Neither constancy nor relentless change will support a creation. A
good creation, like good jazz, must balance the stable formula with frequent out-of-kilter notes.
Equilibrium is death. Yet unless a system stabilizes to an equilibrium point, it is no better than an explosion, and just as soon dead. A Nothing, then, is both equilibrium and disequilibrium.
A Something is persistent disequilibrium -- a continuous state of forever surfing on the edge between i never stopping but never falling. Honing in on that liquid threshold is the still mysterious holy grail of creation and the quest I of all amateur gods.
From
Kevin Kelly OUT OF CONTROL THE NEW BIOLOGY OF MACHINES
Disambiguation of Software Implementation!
To be sure, if the technology were totally
“disambiguated”, univocal in producing
its effects and impacts, hosting
would consist of straightforward adaptation
and alignment.
The latter is precisely
the picture of the world of implementation
as portrayed by structured information
systems methodologies: systems
are objects, knowledge is data, work is
business process, and people are emotionless
decision makers who have to align their preferences and adjust to the
changes rationally planned for them.
It is the “de-worlded” world of business reengineering
models, where designers, consultants and managers juggle around boxes and arrows to come up with solutions that optimize pre-selected performance
criteria. The intricacies and uncertainties of hospitality, hostility and ambiguity
are ruled out from such a de-worlded world of abstract organizations, but
equally ruled out is the “organizingness” of everyday life as experienced by the
members of the organization.
It is precisely such “organizingness” that helps
technology become integrated in the
workflow, “aligned” and “understood.”
Unfortunately “organizingness” cannot
be represented geometrically: it is made
by real world participants from absorbed
coping, care, being there amidst ambiguity,
intimacy, sporting hospitality as well
as tamed hostility towards what the new
and the unknown is disclosing.
Claudio Ciborra
“disambiguated”, univocal in producing
its effects and impacts, hosting
would consist of straightforward adaptation
and alignment.
The latter is precisely
the picture of the world of implementation
as portrayed by structured information
systems methodologies: systems
are objects, knowledge is data, work is
business process, and people are emotionless
decision makers who have to align their preferences and adjust to the
changes rationally planned for them.
It is the “de-worlded” world of business reengineering
models, where designers, consultants and managers juggle around boxes and arrows to come up with solutions that optimize pre-selected performance
criteria. The intricacies and uncertainties of hospitality, hostility and ambiguity
are ruled out from such a de-worlded world of abstract organizations, but
equally ruled out is the “organizingness” of everyday life as experienced by the
members of the organization.
It is precisely such “organizingness” that helps
technology become integrated in the
workflow, “aligned” and “understood.”
Unfortunately “organizingness” cannot
be represented geometrically: it is made
by real world participants from absorbed
coping, care, being there amidst ambiguity,
intimacy, sporting hospitality as well
as tamed hostility towards what the new
and the unknown is disclosing.
Claudio Ciborra
The Importance of Robust Dialogue
From "Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done" by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan
In the typical corporate meeting-a business review, for example-the dialogue is constrained and politicized. Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid a confrontation. Others need to beat those they are talking to into submission. In groups that contain both types of people (which is the case in many meetings), dialogue becomes a combat sport for the killers and a humiliation or bore for the passives. Little reality gets on the table, and the meeting doesn't move the issues forward much.
Now think of a meeting that produced great results-that got the realities and ended with a plan for results. How did it happen?
Dialogue alters the psychology of a group. It can either expand a group's capacity or shrink it. It can be energizing or energy draining. It can create self-confidence and optimism, or it can produce pessimism. It can create unity, or it can create bitter factions.
Robust dialogue brings out reality, even when that reality makes people uncomfortable, because it has purpose and meaning. It is open, tough, focused, and informal. The aim is to invite multiple viewpoints, see the pros and cons of each one, and try honestly and candidly to construct new viewpoints. This is the dynamic that stimulates new questions, new ideas, and new insights rather than wasting energy defending the old order.
How do you get people to practice robust dialogue when they are used to the games and evasions of classical corporate dialogue? It starts at the top, with the dialogues of the organization's leader. If he or she is practicing robust dialogue, others will take the cue. Some leaders may be short on the emotional fortitude required to invite disagreement without getting defensive. Others may need to learn some specific skills to help people challenge and debate constructively. These people should be able to get help.
But the key is that people act their way to thinking because they're driven for results. If you reward for performance, the interest in performance will be sufficiently deep to sponsor a dialogue. Everybody needs to get the best answer, and that means everybody must be candid in their exchanges - no one person has all the ideas. If someone says something you disagree with and you rudely tell him he's full of hot air, a lot of other people aren't going to speak out next time. If instead you say, "Okay, let's talk about that. Let's listen to everybody, and then make our choice," you'll get much better responses.
In the typical corporate meeting-a business review, for example-the dialogue is constrained and politicized. Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid a confrontation. Others need to beat those they are talking to into submission. In groups that contain both types of people (which is the case in many meetings), dialogue becomes a combat sport for the killers and a humiliation or bore for the passives. Little reality gets on the table, and the meeting doesn't move the issues forward much.
Now think of a meeting that produced great results-that got the realities and ended with a plan for results. How did it happen?
