Change: Using Institutions to Make a Stand

As I read the last articles for the semester about using institutions to make social change I started to think and realize how much institutions have been used throughout the past to make changes. Some have worked wonders others couldn’t even put a dent in society. The article about AIM and the Lakota Indians was one that really stuck in my mind. At the end of the article the Native Americans who participated in this “march of broken treaties” didn’t really accomplish what they wanted to with the government but it seemed that they had accomplished something much different, something that may have actually meant more to them. Reading the article I remember Mary writing how some of the male natives who had joined with the AIM group had felt like they regained their “Indianess” through the ceremony and by just sticking together with their fellow Natives and standing their ground at the BMI.

I think the idea of the Resource Mobilization Theory fits well with this because it argues that social movements develop when individuals with grievances are able to mobilize sufficient resources to take action. These Lakotas had grievances and they used the resources of other Native Americans to take action and try to make a point. When you think about all of these different movements, like Alcatraz, the Civil Rights movement, the UFW strike, etc, do you ever wonder why the things that these people fought for still subtly remain today? Yes the Civil Rights movement did so much for the African American race but prejudice and discrimination are still present, yes Native Americans came together and stood their ground at Alcatraz and the BMI yet treaties are still being broken. But then, I remember in lecture how we did discuss that these changes are being made in small increments. It just doesn’t seem right that such enormous efforts only bring about so little change.

Through boycotts and stand-offs and sit-ins, the minorities of this society continue to use their bodies as resources, but to me it just doesn’t seem like enough anymore. We all want to make a change but the resources we don’t have, we don’t have the power that the majority of our society has when we just continue to come together as separate groups (as ironic as that sounds). It’s amazing how much a group can come together to make a point, but it’s either the African Americans coming together, or the Native Americans coming together, or the Latinos/Hispanics coming together. What if all minorities came together to make a point, what if we all showed society how we are still being discriminated against “lowkey” and how we continue to have our cultures co-opted and simplified into something unauthentic. I don’t really understand how society has shown so much resistance to the movements that these institutions have created in order to push for social change yet America continues to call itself the land of equal opportunity and a melting pot. America tells itself that there is progress being made, and sure there is but when will a change come that doesn’t require years and years of baby steps to achieve its purpose? I’m glad to see these institutions paving the way for social change, I’m just waiting for the day that the real change will come.

Prom night in Mississippi

After watching the documentary Prom Night in Mississippi in class on Tuesday and Thursday, I was actually in disbelief that something like this actually existed today. I don’t understand how after everything our country has been through and how far we’ve come that some people are still that racist. I know there are racist people out there, but I always associated it with neo-Nazis and white supremacy. I could not believe that an entire town in present day America allowed for such outwardly racist customs to continue. What was more outrageous was that the white parents actually tried to resist the integration of the prom. Before watching this documentary I always had thought that in the south today blacks were accepted and treated more fairly and equally than they are in the north. I always used to compare Atlanta to Milwaukee and thought of the south as being more diverse and accepting. Maybe it is just because I grew up near Milwaukee and I always knew that Milwaukee was a very segregated city, in which blacks are severely discriminated against. I remember in high school one my history teachers told us that in a survey of blacks, the number one city they felt most discriminated against was Milwaukee. However, the outwardly racist views of these parents is completely different than the discrimination in Milwaukee and is not something I expected to see anywhere in America regardless of where they are from. I don’t think you would ever see a whole town outwardly expressing racism in the North. After seeing this video it just adds to the stereotype that Southerners are racist hicks. In class you could hear everyone laughing, especially when they interviewed the father of the girl who was dating a black boy. He was the epitome of a racist hick, and it was hard not to laugh at him, or the whole town for that matter. Watching this made me mad, but at the same time I felt sorry for all of those people. I think that a lot of them are poor and uneducated, and they were never taught that racism is wrong. I think that even if your parents are racist, you can escape the cycle by being educated about racism. However, I don’t think that a lot of these people ever were taught about it. One of the statements I remember the most was made by a girl referring to what her grandmother or grandfather had taught her. Her grandmother had said that God had made everyone different on purpose, but if everyone started mixing races then everyone would eventually be the same, and that is not for what God intended. I think that this statement is ridiculous and makes no sense. It makes me mad that people try to use God as a way to justify racism. I do not believe that God would ever want someone to be discriminated against. All of the excuses for why the blacks and whites should not share a prom were stupid and long outdated. Their excuse that mixing the proms could be dangerous didn’t any sense because if these kids could all go to school together and get along everyday, then why would it change for one night? I think that all of this comes down to education. If these people were just better educated on the matter then maybe their opinions could change and people would learn that just because their parents say blacks and whites are not equal doesn’t make it true.

Perpetuating Native American Stereotypes

Native Americans have inhabited America for a very long time. Since the Anglos arrived we have been cheating them out of treaties and displacing them. As our population has grown, the amount of Native Americans has made up a smaller and smaller proportion of the US. The fact that they are now minorities in our country has made it easier for the media and corporate America to represent them through stereotypes.

The Sport in America: The New Racial Stereotypes article mentioned that other races have been portrayed by “ . . .dehumanizing, one-dimensional images . . .”, but these images have either been altered or disappeared over time, on the other hand “ . . .the Indian image persists in corporate marketing and product labeling.” The movie we watched in class about Indian mascots also mentioned that we have stopped representing Blacks through caricatures, but not Native Americans. This makes one wonder, why do we continue to represent Indians in this way? This article also mentioned that American Indians represent such a small amount of the population that the corporations that use Indian images in marketing and product labeling have no incentive to stop using these portrayals. It’s all about making money; the fact that these are human beings are being depicted by horrible stereotypes does not matter. Why do Americans not care that these images are still being used? Perhaps we have become so accustomed to seeing them in advertising and in the media that we don’t even notice they are there. Much like violence in movies we have become desensitized to these images which is why they do not bother us.

As far as the Native American mascot conflict goes, although some Native Americans may not take offense to being portrayed in this manner and although the mascot may stand for honor and bravery, which are all good things, I do not think that it is ok for people to take one’s sacred traditions and customs and use them for entertainment. As mentioned in class I think that if a prominent leader in the white community like a priest was used as a mascot and did a half-time communion show, many people would be very angry and loud about that anger. I think that the fact that there are so few Native Americans with respect to the rest of the population makes it is easier for us to ignore their angry cries. If we (the white majority) were put in their position, we would make sure that our voices were heard and that something was changed. As they say, majority rules.

I think it would take a large group of people in order to change these images. People other than Native Americans would have to get involved in order to create change. One main problem with this was mentioned in the article, What Can We Do?. Johnson mentioned in this article is that the people in the majority group who are not affected by these issues have trouble finding motivation to help change societies problems. If American’s joined together and forced the big companies, sports teams, and other people who perpetuate these images to stop, we may find that we ourselves gain. We may find a new sense of freedom from knowing that we are no longer a part of the problem, which Johnson suggested is a benefit of dominant group involvement.

