Speaking of assumptions, could you (or anyone else) answer the questions I have interspersed below? I'm quite certain that there's a fundamental discrepancy between intention and perception here, and it would make an interesting lesson for me, I think.
If you feel it more appropriate to send it off list, please do. thanks, Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You look but you do not see ... tis a shame you are so jaded and cynical. Ok... maybe I didn't make it clear that it was this particular photo that failed to induce any feelings? Did I really come across as a complete cynic in all questions related to poverty? > She's smiling, there's direct eye contact, and she's not the least bit > "grumpy" with my presence. This an obvious mistake on my part. > Your comments are worthless since you've made > them based on unwarranted assumptions and lack of observation. In > addition, apart from being totally mistaken about the photograph, you're > attempting to point a negative finger at me personally. Well, I won't take > it quietly like I did with the last pic I put up. I would really like to know what I'm accusing Shel of here... > My comments were not to evoke sympathy, but to show a similarity between > two extreme segments of the population. Both can enjoy a pleasant morning > breakfast in bed regardless of social and economic class or their physical > situation. It's sad you only perceive the negative. I don't get it... Is the photo posted to show this person's pleasure? > To judge someone and their life as you've done is just a load of crap. How, exactly, am I passing judgement on anything but the photo?!? > Consider yourself fortunate that you don't have the problems that put this > woman on the sidewalk that morning. Consider that you're not mentally ill, > that you have some form of socialized medicine to help you when you need > attention, that you may have family or friends which she may not have, and > you have other resources, both financial and social, to help you should you > have the problems that this woman has. Excuse me, but this is exactly the kind of normative patronising I don't like when posted to PDML. For one simple reason; it has nothing to do with the photograph. Whose problem is it? Shel's or mine? > It is easy to look down on someone, but, perhaps more difficult to show > empathy and understanding until you've experienced some of what they've > experienced. Clearly you have not, or, if you have, you have a short > memory. Whoa... Am I the only one making assumptions today? > Thanks for the scanning tip. Pleasure! I'll make sure to look carefully at facial expressions hereafter. Jostein > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Portraits of the Less Fortunate, as Shel calls them, can be > > interesting. With Shel's intro it seems like we're supposed to feel > > sorry for this lady, for all the obvious social reasons.This photo > > fails to provoke such emotions with me. She's just an obese woman, > > smoking and munching junk food on the pavement. There's no eye > > contact, and the lady looks grumpy. Possibly with the photographer's > > presence? > >
