Cultural IQ

Learning to Listen, Listening to Learn

HOUSTON, TEXAS

 

 Crossing Lines
Story as entry to relationship & change

An inspiring, hands-on community workshop for communicating across all lines
beginning with a new quality of listening to one another - to everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

Monday evening, November 17, 2008

7:00 pm      Educational Exhibits

7:30  SHARP - 9:30 pm          Participatory Program
Free how-to videos and literature to take home

Dominican Sisters of Houston Meeting Room
6501 Almeda Road   between MacGregor and Holcombe   Houston, Texas

                                                                (map)

Please RSVP to: 713-440-7824 or to

 

sboyd8071@yahoo.com

Facilitators

Libby and Len Traubmanco-founded the 16-year-old Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue of San Mateo,. With Elias Botto and Adel Nazzal, long-time Palestinian partners in face-to-face engagement, they are in Houston for the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) annual conference and for this practical evening to offer modern tools of communication for your home, school, business, neighborhood, and global community.

 

 

 

"An enemy is one whose story we have not heard."   

  - Ms. Gene Knudsen Hoffman

Co-sponsors:
Adult Program Committee and Community Involvement Committee of the

First Unitarian Universalist Church    Center  for Healing Racism   and the    Dominican Sisters of

Houston

Event information on the Web at http://traubman.igc.org/houstonnight.htm

Vanishing Voters

Congrats to the New York Times and Houston TV 11 for keeping the rights of voters upfront in this historic election. They serve as guardians of our Republic and champions of average joes and soccer moms everywhere.

If we are educated, prepared, and willing to wok together,  we can help minimize problems on election day.

The New York Times this morning wrote a strongly worded editorial titled "Sorry, I can't find your name." While taking note of some of the scarier voter suppression practices, the Times urged voters to be prepared to protect their rights on Nov. 4th. (Call a voters' rights group, an attorney, a political party, or the media if you feel you are eligible yet you are prevented from voting.  Stay at the precinct and try to resolve the issue. Cast a provisional ballot only as a last resort.)

If you have been following the news, you know some voter names are being taken off the rolls. In addition, people trying to register to vote are reporting a variety of obstacles and barriers.

 Excerpts from the New York Times

"Congress and the states need to develop clear and accurate rules for purges and new-voter verification that ensure that eligible voters remain on the rolls — and make it much harder for partisans to game the system. These rules should be public, and voters who are disqualified should be notified and given ample time before Election Day to reverse the decision.

For this election, voters need to be prepared to fight for their right to cast a ballot. They should try to confirm before Nov. 4 that they are on the rolls — something that in many states can be done on a secretary of state or board of elections Web site. If their state permits it, they should vote early. Any voter who finds that their name has disappeared from the rolls will then have time to challenge mistakes.

If voters find on Election Day that their names are not on the rolls, they should contact a voters’ rights group like Election Protection, at 1-866-OUR-VOTE, or a political campaign, which can advocate for them. They should not, except as a last resort, cast a provisional ballot, since it is less likely to be counted."

 =======================================================================

Meanwhile, KHOU’s investigative reporter Mark Greenblatt found 25 to 30 cases in which qualified voters who submitted completed applications were rejected by the Harris County Assessor’s Office, which is headed by a Republican.

 

Research shows many new Harris County voters are Democrats, Greenblatt said. (Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans in the county now outnumber white Americans.)

Greenblatt said he was told by a source who has actually viewed the Harris County voter registration data that the number of people  experiencing problems may be in the thousands.

County Assessor Paul Bettencourt told Greenblatt that the rejected applications were a "mistake." He blamed a temporary employee, who is no longer working with the county, for the errors. He insists the  mistakes are limited to the cases already brought to light by media. Voting rights were reinstated in those cases.

Mr. Bettencourt opted not to respond to my letter seeking information on his operations so I could better understand why it took eight months (and four registration forms) to get registered to vote in Harris County.

 

Standing Up for Truth

The John McCain supporters who stood up to the anti-Obama protesters recently in Woodbridge, VA., took a stand for us all.

A group of ordinary Americans encountered a hot spot, and  displayed remarkable tact, diplomacy, and creativitys.

According to AP, the protesters told the McCain supporters that Islam teaches its followers " to deceive the infidels in order to progress Islam." A man who refused to give his name called Obama a socialist.

The McCain folks challenged the man to furnish facts to back up his talk. The man resonded, "There's a lot of background ... I can't do that right now."

Wouldn't it be lovely  if our morning newspaper reported more of these stories? These articles are valuable because they offer us constructive ways to respond when trouble walks up to us and taps us on the shoulder.

 

This incident shows clearly that ordinary people have the power to confront bigotry and stop polluted information from creeping into their decision-making. It eliminates our excuse: It will never work so we shouldn't try.