I guess I have always realized that race is still an issue today but I never really thought it was still this strong. Maybe I have just been ignorant or maybe its because I have always lived in the Midwest, but I never thought that a school could still have two separate proms, one for whites and one for blacks. How is it that such a situation can still exist today? I just don’t understand how people can still be living like this. Like I said, maybe I am ignorant and just have been blinded but I thought that for the most part, segregation like this had ended. Since taking this class, I have learned and understand many of the reasons and ways that race still effects people and society. I understand that just because a law says that all people are equal does not mean that that’s true in practice. I believe that they key to ending the race problems today is education. Yes, I acknowledge that other things need to occur as well but I strongly believe that educating people to understand these differences and why they happen is the only way to end them. We learned in lecture about the paradox of social change and how changes are spontaneous and incremental. The little changes will end up adding up to be big changes and I feel that education is the key to those little and big changes. Just by understanding the few concepts we covered in class, I feel like I can teach others and start making those small changes. While watching Prom Night in Mississippi, something that a father said really stuck me as hypocritical. This man’s white daughter was dating a black boy and he completely disapproved of the whole situation and he straight up said that he didn’t like black people. But then he went on to explain how it is the parent’s responsibility to break the cycle of hatred because they are just passing it on to their children, and yet he is not trying to make a change himself. It just seemed odd to me that he would even say something like that. The most frustrating part of the whole issue of segregation in this city is that they kids who are being segregated don’t even want it and it is really the choice of the parents. The students have been educated and have started to made choices not to let race affect the way they act towards someone who is different than them. There small changes led to a very big change for their high school and community.

Co-Opting: Somebody Loses

The idea of co-opting is very interesting to me, and honestly I never really realized how widespread it was. Co-opting seems like huge circle, it never ends; somebody is always borrowing symbols and ideas from other cultures and turning them into their own. In lecture when we discussed co-opting in depth, the idea that really caught my eye was the idea of co-opting in the music world, especially with “race music” and the “Bo Diddly Beat”. I always knew that themes, and beats, were so called “borrowed” but I never realized for how long this has been going on. It’s funny to me because now they call it “sampling”, yet in my opinion, it’s still something that takes away from the original, I see it more as stealing rather than borrowing.

The biggest issue that I see with co-opting is that it takes away from the original culture, I feel like it makes the creators lose credit, or even leads to them being forgotten. Co-opting is diminishing to many cultures in some ways. I remember learning a couple months ago about the origin of the piñata and the game double-dutch. Many people believe that the piñata came from Mexico, and many people believe that double-dutch is strictly part of the African American culture, or came from Africa, when in actuality, both assumptions are wrong. The piñata was essentially co-opted from the Chinese culture, and double-dutch from the Egyptian culture, and due to that co-optation it seems like parts of the original cultures have been diminished or forgotten, and they have definitely lost the credit for creation. Like we talked about in lecture, co-opting is fun or beneficial for some and condensing and negative for others, but the ones that it is fun for seems to only be the ones that are committing the co-optation. Co-optation is basically people gaining popularity at the expense of causing a culture to lose a part of itself.

Co-opting is really big when it comes to school mascots, and usually a lot of controversy comes with it. The majority of school mascots that are co-opted are based on stereotypes of Native American cultures, the Washington Redskins, Chief Illiniwek of University of Illinois, and the Kansas City Cheifs. These mascots not become representative of the teams but they also become representative of the tribes that they are borrowed from which takes away from the authenticity of the Native American culture. When co-opting is used in sports such as these, it makes these cultures subject to mockery as well. In my opinion co-opting is only positive when it comes to popularity, but it seems as though popularity is something that the American society is very preoccupied with. Yes, symbols are polysemic, so we can all see them in different ways, which is something that is natural, but when things like co-opting cause cultural symbols to be polysemic in a way that is diminishing to the culture it becomes an issue. Of course, co-opting will continue on, as I said before, it’s a never ending circle, but I believe that in the end, maybe nothing will really be authentic and original.

Symbolic Order and Co-opting

One of the concepts we discussed in lecture this week was symbolic order, and the very first thing I thought of after learning about it was an article I once read about the Twilight saga. The article was basically making fun of the books for their lack of character development. Bella, who is the main character, is merely described as a young awkward teenager with brown hair and brown eyes, and as for a physical description that is about as far as it goes. Some criticize Stephenie Meyer for her lack of character development; however, I would have to say that she is pretty much a genius because it is exactly this lack of character development that makes almost every teenage girl fall in love with the story. Like many other young women I also fell in love with the series because of the exciting love story between Bella and Edward, or so I thought. However, after reading this article about the series I realized that the reason I love the story so much is because I can see myself in Bella. The lack of description and development of Bella allows for almost every girl to see themselves in Bella. The story becomes so much more enjoyable when you can see yourself in that character, and in the case of Twilight, every girl reads the story and immediately falls in love with it because they believe that if Bella, who is just like them, can fall in love with someone like Edward then it could happen to them too. So in terms of symbolic order, the more we can see ourselves in Bella, the more validation we have that we too can find love like she and Edward has. The Twilight series is just one example of the symbolic order. We see the symbolic order all over the media because one key to marketing is making consumers believe that they need a certain product, and the way to do that is by hiring actors who are similar to the targeted consumers. When I think about symbolic order, one specific commercial comes to mind. Recently I saw a commercial where there was a woman who appeared to be racially ambiguous and she was talking about how she was hired by this company to be a spokeswoman because she was racially ambiguous and that way she could attract a wider variety of women to the product. I do not even remember what the commercial was advertising for, but called out the fact that companies use symbolic order to get people to buy their products. Basically symbolic order revolves around the fact that people have insecurities and because of those insecurities people feel the need to find self validation in the media.
Aside from symbolic order, we also spent a majority of lecture this week talking about co-opting. There are so many images and symbols in our culture that people do not even realize were originally borrowed from other cultures. Other times we see images that we know are borrowed, but yet we don’t realize that they are misrepresentations of other cultures. After watching the film “In whose Honor” it was clear that the University did not realize they were misrepresenting the chief until one woman who was a Native American found the misrepresentation offensive. Like we talked about, co-opting can be freedom for some while oppression for others. So while the university students and staff found the chief mascot to be inspirational others were hurt by the misrepresentation. When I think about co-opting, I do not really think there is anything wrong with it. I believe that all of the things we borrow from other cultures are done so out of admiration and as a way to expand our own culture. After all, there is a saying that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. However, in the case of the chief mascot is imitation truly flattery or is it just plain offensive? Well, at first I thought that the woman who was offended by the mascot was just being too sensitive and that she was blowing it out of proportion. However, it wasn’t until after she explained that the costume and dance performed at half-time was part of a religious ceremony that I began to think differently. I immediately tried to think what it would be like for me if some aspect of my religion were displayed as a form of entertainment at a sports event. I tried to picture what it would be like if a priest was the mascot. All I could think about was that even if they said they were honoring Catholicism that there is no way it could be sincere honor because many of the people “honoring” the priest aren’t even Catholic and don’t understand the significance. I think that if I were in the same position I would be offended because it would seem like they were mocking my religion. So in terms of whether the University was in the right or wrong, I feel that it was wrong for them to have the chief as a mascot because they needed to recognize that what they were using as a form of entertainment was a distortion of a religious ceremony, and in our society today that is unacceptable. I think that co-opting can be a good thing if the images and symbols borrowed from other cultures are not misrepresented, but in the case of the chief mascot, I think the university was wrong because unless everyone was taught the same values and customs as native Americans, there is just no way they could truly understand and honor the chief properly.

Symbolic Order Creating Negative Stereotypes

We discussed in class today the concept of symbolic order and how much of this symbolic order we see ourselves in that is represented in popular culture?

We live in a world that is becoming increasingly defined by image, so we cannot underestimate the effects that popular culture has on identity. That is, public discourse, including popular culture, shapes our understanding of what it means to be a man or woman in this society. At times the influence can be overwhelming. It seems that every time I turn on the television or open a magazine there is a new fashion style that is “in” and I need to keep up with. But the always changing trends are something that one can get used to and either choose to accept or ignore. But what is extremely hard to change is an image of yourself you think is represented poorly in popular culture as a result of symbolic order.

