Sunday, June 13, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
The most important thing...
One of the most important things I feel this class has taught me is that when we think intercultural we need to view all cultures. In order to do this we need to understand what a culture is actually made up of. Often we see culture as specifically related to ethnicity, but it isn’t.
This class has shown me that true culture can be defined in a lot of different ways, far more than I would have considered prior to this class. Anywhere a group is created and ideas, meaning, emotions, or patterns are developed a culture is created. Culture has a strong influence on our perceptions and thought processes and is used as a basis for many of the things we do and how we communicate our ideas and thoughts. Because there are so many cultures that could be considered and no one can be expected to know each and every one of them, just being able to approach communication with this knowledge could really help in diffusing a lot of the conflicts we have today.
We no longer, and never really did, exist in a vacuum and we can’t continue to use our separatism as a reason for being intolerant of others cultures. Globalization is a term that has been used for the last few years and it continues to be a main topic in today’s economy. Globalization is both internal to the US, in that our populations continue to diversify and expand, and it is external, in that we are becoming dependent or working with other countries as a regular course of business and politics. The understanding of the true meaning of culture and its impact on communication is and will continue to be a very important part of our future, politically, economically, and personally.
I’m a decent communicator and I feel that from an intercultural perspective I communicate well with many obvious cultures. I say obvious because as I stated above, I basically have a better understanding of what culture is now. So in understand the obvious ones, I’m not too shabby, but when dealing with the not so obvious ones, I will need to consider that a bit more when communicating with anyone. My end goal is to be a counselor. I will need to, just from that perspective alone, fine tune and practice my skills at communication in general and this must be one of the areas that I take more interest in.
As I said above, we continue to become a more diverse society. Social work, which is what I am choosing to pursue may put me directly at the forefront of dealing with many of the different culture groups we have discussed in this class. In order for me to be successful, I must be better at recognizing and improving my communication with those less obvious intercultural influences, and continue to improve those that are obvious.
How do you think improving your intercultural communication skills will help you in your chosen future occupations?
This class has shown me that true culture can be defined in a lot of different ways, far more than I would have considered prior to this class. Anywhere a group is created and ideas, meaning, emotions, or patterns are developed a culture is created. Culture has a strong influence on our perceptions and thought processes and is used as a basis for many of the things we do and how we communicate our ideas and thoughts. Because there are so many cultures that could be considered and no one can be expected to know each and every one of them, just being able to approach communication with this knowledge could really help in diffusing a lot of the conflicts we have today.
We no longer, and never really did, exist in a vacuum and we can’t continue to use our separatism as a reason for being intolerant of others cultures. Globalization is a term that has been used for the last few years and it continues to be a main topic in today’s economy. Globalization is both internal to the US, in that our populations continue to diversify and expand, and it is external, in that we are becoming dependent or working with other countries as a regular course of business and politics. The understanding of the true meaning of culture and its impact on communication is and will continue to be a very important part of our future, politically, economically, and personally.
I’m a decent communicator and I feel that from an intercultural perspective I communicate well with many obvious cultures. I say obvious because as I stated above, I basically have a better understanding of what culture is now. So in understand the obvious ones, I’m not too shabby, but when dealing with the not so obvious ones, I will need to consider that a bit more when communicating with anyone. My end goal is to be a counselor. I will need to, just from that perspective alone, fine tune and practice my skills at communication in general and this must be one of the areas that I take more interest in.
As I said above, we continue to become a more diverse society. Social work, which is what I am choosing to pursue may put me directly at the forefront of dealing with many of the different culture groups we have discussed in this class. In order for me to be successful, I must be better at recognizing and improving my communication with those less obvious intercultural influences, and continue to improve those that are obvious.
How do you think improving your intercultural communication skills will help you in your chosen future occupations?
What is conflict?
I’m going to reference the issue currently occurring in the south in regards to illegal immigration. The scenario is that the state of Arizona has passed a law that allows law enforcement to stop people they believe to be Mexican illegal aliens on site and ask them to show papers or proof of American citizenship. The problem or major conflict is that this is considered racial profiling.
From amnesty international, racial profiling is defined as: “Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.”
If you have ever been down in Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico, you will understand the amount of Mexican-American’s in that area. These are American citizens and they will be subject to this law, which will discriminate based on the color of their skin. Any process that specifically uses the color or ones skin can’t be seen as anything other than racism. An additional problem is that other states are actually considering enacting similar laws. I understand the need to address issues, real issues, surrounding illegal immigration but promoting racism is not the way to do it.