Dialogue alters the psychology of a group. It can either expand a group's capacity or shrink it. It can be energizing or energy draining. It can create self-confidence and optimism, or it can produce pessimism. It can create unity, or it can create bitter factions.
Robust dialogue brings out reality, even when that reality makes people uncomfortable, because it has purpose and meaning. It is open, tough, focused, and informal. The aim is to invite multiple viewpoints, see the pros and cons of each one, and try honestly and candidly to construct new viewpoints. This is the dynamic that stimulates new questions, new ideas, and new insights rather than wasting energy defending the old order.
How do you get people to practice robust dialogue when they are used to the games and evasions of classical corporate dialogue? It starts at the top, with the dialogues of the organization's leader. If he or she is practicing robust dialogue, others will take the cue. Some leaders may be short on the emotional fortitude required to invite disagreement without getting defensive. Others may need to learn some specific skills to help people challenge and debate constructively. These people should be able to get help.
But the key is that people act their way to thinking because they're driven for results. If you reward for performance, the interest in performance will be sufficiently deep to sponsor a dialogue. Everybody needs to get the best answer, and that means everybody must be candid in their exchanges - no one person has all the ideas. If someone says something you disagree with and you rudely tell him he's full of hot air, a lot of other people aren't going to speak out next time. If instead you say, "Okay, let's talk about that. Let's listen to everybody, and then make our choice," you'll get much better responses.
Knowledge Construction Worker
Knowledge Construction Worker
OPEN-MINDEDNESS in CONVERSATIONS
By Loren Ekroth
It’s hard to keep an open mind during heated
conversation, isn’t it? People get identified with
certain ideas and assert them fervently. They
offer “Yes, but . . .” responses to those with
different or opposing views. They don’t really
consider evidence against their own views.
Why Are People Closed-minded?
Once a belief has been established, it is hard to
change. Often our beliefs are set early in life
as a result of our up-bringing and limited
exposure to other belief systems. For that
reason, the majority of people share the
religious faith and political beliefs of their
parents. The adage says, “The way the twig
is bent, so grows the tree.”
Beliefs are maintained by selective exposure to
information. Media research demonstrates that
individuals privatize themselves by paying most
attention to those media that support their beliefs
and much less to media that offer contrary ideas.
As well, birds of a feather DO flock together,
so we surround ourselves with people of like
mind in our clubs, churches, and workplace.
Once polarized in our beliefs and opinions, we
tend to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence so
as “not to be confused by the facts.”
Benefits of Open-Mindedness
Being open-minded carries certain benefits,
among them the ability to be less swayed by
specific events and to be less susceptible to
manipulation and suggestion. Open-minded
people are more thoughtful and not so easily
roused to anger because they can actually
consider alternative views without upset.
(Think of how beneficial open-mindedness
would be for you when your Uncle Dick goes
on a political rant with you during a holiday
get-together! You could hear him out with
civility and not ruin your day.)
How to Increase Your Open-Mindedness
Here are two exercises attributed to Catherine
Freeman, a therapist and coach:
1. Take a position opposite to your own on a
controversial topic such as abortion or gun control.
Generate at least 3 reasons to support this opposite
position, the more the better. (This method is
similar to what college debaters are required to do:
to argue both sides of proposition with reasoned
argument.)
2. Recall a time someone wronged you and
come up with some reasons why they may have
done that inadvertently without intent to harm.
(Also, The “Work” of Byron Katie has a simple,
clear steps of 4 questions that is profoundly
helpful in getting un-stuck from judgements.
(Details at www.thework.org.)
To an in-law firmly convinced of his
rightness on a number of political issues, I
say “I agree that we disagree.” I don’t try
to change him, and he offers himself as a
model close-minded person. I can usually
listen to his views without becoming upset,
and once in a while I’ll change my thinking.
My intention is not that he change, but only
that he be thoughtful when we talk. For me,
that is a more attainable goal than change.
OPEN-MINDEDNESS in CONVERSATIONS
By Loren Ekroth
It’s hard to keep an open mind during heated
conversation, isn’t it? People get identified with
certain ideas and assert them fervently. They
offer “Yes, but . . .” responses to those with
different or opposing views. They don’t really
consider evidence against their own views.
Why Are People Closed-minded?
Once a belief has been established, it is hard to
change. Often our beliefs are set early in life
as a result of our up-bringing and limited
exposure to other belief systems. For that
reason, the majority of people share the
religious faith and political beliefs of their
parents. The adage says, “The way the twig
is bent, so grows the tree.”
Beliefs are maintained by selective exposure to
information. Media research demonstrates that
individuals privatize themselves by paying most
attention to those media that support their beliefs
and much less to media that offer contrary ideas.
As well, birds of a feather DO flock together,
so we surround ourselves with people of like
mind in our clubs, churches, and workplace.
Once polarized in our beliefs and opinions, we
tend to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence so
as “not to be confused by the facts.”
Benefits of Open-Mindedness
Being open-minded carries certain benefits,
among them the ability to be less swayed by
specific events and to be less susceptible to
manipulation and suggestion. Open-minded
people are more thoughtful and not so easily
roused to anger because they can actually
consider alternative views without upset.
