The most important thing that I feel I have learned through this class is what we learned most recently, and that is how different cultures approach conflict. I think that this is so crucial to better understanding intercultural relationships, inter-familial relationships, proxemics, and global conflict resolution. Understanding that different cultures have different approaches to conflict, different ways of dealing with intracultural conflict versus intercultural conflict, as well as different ways of using personal space seems crucial to our diverse world, even within our own backyard. By learning the different ways in which people deal with conflict, specifically in terms of dominating, integrating, compromising, obliging, and avoiding styles, I have gained a wealth of knowledge that will not only help me better understand intercultural relationships that I had previously misunderstood, but I have also learned a better way to view global political issues that arise between conflicting cultures. Understanding why certain cultural groups address conflict differently than another cultures is definitely eye opening, and makes me feel as though my understanding of the global political arena has increased by leaps and bounds. Additionally, understanding that gender adds an additional layer to intercultural relationships and conflicts has helped me see that understanding intercultural relationships isn't just about different ethnic backgrounds, but it is also about gender relationships as well. Understanding all of these contexts will definitely help me develop better intercultural relationships and help me understand how to best approach conflict within the contexts of those relationships.
Using this new understanding of varying approaches to conflict within intercultural relationships has made me want nothing more than to further my education on intercultural conflict resolution. One of the main reasons I would like to create a plan to further this agenda is because I still think there is a long way to go in repairing the relationships between "white" culture and those that have been oppressed by this "white" culture throughout history. Gaining a better understanding of how other cultures approach conflict resolution has helped me devise the following plan:
1. Understand all cultural ramifications when an intercultural conflict arises. This not only must address ethnic differences, but also gender differences and class differences.
2. Be more open to discussing conflict resolution with other cultures when the occasion presents itself. This means being mindful of the impact of all factors: ethnic, gender, class, etc.
3. Actively continue my intercultural education, whether through college classes or through independent research on my own.
4. Actively seek intercultural relationships in order to open the channels of communication.
5. Actively approach discussions of intercultural conflict with an integrating style so as to further the cause of fairness and equality, no matter how many road blocks get in the way. This must also include discussions of the impact of "white privilege" on intercultural relationships and how to overcome this entrenched system of hierarchy within society.
6. Be open to any intercultural conflict, seeing conflict as a way of developing relationships, not destroying them, but also being aware and respectful of those cultures that see conflict as destructive and choose to use an avoiding style of conflict resolution.
This plan is pretty broad-based, but it was created with the intent of fostering an openness to whatever the future may hold. One thing that this plan does well is continue to help me develop further intercultural skills, especially those relating to conflict resolution. I wanted this plan to be open enough to fit inter-gender relationships under the definition of intercultural relationships, since this will be more likely to present itself within the context of the UWRF campus. I think that understanding that culture is not just ethnicity but also gender, sex, class, education, politics, religion, etc. is crucial to being open to all intercultural experiences.
Questions:
1. How likely is it that you will apply what you have learned within your community?
2. How likely is it that you will actively seek out intercultural experiences if they do not readily present themselves to you?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Intercultural Conflict
I chose to talk about the conflict surrounding sanctions on Iran regarding their low-enriched uranium production. The article from guardian.co.uk was titled, "Iran sanctions take us closer to conflict" and was from June 11, 2010.
In the article, author Stephan Simanowitz talks about the conflict between the US and Iran regarding this issue of low-enriched uranium, and how President Obama has tried to make strides to come to some resolution regarding this "Goal Conflict." I would say that this is a goal conflict because the United States and the UN Security Council wants an end state that eliminates the production of low-enriched uranium. The article basically states that Obama intended to use both integrating style and compromising style in order to make the end state optimal for both sides of the conflict. However, the article goes on to state that because the US refused some of Iran's stipulations to the agreement the conflict has escalated, suggesting that the US wasn't really using either an integrating or compromising style at all, but rather a dominating style that refuses to accept suggestions from the other side.
Another reason that the US-Iran conflict has escalated is because the US has been inconsistent in its approach to the conflict. Turkey and Brazil went into negotiations with Iran to export its low-enriched uranium in exchange for nuclear energy cells, but the US refused to support this deal after it had been negotiated, despite the fact that President Obama had sent a letter to the president of Brazil prior to the negotiations which gave his consent and approval of the negotiations. This waffling by the US is what is prehaps primarily responsible for the escalated conflict with Iran, and is also the reason why Brazil and Turkey voted against the new level of sanctions suggested by the US. As Simanowitz writes in his article, "Up against increasing pressure not just from Congress but from within his own party, the dismissal of the Brazilian-Turkish deal suggests that Obama may no longer have a great deal of influence over US policy on Iran."
This conflict has been going on for years. The US has been trying to get Iran to stop producing low-enriched uranium for such a long time, yet no approach seems to get us any closer to a conflict resolution. The US has always put forth the assumption that because Iran is producing low-enriched uranium that it is doing so with the intent of weaponization. But Iran, even in their talks with the UN Security Council, has stated that they just want to exercise their right to use nuclear energy. It would seem that despite the impression that the US is using integrating and/or compromising styles of approach to conflict that it is nothing more than a guise to cover up a more dominating style of conflict resolution. As Simanowitz suggests in this article, because the US never seems willing to give any ground on this issue they may be escalating this conflict to a direct military conflict in which there will be no room for integrating style or compromising style, especially because we are talking about the probability of nuclear war.
This use of a dominating style of conflict resolution by the US seems on par for our historical record of dealing with groups that don't agree with us or get in our way. It is our way or the highway, with no room for discussion. This has done nothing to further our place in the global market much less in the eyes of the world, and yet it always seems to be the approach to conflict that we fall back upon as a failsafe. I guess it really shows that men are still running the show, and that until our approach to foreign policy changes we will always end our conflicts with a flexing of our military might.
Instead of using this subversive dominating style, the US might ultimately find success in resolving this conflict with Iran if it were to use a more integrating style of conflict resolution in which the US gave as much as it expected in return. Without this - and without a unified approach that is embraced with concensus by Congress and the president - I don't see much hope for ever reaching a resolution to this conflict that doesn't involve military action.
Questions:
1. Do you think further sanctions will help pressure Iran into signing an agreement?
2. Do you think the US's dominating style of conflict resolution is justified?
In the article, author Stephan Simanowitz talks about the conflict between the US and Iran regarding this issue of low-enriched uranium, and how President Obama has tried to make strides to come to some resolution regarding this "Goal Conflict." I would say that this is a goal conflict because the United States and the UN Security Council wants an end state that eliminates the production of low-enriched uranium. The article basically states that Obama intended to use both integrating style and compromising style in order to make the end state optimal for both sides of the conflict. However, the article goes on to state that because the US refused some of Iran's stipulations to the agreement the conflict has escalated, suggesting that the US wasn't really using either an integrating or compromising style at all, but rather a dominating style that refuses to accept suggestions from the other side.
Another reason that the US-Iran conflict has escalated is because the US has been inconsistent in its approach to the conflict. Turkey and Brazil went into negotiations with Iran to export its low-enriched uranium in exchange for nuclear energy cells, but the US refused to support this deal after it had been negotiated, despite the fact that President Obama had sent a letter to the president of Brazil prior to the negotiations which gave his consent and approval of the negotiations. This waffling by the US is what is prehaps primarily responsible for the escalated conflict with Iran, and is also the reason why Brazil and Turkey voted against the new level of sanctions suggested by the US. As Simanowitz writes in his article, "Up against increasing pressure not just from Congress but from within his own party, the dismissal of the Brazilian-Turkish deal suggests that Obama may no longer have a great deal of influence over US policy on Iran."
This conflict has been going on for years. The US has been trying to get Iran to stop producing low-enriched uranium for such a long time, yet no approach seems to get us any closer to a conflict resolution. The US has always put forth the assumption that because Iran is producing low-enriched uranium that it is doing so with the intent of weaponization. But Iran, even in their talks with the UN Security Council, has stated that they just want to exercise their right to use nuclear energy. It would seem that despite the impression that the US is using integrating and/or compromising styles of approach to conflict that it is nothing more than a guise to cover up a more dominating style of conflict resolution. As Simanowitz suggests in this article, because the US never seems willing to give any ground on this issue they may be escalating this conflict to a direct military conflict in which there will be no room for integrating style or compromising style, especially because we are talking about the probability of nuclear war.
This use of a dominating style of conflict resolution by the US seems on par for our historical record of dealing with groups that don't agree with us or get in our way. It is our way or the highway, with no room for discussion. This has done nothing to further our place in the global market much less in the eyes of the world, and yet it always seems to be the approach to conflict that we fall back upon as a failsafe. I guess it really shows that men are still running the show, and that until our approach to foreign policy changes we will always end our conflicts with a flexing of our military might.
