as the absence of racial tensions, rather than as true appreciation and understanding of each other’s cultures. As such, underlying racial discrimination and prejudices can still be identified in society. Certain racial stereotypes do exist (such as ‘smelly’ Indians, noisy Chinese funerals and informal Malay weddings) and racial jokes are often cracked. Of course these are made in jest but what it actually reflects about our attitudes to ‘the other’ is apparent. Job advertisements in newspapers and online portals sometimes have pre-requisites for race (although this might also be due to the nature of the job). Tuition agencies send out emails to their registered tutors and once in a while, one finds an assignment that states “(insert race) ONLY”. An article I found extremely pertinent to this issue is called Feeling like the Least Favourite Child by Nur Dianah Suhaimi of The Straits Times. The column describes certain entrenched stereotypes of the Malay community in Singapore regarding education, National Service and Singapore Idol and how hard the writer has had to work to change these mentalities. All this, in spite of the supposed racial harmony that we have. Racial discrimination in Singapore is very subtle, never overt, due to Government-imposed restrictions on what can be discussed in print, forums and blogs. The Sedition Act has been known to be enforced. Racial discrimination in Singapore is very rarely discussed also because most minorities feel that the Government is adequately meeting their economic needs by extolling a capitalist and meritocratic society. This is another hallmark of the Government’s success in forging a Singaporean identity: by emphasising a single Singaporean goal of economic progress.

Certain criticisms of democracy in Singapore include that of racial issues. Anything regarding race is generally disallowed from public airing. The Speaker’s Corner still does not allow anything of a racial matter to be talked about, despite recent revisions to allow for a wider scope of discussion. This stems from a fear of the ignition of racial differences, where races may end up pursuing their individual racial progression and discarding the overall Singaporean identity. If racial harmony indeed existed, this would not be a concern of the Government. Issues of a racial nature would then be spoken about in a balanced manner, as an understanding of other races exists. A latent consequence of the suppressing of racial issues is that the racial lines are further entrenched in our mindsets. Instead of believing that a uniform Singaporean identity exists, a taboo of race is propagated instead. Singaporeans will tend to think of themselves as different from the other races, except that these differences may not be spoken about. The mentality of ‘us’ and ‘them’ will be ingrained in us and a ‘just live with it’ mentality would be replacing any form of understanding. This backlash reverses any mutual racial appreciation and acceptance. The Singaporean’s definition of racial harmony, the absence of overt conflict, would have it such that it still exists. However, an understanding of each other’s cultures would have ceased.

The Singaporean Government’s attempt at solving the country’s problem of racial discrimination can be described by stretching a canvas sheet over a cracked tiled floor. The sweeping measures that have been instituted since independence has on the surface, without doubt, closed the gap between different racial groups and forged a uniform Singaporean identity. However, under that veneer, subtle racial discrimination does exist and may even be propagated by the very same policies. The taboo of race will cause paranoia of racial issues in Singapore.

Citations:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Our+Columnists/Column/STIStory_266543.html?sunwMethod=GET

The loss of control obviously concerned the driver, passenger and the safety team as the communication between the team seemed anxious. But as they sorted out their cat and started accelerating again the body language seemed more positive and hopefully they regained control and won the race! If they did not they certainly made a good attempt to do so.

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

-Dana Millbank, Washington Post

Failure to stand up to this kind of thing or someone calling Obama a terrorist is the mark of a true spineless coward. And there was a time when you couldn't say that about John McCain.

18.10.08 CX Oberschlierbach

26.10.08 Wintercup Cyclodrom

09.11.08 Wintercup Andlersdorf

15.11.08 CX Dolná Krupá (Slowakei)

16.11.08 CX Stadl Paura

23.11.08 CX Trnava (Slowakei)

30.11.08 Wintercup Cyclodrom

06.12.08 Nikolaus-Quer Aspang/Wechsel

14.12.08 Wintercup Schwarzlackenau

04.01.09 Wintercup Brigittenau/ Donauinsel Finale

11.01.09 CX Staatsmeisterschaften Wien

FFFFOUND! | The World of 100 : Toby Ng Design

McCain is not a process nerd. Hillary was not a process nerd. Obama is the *ultimate* process nerd. This is in fact why he is doing so well in a national presidential campaign. Usually guys like him just run campaigns brilliantly for other folks, but this time the process nerd *is* the nominee. That in some ways is more unprecendented than his being black, or about as young as Clinton.