(Think of how beneficial open-mindedness
would be for you when your Uncle Dick goes
on a political rant with you during a holiday
get-together! You could hear him out with
civility and not ruin your day.)
How to Increase Your Open-Mindedness
Here are two exercises attributed to Catherine
Freeman, a therapist and coach:
1. Take a position opposite to your own on a
controversial topic such as abortion or gun control.
Generate at least 3 reasons to support this opposite
position, the more the better. (This method is
similar to what college debaters are required to do:
to argue both sides of proposition with reasoned
argument.)
2. Recall a time someone wronged you and
come up with some reasons why they may have
done that inadvertently without intent to harm.
(Also, The “Work” of Byron Katie has a simple,
clear steps of 4 questions that is profoundly
helpful in getting un-stuck from judgements.
(Details at www.thework.org.)
To an in-law firmly convinced of his
rightness on a number of political issues, I
say “I agree that we disagree.” I don’t try
to change him, and he offers himself as a
model close-minded person. I can usually
listen to his views without becoming upset,
and once in a while I’ll change my thinking.
My intention is not that he change, but only
that he be thoughtful when we talk. For me,
that is a more attainable goal than change.
Bitter price of iconic image
It is 35 years since the Olympic protest of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Both later paid for it, writes Steve Dilbeck in Los Angeles.
Evening is still coming as Tommie Smith sits on a wooden bench and looks over the Santa Monica College track, his young charges heading off for the day while the football team continues to work out.
He gives them all a long look, smiles a peaceful smile.
"None of these kids know who I am," Smith said. "They don't have the slightest idea. To them I'm just 'coach'."
In the late afternoon, John Carlos is trying to talk on the phone from Palm Springs High, but he has to keep barking out instructions to students.
Carlos, too, found few knew who he was when he arrived on campus.
"When I came here 17 years ago, they didn't particularly know," Carlos said. "A few years later a textbook came out and they happened to see my picture and name in the history book."
The defining moment that elevated Smith and Carlos beyond American sports figures and into history books happened 35 years ago yesterday in Mexico City.
It was during the 200 metres victory ceremony at the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won in world-record time; Carlos had captured the bronze.
As they stood on the victory platform and the US anthem began, they bowed their heads, and, each wearing a black glove, raised a clenched fist in a black power salute. Australia's Peter Norman, who won silver, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of the pair.
It remains one of the most vivid Olympic images - a picture once seen, never forgotten. It was a courageous, non-violent protest, benign but impassioned dissent. They meant to bring further attention to civil rights issues, to give pride to African-Americans, and they succeeded.
But the reaction was as swift as it was negative. In the US there was outrage from many white Americans. People saw heads bowed as disrespectful towards the American flag. They mistakenly saw the clenched fists as supportive of the Black Panthers.
The Associated Press report described them "in a Nazi-like salute". Chicago columnist Brent Musburger called them "black-skinned storm troopers".
The outspoken Carlos made the kind of comments that only inflamed the establishment. After the ceremony he said: "We're sort of show horses out there for the white people. They give us peanuts, pat us on the back and say, 'Boy, you did fine.' "
The International Olympic Committee demanded the US Olympic Committee ban them from the Games, but it refused. The next day the IOC said if the sprinters were not banned, the entire US track and field team would be barred from further competition. The USOC caved in.
Smith and Carlos were withdrawn from the relays and expelled from the Olympic Village. When they returned home, Smith and Carlos were ostracised. Jobs became scarce. They received death threats and their homes were attacked.
"One rock came through our front window into our living room, where we had the crib," Smith said. "It seemed like everybody hated me. I had no food. My baby was hungry. My wife had no dresses."
Even today, there are those who remain angry and full of hatred.
"There are still threats," Carlos said. "I was never concerned about those punks. I just let them know it will be remembered, that life doesn't stop when you leave this planet."
After graduating, Smith was given an honourable discharge from army service for "un-American activities" That probably did him a huge favour, since the Vietnam war was raging and the body count growing.
"I was going to 'Nam," Smith said. "I could see myself in rice paddies. I believe there's a God. Sixty-eight had its downfall, but it had its protection for me. I might not be alive."
Carlos had two brothers serving, but after his protest both were immediately discharged.
Smith borrowed money to complete his education and get his teaching qualification. He tried gridiron for a few years with the Cincinnati Bengals, then finally got a job as a track coach in Ohio. In 1978 he moved to Santa Monica College, where he has been a social science and health teacher, and coaches track and field.
Carlos had an even more trying time, working as a security guard and bouncer, among other jobs.
"I'd get minimum wage and then go to Vegas and roll the dice to get it up to something to feed my family," he said. "We had to chop up furniture, the kids' beds, to stay warm."
Looking back, the first thing that comes to him is basic.
"That I survived," he said. "That I still have any sanity.
"My first wife is deceased as a result. She took her life because she couldn't deal with the pressure from the results of Mexico."
Smith, one of 12 children, was born in 1944 in Clarksville, Texas, where his father was a "dirt farmer".
