Here are some great photos of the Inauguration in Washington
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.html
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Inaugeration speech
The Inauguration speech in Washington this week showed a different Obama than we have seen over the last year. It was not as inspirational as we have been used to but it was the most purposeful. He has already proved he can pull on people's heart strings, make them weep and create a thunderous applause. He was not aiming at any of those on this occasion. The inauguration speech was designed to make people think.
There was something in there for everyone and people took from it what meant the most to them. Those that wanted to hear him to make a statement about terrorism, got the assurance that he will stand up to terrorists, but also that he was prepared to reach out to those that wanted to work toward mutual "respect'.
To those that wanted to hear him speak about the race issue, they heard a brilliant statement that balanced the issue with the honor.
To those that wanted him to attack the previous Administration, he managed to do it with respect whilst being very purposeful. It would have been easy to blame but rather he spoke about "our collective failure to make hard choices".
Interestingly he only used the word 'change' twice. The theme was about being "responsible" and moving forward. He spoke about America being ready to "lead" again and made it clear what the values were that would make this happen. I don't think it was an accident that the first two were "honesty and hard work".
The speech was aimed at the people of America and the world at large. I cannot recall anyone standing so strongly in the 'center ground' and reach out to the outer limits in both directions.
The more I listen to the speech, the more I marvel at the careful way he crafted a speech that was so personal and yet so meaningful. To those that did not find what they were looking for, they should listen to it again. Maybe they were expecting the Ra Ra of previous speeches and so lost the essence of what it was about. To those that say it lacked content, it was not designed to spoon feed you, it was designed to make you think.
The line I liked was about the use of 'power'. “Our power alone can’t protect us nor does it entitle us to do with as we please. Our power grows through prudent use”. If he can ensure that the power does not get the better of him but uses it prudently to lead the way forward, then he will be a great leader.
President Obama showed that the rousing speeches were over and now he was going to act. And act he has, already...
President Obama
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The arrival of Obama
The comparisons of Obama to Past US Presidents is inevitable as historians look for parallels. The most significant is the parallel with Kennedy. Both men had to overcome personal issues that stood in the way of them accepted.
Obama is African American. Kennedy was Catholic.
In these days it seems strange to look back at that time and think that Kennedy being Catholic would have been an issue. It seems absurd that there was a time in America that this was a major issue.
We are into a generation that wonders in awe at the age when black people in America were slaves and treated as a second level of humanity.
It is now common that black and other ethic minorities hold political office in various parts of the country. True it is the first time one has held the highest office as President, but I can't help but wonder what people will think when they look back at 2009 and Obama being inaugurated as President of the United States of America?
If we look back as incredulous that being a Catholic would be an issue to becoming President, will people in 40 years time think it incredulous that Obama being black would be an issue to becoming President?
What will the world be like when we can look back and be amazed that such an era existed?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Intent
The recent controversy in United Kingdom has been around the Royal Family being racist in their remarks to some of their friends. I don't think that anyone believes that Prince Harry or his Father are racist.
The fact that neither of the people concerned feel that Prince Harry or Prince Charles respectively, have been racist in their remarks or treatment of them, shows that the 'intent' was not racist. In fact, it seems that in one case at least, it was viewed as a term of endearment.
However, in today's society, it seems our intent is not enough. Our intent may be honorable but society now wants more. In the case of the two members of the Royal family, how they behaved and talked in private with their friends is no longer private and so they need to consider how their actions will impact others who see their behavior.
That is perfectly reasonable and I understand that. If you are a public figure you need to remember that what you say or how you behave has an impact on others. But where does the line get drawn?
I have been called a "whitey" before now. I was not offended. Why? Because at the times that it has been said to me, the intent was not negative. I may have felt different if I knew the intent was negative, but it wasn't.
So who makes the decision? Who decides if it is a term of endearment or an abuse of their heritage? Of course, there is no answer to this. Why? Because we are so quick to point the fault out in others, notice what others are doing wrong and seek ways to confront issues. But at the same time we forget to be responsible ourselves.
A responsible person dos not seek confrontation and does not seek to belittle others. They seek to understand the intent and make responsible decisions accordingly.
Did the Prince's intend to be disrespectful of the people concerned? I think not. Did the people concerned take it as disrespectful? Is seems not. Should others viewing it from outside and not involved in the relationship, view it as disrespectful? Do they have the right to form an opinion about a personal friendship and something they were not involved in?
