hi guys, this is Luis. i'm going to be the host next Wednesday. we are going to discuss a serious topic this time, things relevant to discrimination. the article i use is about an exercise, based on real story, which would teach people what it is like to be discriminated. i strongly suggest you read it and have your own definition of discrimination in mind before you come to the meeting. apart from that, please also look up stereotype, reverse discrimination and affirmative action on dictionary in advance. you will need all those information about the aforementioned words for discussion durning the meeting, so, please be well prepared lo. hope you won't feel it's too serious and will enjoy the discussion then.
The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise
In 1968, Jane Elliott was just another American schoolteacher. She taught third and fourth grade (eight to nine-year-olds) children at a school in Riceville, Iowa, which was a very typical, all-white, small American town.
Jane had tried to introduce her students to the idea of racial equality. She had even appointed Martin Luther King as the class's 'Hero of the Month', but she struggled to explain what racism was really like to the all-white class. They seemed keen to learn, but had never seen a black person in real life.
After the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jane tried a more direct exercise to bring the truth home about racial discrimination. It was an exercise which was to change her life.
Jane Elliott told her pupils a pseudo-scientific explanation of how eye colour defined people: blue eyes showed people who were cleverer, quicker, more likely to succeed. They were superior to people with brown eyes, who were described untrustworthy, lazy and stupid. She then divided the class according to who had brown eyes and who had blue eyes. To ensure clarity of divisions - given that some eye colours might be subject to dispute, she used ribbons to mark out the 'inferior' brown-eyed children (those with clearly different eye colours acted as bystanders). To reinforce the situation, she gave the superior group extra classroom privileges, and would not let the brown-eyed children drink from the same water fountain. She made a point of praising the blue-eyed children, and being more negative to the browns.
Jane Elliott was amazed at the speedy transformation in her class. The superior blue-eyed children became arrogant, and were bossy and unpleasant to their brown-eyed class mates. The brown eyes quickly became cowed and timid, even those that had previously dominated the class. But what really astounded Jane was the difference academically. Blue-eyed children improved their grades, and managed mathematical and reading tasks that had proved out of their grasp before. Brown-eyed high-flyers stumbled over simple questions.
A few days later, Jane Elliott told her class that she had the information about melanin the wrong way round, and swapped the colour superiorities over. The brown-eyed children tore off their now-hated ribbons, and the situations quickly reversed.
Jane Elliott had proved - more dramatically than she had ever thought possible - how much discrimination is soaked up subconsciously, by both the oppressor and the oppressed. She had not told her pupils to treat each other differently, only that they were different; and yet they developed the characteristic responses of discrimination. Jane Elliott felt that they did this because they had already absorbed discriminatory behaviour from their parents and other adults. On the plus side, she had also proved that racism can be unlearnt as quickly as it can be learnt. She had also found an excellent way of demonstrating what it feels like to be the subject of discrimination.
And what of Jane Elliott's original classes? These children had gone home after the exercise and told their parents that racism was wrong, and it was a lesson that stayed with them. Reunions and interviews have shown that the children remember the exercise and are positively affected by it, feeling that it makes them more empatheic and sensitive.
Excerpted from:
BBC h2g2- Jane Elliott and the Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes Exercise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1132480
Discussion Questions
Session I
1. What do you think of the experiment that Jane Elliot did? Do you think it works? What are your opinions if it's on adult? Will it work?
2. What’s your definition of discrimination? Do you think, whatever reason it is, looking down on people is a kind of discrimination?
3. Do you think racial discrimination is a problem in Taiwan, or do we have any discrimination problem here?
Session II
1. What do you think of racist problem in the world nowadays? Have you ever experienced any?
2. What are your opinions on reverse discrimination and affirmative action? What stereotypes do you have, if there's any?
3. How do you judge people? Do you judge people by there appearances? Why, or why not?
********************************************************************************************************************************************
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings and free talk among members and guests /taking individual orders/getting newcomers' information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening remarks/ Newcomers self-introduction/ Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm discussion session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:15pm Regrouping & instruction giving
(Session II)
8:15 ~ 8:25pm Taking a 10 minutes break (Intermission)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm discussion session (40 mins)
9:05 ~9:25pm summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding remarks/feedback from newcomers/ announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期:列於該貼文主題內 聚會時間:請準時 6:45 pm 到 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
聚會地點:丹堤復興長春店 台北市復興北路183號 地圖 (02)8712-9581
捷運南京東路站(木柵線)
走法:出捷運南京東路站後,出捷運南京東路站後,順著復興北路往北走約3分鐘,過了長春路與復興北路交叉口之後即可看到。
注意事項:
1. 文章是否需要列印請自行斟酌,但與會者請務必自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請先閱讀過文章,並仔細想過所有的問題,謝謝合作!