The cultural conflict styles most prevalent in this issue are value and goal conflict. The value conflict arises because of the difference in Americans views on illegal immigration and how to deal with it. Some Americans understand the effects, both now and for our future, of allowing a law like this to be supported and or instituted state wide. Others are viewing this as the only way to deal with illegal immigration and they buy into the propaganda about illegal immigrants and their negative effects on the US economy, they are so emotional over this that they cannot or don’t wish to see the positive effects. Decisions and judgments based on ignorance are very dangerous.
The other type of conflict is goal conflict. People are disagreeing over this law that has been passed in Arizona. They disagree that this is the way to deal with illegal immigration; some obviously don’t consider it racist in the least and are more focused on their desired end result than the logic of what they are doing.
I believe it’s difficult for societies to resolve differences when they are in an emotional state of fear. The US economy is weak, jobs are at a loss, crime is rising, budgets are being cut to me this makes Americans fearful. When in fear they react emotionally and without thought of the true consequences of their actions. Throughout time there has always had to be a scapegoat, I think the government encourages it to take the focus away from their inability or lack of desire to deal with the most pressing issues of today. People also are unwilling to accept accountability for the state of affairs and therefore need to find someone else to pin it on. In this case it’s Mexicans. If they persist in using racially based laws to deal with this, or any issue no this will not be resolved. They must find a more humane solution to the issue and not target a group by their skin color.
From amnesty international, racial profiling is defined as: “Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.”
If you have ever been down in Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico, you will understand the amount of Mexican-American’s in that area. These are American citizens and they will be subject to this law, which will discriminate based on the color of their skin. Any process that specifically uses the color or ones skin can’t be seen as anything other than racism. An additional problem is that other states are actually considering enacting similar laws. I understand the need to address issues, real issues, surrounding illegal immigration but promoting racism is not the way to do it.
The cultural conflict styles most prevalent in this issue are value and goal conflict. The value conflict arises because of the difference in Americans views on illegal immigration and how to deal with it. Some Americans understand the effects, both now and for our future, of allowing a law like this to be supported and or instituted state wide. Others are viewing this as the only way to deal with illegal immigration and they buy into the propaganda about illegal immigrants and their negative effects on the US economy, they are so emotional over this that they cannot or don’t wish to see the positive effects. Decisions and judgments based on ignorance are very dangerous.
The other type of conflict is goal conflict. People are disagreeing over this law that has been passed in Arizona. They disagree that this is the way to deal with illegal immigration; some obviously don’t consider it racist in the least and are more focused on their desired end result than the logic of what they are doing.
I believe it’s difficult for societies to resolve differences when they are in an emotional state of fear. The US economy is weak, jobs are at a loss, crime is rising, budgets are being cut to me this makes Americans fearful. When in fear they react emotionally and without thought of the true consequences of their actions. Throughout time there has always had to be a scapegoat, I think the government encourages it to take the focus away from their inability or lack of desire to deal with the most pressing issues of today. People also are unwilling to accept accountability for the state of affairs and therefore need to find someone else to pin it on. In this case it’s Mexicans. If they persist in using racially based laws to deal with this, or any issue no this will not be resolved. They must find a more humane solution to the issue and not target a group by their skin color.
Culture - Activity 10
1. Who do the members of your culture consider to be part
of their family?
I think this depends on which members you talk to. Typically family is defined as: grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins (1st and 2nd), spouse, and children. Some of the members have experienced different things and would be more apt to consider very close friends a part of their family, although I’m not one of these.
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family
members?
Grandparents can be care takers/babysitters, tell stories of how things used to be, and are looked at with a lot of respect and reverence for the experiences they have gone through. They can be disciplinarian or not when it comes to dealing with their grandchildren or kids.
Parents are the head of the household. They should be the teachers and examples for the kids to follow.
Siblings are sometimes an extension of the parents (in the role of aunt and uncles) in regards to influence on children. They are the ones responsible for caring for the grandparents. Typically it is the female children that the role of caretaker of the old is given too, men rarely or never are responsible for their parents.
The birth order often determines the role that kids make with the eldest being the most responsible and the youngest being the most spoiled and irresponsible – though this doesn’t always prove to be the case.
Cousins are like good friends to other cousins. It’s like a giant click in high school that no matter how often or when you meet each other you share a common bond.
Your spouse is your number one supporter and co-provider in some cases and in others they are a subservient other half.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same
house/area as their family after adolescence?
