Color Blind
Our eyes are a wonder of nature. They can see an unlimited array of color. And those of us who are born without that ability, are labeled color blind, and are cheated out of the full spectrum of colors afforded to the rest of us, who never give it a thought.
So why is it that we feel a slight bit of shame if we happen to notice the color of the person next to us? The diversity of our skin color was also given to us by nature. Yet when we talk in terms of race, even the most open minded individual, take note of the color everyone around us. Is there something wrong with that, or is it quite normal?
I spent over 20 years teaching in an inner city school and what I found out, is that this is a very universal experience. When I first started to work there, some of the black teachers thought I looked like "white bread", vernacular for a white person with no dealings with people of color. They were actually wrong, since I grew up for the first 7 years of my life in Amityville, NY (yes the one of the Amityville Horror and Jaws). When my family moved to an mostly lily white town, it freaked me out. Where did all the dark people go? That is color as expressed in the eyes of a child. No malice, just recognition that people come in a wide variety of colors and a sense of loss that I was no longer among them. But I digress.
As time went on working, the black staff's original impressions of me faded away and with that, I was allowed to see life the way that they see it. Blacks notice color. I found out that there were old jazz songs that celebrated the differences in their skin tones and they often addressed these differences when describing one another. White folks who they welcomed into fold, could also make these same observations. "You know... that really tall kid with the bronzy skin color". 
This is not specific to blacks only. We had a large Latino population and they noticed the color, too. But they were more uncomfortable discussing it out of their inner circle. Because the student body was a mixture of blacks and Latinos, but the teachers were evenly divided between blacks, whites and Latinos, the longer the whites worked there, the more we were viewed as neutral. But since Latino teachers could revert to another language when discussing stuff they didn't want understood, I got less of an insight.
I made many friends during my years teaching, and no matter what, we could all kid with each other about color without any malice. I had two girlfriends, one black and one white that I thought of as family. We used to goof around with the kids and tell them that we were sisters, and the kids never once doubted it. My only explanation is that the kids just watched how we engaged with each other, and saw a true affection between us and that transcended any color on our skin.
Which leads me to this question. Why is it that no matter how far we seem to make it in racial relations we can't seem to get comfortable with the idea that people come in an array of colors? Why do we feel the need to inform people about our "black friend" will be in attendance? Or that the white chick is with me, when going to a black club? If nature gave us eyes that perceive color, why shouldn't it be natural that these differences be just something that enriches our lives instead of dividing? Or is it true that no matter what, birds of a feather will flock together, and we just force ourselves into unnatural constructs? I would like to think that it's the content of our character that really counts and not the color of our skin. But then again, I tend to be idealistic.
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
Throwing around a few ideas after reading some stuff on the site today. All civil input welcomed!
Why do we feel the need to inform people about our "black friend" will be in attendance? Or that the white chick is with me, when going to a black club? If nature gave us eyes that perceive color, why shouldn't it be natural that these differences be just something that enriches our lives instead of dividing?
Ascribing "labels" to things … inanimate objects or people … labels beyond the generic, labels like bird, tree, etc. … then to more specific labels such as robin and oak … these enable us to make distinctions in a complex universe, and, in-and-of-themselves, avoid certain problems rather than creating them.
To a point, specific labeling of human beings is generally harmless … the tall guy, the strong guy, the women in the red dress … such labels, even with their possible connotations present virtually no problems.
But connotations attached to meanings are what take them beyond mere identification … because we are the sum total of our experiences to any given moment in time, almost nothing remains generic as an entity.
A CONNOTATION is an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.
And it is one of the tragic and appalling aspects of human nature to sometimes come to see "reality" as, instead of whatever it may be objectively, as a world of connotations.
Politicians, religions, families, ethnicities, races, regular schmoes … you name it … either innocently, out of lazy and sloppy "thinking," or, at worst, insidiously, glom on to not only generic labels, but connoted labels as well.
And here's the validation of that observation; so-called "political correctness" -- an orchestrated attack upon it -- is an "issue" being used in pandering to those most vulnerable to insidious, dumbed-down and often hateful labeling of entire demographics of humanity.