 

Yesterday, I received an email from a thoughtful friend who asked if Gov. Rendell, Mr. Fumo and Congressman Murtha had responded as I proposed, would their statements have made national news? Probably not.

 

She makes an excellent point. When we choose our words cautiously,we don't always make the news. That's not necessarily a bad thing. News coverage is a mixed blessing because journalists, like the rest of us, have biases.

 

 Pennsylvania  would have had a better chance of talking about its deeper issue: the effects of racism on the people and the economy. And it might have managed to hold  a productive dialog on race -- one that could  open minds, and unlock closed doors. Now that's a front-page story!

 

The Right Time But the Wrong Conversation About Racism

As children, we learn how to cover up the fact that we did something wrong.

“You took my toy,” Sally says. “Did not,” yells Bobby. A caring adult steps in to ask if Bobby if he is guilty.  “No,” he says angrily, offended that anyone would ask such a question, and unable to hold back the tears.

Now it’s Sally who is in trouble for making Bobby cry. Unless Sally took a photo of Bobby in the act, there is not a lot she can do. Absent compelling evidence, contradictory voices tend to create loud noises that make messages harder to hear and truth harder to find.

          Pennsylvania has recently had some very difficult conversations about racism, and yet, remarkably, almost nothing has been learned from it. Three prominent elected officials - Gov. Ed Rendell, former state Senator Vince Fumo and U.S. Rep. John Murtha have independently charged that some whites in their state are racist. All three of these veteran legislators are white.

During the Democratic primary, Rendell created controversy by suggesting some white voters were not ready to support a black man for president. The polling data has found that he was correct. Even so, Rendell found himself on the defensive.

Fumo, who faces corruption charges, said during a heated exchange with colleagues that some of the elected officials he serves with are so racist they would support slavery if they could. (A good follow-up question: “What proof or evidence can you provide?”)

More recently, Murtha told a Pennsylvania newspaper that western Pennsylvania

was racist. (Again, the follow-up question: Where is your evidence?)

Could these three men have made their points differently? Absolutely.

The response might have been more thoughtful if Rendell had said, “Some voters prefer candidates who look like them and share their cultural values. So race will be a factor in Pennsylvania, as it will be in many other states. In some communities, racial bias is likely to hurt Sen. Obama while, in others, it is likely to hurt Sen.Clinton.”

Fumo might have provoked a more intelligent discourse if he had said, “Some of my colleagues harbor deep racial prejudices. These sentiments often emerge in conversations that take place behind closed doors, which I am not at liberty to disclose. This issue needs to be addressed because it affects our ability to govern well.”

As for Murtha, he, too, unfairly singled out white residents. He might have said, “In western Pennsylvania, which is predominantly white, racial biases  may cost

Sen. Obama some votes. In other areas, racial biases may hurt Sen. McCain's chances.”

This political drama offers three critical lessons for cutural students: 

1) Don’t point the finger of blame at one group if every group has guilty members.

2) Demand that people who make bold charges offer evidence or proof.

3) Keep our eyes on the truth,at all times. If our pursuit of the truth offends others, then we might say,“Fine, we have two issues on the table now. Let’s address the original question first, and then take up your concern that the language or statement was inappropriate.”

 

If this nation is to move forward, Americans need to stop playing the blame game and focus on the fact racism, sexism and religous biases impair judgment, governance and sound decision-making.

That is the right conversation, and this the perfect time.

 

10 Ways to Poison the Debate

 

l

This is a brief message to our presidential candidates and their supporters. After reading, listening and viewing footage of recent discourse, I thought I might point out a few problem areas.

1)      Instead of seeking a discussion of facts or truth, shut down the conversation right away by announcing you take offense at a remark. This tactic makes you the center of attention. Communication now is focused on  your beliefs rather than on a discussion of the original speaker's statement. It is a verbal version of the old bait-and-switch routine. Use it as often as you can.

2)   Never ask open-ended questions to clarify another speaker's position and promote discovery. For example, you would never say: "I want to be certain that I understand your point. Am I restating your position correctly?"  Questions such as these remove you from the spotlight.

3)      Always attach labels to others and throw around words such as elitist, racist, conservative or liberal when describing them. This transforms conversations into chess games of defensive maneuvers. All productive communication shuts down, making dialogs a game of skill rather than an free exchange of  ideas and opinions.

4)      Don’t listen with the purpose of understanding another speaker’s intent.  Instead create confusion and misunderstanding by questioning their motives and explaining what they really meant.

5)      Call in the media in to provide around-the-clock interpretation and analysis. This is helpful to them as it serves to build larger audiences and help ratings.

6)       When responding to ideas you don't happen to agree with never EVER say: "That's an interesting take on the issue. However, I see it a bit differently. May I explain?"  After all, the purpose of communication is to gain power or seek a better position, not to better understand one another's backgrounds and cultural challenges.