Instead of using this subversive dominating style, the US might ultimately find success in resolving this conflict with Iran if it were to use a more integrating style of conflict resolution in which the US gave as much as it expected in return. Without this - and without a unified approach that is embraced with concensus by Congress and the president - I don't see much hope for ever reaching a resolution to this conflict that doesn't involve military action.
Questions:
1. Do you think further sanctions will help pressure Iran into signing an agreement?
2. Do you think the US's dominating style of conflict resolution is justified?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
My Culture: An Inquiry
In order to explore issues of family within my culture, I will answer several questions that might further inform the reader and myself about the impact of family issues on my culture. Let's explore, shall we?
1. Who do the members of my culture consider to be part of their family? I would say that typically, family is confined to immediate family, namely sons, daughters, wife, brothers, sisters, mother, and father. However, there is still familial relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews. Most interactions with this extended family is relegated to holiday gatherings and occasional summer gatherings.
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family members? In my family, most roles and responsibilities are delegated, not ascribed. As my wife and I continue to raise our children, with both of us pursuing careers, household responsibilities are broken down and delegated to those that have the time to do those responsibilities - dishes, laundry, mowing lawn, changing diapers, preparing meals, etc. However, my wife is in charge of the finances, as she is much more responsible than I am with our money. I would like to think that my family is fairly progressive when talking about roles and responsibilities. However, my wife and I both come from families that hold more traditional cultural values where the woman is in charge of the household and the man is the breadwinner and takes care of the money.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same house/area as their family after adolescence? I would say that while there wasn't any pressure placed on my siblings and I to stay in the same area as the rest of my family, it hasn't been easy having my siblings scattered all across the country. I have a brother who lives in Washington, a brother who lives with his wife and kid in Idaho, and the rest of my family lives in Minnesota. It has been difficult for my children, as they love their aunts and uncles, but allowing people to pursue their dreams - wherever that may be - has always been a goal of my parents.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating and meeting people with whom I may become romantically involved? Some of the cultural norms and taboos regarding this area typically involve the following: making both sets of parents aware that the date or dating is occurring; formally introducing myself to their parents; no sex until marriage; date within your religious affiliation; the first date should always be in a public place; and the man pays for the date unless otherwise discussed.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in my culture? Marriage proposals typically involve the man asking the father of his girlfriend for his blessing to ask her for her hand in marriage. There is no system of dowry or monetary exchange, but usually a relationship with the family of the intended fiance has been built prior to the engagement.
6. What is a typical wedding like? A typical wedding is paid for by the family of the bride, where the groom's family pays for a dinner the night before the wedding. The wedding is usually an extravagant affair, usually costing somewhere between $10,000 and $100,000. After the wedding, which usually lasts between a half hour and an hour, there is a dinner and a dance/reception.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce? I think that divorce is becoming more of a normality, as nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce. Despite this, I think that divorce is still frowned upon, but not quite as much as it once was. I think that the view of divorce definitely changes depending on the religious background, and also depending on if the person is a woman or a man. If a woman gets a divorce, I think that there has to be a reason such as spousal abuse or cheating, whereas if a man gets a divorce the reasons don't have to be as significant. This points to the fact that men still hold the power and oppressive control over women, despite all progress to the contrary.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner? I am not really sure about this, but I would stand by my previous statement and say that men still seem favored in divorce settlements, since our culture still hasn't completely overcome the unwarranted privilege granted to white males. This privilege means that men who get divorced are still seen as the breadwinners and entitled to the majority of the family's money. Additionally, even if the man has cheated on the woman, the trial usually looks at what the woman did to make her husband resort to cheating. This shows that sex roles and rights within my culture are still far from equal.
9. I think that while homosexuality has become more accepted, as long as it is called homosexuality it will still perpetuate the stigma attached to it. Since the term "homosexuality" was first coined by scientists who labeled this "condition" as a disease, the use of this term will continue to be a term of oppression. Despite great strides in gay rights, there is still a large part of my culture that views homosexuality as a sin, and this stems from my culture's strong reliance of their religious beliefs that relationships should be between men and women only.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the same/different from yours regarding gender roles? I would say that by and large I have separated myself from most of the cultural values I grew up with. I no longer believe that men and women have specific assigned roles, or that any one gender trait should be ascribed to men or women. Men don't need to be aggressive, or animalistic. Women don't need to be submissive and weak. Challenging these gender roles is key to dismantling the gender hierarchy and making the world a safer and more equal place for all people. Not only do I value people based on their own unique abilities and perspectives - not their race, sex, or gender stereotypes - but I also feel that I have developed new perspectives on sexual orientation, gender fluidity, and gender roles in general.
Overall, I feel that while we each attach ourselves to various cultural traditions, it is also important to challenge our cultural traditions to make sure that systems of oppression or prejudice do not become entrenched in our values and beliefs.
Questions:
1. Have you developed values or beliefs that are contrary to or different from your family's traditional cultural values and beliefs?
2. How have these differences been accepted/rejected by your family?
1. Who do the members of my culture consider to be part of their family? I would say that typically, family is confined to immediate family, namely sons, daughters, wife, brothers, sisters, mother, and father. However, there is still familial relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews. Most interactions with this extended family is relegated to holiday gatherings and occasional summer gatherings.
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family members? In my family, most roles and responsibilities are delegated, not ascribed. As my wife and I continue to raise our children, with both of us pursuing careers, household responsibilities are broken down and delegated to those that have the time to do those responsibilities - dishes, laundry, mowing lawn, changing diapers, preparing meals, etc. However, my wife is in charge of the finances, as she is much more responsible than I am with our money. I would like to think that my family is fairly progressive when talking about roles and responsibilities. However, my wife and I both come from families that hold more traditional cultural values where the woman is in charge of the household and the man is the breadwinner and takes care of the money.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same house/area as their family after adolescence? I would say that while there wasn't any pressure placed on my siblings and I to stay in the same area as the rest of my family, it hasn't been easy having my siblings scattered all across the country. I have a brother who lives in Washington, a brother who lives with his wife and kid in Idaho, and the rest of my family lives in Minnesota. It has been difficult for my children, as they love their aunts and uncles, but allowing people to pursue their dreams - wherever that may be - has always been a goal of my parents.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating and meeting people with whom I may become romantically involved? Some of the cultural norms and taboos regarding this area typically involve the following: making both sets of parents aware that the date or dating is occurring; formally introducing myself to their parents; no sex until marriage; date within your religious affiliation; the first date should always be in a public place; and the man pays for the date unless otherwise discussed.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in my culture? Marriage proposals typically involve the man asking the father of his girlfriend for his blessing to ask her for her hand in marriage. There is no system of dowry or monetary exchange, but usually a relationship with the family of the intended fiance has been built prior to the engagement.
6. What is a typical wedding like? A typical wedding is paid for by the family of the bride, where the groom's family pays for a dinner the night before the wedding. The wedding is usually an extravagant affair, usually costing somewhere between $10,000 and $100,000. After the wedding, which usually lasts between a half hour and an hour, there is a dinner and a dance/reception.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce? I think that divorce is becoming more of a normality, as nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce. Despite this, I think that divorce is still frowned upon, but not quite as much as it once was. I think that the view of divorce definitely changes depending on the religious background, and also depending on if the person is a woman or a man. If a woman gets a divorce, I think that there has to be a reason such as spousal abuse or cheating, whereas if a man gets a divorce the reasons don't have to be as significant. This points to the fact that men still hold the power and oppressive control over women, despite all progress to the contrary.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner? I am not really sure about this, but I would stand by my previous statement and say that men still seem favored in divorce settlements, since our culture still hasn't completely overcome the unwarranted privilege granted to white males. This privilege means that men who get divorced are still seen as the breadwinners and entitled to the majority of the family's money. Additionally, even if the man has cheated on the woman, the trial usually looks at what the woman did to make her husband resort to cheating. This shows that sex roles and rights within my culture are still far from equal.
9. I think that while homosexuality has become more accepted, as long as it is called homosexuality it will still perpetuate the stigma attached to it. Since the term "homosexuality" was first coined by scientists who labeled this "condition" as a disease, the use of this term will continue to be a term of oppression. Despite great strides in gay rights, there is still a large part of my culture that views homosexuality as a sin, and this stems from my culture's strong reliance of their religious beliefs that relationships should be between men and women only.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the same/different from yours regarding gender roles? I would say that by and large I have separated myself from most of the cultural values I grew up with. I no longer believe that men and women have specific assigned roles, or that any one gender trait should be ascribed to men or women. Men don't need to be aggressive, or animalistic. Women don't need to be submissive and weak. Challenging these gender roles is key to dismantling the gender hierarchy and making the world a safer and more equal place for all people. Not only do I value people based on their own unique abilities and perspectives - not their race, sex, or gender stereotypes - but I also feel that I have developed new perspectives on sexual orientation, gender fluidity, and gender roles in general.