I believe that they have no right to comment without first taking the time to know the 'intent'.
Having said that I am not agreeing with Prince Harry and Prince Charles. The Prince's should be aware that some people with less than honorable intent will use the actions of the Prince's as justification for their name calling. Those are the real racists and they are the ones that need dealing with.
It seems we spend more time finding fault with the people who set a bad example than the people who are really doing wrong. Last week I watched two ice hockey players beat each other up in the rink in front of a paying crowd.
The intent is wrong. The behavior is wrong. The example it sets to the kids (and adults) is wrong. Yet it is tolerated. Sometimes we need to step back and put things into context a bit more. It is about being responsible.
The fact that neither of the people concerned feel that Prince Harry or Prince Charles respectively, have been racist in their remarks or treatment of them, shows that the 'intent' was not racist. In fact, it seems that in one case at least, it was viewed as a term of endearment.
However, in today's society, it seems our intent is not enough. Our intent may be honorable but society now wants more. In the case of the two members of the Royal family, how they behaved and talked in private with their friends is no longer private and so they need to consider how their actions will impact others who see their behavior.
That is perfectly reasonable and I understand that. If you are a public figure you need to remember that what you say or how you behave has an impact on others. But where does the line get drawn?
I have been called a "whitey" before now. I was not offended. Why? Because at the times that it has been said to me, the intent was not negative. I may have felt different if I knew the intent was negative, but it wasn't.
So who makes the decision? Who decides if it is a term of endearment or an abuse of their heritage? Of course, there is no answer to this. Why? Because we are so quick to point the fault out in others, notice what others are doing wrong and seek ways to confront issues. But at the same time we forget to be responsible ourselves.
A responsible person dos not seek confrontation and does not seek to belittle others. They seek to understand the intent and make responsible decisions accordingly.
Did the Prince's intend to be disrespectful of the people concerned? I think not. Did the people concerned take it as disrespectful? Is seems not. Should others viewing it from outside and not involved in the relationship, view it as disrespectful? Do they have the right to form an opinion about a personal friendship and something they were not involved in?
I believe that they have no right to comment without first taking the time to know the 'intent'.
Having said that I am not agreeing with Prince Harry and Prince Charles. The Prince's should be aware that some people with less than honorable intent will use the actions of the Prince's as justification for their name calling. Those are the real racists and they are the ones that need dealing with.
It seems we spend more time finding fault with the people who set a bad example than the people who are really doing wrong. Last week I watched two ice hockey players beat each other up in the rink in front of a paying crowd.
The intent is wrong. The behavior is wrong. The example it sets to the kids (and adults) is wrong. Yet it is tolerated. Sometimes we need to step back and put things into context a bit more. It is about being responsible.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Turino
Speaking in Turino Italy. Listen to it here
http://meetingsreview.com/emailers/45/mr-mr-45.htm
Friday, January 09, 2009
Rod Blagojevich and Bill Clinton
The embarrassing saga of the Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, is sad enough to watch and is made worse by the fact it is Obama's home seat. But I want to throw up when I hear him use great poems by Rudyard Kipling and Tennyson to justify his behavior.
It has made me reflect on the difference between the impeachment drive on Blagojevich and the drive to impeach Clinton. Both have lied. One lied over something that was naughty and the other has appeared to act illegally. One is a basically good man that was sometimes stupid, and finally acknowledged his lack of judgment. The other if fundamentally a questionable character but then also doesn't care about anything but himself.
Rod, read the poem 'If" again, it also says, "...being lied about, don't deal in lies, being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:" and also "...and start again at your beginnings, and never breath a word about your loss".
For the sake of your State, GO
It has made me reflect on the difference between the impeachment drive on Blagojevich and the drive to impeach Clinton. Both have lied. One lied over something that was naughty and the other has appeared to act illegally. One is a basically good man that was sometimes stupid, and finally acknowledged his lack of judgment. The other if fundamentally a questionable character but then also doesn't care about anything but himself.
Rod, read the poem 'If" again, it also says, "...being lied about, don't deal in lies, being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:" and also "...and start again at your beginnings, and never breath a word about your loss".
For the sake of your State, GO
Are they Speakers, Trainers or Facilitators?
