If this sounds weird you will have to tolerate me. For as long as I can remember everytime I meet people and my being left-handed would be exposed ( Say maybe, I have to use a pen etc) some people would ask me if I am creative- with the assumption that left handed people are all creative. (Of course I am a published author of two Novels and a collection of poems). However I still need to find out if is there a  factual proveable reason behind the assumption/ or the thinking that all lefthanded humans are creative by virtue of them 'using the left side of the brain'?.

Is there a followable scientifical lineage of creative humans( in arts, science, politics etc) who, if they were not left handed, they would not have achieved or contributed to human civilisation?  

Views: 1368

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great topic as several have alluded because it does result in labeling for no good purpose in the most part. It also makes me consider what I do know which is mostly anecotal.

I tend to make a distinction between bigotry borne of ignorance (where, for example, someone makes some statement based on a stereotype, not realizing it isn't always or even usually true) and bigotry to the point of hatred (e. g., burning crosses on the lawns of people with lots of melanin).  Depending on the ignorant misconception, of course the second can result from the first, but I simply don't consider the first to be morally equivalent to the second.

The subject is beyond the scope of my imagination as there are so many instances in which bigotry is present when anyone should be able to work out immediately that it is nonsense. On the other side, one cannot mention physical characteristics in some company without being attacked.

As for the burning of crosses, what a bunch of idiots! Were a black person to tell me that I was inferior because of my skin, I would accept that they were correct with regards to quality of skin but follow up wanting to know why it mattered, etc.

Anyone who believes that a white skin is a sign of superiority can't spell melanoma. That and one learns some basics when one owns Welsh skin and boxes against black guys in college. I'm actually quite resentful but don't blame the black people as they can't change color and would not be so foolish as to make such a silly change. Just one more nail in the lid of the dead or never existed creator of the universe if it ever did exist.

One of the courses I did in linguistics compared communiction patterns of European language pattern speakers with that of Athapaskan language pattern speakers. The stereotypes which were commonly held of the other group were completely accurate according to the communication patterns of one's own group.

I've shared a paper on the subject, by Ron & Suzanne Scollen with hundreds of people over the years but no one offers response. I'm mystified as thought it was the most fascinating paper I've ever read. I was teaching in small northern communities at the time but it's not rocket science to see that this must extend...

Speaking of bigotry, I passed a tobacco shop today in a strip mall that had a wooden Indian out front - I thought those days were LONG since over!

Most people don't see those as racist anymore, they see them as nostalgia pieces. To be fair, if you don't live near any Native Americans, you likely won't hear much flack about it.

I've seen a few that were downright cartoony, but some where absolutely regal looking. I guess it depends on the subject matter.

I'm a lot more concerned about cartoon images like the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo:

I continue to struggle to understand the perspective with regards these issues. Decades ago when I was a college instructor, we were "blessed" with the presence of several "issues people" who advocated sensitivity training for everyone and felt themselves to be the infallible authorities as to what was demeaning to anyone.

After a time some of the trades & technology students revolted over the attempted indoctrination and the student sensitivity training went away.

I understand that some symbols and representations can be unattractive to some people but have difficulty in determining when it is warranted. No one seems to object to a cartoon Scotsman in kilt, but a cigar store indian raises objections. We lack space for such a piece as a full sized human sculpture in our home but can accept that those who do find these old representations attractive.

I do conclude that some of the "you've hurt my feelings" is not valid and sometimes simply attention and/or compensation seeking.

Not arguing your concern, Unseen, just do not understand how and where to draw these lines as clearly as so many people feel competent to do.

As a principle, it seems undesireable to offend someone intentionally and/or without good purpose. As another principle, it seems undesireable to allow irrational questions and behaviors to be supported.

How to find the balance?

Frankly, Norm, if I were a Native American (which is a weird term, because none of us is native to North America, we all came from somewhere else), I would see a bit of sadistic irony in the use of an Indian to advertise tobacco - we took their land, and they gave us cancer sticks! If I were Indian and saw such a thing, I would smile and say, "Gotcha Paleface!"

All this labelling and hurt feelings stuff makes me wonder why people find it to be so difficult to just get along?



"(which is a weird term, because none of us is native to North America, we all came from somewhere else)"

I guess that makes us all South Africans.

David Lee Murphy

Well, Africans anyway --


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service