Overall, I feel that while we each attach ourselves to various cultural traditions, it is also important to challenge our cultural traditions to make sure that systems of oppression or prejudice do not become entrenched in our values and beliefs.
Questions:
1. Have you developed values or beliefs that are contrary to or different from your family's traditional cultural values and beliefs?
2. How have these differences been accepted/rejected by your family?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"Fringe" and America
The show that I decided to write about today is called, "Fringe." This is really the only show that I watch on a regular basis, so I thought it would be the only one which I could glean some insight from. The show is based around a team of three men and two women who are called on to investigate supernatural happenings and their relationship to the existence of another dimension.
While much of the show deals with paranormal activity, there is a bit that can be taken away from the show regarding how it portrays Americans. Through the eyes of the viewer or the eyes of the filmmaker, "Fringe" seems to depict Americans in many ways. First, there is Olivia Dunham, the main female character, who we see as a strong female character. She fulfills many stereotypically male and female traits, finding a balance between both perspectives. In addition to Olivia Dunham, the other recurring female characters - Nina Sharp and Astrid Farnsworth - portray strong female characters with little to no dependence on male characters. This seems to suggest that American women have grown beyond the ascribed stereotypes placed on them by prevailing male power and control. In fact, in the majority of the episodes, the women characters take positions of power and control, and are instrumental in the plot's resolution.
Another way in which the TV show "Fringe" depicts Americans is through its portrayal of the male characters. Many of the male characters seem to struggle with issues of control, primarily control over their own life. This can be seen when analyzing the characters of Peter and Walter Bishop. Peter Bishop (Walter's son) is initially portrayed as greedy and focused on money. He does whatever it takes, however illegal, to obtain money, and this seems to be the way J.J. Abrams is trying to depict modern American males. As the show develops, so does Peter, and he eventually sees that there is more to life than just money, there are relationships, either seen through his relationship with his father or with Olivia Dunham.
On the other hand, Walter Bishop is constantly plagued with what seems to be amnesia, and only recovers bits and pieces of his past at a time. One of the primary uses for this technique is to reveal to Walter how in his past he used to manipuate and control other people for his own ends, something that he has struggled to overcome in his later years. I think Walter's character, in addition to giving us insight into post-feminist male roles, also gives us insight into how we treat the elderly. This is seen primarily because the rest of the cast is younger, and constantly looks at Walter as an old, senile man. Despite this perspective of Walter, he is usually instrumental in solving the paranormal dilemma facing the cast during each episode.
Ultimately, then, it would seem that the TV show "Fringe" speaks to the strength of women and the elderly in American society and the struggles they have had to face to be seen as more than the means and the byproduct of the white male agenda. I really enjoy this show, because it not only addresses sociological issues and issues of power and gender, but it does so through the lens of a science fiction drama. If you have seen any other shows by J.J. Abrams ("Lost") you might understand why "Fringe" is more than just the surface plot or a shallow storyline, but it is at the same time a critique of our belief systems and how we think of the world around us.
Questions:
1. When watching TV, do you typically take for granted the issues the director may be trying to raise?
2. How has this changed because of this class?
While much of the show deals with paranormal activity, there is a bit that can be taken away from the show regarding how it portrays Americans. Through the eyes of the viewer or the eyes of the filmmaker, "Fringe" seems to depict Americans in many ways. First, there is Olivia Dunham, the main female character, who we see as a strong female character. She fulfills many stereotypically male and female traits, finding a balance between both perspectives. In addition to Olivia Dunham, the other recurring female characters - Nina Sharp and Astrid Farnsworth - portray strong female characters with little to no dependence on male characters. This seems to suggest that American women have grown beyond the ascribed stereotypes placed on them by prevailing male power and control. In fact, in the majority of the episodes, the women characters take positions of power and control, and are instrumental in the plot's resolution.
Another way in which the TV show "Fringe" depicts Americans is through its portrayal of the male characters. Many of the male characters seem to struggle with issues of control, primarily control over their own life. This can be seen when analyzing the characters of Peter and Walter Bishop. Peter Bishop (Walter's son) is initially portrayed as greedy and focused on money. He does whatever it takes, however illegal, to obtain money, and this seems to be the way J.J. Abrams is trying to depict modern American males. As the show develops, so does Peter, and he eventually sees that there is more to life than just money, there are relationships, either seen through his relationship with his father or with Olivia Dunham.
On the other hand, Walter Bishop is constantly plagued with what seems to be amnesia, and only recovers bits and pieces of his past at a time. One of the primary uses for this technique is to reveal to Walter how in his past he used to manipuate and control other people for his own ends, something that he has struggled to overcome in his later years. I think Walter's character, in addition to giving us insight into post-feminist male roles, also gives us insight into how we treat the elderly. This is seen primarily because the rest of the cast is younger, and constantly looks at Walter as an old, senile man. Despite this perspective of Walter, he is usually instrumental in solving the paranormal dilemma facing the cast during each episode.
Ultimately, then, it would seem that the TV show "Fringe" speaks to the strength of women and the elderly in American society and the struggles they have had to face to be seen as more than the means and the byproduct of the white male agenda. I really enjoy this show, because it not only addresses sociological issues and issues of power and gender, but it does so through the lens of a science fiction drama. If you have seen any other shows by J.J. Abrams ("Lost") you might understand why "Fringe" is more than just the surface plot or a shallow storyline, but it is at the same time a critique of our belief systems and how we think of the world around us.
Questions:
1. When watching TV, do you typically take for granted the issues the director may be trying to raise?
2. How has this changed because of this class?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Divorce
I know this is probably not a typical transition discussed in a college class, but my divorce was one of the more significant transitions I have had in my life. When I was twenty, I thought that I needed to follow in my parents' footsteps, and as they had married when they were twenty, at the time I thought that was something that was necessary for me as well. I had been dating my girlfriend at the time for nearly two years, and in my still adolescent mind I saw marriage as the next logical step. However, this plan to mimic my life after my parents just because they seemed happy could not have been farther from the correct life choice. Six months after we were married, our relationship rapidly dissolved as we were both still quite unsure of our life goals or even our own identities, and within a year's time we were separated and then divorced. I don't regret this foolish misadventure, as my life was definitely changed because of it, and the transition from adolescence to adulthood was made all the more important because of this event. I not only transitioned from adolescence to adulthood, but I also transitioned from living my life by my parents' ideologies to living by my own set of ideologies. I learned from this experience that everyone has their own unique path, and doing something you don't know if you are ready for just because you think it will make your parents proud is probably a bad idea.
I feel that this transition in my life helped make me who I am today, and also made me more sensitive and aware of my own feelings and philosophies regarding marriage, religion, gender, and the familial relationships. I am now happily married, according to my own independent decision that the time was right for ME. Transitions sometimes happen is subtle ways; they also happen in ways that may leave you spiralling in cognitive dissonance. The important thing to remember is this: don't take these transitions for granted; transitions are opportunities for growth; learning from these transitions will make you better prepared for whatever life throws at you, whether it be love, marriage, divorce, or anything else. Personal progress may be difficult, but spinning your wheels can only get you so far before you're up to your neck in muck.
Questions:
1. Have you had to deal with divorce in your life in some way?
2. How did this serve as a transition for you?
I feel that this transition in my life helped make me who I am today, and also made me more sensitive and aware of my own feelings and philosophies regarding marriage, religion, gender, and the familial relationships. I am now happily married, according to my own independent decision that the time was right for ME. Transitions sometimes happen is subtle ways; they also happen in ways that may leave you spiralling in cognitive dissonance. The important thing to remember is this: don't take these transitions for granted; transitions are opportunities for growth; learning from these transitions will make you better prepared for whatever life throws at you, whether it be love, marriage, divorce, or anything else. Personal progress may be difficult, but spinning your wheels can only get you so far before you're up to your neck in muck.
Questions:
1. Have you had to deal with divorce in your life in some way?
2. How did this serve as a transition for you?
Awkward Moments of Nonverbal Communication
For this activity, I must first prerequisite my story with a brief discussion of my discomfort with awkward interpersonal situations. I am a very protective of my personal space, and interactions that involve the level of discomfort asked of us for today's activity swelled like a balloon in my chest. I felt anxious. I felt apprehensive. I didn't want to do this activity at all. Ultimately, my discomfort with the activity made me more prone to breaking character during each activity.