給新朋友的話:
1. 請事先準備2~3分鐘的英語自我介紹;會議結束前可能會請你發表1~2分鐘的感想。
2. 請事先閱讀文章以及主持人所提的討論問題,並事先寫下自己所欲發表意見的英文。
3. 全程以英語進行,參加者應具備中等英語會話能力,對任一討論問題,能夠以5到10句英文表達個人見解。
4. 在正式加入之前,可以先來觀摩三次,觀摩者亦須參與討論。正式加入需繳交可退還之保證金NT$1,000。
5. 想要參與會議的新朋友,請先跟會長 Toshi 報名,謝謝!
4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
Very interesting experiment!
It triggers me some ideas about the "experience".
Shall share with you in the meeting!
It triggers me some ideas about the "experience".
Shall share with you in the meeting!
隨你所喜
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
Yeah, Luis finally show up again. Now it's time to have some fun. And this is an interesting topic, too.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
Attendance Figures: 29
- Host: Luis
- Participants: Albert Kuo, Antonio, Ariel Chen, Carrie, Charlie Yang, Chiron, Chris Lin, Christine, David Wu, Gloria, Ivy, Ivy Liu, Jackson, Jo, Joey, Kooper, Michael Liu, Rock, Sherry Liao, Stephen Chiu, Timothy, Ting, Tommy, Toshi, Wei Lim, Wendy Cheng, Wen-Han, Yawen
Meeting Venues: (To see more photos, please access to our YOYO photo album)
- Host: Luis
- Participants: Albert Kuo, Antonio, Ariel Chen, Carrie, Charlie Yang, Chiron, Chris Lin, Christine, David Wu, Gloria, Ivy, Ivy Liu, Jackson, Jo, Joey, Kooper, Michael Liu, Rock, Sherry Liao, Stephen Chiu, Timothy, Ting, Tommy, Toshi, Wei Lim, Wendy Cheng, Wen-Han, Yawen
Meeting Venues: (To see more photos, please access to our YOYO photo album)
隨你所喜
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
first of all, thanks you guys for your participating.
sorry for bring this controversial topic to the meeting. i would say different people have got different minds so that they would have different opinion about everything but one thing is for sure when it comes to discrimination, i bet no one wants to be treated unfairly. here i would like to make a conclusion which i should have made at the end of the meeting, don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated and don't judge a person untill you've walked a mile in their shoes. you have to experience other people's life to understand them.
finally, don't judge people by their looks, though sometimes i will haaa
sorry for bring this controversial topic to the meeting. i would say different people have got different minds so that they would have different opinion about everything but one thing is for sure when it comes to discrimination, i bet no one wants to be treated unfairly. here i would like to make a conclusion which i should have made at the end of the meeting, don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated and don't judge a person untill you've walked a mile in their shoes. you have to experience other people's life to understand them.
finally, don't judge people by their looks, though sometimes i will haaa
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
I always judge people by their appearances before I really know them. Are you sure you only "sometimes" do this?Luis Ko 寫:
finally, don't judge people by their looks, though sometimes i will haaa
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
Rock 寫:I always judge people by their appearances before I really know them. Are you sure you only "sometimes" do this?Luis Ko 寫:
finally, don't judge people by their looks, though sometimes i will haaa
hahahaha!!!!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
ok i admit it's most of the time..
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
don't judge a person untill you've walked a mile in their shoes.Luis Ko 寫:first of all, thanks you guys for your participating.
sorry for bring this controversial topic to the meeting. i would say different people have got different minds so that they would have different opinion about everything but one thing is for sure when it comes to discrimination, i bet no one wants to be treated unfairly. here i would like to make a conclusion which i should have made at the end of the meeting, don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated and don't judge a person untill you've walked a mile in their shoes. you have to experience other people's life to understand them.
finally, don't judge people by their looks, though sometimes i will haaa
That's it! What I wanted to say in the meeting!
隨你所喜
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
Re: 4/1(Wed.)The blue eyes and brown eyes exercise (host: Luis)
I somehow feel it’s quite similar to the topic we have discussed here.
