gdp's Comments

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:11:09 +0000

DID SAM CHANGE YOUR VIEW ON THE WAR, AND HOW? Yes, Sam opened my eyes to an essential catalyst of this war: Christianity. While I was already aware of the unfairness of our nation’s desire for other’s oil and the major players who are waging the wars in the middle east, I did not realize their common Christian ideology weighed so heavily upon their decisions. While I know I should not have given Bush and Palin (I’m only citing these two politicians based on the quotes and videos heard in class) so much credit, I would expect a leader of our country, or another who aspires to be, to separate their church beliefs from the state. After all, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The lack of adherence to the amendments seems cultish, brainwashed. While I recognize the need for Christianity, I can’t help but think these men and women are not doing the ‘Christian’ thing, which is by definition: having or showing qualities associated with decency, kindness, and fairness. Although I was baptized as a Catholic, I have since thought for myself and realized that it is not a good fit for me since it conflicts my other ideologies (this war being another to add to the list). But I have to be careful with my distaste for this faith because I would be a total hypocrite to point a finger at them as the evildoer as emphasized by the lecture’s opening quote: “while nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him” – Fyodor Dostevsky. I do not understand the Christian politician standpoint but I will not denounce all of that faith as the evildoer. This does not separate me from the war, just as good-doing Christians do not deserve a bad rap for the indecency, unkind, and unfair desire to seize oil. I saw a few people squirm when Sam grouped their faith with negative current events but I also see those good-doers and myself as one. If they squirmed, they do not wish to be associated with negativity, therefore the war. I believe we are an unorganized group that should join together in opposition of a war we do not see worth fighting. I’ve been watching a Showtime series called ‘Homeland.’ Here is a shameless plug to encourage all to watch the show: “Who's the hero – who's the threat? When MIA Marine Sgt. Nicholas Brody returns home to a hero's welcome after eight years in enemy confinement, brilliant but volatile CIA agent Carrie Mathison isn't buying his story. She believes that Brody has been turned and is now working for Al Qaeda. What follows is a dangerous game of cat and mouse with nothing short of American national security at stake.” After watching a few episodes, I see Al Qaeda as dangerous, but many justifiable actions. The lecture left me with questions I would like to ask of those enlisted in the United States military: What made you enlist? Are you Christian? Do you believe in this war? Who is the enemy? Why are they the enemy?

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:36:06 +0000

I like this question. But I don't like my answer. It isn't cut and dry (as I would hope it would be since I am a woman). The major players involved in this scandal are three football coaches, a president of a university, an athletic director, and a professor. There are no women coaches. According to the American Council on Education, 23 percent of college presidents are women. There are an even smaller amount of female athletic directors, most of who handle the university’s women’s sports. Although I don’t know the statistics for our campus, women are underrepresented as professors in comparison to men across the nation. This type of inferiority does not create the media buzz that attracts the attention of the masses and in turn, fuels the fire. Our women’s volleyball team has proved to be a powerhouse throughout my career, as a Penn State student, but attracts little to no attention in comparison to the arguably mediocre football team. This invisibility becomes even clearer when looking back on the years that men dominated the campus and the powerful positions all over the world. But men can’t take the blame. It is worth mentioning that one woman (in my opinion) is guilty of enabling too. The current Centre County Judge, Leslie Dutchcot, proved that a woman in this situation can also make mistakes. She has since been replaced, but Dutchcot was responsible for setting Sandusky free on a $100,000 unsecured bail while the prosecutors suggested the penalty for the sexual assault case to be a secured $500,000 bail and an issuing of a leg monitor for the child abuser. It has since been released that Dutchcot was a donor to The Second Mile. This proves that women are just as capable or guilty when it comes to performing favors. Despite the latest news of McQueary claiming he went to the police, I believe it is HUMAN instinct to be afraid in that situation. I am a female, and although I’d like to think I’d do the right thing, I have leaned toward ‘flight’ more often that ‘fight’. If a woman were to be wearing Joe Paterno’s black Nikes, I think a more emotional response would have taken place, given the scientific research that women are more sensitive, this could also be applied to the positions of athletic director and professor/one in charge of university police. I think it would be sexist to say that a woman president of the university would not put as much emphasis on the football program and instead shift the focus onto saving the lives of innocent children, but there is a giant number standing in between that spectrum of reaction: $87 million. That’s how much a home football game brings the local businesses (university included). And although it is sad to say, this distorts the history of the case. In the foreground we see a bunch of people doing nothing, but the background factors have all to do with the reason this case is presented in the courts, but is taken into little consideration. This is the same for every court case and a sad society ill.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:09:30 +0000