For the first activity, I talked with my neighbor whose daughter attends the same daycare as my children. Meeting her outside of our daycare, I struck up a conversation with her about her daughter, and what plans they had for the weekend, inquiring about a possible play date at the park. I maintained eye contact for nearly the whole time, but eventually she started laughing and the jig was up. Perhaps this experiment needs to be performed on people that are mere acquaintances, as people that are familiar with my mannerisms know that I rarely make eye contact, a byproduct of my issues with personal space. After I told her what was going on, she said that she knew something weird was going on, because I never act that way around her or when talking with her.
During the second activity, I talked with the guitarist for my band, not making eye contact the entire time. However, this is usually on par for my conversations, and didn't seem to have much impact on him. After debriefing him about the activity, he did say that he felt more prone to detach from the conversation, since I didn't ever look at him, while I usually at least make minimal eye contact. I thought this experiment taught me that I need to work on strengthening my maintenance of eye contact with those with whom I speak. However, this may be difficult when the person is in close proximity (a two foot radius), as I am quite particular about my personal space.
For the last activity, I chose to do this with my wife, as I felt extremely uncomfortable doing this with anyone else. I know, I'm chicken, I'm a spoil sport, but I think I would have an anxiety attack or completely lose my composure if I tried to do this activity with anyone else. As it was, it turned out pretty great, as I struck up the conversation in our kitchen while we were both working on the dishes. I managed to gradually edge her into a corner of our kitchen where she could not move, and by this time the jig was up. However, she thought that the activity was really fun, and she enjoyed being part of the experiment, saying that she really thought that it worked. I guess people naturally try to maintain their personal space, doing whatever they can to keep that distance - whatever distance it may be that makes them comfortable - between them and the person with whom they are talking.
Ultimately, then, these three activities showed that consistency is important when maintaining your own preference of personal space while at the same time respecting each other person's own preferences for personal space. These preferences can be difficult to evaluate, as it is important to realize that each person has their own unique preference, but understanding this can go a long way towards avoiding awkward situations.
Questions:
1. Have you ever experienced someone that has a drastically different preference for personal space than you?
2. How did you react?
For the first activity, I talked with my neighbor whose daughter attends the same daycare as my children. Meeting her outside of our daycare, I struck up a conversation with her about her daughter, and what plans they had for the weekend, inquiring about a possible play date at the park. I maintained eye contact for nearly the whole time, but eventually she started laughing and the jig was up. Perhaps this experiment needs to be performed on people that are mere acquaintances, as people that are familiar with my mannerisms know that I rarely make eye contact, a byproduct of my issues with personal space. After I told her what was going on, she said that she knew something weird was going on, because I never act that way around her or when talking with her.
During the second activity, I talked with the guitarist for my band, not making eye contact the entire time. However, this is usually on par for my conversations, and didn't seem to have much impact on him. After debriefing him about the activity, he did say that he felt more prone to detach from the conversation, since I didn't ever look at him, while I usually at least make minimal eye contact. I thought this experiment taught me that I need to work on strengthening my maintenance of eye contact with those with whom I speak. However, this may be difficult when the person is in close proximity (a two foot radius), as I am quite particular about my personal space.
For the last activity, I chose to do this with my wife, as I felt extremely uncomfortable doing this with anyone else. I know, I'm chicken, I'm a spoil sport, but I think I would have an anxiety attack or completely lose my composure if I tried to do this activity with anyone else. As it was, it turned out pretty great, as I struck up the conversation in our kitchen while we were both working on the dishes. I managed to gradually edge her into a corner of our kitchen where she could not move, and by this time the jig was up. However, she thought that the activity was really fun, and she enjoyed being part of the experiment, saying that she really thought that it worked. I guess people naturally try to maintain their personal space, doing whatever they can to keep that distance - whatever distance it may be that makes them comfortable - between them and the person with whom they are talking.
Ultimately, then, these three activities showed that consistency is important when maintaining your own preference of personal space while at the same time respecting each other person's own preferences for personal space. These preferences can be difficult to evaluate, as it is important to realize that each person has their own unique preference, but understanding this can go a long way towards avoiding awkward situations.
Questions:
1. Have you ever experienced someone that has a drastically different preference for personal space than you?
2. How did you react?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Language in the United States
Taking these two quizzes was a real wake up call for me. I never really thought I was that oblivious to regional dialects and the sound of the spoken word until I took these two quizzes.
The first quiz in which we were asked to identify regional dialects took me completely by surprise. It seems to me that when I think about regional dialects they always sound completely over-exaggerated; the southern drawl, the mid-atlantic "Boston" accent, the New York accent, and even the north and midwest "Fargo" accent all seem so obvious when used in films or other popular media, not nearly as subtly similar or vaguely different as those represented by the audio samples in this quiz. This showed in my final results, which were somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% accurate.
Perhaps the oddest, yet telling result of this first quiz was the fact that I got all of the midwest and northern dialects wrong. At first this surprised me. I thought, "I should at least be able to guess the dialects that are from my region." However, after thinking this over, I guess it makes sense. Usually, we see others as having accents or dialects, and think that our way of speaking is "normal" or "correct." It would then be easy to mistake our own dialect for something else if we think of it as nothing different. Especially in the cases of the audio samples provided for this quiz, there seemed to be only very subtle differences between many of the dialects, so much so that I only got one right in each region other than the midwest and north region (where I got both wrong). I guess this just goes to show that making assumptions about people's dialects can often be a tricky endeavor, and might be more difficult than just applying the exaggerated notions of dialect traits we normally associate with a certain region's dialect.
For the second quiz in which we were asked to identify certain words, I again was way off in my guesses, getting only "Desk" and "Buses" right, and even those only came after listening to the phrase hints. In these instances, it is truly amazing how the pronunciation of a vowel can completely change the word's meaning. For instance, the first word sounded to me like "black" when the real answer was "block." Similarly, the second word sounded to me like "sacks" when the real answer was "socks." These two examples show how knowing the contexts of the speaker's dialect is crucial to understanding what they are saying. In these two examples, if I had been given the information that the speaker was from New England or the east coast, then my attention to specific sounds might have produced different answers. However, even in the phrase hints, it was often too difficult to figure out the contexts within which the words were being used, and ultimately had an impact on the answer I submitted.
What seems to be important in both quizzes is coming to a better understanding of the unique dialectic perspectives of the various speakers. I think we often take the English language for granted, and these quizzes show us that aside from the various linguistic challenges faced by people who do not speak English as a primary language, they must also face the challenge of interpreting regional dialects. This can become confusing if the way a word is pronounced in one region makes it sound like a completely different word. Overall, these quizzes were very eye-opening, allowing me to gain a better perspective on the subtleties of regional dialects and word pronunciations.
Questions:
1. What region was the hardest for you to figure out?
2. How can word pronunciation lead to miscommunication?
The first quiz in which we were asked to identify regional dialects took me completely by surprise. It seems to me that when I think about regional dialects they always sound completely over-exaggerated; the southern drawl, the mid-atlantic "Boston" accent, the New York accent, and even the north and midwest "Fargo" accent all seem so obvious when used in films or other popular media, not nearly as subtly similar or vaguely different as those represented by the audio samples in this quiz. This showed in my final results, which were somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% accurate.
Perhaps the oddest, yet telling result of this first quiz was the fact that I got all of the midwest and northern dialects wrong. At first this surprised me. I thought, "I should at least be able to guess the dialects that are from my region." However, after thinking this over, I guess it makes sense. Usually, we see others as having accents or dialects, and think that our way of speaking is "normal" or "correct." It would then be easy to mistake our own dialect for something else if we think of it as nothing different. Especially in the cases of the audio samples provided for this quiz, there seemed to be only very subtle differences between many of the dialects, so much so that I only got one right in each region other than the midwest and north region (where I got both wrong). I guess this just goes to show that making assumptions about people's dialects can often be a tricky endeavor, and might be more difficult than just applying the exaggerated notions of dialect traits we normally associate with a certain region's dialect.
For the second quiz in which we were asked to identify certain words, I again was way off in my guesses, getting only "Desk" and "Buses" right, and even those only came after listening to the phrase hints. In these instances, it is truly amazing how the pronunciation of a vowel can completely change the word's meaning. For instance, the first word sounded to me like "black" when the real answer was "block." Similarly, the second word sounded to me like "sacks" when the real answer was "socks." These two examples show how knowing the contexts of the speaker's dialect is crucial to understanding what they are saying. In these two examples, if I had been given the information that the speaker was from New England or the east coast, then my attention to specific sounds might have produced different answers. However, even in the phrase hints, it was often too difficult to figure out the contexts within which the words were being used, and ultimately had an impact on the answer I submitted.