There is a lot of talk about Obama's 'ground game', but that obscures what drives it. It's not just enthusiasm-- there's a herd of enthusiastic Palinites out there getting nothing done for that ticket. It's not just 'a background in community organising'-- the Deaniacs did very well field organising. It's process nerdery-- the trainspotting ability to manipulate enthusiasm and direct organising in specific and precisely tailored ways. A process nerd studies processes, even down to the process of making sure your volunteers are *useful* self-starters, as an example. Or studying the process of proportional nomination for your party so well that you can actually convert your success into useful ground campaigns for the national winner-take-all process.

It's nerdy, it's geeky, and it's never really been done by the guy standing in front of the cameras saying 'I'm running for President'. It suggests some interesting things about what an Obama presidency would look like in practical terms.

The scary-wonderful thing about being a process nerd is that you build in your own vote protections. It doesn't matter that Republicans will intimidate some percentage of voters-- through process nerding, Obama's got unprecedented levels of turnout that will completely obliterate any attempts to commit partisan-useful vote fraud. There may still be some in this election, but it will be rendered toothless and not able to alter the final tallies.

Plus the focus on process allows for a broad reach in terms of connecting to voters-- even people who won't vote for Obama increasingly might just stay home since he doesn't sound like a bad guy, they just can't *vote* for him is all-- and that kind of ambivalent support stifles the Republican base turnout and can create a nice little margin of victory.

Ah, Obama, the ultimate political process nerd. One wonders only if anyone will ever be able to top it. I'm just amazed to live in an election year where this stuff is actually, finally a winning electoral strategy and group of tactics.

Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.
The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act.

"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

This one would be funny if it weren't so predictable.

I was reading a blog today and noticed the woman who had posted posted a comment above mine on a poll. She had a quote by Sarah Patton Boyle as her tag line. I was struck by the words and hastily googled this Boyle person. Lo and behold, Boyle wrote several books on race relations and Civil Rights. Now this may not be significant to you, but it is to me. 

1. She's a Southern white woman.
2. She writes with down to earth eloquence and elegance about these topics. 
3. She's a Southern white woman.

In my last full semester in Boston, I took a really fascinating class called "Race and the South." It was a dual class, co-taught by both a history professor and an english professor. Small class, no more than fifteen, and two hour and a half sessions a week. Needless to say, it was one of those classes that bonded. We didn't hang out together, but there was never a silent moment in that class due to awkwardness or lack of interest. 

Southern literature was my focus as an english major. (Being an undergraduate, I didn't have a concentration.) I truly love my home state and the splendor that can come from this place. 

One of the topics we discussed, quite thoroughly, was the Southern Myth. Much of white culture before, during, and since the Civil War was based on a romantic view of chivalry and medieval gender relations-one of the reasons dueling was such a big hit in the South, right into the White House. 

How does this relate to Boyle? She has a fabulous quote that really boils down some of the psychology of the Southern Myth:

The importance of a lost romantic vision should not be underestimated. In such a vision is power as well as joy. In it is meaning. Life is flat, barren, zestless, if one can find one's lost vision nowhere.

This is from her book The Desegregated Heart. Now, I have not read this book, I only discovered its existence tonight and I cannot promise that I will ever read this book. But this quote so clearly explains part of the mournful attitude of white southerners after the abolishment of slavery and That Way of Life. 

This in no way explains the condoning slavery, of course. It does, for me, help explain why Reconstruction only further entrenched and stabilized the Romantic Chivalry of white culture. 

I so love when strings come together like that for me. So, thank you to that post I was reading for being an unwitting teacher.

When I was a grad student in Syracuse, I would get "Where are you from?" all the time. I would usually say, "L.A." to which I would inevitably get the follow-up, "No, where are you really from?", and that often times was followed by "No, where did your parents come from?"... My retort: "Oh, are you asking me what is my ethnic or cultural background?"