I ate the second piece of chocolate. I chewed and swallowed it despite the pain in my stomach. The pain wasn’t hunger, it was my gut reaction to how we, living in the developed nations, act out of self interest all too often. I put myself first, that is one of the reasons I ate the chocolate, but I should not do so at the expense of others. To refuse the second piece already given to me would be worse than what the Ivory Coast child laborer described as being the equivalent of, “eating his flesh.” To waste a food that was produced with the help of slave labor would be even more disdainful (for lack of a better word or parallel to eating his flesh). Also, to say I did not eat the second piece out of sympathy for the young boys may be true, but it is a snack food that I can not guarantee that I will steer clear from for the rest of my life. It also does not make up for the mass amounts of Kit-kats I consumed a week ago while celebrating Halloween. While I did put free-trade chocolate on my grocery list, I will make little difference. The major players in this game, as in most, are the corporations. Those producing the chocolate have to know about these conditions their partly subjecting these young men to. As Sam said, it is an easy fix with a very minute monetary shift. I have a lot of white guilt on this issue and the broader problem of slavery around the world. It is morally wrong and I know my iPhone, Nike running shoes, any of my cotton clothes, and Kit-kat bars are fueling the fire. So this is where I have to come to terms with the theme of Tuesday’s lecture and ask myself, “What does this mean for my vision of the world” and more-so, what am I going to do about it? We learned that society is a cohesive unit that functions best when believing in similar moral truisms. How did we let the major players get their starting position without abiding by the rule book that we as a society try to follow? While I am in no position to fire those in power, I made a promise to myself to become a smarter consumer, and it won’t stop at fair-trade chocolate. This website: http://ethisphere.com/2011-worlds-most-ethical-co... was bookmarked as a favorite and I will make an effort to trade in my Nikes for Adidas as well as post the link to my Facebook page to raise fair-trade awareness. By the end of the day, my stomach pain was curbed, at least for Tuesday’s issue. Today is a new day.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:36:02 +0000

To feel negatively about, “foreigners take advantage of American’s laziness when it comes areas of math and science,” epitomize this slothful stereotype. I don’t believe anyone is ‘taking advantage of Americans’ as much as it is ‘foreigners making the most of their lives.’ We’re the land of the free, right? While I don’t want to speak for others, I highly doubt their concern is about the lazy citizens of the nation in which they’re studying, they have bigger fish to fry. Speaking for Americans, I’ll use my two hands. On one, international students serve as competition. In my own definition, I don’t mean an‘us vs. them’ resentful competition, (strictly statistically speaking about sociologists studies) because on the other hand, international students serve as stimulators of globalization. But I have to admit my biases; I am not surrounded by this competition because I study journalism, English, and sociology. I may come off as an onlooker that is wearing rose-colored glasses. To me, combining math and science results in technology. New findings within these fields mean new advancements in the tech world. Do these lazy Americans not love video games; do these American students not want to keep up with the Joneses? (feel free to insert whatever translation of Joneses to the respective ‘foreigners’ referenced). I picture this on a globalization spectrum with ‘foe’ being on the far left and ‘friend’ at the extreme right. Although a lot of non-Americans wouldn’t want to befriend our nation, there are 192 other nations that we are ‘united’ with through the UN, because these member states consent agree that cooperation in international law, security, economics, social progress, human rights, and world peace are key. Why would we resent future colleagues in combating these issues? To close America’s school doors would be an acceptance of stagnancy. But our nation would not stand being stagnant, that’s why WE are the ones taking advantage of them. This is where I take off my rose-colored glasses. That’s why we’re looking to get ahead economically by hiring illegal immigrants for low farm wages. That’s why we’re offering the H-1B visas that Sam talked about in class. These grant a pass for those foreign born with “specialty occupations” that we want to keep around in order to better these fields within our boarders. As the slide last lecture, “We relax our boarders to accommodate business needs.’ But these occupations: ‘including but not limited to architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, biotechnology, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties,’ are afforded to every American as well. It’s is the individual’s fault for letting a foreigner get ahead, that and the companies that pay H-1B employees lower wages. Encourage education early in these fields, get these kids equally as hungry, and promote the social progress and human rights aspect of our United Nation’s agreement.