The use of the words “Speaker”, “Trainer” and “Facilitator” have been used intermittently as though they are all doing the same sort of thing. In reality each of these are skills in their own right. To group them all together would be like mixing up singers, actors and dancers and viewing them as performers. They are all performers but each has a skill that is honed and crafted. To assume that one would be able to do the same as the other, would be ridiculous and show no respect for any of the professions. Not being able to differentiate the skills and value the differences, only causes additional issues at a time when there is a call for meetings, conferences and events to show a Return on Investment (ROI).
As the concept of a ‘Meeting Architect’* starts to make sense and take hold, all contributors to the industry need to re-evaluate their role and the contribution they make, not only to the aims and objectives of the meeting, event or conference, but also how they collaborate with all the other contributors. These important players will need to re-evaluate their perception of themselves and of their fellow contributors in the future.
Let us identify the differences.
Training sessions are meant to take someone through a process of being able to learn and then apply the knowledge. It’s about helping someone develop the skill and the competence to do something. Training almost certainly will include interaction between the presenter and the delegate. It will probably require exercises and training can be over a prolonged period of time. In other words, it can take a day, two days, five days or more.
The Trainer has the skill to deliver a training session in a way that involves the participants and will often help them explore their learning, rather than tell them. The Trainer will pose questions to encourage the discussion and then do exercises that will allow people to discover and even practice their learning. The skills of a Trainer can be aligned to those of a coach, as training is often a voyage of discovery. The Trainer knows the outcome and will steer the sessions to achieve the outcome over the given period of time.
A workshop tends to be shorter and is normally no more than a day. A workshop tends to focus on a specific subject or an aspect that a group of people want to explore or discuss. Some workshops could be referred to as a short training session. However, the workshop can also be used as an opportunity to bring thinking together or what some people call brainstorming. In these cases the person running it will be more of a Facilitator than a trainer.
The Facilitator will typically either have specialist knowledge, or the ability to facilitate discussion between people that do have the knowledge, or both. A workshop may bring in a person with expertise knowledge to set the scene for the discussion that follows. This person may well present or at least en-capture the situation, highlight the issues and then articulate the desired outcomes. A Facilitator will then draw out any discussion and debate.
Finally we have the Speaker. A Speaker is typically speaking for 30 minutes, 40 minutes or sixty minutes. There are occasions when a Speaker can go longer but because their role is different, time is imperative. The main skill of a Speaker is their ability to impart information in as few words as possible whilst being meaningful. A Speaker has little or no opportunity for interaction and so their skill is to engage the audience and often give them something meaningful that they can make use of.
Of course there are different types of speakers. At one end of the spectrum a Speaker can simply be an entertainer there to amuse, amaze or in some cases inspire the audience. This speaker is closer to an entertainer and in this case the Speaker is not there to impart knowledge or create a desired outcome towards an objective. In this situation, the Speaker raises spirits and relaxes people or makes them feel good.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Speaker is able to impart information of value or interest, in as short a time as possible. The key here is that the Speaker has ‘content’ to deliver and can put the points over in a meaningful manner that the audience can grasp and use. The Speaker can still do this in an entertaining or humorous manner but the essence of the presentation is to add value, provide information, challenge thinking and give them something they can take away and apply to their lives.
Difference between Training and Facilitation:
Training is the development of people to do something. It has a desired outcome and the Trainer has the skills to steer the participants in a direction so that they can do the required outcome. For example, as a result of the training I have the knowledge and a level of ability to do something different. I will now practice what I have learnt and be able to perform accordingly.
Facilitation is the ability to create discussion and draw out people’s thinking. It is to exchange ideas and thoughts in a structured manner. The outcome will not be the participants capable of doing something in particular, but rather that there is peer learning, clarity, consensus and possibly a direction set. For example, as a result of a workshop I understand a different point of view, realize what further skills I need to develop or I understand how I need to adjust my current approach to take into consideration other people’s situations.
Difference between Facilitation and Speaking:
Facilitation allows and even encourages discussion and draws out the thinking of the group with none or little input from the person carrying out the Facilitating. The Facilitator keeps the discussion moving, ensures lively interaction, stimulates the discussion, keeps it focused and draws it to a logical conclusion. The
Facilitator will summarize the outcome and what steps need to be taken as a result of the workshop. People will walk away knowing what should be done as a result. For example, the workshop highlighted the weaknesses in our approach and we now know we need to gather more information to proceed or amend our plan. As a result, we will pull together the new research and meet again to discuss it. In the meantime, I will adjust my approach in the light of what has come out of the workshop.