On my father’s side I think the family cohesion is implied subtly but never directly. Of my father’s family of 8 only one lived in another state. All others lived near each other or within the metropolitan area.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating
and meeting people with whom to become romantically
involved?
This depends on which culture I’m associating with. I am interracial so from the white side of the house there were no major taboos really, but from my Mexican side there were subtle hints of not marrying a non-catholic or black – white wasn’t a big deal as we were half, but I don’t know that it was the best scenario that had been wanted for us.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in your culture?
The man asks the woman to marry them, period. Meeting the parents was an expected thing, but nothing that needed to be stated.
6. What is a typical wedding like?
It varies. Some are big church weddings, Catholic weddings. Some are elopements and then some are done at the court house etc.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce?
Though not an optimal situation it does occur. It’s neither encouraged nor discouraged outwardly though. I think it is more sad and regretful than anything else, but outside of religiously being discouraged there really is no hard and fast rule. I feel that it is such a common occurrence today that it doesn’t carry the stigma it once did.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner?
The rights of each partner are legally fairly equal. The inequality that does occur is more in the treatment both socially and economically of the partners in the relationship. Historically, and still, the women seem to suffer much harder economic effects of the divorce. Socially there is a division of support or understanding of the partners depending on who initiated the divorce and the reasons behind it. Neither of these is related to rights per se.
9. What is the general opinion of the culture toward
homosexuality?
Homosexuality is viewed as a sin and as something that is unnatural. Homosexuality is looked down upon and/or something to be made fun of. Though overall it is looked down on, the level of opposition that is shown is dependent on the sex of the individual. Homosexual women are viewed as something that is more acceptable, maybe even erotic, than homosexual men.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the
same/different from yours regarding gender roles?
Women traditionally do the entire cooking, are the primary caretakers of children, and are generally more subservient to men. Men are the breadwinners and their ego is supposed to be soothed and comforted by their women. I also view women as the primary caretakers and as the cooks in a household, but I do not agree that they are to be subservient to men. I don’t even like the word subservient. I view women and men roles as equals. There are things that women are better at doing than men, whether it’s because of skill or just preference and the division of labor in a household or outside of it should be based on that.
of their family?
I think this depends on which members you talk to. Typically family is defined as: grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins (1st and 2nd), spouse, and children. Some of the members have experienced different things and would be more apt to consider very close friends a part of their family, although I’m not one of these.
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family
members?
Grandparents can be care takers/babysitters, tell stories of how things used to be, and are looked at with a lot of respect and reverence for the experiences they have gone through. They can be disciplinarian or not when it comes to dealing with their grandchildren or kids.
Parents are the head of the household. They should be the teachers and examples for the kids to follow.
Siblings are sometimes an extension of the parents (in the role of aunt and uncles) in regards to influence on children. They are the ones responsible for caring for the grandparents. Typically it is the female children that the role of caretaker of the old is given too, men rarely or never are responsible for their parents.
The birth order often determines the role that kids make with the eldest being the most responsible and the youngest being the most spoiled and irresponsible – though this doesn’t always prove to be the case.
Cousins are like good friends to other cousins. It’s like a giant click in high school that no matter how often or when you meet each other you share a common bond.
Your spouse is your number one supporter and co-provider in some cases and in others they are a subservient other half.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same
house/area as their family after adolescence?
On my father’s side I think the family cohesion is implied subtly but never directly. Of my father’s family of 8 only one lived in another state. All others lived near each other or within the metropolitan area.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating
and meeting people with whom to become romantically
involved?
This depends on which culture I’m associating with. I am interracial so from the white side of the house there were no major taboos really, but from my Mexican side there were subtle hints of not marrying a non-catholic or black – white wasn’t a big deal as we were half, but I don’t know that it was the best scenario that had been wanted for us.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in your culture?
The man asks the woman to marry them, period. Meeting the parents was an expected thing, but nothing that needed to be stated.
6. What is a typical wedding like?
It varies. Some are big church weddings, Catholic weddings. Some are elopements and then some are done at the court house etc.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce?
Though not an optimal situation it does occur. It’s neither encouraged nor discouraged outwardly though. I think it is more sad and regretful than anything else, but outside of religiously being discouraged there really is no hard and fast rule. I feel that it is such a common occurrence today that it doesn’t carry the stigma it once did.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner?