World In Conversation : Arizona Senators Vote to Allow College Clubs to Refuse Members

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:59:17 +0000

Whatever happened to applying ‘strict scrutiny’ to cases that may be perceived by a layperson to be discrimination? I’m a layperson in this case, and can’t separate this vote from discrimination based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judicial review that our nation’s courts are to apply to issues like these. It weighs the government’s interest vs. the constitutional rights. The government would have interest in this topic only if the college’s clubs were causing problems. These problems, like violence between club members, would have to be the reason that the issue was called to the senators attention and then they were to vote. The only reference to a ‘fight’ I read resulted in law students thinking they were an exception to the academia they study: In 2004 the Christian Legal Society, made up of law students, sued Arizona State University after the group was denied official recognition because it refused to accept members who were not Christians. Similar legal fights broke out across the country. This interest group should be most aware that our government has a separation of church and state, and the senators should have half a brain to know that going back on their word sets the example for future lawyers and soon-to-be-senators, to govern themselves, their clubs, and maybe their states with a Christian fist. This is not of government interest and should have been ruled out by applying strict scrutiny far before it reached voting time. While I wish this issue never presented itself, I realize that regardless of legislation allowing it, discrimination among clubs exists. I am not naïve and have heard enough talk around campus to be able to name the ‘Jew fraternity’, ‘rich girl sorority’, and the ‘uncool THON committees.’ I also get why people have an affinity for certain groups that share beliefs similar to their own, but that does not mean that the white kid, who desires to join the black caucus for equal rights reasons, should be denied. Nor does it mean that the ‘Jew fraternity’ should close its doors to a dude who wishes to network within their community due to future career goals and it most certainly should not mean that a girl’s parents have to reel in X amount of dollars in order to get along with the girls that go to chapter wearing nothing but name brands. The last example sounds extreme, but it is applied discrimination, just as the first two. The only way to form opinions on important matters, to figure out personal stances to societal issues is to hear both sides of the story. A young Republican club member should be allowed to attend the Democrat’s meetings, in order to solidify, or alter their own beliefs. But ‘OWN’ is the key word, no laws should interfere with that individual’s preference to experience all he/she can during college.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0000

I cannot speak for the entire world while trying to imagine black supremacy. I do not know enough about the interactions between Latinos, Mexican, and or Asian (from countries other than the United States) with black people. It is also worth mentioning that dark skinned people did rule the world, and as years go by and cold and cloudy climates caused melanin to fade, these pale people made up the races we are debating. Maybe black people wouldn’t have done that? While this thought has sparked my curiosity, for the time being I’ll go with what I know and that’s that they’re now to be considered supreme. I apologize for limiting the scope but my view of my surroundings is also limited. (As Sam says, seeing the world through a white woman’s eyes, in PA, a state we just learned in class is way white, no less.) Let’s assume that black people chose to come to America rather than being transported for slavery. As a whole, I imagine the scales to be tipping at the same angle with opposite colors in the two pans. (Blacks would have the advantage). Society as a whole would probably have the same rules with a role reversal. First, black people would start as the majority race. That being said, I imagine the notion of WASPs would crumble. A WASP or upper-middle-class white American Protestant who have had the most power throughout our nation’s history would be faced with the reversed racism that black people feel today, and felt even stronger yesterday. This oppression would also apply to the economic realm and the white race would occupy the lower levels of the ladder: housing, education, and occupational advancement. For this reason, Obama may even be the leading candidate for all white people because he’d be at least whiter than his predecessors. I don’t think acting/talking white or black would have the same degrading meanings, but I do think both groups would maintain distinctions unique to themselves in order to feel a sense of belonging. Speaking of belonging, skin cancer cases, due to over-exposure to the sun, are likely to increase along with the sales of bronzer and self-tanner. Just as there is whitening cream now, I’m sure a lot of white people would hope to cross over or at least wish to blend in with mainstream. These white people would still idolize America’s athletes, being that the majority of them are already black, but the owners and coaches would be too. While it is hard to say if this sort of supremacy would change the behavior of the high-profile athletes that are also convicted felons, it would be interesting to see the prison rates and statistics for white incarceration.

