Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The white/black thing is relevant because race is very relevant in America.
But it is not relevant in Sunny's post because -as far as I know- race did not play a part in this specific case. I think.
Re-read Yapcity's post. If race is relevant in America, then of course it is relevant in every potential dispute. Anyone watching such an exchange without knowing the details may question whether it is race related or not.
Should race place a part....or course not, but in fact many times it does. Do you think if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton had witnessed the exchange that they would have played the race card? I have no doubt that they would have even if both parties involved were absolutely color blind, so to speak.
The white/black thing is relevant because race is very relevant in America.
But it is not relevant in Sunny's post because -as far as I know- race did not play a part in this specific case. I think.
Once again, I agree completely. I do not think it played a part in this specific case. I also wonder would she have even bothered to share the story if it had been two whites or two black? Furthermore, would she have given the race if it were?
I'm not anxious to go into the permutations of racial motivation vs. power and socio-economic status but if you guys won't scream at me for making a mistake and hurting someone's feelings unintentionally, I'll give it a shot. (see how conditioned I am?)
From what I've observed living my entire life in an area where there are roughly the same number of African Americans and Caucasians, once you get down to it, most of the money and the power have traditionally been on one side of the population. There are many exceptions to this rule and it is not a static situation - things are changing.
I have noticed that people who are accustomed to being in a defensive position, whether they are poor, feminist, gay, black, disabled, etc., if they are used to fighting for what they have, they do not hesitate to pull out the big guns when a problem arises.
People who are traditionally in power, who have often forgotten how to handle conflict well, men, white people, wealthy people, and able-bodied folks, sometimes screw up when faced with a problem and also over-react in ways that compounds the other's reactions.
In the neighborhood where I live, everyone is poor. It's racially mixed 50/50. Everyone runs to the emergency room for a splinter or threatens to sue, call the police, or shoot their neighbor when problems arise. And these are all great, sweet, kind people.
Fortunately there are codes for professional behavior in offices. That's why I suspect there was not enough training in that particular bank, or the supervisor would have known not to say something as stupid as that, nor would they have been squabbling in her office.
Not everyone interprets things in the same way or reacts in a way that is consistent with your class/culture/race.
Saying "go sit down now or I will hit you over the head" was obviously meant in jest. It sounds like the supervisor was being informal and casual. For the employee to call the police was completely over-the-top and shows a complete lack of judgement and skills in the work place. You are right though, that was a power ploy for sure. And to fire the supervisor just reinforces this behavior and the next time something likes this happens you can be sure the employee will have the same response, as well as other employees who happened to witness the situation.
Nancy should have to pay for that 911 call. That's absolutely absurd. Calling 911 over that? I've heard much worse at some jobs I've worked in the past. I doubt she believed she was really in danger. She did this out of spite. Fire them both.
Saying "go sit down now or I will hit you over the head" was obviously meant in jest. It sounds like the supervisor was being informal and casual. For the employee to call the police was completely over-the-top and shows a complete lack of judgement and skills in the work place. You are right though, that was a power ploy for sure. And to fire the supervisor just reinforces this behavior and the next time something likes this happens you can be sure the employee will have the same response, as well as other employees who happened to witness the situation.
I have said things that were very obviously meant in jest, and had them taken as threats, or nasty propositions. So, I don't say things like that anymore, and the same rules ought to apply to everybody.
It's kind of a drag, but that's the way it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