What seems to be important in both quizzes is coming to a better understanding of the unique dialectic perspectives of the various speakers. I think we often take the English language for granted, and these quizzes show us that aside from the various linguistic challenges faced by people who do not speak English as a primary language, they must also face the challenge of interpreting regional dialects. This can become confusing if the way a word is pronounced in one region makes it sound like a completely different word. Overall, these quizzes were very eye-opening, allowing me to gain a better perspective on the subtleties of regional dialects and word pronunciations.
Questions:
1. What region was the hardest for you to figure out?
2. How can word pronunciation lead to miscommunication?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Avowed and Ascribed Identities
Before looking into the way I have obtained or struggled to overcome many of my ascribed identities, I would like to first provide a list of both my ascribed identities and my avowed identities. Using these lists I will then explain how I obtained many of my ascribed identities and what, if anything, I have done to overcome these identities.
Ascribed Identities: white, male, protestant, middle class, privileged, old, father, son, brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, crazy, lazy, immature, intelligent, creative, balding, skinhead, prejudiced, anti-social, humorous, perfectionist, philosophical, tall, short, rock star, struggling musician, author, student, strange, weird, and geeky.
Avowed Identities: male, agnostic, working class, youthful, father, son, brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, intellectual, ethically conscious, culturally educated, creative, musician, author, student, passionate, philosophical, political, compassionate, and geeky.
Most of my ascribed identities were the result of labels received because of my relation to my family, my friends, and those with whom I interact on a regular basis. To better analyze these ascribed identities, who placed them on me, and what my reactions have been to these identities, I will address several uniquely ascribed identities on a case by case basis to illustrate my point.
White - this identity has been placed on me, just as it has been placed on nearly all people of European lineage. This identity seems to bring with it the baggage of being privileged, oppressive, and without culture. I find that most everyone is responsible for placing this identity on me, as it is such a easy generalization that provides people with general assumptions about me. Being called "white" often ties in to other ascribed identities, such as being privileged, being protestant, being prejudiced towards non-white groups, among others. I find that the generalizations that come with being labelled "white" do not identify me as a person. I also do not believe that being "white" is culturally appropriate concerning my lineage, just as calling someone African American just because they are brown-skinned is appropriate since brown-skinned people come from all over the world, not just Africa. Additionally, being "white" or "black" or "brown" or whatever skin color you can name has very little, if anything to do with who we are as people. Therefore, I do not agree with the idea that skin color should have anything to do with one's identity, especially when it is used so often as a way of making generalizations or stereotypes about a person. Obviously, this is a hot button issue for me, so I'll move on.
Male - I guess this is an easy one, but can also bring with it a wealth of issues. First of all, most people, me included, label me a male because I fit the stereotypical mold of a male. I often have intentional facial hair, I have a "male" voice, I dress like a male, and when it comes right down to it I have all the appropriate male parts. I guess the doctor who delivered me at birth is ultimately responsible for my identity as a male, but I think it might go back farther than that. To say the very least, I'm sure my wife would say I'm all male (with just a dash of sarcasm, of course). However, I feel that by being labelled "male" there are certain generalizations that go along with that identity that I don't see as appropriate. Being male usually means that you have privileges not granted to women. Being male usually means that you are masculine, tough, aggressive if not violent, extroverted, breadwinner, career-driven, and oppressive. Most, if not all of these generalizations do not fit me as a person, so being called "male," aside from the obvious biological identity inherent in the word, is not something I necessarily enjoy being called. To confront this issue, I have tried to question people's meaning when saying things like, "you're such a guy" or "man up." I think that what it means to be a male has almost lost any positive meaning in today's society, and a positive re-centering and redefining of what the word "male" really means is an area of interest to me.
Protestant - being labelled as "Christian" or "Protestant" is an ascribed identity placed on me since my childhood, as I was raised in a very religious family. This label was placed on me by my parents, those that went to our church, and those that knew I went to church. For a while, up through even my early college years, this identity was also an avowed identity, mostly because I had never taken the time to deconstruct what this identity meant to me. After I began to do research on the history of my religious affiliation and study the inherent inconsistencies that these ideologies had with my own avowed identity, I began to shift my belief system from anything "Christian" to being agnostic. The problem then is addressing this shift with those who unjustly ascribed this identity to me in the first place, namely my parents, as they are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs that they take them to be universal truth. Telling my parents that I wasn't Christian any more was basically the equivalent of telling them that I had decided to sell my soul to Satan. However, my youngest brother beat me to the punch, and so when I told them my decision, it was slightly less harsh than my brother's revelation. I think the moment that I really realized that I didn't identify with my parent's religious beliefs was when my mom told my sister, "So, how do you feel knowing your brother is going to hell?" While being completely brutal and narrow-minded, my mother's statement is directly in line with the philosophy preached by nearly every Christian church. This, in and of itself, was something I could never identify with, and ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. Okay, another hot button topic - moving on.
For the sake of my fellow group members, I'll look at one last ascribed identity, and I'll try to keep it brief.
Prejudiced - after high school, I started to cut my hair short. At first this was just because I was tired of the long hair I had during high school, but eventually it became a way for me to hide the fact that my hairline was receding. However, shaving my head has often led to many ascribed identities such as being a "skinhead" or "neo-nazi" or just racist. I find this label almost humorous, as would anyone that has taken the time to actually find out more about me. First of all, I am far from racist. One of my favorite areas of study in college is multicultural studies, and I thrive in environments that foster open dialogue about pluralism, racial and cultural identities, and understanding unique perspectives. Secondly, my sister, who was adopted at birth, is African-American (yes, her bloodline does trace back to Africa, for all of those looking for inconsistencies in my writing), and one of my closest friends. I don't take my friendship with my sister as some kind of unique situation, but rather as an example of my belief in the unimportance of skin color as compared to belief systems, political views, worldviews, etc. Needless to say, if anyone tries to corrolate my haircut with being prejudiced or racist, I immediately correct them, and explain the actual nature of my haircut: my receding hairline.
I hope this blog - while being a few words over the minimum - demonstrates some of the ascribed identities with which I have had to struggle to overcome or challenge. I pride myself on my self-awareness, and I hope that my discussion of the above listed ascribed identities has done justice to my position on each.
Questions:
1. Do you find that there are a significant number of ascribed identities that are also avowed identities, or do they fail to match up?
2. Do you think that a disparity between lists means that we aren't being as forthcoming about our avowed identities as we ought to be? (What I'm asking here is if people identify us as one thing, but we identify ourselves as another thing or even the opposite, is there anything we can do to overcome or challenge these ascribed identities?)
Ascribed Identities: white, male, protestant, middle class, privileged, old, father, son, brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, crazy, lazy, immature, intelligent, creative, balding, skinhead, prejudiced, anti-social, humorous, perfectionist, philosophical, tall, short, rock star, struggling musician, author, student, strange, weird, and geeky.
Avowed Identities: male, agnostic, working class, youthful, father, son, brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, intellectual, ethically conscious, culturally educated, creative, musician, author, student, passionate, philosophical, political, compassionate, and geeky.
Most of my ascribed identities were the result of labels received because of my relation to my family, my friends, and those with whom I interact on a regular basis. To better analyze these ascribed identities, who placed them on me, and what my reactions have been to these identities, I will address several uniquely ascribed identities on a case by case basis to illustrate my point.
White - this identity has been placed on me, just as it has been placed on nearly all people of European lineage. This identity seems to bring with it the baggage of being privileged, oppressive, and without culture. I find that most everyone is responsible for placing this identity on me, as it is such a easy generalization that provides people with general assumptions about me. Being called "white" often ties in to other ascribed identities, such as being privileged, being protestant, being prejudiced towards non-white groups, among others. I find that the generalizations that come with being labelled "white" do not identify me as a person. I also do not believe that being "white" is culturally appropriate concerning my lineage, just as calling someone African American just because they are brown-skinned is appropriate since brown-skinned people come from all over the world, not just Africa. Additionally, being "white" or "black" or "brown" or whatever skin color you can name has very little, if anything to do with who we are as people. Therefore, I do not agree with the idea that skin color should have anything to do with one's identity, especially when it is used so often as a way of making generalizations or stereotypes about a person. Obviously, this is a hot button issue for me, so I'll move on.
Male - I guess this is an easy one, but can also bring with it a wealth of issues. First of all, most people, me included, label me a male because I fit the stereotypical mold of a male. I often have intentional facial hair, I have a "male" voice, I dress like a male, and when it comes right down to it I have all the appropriate male parts. I guess the doctor who delivered me at birth is ultimately responsible for my identity as a male, but I think it might go back farther than that. To say the very least, I'm sure my wife would say I'm all male (with just a dash of sarcasm, of course). However, I feel that by being labelled "male" there are certain generalizations that go along with that identity that I don't see as appropriate. Being male usually means that you have privileges not granted to women. Being male usually means that you are masculine, tough, aggressive if not violent, extroverted, breadwinner, career-driven, and oppressive. Most, if not all of these generalizations do not fit me as a person, so being called "male," aside from the obvious biological identity inherent in the word, is not something I necessarily enjoy being called. To confront this issue, I have tried to question people's meaning when saying things like, "you're such a guy" or "man up." I think that what it means to be a male has almost lost any positive meaning in today's society, and a positive re-centering and redefining of what the word "male" really means is an area of interest to me.