World In Conversation : Blog about "happiness" for SOC 119 and discover something useful

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:14:46 +0000

I loved this article. Before I logged onto the worldinconversation website to finish an assignment, I was under the impression that ‘Happy’ Valley’s seemingly constant rain made me the antithesis of happy. After reading, I realize weather has nothing to do with it and that I will remember this article far after I meet the 450 word count. The article also posed the question: why live? I’m not about to jump out of my high-rise apartment window, but why carryout the voluntary actions of daily life? Applying the ‘Six sigma’ test (we learned in class, about asking why 5 times to get the root answer) to every task within my routine, everything on the to-do list was done in order to achieve satisfaction (same as happiness?) within. This is the ‘buzzkill’ section of the brain that the article refers to with, “As it turns out, the human brain is equipped with "hedonic set points" which not only establish where our base mood is (optimistic, pessimistic or indifferent); but also adapts rather quickly to our surroundings and returns to our base frame of mind. Basically, we all have a built-in buzzkill app.” But I’m going to ‘force quit’ my hedonic set points while regarding my daily life because I believe the world is inherently good, not bad. And although a follow-up click on the ‘hedonic set points’ article showed me: “There’s surprisingly little in the happiness literature about raising children, which in and of itself is odd. Odder still is that most of it suggests children don’t make parents any happier…every bit of data says children are an extreme source of negative affect, a mild source of negative affect, or none at all. It’s hard to find a study where there’s one net positive.” I’m going to look at the positives and say I’m glad that my family reared me and my two sisters, even if we caused unhappiness. And I’m also glad that my sister is choosing to do the same. Though I don’t know if I’m willing to jeopardize my seemingly slim chances at happiness by birthing a child, her two kids have truly enriched my life with innocence (that’s why I believe the world is good). This example, of family members bringing me happiness, was the article’s sign-off, which made me feel like I’m doing something right: "... the best way to increase your happiness is to stop worrying about being happy and instead divert your energy to nurturing the social bonds you have with other people ... If there's one thing you're going to focus on, focus on that. Let all the rest come as it will." If you’re reading this post, call your parents, best friends, and lovers, to experience the only sure shot at happiness.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classrom

Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:24:24 +0000

Do you think gay inequalities will diminish before racial inequalities, and why? The fight for gay equality has been referenced as “the civil rights movement of our time.” I disagree. This comparison implies that racial inequality is a thing of the past. If this was the case, the posed question wouldn’t have crossed our minds. The current studies considering the poverty levels of black and brown families wouldn’t be carried out. And surely, this blog wouldn’t have been written. While I certainly don’t have an answer as to why the gays have made more progress than those of racial minorities, I’m going to ‘kick out’ (as Sam says) my perspective as to why we learned on Tuesday, that an increasing percent of Americans are accepting ‘being gay’ before ‘being black’. Feel free to kick it back: 1. “Skin deep” factor: black people are staring inequality in the face while gays have the ability to blend into everyday society without publicizing the label that the discrimination stems from. 2. Age of struggle: while slavery has existed for centuries, the race was variable. Gays have existed since the first drafts of all religious writings. Gays were born as already free people (assuming they’re distinct from people of color) that struggle for acceptance and normalcy. 3. White people are forced to deal: most white people don’t know the trials and tribulations that the black and brown folk have to deal with. They can read about the painful history and sympathize for friends who have struggled due to racism but those don’t hold a candle to daily personal experiences. White people can tune in and out of that inequality – unless they are gay. Then they too are living outside of society’s norm. There is no reason for either inequality to exist upon learning that there is only .01 percent different in both gay and racial differences. Gay sex ends differently (the rest mirrors heterosexual acts) and the black and browns have different skin color and physical attributes (hair, nose, eyes, and facial structure is only a tenth of a percent different from the DNA of our society’s rule, the white male. But these white males have the desire and power to protect themselves and their families from any inherent danger; unequal treatment of their lesbian daughters and gay sons would and should not be tolerated. Therefore, this issue can be seen cutting in front of ones of its kind (race) due to the white’s demand of research, education and legislation on LGBT issues. Now, this struggle seems petty compared to the deadly fight for racial equality. Regardless, the two groups are seen as different from the mainstream. The existence of “different,” no matter how defined, is society’s attempt to justify current social and legal inequalities, regardless of the inequality’s diminishing rate.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:00:52 +0000