Speaking shakes up people’s thinking, challenges them to think differently and imparts some knowledge or a perspective that encourages people to consider new options, new approaches or alternative ways of doing things. There may be no specific conclusions but the delegate attending will have understood enough to go away and be able to approach things differently. For example, I realize we have been stuck in a rut and need to approach things differently in the future. I need to tackle certain issues in particular and then implement a measurable system similar to what was described by the speaker.
In some cases, the Speaker is simply entertaining and inspiring. The take-away value is less about the ‘content’ and more about feeling positive or happy. For example, if he can overcome those sorts of obstacles in life, then I should be able to do a lot better at approaching what I see as problems. Look at how he persevered and kept focused through everything that happened, maybe I am allowing myself to become too distracted and easily intimidated by what is happening around me.
All three of these people can and should add value to any meeting, conference or event. Whether it is a short training session, a facilitated discussion or imparting knowledge and challenging thoughts, the three skills bring added value. The key is the ability of the Trainer, Facilitator or Speaker to be able to do two things.
Firstly, to be a professional and hone their skills to be able to deliver to the best of their ability. Each one of them has a different skill that needs to be crafted and developed so that they can deliver at the highest possible level.
Secondly, to be professional enough to set aside their ego and be able to focus on the outcomes desired by the customer AND work with others to achieve this outcome. For example, a Speaker may challenge the thinking of the delegates and then the facilitator may run a workshop to brainstorm ideas that came out of the speech and the other workshops (small training sessions) may show people how to do things differently.
This joined up approach requires Speakers, Facilitators and Trainers to respect each other’s strengths and differences. All three should appreciate each other’s skills and the differences between the skills. Some individuals will make good Speakers and not good Trainers or Facilitators whilst a good Trainer will not automatically have the skills to be a good Speaker or Facilitator.
Having respected each other’s contributions and the value they can offer, then they need to be able to work together to make a meeting or conference a great success. Not only working together between the three of them but also with all the other players that come together to deliver an end result – the objectives of the meeting, event or conference.
The Meeting Architect is likely to re-invent this industry, make it more professional and bring a higher level of results. It will make the industry more professional and will make ROI the norm and not a burden. Most of all it has the potential to make this industry, including speakers, trainers and facilitators, work together in a way it never has before. The time is right and the demand is there, but can the players work together to make it happen? A good start is to use the same language and then appreciate and value the differences and contribution everyone makes.
Paul Bridle
www.paulbridle.com
Paul is speaking at MPI Europe and Middle East Conference in Torino, Italy, March 1 to 3, 2009
*See Meeting Architecture a manifesto by Maarten Vanneste
As the concept of a ‘Meeting Architect’* starts to make sense and take hold, all contributors to the industry need to re-evaluate their role and the contribution they make, not only to the aims and objectives of the meeting, event or conference, but also how they collaborate with all the other contributors. These important players will need to re-evaluate their perception of themselves and of their fellow contributors in the future.
Let us identify the differences.
Training sessions are meant to take someone through a process of being able to learn and then apply the knowledge. It’s about helping someone develop the skill and the competence to do something. Training almost certainly will include interaction between the presenter and the delegate. It will probably require exercises and training can be over a prolonged period of time. In other words, it can take a day, two days, five days or more.
The Trainer has the skill to deliver a training session in a way that involves the participants and will often help them explore their learning, rather than tell them. The Trainer will pose questions to encourage the discussion and then do exercises that will allow people to discover and even practice their learning. The skills of a Trainer can be aligned to those of a coach, as training is often a voyage of discovery. The Trainer knows the outcome and will steer the sessions to achieve the outcome over the given period of time.
A workshop tends to be shorter and is normally no more than a day. A workshop tends to focus on a specific subject or an aspect that a group of people want to explore or discuss. Some workshops could be referred to as a short training session. However, the workshop can also be used as an opportunity to bring thinking together or what some people call brainstorming. In these cases the person running it will be more of a Facilitator than a trainer.
