Post-Racism Society, My Ass
by tgirschJuly 9th, 2008
A lot of people want to pretend that racial discrimination is ancient history. It’s not:
John Jordan, a 40-year-old, black Milwaukee man, was invited by a friend to head down to the east side to Decibel and its Deep Bar Vodka Lounge.
“What he said was (it’s a) great place to go to. ‘I want you guys to meet me down here,’” Jordan said.
Decibel’s Web page boasts it’s Milwaukee’s hottest new nightclub.
When Jordan got to Decibel, he said guards stopped them cold at the door.
“I was greeted by two security officers and they were like, ‘Hold on, wait a minute,’ and I was like, ‘Ah, guys are asking me for my identification.’ I was like, ‘Great’ with laughter,” Jordan said. “They told me no your pants are too baggy, and I said, ‘No, you’re joking.’”
Meanwhile, Jordan said he saw other guys in similar attire walking in and out of the doors of Decibel who were not black.
“I’ve heard rumors of things like this happening. I just didn’t know it would ever happen to me,” he said.
Jordan said he and his buddies left quietly that night but returned a week later to see if it would happen again.
When they returned, they took a video camera.
When Jordan returned, he talked to a black man named Alfonso who said he was turned away at the door for not being dressed properly.
Before attempting to enter the club a second time, Jordan took video footage of the group’s attire. He also showed the camera the tag showing size on his pants.
Upon his return to Decibel, Jordan said the same two security guards were working there.
But again, Jordan was denied entry for his pants being too long and his friend was told his shoes were not right.
“We don’t allow boots in the club and that’s that,” a Decibel security guard said.
After being denied, Jordan was able to capture footage of patrons wearing clothing that the guards said was prohibited.
“I’m looking at this guy’s pants. Your pants look nice and long,” Jordan said. “Thirty-twos, and you just came out of the club. And you’re wearing boots? I just wanted to make certain you’re wearing boots.”
After being denied a third time, Jordan decided it was time for a little experiment and called up his friend Joel, who is white.
He wanted to see if the clothes he was denied in would be acceptable if they were worn by a white man.
Jordan’s experiment worked.
“On three different occasions, I put all the clothes on that he had a problem getting in with. It was absolutely no problem (for me),” Joel Edgar said.
That night, Edgar was wearing the same brown cashmere jacket and dress pants Jordan wore previously. The next time, he had the same black jack and red vest on.
“I walked right in, and they flagged me right on in every time,” Edgar said.
Edgar said that in three visits he saw just one black woman in the club.
“When I walked out, there were three black men trying to get in and they denied them access,” Edgar said.
[Emphasis mine.]
Read the whole story. It’s appalling.
Categories: Culture, News & Current Events, Race |
It may have been helpful for you to indicate that the owner the reporters spoke to is himself black. Not that it makes what was done right but it changes the perspective significantly.
Not admitting someone based on color is incredibly stupid regardless of what race someone is.
It’s not just stupid, it is what we call illegal. And that doesn’t change with the owner’s color.
The black co-owner they talked to was one of three owners, and it’s not clear to what extent he controlled or even knew about the policy. Of course, if he was aware of it, there’s a derogatory term for that, too.
(And, incidentally, why I insist my nieces and nephews all call me Uncle TJ, even though most friends call me Tom.)
Big U, I just have to ask. How does the fact that one of the owners is black “change the perspective significantly.”
From what I have seen and read, when “post-racism” is discussed, it most frequently refers to the way whites treat blacks. To use that phrase in the headline automatically leads one to believe the instigators are whites who are once again or still discriminating against blacks. That this would happen with a black owner could indicate a completely different set of reasoning and lead one to a different conclusion.
I would be curious to know what percentage of the business is owned by the guy interviewed. Is it 1% so that they can say he is an owner or is he the majority owner? Is it company policy or just bouncers with warped attitudes? Based on some of the comments following the article it would seem there is much more to the story but the racism angle was the easiest and best way to spark interest.
Yes, I thought that might be where you were headed with that. However, I think you are off-base. I think in today’s America, the most significant racism that lingers on is more institutional and less one-on-one. Sure there are haters, but society in general does not condone their behavior and thus they are less apt to pose a real problem. Would be great if they disappeared, but for the most part their days are done - at least in most parts of the country.