In my last post, I surmised that people naturally distinguish between what is like themselves and what is not: "S/he is like me" or "S/he is not like me." We distinguish based on our own terms. "Where are you from?" in this context leads to relating to others who are like me and not relating to others who are not like me. By extension, "community" arises from having enough of those who are like me.

In a postmodern and arguably post-multiculturalist era, the answer to "Where are you from?" challenges us to accept something that we no longer can deny in an interconnected, global media environment: There are different people in the world. Whereas, in the previous context, it was about "me" and "not me", we now have an ability to change the background conversation for "Where are you from?" so that it can instead mean "me" and "you". If we really stop to think about it, this completely changes what we mean by "community." The notion of community shifts from the dichotomy between those like me and not like me to a world populated by different people. We actually make room for diversity when we can accept difference as a reality.

When we can actually and powerfully accept that there is difference, rather than forcing people into our constructed notions of "otherness," a new kind of community becomes possible. "Where are you from?" then becomes an access to authentic diversity.

Darius's article, Here Am I: Reflections of Race and the Golden Rule, has already spurred responses - which is exactly what we've hoped for. An open and honest discussion.

A reader states, "What race means to me is not the very bitter and decisive separations of difference, but rather the celebrations of them. Yes, we are all human, we are interrelated, sure. That is 98% of the puzzle.  But the 2% of difference is that we possess cultural, physical and even biological distinctions. And something about the human experience is very tied into what is distinctive, how the experience is different.  Especially in art, no?

How many Arabs or Palestinians do you see exhibiting their work internationally? How many names do you know besides Mona Hatoum, Emily Jacir and Sherin Neshat (and she's not even Arab). Only a few have really been allowed in the gates, most of us are hovering around the gates, hoping to get picked. And just as soon as we began to articulate these experiences, just as soon as we are given a platform,  someone says we need to get beyond this. And for me, the writer himself didn't get beyond it.

The fact is, a black man can't make an image about eating at Wendy's with his likeness in the image without the viewer inherently reading the racial overtones in it. No one would describe the image without stating the man's blackness. Somehow, his blackness would be central to how ever that image would be read.

Ask me how many times in my life someone described someone a person (a friend, lover, teacher, etc) and used the word white? Maybe only by a few black friends. But mostly I'll get the height, eye color, sex and so forth. White is not one of the descriptions, and perhaps it is easier for whites to think they can get beyond race because of that. Hmmm?

For my husband [who is African American], he likes the article because he believes black people need to get beyond race, because race was used to harm them, and they benefit the least from being tied to a race. Race implies limitations to him. I believe race is the 2% of difference that is everything. And difference is good, healthy even. My two cents on the 2%. "

I have been taking some time to be extra emo and think about things lately. For starters, Ramadan has ended and although I have 5 days to make up I had a great experience. It was one of those once in a lifetime experiences that really shape the way one moves. What I mean by that is my perspective which I have always felt was unique has shifted to be even more extraordinary. But it definitely is one of those things that will further direct me down my path.

One example of the last two weeks that I keep referencing was meeting this guy at the plasma donation center. He made a comment about how cold it was in the room and from there we struck up a conversation. Aside: I have the most random conversations with people and meet the most interesting people. From each one of these experiences I walk a way with a piece of each individual that I  will never forget, and will always respect. As the conversation progressed we talked about the type of people that give plasma and the stereotypes behind it, then we moved to jobs. He mentioned he was a felon, but was rehabilitating his life which has been going down the wrong path for quite some time. He went on describing his life experiences and I tried to listen as best I could without interrupting his story and preaching (something I tend to do a lot).  He kept referencing his felony and his fear of getting caught back up in the system, and being me (always practicing journalism) I had to ask him what he did.

Come to find out this guy had stabbed somebody in the head... Now I know what you're thinking, well geez that guy deserved what happened to him. Maybe I am overly sympathetic, but I think there's a lot more going on than stabbing somebody. First off the cab driver that he stabbed went after him with a taser and had cocaine in his system, but still the guy I was talking to felt like he had to carry around an knife to feel safe. That's not something you get after growing up a little--it comes from a lifestyle and experiences that say things are not safe and you always have to watch out. It comes from having broken homes and living in poor neighborhoods. It comes from not having productive things to do after school and generally poor education for students who seem unmotivated by unmotivated teachers. Basically, it is more than what you see and what you think.