Protestant - being labelled as "Christian" or "Protestant" is an ascribed identity placed on me since my childhood, as I was raised in a very religious family. This label was placed on me by my parents, those that went to our church, and those that knew I went to church. For a while, up through even my early college years, this identity was also an avowed identity, mostly because I had never taken the time to deconstruct what this identity meant to me. After I began to do research on the history of my religious affiliation and study the inherent inconsistencies that these ideologies had with my own avowed identity, I began to shift my belief system from anything "Christian" to being agnostic. The problem then is addressing this shift with those who unjustly ascribed this identity to me in the first place, namely my parents, as they are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs that they take them to be universal truth. Telling my parents that I wasn't Christian any more was basically the equivalent of telling them that I had decided to sell my soul to Satan. However, my youngest brother beat me to the punch, and so when I told them my decision, it was slightly less harsh than my brother's revelation. I think the moment that I really realized that I didn't identify with my parent's religious beliefs was when my mom told my sister, "So, how do you feel knowing your brother is going to hell?" While being completely brutal and narrow-minded, my mother's statement is directly in line with the philosophy preached by nearly every Christian church. This, in and of itself, was something I could never identify with, and ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. Okay, another hot button topic - moving on.
For the sake of my fellow group members, I'll look at one last ascribed identity, and I'll try to keep it brief.
Prejudiced - after high school, I started to cut my hair short. At first this was just because I was tired of the long hair I had during high school, but eventually it became a way for me to hide the fact that my hairline was receding. However, shaving my head has often led to many ascribed identities such as being a "skinhead" or "neo-nazi" or just racist. I find this label almost humorous, as would anyone that has taken the time to actually find out more about me. First of all, I am far from racist. One of my favorite areas of study in college is multicultural studies, and I thrive in environments that foster open dialogue about pluralism, racial and cultural identities, and understanding unique perspectives. Secondly, my sister, who was adopted at birth, is African-American (yes, her bloodline does trace back to Africa, for all of those looking for inconsistencies in my writing), and one of my closest friends. I don't take my friendship with my sister as some kind of unique situation, but rather as an example of my belief in the unimportance of skin color as compared to belief systems, political views, worldviews, etc. Needless to say, if anyone tries to corrolate my haircut with being prejudiced or racist, I immediately correct them, and explain the actual nature of my haircut: my receding hairline.
I hope this blog - while being a few words over the minimum - demonstrates some of the ascribed identities with which I have had to struggle to overcome or challenge. I pride myself on my self-awareness, and I hope that my discussion of the above listed ascribed identities has done justice to my position on each.
Questions:
1. Do you find that there are a significant number of ascribed identities that are also avowed identities, or do they fail to match up?
2. Do you think that a disparity between lists means that we aren't being as forthcoming about our avowed identities as we ought to be? (What I'm asking here is if people identify us as one thing, but we identify ourselves as another thing or even the opposite, is there anything we can do to overcome or challenge these ascribed identities?)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Re-centering American History
No matter where you look - high school history books, online U.S. history sites, or even specific gender and ethnic history sources - there is one group that is at the center of all American history, and that group is the white male.
As an experiment, I looked up various gender and ethnic groups online, using various search engines in an attempt to find resources that would inform me of famous or notable historical figures for each grouping. What I found was difficult to stomach. The number of sites that discussed or listed or provided biographical or historical information on white males was nearly ten times that of any other group. Even sites dedicated to specific minority groups provided nowhere near the excess of information as sites dedicated to white males. One particularly startling discovery was that Asian males seemed to represent the amount of lowest available information for any one group. Even one site I visited that boasted itself as a site dedicated to famous Asian men had only four entries.
Whether the group was male, female, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American, if the group wasn't white male there never seemed to be adequate access to in depth biographical or historical information.
Our history seems to be solely centered on the white male. Whether reading about the conquest of the indigenous peoples who lived here before us, or reading about the "important" figures in "significant" events in our history, the white male dominates all areas. Is it any wonder that there has never been a woman president or that it has taken us until two years ago that we had a president that wasn't a white male? Is it any wonder that our history books are primarily centered on white males with all other groups as figures on the horizon, on the outside looking in? Why has it taken so long for women to gain any level of recognition as deserving of the same rights as men? And what about minority groups? Even today we still see issues of racism and sexism embedded in our laws and social norms. We see imbalance of pay, imbalance of opportunities for advancement, and imbalance of fair treatment by the dominant white male. Is it any wonder that history has brought us here? What of the real history of groups outside the realm of the white male? As my research has shown, the access to any sort of detailed information regarding the history of these marginalized groups is slim to none. White women have perhaps the second most historical information, followed closely by African-American men and then African-American women. Beyond these groups, the disparity is startling. Hispanic, Native American, and Asian men and women only really appear in any relevance when they are shown as they relate to the historical perspectives of white males. Beyond this, there is little else readily available.
Perhaps the only way to explain this censoring of the history of marginalized groups is as a way for white males to control and oppress these groups. If history told the full story or re-centered the story, perhaps there would be more propensity for equality. Perhaps white males would be just another subcategory of America's wealth of ethnic groups. Perhaps many atrocities could have been avoided if white males had not controlled and oppressed and marginalized groups outside of their exclusive club.
A great re-centering needs to take place in order for any levelling of perspective is to occur. Even if the historical information does not exist to do justice to those groups marginalized by those systems controlled by the oppressive regime of white males, history books and school books need to make an effort to re-center our understanding of these groups. Marginalized groups ought not to be mere decorations on the landscape of white male history, but deserve their own adequate representation in history - their history, their perspective.
Questions:
1. What group do you think has received the least coverage in terms of their perspective on American history?
2. What can be done to rectify the marginalizing of these groups?
As an experiment, I looked up various gender and ethnic groups online, using various search engines in an attempt to find resources that would inform me of famous or notable historical figures for each grouping. What I found was difficult to stomach. The number of sites that discussed or listed or provided biographical or historical information on white males was nearly ten times that of any other group. Even sites dedicated to specific minority groups provided nowhere near the excess of information as sites dedicated to white males. One particularly startling discovery was that Asian males seemed to represent the amount of lowest available information for any one group. Even one site I visited that boasted itself as a site dedicated to famous Asian men had only four entries.
Whether the group was male, female, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American, if the group wasn't white male there never seemed to be adequate access to in depth biographical or historical information.
Our history seems to be solely centered on the white male. Whether reading about the conquest of the indigenous peoples who lived here before us, or reading about the "important" figures in "significant" events in our history, the white male dominates all areas. Is it any wonder that there has never been a woman president or that it has taken us until two years ago that we had a president that wasn't a white male? Is it any wonder that our history books are primarily centered on white males with all other groups as figures on the horizon, on the outside looking in? Why has it taken so long for women to gain any level of recognition as deserving of the same rights as men? And what about minority groups? Even today we still see issues of racism and sexism embedded in our laws and social norms. We see imbalance of pay, imbalance of opportunities for advancement, and imbalance of fair treatment by the dominant white male. Is it any wonder that history has brought us here? What of the real history of groups outside the realm of the white male? As my research has shown, the access to any sort of detailed information regarding the history of these marginalized groups is slim to none. White women have perhaps the second most historical information, followed closely by African-American men and then African-American women. Beyond these groups, the disparity is startling. Hispanic, Native American, and Asian men and women only really appear in any relevance when they are shown as they relate to the historical perspectives of white males. Beyond this, there is little else readily available.
Perhaps the only way to explain this censoring of the history of marginalized groups is as a way for white males to control and oppress these groups. If history told the full story or re-centered the story, perhaps there would be more propensity for equality. Perhaps white males would be just another subcategory of America's wealth of ethnic groups. Perhaps many atrocities could have been avoided if white males had not controlled and oppressed and marginalized groups outside of their exclusive club.
A great re-centering needs to take place in order for any levelling of perspective is to occur. Even if the historical information does not exist to do justice to those groups marginalized by those systems controlled by the oppressive regime of white males, history books and school books need to make an effort to re-center our understanding of these groups. Marginalized groups ought not to be mere decorations on the landscape of white male history, but deserve their own adequate representation in history - their history, their perspective.