On the other hand, institutionalized racism persists and I believe is the source of most significant problems. When blacks are systematically discriminated against when they apply for jobs or loans or seek housing or advancement - that’s where the real problems lie. On a smaller scale, when a group of business-owners decide it would be better for business if they did not allow blacks in their establishment…
I’m not stating my case very eloquently, but I hope you get my point.
As for laying it off on a couple of warped bouncers, the place had a sries of on-going complaints, did not correct the situation, and is now at risk of civil action.
I KNOW THE OWNERS OF THIS NIGHTCLUB AND THEY ARE GREAT GUYS. I AM A CLUB OWNER IN THE SAME CITY AND HAVE RAN THE MOST DIVERSE CLUBS IN THIS CITY LONGER THAN BOTH OF THEM. AS WE SPEAK MY CLUB IS MOSTLY BLACK AND IS THE HOTTEST CLUB IN THE CITY. MY STAFF IS VERY DIVERSE, MOSTLY WHITE. IRONICALLY I WENT TO DECIBEL LAST TUESDAY WITH MYSELF (WHITE) AND THREE OF MY GOOD BLACK FRIENDS. WE WERE DENIED BY THE SAME PERSON THAT THESE GUYS WERE DENIED BY. IM SORRY BUT BEING IN THE BUSINESS FOR 10 YEARS I WOULD NEVER BRING TROUBLE TO THE CLUB. IT’S AN UNWRITTEN RULE IF YOU OWN A CLUB YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE GOOD NO MATTER WHAT YOUR WEARING OR WHAT COLOR YOU ARE. THAT NIGHT I WASNT TREATED LIKE A PROFESSIONAL NEITHER WERE MY GUESTS. THE OWNERS ARE GREAT GUYS UNFORTUNATELY THEY HIRED THE WRONG GUY TO MANAGE THE DOOR. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL ME 414-70401139 MARTINI MIKE’S. (I BET ALL THE COMPLAINTS ARE ON THE SAME BOUNCER, UNFORTUNATELY I MAN CAN RUIN IT ALL)
Big U:
If the problem were simply the bouncers, then the owners should have shitcanned them after the first complaint. That they didn’t immediately do so, even in the face of videotaped evidence, is telling, as far as I can tell.
Of course, you’re right that it’s possible that there’s more to the story than meets the eye, but you have to admit that it doesn’t look good. And even with the people in question, it’s not an isolated incident. They did several test runs that seem to conclusively prove that race was the issue.
I e-mailed this story to a friend of mine who grew up under segregation in the south, and he wasn’t even very surprised at it. According to him, while not exactly “common,” stuff like this is far from rare. There was a club in his city fairly recently that sent out an internal memo among their employees concerning what to do about the “black guy problem.” Needless to say, someone leaked the memo, and the club is no more.
Tgirsch> I agree it’s a problem and in my mind it’s stupid for the owners to either have allowed it or condoned it based on what is known.
Ted> I agree that institutionalized racism is indeed an issue.
Just so you guys know where I am coming from, here is my personal experience. I, personally, do not have any racist tendencies (I know, I know, it’s the internet so I can say whatever I want so for all you know I am lying).
I work for a large property management firm. We have a very close working relationship with many of the firms that sponsor immigrants to Canada, be it from Europe, Africa, Asia, whatever. As a general rule, we find new Canadians to be eager to prove they can be part of their new country so they tend to be excellent tenants. Race, color, etc. does not matter to us as long as they are good tenants and pay their rent.
In the past year, while we have had virtually no problems with any new Canadians, we have had several problems with First Nations Canadians and white Canadians. Every time an issue has arisen with a First Nations person, we have been accused of racism. I will not get into any specifics other than to say that in each case we were following the guidelines we have for all tenants. The only people who ever complained of racism or threatened to go to the press with the idea of racism were the Native Canadians.
I have been threatened with violence, called a racist, had my non-white staff members called racist names and been accused of oppression. When every situation was reviewed, it was found that we were more lenient and more tolerant of the First Nations people than we were of the whites due to the concern we had of being accused of being racist. So, am I racist? No. But, do I have a warped perspective of dealing with First Nations people? Yes, now I do. Because any time an issue came up, instead of looking at the problem, the race card has been played. Every single time. It gets harder and harder to look past the race every time a false accusation is made. My staff is clearly instructed to look only at the renter’s financial info, rental history, etc. and to ignore race but it becomes more difficult to keep racial profiling out of the office when it is used as a threat every time a problem arises.