 

7)      After a speaker admits making a mistake and offers you an apology, steadfastly refuse to move forward in the conversation.  The longer you stay in the spotlight, the more points you earn. If the public gets turned off, well, there are fewer votes to count on election day. You won't have to stay up so late.

8)      When discussing mistakes, never ever use yourself as an example. It is better to criticize opponents, critics or family members than to share your mistakes and life lessons. Parents use this tactic all the time. A parent who used drugs as a teen might say to his child: “Don’t use drugs because you might end up like Uncle Paulie. He's done awful things to this family.”

9)     Attack people who are not in the same room or same place as you. This is a good way to win an argument. OK, so It shuts down meaningful communication and creates opportunities for cultural tensions and unrest. Fortunately, you can then tell others, "We are in a real mess. I'm just the person to resolve these  problems." (This tactic works with humans as well as dogs, I've discovered. If dogs aren’t in the same room, they ignore you so you can always get the last word. Problem is the dog really wasn't listening, so it doesn't matter to her that you now think she has agreed to pick up her toys. )

10)  Whenever possible, focus the conversation on what’s wrong with (1) the world, 2) your family, 3) your neighbors or 4) the nation) rather than their strengths. If I held a dialog to discuss racial problems, a handful of people might show up. If we held a dialog to discuss how talented and intelligent cultural families might build a community where all have rights and possibilities, dozens, perhaps even hundreds might attend. So attack, attack, attack. If fewer people are in your discussion circle, you'll have more time to talk =======================================================================

For those of you prefer to know how to do this job right, check out my earlier post: Art of Communication

l

This is a brief message to our presidential candidates and their supporters. After reading, listening and viewing footage of recent discourse, I thought I might point out a few problem areas.

1)      Instead of seeking a discussion of facts or truth, shut down the conversation right away by announcing you take offense at a remark. This tactic makes you the center of attention. Communication now is focused on  your beliefs rather than on a discussion of the original speaker's statement. It is a verbal version of the old bait-and-switch routine. Use it as often as you can.

2)   Never ask open-ended questions to clarify another speaker's position and promote discovery. For example, you would never say: "I want to be certain that I understand your point. Am I restating your position correctly?"  Questions such as these remove you from the spotlight.

3)      Always attach labels to others and throw around words such as elitist, racist, conservative or liberal when describing them. This transforms conversations into chess games of defensive maneuvers. All productive communication shuts down, making dialogs a game of skill rather than an free exchange of  ideas and opinions.

4)      Don’t listen with the purpose of understanding another speaker’s intent.  Instead create confusion and misunderstanding by questioning their motives and explaining what they really meant.

5)      Call in the media in to provide around-the-clock interpretation and analysis. This is helpful to them as it serves to build larger audiences and help ratings.

6)       When responding to ideas you don't happen to agree with never EVER say: "That's an interesting take on the issue. However, I see it a bit differently. May I explain?"  After all, the purpose of communication is to gain power or seek a better position, not to better understand one another's backgrounds and cultural challenges.

 

7)      After a speaker admits making a mistake and offers you an apology, steadfastly refuse to move forward in the conversation.  The longer you stay in the spotlight, the more points you earn. If the public gets turned off, well, there are fewer votes to count on election day. You won't have to stay up so late.

8)      When discussing mistakes, never ever use yourself as an example. It is better to criticize opponents, critics or family members than to share your mistakes and life lessons. Parents use this tactic all the time. A parent who used drugs as a teen might say to his child: “Don’t use drugs because you might end up like Uncle Paulie. He's done awful things to this family.”

9)     Attack people who are not in the same room or same place as you. This is a good way to win an argument. OK, so It shuts down meaningful communication and creates opportunities for cultural tensions and unrest. Fortunately, you can then tell others, "We are in a real mess. I'm just the person to resolve these  problems." (This tactic works with humans as well as dogs, I've discovered. If dogs aren’t in the same room, they ignore you so you can always get the last word. Problem is the dog really wasn't listening, so it doesn't matter to her that you now think she has agreed to pick up her toys. )

10)  Whenever possible, focus the conversation on what’s wrong with (1) the world, 2) your family, 3) your neighbors or 4) the nation) rather than their strengths. If I held a dialog to discuss racial problems, a handful of people might show up. If we held a dialog to discuss how talented and intelligent cultural families might build a community where all have rights and possibilities, dozens, perhaps even hundreds might attend. So attack, attack, attack. If fewer people are in your discussion circle, you'll have more time to talk =======================================================================

For those of you prefer to know how to do this job right, check out my earlier post: Art of Communication

If There's a Noose, Is It ALWAYS About Race?

 

A beautiful tree in front of a lovely Texas home recently gave me the chills:  A collection of black figurines, shrouded in cloth, were hanging from its limbs, each with a noose around the neck.