The symbolic order in our society creates images that are hard to escape and these images can even lead to unrealistic stereotypes. Most of these images are seen in mainstream television and movies. A common popular culture image that could be a result of symbolic order is the bimbo cheerleader which is seen in countless television shows and movies such as “Bring It On,” “Sugar and Spice,” and “Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.” These characters represented by obvious symbols such as high social status, good fashion sense, and lack of knowledge about important issues, result in an altered symbolic order in popular culture. This is very frustrating for cheerleaders/dancers like myself, who then get labeled all of these things as result of this symbolic order. I feel like the more people see this symbolic image of a bimbo cheerleader, the more they have a right validate cheerleaders as having these characteristics. But why are these symbolic characters continually brought up in popular culture? Why do people need to consistently see cheerleaders as possessing these characteristics?

It seems like to me that it is because these stereotypical symbols are what most people are comfortable with. If we all have a common view of a group of people it allows us feel like we know what they are about before we ever really have to get to know them. The problem with this is that these fictional characters and groups seen in the media then become what people expect in reality.

Another reason could be that these symbolic stereotypes are also more entertaining to look at and watch. This remains true when talking about physical attributes of groups represented in popular culture as well. Cheerleaders and dancers are symbolized as being thin and pretty, therefore whenever you do not these physical aspects in a cheerleader, it seems funny and unordinary. Television shows such as “Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader,” do a great job at emphasizing this physical symbolism associated with cheerleaders by kicking girls off the squad for being too fat rather then judging them by their dancing and cheering ability. This provides entertaining television but does nothing but reinforce negative stereotypes as a result of symbolic order.

Since the symbols involved in the typical bimbo cheerleader are mostly transcendent, there is hope for a change in their symbolic order. Cheerleaders and Dancers could try to change this symbolic order by proving that they are knowledgeable of important issues and making it apparent that high social status is not what is most important to them. If movies and television also focus on more positive symbols cheerleaders represent perhaps their overall symbolic order could then be transformed. It is hard to say if this representation will ever be seen in popular culture because the symbolism is so polysemic. What is seen as offensive and unrealistic to cheerleaders may be considered comforting and entertaining to others.

Music as a More Influential Form of Media

After lecture on Tuesday and then watching “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes”, I really began to think about if and how the media affects me. Media is a huge part of my life because I am constantly surrounded by television, music, movies, and the internet. Even though I am immersed in media practically all day every day, I would still say that the media does not affect me. In lecture we talked about how most people would say the media doesn’t influence them, but yet they do believe it influences other people. In reality, the media does influence everyone in one way or another. I agree with the Hypodermic Model, in that the media injects views and ideologies into the defenseless public unknowingly. However, I believe that some forms of media are more effective at changing people’s beliefs and views.
In the video “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes” a point is made in defense of hip-hop that the music videos are forms of entertainment just like movies are forms of entertainment. However, I believe that the music industry has a bigger influence on people’s views and beliefs than the movie industry does. While both industries are in the entertainment business, there is a huge difference between the two that makes the music industry a more effective and sometimes more harmful form of media. When people watch movies or television, they know that what they are watching is not real and that the characters are not real people, rather just actors. I will admit that I have watched shows and movies where I have wished I were more like one of the characters, but then I always realize that they are just that, a character. On the other hand, when someone watches a music video, and they see their favorite artist dressing and behaving a certain way they believe that what they see is who those people are. Even though the musician may just be playing a part the same way an actor in a movie does, the difference is that the audience does not always know that it is just an act. It seemed to me from the video, that most of the hip-hop artists didn’t see anything wrong with their lyrics and videos because they say that its just part of an image. I think that the artists are being just as ignorant as the audience to believe that their behavior is only part of an image and that it doesn’t influence anyone. The two major issues brought up in the video that have been a major influence on our culture are violence and exploitation of women. As anyone can see violence and the exploitation of women are all over the media, not only in the music industry. However, like I have been saying these images in the music industry can be more harmful to our culture because people do not always separate what they see from reality. So when people see famous musicians rapping about shooting people or half naked women grinding all over the rappers, they think that in order to be cool or successful they have to act the same way. I think that hip-hop music videos are a good example of how images can be polysemic because even though white people may listen to more hip-hop black people are most influenced by the violence and exploitation of women portrayed in the videos which is evident in the higher rates of violence and sexual assaults. So there is obviously a difference between the way most white people perceive the images they see in the music videos and the way most black people perceive the images. I think that before any of these issues in our culture can improve, it is important for the artists to recognize that their behavior does influence the people who listen to their music and watch their videos.

Perpetuating Stereotypes In The Media

“’What Makes football or basketball players more inclined to abuse women?’ Equal numbers of hockey and baseball players are accused of domestic violence, yet I have never been asked this question about them.” (Sport in America: The New Racial Stereotypes) This is an interesting point, when I read it I immediately was brought back to an idea we learned at the beginning of the semester, the ultimate attribution error. It seems to me that the general public’s stereotypes of African Americans as being violent, and dangerous are just being “proven true” by all the news stories about black athletes committing crimes. On the other hand, those white athletes that abuse women, and commit other crimes seem to be somewhat brushed aside. In the most part these crimes are ignored, or at least don’t make as big of an impact, since the average white American believes that basketball and football (sports mostly dominated by African Americans) players are more prone to violence than other sports players.

It seems to me that this idea of the ultimate attribution error was also expressed in the hip-hop video we watched in class. One guy in the video mentioned that by acting tough and violent in the mainstream ghetto rap scene, rappers are perpetuating horrible black stereotypes. They are just making the white suburban people believe that they are right about inner city black people being criminals. These negative actions are seen as proof that black stereotypes are true.

On the flip side, if you watch movies or television shows, there are loads of overly buff white guys shooting people left and right, without thinking twice about it. Look at any James Bond movie, Indiana Jones, The terminator, Kill Bill, Face Off, and the list goes on and on. Somehow the American public doesn’t see this as suggesting that white people are just as violent and criminal as black people. When you consider it further, many of the white criminals in movies have more calculated, violent, farther reaching, and sinister murders than the ones suggested in rap music. Some example of this can be seen in the Saw movies, The Silence of the Lambs series, Perfume, and again the list goes on and on. Why is the violence in rap music more shocking and criminal to white society than these gory images we’ve been presented with for years?

The idea that symbols are polysemic also ties into the hip-hop video we watched in class. The consumers who listen to hip-hop may see the hypermasculine messages as good music, and as something they can relate to. Contrastingly, the outsiders, the upper/middle class white people look at the hip-hop lyrics and overly masculine messages of manhood being about conquering and violence as, like I stated earlier, proving their stereotypes of inner-city blacks. The sad thing is that the up and coming rappers that rapped for the camera said that they didn’t believe the stuff that they were saying, they were just saying it because that’s what sells. Why do violent and criminal messages sell?

