Arab in F1

[manchild]

This is not reply on Tom's post but just and observation...

Mixing nationality with ethnicity and race causes wrong conclusions. Not all countries have become from one ethnicity (one folk) so for example ethnicity of Americans or Australians doesn't exist at all, they all have nationality - American, Australian but there is no general ethnicity because those nations have become from mixture of many ethnicities.

In the modern days citizenship defines nationality so ethnicity becomes private thing without any influence on nationality.

What remains unchanged are race and nationality as only officially determinable factors.

[Hondanisti]

...those people do not have the right to say that terrorists is basically another name for arabs because of what you see on the news... Please think twice before what you say in this respectable website because it could be insulting to others.

Mixing nationality with ethnicity and race causes wrong conclusions.

Not all countries have become from one ethnicity (one folk) so for example ethnicity of Americans or Australians doesn't exist at all, they all have nationality - American, Australian but there is no general ethnicity because those nations has become from mixture of many ethnicities.

agreed on both counts...

Diversity & pluralism has become the norm in most advanced democracies.

The faster that we get away from the notion of trying to revert back to the "good old days" when things were supposedly "simpler" , the better.

The good old days weren't all that great.

The current extremists on both sides want to revert back to a "simpler older time". We should be speaking out against these reversionist ideas rather than letting them speak without opposition. Apathy & cynicism just has allowed them to crawl out from underneath the rocks and woodwork to gain legitimacy lately.


One would hope that in a forum like this where we have fairly well educated sophisticated and cosmopolitan people that notions like having a thread called "Arab in F1" can be seen for it's ludicrousness on par with a thread entitled "Causasian in F1" or "Asian in F1" or "Black in F1".
And this is not censoring for the sake of political correctness.


We have moved so far forward and yet there's these already discarded obsolete notions that keep on cycling us back to the "bad old days" - 2 steps forward and hopefully only 1 step back and not 3.

[Carlos]

Although I am a Canadian by birth. My family heritage is English, Italian, German, Roma and Irish. I am mindful to identify myself as a Citizen of the World. The consideration of identity by nationality is also reactionary.
But least we congradulate ourselves as being enlightened liberals--the labels of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, class and other divisions
fuel most of the worlds misfortune. Rememberance Day was honoured this past week--honouring the war dead and those disfigured in body and mind by war. My aged remaining parent was sure to remind us that we were the first generation in over 100 years that have not borne arms. War is a slaughter feeding a raging blaze fueled by blood. My father never took off his shirt because he did not want to have to explain that the pattern of
scars across his body were shrapnel wounds. He bore the marks of service fighting a foe motivated by those hatreds. My Uncle served as a POW interned after the fall of Hong Kong. War fueled by those factors of hatred.

My point is--never forget the result of the divisions of race, ethnicity, religion, power and class .

[Hondanisti]

Although I am a Canadian by birth. My family heritage is English, Italian, German, Roma and Irish. I am mindful to identify myself as a Citizen of the World. The consideration of identity by nationality is also reactionary...

My point is--never forget the result of the divisions of race, ethnicity, religion, power and class .

Nevertheless, your upbringing has been a blend of distinct identities.

First generation immigrant children have this struggle in the "New Land" all the time - the struggle to maintain one's roots and identity with the positives that go with any given culture's arts, humanities, and sciences and yet they have to adapt to a new identity - a fresh start to "fit in".

So in each diverse community, each person brings their culture's methods or points of view or in your case, mulitiple integrated viewpoints simultaneously.


You don't negate "where you came from" or else you lose your grounding or reference point and yet you don't want to be tied and hamstrung by the shackles of past conflicts (inability of the culture to bury the hatchet against traditional enemies) or negative traditions.


The point is not to assimilate to a race-blind community, since this lacks depth of identity (foundation or reference point richness), forces "groupthink" conformity (assimilation to the "ingroup" standards) , and negates actual equality & mutual respect.


The other point is to add each culture's richness (eg. at positively solving problems) to a broader repertoire from which we can blend or use to overcome difficult tasks. The community is richer for having more options to use should the previous traditional ones fail to solve problems - as long as there's a willingness to work through the process of hearing out solutions and selecting the best proposals. In fact, the new approach may become the new tradition.

The problem with diversity is the "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario where convergence doesn't occur and inside politics creeps in.

So in F1, a Lebanese tradition would add to the richness amongst the drivers from various nations already represented in the F1 circus.
Perhaps new different successful approaches that once were not thought of would be introduced ? I mean we've all seen how the Mad Max & Bernie Show has tried to solve some problems in F1 sustainability - a fresh start wouldn't hurt.

[Carlos]

Yes Hondanista--I do agree and embrace the ideas expressed in your preceding post--and practise them in my everyday life--occassionally to the point of disturbing advancement in my career and sociallife--often incurring animosity among those who disapprove of your attitudes and beliefs-- which I emphaticly share--I value the assets of my varied heritage-- the stories; the oral folklore of my family concretely expresses a diversity of opinions and approaches to solving many problems and contribute to solving events in work settings and social situations. But then again--I have been fired from positions, or my advancement obstructed because of the ideals you and I share. Although my Uncle
was interned under horrific conditions-- and his life destroyed due to the
mental and physical duress of those years --I am a great admirer of the country that imprisoned him--realizing it was the "group think" of the situaton and times. I do not participate or sublimate my heritage or our shared world view. Now that I am semi- retired and of late middle age-- I have a distance of observation that allows a certain vision. I do admire your series of posts and the thoughtful reasoning and opinions you express and live by. My post expresses the "darkest" expression of this discussion. We are "sympatico" -- to use an expression and attitude of value derived from my heritage-- as I share the generosity of your views and posts. I do wish our shared values are embraced by all.

