Quote:
Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
Not to inject myself into Delta business, but the tone of the conversation epitomizs the essence of your Founders quote. When people have an agenda, they will frequently miss the point of a well-intentioned statement for the sake of their own agenda. That is what makes "petty differences" the stumbling block that they are.
Omega has struggled with the same nonsense and fortunately, our leadership has come to its senses and realized that Omega is its Members and not the plaything of a chosen few's political ambition. Much unneccessary discord was sown by the executive directors' choice to make the "DOG" symbol a pariah in the Frat 10 years ago. 99% of the body was appalled, yet unheard. The political members wanted to make a statement rather than being fraternal. No one really could estimate the irrepairable damage intake would do to Greekdom, but it has had its most deleterious effects on Omega. It was adopted over cries of bloody murder by good brothers. Fortunately, Omega has seen the wisdom in reversing both of these divisive actions as they have seen how these policies have weakened the bond by creating "petty differences" where once, these differences did not exist.
I have been to Delta weddings where the bride was afraid to sing the "non-protocol" version of the "Sweetheart Song" or "oo-oop" at its conclusion for fear of a dirty look or tongue lashing from the "protocol police". Petty?
Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the term "Coleman Love"? Because it derived from a book (ISOS) that a chosen few find offensive because it tells a story that does not coincide with their own idealized beginnings of their choice ? A relationship, real or imagined, unofficial or incorrectly perceived, has always existed between Delta and Omega long before the publication of ISOS and the coining of the phrase "Coleman Love". Why is this even an issue? It is the height of pettiness. When a Delta calls me at 2 AM and says "Bruh, I have a flat, can you come get me/fix it?" or "Bruh, one of my chapter sisters is in town, can you look out for her?", should I not extend that little extra because some people do not care for what did or did not happen in the Fall of 1912?
What your founder so eloquently stated and relates to every org, is that blind ambition and inability to compromise are hinderences to progress. Can we really see past our rigid dogma, intolerance, and refusal to understand a dissenting opinion? Arguments about terminology, "Coleman Love", real or paper, financial vs t-shirt wearer, are really about who gets to exert power over who. Do you really listen and hear how superior "financial members" sound when speaking of unfinancial ones? Sounds eerily similar to those who "pledged" speak of paper memebers. Its the same air of haughty disdain which creates a dialog that goes nowhere because "petty differences" leads to people talking past one another. As Greeks, we all need to wake up and be aware of this phenomenon. Instead of censoring conversation, can we elevate it?
Forgive my intrusion and if I overstepped my bounds in any way, please delete this post.
|
What is going on here with respect to one or two of the issues raised by "the411" are not petty arguments, it is a display of two sorors who choose to disagree with regard to what our history is. I CHOOSE accept our ACTUAL history as it was taught to me. Anything else is subject to debate, which is what this is. I also chose to embrace Omegas and all of my fellow greeks with repect and love, just not in the same vein as "the411" or some other Sorors that choose to perpetuate "Coleman Love"
And I personally do not "talk down" to any soror whether financial or non-financial, and if that has happened, then it is up to the soror in question to stick up for herself and refuse that treatment. All in all, any soror who would mistreat another has missed the point of sisterhood in my eyes, whether financial or not. And any soror who would not approach another tactfully with regard to our protocol is just as suspect. Simply because some of us choose to accept the history we learned and follow our protocol, does not mean we are all the "protocol police". All people have varying levels of tact.
If you CHOOSE to help a Delta that calls you for a flat in the middle of the night, I would commend you and I would find you chivalrous, simply because your a gentleman, who is also an Omega.
But if I call you and EXPECT that you should come, SIMPLY BECAUSE I am a Delta and we have a "bond" that demands you respond to my needs, then I have a problem. That is the perception SOME MEMBERS OF BOTH ORGANIZATIONS have with regard to this entire issue. I would think that you would be just as ready to help your AKA, Sigma Gamma Rho, and Zeta Phi Beta friends (or anyone else), if they should need your help in that manner. And then to further ostracize those that do not embrace "CL" also smacks of intolerance. (not that you are)
As for the "political" members of the organization vs. the "silent majority". I can't speak to Omega's issue with the dog, but if the majority of the organiztion present didn't approve, then how was it that a unilateral decision was made? I think that was an example of the inactivity that plagues all of our organizations. If the "majority" was against that action, then it should have been voted down. The problem was that those who didn't support the directive were not present or able to prevent it, and that is unfortunate.