We continue to talk and I can empathize with the guy. He has made mistakes and is in danger of losing his freedom. Because he has come from a life of disadvantage, when he makes a mistake he feels the full effect of the repercussions, whereas someone with a little privilege can avoid some parts of the repercussions or avoid it altogether. And in avoiding those repercussions they don't get caught up in a system that hardly rehabilitates criminals who have been released.

Again, I may be overly sympathetic or just naive, but I feel like there has to be a change in the way things are done to really make society better. It is really funny that in the same week I give plasma and meet this individual I sit in on an interview as a part of the Kernel Edit Board with the president of my university who rarely has contact with people going through these types of issues.

Maybe President Todd can help society increase retention of the disadvantaged in America like he with minorities at UK.

Welcome back ME!

Salute

Just finished reading this great, albeit disturbing, piece on Obama's criminal justice policy, and it has brought up a similar feeling that I've had numerous times throughout his campaign. It's the feeling that you just know Obama must know better, sometimes - that his caving into conventional stances and their misapplied and misdirected policies reflects less on him than it does the narrow tightrope he's being forced to walk on his way to the White House. And, for the most part, I think that's true on a number of issues - offshore drilling, gay marriage, the military budget, single-payer health care, Israel, etc. I'm not so naive to think that he's going to reverse course on these once he gets into office, either. Perhaps he will some of them - I desperately hope he will on offshore drilling and gay marriage, only because they seem to be the most likely reversals. But it's his wrongheaded opinions on criminal justice that are really troubling.

I won't do too much summarizing of the article (I strongly urge you to read it in full), but suffice it to say that Obama seems to be taking the lead from Biden, who took the tough-on-crime torch along with Clinton and brought it to the streets, with troubling results. Crime was reduced barely a smidgeon - one percent - while it cost billions of dollars and led to some very real abuses of power. And it looks as if Obama is set to replicate these same failed policies that - as Balko notes - act more as "federal job programs for blue-collar workers" than anything else. It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially noting Obama's background as a lawyer and community organizer who should - and actually used to - 'get' crime better than the others. Unfortunately, things won't be changing anytime soon - Democrats will continue to be cowed into failed and expensive programs by Republicans eager to paint Dems as soft on crime, while getting to dole out this insidious and bizarre form of patronage at the same time.

For those familiar with The Wire, at one point I hoped that Obama would herald an era of a little more Bunny Colvin and a little less Major Rawls - looks as if I was wrong. Obama/Biden/Rawls - good police they ain't.

Study Traces AIDS Virus Origin to 100 Years Ago

The AIDS virus has been circulating among people for about 100 years, decades longer than scientists had thought, a new study suggests.

Genetic analysis pushes the estimated origin of HIV back to between 1884 and 1924, with a more focused estimate at 1908.

Previously, scientists had estimated the origin at around 1930. AIDS wasn’t recognized formally until 1981 when it got the attention of public health officials in the United States.

The new result is “not a monumental shift, but it means the virus was circulating under our radar even longer than we knew,” says Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona, an author of the new work.

The results appear in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. Researchers note that the newly calculated dates fall during the rise of cities in Africa, and they suggest urban development may have promoted HIV’s initial establishment and early spread.

Scientists say HIV descended from a chimpanzee virus that jumped to humans in Africa, probably when people butchered chimps. Many individuals were probably infected that way, but so few other people caught the virus that it failed to get a lasting foothold, researchers say.

But the growth of African cities may have changed that by putting lots of people close together and promoting prostitution, Worobey suggested. “Cities are kind of ideal for a virus like HIV,” providing more chances for infected people to pass the virus to others, he said.

Perhaps a person infected with the AIDS virus in a rural area went to what is now Kinshasa, Congo, “and now you’ve got the spark arriving in the tinderbox,” Worobey said.