Culture and Health

Many things can affect someone’s health status. In class we have learned that socioeconomic status, lifestyle choices, access to care, and trust within the healthcare system can all play a role. I also believe that one’s culture can play a very large role. In nursing school, we focus a lot on community health. In this course we look at how many different determinants can affect one’s health and one very important thing that we focus on is culture. For example, we worked with rural Latino families. This group suffers greatly from chronic diabetes. When we talked more in depth with this group we found that food plays a large role in their culture. Many people explained that often people gather to celebrate and meet and food is a central part of this. They often feel that they can’t turn down food that someone else has prepared for them because it would be rude, even though they know it is not good for their diabetes or other health conditions. It is not that they don’t understand their own condition; it is just that other things, such as culture, can play a greater role on one’s health. From a healthcare perspective, it would be important to know these things about the Latino culture in order to put a plan in place that would be more specific and beneficial to a Latino diabetes patient. Of course we must also look at access and SES, but without understanding the social importance of food in this culture, any education or treatments would probably not be very beneficial.
In nursing school we are taught to be culturally competent nurses and I think that this is a very important concept. According to one of my nursing textbooks, Fundamentals of Nursing, culturally competent care is “the ability of a nurse to bridge culture gaps in caring, work with cultural differences, and enable clients and families to achieve meaningful and supportive caring.”
Each culture looks at health and illness in very different ways. Everyone approaches healthcare differently. These differences can range from causes of disease, methods of diagnosis, treatment, healers, practitioners, and caring patterns. In order to completely understand a patient and their illness, I believe that it is important to first look at the culture that they take part in. As we talked about in lecture, it would be important to look at their habitus, but more importantly, we need to talk to the person in an open and understanding manner so that we can understand more about the culture that they come from. We cannot just make assumptions based off of what we see. These concepts have become very important to me and the nurse that I will be.

Culture and Health

Many things can affect someone’s health status. In class we have learned that socioeconomic status, lifestyle choices, access to care, and trust within the healthcare system can all play a role. I also believe that one’s culture can play a very large role. In nursing school, we focus a lot on community health. In this course we look at how many different determinants can affect one’s health and one very important thing that we focus on is culture. For example, we worked with rural Latino families. This group suffers greatly from chronic diabetes. When we talked more in depth with this group we found that food plays a large role in their culture. Many people explained that often people gather to celebrate and meet and food is a central part of this. They often feel that they can’t turn down food that someone else has prepared for them because it would be rude, even though they know it is not good for their diabetes or other health conditions. It is not that they don’t understand their own condition; it is just that other things, such as culture, can play a greater role on one’s health. From a healthcare perspective, it would be important to know these things about the Latino culture in order to put a plan in place that would be more specific and beneficial to a Latino diabetes patient. Of course we must also look at access and SES, but without understanding the social importance of food in this culture, any education or treatments would probably not be very beneficial.
In nursing school we are taught to be culturally competent nurses and I think that this is a very important concept. According to one of my nursing textbooks, Fundamentals of Nursing, culturally competent care is “the ability of a nurse to bridge culture gaps in caring, work with cultural differences, and enable clients and families to achieve meaningful and supportive caring.”
Each culture looks at health and illness in very different ways. Everyone approaches healthcare differently. These differences can range from causes of disease, methods of diagnosis, treatment, healers, practitioners, and caring patterns. In order to completely understand a patient and their illness, I believe that it is important to first look at the culture that they take part in. As we talked about in lecture, it would be important to look at their habitus, but more importantly, we need to talk to the person in an open and understanding manner so that we can understand more about the culture that they come from. We cannot just make assumptions based off of what we see. These concepts have become very important to me and the nurse that I will be.

Shopping for a Partner and Interracial Relationships

In class we talked about how dating is a method of shopping for a mate. The popularization of dating websites has in a way created a marketplace for shoppers to find exactly what they are looking for. People can choose partners based on race, religion, and personal interests. So it would seem that dating is more like shopping because people go on dating websites to find that right person the same way they go to the mall to find that perfect outfit. As we saw from the statistics from one dating website, I feel that this method of dating only perpetuates racism. Because dating websites allow a person to meet many more people than one would in daily life, I think that people become pickier and use stricter standards for finding a partner. For example, as the statistics from lecture showed white women were most likely to respond white men than any other group of males. The dating websites make it easier for people to completely exclude certain people based on their race and religion. Therefore, I think that this method for dating is only hurting our society because it encourages people of the same race and religion to be together, when interracial relationships have proven to benefit society by lessening distinctions between groups, reducing prejudice, and spurring economic and political change as well. Interracial relationships are good because they can teach family members and friends to be accepting of other races. If blacks only ever married blacks and whites only ever married whites it would only perpetuate racism. I’m not saying that dating websites completely eliminate the possibility for interracial relationships because there still are people who are open to interracial relationships or even prefer interracial relationships. I just believe that websites allow for people to be more selective. I think that if I went on a dating website I would put my preferences for a white catholic male. Not because I am racist or closed minded, but because when given the option out of hundreds of men it is what I would prefer based on my own race and religion. However, in my daily life I do not go around judging men on this premise because I am more open to different races and religions when I am meeting someone in person.

As I have said before, interracial relationships can be beneficial to society for multiple reasons, yet there still seems to be a bit of a taboo surrounding interracial relationships, particularly relationships between white men and black women. In lecture we saw that the statistics from the dating website showed black women getting the lowest response rate out of all groups of men, especially white males, and this is not the first time I have heard of this. One of my white female friends has always been known to date black men. Many of her friends are black males, yet she does not have any black female friends. She said to me once that it was “nasty” for a black girl and a white guy to date. I think she even preferred to see black men with white women over black women. So if she thought it wasn’t acceptable for black women to date white men or black men, then where does this leave black females? One girl in class mentioned how the reason for this could date back to when blacks were enslaved. I think that this is one logical theory, but I believe a better explanation is the exchange hypothesis. I completely agree with the exchange hypothesis in that people are more likely to overlook someone’s race if they have a higher economic status. White women are more likely to marry a black man if he has a higher education and economic status. I think one of the reasons we don’t see relationships between white men and black women that much is because white men are usually more educated and don’t have the need to use the exchange hypothesis, whereas it may be easier for a less educated white woman to marry an educated black man than an educated white man. Also less black females have higher education so the exchange hypothesis does not even work if they do not have a higher economic status that would lead a white male to overlook race. Therefore, this whole hypothesis comes down the importance of education. An education gives people a better chance of marrying outside of their own race, and because fewer black women have a higher education, it is more of a taboo for a white man and black woman to be together.

Cultural Differences and Movement

Reading “American’s Have a Different Attitude” really opened my eyes to how different ethnicities/cultures see the American culture. The problem I have is that every culture has its own beliefs and customs and one culture should not judge the other for how they do things if they aren’t causing any hurt to others. One thing I did find interesting is that the Filipinos associated the promiscuous American culture with predominantly white women rather than whites, blacks, and others. Looking back, with slavery, and segregation, and even the Tuskegee experiment, it was always the White Americans who looked at the African Americans and other minority races as promiscuous, dirty, etc.

I’m not exactly sure what the numbers are but is it true that white women are more promiscuous, and less family oriented than other cultures/races? If so, it seems that contradicts what it is that White Americans tried to fix with the minority races long ago. One thing that does worry me is that some of these assumptions that other cultures such as the Filipinos have on Americans just aren’t feasible, and they’re way too generalized. Just because some members of one culture do something doesn’t mean that every single person in that culture follows suit. I think the fact that this happens is tied in with prejudice. Prejudices are usually generalized to one culture or race and that can lead to discrimination of that culture and things of that sort. Looking at the Filipino culture presented in the article the beliefs pressured upon them I think may be too strict. I remember talking to my grandparents and parents one time about beliefs and customs and how at times they need to evolve with the time because what they were applied to in the past isn’t the same as what they are being applied to now. There is more technology, more knowledge, and more social advancement in today’s society and in order for children of now to keep up with the advancements and society of now, some things may need to change. I remember reading how one of the Filipino girls did believe that the culture of her people was too strict when it came to dating and having a social life and this caused her to rebel and do what she thought was right.