After the family moved to California, Smith would help in the fields for up to 10 hours a day,
even as he began to excel athletically in high school. His talent won him a scholarship at San Jose State and he was soon a world-class sprinter.
When he returned from Mexico, he went to visit his father, still working the fields. His father could not read but had heard people were angry at his son.
"He kind of looked at me, looked up and down, and said in his southern drawl: 'You know, I've been hearing a lot of things about you. Everybody been telling me you did something wrong. You stuck a hand up or hit somebody or something.'
"I said that's not truthful. He said: 'Well, you're telling me that and I'm going to believe you. You're my son.' First time I shook hands with him in my life." Carlos is from Harlem, where his father was a cobbler and his mother a nurses' aide.
"My mom and dad never saw me run a single race," Carlos said. "They were always working every weekend. They were just trying to raise us."
One of five children, Carlos lived with his family in an apartment behind his father's shoe store and across from the Savoy Ballroom, where the best big bands and jazz groups of the day played.
Carlos and his friends would help people out of cabs or sing and dance outside the club. "We were out there hustling," he said.
Then he would retreat to his apartment, where he could hear Duke Ellington lead his band or Frank Sinatra sing.
Like Smith, Carlos was a multisport star, who ultimately wound up at San Jose State.
People often assume the pair were great friends
but, in truth, they were never close. They never competed at the same time at San Jose State. They never forged some great plan should they both make the podium. At best, they are cordial to each other.
"I don't think John Carlos likes me, even now," Smith said. "I don't think Carlos likes very many people. That's just his demeanour. I'm more of a human person. I will not sit and talk to him. I talk to him on the phone."
Smith lives near Los Angeles, Carlos in Palm Springs, but they have never been to each other's home. And to this day, they disagree on exactly what happened in Mexico, whose idea the protest was.
Harry Edwards, another former San Jose State athlete, had formed the Olympic Project for Human Rights and wanted black athletes to boycott the Games. Before the team flew to Mexico, OPHR members decided to compete and protest individually.
In the 200m, Carlos - who had beaten Smith in world-record time at the trials - led early before Smith closed to win in 19.83, still a world-class time.
But a stunned Smith said he heard Carlos claim he allowed him to win because the gold was more important to him. Smith said his wife later confronted Carlos and he said it was true.
Carlos said: "Tommie can say whatever he wants. All I can say is, I respect Tommie Smith as one of the greatest sprinters in Olympic history."
The two also disagree on whose idea the podium protest was.
After the race, the two and Norman had to wait two hours in a tunnel before the ceremony. Smith said he had the gloves and was trying to determine exactly what to do with them.
"The thought process was of power or strength, and I didn't know how to do it except just hold my hands up like in church," Smith said. "I've been religious all my life. Praise God with your hands up in church, with your head bowed. I thought this would be a good thing for me to do.
"So I told John: 'This is what I'm going to do. I have another glove if you want it. You are welcomed to do, and you do what you think is necessary.' I said if you want to do it, just watch me and follow my lead."
Carlos tells it differently: "He had the gloves, I had the idea."
While Smith said his head was bowed in prayer, Carlos said his was in reflection.
"I reflected on my father, who had fought in the the First World War. I reflected on when I was seven or eight and my mother would be working a lot of nights and away from her family. I reflected on the ignorant-ass teachers sent into the urban parts of the city who had no business being there. There was much to reflect upon."
What both agree on is, despite everything, they have no regrets.
These two supposed radicals, combative outsiders, have spent their lives teaching the young. Both remain very religious.
"They wanted to build us to be arrogant, militant, unruly African-Americans," Carlos said. "Anything but individuals serious about life, serious about their country, and its responsibilities to its citizens.
"People looked at us like we were subversive. We were like birds busting out of a cage."
Smith said: "I was always an advocate of equal rights. Not that I wanted to whup the white man, or get whupped by the white man, because I saw that happened to my father. I wanted to be equal to the man doing the whupping. Give me equality."
Yesterday both were due at San Jose State, where a ceremony was planned to honour their protest. The school hopes to raise funds to erect a statue next year.
"What's so surprising about it is, on a positive note, it's the brainchild of a 23-year-old white student," Smith said.
Thirty-five years have passed since two sprinters made a stand, made a difference, made history.
"We still have a way to go," Carlos said, "but we can see some distance for where we were."
Los Angeles Daily News posted with permission
Evening is still coming as Tommie Smith sits on a wooden bench and looks over the Santa Monica College track, his young charges heading off for the day while the football team continues to work out.
He gives them all a long look, smiles a peaceful smile.
"None of these kids know who I am," Smith said. "They don't have the slightest idea. To them I'm just 'coach'."
In the late afternoon, John Carlos is trying to talk on the phone from Palm Springs High, but he has to keep barking out instructions to students.
Carlos, too, found few knew who he was when he arrived on campus.
"When I came here 17 years ago, they didn't particularly know," Carlos said. "A few years later a textbook came out and they happened to see my picture and name in the history book."
The defining moment that elevated Smith and Carlos beyond American sports figures and into history books happened 35 years ago yesterday in Mexico City.
It was during the 200 metres victory ceremony at the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won in world-record time; Carlos had captured the bronze.