Key to the new work was the discovery of an HIV sample that had been taken from a woman in Kinshasa in 1960. It was only the second such sample to be found from before 1976; the other was from 1959, also from Kinshasa.

Researchers took advantage of the fact that HIV mutates rapidly. So two strains from a common ancestor quickly become less and less alike in their genetic material over time. That allows scientists to “run the clock backward” by calculating how long it would take for various strains to become as different as they are observed to be. That would indicate when they both sprang from their most recent common ancestor.

The new work used genetic data from the two old HIV samples plus more than 100 modern samples to create a family tree going back to these samples’ last common ancestor. Researchers got various answers under various approaches for when that ancestor virus appeared, but the 1884-to-1924 bracket is probably the most reliable, Worobey said.

The new work is “clearly an improvement” over the previous estimate of around 1930, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. His institute helped pay for the work.

Fauci described the advance as “a fine-tuning.”

Experts say it’s no surprise that HIV circulated in humans for about 70 years before being recognized. An infection usually takes years to produce obvious symptoms, a lag that can mask the role of the virus, and it would have infected relatively few Africans early in its spread, they said.

He was young. He "needed the money" kind of photographs.

Or Obama’s American Communist Party membership card surfaces. His secret heroin addiction revealed. Some dead woman live man kind of thing.

None of that happening, it feels like the only way McCain can win is if American really is a nation of racial bigots. Isn’t that something? John “Why can’t we all just get along and cross the aisle” McCain’s last best hope is the worst possible country.

Don’t think he did that on purpose. That campaign can’t do much of anything on purpose.

And how do you like your blue-eyed boy now Mr. Death?

***

These are the snapshots of the moment we are in now. I agree with this assessment of Sarah Palin completely. She is in a bigger bubble than Bush. Here's some hilarious conservative humor on displayin the schools, putting to lie both the notions that the public education system is infested with solely with liberals and that racism has nothing to do with opposition to Obama. That story must be read to be believed. And here's some more knee slappin' conservative humor from a McCain campaign chair in Virginia. However, moves such as Palin's ridiculous smear by association don't seem to be working the way the McCain campaign intended. It's a dangerous tactic, especially when McCain's association with the Keating 5 is far deeper than Obama's acquaintance to Ayers. A millionaire governor claims she's looking out for 'Joe Six-pack' while standing next to the poorest member of the Senate, a congressional Joe who rides the train to work and has finances much more in tune with the middle class than most politicians. Of course, Michael Medved claims that Biden's finances disqualify him from the Presidency. Here's an earlier column of Medved's that should put that one in perspective.

The global economy is beginning to feel the shocks of ours grinding to a halt. The geopolitical situation is more unstable than at any other point in my lifetime. Fundamentalism is raging. We are choosing the next President of the United States in less than a month. On my birthday.

I generally don't like to make a big deal about my birthday. But this year I will have a fervent wish when I blow out the candles. And that is for a Democratic win in the Presidential Election. Sarah Palin is dangerously unsuited for being the head executive of this nation, and by choosing her as his running mate, John McCain has demonstrated his recklessness and complete lack of thought for his country and that his only concerns are partisan. Anyone who seriously believes Sarah Palin is capable of competently handling the office she has been nominated for is deluded by their own partisain illusions. If we elect John McCain in November, things are going to go from bad to worse. And that's all you need to know.

Not sure what we say or how we say it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit harmoniously with the Insider Latino electoral politic we've all come to know and loathe. Scheduled to run this Weds at 9pm on PBS stations across the country, Latinos 08 looks like it has a lot of the top members of the Latinopolitic-industrial-complex as you will note from the clip below. The 1 hour doc directed by L.A.-based filmmaker, Phillip Rodriguez, looks like it will analyze the workings of one of the most important developments of this electoral cycle: the rise of Latino political power and how it marks the beginning of the end of the black-white politic that has long defined U.S. politics. During my interview, I tried to emphasize a lot of the themes you know form this blog. Hopefully, I didn't embarrass my family, friends and community. Though it hardly begins to undo the damage done by the Ken Burns episode, Check it out Latinos '08 and let us know what you think.