Another thing that I wanted to touch on was the double standard of gender roles in the cultures like the Filipino culture. Women in these cultures are so restricted that in my opinion they really aren’t allowed to have a life until they get married. I remember reading one of the passages where a young Filipina asked the question “But my question is, if you are not allowed to date, how are you supposed to find your husband?”, I agreed with this question. Why is it that the women are not even allowed to have a male touch their shoulders before they are married, but a male is not even mildly restricted in this area? There is a male privilege in cultures like these, just as there is a white privilege in our American culture. Also, it seems that both of these privileges are somewhat invisible, it’s just a part of the culture and that’s the way that it is. There was an example in a previous lecture dealing with oppositional culture, when white kids do something it’s just kids being kids, but when black or other minority kids do something it suddenly has the title or race on it. I see a connection with that example and what’s going on in cultures such as the Filipino culture. It’s like if a guy were to do something against the culture it’s just boys will be boys but if a girl were to do something slightly against the culture she’s suddenly a disgrace to the culture and women should not be doing what she is doing. It is a new era now and I believe that these cultures need to evolve to fit with the present time. I’m not saying that the American culture is perfect, we do have our faults, especially with promiscuity, but that’s not to say that we don’t have morals. I’m saying, move with the time, but don’t leave the basis of your culture behind.

A Crime Is A Crime

I always knew that there was a misrepresentation of our population in the jail system, but I didn’t know how bad it was until we covered it in class. As we began the class readings and discussions I came to realize that the US seems to consider some crimes “more criminal” than others.

White-collar crime is widespread and very costly. According to “ . . . and the Poor get Prison,” it takes far more dollars from our pockets than all the FBI index crimes combined. If these crimes are costing us more money than the “poor crimes” of America, why don’t American’s care? In a country that is so set on lowering taxes and gaining money, why would we not care about these people who are cheating the US out of money? Why do we consider someone that steals a TV more worthy of punishment than someone that embezzles thousands, or more, of dollars?

As stated in “No Equal Justice: The Color of Punishment,” “When the effects of a criminal law reach the sons and daughters of the white majority, our response is not to get tough, but rather to get lenient.” When I read this I began to wonder why this is so, but as I contemplated, it began to make sense. When the majority white children are affected, the parents are going to start to complain and put up a fight. And when they are loud enough, something will be changed to make them stop. This reminded me of elementary school and when some children from the majority white families were assigned to a teacher that their parents had heard were inadequate it only took one call to the principal’s office to get them switched out. This left some classrooms disproportionately full of minority children. In our culture it seems that until the middle class is affected by something, no one seems to take notice or care.

As discussed in lecture the idea of physiognomy may seem absurd, but if people continue to make comments like “Oh it’s no surprise he committed a crime because he’s black,” then clearly some must believe in it. I feel like is a thought that many people vocalize, or seem to suggest as the watch or discuss the news. It’s not entirely their fault though, when you are constantly watching the news, which is constantly telling you of some crime that some African American committed you eventually begin to believe that it is the Black population that are committing all of the crimes. But one thing that the news does not stress is that blacks are also the most likely race to be a victim of these violent crimes that we consider “black crimes.” According to “An Overview of Trends in Social and Economic Well-being” in our textbook, “Blacks are far more likely to be homicide victims than is any other group.” If this is so, why are they always portrayed as criminals on the news?

One last thing that really shocked me when I was reading was something I read in “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” The studies in this article seemed to show that a white offender was more likely to be called back for a job that black non-offender. Perhaps it’s because we have a racial stereotype that a black men are criminals, or because we view crimes that the poor commit as worse crimes than those the rich commit and that the face of the prison system are the poor minorities (mostly blacks). Either way, this seemed wrong to me. I don’t understand why a company would rather hire someone that they know has committed a crime over someone that to the best of their knowledge is a law abiding citizen with no previous criminal history.

As pointed out in “ . . . and the Poor get Prison” people who are equally or more dangerous, equally or more criminal are not getting the same punishments as the poor. In my personal opinion a criminal is a criminal, and they should be treated as so. The whole point of our criminal justice system is to keep criminals off the street. They are not doing their job if some guilty people are let free while others, who are equally or less criminal are punished.

I just recently watched the movie the Blindside and it got me thinking about race and opportunity. Michael Ohre’s story is one that is wonderful and hopeful. It shows that no matter where you come from, you can have a great life. But is that really true? Yes, Michael rose above living in the projects and refrained from being involved in gangs and violence but were those the only reasons that he went to college and had a NFL career? If Michael hadn’t been accepted into a rich, white family who had extreme influence in the community and schools, would he have made it? I am not sure if any young man living in the projects could have had the same outcome. Even if he lived a good life and was not involved in drugs or gangs, was dedicated to his education, and was a good athlete, would a university even have looked at him? Most likely this person would not have received the support from his school to encourage his learning and he may not have even had a dedicated coach. His school would probably have less funding and therefore would only be focused on standardized testing. I don’t know if this boy would have had the same opportunities as the boy from the projects who was taken in by a white, rich family.

As we read in “Hitting Them Hardest When They’re Small” by Kozol, children who don’t receive a good education early and who attend schools with little money, have poorer outcomes. The real-life Michael Oher had a GPA of 0.6 when he first applied to Briarcrest Christian School. In his early childhood, he repeated both first and second grade and attended eleven different schools during his first nine years as a student. But after attending Briarcrest his GPA rose to a 2.52. They rich, white family that adopted him also paid for a tutor to work with him for 20 hours a week. No wonder Michael’s GPA improved. He was finally receiving an adequate education and was getting the help he needed to learn what he missed in previous years. Could he have done this if he were still living in the projects? In “Children of the City Invincible: Camden, New Jersey” and “Life on the Mississippi: East St. Louis, Illinois”, both by Kozol, we see the effects on two cities’ children because of little funding for education. These students do not receive the same education as other predominately white schools. How can we expect them to succeed as greatly?

Michael Oher’s story is a great one and the family who took him in and helped him obviously very generous and caring. But this story just shows how going to a school with large amounts of funding and how having large amounts of wealth can get you anywhere.

Consumption as a means to claim social power.

In lecture we talked about how consumerism in America is a way to fit in or even obtain social power. People are many times measured by the amount of things they have or by how expensive their things are. Why is it that in our culture a person’s value is often times judged based on their materialistic worth?
Coincidentally right after our lecture on Tuesday I watched a video for another class called “Kids and Money”. The video fit in perfectly with what we had just talked about because it was about how people, more specifically children, feel about money and material things. It interviewed children from all different backgrounds including children from extremely wealthy families to kids from poorer families. However, the general attitude was the same for all the kids. They all thought of materialistic things as a way to fit into a certain socio-economic status. No one wants to come off as a poor person, so many times people live beyond their means in order to appear of a higher social and economic class.
For kids, the sense of belonging is a very important aspect in their lives. Especially in school kids are more than ever pressured to fit into a certain group. The popular kids are many times the kids with nice clothes and nice things. So kids think of how they look and dress as a way to fit in and be popular. In the video there was one girl who was the epitome of a spoiled brat. She had a more extensive wardrobe than most girls I know, and she was only about 12 years old. The only thing that she seemed to care about was her appearance. She said that in school girls with bad clothes were dorks and weirdoes and that fat girls were not popular. For girls, just having a good wardrobe is not enough to fit in; they must also keep up their physical appearance, all of which cost even more money. Just look at celebrities, who are the role models for many young women, they all have expensive clothes, perfect hair and makeup, and perfect bodies. These women have all of these things because they have the money to buy the clothes, maintain the hair and makeup, and pay for personal trainers. Whenever I see celebrities and feel insecure because I do not look like them, I just say to myself oh I could look like that too if I had the money to pay for the same treatments they get. So many people think that the better they look the more money they appear to have as well. This idea that a person can be judged on how good they look and how much things they have transcends all genders, races, and ages in America. In the video there were also boys who felt that the way they looked determined their social status. One boy said that race doesn’t matter and that only money matters in determining a person’s social worth. I completely agree with this statement. I think that social status does not have anything to do with what race you are because the most important thing in determining someone’s social status is how much money they have. Just because a person is white does not mean they are automatically of a higher social class, it is how much money they have that determines their social status. Since people do not go around telling others how much money they have, it is only natural that they try and portray their wealth through their appearance by how many things they have and how expensive they are.

