I believe that affirmative action will still be needed in the next few decades but not in the form it's in now. In the next few decades the gap between the rich and the poor is expected to widen. The rich will be able to afford a multitude of resources for getting into college, getting good jobs, etc. that people in the lowest socioeconomic groups won’t. This will only worsen the disparity between the rich and the poor in the US, so I think affirmative action needs to be re-shaped to look at each individual’s socioeconomic income rather than factors such as race.

I’m an African-American so I’m not going to pretend that Affirmative Action hasn’t affected me in my schooling as far as college acceptances, scholarships, etc. But even so, my thoughts and overall opinion of AA are pretty complicated and not fully formed. I will address them later.

For now I’d just like to say that one of the most annoying things that comes with discussing AA with other people is the fact that the topic of AA is almost always relegated exclusively to race. The most common connotation for AA is the idea that people within underrepresented races get opportunities that whites of equal (or higher) qualification are denied. And although that idea can potentially describe many of the situations in which affirmative action plays a part, it doesn’t accurately describe all of them.

I’d like to use myself as an example to illustrate this point, my college search during my senior year in high school in particular. As I already stated, I’m an African American student. My high school grades and test scores exceeded the requirements for Penn State and during the college application process I viewed it as a “safety” school. And obviously, since I’m typing this blog post now, I made it in and chose to come here.

But let’s just pretend things were different and I was kind of teetering on the edge of the minimum requirements. And let’s pretend that even though Penn State wasn’t such a safe bet, I still made it in. Let’s also go as far as to say that another person, of white descent, who had the same grades and test scores as me, didn’t make it in.

I think the first thing that person would think is that affirmative action played a role in my being selected to attend Penn State and they would assume that the biggest factor in my being selected over him or herself would be my race. However, they wouldn’t be taking into consideration all of the different factors that go into the student selection process that Penn State employs. Penn State looks at factors such as whether or not the student is from Pennsylvania, whether or not the student’s parents went to Penn State, etc. The entire selection process doesn’t just come down to race, even in cases where affirmative action is used.

Having taken this course, my views on affirmative action are that it is needed in schools, the workforce, and wherever else, but not necessarily by looking at just one factor such as race. I think the prevailing factor behind affirmative action should be socioeconomic status. What resources does this person have to get ahead? In the case of a high school student looking at colleges, does a poor person have the same access to tutors and good schools as a rich person? And in the case of finding jobs, does everyone have the same network of well-connected peers?

And after learning about race and socioeconomic status in America through this course, I think that affirmative action would still pan out the way it is currently in regards to race due to the fact that underrepresented minorities are typically the least affluent in the country.

I agree with this statement and that the media is a huge factor in the ethnocentrism that each culture has for other cultures in the world.

I think it should also be noted that large media companies in the United States are controlled by people who may have their own political beliefs and are using their power in a corrupt manner to emphasize their own political agendas to the public.

That’s why I think it’s good that Twitter and Facebook are becoming increasingly popular for sharing news. That way news is passed on directly and virally by people who are there to experience it, as opposed to being broadcasted by corporations. As technology improves more and more people will have access to cameras, smartphones, and whatever else they need to become their own reporters and show people what’s really happening in the world around them.

I think to truly overcome ethnocentrism someone from one culture must immerse themselves completely into another culture. Until that person has “lived in the shoes” of a person from another culture on a practical level (participating in the day-to-day lifestyle of that culture) then understanding that culture will only be related to ideas in the abstract and ethnocentrism can never be overcome. With that said, I don’t think it’s possible for all people to experience life in another culture on a practical level, making ethnocentrism virtually impossible to overcome.

But on the other hand, I don’t necessarily see the issue with overcoming ethnocentrism. I think that skepticism toward cultures different from your own are a natural response in human beings, and it only becomes inherently wrong when people act out of that skepticism (read: fear) and begin to attack other cultures. But at that point, we’re stepping outside of the realm of ethnocentrism and more into prejudice, discrimination, racism, nationalism, etc.

This stepping outside of the boundaries is best exemplified by the Christian invaders example in the lecture. I think that when religious extremists (whether their religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) begin to force their ideas on other cultures (under the belief that that culture is wrong, aka ethnocentrism), then it becomes a problem. And it becomes even more of a problem when these extremists resort to forceful, violent means to carry out this spreading of the gospel.

I think the best way to approach ethnocentrism is to approach other cultures by using critical and logical thinking to assess what you believe to be “strange.” I think that if people approached different cultures with an open mind, they would realize that most of the cultures in the world have much, MUCH more in common with one another than most people think. In fact, I believe that the commonalities far outweigh the differences. By keeping this in mind, we can move closer to coming to a common ground and sharing a common perspective that will make us more receptive to the different cultural quirks that every culture has across the globe. Something that seems strange about another race, country, group of people, etc. might not seem so strange when we analyze the things we have in common with that race and attempt to look at it in that context.

Additionally, I would like to state that I think greed is the biggest factor in ethnocentrism today. I think that when we look at other regions and cultures for what they have to offer monetarily we objectify that culture and hinder any opportunities for understanding and common ground. This is best shown in the Big Oil in Iraq and coal in China examples from the lecture.