American society has taught us to put people in boxes. For example, have you ever seen a person who looked "racially ambiguous,"? Don't act like its just me. You have seen this person on the subway or on the street. You look and try to fit him/her into a racial group. And if you sit across from him/her, chances are, you glance at them repeatedly in an effort to figure out "what he/she is".

Or take the man dressed in slacks carrying a briefcase or man-bag of sorts. You assume you know about him, especially if he is headed downtown (pause). Yep, he probably works in an office to do office stuff. Then you try to figure out that ordinary looking black guy, or you assume you already know about him too.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It kinda is what it is. We see people with certain physical characteristics or external features (skin tone, hair texture, assumed age, shirt with a certain label, a bar through the lip, tattered jeans, tatted up neck and forearms, pregnant belly, gym bag) and we size them up. This sizing up process happens so fast, and so often, we often don't know its happening.

Sometimes this sizing up influences our posture towards people. Some are "safer" to sit next to than others. Its okay to share glances with some. Others, we shy away from. We hug our purses or man-bags a little tighter. We speed up our pace. Either way, we work to reconcile something within ourselves.

Why has this process became an issue for me now? Because I feel myself doing it. I find myself feeling unsafe around groups of teenagers. I get concerned by the goth-looking boy. I assume that the older man in tattered clothes is out to do me some harm, or sometimes, I feel sorry for him. I look at the young woman with an attitude because it looks like she's giving me one. I try to figure out what's going in the head of that solemn looking person staring out the window.

What's amazing, is that this process takes no real time or concentration. My mind works crazy fast, yo.

And I know people try to box me too. Have you ever locked eyes with someone as he/she was giving you the once over? A bit of an awkward moment, I know. Depending on what the person looks like, and what kind of vibes his/her superficial appearance gives, you tailor your reaction accordingly. If the person is big and scary, I tend to squirm a little, and look away quickly. If he/she looks creepish, I may do the same, or if I'm feeling gangsta, I'll give them that "don't you be looking at me" look. If he is a handsome, well dressed black man, I may bat my lashes a little. Hehehe.

The next time you get on the train or bus, or even walking down the street, try paying attention to yourself as you pay attention those around you. Then come back and tell me about it, mmk?  Thanks.

The only time that HR professionals can embrace at will employment is when they're firing someone who doesn't fall in a protected class. This does not mean that HR fires those individuals for no reason, it just means that they don't put as much work into a defense.  A white non-disabled man under the age of 40 (for example) has little recourse so HR puts less into documentation and make sure there is substantial evidence for the decision.

When it comes to protected classes a company can't afford to be color-blind or age-blind, or disability-blind, etc.. We live in fear of protected classes. Every week on the SHRM message boards there is a frantic post from a worried HR professional about firing a pregnant woman or a 60 year old man. If we truly lived in an at-will state we shouldn't be worried. The fact is we live in a country where people like to sue.

This is not to say that individuals from protected classes WILL file a lawsuit or that certain protected classes are more likely to file a lawsuit. But they CAN. And let's face it, people don't like to be accountable for their actions. When you're fired, don't get a promotion, etc. you're likely to be angry. An angry 33 year old white man just has to deal with his anger and hopefully move on (rather than say bring a gun to the job site). An angry 55 year old black woman doesn't have to move on from the denial stage. They have the option of filing a lawsuit. What's a better way at getting back at the people you're angry at for firing you? After all the burden of proof is not on the employee so the employee has even more motivation to file a lawsuit.

People who abuse the system and those to refuse to accept that their firing has to do with their performance rather than whatever their protected class is have put HR in the uncomfortable situation of attempting offense when it comes to discrimination lawsuits. Part of our job is to protect the company and the best way to do so is to be on the lookout for potential lawsuits. There is no HR professional who takes pleasure in having to consider if an individual is in a protected class when they decide how to act on a predetermined termination. Unfortunately, it is that state we live in.

“It’s out of hand now...This is a human rights situation. If this happened on the street you would be arrested”

It is not the first time that Campbell has suggested this. Back in December 2007 when he, Alex Ferguson and Avram Grant had all been subjected to varying levels of abuse, he stated:

"This is a human rights situation where professional sportsmen - managers as well - want to do their job professionally and people are abusing them verbally"

Having been a Millwall FC fan for some 30 years, Campbell's comments split my sensibilities. Working with human rights on a day to basis, I appreciate that everyone has the right to freedom from degraded treatment and from discrimination in respect of your rights and freedoms: discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class and so on.