Defining Health Care

We ended class on Tuesday asking if health care is a human or civil right, a market commodity, public good, privilege or responsibility?

Human Rights can be defined as basic rights of all human beings to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as the US Constitution provides). Although usually thought of basic liberties -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to associate freely -- as well as the right to a basic standard of living. Health care arguably is necessary for the enjoyment of all these freedoms and the ability to participate in the life of a nation. From my perspective, healthcare is a human right that everyone is entitled to. I believe the only way to have a fair society is to provide universal health care for every human being no matter what income level, race or age. Something as serious as ones life should not have to be gambled on and health care should be considered a basic necessity. Basic necessities such as electricity and natural gas have been made available to every citizen at reasonable rates regardless of economic status. Utility subsidies, both at the state and federal law have made this possible. So why should health care be any different?

Regarding civil rights, these are also thought of typically in terms of the rights of people to participate in the civil life of their countries. For example, the right to vote, to eat at public restaurants, to not be discriminated against because of skin color, gender or ethnicity, etc. but basic economic rights are also considered to be part of this. The right to seek employment and obtain loans, without facing discrimination, and so forth. Again, not having access to health care can be worse in many respects than facing discrimination or being denied the right to participate in public life. People without health insurance can face financial ruin if they get sick in addition to becoming sicker if they cannot get the care they need. Similarly, people who have health insurance through their employers may face difficult choices regarding employment if the job they would like to switch to do not come with health insurance.

Health care has been treated as a market commodity in recent years and competition by health care providers and insurers can serve to improve health care. But the problem with using the "market" to allocate health care is that it inevitably will leave some people without care because they are either unable to afford it or unwilling to pay for it if they perceive themselves as healthy. Without getting too technical, every "market" has a market-clearing price where supply equals demand. The part of the demand curve to the right and below of this price point represent people who are not able or willing to buy health care insurance. In most markets we don't care about this. For example, in the market for luxury cars, there will be many people who choose not to buy or cannot afford such a car.

But the problem with this scenario is that everyone will eventually need to access the health care system. And what usually happens is those people are treated in emergency rooms or in other ways even though they do not have insurance -- probably because as a society we treat such access as a human or civil right, or the moral equivalent of that. This combination of uninsured individuals plus our society's impulse to provide health care services to these individuals, give health care the key characteristic of a "public good", a good that we cannot really exclude an individual from without creating a barrier to others receiving it. In other words, the existence of the very large US health care system, and our ethic of providing care to the uninsured anyway, creates not only great difficulty excluding people from it, but also creates a classic "free rider" problem, characteristic of public goods, that means that those who could afford health insurance may choose to wait until they get sick before accessing the "free" system. This is why it is important that real reform of the health care system have a mandate requiring all people to buy health insurance.

I find it a bit inconsistent to argue that health care is a privilege given the preceding discussion. But good health often depends as much on an individual's personal dietary, exercise, and lifestyle decisions as it does on the quality of health care people can access. In other words, the patient needs to accept responsibility for his or her health. Good health is something one "earns" and in that sense it is a privilege, it is the result of many personal decisions as well as access to good health care. That said, we really cannot deny health care services even to those who make poor personal choices and in that sense it is probably a stretch to think of health care as a classic "privilege." It would be more productive to think of a quality health care system as one that would encourage and reward (even financially) good personal choices regarding diet, exercise and lifestyles.

Does money matter?

Education is a right. Good education is a privilege. Our children are our future. If children are our future, why isn’t it a right that all children get a good education? What determines if one child deserves proper schooling over another? These are all questions that crossed my mind as we discussed inequalities in the school system during lecture. The question, as always, is who has the money. It is the schools that are doing well, the schools in good neighborhoods with mostly white student populations, that have the money. If the parents in these communities have good schools to send their children to, why would they bother to fix the schools that other children go to?

According to “Hitting them Hardest When They’re Small” the US can afford to provide equally-equipped and clean schools, with green spaces and playgrounds, but we refuse to do so by arguing that we are in a crisis even though we continue to spend more and more on the judicial court system each year. This is the judicial court system that many of the students from poor schools will end up in, as was pointed out in “ . . . And the Poor Get Prison.” I think that we should be focusing on preventing the problem not just punishing it. By putting money into our school systems we can begin to give all children an equal opportunity for higher education and for higher paying jobs.

Some people argue that money doesn’t matter. In “Children of the City Invincible: Camden, New Jersey” Marilyn Morheuser points out that if this were true, people would not be willing to spend so much money to fight in court and argue that money doesn’t matter? The author, Kozol also pointed out that money does matter. It not only attracts better teachers, by offering better pay, it also makes it possible for the students to have an acceptable environment to learn in.

Reading about the conditions that some of the students in “Life On the Mississippi” and “Children of the City Invincible: Camden, New Jersey” have had to go to school in made me sick to my stomach: Out-dated sewage systems causing leakage into the schools, broken heating system causing some rooms to be unbearably hot, lack of books let alone up to date ones, and lack of lab equipment. This sounds more like a school in a third world country than the US. Why would citizens allow such horrible learning conditions? If I had gone to a school like that, I think it would have been near impossible to learn. These depictions are a good example of how money does matter. My high school lacked funding, which was apparent when my teachers had to pay for simple teaching materials, like paper, out of their pockets. This said, I always had a clean, safe, and somewhat comfortable environment to learn in.

One final thing that really made me think was “The Ordering Regime.” This article describes the “School reform” passed for historically underperforming schools (schools with mostly black and Hispanic students). As I read it, I began to think that perhaps this new stricter form of teaching was meant to instill “decent” values into “street” children from troubled school systems. I was thinking that it might possibly be trying to instill a value of respecting authority. But as I read on, this new structure of teaching seemed slightly militaristic; the students were rated on how well they walked down the hall and how well they could restate information rather than how well they could think critically. When the children were asked about things they had learned in class under a different context they were unable to understand it (The Ordering Regime”). This militaristic approach to teaching, and the fact that most of the teachers and administrators at the schools in the article were white, made me wonder if instead of instilling a respect of authority this was instilling an understanding of suppression and being controlled by whites.