As they stood on the victory platform and the US anthem began, they bowed their heads, and, each wearing a black glove, raised a clenched fist in a black power salute. Australia's Peter Norman, who won silver, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of the pair.
It remains one of the most vivid Olympic images - a picture once seen, never forgotten. It was a courageous, non-violent protest, benign but impassioned dissent. They meant to bring further attention to civil rights issues, to give pride to African-Americans, and they succeeded.
But the reaction was as swift as it was negative. In the US there was outrage from many white Americans. People saw heads bowed as disrespectful towards the American flag. They mistakenly saw the clenched fists as supportive of the Black Panthers.
The Associated Press report described them "in a Nazi-like salute". Chicago columnist Brent Musburger called them "black-skinned storm troopers".
The outspoken Carlos made the kind of comments that only inflamed the establishment. After the ceremony he said: "We're sort of show horses out there for the white people. They give us peanuts, pat us on the back and say, 'Boy, you did fine.' "
The International Olympic Committee demanded the US Olympic Committee ban them from the Games, but it refused. The next day the IOC said if the sprinters were not banned, the entire US track and field team would be barred from further competition. The USOC caved in.
Smith and Carlos were withdrawn from the relays and expelled from the Olympic Village. When they returned home, Smith and Carlos were ostracised. Jobs became scarce. They received death threats and their homes were attacked.
"One rock came through our front window into our living room, where we had the crib," Smith said. "It seemed like everybody hated me. I had no food. My baby was hungry. My wife had no dresses."
Even today, there are those who remain angry and full of hatred.
"There are still threats," Carlos said. "I was never concerned about those punks. I just let them know it will be remembered, that life doesn't stop when you leave this planet."
After graduating, Smith was given an honourable discharge from army service for "un-American activities" That probably did him a huge favour, since the Vietnam war was raging and the body count growing.
"I was going to 'Nam," Smith said. "I could see myself in rice paddies. I believe there's a God. Sixty-eight had its downfall, but it had its protection for me. I might not be alive."
Carlos had two brothers serving, but after his protest both were immediately discharged.
Smith borrowed money to complete his education and get his teaching qualification. He tried gridiron for a few years with the Cincinnati Bengals, then finally got a job as a track coach in Ohio. In 1978 he moved to Santa Monica College, where he has been a social science and health teacher, and coaches track and field.
Carlos had an even more trying time, working as a security guard and bouncer, among other jobs.
"I'd get minimum wage and then go to Vegas and roll the dice to get it up to something to feed my family," he said. "We had to chop up furniture, the kids' beds, to stay warm."
Looking back, the first thing that comes to him is basic.
"That I survived," he said. "That I still have any sanity.
"My first wife is deceased as a result. She took her life because she couldn't deal with the pressure from the results of Mexico."
Smith, one of 12 children, was born in 1944 in Clarksville, Texas, where his father was a "dirt farmer".
After the family moved to California, Smith would help in the fields for up to 10 hours a day,
even as he began to excel athletically in high school. His talent won him a scholarship at San Jose State and he was soon a world-class sprinter.
When he returned from Mexico, he went to visit his father, still working the fields. His father could not read but had heard people were angry at his son.
"He kind of looked at me, looked up and down, and said in his southern drawl: 'You know, I've been hearing a lot of things about you. Everybody been telling me you did something wrong. You stuck a hand up or hit somebody or something.'
"I said that's not truthful. He said: 'Well, you're telling me that and I'm going to believe you. You're my son.' First time I shook hands with him in my life." Carlos is from Harlem, where his father was a cobbler and his mother a nurses' aide.
"My mom and dad never saw me run a single race," Carlos said. "They were always working every weekend. They were just trying to raise us."
One of five children, Carlos lived with his family in an apartment behind his father's shoe store and across from the Savoy Ballroom, where the best big bands and jazz groups of the day played.
Carlos and his friends would help people out of cabs or sing and dance outside the club. "We were out there hustling," he said.
Then he would retreat to his apartment, where he could hear Duke Ellington lead his band or Frank Sinatra sing.
Like Smith, Carlos was a multisport star, who ultimately wound up at San Jose State.
People often assume the pair were great friends
but, in truth, they were never close. They never competed at the same time at San Jose State. They never forged some great plan should they both make the podium. At best, they are cordial to each other.
"I don't think John Carlos likes me, even now," Smith said. "I don't think Carlos likes very many people. That's just his demeanour. I'm more of a human person. I will not sit and talk to him. I talk to him on the phone."
Smith lives near Los Angeles, Carlos in Palm Springs, but they have never been to each other's home. And to this day, they disagree on exactly what happened in Mexico, whose idea the protest was.
Harry Edwards, another former San Jose State athlete, had formed the Olympic Project for Human Rights and wanted black athletes to boycott the Games. Before the team flew to Mexico, OPHR members decided to compete and protest individually.
In the 200m, Carlos - who had beaten Smith in world-record time at the trials - led early before Smith closed to win in 19.83, still a world-class time.
But a stunned Smith said he heard Carlos claim he allowed him to win because the gold was more important to him. Smith said his wife later confronted Carlos and he said it was true.