However, individuals also have the right to the freedom of expression and so if paying football fans are criticising 'bad' players, do they not have the right to boo and complain also?

Of course, I'm playing Devil's Advocate and realise that players are subjected to some of the most appalling verbal abuse (see here for my own experience). And there is some evidence that the abuse received by Campbell may have been of this type. Rod Liddle in the Times suggests that Tottenham fans were singing to him to the tune of the hymn, 'I am the Lord of the Dance':

Sol, Sol, wherever you may be,

You’re on the verge of lunacy,

And we don’t give a fuck when you’re hanging from a tree,

Judas cunt with HIV

In that song alone there could be allegations of racism (hanging from a tree), anti-Semitism (Judas cunt) and homophobia (HIV), let alone the mention of mental illness. If Liddle though is right, much of this is incidental: included in the song largely because it rhymes. The argument that he gives for this is that if anyone knows Tottenham Hotspur FC, they'll know that their fans identify themselves with Israel and Jewish culture: even their hooligan 'firm' are called The Yid Army. To suggest therefore that Spurs fans might be anti-Semitic is - if Liddle is right - somewhat ludicrous. Personally, I'm not convinced and where racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic abuse was directed at Campbell, so the legislation is in place for the necessary action to be taken, something the FA appear to be taking seriously.

But I do think that Liddle has a point in that it would seem to be part and parcel of being a professional football player that you will receive some abuse at some time. Without this, away matches would be quite anodyne experiences, resulting in even fewer people going to watch live football which would no doubt be good news for Sky and Setanta. Some of the greatest strengths of certain team's stadiums - Millwall's Old Den being a case in point - has been the atmosphere and 'reception' that away teams and their players get. Many managers - including Alex Ferguson - have been known to call on this and regularly the home crowd are described as the '12th man'. The question now is whether the crowd can still be the '12th man' if they don't abuse - intimidate? - the opposition?

Given my knowledge of football, I know that Fratton Park - home of Campbell's Portsmouth FC - is one of those stadiums where the home fans create an extremely hostile atmosphere. To suggest that 'Pompey fans' are any different from Spurs fans would therefore be wrong and so I wonder whether Campbell will - when overhearing abuse being directed at players from Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal et al - be recommending that his own fans are ejected from the ground and duly prosecuted? I very much doubt it.

Without wishing to endorse such abuse, I do think that some barracking is not only acceptable but somewhat necessary. Where it steps over the line into racism, sexism, homophobia etc, is of course where this becomes unacceptable. But when a player that earns £100,000 per week plays bad and is harrassed for this alone, then I do think that little else can be expected.

And as in the case of Campbell in particular, when you deliberately walk out on a club that you have previously captained and pledged allegiance to at the expense of losing that same club up to £15 million from his sale to its closest and bitterest rival, then I guess that you are not really endearing yourself to 'the fans'. Likewise, when he went AWOL halfway throughout a match for Arsenal - allegedly ending up in Amsterdam - he must accept that he hasn't exactly acted in an entirely professional manner, again not in a way that fans might warm to you.

The players themselves should also reflect upon their own behaviour. The Football Association has this season launched 'Respect', a campaign that seeks to address the lack of respect that professional players - amongst others - show towards match officials. Watch 'Match of the Day' two weeks in a row and you'll no doubt see various multi-millionaire players repeatedly telling the referee to 'Fuck Off' in no uncertain terms. In an article from 2007 in The Times, this point was voiced much better than I have here:

...on the subject of terrace abuse, Sol Campbell made the point that “if this happened on the street, you would be arrested”. Very true, but the rules of modern football do not apply easily to the real world. Emmanuel Eboué, one presumes, does not “grass up” fellow motorists for parking illegally, let alone for doing so legally; John Terry does not follow policemen around the High Street, telling them how to enforce the law; Cristiano Ronaldo does not dangle a leg and tumble to the floor in the hope of getting a fellow shopper arrested; not even El-Hadji Diouf spits at a passer-by in the street, at least not unless they have looked at him the wrong way.