For More Reasons Than One: Health Disparities Between Races

As I’ve continued to read the assigned articles throughout the semester I’ve begun to see a long chain of connections. It seems that through each unit the articles are trying to figure out which one idea is the cause of the many disparities between races. I don’t see one cause, I see many causes that contribute to the disparities in a sort of “domino affect” I guess you could say. Now that we’re looking at the health disparities between races, morbitity rate, mortality rate, etc., the studies still seem to portray that it is the environments that these people live in that are the biggest causes. I agree that when it comes down to it, the environments/residential areas do have an effect on the disparities but I think it goes much deeper than that and much further back in time. I think it all started even before the civil rights movement. African Americans, and many other minority groups had faced much oppression, discrimination, and segregation and when a certain group faces something like that, all they want to do is stick together. From all of the hardships that these racial groups faced they were already in a bad place to begin with. With them wanting to stick together it just led to them segregating themselves from everyone else whether it was consciously or subconsciously. Minority racial groups such as African Americans developed this comfort zone within their own race and they don’t want to get out of it, therefore they end up living in predominantly African American residential areas which are majority poor due to the low collective SES of the African American race. With having a low SES and living in poor residential areas it is very difficult to access good quality healthcare or even keep a good healthy diet and therefore the health of African Americans becomes much lower than other races.

After reading the article by Why Are There No Supermarkets in My Neighborhood? The Long Search for Fresh Fruit, Produce, and Healthy Food by Shannon Zenk I still couldn’t quite understand why good quality supermarkets were not in close proximity to the neighborhoods that really needed them. Some argue that these good quality supermarkets would not be able to make good business in an area where people could not afford their products. Sure, that reason is legitimate but I also argue that racism plays a part too. Everyone knows which races are the majorities that reside in the areas plagued by poverty and some may not want to help and serve those in these areas or just are not comfortable around them. The first step to good health is having a good diet but without access to the food needed to make these diets one will get nowhere. Better quality supermarkets need to take a shot at doing business in these poor areas, but try to compromise their prices to something that these people can afford but won’t put the company out of business. If access to good quality foods can be established then I believe the health disparities will begin to lessen and the health of this country as a whole can become better.

Race and Criminal Justice

Reading these articles on criminal justice, I can somewhat see a connection to what we discussed earlier in the semester about how the preoccupation with race basically evolved to take the attention off of social status or SES. Based on the statistics presented in the articles it does seem that the criminal justice system is racially discriminatory when it is actually the social statuses that are being divided. The majority of the people committing crimes are not the one’s being caught and convicted. This is majorly because they are of a higher SES.
It’s not purely the SES though, it all comes down to the environments that people of different socioeconomic statuses live in and the different privileges they may or may not have. People of high SES can afford to live in more rural areas where they are less likely to get caught committing crimes. In these types of environments crimes such as drug use are committed behind closed doors, and therefore nobody sees them and they don’t get caught, and nobody expects it so nobody looks for it. On the other hand, those who live in the poor environments are constantly getting arrested and convicted, why? because the majority of the people in these environments commit the crimes out in the open and therefore are more likely to get caught.
Due to these disparities, there is much inequality between the races that are caught and convicted of certain crimes. The majority of the people in the middle and upper classes are white while the majority of the poor people are minorities, such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. So, there you have the reason for the disparity, but to me that still doesn’t really answer why. Why is it that poor minorities get more severe convictions than middle class whites for the same offenses? Why is it that crime is always looked for in poor urban areas, yet not really thought to happen in rich or semi-rich suburban areas? It all comes back to race. As much as people try to say that discrimination and racism are disappearing ,and people try to say that they don’t see color; I just don’t believe it. One is always going to see color whether it is conscious or subconscious, and one is always going to make judgments based on race, and because of this you get these huge inequalities in the educational system, the criminal justice system, and the job force.
Going back to the criminal justice system, one way to fix these inequalities can be to first get rid of the 3 strikes system. To me, this system isn’t fair for anybody because all the weight of one’s sentence is purely based on if one commits a third offence regardless of what it is. I remember reading in one of the articles that a man was sentenced to 20-25 years because he stole a slice of pizza, but it was his third offence. This system doesn’t use the severity of the crimes as the basis for the sentence and that’s where I think the problem is. The three strike system should not be used at all and all sentences should be based on the crime itself regardless of race, SES, or residence. Getting rid of this system would bring us one step closer to a more equal criminal justice system, but in the end, I don’t think there is ever going to be perfect equality between races in anything.

The Values of Cultural Pluralism

The United States prides itself on being made up of many different cultures from all over the world. In my experience, most people in the US talk about how important knowing more than one language is. This makes me wonder why most 2^nd and 3^rd generation citizens only speak English. What is it about our society that makes us lose a little bit of our culture with each passing generation? I know that my grandmother grew up speaking German at home and English at school. So, as most children in her age group she grew up bilingual. When my dad was growing up, my grandmother spoke English to him, although she still spoke German to her parents. By the time I was born, all of the German language and culture of my family has been lost, save for one recipe for German sand cookies that we make every Christmas.

I have noticed the same story is prevalent in my boyfriend’s family history. His grandparents moved to the US from Mexico when his mom was 8. They spoke Spanish to their children, but the kids went to an English speaking school. His mother is fluent in Spanish and English and still speaks primarily Spanish with her mother, but she never spoke it with her kids. Now other than a few years of high school Spanish and a few phrases heard from his grandmother, my boyfriend doesn’t really know much about his family’s culture or language.

I feel like both of these stories are a good example of the way that the U.S. lives up to the Anglo-Conformity Assimilation Theory. People are so worried about becoming “Americanized” that they forget the rich cultures and languages of their roots. In a country that is starting to depend so much on a global market, one would think we would work harder to keep some of these languages going. I understand that since the US is made up of people from all over the world we need a universal language, but what I don’t understand is why people have to choose English over their family’s native tongue when it could be easily continued if spoken at home.

I think that the U.S. should start working towards achieving a more open and accepting culture. If we were to work towards Cultural Pluralism perhaps we would not lose all of the customs and traditions our citizens carry from around the world. I think this goal would make our country more able to compete on a global level by helping us communicate with more people around the world and by improving our understanding of the cultures and people we work with. Employers prefer people who speak more than one language and who have traveled or lived outside of the United States. Individuals with a global perspective and experience working with a wide variety of people have a leg up.

On a personal level I think that Cultural Pluralism would help people appreciate what their family has gone through to get where they are. It would also help people to not only pride themselves on being an American, but a citizen of the world. In a country of people from all over the world, we should embrace the cultures of our ancestors.

The Linguistic Conflict in the United States

With the increasing amounts of immigrants coming to the United States, the linguistic conflict definitely begins to play a very large role. The real question is: Should immigrants be required to learn the English language while they are living in the United States?
An article in the Washington Post made a great point: immigrant English proficiency is associated with higher earnings and therefore higher tax payments, lower use of welfare programs and increased educational and economic improvement. All of these things would positively affect the United States therefore one could say that English instruction for immigrants could be seen as an investment.
When immigrants are deficient in English, the time it takes for them to get settled and integrated and accustomed to life in America increases. Instead of just focusing on trying to start a new life in a new place, they are also faced with the burden of trying to learn English.
I do agree that immigrants should try and learn English, not for the sake of American citizens already living here in the United States, bur for themselves so that they are able to better succeed. I was talking to a friend about this topic and she thinks that immigrants need to know English basically in order to survive here in American and to build a good life for themselves. Although I think that immigrants should learn English, I don’t think that its something that should be required of anyone. Requiring someone to speak a certain language seems to go against some of the foundations of which America was built on. People should be able to speak the language they choose but it would probably benefit someone living here to speak English.
I do not think that we can expect immigrants to learn English without giving them a means to do so. Immigrants coming to this country already do not have much money and most are struggling to build a life here. Most immigrants probably do not have the means to pay for English classes. I think that the citizens of American should step up and try to help the immigrants who come to this country and who work hard to contribute. I used to volunteer at a school here in Madison that was composed of predominantly of Latino families. Most of the students that attended the school spoke English but their parents did not. Volunteers set up and ran English classes for these parents at night after school and other volunteers helped their children with homework. Like most immigrants, these parents wanted to learn English and until this program was started, they were unable. I know it is difficult to find volunteers to create and run this type of a program but it would be a way to help immigrants learn English without a lot of Federal funding.
As a senior graduating in nursing, I know I am going to have many patients that don’t speak English. I have taken Spanish in college and want to continue taking Spanish throughout my career so that I can better care for my patients. It is not just up to the immigrants to learn English. We Americans, who have the means to help and learn other languages, need to step up as well.