In my opinion, attacking "political correctness" is the equivalent of attacking "objectivity" as we come to regard people. Doing so encourages unfair labeling and reinforces stereotypes and often, hatred as well. The worst tyrants in the history of the world employed political incorrectness …
Make a label …nigger, kike, mick, spic, fag … tack on the stereotypes … reinforce them again, and again and again … make the labeled the scapegoats for bad times, bad luck, bad habits, the consequences of bad behavior and all the goes wrong … and count on the poorly educated, the bigot and the opportunist to buy it, sell it, run with, vote based on it …
LABELS … often a substitute for truth.
Attempting to get at truth means rejecting stereotypes and cliches. Harold Evans
I get your point Mac, but by saying the obvious, what you are doing is expressing your own angst over what you perceive others will think, which of course is really laid back at your doorstep.
To me being PC is making up an artificial construct as to not hurt that someone else wants, like dwarfs wanting to be called "little people". They are little, and they are people, but their condition is dwarfism. Do they need a special word just for them? Can't they just be people? And what about really short people? No special name? why?
As for the other words, they are slange and meant as insults. The words that everyone knows that they shouldn't use. Those words are the words of a bigot.
I see color and race when it comes to other people. I don't like people who always say "I don't see color." Well of course you do, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. When you "don't see" another person's color you are intentionally blinding yourself to their heritage. The problem comes to when you start treating them negatively because of their race or color.
Randy,
I agree that it is a artificial thing to say that you don't notice a persons color, but how far do we notice? I don't introduce people to my black friends as 'My black friend so in so", just my friend.
I'm not sure being a color necessarily comes with a heritage. Maybe a culture? And if it does, does that make a big difference in your relationship?
I don't introduce people to my black friends as 'My black friend so in so", just my friend.
Neither do I. Just as my friend. Even if the person I am introducing them to is blind.
Maybe a culture? And if it does, does that make a big difference in your relationship?
Yes, but not a big one, I show respect for the cultural differences between myself and them. In fact cultural differences are more important to me then color differences between myself and other people.
Most people of color were introduced into America as being subservient , if not subhuman. The people who were living here when the whites came weren't treated any better. Skin color became a rationale for conquest and exploitation. It was also the original sin of the United States as a nation. It's not that complicated. Remnants of those beginnings persist to this day. Racism has dissipated , especially in it's most obvious forms, but it is far from gone. There are numerous of stories of racism in the United States in the news somewhere in the country every day.
So according to you, if you notice color, it's the remnants of racism? Then what is it when black folks see white? Couldn't it just be that we are not blind? Isn't more important how we treat one another and not just taking note? When do we stop looking back and start looking forward?
It would be nice if we could just appreciate the variety of skin appearance without any baggage attached, and that will happen one day. I think that day will not occur in our lifetimes, but it will sooner or later.
It will first take people not hyping the baggage, and, On that note I would say practice what you preach and we may see it in our lifetimes.
You get a thumbs up for that NWM
If nature gave us eyes that perceive color, why shouldn't it be natural that these differences be just something that enriches our lives instead of dividing?
Racism is America's original sin. We can't just pretend it didnt happen, - slavery, theft of Indian land, mistreatment of the Chinese that came here, etc etc. America became a white country basically by force. We have to work through it over the course of as long as it takes. If there had never been the exploitation, violence and genocide, of course it would make sense to simply enjoy various skin colors because they wouldn't have any history we are reminded of and there would be no baggage attached to the concept of skin color variety.
You keep going back to racism, but this isn't about racism. It is about how we perceive each other.. one on one. When people look at each other, they are not thinking about history.. they are just looking at another human being, are we not?
Let me remove color from this. When I went to Germany, I didn't think a group of people who committed genocide. I judged them by how they responded to me. This is a human discussion.
Perrie, you yourself could be described as having the physical appearance of a German, so it wouldn't make any sense for you to see anything different about the way Germans look.
You can say all you want that people should not see "race" when they see skin color, but that is just not realistic.
You can say all you want that people should not see "race" when they see skin color, but that is just not realistic.
I am convinced from some of these comments that either I don't write well, or some of you are skimming the article. We have eyes, so of course we see race. We are not "color blind" visually. But what I am asking is if we should treat each other any differently just because our plumage is different? Is it what defines us, or is it just another aspect of who we are... like having blond or brown hair?