The rights of each partner are legally fairly equal. The inequality that does occur is more in the treatment both socially and economically of the partners in the relationship. Historically, and still, the women seem to suffer much harder economic effects of the divorce. Socially there is a division of support or understanding of the partners depending on who initiated the divorce and the reasons behind it. Neither of these is related to rights per se.
9. What is the general opinion of the culture toward
homosexuality?
Homosexuality is viewed as a sin and as something that is unnatural. Homosexuality is looked down upon and/or something to be made fun of. Though overall it is looked down on, the level of opposition that is shown is dependent on the sex of the individual. Homosexual women are viewed as something that is more acceptable, maybe even erotic, than homosexual men.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the
same/different from yours regarding gender roles?
Women traditionally do the entire cooking, are the primary caretakers of children, and are generally more subservient to men. Men are the breadwinners and their ego is supposed to be soothed and comforted by their women. I also view women as the primary caretakers and as the cooks in a household, but I do not agree that they are to be subservient to men. I don’t even like the word subservient. I view women and men roles as equals. There are things that women are better at doing than men, whether it’s because of skill or just preference and the division of labor in a household or outside of it should be based on that.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Glee: Representing How Americans Act Since 2009.
How do Americans act? The show is a bit on the crazy, over dramatic and mean side at times. They are outgoing, very expressive, and at times can be very material and shallow. Some are intelligent why some are as dumb as a stump. They may pounce on the weaker members of their society and yet for those within it can be very forgiving and supportive. They look like they walked out of magazines like, “Teen”, “GQ”, “Cosmo”, and “Sports Illustrated”. They look older than what would be expected of people their age (they are supposed to be like 16, yah right) but are all, generally, very attractive and fit for the most part. They are a diverse group of individuals and have at least four or five different ethnicities that they hang out with, they are mixed gender, sexual preference, and there is even one pregnant girl. They are far more diverse than you would expect the average teen in America to be. They are students for the most part that like to sing and do some dancing. They are also cheerleaders. Some are teachers, husband, and wives or girlfriends. For the most part they now like to hang out with each other, or a select few within their group. I the beginning of the show they didn’t like to hang out with each other due to the different “social status” each had. They live with their parents or in their own homes (teachers that is). The state they live in is Ohio and to be honest, I don’t even recall the name of the town they live in. The show takes place in the high school they attend.
The good things this would tell someone who has no other experience with is that we are diverse, talented, can be kind, and we are very attractive. The bad things this show would tell someone is that we are shallow, vain, materialistic, and that we can be mean. This show lives so out there on the edge of our reality that I would fear any impression it would give off of us as a people in general. One thing else it would show them, is that we have a good sense of humor and we really like to smile. The show I watched is “Glee”.
The good things this would tell someone who has no other experience with is that we are diverse, talented, can be kind, and we are very attractive. The bad things this show would tell someone is that we are shallow, vain, materialistic, and that we can be mean. This show lives so out there on the edge of our reality that I would fear any impression it would give off of us as a people in general. One thing else it would show them, is that we have a good sense of humor and we really like to smile. The show I watched is “Glee”.
Transitions
I have been working sense I left home to go into the military and only recently, within the last 6 months, was laid off for the very first time – I have never been without a job before. There were several transitions that occurred when this one event took place. One, I had to transition from breadwinner to dependent basically, a situation I have not been in since high school. The second transition was from making very good money, to making none. These two transitions sound the same, but actually the feelings, thought processes, and affects were different. The third transition that occurred is that I went from working to going to school full time. I have never been a full time college student. I have always worked full time and then would go to school part time, which is how I received an Information Systems Management degree (A.S). So, now I am in school full time with a lot of other students who are very much my junior. One event, three transitions, but I feel I am dealing with them as well as can be expected.
Change is going to happen and although I was a bit despondent initially after I was notified I would be laid off, I did the only thing I could think of to squelch my disappointment; I came up with a plan and executed it. I was enrolled in UWRF for the spring before my last day (December) had even hit – I was enrolled by the end of the summer. For me, dealing with these transitions meant taking action. After the tail-spin they threw me for, I needed to feel I was in control of my future and that this company had not taken that from me.
Change is going to happen and although I was a bit despondent initially after I was notified I would be laid off, I did the only thing I could think of to squelch my disappointment; I came up with a plan and executed it. I was enrolled in UWRF for the spring before my last day (December) had even hit – I was enrolled by the end of the summer. For me, dealing with these transitions meant taking action. After the tail-spin they threw me for, I needed to feel I was in control of my future and that this company had not taken that from me.