The Facilitator will typically either have specialist knowledge, or the ability to facilitate discussion between people that do have the knowledge, or both. A workshop may bring in a person with expertise knowledge to set the scene for the discussion that follows. This person may well present or at least en-capture the situation, highlight the issues and then articulate the desired outcomes. A Facilitator will then draw out any discussion and debate.
Finally we have the Speaker. A Speaker is typically speaking for 30 minutes, 40 minutes or sixty minutes. There are occasions when a Speaker can go longer but because their role is different, time is imperative. The main skill of a Speaker is their ability to impart information in as few words as possible whilst being meaningful. A Speaker has little or no opportunity for interaction and so their skill is to engage the audience and often give them something meaningful that they can make use of.
Of course there are different types of speakers. At one end of the spectrum a Speaker can simply be an entertainer there to amuse, amaze or in some cases inspire the audience. This speaker is closer to an entertainer and in this case the Speaker is not there to impart knowledge or create a desired outcome towards an objective. In this situation, the Speaker raises spirits and relaxes people or makes them feel good.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Speaker is able to impart information of value or interest, in as short a time as possible. The key here is that the Speaker has ‘content’ to deliver and can put the points over in a meaningful manner that the audience can grasp and use. The Speaker can still do this in an entertaining or humorous manner but the essence of the presentation is to add value, provide information, challenge thinking and give them something they can take away and apply to their lives.
Difference between Training and Facilitation:
Training is the development of people to do something. It has a desired outcome and the Trainer has the skills to steer the participants in a direction so that they can do the required outcome. For example, as a result of the training I have the knowledge and a level of ability to do something different. I will now practice what I have learnt and be able to perform accordingly.
Facilitation is the ability to create discussion and draw out people’s thinking. It is to exchange ideas and thoughts in a structured manner. The outcome will not be the participants capable of doing something in particular, but rather that there is peer learning, clarity, consensus and possibly a direction set. For example, as a result of a workshop I understand a different point of view, realize what further skills I need to develop or I understand how I need to adjust my current approach to take into consideration other people’s situations.
Difference between Facilitation and Speaking:
Facilitation allows and even encourages discussion and draws out the thinking of the group with none or little input from the person carrying out the Facilitating. The Facilitator keeps the discussion moving, ensures lively interaction, stimulates the discussion, keeps it focused and draws it to a logical conclusion. The
Facilitator will summarize the outcome and what steps need to be taken as a result of the workshop. People will walk away knowing what should be done as a result. For example, the workshop highlighted the weaknesses in our approach and we now know we need to gather more information to proceed or amend our plan. As a result, we will pull together the new research and meet again to discuss it. In the meantime, I will adjust my approach in the light of what has come out of the workshop.
Speaking shakes up people’s thinking, challenges them to think differently and imparts some knowledge or a perspective that encourages people to consider new options, new approaches or alternative ways of doing things. There may be no specific conclusions but the delegate attending will have understood enough to go away and be able to approach things differently. For example, I realize we have been stuck in a rut and need to approach things differently in the future. I need to tackle certain issues in particular and then implement a measurable system similar to what was described by the speaker.
In some cases, the Speaker is simply entertaining and inspiring. The take-away value is less about the ‘content’ and more about feeling positive or happy. For example, if he can overcome those sorts of obstacles in life, then I should be able to do a lot better at approaching what I see as problems. Look at how he persevered and kept focused through everything that happened, maybe I am allowing myself to become too distracted and easily intimidated by what is happening around me.
All three of these people can and should add value to any meeting, conference or event. Whether it is a short training session, a facilitated discussion or imparting knowledge and challenging thoughts, the three skills bring added value. The key is the ability of the Trainer, Facilitator or Speaker to be able to do two things.
Firstly, to be a professional and hone their skills to be able to deliver to the best of their ability. Each one of them has a different skill that needs to be crafted and developed so that they can deliver at the highest possible level.
Secondly, to be professional enough to set aside their ego and be able to focus on the outcomes desired by the customer AND work with others to achieve this outcome. For example, a Speaker may challenge the thinking of the delegates and then the facilitator may run a workshop to brainstorm ideas that came out of the speech and the other workshops (small training sessions) may show people how to do things differently.
This joined up approach requires Speakers, Facilitators and Trainers to respect each other’s strengths and differences. All three should appreciate each other’s skills and the differences between the skills. Some individuals will make good Speakers and not good Trainers or Facilitators whilst a good Trainer will not automatically have the skills to be a good Speaker or Facilitator.