So, when I see the race issue being raised, my experience is one of being accused without reason simply because it was a good tool to use to get what someone wanted. I realize this is significantly different than the garbage people have had to deal with in the south but it is a real occurence.
So here is my question. If it is okay for a black person to assume racism in a person’s actions because of his/her past experiences, whould it not then also be acceptable for a white person to have preconceptions based on his/her experiences with people of another race?
Big U:
To answer your last paragraph, first I disagree with the premise: I don’t know if it’s “okay” for someone to assume racism based on past experience; but for those who have been victims of racism, in a society stained by it, it’s certainly understandable.
In this particular case, if the club had been turning away baggy-panted white folks, and the patron still cried racism, that would indeed have been crying wolf. But that was clearly not the case here. He didn’t merely presume racism, he proved it was the case!
And as to your question of “also acceptable for a white person,” I have to say that answer is “no.” KTK has written about this much more extensively than I have, but the experience of whites with respect to race and racism is completely different (at least here in North America, and probably also in Europe) than that of nonwhites. We simply have never been the vicitms of systemic discrimination and oppression on anywhere close to the level than nonwhites historically have been (and, as this case illustrates, often continue to be). As such, we can sort of understand where they’re coming from on an abstract level, but we can never really “get it.”
I’m sorry, but while having to tiptoe around with what we say and how we say it may be a nuisance, it is simply nothing at all like having to sit in the back of the bus, or not being allowed to eat inside the restaurant, or not being able to get a mortgage.
I can sympathize with your frustration regarding the First Nations issue, I really can. But even if they’re overreacting or outright wrong, there’s enough bad history to make their complaints at least understandable, if not valid. And yes, I’m sure some of them are cynically trying to game the system; but that still doesn’t justify pre-judging the group as a whole.
don’t get me wrong tgirsch, as I do not want to suggest what I have experienced is in any way close to the systematic discrimination that has been present. I realize there is a significant history that can not be easily overcome.
It is very understandable for me to not want to have our company rent to First Nations people because if a problem ever comes up, our public reputation takes a severe pounding. Even though EVERY TIME we have been found to have been wrongfully accused, our reputation was and still is severely damaged making it harder for us to obtain new business.
Thus, the easiest route would be to never rent to someone of First Nation descent. That is a completely rational and understandable position based on wanting to make the company as profitable as possible and as applications are 100% private no one would know what we are doing. BUT, it is not an appropriate position. To pre-judge an individual based on experiences with others of the same race is wrong. Period.
But by the same token while it may be understandable for African-Americans who have faced discrimination to have preconceptions about white people, it is just as wrong on their part to pre-judge the group as a whole.
I know we’re way off the original topic though it is related to a certain extent. And as I have said any discrimination based on race is not only wrong but also stupid.
Tgirsch, this is pretty embarrassing. Does an anecdote really prove widespread racism? No, and you know better. You are smarter than this. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country. Of course you can find a racist story. In the worst of economic times, you can always find stories of people doing well, but does that prove that the economy is good? I’m surprised at you.
Glen:
Does an anecdote really prove widespread racism?
Did I ever say that it did? My only point was that this sort of thing does still happen, and while not common, it’s nowhere near as rare as many of us like to think. Do you really dispute that sentiment, or find it “embarrassing” that I would say so?
Big U:
It is very understandable for me to not want to have our company rent to First Nations people because if a problem ever comes up, our public reputation takes a severe pounding.
Do you really suppose that your company would take less of a PR pounding if you refused to serve First Nations people altogether? Seriously?
It wouldn’t surprise me if your problem is one of labeling. If an independent auditor were to document all of the complaints you receive, how many of them are legitimate versus illegitimate, etc., how confident are you that complaints from First Nations tenants would be exponentially more common, or substantially less meritous, than those of others? In other words, are they more frequently a problem, or do people just tend to notice them more?
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, which I think is relevant here:
I’m pretty sure we’ve been through this before, but it bears repeating. Maybe the culture is different up there in Canada (I tend to doubt it), but a surprising number of people down here in the US use the same type of logic and reasoning you’re using here as a cover or rationalization for their own prejudices and/or racism. It’s surprisingly common. Again, I’m not saying this is what your intent is. I just want you to understand that this is why your questions are often met by me and others with cynicism.