Questions:
1. What group do you think has received the least coverage in terms of their perspective on American history?
2. What can be done to rectify the marginalizing of these groups?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Don't Call Me White
Years ago, my grandmother and grandfather on my mother's side took up the hobby of investigating their families' family trees. Because of their digging, I know most of my ancestry. I am fifty-percent English, twenty-five percent German, twenty percent Norwegian, and about five percent Welsh. Despite all of these specific percentages, I really only qualify my ethnic background as "Euro-mutt."
So, how does my heritage influence who I am? Well, until recently, my heritage defined my religion, and my view of other political, social, and religious perspectives. However, mainly because I have taken conscious strides towards becoming an autonomous individual who defines himself by a better understanding of various philosophies and the wisdom and knowledge gained through education about multiculturalism and pluralism, I have tried to separate myself from my own "whiteness" in an attempt to create a holistic identity based on those philosophies and perspectives with which I choose to identify. These variables - philosophy, education, knowledge, and personal awareness - have become more of a determiner of who I am than anything I have learned about my heritage. Primarily because of my desire to move beyond the criteria that has always granted me privilege due to being male and being "white," I have tried to only use my heritage as a road map to guide me in the right direction.
I think because of my skin color, most people can guess that I come from some combination of European lineages. I would also guess that simply being "white" does have a direct effect on how people talk to me and treat me in social settings. I know that I have been unjustly given privilege in society because of my sex and my skin color, and while I wouldn't do anything to change those biological traits, I try very hard to challenge any assumptions or privileges offered me because I am a white male. I'm guessing that strangers aren't usually afraid when I approach them with a question. I'm guessing cashiers don't make assumptions about my economic status, And I'm guessing that I get less looks from police officers than someone of a different race or ethnicity.
On a side note, my sister is adopted. She is African-American. She grew up in the same neighborhood that I did, in the same house I did, and drove down most of the same surrounding streets that I did. However, it seems intolerably unjust that while I never once got pulled over in our neighborhood by the local police, my sister is pulled over on a regular basis. The police usually give her some petty excuse and usually let her go with "warnings," but the inconsistency is there, and it really makes me sick of my own privilege and the desparity of treatment given to my sister simply because of her skin color.
Concluding, I can only say that I wish my heritage had nothing to do with who I am or how I am viewed by the rest of society. I wish that people's ethnic backgrounds were traits that we could only be proud of, not ashamed of or afraid to acknowledge. I wish we could understand and cherish people for their unique perspectives and not shy away from someone because they may look different than us. It is for these reasons that I ask only to be called by my name and by my merits, but never to be called "white."
Questions:
1. If your ancestry is of european lineage, or like mine English lineage, what does knowing about colonialism, slavery, and other such atrocities do to your feelings about being "white"?
2. How can we come to terms with the unwarranted privilege granted to "white" men (primarily) as well as women?
(For further reflection, I would refer you to the song, "Don't Call Me White" by NOFX)
So, how does my heritage influence who I am? Well, until recently, my heritage defined my religion, and my view of other political, social, and religious perspectives. However, mainly because I have taken conscious strides towards becoming an autonomous individual who defines himself by a better understanding of various philosophies and the wisdom and knowledge gained through education about multiculturalism and pluralism, I have tried to separate myself from my own "whiteness" in an attempt to create a holistic identity based on those philosophies and perspectives with which I choose to identify. These variables - philosophy, education, knowledge, and personal awareness - have become more of a determiner of who I am than anything I have learned about my heritage. Primarily because of my desire to move beyond the criteria that has always granted me privilege due to being male and being "white," I have tried to only use my heritage as a road map to guide me in the right direction.
I think because of my skin color, most people can guess that I come from some combination of European lineages. I would also guess that simply being "white" does have a direct effect on how people talk to me and treat me in social settings. I know that I have been unjustly given privilege in society because of my sex and my skin color, and while I wouldn't do anything to change those biological traits, I try very hard to challenge any assumptions or privileges offered me because I am a white male. I'm guessing that strangers aren't usually afraid when I approach them with a question. I'm guessing cashiers don't make assumptions about my economic status, And I'm guessing that I get less looks from police officers than someone of a different race or ethnicity.
On a side note, my sister is adopted. She is African-American. She grew up in the same neighborhood that I did, in the same house I did, and drove down most of the same surrounding streets that I did. However, it seems intolerably unjust that while I never once got pulled over in our neighborhood by the local police, my sister is pulled over on a regular basis. The police usually give her some petty excuse and usually let her go with "warnings," but the inconsistency is there, and it really makes me sick of my own privilege and the desparity of treatment given to my sister simply because of her skin color.
Concluding, I can only say that I wish my heritage had nothing to do with who I am or how I am viewed by the rest of society. I wish that people's ethnic backgrounds were traits that we could only be proud of, not ashamed of or afraid to acknowledge. I wish we could understand and cherish people for their unique perspectives and not shy away from someone because they may look different than us. It is for these reasons that I ask only to be called by my name and by my merits, but never to be called "white."
Questions:
1. If your ancestry is of european lineage, or like mine English lineage, what does knowing about colonialism, slavery, and other such atrocities do to your feelings about being "white"?
2. How can we come to terms with the unwarranted privilege granted to "white" men (primarily) as well as women?
(For further reflection, I would refer you to the song, "Don't Call Me White" by NOFX)
Yo Quiero Personal Space
I sat down at a table in the dining area of Taco Bell. I probably can count the number of times I've eaten inside a Taco Bell on one hand, so the experience would be a perfect opportunity for me to observe my fellow patrons. I didn't know exactly how many people would filter through the doors just past the noon hour, but I figured I'd observe enough people to write a brief blog about my experience. Boy, was that the understatement of the year.
After finishing my Seven Layer Burrito, I slowly sipped on my fountain drink, watching just over the top of my notebook like a rookie private investigator who can't help but be noticed. I listened as a team of construction workers - all white men - talked about various camping trip experiences. Their volume was exaggerated, just as were their hand movements. A Hispanic mother and daughter sat down at the booth across from me, maintaining much lower tones in their quiet conversation than the boisterous construction workers. The construction workers left, and for a few minutes the Taco Bell dining area was quiet...
Quiet, as if foreshadowing an approaching storm.
I refilled my fountain drink and returned to my seat. I hadn't even settled into my seat when a raucous cacophony of teenage voices poured in through the doorway as a busload of high schoolers accosted the weaving maze leading up to the front counter. I could barely contain myself. Jackpot! As the stream of students continued to pour in through the doors, I scribbled frantically in my notebook, still trying to remain as inconspicuous as possible. Personal spaces were violated as bodies packed into the lunch line. Conversations loudened as multiple conversations battled for priority and supremacy. Lines were crossed in that maze of metal hand rails that would normally create distance in almost any other setting. As I watched the teenagers filter through the line, I wondered what would happen if an outsider tried to infiltrate the same personal space. Would a random stranger be given the same leiniency as friends and chaperones? Probably not. Would a stranger even feel comfortable pinned in close proximity with people who were in turn strangers to him/her? Probably not. Yet, as the maze to the front counter grew more and more jammed with bodies, my suppositions were challenged.
Enter a family of three: a mother and her two children. With barely enough room to squeeze through the front door, the family squished in with the swarm of teenagers and chaperones.
Then a funny thing happened. As if triggered by the lack of personal space, these complete strangers began talking and laughing, carrying on as if they had been friends for years.
Could it be that our personal space has been the great divider, the thick, transparent outer skin separating us from our true inner socialite? Could it be that with personal space gone, as evinced by this experience, strangers seem to loosen up, to feel almost a greater level of comfort with those within our close proximity?
Perhaps the rules of personal space are nothing more than rules we want in place to keep others at a distance. Perhaps the rules of personal space are voided when standing in line at a fast food restaurant. Perhaps the forbidden behavior within the contexts of the fast food line is then the rules we cherish so much in normal settings. Would people complain if we gave each other the same personal space in a fast food line that we would on a sidewalk? Would the line stretch back through the front doors and into the parking lot if we alotted three feet of space between us and the person in front of us?
But, maybe the ability to feel comfortable within the contexts of personal space violation is not the case for everyone. Maybe violation of personal space is only acceptable to those that are already sociable people. I know I for one cringe when people stand too close to me, much less try starting up a conversation. Additionally, perhaps the level of personal space we are willing to give up varies depending on the situation, or the person. If someone smells funny, or is dressed weird, or if they are the only other person in line, our liberty with their and our personal space would most likely differ.
And what of our vocal personal space? Is it okay to be loud and boisterous with other people in the vicinity, like the construction workers? Or does fast food dining room etiquette ask for vocal personal space while forfeiting physical personal space?