I know the question asks what stereotypes of race (other than my own) do I not believe in…but I want to addresss all pigeonholes of society; proving that no one’s classification (whether personally labeled or assumed) are left out of the sweeping generalities of stereotyping. I’m not claiming to be unbiased – that is proved by the fact that I’m only listing one stereotype per ‘classification’ of the following major subdivisions in our classroom: color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, and political affiliation. I chose these subjects because no one’s definition of race is the same, nor should it be. “Weed is a black person’s drug” – Obama (who is black along with a few other color categorizations) has admitted to smoking weed, as has Sam. The stereotype is formed, in my opinion due to racial profiling and the results of arrests for drug-related crimes, which slants this direction – not a direct correlation, only a coloration. While we’re at it, the given people should dispel the assumptions about the drug that if you smoke pot, you’re going nowhere. “White people can’t dance” – Tuesday’s class should rid at least 700+ people of this assumption. RAM Squad’s white kid killed it during the commercial break. Check this site’s sidebar if you missed it. “Landscaping is for Mexicans” – the first assumption is that every Mexican residing in the United States is an illegal immigrant that is willing to employ jobs that citizens do not want. What about the prevalence in the food industry or construction? And if they’re legal, they’re obtaining jobs similar to every other classification. “Asians are geniuses when it comes to math” - in my discussion group, the three visibly Asian guys wrote this assumption for the icebreaker/list a misconception activity on the first day. “Christians are anti-science” - the National Center for Science Education polled a bunch of Christians – one group in particular – the Roman Catholics – found that 49% believe in evolution. “Jews are stingy” - This was a stereotype that came when Jewish persons that survived the Holocaust became cautions and self-reliant and snowballed from there, positive qualities turned into a negative. “Muslims are terrorists” – see ‘Shadowboxing with Race’ pg. 52. “Atheists are evil/moralless” – I’m an atheist and I don’t support violence of any kind, I simply don’t agree with every aspect of individual religions, pieces, yes. “What makes a ‘Real Man’”- Their ultimate goal is to spend his life slumped in front of the football game on TV, beer in hand, and waiting for his wife to cook him something appropriately manly, like steak ….since when? “Females are less intelligent” – According to the Dept. of Edu. Before 1981, men received more bachelor's degrees than women, and in every year since then women have received more bachelor's degrees than men. I had more outlined for gays, straight, republicans, and democrats but I’ve exceeded the word count, and don’t want to bog my TA down, reply if you want to hear them. And while my examples aren’t necessarily the ‘norm’ for any of these ‘classifications’ it just proves that groupings, and their stereotypes are blanket statements made about an individual who may only represent himself or herself.

World In Conversation : Everyone Respond to This For This Week's Blog!