I don’t mean this as an indictment of your character (or anyone else’s), either, I really don’t. This is basic human nature. We’re pattern-seeking creatures, and a lot of times we use easy-but-not-necessarily-useful distinctions in forming patterns and associations, often without even realizing that we’re doing it. (A side note on this point: Have you read Blink! by Malcolm Gladwell? If not, I highly recommend it. There are a couple of chapters on this, and I was shocked to see the extent to which negative racial stereotypes subconsciously color my thinking.)
I understand what you are saying Tgirsch. And no I do not think a policy saying we will not rent to natives would result in less of a PR pounding. We would be slaughtered in the press. Keep in mind that I have made it abundantly clear that we are colorblind when it comes to applicants. I guess you could call it greed or whatever but my perspective is I don’t care what color you are as long as you pay your bills and we are able to make money.
My point is that on several occassions when we followed our procedures specifically and either rejected applicants or evicted them for their actions, I have been accused of being racist. No evidence. And in most situations, no knowledge of who I was other than a voice on the phone that they could yell at. And each time we were cleared of any wrongdoing. (If you look at how human rights councils rule in Canada, you will see how overwhelming the evidence must be for a company to be cleared of such accusations).
I personally have never been accused of being a racist by anyone who has dealt with me in person and in 20 plus years of management have never had a race-based complaint brought against me by an employee even though I have often worked in ethnically diverse offices.
The only situations I have ever been accused of racism have been ones where there is an opportunity for the accuser to gain financially by accusing our company. And it has been done by people who had no clue who I was personally.
I understand your cynicism regarding my remarks because it is out of place with what is common. However, I can only be what I am. Prior to taking this position it never occurred to me that race would be used as a way to gain financially. I always had assumed any claims of racism were well-founded and accurate. I have since seen that in many instances that is not the case. At least not in the city I live in.
By the way, I’ll look up that book at my library. It sounds like it could be quite an interesting read.
Mike,
Turn down the blaring house music, then you won’t have to scream.
What, speak up, the fucking bass, man… Are we’re going to IHOP after this.
Oh, by the way, here’s a quick story.
A couple of weeks ago I was headed to a bachelor party (may have actually posted this before). The best man had rented a floor of a NYC bar (we all split the cost). After my friend sent the mass email invitiation, I reminded him to call and get the dress code and send that to everybody as well (I have a personal interst here, I’m hats and sneakers all day, and I’ve not been let in to things because of it – this wouldn’t happen if the organizer checked the dress code and let us kow).
Anyway, we were told shorts and sandals are cool, but hats aren’t. How are hats less formal than sandals? A hat can at least be part of a high-fashion outfit (so, I was gonna wear a Mets fitted, but say I had intended to wear a derby). Sandals are NEVER high fashion. The point is black dudes don’t really wear sandals. The hip hop crowd doesn’t really wear sandals. The sandals, yes – hats, no policy is a subtle way to influence the “kinds” of people you let into your establishment. Though they seem arbitrary, they are on a deeper level, very deliberate!
Big U, I find Ir interesting in the above comments you first talk about the problems you have with members of a specific race mistreating you and note how it is harder and harder to not take prejudicial action against other members of that race to avoid conflict. OK, I can understand that.
You also point out how the issues you deal with pale in comparison with some of the problems minorities have had to put up with. So, even though your situation is admittedly less stressful than theirs, you feel a pull towards prejudicial action because of your experiences.
Then you ask the question (I have noticed instead of ever making a controversial point, you always phrase it as a question) is it OK for a black person to formulate opinion based on past experience. Which is precisely what you have admitted doing yourself, when faced with lesser affronts.
So, here is my question to you. Is it reasonable for you to expect others to achieve a higher standard than you are able to achieve yourself?
Big U,
He hasn’t posted in like 4 months, but you can check out Gladwell’s blog: http://gladwell.typepad.com/
There’s a lot of good stuff back in the archives.
Ted. Reread my question because you did not state it correctly. I did not ask “is it okay” I asked “IF it is OK” The difference is slight but it completely changes the context of the question. To reiterate, my question was: IF it is acceptable for a black person to formulate their opinions based on past experiences then does it not also stand to reason that it would also be acceptable for a white person to formulate their opinions based on past experiences?