Perhaps these revelations regarding fast food personal space are, in fact, relative to each circumstance. Whatever the case may be, I know that my unique experience observing this Taco Bell lunch hour was an eye opening experience and has brought up some interesting questions.
So, what is your level of personal space?
Does it differ depending on the circumstances?
Are you comfortable giving up your personal space?
What do you feel are the rules for vocal personal space?
After finishing my Seven Layer Burrito, I slowly sipped on my fountain drink, watching just over the top of my notebook like a rookie private investigator who can't help but be noticed. I listened as a team of construction workers - all white men - talked about various camping trip experiences. Their volume was exaggerated, just as were their hand movements. A Hispanic mother and daughter sat down at the booth across from me, maintaining much lower tones in their quiet conversation than the boisterous construction workers. The construction workers left, and for a few minutes the Taco Bell dining area was quiet...
Quiet, as if foreshadowing an approaching storm.
I refilled my fountain drink and returned to my seat. I hadn't even settled into my seat when a raucous cacophony of teenage voices poured in through the doorway as a busload of high schoolers accosted the weaving maze leading up to the front counter. I could barely contain myself. Jackpot! As the stream of students continued to pour in through the doors, I scribbled frantically in my notebook, still trying to remain as inconspicuous as possible. Personal spaces were violated as bodies packed into the lunch line. Conversations loudened as multiple conversations battled for priority and supremacy. Lines were crossed in that maze of metal hand rails that would normally create distance in almost any other setting. As I watched the teenagers filter through the line, I wondered what would happen if an outsider tried to infiltrate the same personal space. Would a random stranger be given the same leiniency as friends and chaperones? Probably not. Would a stranger even feel comfortable pinned in close proximity with people who were in turn strangers to him/her? Probably not. Yet, as the maze to the front counter grew more and more jammed with bodies, my suppositions were challenged.
Enter a family of three: a mother and her two children. With barely enough room to squeeze through the front door, the family squished in with the swarm of teenagers and chaperones.
Then a funny thing happened. As if triggered by the lack of personal space, these complete strangers began talking and laughing, carrying on as if they had been friends for years.
Could it be that our personal space has been the great divider, the thick, transparent outer skin separating us from our true inner socialite? Could it be that with personal space gone, as evinced by this experience, strangers seem to loosen up, to feel almost a greater level of comfort with those within our close proximity?
Perhaps the rules of personal space are nothing more than rules we want in place to keep others at a distance. Perhaps the rules of personal space are voided when standing in line at a fast food restaurant. Perhaps the forbidden behavior within the contexts of the fast food line is then the rules we cherish so much in normal settings. Would people complain if we gave each other the same personal space in a fast food line that we would on a sidewalk? Would the line stretch back through the front doors and into the parking lot if we alotted three feet of space between us and the person in front of us?
But, maybe the ability to feel comfortable within the contexts of personal space violation is not the case for everyone. Maybe violation of personal space is only acceptable to those that are already sociable people. I know I for one cringe when people stand too close to me, much less try starting up a conversation. Additionally, perhaps the level of personal space we are willing to give up varies depending on the situation, or the person. If someone smells funny, or is dressed weird, or if they are the only other person in line, our liberty with their and our personal space would most likely differ.
And what of our vocal personal space? Is it okay to be loud and boisterous with other people in the vicinity, like the construction workers? Or does fast food dining room etiquette ask for vocal personal space while forfeiting physical personal space?
Perhaps these revelations regarding fast food personal space are, in fact, relative to each circumstance. Whatever the case may be, I know that my unique experience observing this Taco Bell lunch hour was an eye opening experience and has brought up some interesting questions.
So, what is your level of personal space?
Does it differ depending on the circumstances?
Are you comfortable giving up your personal space?
What do you feel are the rules for vocal personal space?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Immigration Experience in "Far and Away"
In the movie, "Far and Away," starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, the viewer is taken on a journey through the hardships faced by two different Irish immigrants. Joseph Donelly (Cruise) is the son of a tenant farmer whose landlord kicks their family off of their land after they fail to pay their rent for several months. After trying to kill the landlord and failing, Joseph flees to America with the landlord's daughter, Shannon Christie (Kidman). This movie provides a deep analysis of the struggles facing immigrants both in their homeland and in America, depicted through the story of Joseph and Shannon.
Perhaps the most interesting study pertaining to reasons for leaving Ireland is seen through the character of Shannon. Shannon is a member of the Irish aristocracy, and her reasons for going to America seem sparked by the idea of the American Dream. She thinks that America is going to be this big adventure with no drawbacks, a land where land is free and she can be whoever she wants to be. Because of the imminent threat of execution hanging over Joseph's head, he goes along with her, but he never really seems caught up in the idealization of America in the same way as Shannon. This eludes to a class disparity between the two, as Joseph has lived a hard life filled with struggle and disappointment, whereas Shannon has always had everything given to her on a silver platter. Ultimately, it is Joseph who lands on his feet most firmly when they arrive in America, although difficulties seem to plague both Joseph and Shannon at every turn.
Challenges confront Joseph in the form of Kelly, his boxing manager. Kelly sees in Joseph an opportunity to exploit a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant, and takes him under his wing, claiming some kind of alliance with Joseph due to their shared Irish homeland. Ultimately, Kelly throws Joseph into the streets like so much garbage when his usefulness has expired, showing that even Joseph may have had misconceptions about the American Dream.
The challenges confronting Shannon are multiple. First, Shannon is immediately taken advantage of by a supposed friend who steals her silver spoons before being shot by street thugs. This seems to be the disillusionment that starts to open Shannon's eyes. Secondly, Shannon is so used to the life of an aristocrat that she struggles to provide for herself, evinced by her disrespect for her crude boss at the chicken factory. She gives up three days of wages just to insult him, which seems something only a person used to having endless resources would do.
Ultimately, the movie's portrayal of the struggles of two immigrants from two entirely different economic backgrounds provides an excellent study of issues of power struggles between classes. Whether by looking through the eyes of Joseph the tenant farmer or Shannon the aristocrat, the viewer is informed of the various trials faced by either economic class as they make their way to and through America. "Far and Away" tells the story of just how different of a land America is, and offers a strong case for the disillusionment of the American Dream.
What did you think was the biggest issue of class struggle in the film?
In what ways did Shannon transform as a character from the beginning of the film to the end?
Perhaps the most interesting study pertaining to reasons for leaving Ireland is seen through the character of Shannon. Shannon is a member of the Irish aristocracy, and her reasons for going to America seem sparked by the idea of the American Dream. She thinks that America is going to be this big adventure with no drawbacks, a land where land is free and she can be whoever she wants to be. Because of the imminent threat of execution hanging over Joseph's head, he goes along with her, but he never really seems caught up in the idealization of America in the same way as Shannon. This eludes to a class disparity between the two, as Joseph has lived a hard life filled with struggle and disappointment, whereas Shannon has always had everything given to her on a silver platter. Ultimately, it is Joseph who lands on his feet most firmly when they arrive in America, although difficulties seem to plague both Joseph and Shannon at every turn.
Challenges confront Joseph in the form of Kelly, his boxing manager. Kelly sees in Joseph an opportunity to exploit a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant, and takes him under his wing, claiming some kind of alliance with Joseph due to their shared Irish homeland. Ultimately, Kelly throws Joseph into the streets like so much garbage when his usefulness has expired, showing that even Joseph may have had misconceptions about the American Dream.
The challenges confronting Shannon are multiple. First, Shannon is immediately taken advantage of by a supposed friend who steals her silver spoons before being shot by street thugs. This seems to be the disillusionment that starts to open Shannon's eyes. Secondly, Shannon is so used to the life of an aristocrat that she struggles to provide for herself, evinced by her disrespect for her crude boss at the chicken factory. She gives up three days of wages just to insult him, which seems something only a person used to having endless resources would do.
Ultimately, the movie's portrayal of the struggles of two immigrants from two entirely different economic backgrounds provides an excellent study of issues of power struggles between classes. Whether by looking through the eyes of Joseph the tenant farmer or Shannon the aristocrat, the viewer is informed of the various trials faced by either economic class as they make their way to and through America. "Far and Away" tells the story of just how different of a land America is, and offers a strong case for the disillusionment of the American Dream.
What did you think was the biggest issue of class struggle in the film?
In what ways did Shannon transform as a character from the beginning of the film to the end?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Two Truths and a Lie
Here are three statements about myself. Two are true, and one is false. Can you guess which one doesn't belong?
1. I don't eat mammals.
2. I am taller than all of my siblings.
3. I was the lead singer of a metal band for eight years.
So, which one is false? Best of luck!
1. I don't eat mammals.
2. I am taller than all of my siblings.
3. I was the lead singer of a metal band for eight years.
So, which one is false? Best of luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