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:00:57 +0000

When it comes to racism, I have to force myself into thinking beyond the American boarders. It exists internationally and is often one of the issues that predominantly poor nations suffer most from, unless natural disasters force you and your country to restart. This is the case for the Haitians I just virtually met. I took a basic management class last semester and my professor taught us that only one in five US businesses survive the first five years of existence. That’s a tiny percentage and I bet Haiti’s rate is even lower. There’s a big world with bigger problems out there; the US businesses have the ideas, finances, materials, and employees needed to succeed and still fail. How the hell can Haitians survive? I think our discussion groups are capable of coming together (with lessons of past classes in mind as well as our current Soc 119 lessons) and assist the 7 million plus people living in the Caribbean country. While fashion interests me, especially Clorene Blaise’s precise embroidery, silk pressing, and handbag makings and Euclid’s fashion designing inspirations and hand painted clothes, assisting these women would only be beneficial to a few of the citizens of the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Clorene employs (from what the video depicted) around five people and is interested in gathering cheaper textiles and raw materials from locations other than the neighboring Dominican Republic. Euclid’s struggle is similar. Her family business consists of her husband carrying out the financial duties while she is the brains of the operation that wishes to design themed collections of clothes. I understand that helping a single person can make a difference, but with professionals already buying her hand-painted apparel and bringing materials to her, I couldn’t help but think that there are projects that exist to serve more than a family or a handful of employees. What about the 1.5 million homeless? That’s one fifth of the country, a more disheartening statistic than the 1 in 5 success rate of American businesses. The brightest idea I heard, came from the sun. Jean-Ronel Noel’s company, ERNESA, has a multi-faceted plan that can assist Haiti in numerous ways: environmentally, safety, employment, personal electricity, and politically to name a few. He already has 35 employees and established that one goal of his company is to create more jobs in Haiti so outsourcing the production of materials seems more like selling out. Local banks did not grant his business the needed loan but I think the money lies within the polititians that pay for their handmade shirts that Euclid makes. Although he alluded to proposing his business plan to the government personnel, the video’s audio was hard to hear and I think he failed to see that he can’t just convince the political heads to install his street lights, they need to develop an agency (for him) that will promote the business, spread the word, inform the public that their streets need to be well lit so that crime can be avoided. If lobbyists exist, find ones who believe in a safer, greener planet and increase the demand for this project.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:56:26 +0000

The posed question: why do some people find certain accents attractive and others unattractive, is brainless to me. Assuming that these accents we’re talking about stem from a difference in language. From the start, I find the common theme of people interpreting the language barrier as an element of mystique. There is an air of mystery and awe about a foreign land and their customs that vary from our every day doings. Speaking with someone who is from Europe (just an example) and speaks a native tongue as his or her primary language is refreshing and newness is attractive. The actual flow of words coming out of these European’s (to continue the example) mouths varies though. So maybe this question is not brainless, but elementary at best. Somewhere within the grades K-8, we all learned about Latin and how the ‘Romance Languages’ stemmed from this now dead language. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, Catalan, (and so I don’t seem so bias, the West African languages: Aragonese, Aromanian, Arpitan, Asturian, Corsican, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Friulian, Galician, Ladino, Leonese,Lombard, Mirandese, Neapolitan, Occitan, Piedmontese, Romansh, Sardinian, Sicilian, Venetian, and Wallon.) The lexical similarities prove easy on the ears because of another lesson learned in our elementary education: euphony vs. cacophony. As a refresher, euphony is defined as: the quality of being pleasing to the ear through a harmonious combination of syllables or a string of words. The listed languages prove to be fluid and almost melodic when sentences are strung together. Cacophony, or harsh, discordant mixtures of sounds are not attractive to anyone. That’s why German is not included in the romance category. The first language in the Eurpean Union has so much cacophony going on. Our own language is a result of German and still I was taught that learning this language would be the most difficult of the three taught in my curriculum. And to me, it sounded the ugliest. Harsh consonants break up the flow of the words and even the vowels aren’t used to their advantage. The dipthongs, or two adjacent vowel sounds occurring within the same syllable are a common sight in the German language (and our own). Te amo – Spanish Ich liebe dich – German I love you – English You be the judge. If we are strictly talking about accents from the last example of English, the question becomes a bit more difficult. Why some people find different dialects (of English, i.e. Southern) attractive, is more a matter of personal opinion than the lingo breakdown above. If you are a straight guy (who assumes that accents/dialects plays a role in the attractiveness of a human being)people of such a nature (prolonged ‘aw’, hard ‘g’, dropping ‘r’ sounds). In contrast, if you’re that same straight dude looking for a woman who can cook a country breakfast and serve you politely, check out Alabama, their manners, and the drraawwwll of their dialect.