以下摘自”隱藏的邏輯(The Social Atom)”:
在2004年,美國媒體上出現一系列照片,揭發美軍在巴格達的阿布格雷監獄虐待伊拉克囚犯的劣行,舉國譁然。這些來自全美國各地,受過良好教育的正常男男女女,怎麼會以不人道的方式對待手無寸鐵的囚犯,還以此為樂?不過,要找出問題的癥結並不是那麼難---與此息息相關的是不良的模式,而不是行為不良的人。
三十年前,史丹福大學的心理學家辛巴多(Philip Zimbardo)和他的同事,曾利用一群正常的大學生進行一項實驗。他把心理學系館的地下室佈置成類似監獄的環境,然後把學生放進去,有些學生扮獄卒,有些學生扮囚犯。研究人員讓學生換掉平日穿著的衣物,分別換上制服和有編號的囚服,扮獄卒的同學還戴上墨鏡,並封上”教化官”之類的封號。這些心理學家的目的是排除學生們的個體性,然後看看人的行為會如何發展下去。底下那一段,是辛巴多的描述:
日子一天天過去,雙方之間的敵意越來越高,犯人的處境也越來越糟。不到36小時,第一位犯人出現精神崩潰的現象,一直哭鬧尖叫,做出許多非理性的行為,我們只好把他放出來。之後的每一天,我們都必須放出一位出現極度壓力反應的犯人。本來實驗是預備進行兩週的,但六天之後,局面已經失去控制,實驗不得不草草結束。我們挑選參加的學生,原本都是正常而健康的,但最後都崩潰了。原先反戰的那些學生,也變的很殘忍,以虐待囚犯為樂。
辛巴多最近也發表評論,認為巴格達監獄裡發生的事件,正是遵循相同的模式;整件事的起因與個人關係不大,而是他們所處的情境大有關係。從很多照片裡可以看到,這些士兵並沒有穿軍服;從心理學來看,他們已經”去個人化”,變成匿名的”獄卒”。此外,囚犯被貼上”恐怖份子”或”政治犯”之類的不人道標籤,等於是把他們歸為次等而無用的。到了晚上,沒有足夠的監督,又沒有明確的責任歸屬,大家就拿犯人來取樂了。這並不必然造成了虐囚事件,但確實助長了惡性循環的條件。越多士兵虐囚,大家就越不把囚犯當人看,甚至覺得他們豬狗不如。
==========================================================
Another story is about 種族隔離政策,please read ”序--前言--找出隱藏的邏輯”.
以下摘自”隱藏的邏輯(The Social Atom)”:
在2004年,美國媒體上出現一系列照片,揭發美軍在巴格達的阿布格雷監獄虐待伊拉克囚犯的劣行,舉國譁然。這些來自全美國各地,受過良好教育的正常男男女女,怎麼會以不人道的方式對待手無寸鐵的囚犯,還以此為樂?不過,要找出問題的癥結並不是那麼難---與此息息相關的是不良的模式,而不是行為不良的人。
三十年前,史丹福大學的心理學家辛巴多(Philip Zimbardo)和他的同事,曾利用一群正常的大學生進行一項實驗。他把心理學系館的地下室佈置成類似監獄的環境,然後把學生放進去,有些學生扮獄卒,有些學生扮囚犯。研究人員讓學生換掉平日穿著的衣物,分別換上制服和有編號的囚服,扮獄卒的同學還戴上墨鏡,並封上”教化官”之類的封號。這些心理學家的目的是排除學生們的個體性,然後看看人的行為會如何發展下去。底下那一段,是辛巴多的描述:
日子一天天過去,雙方之間的敵意越來越高,犯人的處境也越來越糟。不到36小時,第一位犯人出現精神崩潰的現象,一直哭鬧尖叫,做出許多非理性的行為,我們只好把他放出來。之後的每一天,我們都必須放出一位出現極度壓力反應的犯人。本來實驗是預備進行兩週的,但六天之後,局面已經失去控制,實驗不得不草草結束。我們挑選參加的學生,原本都是正常而健康的,但最後都崩潰了。原先反戰的那些學生,也變的很殘忍,以虐待囚犯為樂。
辛巴多最近也發表評論,認為巴格達監獄裡發生的事件,正是遵循相同的模式;整件事的起因與個人關係不大,而是他們所處的情境大有關係。從很多照片裡可以看到,這些士兵並沒有穿軍服;從心理學來看,他們已經”去個人化”,變成匿名的”獄卒”。此外,囚犯被貼上”恐怖份子”或”政治犯”之類的不人道標籤,等於是把他們歸為次等而無用的。到了晚上,沒有足夠的監督,又沒有明確的責任歸屬,大家就拿犯人來取樂了。這並不必然造成了虐囚事件,但確實助長了惡性循環的條件。越多士兵虐囚,大家就越不把囚犯當人看,甚至覺得他們豬狗不如。
==========================================================
Another story is about 種族隔離政策,please read ”序--前言--找出隱藏的邏輯”.
隨你所喜
或酒、或詩、或是喜!
或酒、或詩、或是喜!