From the mouth of leftists

At one point, I participated in a career retraining program paid for by the employment department and implemented by the local community college.  Some of the program, such as the refresher course on mathematics and grammar, was useful.  Other parts not so much.  We spent a few days on “diversity training” and the instructor spent quite some time stressing how important it is to avoid stereotyping or making generalizations about certain ethnic groups.  Then, toward the end of this module, we were given a document titled “Normative Communication Styles & Values For Cross-Cultural Collaboration”.  In plain English, this translates into: “what you can expect from different ethnic groups when it comes to communication if you’re working in a mixed group”.  The source, for this document, is “Candia Elliot Diversity Training Associates”,  “R. Jerry Adams, Ph. D, Evaluation and Development Institute” and “Suganya… Dept. of Human Resources, Oregon”.
The document deals with Anglo, Native, Hispanic, Asian and African groups.  It lists traits such as “Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting”, “Formal dress”, “Self-Identity…related to skin color or ethnicity”, “Ignoring ‘turns'”, “Self promotion”, “Gestures”, “Touching” etc.  Each group is rated as “Very little”, “Little”, “Medium”, “Much” or “Very Much”.
Here are the “Very Much” traits for Africans:
Animation/Emotional Expression
Gestures
Range of Pitch between words
Volume of speech
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, “getting to the point”
Ignoring “turns”
Self-promotion
Speed of Response
Collaborators must have community respect and support
Some participants, looking puzzled, asked the instructor how we could take this document seriously and, at the same time, reject “stereotypes”.  Indeed, we could easily rephrase the first seven traits as “crude, loud, undiplomatic and offensive”.  “Ignoring turns” could also be called “being rude by talking out of turn”.  “Self-promotion” could be “self-centered” or “selfish”.
Let’s look at how “Anglos” fair in the “Very Much” category:
Task-Based Purpose vs. Relationship
Written vs. verbal
Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting
Perceived right to speak freely at meeting
Formal dress
Perceived right to represent or speak for the group
Collaboration based on authority
Use first names vs. titles
Speed of Response
Directness of questions
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, “getting to the point”
Directness of eye contact
Firm, long handshaking
Concern with clock time
Individualism more than collateral group identity
The first thing that struck me is that any category starting with “perceived” is inhabited only by “Anglos”.  The implication is that “Anglos” feel entitled to more rights than they deserve.
In the “Very little” category, “Anglos” are the only ones listed for “Awareness of unearned ‘white’ privilege”.  We can only hope that this is accurate and that most whites do not believe in this imaginary bogeyman.  Not surprisingly, “Anglos” are also the only inhabitants of the category “Very little” when it comes to “Self-Identity… related to skin color or ethnicity”.   A somewhat positive way of looking at this would be that whites are the least “racist” of the groups.  However, I suspect that the leftists see this as a bad thing – since they expect whites to be intensely aware of their white skin and consider it a badge of shame.
Hispanics were rated as “Very little” within the trait of  “Concern with clock time”.  Perhaps this explains why every single Hispanic, at my workplace, disregards the rules when it comes to break times.  I suppose the leftists would forgive them for that and allow them longer breaks than “Anglos” in order to accommodate their “rich cultural heritage”.