Activity 7 - Test test test
I was talking to Chasity. In the first test, we were talking about just some random subjects. She was sitting to the side of me and I was sitting straight up and turning my body so I was looking directly at her. Periodically she would glance around the room or look down. Whenever she did this I made a point to get into her line of vision. At first she just looked at me weird, a bit like I was crazy. Then she started to wonder what she was doing that would cause me to act weird, like was there something on her face, etc. Then finally she just asked me what was wrong with me. I told her nothing and then we just kept talking. Then I did it again, and she again asked me what was wrong with me and even wondered if I was doing a psychological test on her. I honestly told her I was NOT doing a psych test. Ha!
The second test, not making eye contact, was easier. She actually didn’t notice anything outside of the normal and never said a word to me.
On the third test as I moved towards her, she actually held out her hand and pushed me gently away. I guess that was her way of letting me know I had just violated her personal space. When I came close to her again, she held out her hands and asked what I was doing. I said, “Nothing, I’m just trying to talk to you.” I don’t know that she bought it though, because by that point she had had enough of my weirdness. After I told her I wasn’t doing anything, she actually let me get close to her the next time I did it. She is like eight inches taller than me, so she just looked down at me. I thought she was just trying to intimidate me because I was threatening her personal space.
After a while I couldn’t help myself and I started laughing. I then told her what I was doing. I asked her what she noticed, and as I already indicated, she noticed the first and last test, but had no clue I was avoiding making eye contact on the second test. She actually said that conversation was comfortable for her because she is one of those people who don’t like a lot of direct eye contact. The moral of this test: Not everyone will take these violations of rules of communication the way we think because it really depends on how they view these slights of proper conversation. How many people do you encounter that do not feel comfortable making direct eye contact as a practice?
The second test, not making eye contact, was easier. She actually didn’t notice anything outside of the normal and never said a word to me.
On the third test as I moved towards her, she actually held out her hand and pushed me gently away. I guess that was her way of letting me know I had just violated her personal space. When I came close to her again, she held out her hands and asked what I was doing. I said, “Nothing, I’m just trying to talk to you.” I don’t know that she bought it though, because by that point she had had enough of my weirdness. After I told her I wasn’t doing anything, she actually let me get close to her the next time I did it. She is like eight inches taller than me, so she just looked down at me. I thought she was just trying to intimidate me because I was threatening her personal space.
After a while I couldn’t help myself and I started laughing. I then told her what I was doing. I asked her what she noticed, and as I already indicated, she noticed the first and last test, but had no clue I was avoiding making eye contact on the second test. She actually said that conversation was comfortable for her because she is one of those people who don’t like a lot of direct eye contact. The moral of this test: Not everyone will take these violations of rules of communication the way we think because it really depends on how they view these slights of proper conversation. How many people do you encounter that do not feel comfortable making direct eye contact as a practice?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Language and Vowels
On the language quiz, I had a few correct answers which I’m happy about. I guessed both of the Southern speakers correctly; the ones in the area of Texas. I also guessed both of the Mid-Atlantic ones correctly. I had only one correct answer for the New England area, and only one correct for the Northern Midwest area. Not surprisingly, I didn’t guess any correctly for the Western states (area of Nevada etc.) or for the South Midwest states. I think the difficulty in guessing those is because of how similar they sounded. Even the Northern Midwest states were difficult and I wasn’t sure I would get any of those right. I think in general, the more alike the accents were to the way I speak, the harder it was for me to guess where they came from. The Southern states and Mid-Atlantic were the easiest to identify because there is a distinct accent, at least to me there was. So the more different the speech was from mine, the easier it was to identify.
I have always thought that here in the Northern-Midwest (Wisconsin specifically) for the most part we speak just like people from California and all the states that basically follow interstate 80 from the west to the Midwest. This would include Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, and Michigan likewise speak similar to how we do in Wisconsin. I know that the closer you get to the Canadian border the more there is an accent. I believe the accent is associated with the French influences of Canada. Also perhaps the German or Swedish ethnicities that settled this area play a part in the accent heard further north; like what was portrayed in the movie “Fargo”. Outside of these, I had always thought our speech in the Midwest no different than the states I mentioned above and am surprised how subtle the differences can be that distinguish where someone is geographically located in the United States. I always thought that the majority of people with “accents” were in New England or otherwise south of the equator.