Absolutely true.

Maybe - Sol Campbell listen up - the players should also begin to realise that if you pledge allegiance to a particular club, one that the fans themselves live and breathe and commit increasing amounts of their hard earned wages to, then it is pretty obvious that when you leave and go to your bitterest rivals, you won't exactly get a red carpet welcome on your return. Anyone remember Wayne Rooney's comment of 'once a blue, always a blue' before leaving for the red of Manchester United?

What is most worrying about this episode is that professional players at the top of their game increasingly seem to be unable to differentiate between the world they live in and what might better be described as 'the real world'. Yes, they want huge salaries and are prepared to accept the adulation and praise when they see fit. But then when things go wrong or the press 'intrude' beyond the carefully stage-managed photo-ops, they complain they are being over-criticised, over-scrutinised and treated downright unfairly. As the same article in The Times put it when Campbell first argued the human rights abuse case:

It seems that defending your human rights – freedom from criticism, the right to simulate, freedom to self-worship – is to become a Premier League footballer’s new catch-all phrase in times of trouble, or at least confusion

I totally support Campbell in his suggestion that players - and indeed fans - should not have to be subjected to racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic abuse either on or off the pitch: none of us should. But I do not support Campbell if all he is suggesting is that players should not be subjected to any criticism - what I feel that he is sometimes equating with verbal abuse - whatsoever, whether that be because he believes that he is above criticism or merely because the self-worshipping cult of the untouchable football player that he and far too many others are already a part of is continuing to increasingly cloud his vision of reality.

This work by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Based on a work at www.chris-allen.co.uk.

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting Solutions By Hanes.  We are always delighted when Consumers take time out of their schedule to share their comments and welcome the opportunity to address inquiries regarding our products.

We are sorry that we no longer make the color honey in the style you need.  If a color does not sell well for the stores, then they will not order it.  We make this line of hosiery specifically for Target stores and if they stop ordering a certain color, Hanes has to make a business decision.  Your comments will be forwarded to our Marketing department.  Hanesbrands makes the L'eggs pantyhose also.  Please try the Brown Sugar Luxury French pantyhose in the honey brown color.  Those are usually sold at Wal-Mart stores.

So after receiving this response, I focused on Target and fired off the following email:

Since April, I have been unable to find Hanes Solutions pantyhose in the color “Honey.”  After contacting the manufacturer Hanes, I found out that Target has decided to stop stocking this color.  Now Target only stocks this hosiery in Black and Buff Beige.  I am an African-American woman with a professional job, and “Honey” was the only color that I could wear as a flesh-tone.  Now that you are not stocking this color, you have effectively deprived me and other women of color of a valuable hosiery product.  Hanes’ response was for me to go to your competitor Wal-Mart where I could find a comparable product Hanes manufactures for their stores.  Target is closer to me where I live in Metro-Atlanta than any Wal-Mart location, but I won’t be shopping at Target if I can’t fulfill my basic needs.  You should reconsider this decision particularly in markets like Atlanta where there is a significant population of women of color.  I await your kind response [Bitches!—I didn’t write that but I was thinking it.]

So today, Target responded as follows:

Dear Customer,

I can understand it's frustrating when an item you're looking for is discontinued.

At Target we strive to offer our guests the best shopping experience, which includes offering merchandise that reflects them and their lifestyles.  Although we change our merchandise frequently to make sure we have the latest variety of merchandise for you to choose from. Hearing your feedback about this item is very important to us and I've shared your comments with our Merchandise and Buying teams.

Thanks for writing. We'll keep working to find more merchandise that fits your lifestyle.

WHATEVER!  Was this an exercise in futility?  Will corporate retailers continue to ignore this key segment of the consuming public? Will I continue to run around bare-legged in the dead of winter? [Yes-Atlanta does get cold.] I still feel so very empty inside.  Stay tuned for what comes next.

First players spawn on a tall bridge where mongooses are set.

Then the race is on! This map is compatible with the game variant race tracks, and it prevents cheating.