Carlos said: "Tommie can say whatever he wants. All I can say is, I respect Tommie Smith as one of the greatest sprinters in Olympic history."
The two also disagree on whose idea the podium protest was.
After the race, the two and Norman had to wait two hours in a tunnel before the ceremony. Smith said he had the gloves and was trying to determine exactly what to do with them.
"The thought process was of power or strength, and I didn't know how to do it except just hold my hands up like in church," Smith said. "I've been religious all my life. Praise God with your hands up in church, with your head bowed. I thought this would be a good thing for me to do.
"So I told John: 'This is what I'm going to do. I have another glove if you want it. You are welcomed to do, and you do what you think is necessary.' I said if you want to do it, just watch me and follow my lead."
Carlos tells it differently: "He had the gloves, I had the idea."
While Smith said his head was bowed in prayer, Carlos said his was in reflection.
"I reflected on my father, who had fought in the the First World War. I reflected on when I was seven or eight and my mother would be working a lot of nights and away from her family. I reflected on the ignorant-ass teachers sent into the urban parts of the city who had no business being there. There was much to reflect upon."
What both agree on is, despite everything, they have no regrets.
These two supposed radicals, combative outsiders, have spent their lives teaching the young. Both remain very religious.
"They wanted to build us to be arrogant, militant, unruly African-Americans," Carlos said. "Anything but individuals serious about life, serious about their country, and its responsibilities to its citizens.
"People looked at us like we were subversive. We were like birds busting out of a cage."
Smith said: "I was always an advocate of equal rights. Not that I wanted to whup the white man, or get whupped by the white man, because I saw that happened to my father. I wanted to be equal to the man doing the whupping. Give me equality."
Yesterday both were due at San Jose State, where a ceremony was planned to honour their protest. The school hopes to raise funds to erect a statue next year.
"What's so surprising about it is, on a positive note, it's the brainchild of a 23-year-old white student," Smith said.
Thirty-five years have passed since two sprinters made a stand, made a difference, made history.
"We still have a way to go," Carlos said, "but we can see some distance for where we were."
Los Angeles Daily News posted with permission
FORZA PRODI! BERLUSCONI A CASA! a.k.a. 2006 Italian elections
Luigi Barzini, scriveva, quarant'anni di fa, per spiegare il fascino dell'Italia nel mondo e la «pacifica invasione» dei turisti:
«L'arte di vivere, quest'arte screditata creata dagli italiani per sconfiggere l'angoscia e la noia, sta diventando una guida inestimabile per la sopravvivenza di molte persone».
E' ancora così.
L'Italia quotidiana - soprattutto se uno non ci deve lavorare - piace e convince. Nel nostro Paese tutti si sentono qualcuno; e, giustamente, reclamano attenzione.
Permettimi di citare un passaggio dal mio «La testa degli italiani» (negli Usa, «La Bella Figura. A Field-Guide to the Italian Mind», out Aug 15). Scrivo, verso la fine:
«Un negoziante amichevole sotto casa compensa una notizia spiacevole in televisione. Ecco perché nelle classifiche sulla qualità della vita precediamo Paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Francia o la Germania: perché le consolazioni artigianali valgono quanto le organizzazioni industriali. Certo, nel prodotto interno lordo non risultano: ma nella contabilità personale si vedono eccome. (...) In Italia conosciamo il piacere della conversazione, e il gusto dell'osservazione personale: l'apprezzamento su un abito è gradito, altrove sarebbe sospetto. In Italia le famiglie difendono il rito dei pasti; e i ragazzi stanno riscoprendo quello, non altrettanto fondamentale, dell'aperitivo. In Italia chi lavora è riuscito a trasformare in una cerimonia anche l'abitudine più breve: il caffè espresso bevuto in piedi in un bar».
Secondo te, queste cose non sono importanti? Secondo me, sì. Certo, se fossero abbinate ad affidabilità, onestà e organizzazione sarebbe meglio: in questo caso, diventeremmo una sorta di paradiso in terra. Invece siamo un purgatorio colorato, pieno di interessanti anime in pena.
By Luigi Severgnini
«L'arte di vivere, quest'arte screditata creata dagli italiani per sconfiggere l'angoscia e la noia, sta diventando una guida inestimabile per la sopravvivenza di molte persone».
E' ancora così.
L'Italia quotidiana - soprattutto se uno non ci deve lavorare - piace e convince. Nel nostro Paese tutti si sentono qualcuno; e, giustamente, reclamano attenzione.
Permettimi di citare un passaggio dal mio «La testa degli italiani» (negli Usa, «La Bella Figura. A Field-Guide to the Italian Mind», out Aug 15). Scrivo, verso la fine:
«Un negoziante amichevole sotto casa compensa una notizia spiacevole in televisione. Ecco perché nelle classifiche sulla qualità della vita precediamo Paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Francia o la Germania: perché le consolazioni artigianali valgono quanto le organizzazioni industriali. Certo, nel prodotto interno lordo non risultano: ma nella contabilità personale si vedono eccome. (...) In Italia conosciamo il piacere della conversazione, e il gusto dell'osservazione personale: l'apprezzamento su un abito è gradito, altrove sarebbe sospetto. In Italia le famiglie difendono il rito dei pasti; e i ragazzi stanno riscoprendo quello, non altrettanto fondamentale, dell'aperitivo. In Italia chi lavora è riuscito a trasformare in una cerimonia anche l'abitudine più breve: il caffè espresso bevuto in piedi in un bar».