But what I am asking is if we should treat each other any differently just because our plumage is different? Is it what defines us, or is it just another aspect of who we are... like having blond or brown hair?
No, but I do treat people differently to some extent because of their culture. That's why I love Los Angeles so much. People of 100's of different cultures to meet, get to know, learn about, try their food, etc. Whether it was going down to The Soul Food Kitchen in South LA or picking up something to eat in little Ethiopia or shopping at Russian bakery in West Hollywood it was all fantastic! Food is a great way to get to know people of other cultures!
Randy,
I live in NYC.... This is the mother land of the melting pot. I don't treat anyone differently. I treat them like people. I enjoy and want to know our cultural differences, as the enrich my life... but bottom line is that we all human and as such our experiences are more alike than different.
I live in NYC.... This is the mother land of the melting pot. I don't treat anyone differently. I treat them like people. I enjoy and want to know our cultural differences, as the enrich my life... but bottom line is that we all human and as such our experiences are more alike than different.
However there are parts of their culture that I don't understand, so I am more careful around someone of a different culture until I find out how they feel about different thing so I don't accidentally insult them. I would expect the same from them. That is my version of treating people different according to their culture. Then, even after I understand their culture more, there are ways I don't speak or act around them because of their culture. Certainly I don't act and speak the same when speaking to an Orthodox Jew in Los Angeles, then I do when I am speaking to a farmer from my rural area of Michigan.
BTW, NYC is not the only huge melting pot of different cultures in America. So is Los Angeles just as much.
I think we are defined by others until we define ourselves. Our looks play a factor in how we are perceived but it doesn't confine us unless we want it to or unless we allow it to. Based on how we see ourselves influences how we'll see others.
Does that make sense?
John,
I don't believe in original sin. I do think that we have to recognize our injustices that have caused others pain. If you don't you are doomed to do it again. I also think that by not, you insult those groups that have suffered. But these are two different things. How we treat one another now and recognizing the past can be put into their own compartments.
Yes it does PJ.
But what I am asking is if we should treat each other any differently just because our plumage is different? Is it what defines us, or is it just another aspect of who we are... like having blond or brown hair?
I don't understand you. Do you think people will somehow just ignore 500 years of history because we "should" ? Because that is the nice thing to do?
But if that is all the question is going to be about, then yes, we should all treat everyone of every "plumage" the same and neither show favoritism or prejudice based on "plumage".
I don't understand you. Do you think people will somehow just ignore 500 years of history because we "should" ? Because that is the nice thing to do?
Let's try this a different way. Do you think that interracial couples talk about 500 years of injustice, or who is going to load the dishwasher? It is one thing to understand where your roots come from and a whole different thing to dwell on it... how does one move past.
I understand what your driving at girl, I'm sure most here do. WE need more people to think and understand the way you do. I grew up in Connecticut, with not only black skinned people but olive skinned ones and brown skinned ones and such and such.
Like you, I notice color but don't think anything of it. Most of my friends growing up were the same way.
But with making your point, you have run directly into the manner in which some people view their world. A world of past injustice and retribution for such being more important that living life.
On that basis they judge you not only by your appearance and alliteration, but by your forebears also.
Until such dies off we will always have a component of society that sees race discrimination and racism in every discussion of skin color.
No matter how racist their position illustrates them to be.
Because they deny their own guilt. And have to make everyone else more guilty than they.
AND lets not forget, with the "Original sin" comment above, with some it is a religion which carries all the weight of a baptist preacher shouting at you telling you your going to hell.
You always have been a pompous jackass NM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- “America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege and the Bridge to a New America” by Jim Wallis.
“In John 8:32, Jesus says, ‘You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,’ which is one of those moral statements that breaks through the confusion and chaos of our lives,” Jim Wallis asserts in “America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege and the Bridge to a New America,” his analysis of the current status of race relations in the United States.
“Untruths that we believe are able to control us, dominate us and set us on the wrong path,” he writes. “Untruths are burdens to bear and can even be idols that hold us captive – not allowing us to be free people who understand ourselves and the world truthfully.”