Having respected each other’s contributions and the value they can offer, then they need to be able to work together to make a meeting or conference a great success. Not only working together between the three of them but also with all the other players that come together to deliver an end result – the objectives of the meeting, event or conference.
The Meeting Architect is likely to re-invent this industry, make it more professional and bring a higher level of results. It will make the industry more professional and will make ROI the norm and not a burden. Most of all it has the potential to make this industry, including speakers, trainers and facilitators, work together in a way it never has before. The time is right and the demand is there, but can the players work together to make it happen? A good start is to use the same language and then appreciate and value the differences and contribution everyone makes.
Paul Bridle
www.paulbridle.com
Paul is speaking at MPI Europe and Middle East Conference in Torino, Italy, March 1 to 3, 2009
*See Meeting Architecture a manifesto by Maarten Vanneste
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Communication
In 1927 on this day, a transatlantic telephone link between London and New York was opened. How far the telephone has come in 80 years. Now we can speak clearly and over the internet for free, if both parties are connected with VOIP.
Wouldn't it be amazing if people had advanced as fast as the technology in terms of their ability to communicate? Humans have not moved forward in hundreds of years in learning how to communicate with each other. So once again we begin a year with wars being started and continued. We have more and better systems to communicate with but still lack the content necessary to make a difference.
Maybe we should start taxing countries that go to war. Maybe we need a global rule that says a Government or party cannot run for election if they allowed a war to start on their watch! Ok, maybe these are stupid ideas, but so is what we have been doing for hundreds of years.
On a better note, 7th January 1927 was also the day the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team was founded. Now that was a team worth watching. They knew how to communicate :)
Wouldn't it be amazing if people had advanced as fast as the technology in terms of their ability to communicate? Humans have not moved forward in hundreds of years in learning how to communicate with each other. So once again we begin a year with wars being started and continued. We have more and better systems to communicate with but still lack the content necessary to make a difference.
Maybe we should start taxing countries that go to war. Maybe we need a global rule that says a Government or party cannot run for election if they allowed a war to start on their watch! Ok, maybe these are stupid ideas, but so is what we have been doing for hundreds of years.
On a better note, 7th January 1927 was also the day the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team was founded. Now that was a team worth watching. They knew how to communicate :)
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
A Balance Perspective
Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to be quite true.
Samuel L. Jackson
Let us keep a balanced perspective.
Obama will make mistakes
The recession will end
There will be another crisis after this one
Banks will still come out of this on top
Mugabe will die and nothing will change
Israel will always see every issue like a hammer sees a nail
Children will grow up having to learn the lessons for themselves
Change will happen and nothing will change.
A balanced perspective is needed. It is easy to be a radical. It takes guts and determination to be balanced.
Samuel L. Jackson
Let us keep a balanced perspective.
Obama will make mistakes
The recession will end
There will be another crisis after this one
Banks will still come out of this on top
Mugabe will die and nothing will change
Israel will always see every issue like a hammer sees a nail
Children will grow up having to learn the lessons for themselves
Change will happen and nothing will change.
A balanced perspective is needed. It is easy to be a radical. It takes guts and determination to be balanced.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
...and on politically correctness
"I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy. Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy. I was deprived. (Oh not deprived but rather underprivileged.) Then they told me that underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged.
I still don't have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary." -Jules Feiffer
Why do we spend so much time hiding behind words instead of taking responsibility for our circumstances?
In all my years in Africa I never met a black person that was not proud of being black, despite his or her circumstances. However, I have met many whites that are not proud of being white.
In 2009, let us not focus on defining our differences and rather focus on what we all can do to make progress. Don't let the few that use differences between us as a weapon, distract us from making progress and making a better world. The future is about being responsible and not lamenting circumstances.
I still don't have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary." -Jules Feiffer
Why do we spend so much time hiding behind words instead of taking responsibility for our circumstances?
In all my years in Africa I never met a black person that was not proud of being black, despite his or her circumstances. However, I have met many whites that are not proud of being white.
In 2009, let us not focus on defining our differences and rather focus on what we all can do to make progress. Don't let the few that use differences between us as a weapon, distract us from making progress and making a better world. The future is about being responsible and not lamenting circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