Secondo te, queste cose non sono importanti? Secondo me, sì. Certo, se fossero abbinate ad affidabilità, onestà e organizzazione sarebbe meglio: in questo caso, diventeremmo una sorta di paradiso in terra. Invece siamo un purgatorio colorato, pieno di interessanti anime in pena.
By Luigi Severgnini
The Danger of sliding on the Learning Curve!
While training becomes more and more critical for people and organizations, it is increasingly turning up in the headlines of daily news as a failed solution to problems, as a big solution for big problems or as a justification to do something controversial.
Here are a few examples I have collected in the last months from newspapers, the internet and in general public discourse to explain what I mean.
Training is often seen as the failed solution to many problems.
"Poor training" is said to be the cause of failed expensive software implementations across federal agencies, "Lack of training of the intervention personnel" is indicated as the reason for weak responses to natural disasters. Perpetrators of human rights abuses on prisoners have been defined as "…staff lacking training on the guidelines against torture". Do we need a "Training anti-defamation league" to respond to these allegations?
Training is also seen as the "silver bullet" for solving big problems.
"Better training for teachers", is the solution to the nation's failing public schools system. "Increased funds for training" should solve high unemployment rates and poor GDP growth. Surprise: "Training" is also the solution for abuse from caregivers in nursing homes. It makes you feel mighty as a trainer, doesn’t it?
Training is often the justification for doing something controversial.
"Training purposes" justify no respect for the privacy of your call to a customer service center as "your phone call may be recorded". "Poor training, supervision" justifies the acquittal of officials on trial in brutality cases. Lately I‘ve ever heard that the reason for the war in Iraq was to "bring effective training to the Iraqi". A workshop would have been obviously cheaper!
The lesson learned here is that you need to be careful with training: you are dealing with work that is highly controversial, highly visible and often not fully understood.
In fact unreasonable expectations, lack of accountability or clear definition of boundaries of training responsibilities can kill the best training work before it even starts.
What can you do to prevent or limit all this from happening in your training initiative?
How can we design training and play it "safer"?
Here are a few examples I have collected in the last months from newspapers, the internet and in general public discourse to explain what I mean.
Training is often seen as the failed solution to many problems.
"Poor training" is said to be the cause of failed expensive software implementations across federal agencies, "Lack of training of the intervention personnel" is indicated as the reason for weak responses to natural disasters. Perpetrators of human rights abuses on prisoners have been defined as "…staff lacking training on the guidelines against torture". Do we need a "Training anti-defamation league" to respond to these allegations?
Training is also seen as the "silver bullet" for solving big problems.
"Better training for teachers", is the solution to the nation's failing public schools system. "Increased funds for training" should solve high unemployment rates and poor GDP growth. Surprise: "Training" is also the solution for abuse from caregivers in nursing homes. It makes you feel mighty as a trainer, doesn’t it?
Training is often the justification for doing something controversial.
"Training purposes" justify no respect for the privacy of your call to a customer service center as "your phone call may be recorded". "Poor training, supervision" justifies the acquittal of officials on trial in brutality cases. Lately I‘ve ever heard that the reason for the war in Iraq was to "bring effective training to the Iraqi". A workshop would have been obviously cheaper!
The lesson learned here is that you need to be careful with training: you are dealing with work that is highly controversial, highly visible and often not fully understood.
In fact unreasonable expectations, lack of accountability or clear definition of boundaries of training responsibilities can kill the best training work before it even starts.
What can you do to prevent or limit all this from happening in your training initiative?
How can we design training and play it "safer"?
A passage I like from "Trust" by Jack Gibb
Cosmic humor and light-heartedness. Sometimes I think I have consciously developed a humorous side as an effect to balance my inner heaviness. I see this polarity between the tragic and the comedic in many people, certainly in myself. Even in my heaviest grief I often see the comedy being played out. Whether it seems to come to us from the outside or from inner sources, humor can be healing, restorative, and inductive of wellness.
My speech professor in college used to say, often, that "whenever someone laughs there is someone hurting and in pain." He was aware of the hostile side of humor. I am too. But there is a gentle, warm, and caring aspect to comedy that is divine and healing. In the past, it has sometimes been difficult for me to see the lightheartedness in pain and tragedy, particularly in relation to myself. Ability to see the restorative qualities of humor is increased by the ability to make a perceptual shift, to create a new perspective.
Sacredness and purity. I sometimes find myself caught up in a deep anger towards people who seem to be evil in intent and action, and, at the same time, feel a deep compassion for people who are hurting so bad inside that they feel they must punish the world in some way.
I have a vivid memory of a scene on the beach at Laguna Hills in California. On one windy afternoon, on my "coffee break" from a workshop I was conducting nearby, I saw a small boy of about four years of age, walking along and sobbing at the cold wind, and complaining to his father. His father turned around, saying something about "men don't cry," and slapped his son's face very hard several times, finally knocking the boy to the ground.