Perhaps the most defining feature of “America’s Original Sin” is the author’s spiritual frame of reference that permeates virtually every page of this compelling treatise. Those who possess a familiarity with the scriptures he consistently quotes will probably appreciate the narrative more than individuals less acquainted with the Bible, although many of the passages collectively could serve as an efficient primer on the teachings Wallis explains so efficiently. While the man has assumed many roles during his relatively long career – social activist, political pundit, cultural critic and academic scholar – he is first and foremost a theologian. His background and training serve him well in his latest effort, which is already in use as a supplemental text in several prestigious seminaries as well as a few secular institutions.
Adding to the book’s credibility is the author’s intimate involvement in many events that form the scaffolding on which his central thesis is constructed. This historical context provides him with an instrumental vantage point from which to interpret the racial tensions dominating our nightly newscasts. The enduring conflict between police officers and people of color is a concern that consumes a disproportionate share of the ink it took to produce this seminal contribution to the sociological canon.
“Not being able to trust the law enforcement in your community – especially in relationship to your own children – is a terrible burden to bear,” Wallis emphasizes in the inaugural chapter. “The stark difference in the way young black men and women are treated by police and our criminal justice system compared to white children is a deeply personal and undeniable structural issue for every black family in American society.”
The book consists of a preface and introduction followed by 10 chapters and an afterward. What distinguishes this particular volume from the plethora of other attempts to address the unfortunate consequences of racism in this country is the way Wallis uses his subjective experience as a canvas on which to paint this incredibly perceptive and moving indictment of how some segments of our population have treated, and continue to treat, other segments. Beginning when he was a teenager in Detroit in the 1960s, he describes the impact racism has had on his life. There are distinct advantages to having this kind of historical background from which to operate, and Wallis uses the insights he has gleaned in an amazingly effective manner.
“Most scholars believe that human civilization began in Africa or in the Middle East and that human migration moved out from there,” Wallis notes in the second chapter, one of my favorites. “Skin color would develop in different climates and cultures over the many years of human existence. But to suggest that differences in skin color would or should change the created reality of all human beings, made in the image of God, is both preposterous and profoundly evil. ...
“And ‘sin’ is the right word to use for racism, as we’ve been suggesting, because it’s something that seeks to undermine the very creation of human beings as being equally valued, loved and cared for in the eyes of God,” he writes. “Our worth as men and women comes from all of us being the children of God, and all other political affirmations of our equality derive not just from governments but directly from our identity as God’s equally valued children.”
“Our highest and most inspirational points as a nation have been when we have overcome our racial prejudices; our lowest and ugliest points have been when we have succumbed to them,” Wallis concludes. “Race is woven throughout the American story and each of our own stories. All of our stories can help to change the racial story of America. I hope you will join me in this hard but critical – and ultimately transforming – conversation.”
John,
I don't believe in original sin. I do think that we have to recognize our injustices that have caused others pain. If you don't you are doomed to do it again. I also think that by not, you insult those groups that have suffered. But these are two different things. How we treat one another now and recognizing the past can be put into their own compartments.
Perrie, the term "original sin" in this case is not a literal theological conclusion. I thought that would be obvious, but who knows what people think.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
For him to suggest that people who mention racism are the real racists is hilarious, in a bad way.
I have nothing against your article and your urging people to overlook skin color. Of course that is a good thing. But if it was the common or expected way for people to act in 2016, you wouldn't have written an article about it, would you have?
Some people are not consistent, they comment in ways that are all over the place. I stick to the message. There has been much progress about "race", but we still have a long long way to go.
For your much needed education John -
"Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind's first parents to the revealed will of God . In the Bible , the first human transgression of God's command is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden resulting in what theology calls the Fall of mankind. The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the Fall such that all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God. "
Also note that the term is "ethically" - not racially.
Please try to put the above in your mind so you can understand the difference between racism and the actual definition of "Original Sin".
The allusion to "original sin" is not meant to be a literal biblical or doctrinal judgement. It is metaphorical.
I wasn't aware that needed to be explained.
Then, coming from you with your many, many definitions - yes, it needs to be explained.
I don't look at color much but I am impressed in a bad way with the disastrous "culture" found throughout most of Africa ...
I guess I hit the proverbial nail on the head.
You know how people determine that they are correct in their reasoning John?