[Hondanisti]

well you see this in F1 teams.

Renault isn't purely French. Ferrari in the Schumi years weren't all Italian. Honda isn't solely Japanese..

It's a great example of diversity at a practical level, using advanced cognition under the extreme stress of competition.

Now if we can get people to stop reverting back to some primitive notions that were already proven to be wrong and to stop re-inventing the wheel or hitting reset button and making us prove once again how silly those notions were. I guess it takes a proper vigilance or not let the extremists and regressives from gaining a credibility foothold which has been what is happening lately in the world on all sides.

Our cynicism and apathy has allowed the regressives to run amock and influence the mainstream way of thinking.

I hope everyone's discussion on this thread brings this into everyone's radar scope at least even in the F1 world.

[Ciro Pabón]

The point is not to assimilate to a race-blind community, since this lacks depth of identity (foundation or reference point richness), forces "groupthink" conformity (assimilation to the "ingroup" standards) , and negates actual equality & mutual respect.

...

The problem with diversity is the "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario where convergence doesn't occur and inside politics creeps in.

Why? I live in a color-blind society... we are too mixed, and certainly, we don't seem to have "groupthink" conformity. Perhaps you are thinking about your particular country, but this is not the same vision of the entire world, specially latinamericans (at least, not all of them).

[Carlos]

Why ? --- Ciro ?

Because many cultures tolerate only 1 viewpoint on any subject --- multiple opinions cannot be decanted to a single solution -- let's call it "simple-think" -- accept that some cultures are Marketed and not Lived--
contend with a present and future based on consumption and not ideals --
enjoy having all conclusions predicted by polls and focus groups--work in an atmosphere where alternate ideas and solutions can only be understood as opposition. Actually -- it is to your credit and Columbia's that you would think to ask -- It is good that we both have Formula One to enjoy! What pleasure we share!

[Carlos]

Whoa ---- lighten up lad!

[G-Rock]

I think you people are totally over analysing this. If i was a minority in my community or workplace and I suspected people around me were consciously patronising me or avoiding discussing tricky subjects about my culture, I would be very offended.

[Hondanisti]

Ah but therein lies the rub.

If they were consciously patronising you or avoiding "tricky" discussions, then, it's not a diverse working environment.

I wasn't trying to analyse the situation. I'm just giving you a glimpse of one of my areas of study and interest (on top of being an F1 fan like you).

I didn't want to "get into" the details of organizational managerial diversity but it applied to this topic in that I wanted the discussion not to fall back on the tired and worn out topics that have been recycled on this subject: particularly when it comes to "Arabs" in F1 (and the connotations associated with raising "Arabs" as a topic in the current divisive world that we live in thanks to the reversionists on both sides who want us to separate ourselves back to the days of tribal holy wars between religions - divide & conquer) .


Reparations (payback for past injustices to even things out - affirmative action-like ) or Tokenism (gaining legitimacy in a new market by having a representative culture member from that market within the group) are the
old methods.


In a functional high performance organization TRULY & SINCERELY seeking multiple solution options in their menu to rotate through for each problem's context IS a way of life. They don't patronise. They seek different novel successful approaches at gaining the win-win when they hit a "wall" and can't solve the problem, at the exploratory or r&d stage of development.


It requires high intellect & competence from each culture's representative.


We have tried the colour-blind approach. It merely serves as an out for the "in-group" to fall back on without making any real changes at truly seeing merit and offering the right compensation for it. In the end, the colour-blind dogma, although having the right intent, is rarely executed properly because it uses the in-group's standard as the basis of success or failure which may not be the objective standard of true success. Secondly, the colour-blind dogma has not buried the hatchet and we still get political problems of Babelian misunderstandings and misperceptions because the "in-group" fails to step around the object to see a 360 degree - 3 dimensional view and remain transigent in one fixed observational position, by looking at the object only from their optic's vantage point. They don't seek to "step out of their skin" to go and look at the same object from the other side of the fence and really understand the whole picture.

Either you respect the person or you don't.


So you would be right in being offended in a Tokenistic scenario. But this is not the approach advocated in the 21st century. We don't want to be quagmired in the old arguments that had bogged down Martin Luther King's or Robert Kennedy's initiations - their ideas need to evolve..they never even got off the ground - in fact, diversity-wise, King never wanted full race integration. We need to move from a position that respects input and then converge the best of best ideas , for competitive advantage.


Colour-blindness is too simplistic and doesn't solve the problem - it merely is a nice soundbite to sweep the actual sticking point under the rug.

We don't want divisive tribalism but we don't want to go to a colour-blind, erasure of roots (the best of the culture's ideas) like Mao or Pol Pot did to gain mutual understanding & respect.

[Scuderia_Russ]

I've worked with Basil Shaaban. I was a bolty on his car when he did an F3000 test at Pembrey in preparation for the start of the A1GP season.(car's very similar to an A1 car but with better aero and no paddle shift.)
Did a seat fitting for him too. Although his A1 results are not sparkling he gave the best feedback and was the fittest (not to mention the only one that didn't go off!) out of all four drivers that we tested over the three days. I think Carlin is looking after him.