Somebody's idea of a scary Halloween decoration? Or a subtle campaign of racial intimidation?

In a diverse city like ours, each of us will encounter situations that make us uncomfortable or uneasy.  On any given day, an ordinary walk through the park can bring us face to face with racial or religious fears.  

These are the days that our cultural blinders will click on. Most of us will be tempted to use our biases - built by past experiences and fed by automatic assumptions - to reach hasty, perhaps dangerous,  conclusions.

  Hard cold facts, and independent research, are the tools that can set us free.

 I hurried over to a friend's house, where I explained what I had seen. She is European American, so I asked her to look at the tree, and offer her thoughts. My friend walked right by the tree, at first. She noticed it only after I pointed it out the dark skeleton-like figures.

As we looked over the decorations carefully, we noticed a white skeleton in the back of the tree (not visible from the street) and it was tied to a noose as well. We surveyed the yard, and afterward concluded this family probably was not trying to broadcast a message of hate. In fact, they probably were not even aware how this scene might make make a person of color feel.

The tree makes me think about  the recent remarks of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin:  “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” she likes to tell largely white audiences.

 

Indeed.  If Sarah Palin and Barack Obama were to look at that tree, they are likely to react in different ways.  One might be reminded the lynchings and violence committed against blacks. The other might see the kind of Halloween decorations commonly found found in her neighborhood.

 

 Both reactions are based upon truth - reflections of their own history - and both must be respected and valued.

 

Global citizens need to learn how to view situations and issues through a variety of multicultural lenses. When cultural communities assemble in the same room to listen to each other and work together, as we did after 9/11,  America has the most to offer.

 

 

 

What Color Are Your Shades?

Cultural Shades Can Keep You In the Dark, or Point You Toward the Light!

Show a photo of a person standing in front of a group to Asian business executives, and they are likely to believe that the man or woman is an “outcast.”  In Asian cultures, community is widely viewed as the key to success. Show the same photo to Americans, and the assumptions are likely to differ.  Executives in the United States are far more likely to think that the individual standing alone is the leader. American society sees the individual as key to achievement.

Michael W. Morris, the Chavkin-Chang Professor of Leadership Management at

Columbia University Business School  uses this illustration to explain cultural shades, which are the lenses we use to make sense of the world. Individuals rely upon cultural values, beliefs, customs and mindsets when called upon to interpret facts. They explain why groups look at the same set of facts yet reach differing conclusions. After Hurricane Katrina, for example, two-thirds of African-Americans said that the government's response would have been faster if most of the storm's victims had been white. More than three-quarters of whites (77 percent) believed race would not have made a difference.

So which cultural lens is right? Well, we can't tell unless we do additional detective work. Most of us, however, never get around to digging for truth. Since we aren't even aware that other cultural filters exist, we assume that our view of the world is right. Our cultural blind spots interfere with communication, work relationships and consensus building.

Many colleges and universities and employers are addressing these issues by developing cultural competencies – skills which give individuals tools to help manage cultural differences and work as collaborators. Cultural shades, much like sunglasses, may make it harder for individuals to clearly see barriers right in front of them – especially when they are in unfamiliar places.

Cultural shades can produce blind spots. Unfortunately, these keep people from confronting hidden biases and developing the cultural skills that expand cultural insights and reduce cultural collisions.

 

Over the last 10 years, I have interviewed hundreds of people; worker bees, CEOs, community bridge builders, and academic leaders. I’ve used their insights to develop a list of cultural skills that are required to succeed in offices and boardrooms today:

Characteristics of a culturally competent worker:

Ø      Emotionally aware: Recognizes that cultural situations, events and words will sometimes distort her or his judgment or view. Culture operates much like transition lenses, which darken the wearer's view whenever he or she encounters the right trigger.  A culturally competent person learns to manage these lenses.

Ø      Emotionally controlled:  Makes an effort to control and monitor her or his emotions in tense situations.

Ø      Reflective: Applies learned techniques and strategies to assess and improve effectiveness.

Ø      Self-sufficient: Easily identifies the special skills needed to interact effectively with other cultures.

Ø      Culturally agile: Willing to view situations through the cultural lenses of other peoples and nations. He or she uses this expanded view to gather facts and determine strategy. Cultural insights are used to help build and maintain effective working relationships.

Ø      Empathetic: Senses and responds to the emotions of colleagues.

Ø      Patient: Willing to understand those who are slow or resistant learners.

Ø      Culturally literate: Seeks knowledge and information about a diversity of cultures and special populations.

Ø      Tolerant of ambiguity: Recognizes and accepts that ambiguity exists. It is possible that a culture that loves freedom may enslave other people.

Ø   Able to admit and share mistakes: He or she understands that mistakes provide opportunities for learning and skill development; demonstrates the courage to share her or his weaknesses.