It's when the respondent resorts to insults to disparage the person when there is no logical response to their reasoning that can be made.
Have a nice day.
OH, nice biblical touch, what was that about it being a religion for some people?
I would offer that mentioning the color of your friend seems to only spark controversy when it's coming from a white person speaking about a black person but there isn't much if any attention giving when the distinction comes from a black person when speaking about a white friend. There seems to be a free pass given to one group while you put yourself at risk being labeled insensitive or racists if you're white. There is also mixed messages that we encounter. Some people want to celebrate their blackness while others get offended if you notice they're black. Some want to be referred to as African American and others are offended by the term and want to be referred to as black Americans. This is the part of political correctness that I abhor. We are set up to fail no matter what we say.
I have to agree with you that PJ, that the discussion seems to be a one way street. Blacks can be every bit as bigoted as individuals as whites or any other race can be. I am not fond of being PC, since that is a fake construct to hide the real ugliness underneath.
Color isn't everything . When I was growing up I was often beaten up by my older brother ...
Well that sucks Petey!
It used to suck . But those days are long past ...
I agree the differences have more to do with culture than skin color. I once asked a black friend why he spent more money on his car than his house. He told me you can sleep in your car you can't drive your house. We just saw things differently.
She had some horrible personality traits, which led to me ending the relationship - but I consider them to be personal issues rather than cultural issues. She would frivolously spend my money as fast as she possibly could. At the grocery store checkout, she would just grab candy, gum and magazines and throw it on my pile of groceries. She had a job, but never had any money. At the bar, she would order martinis and knock them down in a single slurp and order another, at $15 apiece, knowing I was picking up the tab. We would talk every night on the phone, then she'd go ten days without picking up her phone and act like that's normal. She tried to tell me that's just all part of her culture, but that's bullshit. She was just disrespectful in her core. Funny thing is, here it is seven years later and she still calls about every six months and wonders why I won't answer her call.
In my opinion you did a disservice to this discussion. Dean gave you a thumbs up, because you played into the script he has playing in his head about black people. We know this, not only by looking at his reply to you, but by looking at 95% of all his comments about blacks.
Everything you wrote about your girlfriend could and would also apply to certain white women, and women of every race.
Hal,
The cultural component you are referring to has a lot more to do with where she grew up, than being black.
Here is a story about my kids. They have a friend who they go to school with who is black. She grew up in an affluent area not far from us. She behaves no differently than us. Her experiences in Baltimore have driven her crazy. She says that when she hangs with black folk, they go all hip hop on her, even though they wouldn't behave that way when they are with white people. So now she only dates white guys. So what we are dealing with is a sub culture... and it only affects part of the black community.
LOL on the Gucci gene comment. Of course they are not...
But I addressed a tad down this tread. I think it is a universal thing among people who want status but really don't have the means. I see it here all the time with people and a good many of them are white.
Hal,
I don't think what you described is necessarily cultural differences that have to do with skin color, but rather how and where she was raised.
I have a friend who grew up here on Long Island. Her values are no different than mine. I think you wold have found her quite dateable (and she is very pretty, too).
I didn't mean to imply that we were culturally incompatible, I just meant that we came from different cultures and those cultures obviously influence our personalities to some degree. For instance, I would never spend $650 on a pair of these:
Hal,
I know white people who do that. It's pretending you are worth more than you are. A status symbol... and while I agree with you about it being stupid and a waste... it goes on everywhere and in many colors.
Those are some UGLY shoes! They look like the ones from National Lampoon's Vacation.
What a Be-otch! She clearly doesn't deserve your attention Hal. Don't take that women's calls. She sounds very inconsiderate and somewhat of a lush. Ladies sip we don't throw em back like sailors!
Growing up my mother was a single mom raising 5 children on her own after my father left. The only place she could afford to rent with 5 kids wasn't in the best part of town. Our babysitter was black. We were very young (maybe 1st grade) and we would go to her parents house and go to her family picnics. We were the only white people (kids) there. I don't remember ever feeling different. I became more aware of the differences when my mother moved us to another State and we lived primarily around white people.
In the almost 4 1/2 years I have been at this site, I can think of only one or two people who identified themselves as black who participated beyond a few scattered comments. The vast vast majority of the time there are no black regular contributors to Newstalkers. Some came and left almost immediately.