The Poverty Cycle

Almost every time I drive away from Madison’s West Towne Mall I see someone holding a sign saying something along the lines of, “No job, No food, No home, No money, please help.” And every time I witness this it makes me feel uncomfortable and almost angry. I think to myself, instead of wasting your time standing out there embarrassing yourself, why don’t you go look for a job?

After learning about the culture of poverty argument however, I can begin to look at poverty with a different mindset. The culture of poverty argument suggests that the poor do not share the same value system as the “middle class.” People are provided with different levels of resources to climb out of poverty but this does not necessarily correspond with making a certain amount of money or income. There are many other dimensions involved with getting out of poverty such as upbringing, support system, emotional and spiritual resources and so forth. Those people holding those signs in front of the mall may have never been even encouraged to find a job or an education. The culture in which a person is raised has a huge impact on their available resources, which can result in being trapped in their poverty.

The term “street family” refers to a type of family that struggles with money, does not partake in mainstream values, and where the parents are not typically involved in their children’s lives. Therefore, children who are brought up in this culture/environment do not have financial support from their parents nor do they have the discipline needed to make something of themselves or the encouragement to succeed in beating poverty. In the recent movie “Precious,” Clarice is a child who is stuck in a “street family” with little hope for the future. She is entrenched in an extremely unsupportive family situation without money and poor education. This story is very inspirational because she is able to rise above poverty but only because she gets support from people other than her family, such as teachers. It is this lack of resources, usually pass on through families that leads the poor to focus on the present and not their future.

The culture of poverty becomes a culture of survival in which decisions must be based on the present moment. This population becomes so accustomed to their culture and living environment, they believe there is no way to get ahead so money should be enjoyed and spent when available. The reason many people become homeless may be because they have never saved any of their money in the past and were able to get by so why should they now. This however leaves them trapped, standing at a street corner asking strangers for money until they spend that and need to find another way to attain it. In contrast, middle class families tend to focus on the future and try to plan their expenditures.. For example, I know that I only make around $100.00 a week at my job , so I try not to spend more than $50.00 a week in order to save my money. I learn these values from the culture in which I was raised and seeing my parents save their money. These two opposite mindsets about money which evolve from one’s culture, drastically contribute to one’s position in the poverty level.

When I see someone holding a sign asking for a handout I know not to judge them for their actions because they did not have the same up-bringing as me and were not provided with the same financial resources, but is there really no way out for them? It is crazy to think that this cycle of poverty just keeps repeating itself from generation to generation while only a few lucky people manage to escape. If this is the case, it will be extremely difficult to change this culture system. Personal awareness of these cultural differences may be the best way to begin to implement a change.

American Jobs

With today's economy, now more than ever, American citizens are concerned with finding and keeping a job. Many people seem to believe that the immigrants coming into the United States are at fault for the many people who are unemployed. In the history of the United States, patterns and needs of immigrants to fulfill jobs and laws and policies regarding immigration have changed frequently and they have all shaped the structure of our country today.
The United States was founded by people who wanted better lives and still today, people are looking to come to this country to do this exact same thing. I ask the quesition, if our ancestors were able to come to the United States to create a new life and find work, why can't other immigrants do the same thing today?
Many may answer this question by saying that it is not okay for these people to come and take jobs away from U.S. citizens, but are they really taking them away? Many immigrants take low paying, dangerous jobs, or jobs that require them to clean or serve others in some way. I wonder who actually shows up for the interviews for these positions. Do white, American citizens actually want these jobs? I do believe that if the choice is between an American citizen (even if it is an immigrant that has become legal) or an illigal immigrant, the job should definitely go to the U.S. citizen but I sill just question whether most Americans would be willing to take such a job. President Bush made a good point by saying that it's a fact that there are some jobs in the U.S. that Americans just are not filling. If Americans aren't going to take these jobs, who else is left to take them but immigrants? I also agree with many of the points that Michele Wucker made in the article, "American Jobs". She explained that immigrants, both legal and illegal have actually helped increased the number of jobs in American and that immigration has helped keep prices down by having lower labor costs and sufficient number of workers to complete the job. I think that it is very true that without immigrant workers, companies may not have had enough employees to produce enough goods to make money and without immigrant labor, wages may increase. Both of these would cause prices to go up, making U.S. citizens pay more for products. Also many products may never have been made and companies may have have been able to expand. There are many immigrants that bring new ideas and skills to higher level positions have have helped U.S. companies improve.
Of course there are two sides to this story and I do agree that American citizens shouldn't be losing their jobs to illegal immigrants but I do not think that anyone can deny that the United States needs immigrant workers to keep this country going.

Have European descents lost their ethnic identities?

America is known for coining the term “melting pot,” which is meant to describe the assimilation of immigrants coming to the United States in the early 1900’s and a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous. However, it seems in many ways that we are becoming a society that is trying to be too homogeneous. We all know that America is made up of many different races, cultures, and languages but most people hide their heritage under the American, socially constructed physical and linguistic standards, which are centered around European Americans. This puts a lot of pressure on people, especially those with nationalities from and around Europe, to let go of their original nationalities and fit into this Americanized mold.

As more time passes from when immigrants first arrived in the United States in the 1900’s, I believe most white American’s see their ancestral nationality being less relevant to their daily lives. This is because if you speak English, look white and no one can physically distinguish your nationality, then no one really cares where your great grandfather was from because you are just considered an American. As a result, most white Americans, whose ancestors most likely came from Europe and its surrounding areas, are becoming so Americanized that their heritage is disappearing. America is supposed to represent the land of the free for a society diverse in culture but it is more and more becoming the land of the homogenious whites.

I was born in the United States and although I know I am part Irish, Polish and Croatian, it is not an aspect of my life that I view as important. No one can tell by my appearance, how I speak or how I act, what my nationality is so it does not have any detrimental influence on my daily life. I also realize that I have no idea what most of my close friends nationalities are, besides them being white, which proves what little effect nationality can have unless it is physical. Although, I try to remain somewhat connected to my nationality by occasionally cooking food related to my ethnicity and celebrating fun holiday’s like St Patrick’s day, I find myself blended together with everyone else who looks white. Americans from or around the European area do not embrace their individual culture as a result of being “Americanized.” This suggests that one needs to look ethnic in order to be considered a different nationality other than American.

African, Hispanic and Asia American’s all have obvious physical features that make them look much different then the broad group of European Americans. As a result, their ethnicities play a much bigger role in their lives here in America. People can tell what nationality they are up front and therefore almost expect them to have certain behaviors, traditions, characteristics, and languages. Although they are “Americanized,” as well in some ways it is their physical differences that constantly reinforce their culture, which they then cannot ignore.

This makes me wonder if people from Europe and surrounding areas each had more distinct physical features then maybe different types of European Americans would embrace their culture better and not be one large integrated group.