I have made it pretty clear that I can understand why a black person in the states would feel how they do. I have also stated that due to my experiences it is hard for me to avoid starting to group a segment (in this case First Nations) and to view them not as individuals but as all cut from the same cloth.
However, from what I have read, I am not allowed the right to do that according to some people. I have not suffered enough, or whatever, to have earned that right.
To answer your question, I do not expect others to achieve a higher standard that I myself am able to achieve. It is becoming more clear that I as a white male am expected to hold a higher standard than many others. It is not permissible for me to stereotype a group because that would be racist (a statement that I actually agree with, hence the fact that in spite of what I have experienced I still refuse to allow it to affect how we apply our standards at work). But it IS acceptable in society for non-whites (be they black, native, etc.) to label me and group me simply because of my skin color. How is that not a double standard? And how does that not, in reality, say that black people or natives or whoever else are less capable than whites of seeing past prejudices to see the individual? To me, that in itself is an extremely racist concept.
I have not suffered enough, or whatever, to have earned that right.
Crudely, yes.
This applies to all reverse-racism, complaints about (perfectly justifiable) double standards: when the bully sticks the little kid’s head in the toilet, the audience boos. When the kid stands up for himself and fights back, they cheer.
Actions take on different contexts when perpetrated by a member of a traditionally oppressed group against that of a traditionally privileged group than they do when they are perpetrated by the dominant group against the oppressed.
I don’t think that is a difficult concept to understand conceptually, but it is a very difficult one for people to accept and assimilate into their interpretation of these instances.
Big U:
The problem with the phrasing of your question is that it tries to equate two things which are not equal. In this case, one group has substantially more justification for cynicism with respect to motives than does the other. Thus, a key presupposition of your question is invalid, IMO.
In the general sense, yes, you’re allowed to formulate opinions based on past experiences. But when we start analyzing whether those opinions/conclusions are justifiable that’s where the differences kick in.
I have not suffered enough, or whatever, to have earned that right.
If you think you have a “right” to pre-judge an entire group of people based solely (or primarily) on ethnic background, then you’re right, I don’t think you have that right, and I don’t think anyone else (of any ethnic background) has that right.
Your hypothetical also misses a hugely important distinction: on the one hand (the guy in this story), you have someone who presumes he’s being discriminated against because of his race; on the other hand, whether you realize it or not, you’re arguing for the right to discriminate against people based on their race, and that’s a completely different thing. You’ve essentially argued that First Nations people are more trouble than they’re worth. That’s different in kind from “I’m being discriminated against because I’m black.” (As this story shows, the person doing the discriminating may well be of the same race as the victim — that doesn’t make it any less wrong.)
It is becoming more clear that I as a white male am expected to hold a higher standard than many others.
Even if I agreed with you here (I don’t), boo hoo. I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to put it. Poor, oppressed white guy, gets all the inherited advantages that come with being lucky enough to be born into a “preferred” race, and gets upset when this greater privilege comes with greater responsibility. Waah.
But it IS acceptable in society for non-whites (be they black, native, etc.) to label me and group me simply because of my skin color.
And this is where you’re flat wrong. Nobody here has argued anything of the sort, and I defy you to show where anyone has. Nobody’s saying that it’s okay for nonwhites to be racists. What we’re saying is that it’s a lot more acceptable for nonwhites to complain about being the victims of racism, because it has historically been true, and often still is true. If a white person is a victim of racism — real racism — then that’s every bit as wrong as what we’re dealing with here. Look to Zimbabwe for a recent example of this.
It seems to me that you’re arguing a straw man here. You’re attacking arguments nobody has made.
tgirsch > Is it acceptable for the natives our company has dealt with to label both myself and my company as racist even though there is no evidence whatsoever? Is it justifiable? Because in my mind what they are doing is being racist themselves. Period. You say it is unacceptable for anyone to be racist so in reality you must agree that their attitude would be wrong.
And I’m not looking for any sympathy or anything. Just clarifying that any time ANYONE groups people together based on race they are being racist.
If I were to allow my past negative dealings with the natives that cried racist to affect my future dealings with natives, that would be racist on my part. I do not allow that to happen but I freely admit that it is a struggle at times. And when I do struggle with it, I find myself focusing on the significant number of natives that are solid renters to remind myself that it is not the group or the race but rather individuals with their own misconceptions that are the problem.