World In Conversation : Voices From The Classroom

Thu, 8 Sep 2011 01:22:41 +0000

Last class coincidentally coincided with my outside reading of the book, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, a Low Culture Manifesto (Now with a New Middle)" by Chuck Klosterman. The author outlines an instance where he once polled his friends via email about who they would rather date; an attractive person or an attractive person who was also patriotic. No other details were provided or could be ascertained about the imaginary attractive person. All of his friends except for one responded negatively towards patriotism. He writes: “Comparisons were made to Ted Nugent and Patrick Henry. And one especially snide fellow sent back a mass message to the entire e-mail group essentially claiming that any woman who loved America didn’t deserve to date him, not because he hated his country but because patriotic people weren’t smart (42-43).” The lone supporter of patriotism was his lawyer friend who had an aggravated reply, “You know how historians call people who came of age during World War II ‘the greatest generation’? No one will ever say that about us…we’ll be ‘the cool generation.’ That’s all we’re good at, and that’s all you and your friends seem to aspire to (43).” While I think the question posed by the America’s-favorite-pastime-fan, “Why can’t we all just be Americans?” deserves to be called into question, I ask in return, “who wants to be solely categorized as “American.” Every time I type the word the voices in my head annunciates the four-syllable word with a stern southern accent (ignorant I’ll admit). While I don’t mean to categorize all southerners as blindly patriotic, my minimal encounters with these folks have given way to this generalizing stereotype. Before I get controversial, it is worth mentioning that I take pride in being a citizen of the United States and I respect the grounds I’m living on and how much ground our country has covered since the founding fathers. In contrast, respect my father’s father and his journey from Ireland to AMUURRICA. Irish blood runs through my veins, not American. If anyone, those indigenous to Canada, Mexico, Central, South, or North America are OK to call themselves American. I want to keep my family history close, and appreciate the way it has shaped who I am, and the knowledge I have of my European ancestry. It gives me an appreciation for other lands that I would have otherwise disregarded in giving up being Irish to blindly become AMUURRICAN. Why I feel that I can’t ‘devote my vigorous support for my country’ (patriotism’s definition) is twofold: my shared characteristics with those in Ireland and politics. Some Republicans claim America as their own and run campaigns accordingly. They place heavy emphasis on patriotism as if they are the only ones who love their country. Debate attacks target democrats with claims that the liberal policies and agendas are based on what other countries have done which links them to being unpatriotic and un-Amuurrican (i.e. healthcare policies). We learned the class prior that we’re all monkeys. Why can’t we monkeys learn from the lawyer who isn’t worried about being cool and focus on loving baseball and our country while still embracing our specific pasts and involvement in other cultures and their points of view?

World In Conversation : Voices From the Classroom

Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:20:04 +0000

As soon as I heard the question, “where do you draw the line between personal preferences and interracial prejudice regarding melanin differences,” the image of a venn diagram popped into my mind. I would not willingly ‘draw the line’ and typecast myself as ‘A’ or ‘B’ but I believe I fall in the gray area between the two and I think the white guy that likes the tan girl is sitting along side of me. I do not think we are the racist type nor do we limit ourselves to dating other races – we simply have ‘types.’ I know that sounds contradictory, but with over twenty years of life experiences under our belts, we know what we like, or at least prefer. To prefer one over the other isn’t racist. I love chocolate and vanilla ice cream but given a free scoop of either, nine times out of ten I’d pick vanilla (the one instance of choosing chocolate is during that time of the month). And just as my vanilla ice cream brings me joy, so does my white boyfriend. While I prefer his looks in the summer months, I won’t breakup with him come December because his pale skin accents his red pimples. But prior to my joy-bringing-boyfriend, I thought I wanted a different ‘type’ that can be categorized by the qualities: smart, athletic, medium height, brown hair, blue eyes – Type A if you will. The joy-bringing-dude is still smart, but in the street sense of the word, athletic but doesn’t play a sport here at school, tall as hell, 6’4” and has black hair and green eyes. He is interracial. His mom’s dad is black. But you wouldn’t know it in the winter. I wasn’t even informed until I met the grandfather. Upon learning his family’s background I asked myself the same question, if I met him while he was tan, would I have been prejudice regarding our melanin difference? Now, I don’t give a shit. I’ve caught myself giving a second look at men darker (Mexican, middle eastern, black) than my previous type-A, with the notion that Sam has brought up in class, we don’t know people’s races at first glance. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but some people have outside pressures weighing in on their types. Some parents may object to bringing home a boyfriend of a different color, mine were leery. Until I asked why were they prejudice against him but not our African American neighbors that they love. Hopefully the beauty beholders are not making 'type' like decisions due to stereotypes of Indians smelling like curry, Asians outwitting you, Whites not being able to keep up with your dance moves, or Blacks being too outspoken for you to participate in the conversation. Just as we don’t know people’s race at first glance, we know even less about their personalities.