I was raised with two "fathers" - a white German/Dutch/Oneida one and a black African/German one. Both taught me to always value people based on their word and their actions and, even though everyone may have different skin tones, their blood is exactly the same color - red.
Hal and Perrie have made extremely valid points regarding cultural influences, regardless of skin color. Cultural differences are not race related, as John always believes. They are based on environment surroundings of many things - family beliefs, education, finances, religious upbringing, emotional integrity, strength, etc.. Shoes?? Clothing?? Housing?? Cars?? - cultural/personal - not racial nor color.
If you respect a person and give a person respect based on their word and their actions - nothing else will enter the picture.
WELL SAID 1st very well said!
Second that!
Many years ago, this Redheaded Irish girl from Brooklyn, (Bay Ridge) was having a party at her house in the San Francisco area. She told her friends ahead of time that her new boyfriend was red. They of course said what do you mean red, like Spiderman. No, said the redhead (with freckles) he's a redman. Huh said her friends. He's an Native American. Oh, said the group, like in the movies.
You can see where this is going, right?
At the party the Native American was introduced and everything was fine, although a bit strained at times. Everyone was being PC, until one women asked the NA if he would like some ''firewater''. He replied, you have been to to many Western's, I'll have a Famous Grouse, neat without the feathers.
A gentleman introduced himself and told NA that his friend was Native American. To which the NA replied, I'll bet he's Cherokee and his ggrandmother was an Cherokee Princess. How did you know the man said. Just a lucky guess said the NA.
Shortly there after one of the ladies at the party couldn't restrain herself any longer and reached over to touch his hair, which he wore in braids. He saw her reaching for his hair, turned to her and said. The hair is sacred and if you touch it you will have to sleep with me. Stunned silence in the room, the Native American smiled to himself, (we are stoic you know) and gave the lady, who's jaw was hanging on the floor a quick grin and a wink. Shortly after that they played ''The Party's Over''.
Mixed dating/marriages can be interesting at times. It's the stereotyping that is a problem. Color, not so much. Well perhaps her having red hair had something to do with it.
Stupid women....I would have kept going, touched the braid and paid the price! (wink, wink)
LOL me too PJ!
It's true that there are stereotypes Kavika and the further back in time we go, the freer people felt to express these. But would there have been anything wrong with them noticing that you were Indian? Couldn't that have been an observation and nothing more? Couldn't that have been a great teaching moment, to those who have never met an Indian. If you never met an indian, how would you know anything about their culture.
My daughter have gotten asked often, "What are you?', the obvious implications is "your not white". But they have gotten this question not just from white schoolmates, but from schoolmates of every color. They are never embarrassed of who they are, and are always willing to talk about their very mixed background. Maybe once we move past the stereotypes, we can learn something from one another. I know they have.
Nothing wrong with them noticing that I was Indian, it's the stereotypes that bother me. I did do some teaching. First it's not ''firewater'', it's Famous Grouse, neat without the feathers. Second that I'm the great Karnac since I was able through a quick vision know that his friend was Cherokee and gggrandmother was a princess. Thirdly, that an Indians hair is sacred and there is a price to pay if you touch it..(smile)....
So you see, I did my job as a teacher.
Why are you so tan? Do you get out in the sun a lot?? What kinda suntan oil do you use?
Yeah, as a lifeguard during the summers - got those a lot
Got so dark while living in Kansas, when I went back to register in community college in Mississippi, I was stopped at the front door and told "my kind" ain't allowed in school. "My kind?" I asked??? Yeah - we don't 'low no Ni**ers in our school. After I pulled my shirt up and pants part way down, they saw the "Red line" and started back-pedaling.
Yup - that was an interesting school year 'cause Miss. doesn't like Indians either.
Yeah, dad told me a similar story about Mississippi when he was in the Navy. But my dad, he gets as red as red can be... a nice deep bronzy red. I don't get that, but my daughters do.
I am not sure how that indian princess thing got started. I made sure when I was teaching that I brought in tribal reps to talk to the children, both who were women and they both put to bed that myth.
that was an interesting school year 'cause Miss. doesn't like Indians either
That sucks! :o(