The idea that you feel I have argued that renting to natives is more trouble than it’s worth would seem to indicate that you have either ignored the comments I have made stating clearly that race is not to be considered when we see applications or simply felt I was being dishonest.
You say I am wrong to think I am held to a higher standard and yet in the next sentence you state that with greater privilege comes greater responsibility. Which is it because those two points contradict each other. Besides which I was not complaining, simply stating a fact. And the reality is I was responding to Ted’s inaccurate portrayal of what I had actually said.
In #19 Ted’s first comment was in regards to natives mistreating me. That is an innaccurate understanding of my comments. I was not concerned about any mistreatment or complaining about poor me. What I was trying to clarify was how the eagerness of some bad native tenants to cry racism the first time they didn’t like what was happening had significant potential to affect many others natives.
I never intended to come across as having a “poor me” attitude and I didn’t think I did. It seems that a victim mentality label has been given to me somehow. Not sure how that happened.
Is it acceptable for the natives our company has dealt with to label both myself and my company as racist even though there is no evidence whatsoever? Is it justifiable?
Nope. [Assuming that's a fair characterization of the facts of the case.]
You say it is unacceptable for anyone to be racist so in reality you must agree that their attitude would be wrong.
Yep. [Assuming it's a fair characterization of the facts of the case.]
Which is it because those two points contradict each other.
No they’re not! (”Just saying the opposite of what I say is NOT arguing.” “Yes it is!”) In truth, my statement was in assuming a premise which I made plain I did not accept. I explicitly disagreed with the premise that you are expected to hold a higher standard. It’s called a hypothetical. Even if you were held to a higher standard, it wouldn’t be such a big deal, because you’re still likely operating from a position of greater power and influence. As with the second amendment, the part before the comma is important.
The point is that it wouldn’t be all that unfair for you to be held to a higher standard if you’re being held to that standard because you have a status that you achieved unfairly in the first place. (And before you go all kooky on me, I’m not trying to imply blame there — your unfair ascension to higher status in the hypothetical is because of simple accident of birth, not because of any ill intent on your part.)
And the reality is I was responding to Ted’s inaccurate portrayal of what I had actually said.
If we were only allowed to respond to people who addressed us directly in blog-land, there’d be a lot less conversation.
It seems that a victim mentality label has been given to me somehow. Not sure how that happened.
It happens when you say stuff like:
and:
Those aren’t just ordinary statements; there are implicit value judgments in there. Whether you intended it or not, the strong implication is that you are being treated unfairly, i.e., you are a victim.
Thanks for the clarification on the standard thing. That makes much more sense.
I guess I can see how the comments I made could across as an implication that I am being treated unfairly, i.e. I am a victim. It was certainly not intended that way.
I never view myself as a victim so it often does not occur to me that others may take my phrasing as such. I was simply making statements that reflect the reality within which I live. Nothing boohoo about it, just reality from my perspective.
I am aware of my situation, so it is my responsibility to deal with it and it never occurred to me to see myself as a victim as to do so would require me seeking a perpetrator or attacker.
Now to be clear, there are times when I feel I am being treated unfairly or inappropriately but in my mind there is a difference between me acknowledging what is happening (i.e. unfair treatment) and me allowing that to define who I am (i.e. I am a victim). One externalizes the problem, which I often do, while the other internalizes the problem, which I rarely do.
Big U,
I actually want to take the time out to praise you for something. It is not always easy to force yourself to look past race, to encourage yourself to take the long view. When you admit that classifying things along racial lines is something that tempts you from time to time and that you stop to remind yourself you are dealing with individuals, that’s more than many do. As TG mentioned earlier, and Gladwell addresses in Blink, we are a pattern-seeking species; the most easily recognized isn’t necessarily the most profound though! Often, it is not easy to resist the urge to call off the search and proclaim success after identifying the lowest common denominator.
The way I speak about race, I feel like some people might perceive that I think developing a post-racism mind so fucking easy; it’s not, and I don’t claim to has completely done it. One has to constantly question his/her conclusions, one has to remind him/herself of seemingly basic ideas - like the need to treat people as individuals. In a completely non-condescending way, good for you, Big U.