Dear Fractelle,

You don't have to tell me about prejudice.
I've lived with it all of my life.
My family came to Australia as refugees,
who had fled from Lithuania in 1944, to
escape the second Soviet occupation of their
country (1944-1990). They saw Australia as
a temporary stopover, because they were
hoping to return home soon. Their hopes
were not fulfilled.

Most post war Lithuanian refugees came to
Australia as indentured labour, that is,
every migrant over the age of 18 had to
enter into a two year contract with the
Australian government which obliged the
migrant to work wherever directed. The
contracts were strictly enforced, even if
it meant that families were split up.

On arrival in Australia, all Lithuanian
migrants were classified in only two
occupations: 'labourers,' which denoted
all males and 'domestics,' which meant all
females.

Although the Australian employment officials
had full details of each refugees skills and
qualifications, no effort was made to match
these with the jobs offering. The Australian
authorities enforced labour contracts
strictly.

Klaassen (1997, p. 158) mentions the first
prosecution conducted in Adelaide in June 1949
when a migrant failed to fulfill his indenture
contract. The migrant was sentenced to six months
jail and was deported after failing the dictation
test. The cruel catch was that a dictation test of
50 words or more could be given in any language -
usually a language that the accused was unikely to
speak or write. This incredible 'test' was
introduced in 1901 and existed in Australia for more
than half a century.

The early conditions for migrant settlement were
inadequate. There was no family accommodation in many
places to which contract workers were sent. Men had
to live in tentts or tin huts, in most primitive
conditions. Their wives and children remained in
holding camps for long periods and often a long
distance away from their husbands and father's work
places.

Marriages suffered, and the psychological scars of
forced separations have remained for life.

Fractelle, I appreciate your intent, but I think you cancelled you’re dispute with me when you said..”It’s normal to be fearful of the unknown” . You also seem to be fixated on the word “phobia”, which is a shame, as it’s only a part of the word I perhaps unwisely used, xenophobia, and carries implications beyond that words meaning.
It was the fear of the stranger, the unknown one, the different one, that I have been talking about, and that’s the word I used. Can you not see that in your example, you are teaching those babies to overcome their instincts, simply by placing them together during their formative years, and making it pleasant for them?
Xenophobia shares its roots with our tribal/clan inclinations, and is survival oriented. Many animals will attack non-clan others of their species, but can be persuaded to accept them eventually, sometimes. In this we are no different, why do some people seem to have a problem accepting this? If there is a better word for this phenomenon, tell me, perhaps I have inadvertently caused some confusion.
Exam’, I think we’re going to have to agree to differ, to some degree anyway. No worries, this is exactly why I’m here, to learn. I almost wish I disagreed with you more often, rationality is always a pleasure to read.

Foxy

I am well aware that you have felt the full force of prejudice having read many of your posts over time.

I did not intend to appear to be lecturing you, rather that I see prejudice from a similar perspective as does Examinator.

What prompted my last response to you was in your statement:

"You tell me that prejudice is fear based.
I feel that a number of elements may contribute to
prejudice. These elements include -

1) Competition.
2) Religious ideas.
3) Fear of strangers.
4) Extreme nationalism."

I agree that prejudice is a result of many factors, such as you suggest above. However, I was trying to explain that all human biases have at their core: hatred/fear. I put those words together because I see them as sides of the same coin:

We fear what we hate and we hate what we fear.

But things likes nationalism, xenophobia, religion and competitiveness are all learned, we all have to a lesser or greater extent an inherit ability to those behaviours and our environment may either mitigate or enhance such.

A person who is very naturally shy can, given the right stimulation, leave behind their tendency towards shyness and become far more outgoing, extroverted.

We are too fond of applying labels to each other and believing those labels are permanent. If the majority of humans believe this to be true, then I hold little hope for humans to ever live in peace. I rather prefer to remain optimistic, having observed changes in both myself and others and knowing we don't have to accept the status quo - that we can trust, accept and interact with those who appear different. My work with migrants and refugees, from a few years ago now, taught me that communication is possible even if we don't have a language in common. I suffered burn-out from that job, not because of the clients, but because of the management who gave little support to caseworkers.

The majority of people I managed housing for, were just people, wanting to get on with their lives and everyone else. It was just a tiny percentage who caused all the hard work and problems, and they were both born Australians or migrants.

For all that I suffered from management/co-workers, I remain positive to this day that the vast majority of people are inherently good.

Problem is, dominating authoritarian type people tend to be more common in leadership - humans are often adversarial and this favours the more controlling types to reach positions of power. The corporate structure favours the psychopath.

http://www.drjohnclarke.com/

Dear Fractelle,

Yes I have felt the full force of prejudice at times.
And I Thank You for remembering that. However, both
my parents, our friends, and relatives - moved on
ages ago. I was born in Australia - and consider this
my home. My parents taught us - it was up to us what
we made of our lives - nobody owed us a living. And
for those who were biased against the early refugees -
there were many more who were not - and whose help and
friendship we value to this day.

I fully understand what you're saying about fear/phobias.
I don't disagree with you. I simply think in broader terms.
Is all.

Prejudice and discrimination are found in any situation of
hostility and inequality between racial and ethnic groups.
To me - prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude
toward an entire category of people. It usually implies
negative feelings - antipathy, hostility - and yes, even
fear.

The key feature of prejudice is that it is always rooted in
generalisations and so ignores the differences among
individuals. So, someone who is prejudiced against Arabs/Jews
will tend to have a negative attitude towanrd any individual
Arab/Jew, in the belief that all Arabs/Jews share the same
supposed traits.

You spoke about the 'Authoritarian Personality.'
Theodore Adorno and his associates tried to answer
the question whether this type of personality is
more prone to prejudice than others.

Adorno's work has since inspired over a thousand
pieces of research and critical articles. Some
writers hve pointed out that Adorno's methodology
was weak in certain respects - others that he neglected
the possibility of an authoritarian personality
among radicals as well as conservatives others that
he was too vague and sweeping in its scope.

Despite these, and other criticisms, however, it is
now generally accepted that some people are psychologically
more prone to prejudiced thinking than others.

cont'd

I take people as I find them. And, if I find that
they have any prejudicial traits - well, I figure
that it's their problem and not mine. Of course,
that becomes difficult, when it's your employer
and/or your immediate boss at work.
However, I've been
lucky in my career to date. There haven't been
many instances that were difficult. And the ones
that were difficult - were on the whole - bearable.
Thanks to other colleagues and staff.

In Antonios case - I think that I would have handled
the situation differently. I would probably have been
more concerned with getting the job finished (and
possibly going home earlier), than harping on about
my lunch and my entitlements. Especially since the boss
gave up his lunch to get the job done.

As you said Fractelle, there's always two-sides to each
coin.