Understanding the father's righteous anger at his unmanly child, and his inner need to punish when seeing the world as he did, I still found it very difficult to keep from going up and protecting the child, perhaps hitting the parent, who seemed to me, from the way I saw the world, to be doing an outrageous thing. I felt incapacitated by my awareness of the dilemma in me, my strong polar feelings, and my caughtness in the midst of my own unresolved beliefs. Empathy and non-action. Rooted in polarity.
......I get caught up in this dilemma and polarity when I read about child abuse, preparation for war, active discrimination against women and blacks, the helplessness of the unemployed, and a variety of other "evils" that exist in our world. About equally, I have an "understanding" of the reactive defensiveness and pain in people that are led to murder or punish. I feel a strong compassion for these people that is at least as strong as my compassion for the people who are abused.
My speech professor in college used to say, often, that "whenever someone laughs there is someone hurting and in pain." He was aware of the hostile side of humor. I am too. But there is a gentle, warm, and caring aspect to comedy that is divine and healing. In the past, it has sometimes been difficult for me to see the lightheartedness in pain and tragedy, particularly in relation to myself. Ability to see the restorative qualities of humor is increased by the ability to make a perceptual shift, to create a new perspective.
Sacredness and purity. I sometimes find myself caught up in a deep anger towards people who seem to be evil in intent and action, and, at the same time, feel a deep compassion for people who are hurting so bad inside that they feel they must punish the world in some way.
I have a vivid memory of a scene on the beach at Laguna Hills in California. On one windy afternoon, on my "coffee break" from a workshop I was conducting nearby, I saw a small boy of about four years of age, walking along and sobbing at the cold wind, and complaining to his father. His father turned around, saying something about "men don't cry," and slapped his son's face very hard several times, finally knocking the boy to the ground.
Understanding the father's righteous anger at his unmanly child, and his inner need to punish when seeing the world as he did, I still found it very difficult to keep from going up and protecting the child, perhaps hitting the parent, who seemed to me, from the way I saw the world, to be doing an outrageous thing. I felt incapacitated by my awareness of the dilemma in me, my strong polar feelings, and my caughtness in the midst of my own unresolved beliefs. Empathy and non-action. Rooted in polarity.
......I get caught up in this dilemma and polarity when I read about child abuse, preparation for war, active discrimination against women and blacks, the helplessness of the unemployed, and a variety of other "evils" that exist in our world. About equally, I have an "understanding" of the reactive defensiveness and pain in people that are led to murder or punish. I feel a strong compassion for these people that is at least as strong as my compassion for the people who are abused.
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IS BETTER: 1 reasons and one bit of research
“…O! It drives all joy away;
Under a cruel eye outworn,
The little
ones
spend the day,
In Sighing and Dismay.”
William Blake,”The School
Boy”
What you want Baby, I got What you need Do you know I got it? All I'm askin' Is
for a little respect"
Aretha Franklyn
16 Teaching is expensive; Collaborative learning is inexpensive
Why do managers who would not blink to authorize a multimillion dollar new technology infrastructure project find no budget for training departments? Because there are less tangible results for training and more difficulties to get everyone on board about it.
Even when money is spent on learning, organizations normally overspend on traditional teaching rather then on collaborative learning. That makes collaborative learning look like it’s not a good investment. If the old advertising saying: "I do not know which 50% of my budget is wasted" would apply to traditional teaching, would the number be higher or lower than 50% in your organization?
Organizations are more accustomed to spending on teaching. They are almost resigned to it and would rather spend their budgets on expensive teaching and invite “keynote speakers” than giving voice to the many internal experts or financing relatively inexpensive “learning space” retreats, “internal knowledge circles” meetings or simple off-site sessions for “project lessons learned".
Which one is easier: inviting "the expert" to talk or getting twenty managers away from their offices to talk about ways to improve their organization? While management-celebrities need no explaining, the second option, though inexpensive, is much harder to sell in its simplicity and possible far-reaching results.
A RESEARCH: COLLABORATIVE VS. COMPETITIVE LEARNING
A common observation is that people are unable to work productively together – in meetings, for example. With so many examples of group work as ineffective and conflict-ridden, how does collaborative learning make people suddenly work well in groups, become open to possibilities, and have fun? Why in a collaborative learning session do people suddenly interact more productively and are stimulated by the content?
Johnson and Johnson, the fathers of collaborative learning researched the subject and demonstrated that: Cooperative learning strategies work better than individualistic or competitive ones. The strategy and experience of Cooperative learning scores higher in the following areas:
Ability to motivate to learn more about the subject area being studied;
Ability to create of a positive attitudes toward both the subject area and the instructional experience;
Ability to work productively in a group and collaborative competencies;
Ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting to it. (Called “cognitive and affective perspective-taking” with the opposite as egocentrism);
Ability to promote constructive socialization and expectations toward more rewarding, pleasant and enjoyable future interactions among students.***
***(Additionally to think critically and use higher reasoning strategies; to generate beliefs that one is personally
COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS Adriano Pianesi 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