For the vowel power quiz I did rather well, better than fifty percent; I had three out of five correct. The last one, “grade” was the most difficult for me to understand. Even after I saw what the word was I listened to it again and again, hoping I could figure out how what was being said could possibly be grade, but I’m still stumped. From my point, it sounded nothing like what I think grade sounds like – I don’t know that I even recognized the “g” in the word much less understood the vowel being used. With “busses” I had put “bosses” so I was close on that one but still no tomato (Toe-Maht-o or should I say Toe-Mate-o?). Other than those words the rest were relatively easy to identify. Hearing the word being said in phrase form helped in clarifying any doubts I had of those words. The thing with grade and busses was that the phrase used to help in understanding was just as hard to understand as the word itself so in those instances; the phrase didn’t help a bit.
I have always thought that here in the Northern-Midwest (Wisconsin specifically) for the most part we speak just like people from California and all the states that basically follow interstate 80 from the west to the Midwest. This would include Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, and Michigan likewise speak similar to how we do in Wisconsin. I know that the closer you get to the Canadian border the more there is an accent. I believe the accent is associated with the French influences of Canada. Also perhaps the German or Swedish ethnicities that settled this area play a part in the accent heard further north; like what was portrayed in the movie “Fargo”. Outside of these, I had always thought our speech in the Midwest no different than the states I mentioned above and am surprised how subtle the differences can be that distinguish where someone is geographically located in the United States. I always thought that the majority of people with “accents” were in New England or otherwise south of the equator.
For the vowel power quiz I did rather well, better than fifty percent; I had three out of five correct. The last one, “grade” was the most difficult for me to understand. Even after I saw what the word was I listened to it again and again, hoping I could figure out how what was being said could possibly be grade, but I’m still stumped. From my point, it sounded nothing like what I think grade sounds like – I don’t know that I even recognized the “g” in the word much less understood the vowel being used. With “busses” I had put “bosses” so I was close on that one but still no tomato (Toe-Maht-o or should I say Toe-Mate-o?). Other than those words the rest were relatively easy to identify. Hearing the word being said in phrase form helped in clarifying any doubts I had of those words. The thing with grade and busses was that the phrase used to help in understanding was just as hard to understand as the word itself so in those instances; the phrase didn’t help a bit.
Ascribed Identities
Listed are a few of the ascribed identities I feel have been “assigned” to me by various sources; I’m sure there are more but these are the ones I can think of for now. For the most part I don’t feel any real negativity about my ascribed identities with the exception of being considered “disadvantaged” as a child or having my own children labeled as disadvantaged because of single mother status or divorce.
Disadvantaged is an identity, or as I prefer, a label given to me by society based on my ethnicity, the socioeconomic status of my family, and the issues related to my parent in regards to alcohol. To me disadvantage implies defective, disabled, or otherwise impaired and I have never thought of myself in any of these ways. Challenged maybe but defective no.
Child of an alcoholic was and still is a label given to me by society, social and school systems once they are aware that I have an alcoholic for a parent.
Student is both an avowed and ascribed identity. As a child, student was an ascribed identity up to adulthood, but once adulthood is reached I feel that student is more of an avowed identity. I choose to be a student as an adult, whereas as a child I have no choice in the matter.
Daughter and sister are ascribed identities that occur by nature of my parents giving birth to me and the other children they had. They didn’t select my sex of course, but they did make the choice to have children.
Mother and wife are identities, again, that I feel are both avowed and ascribed identities. My choice to have children and the feelings I have towards my children are what make this identity mine, although society labels me as such as well. You can be a Mother by society’s standard but not feel motherly. You may not care for, neglect or abuse, or choose to give up your children and society would still see you as a Mother.
Sergeant and Airman were titles assigned to me while I was in the military. Anytime I wore the uniform I was these identities. I wasn’t anything else to people looking at me; not any of the other ascribed identities I listed above. When you have an outwardly appearance that is drastically different people are more apt to see only that part of you, it’s similar to the way people view ethnicity, disabilities, etc.
Which leads me to the other ascribed identities related specifically to my ethnicity, that of being Mexican-American. I have never felt ashamed of either of these identities, I’m proud to be ethnically different. I enjoy my Mexican, German, and Irish ethnicity in general! Because of my skin color my Mexican ethnicity is often called into attention far more than my German or Irish and so this identity is more prevalent.
Unfortunately, similar to disadvantaged, divorced and single-parent carry a certain amount of stigma with them; yes even in this day and age. Often divorced and single-parent families will be lumped into the disadvantage category due to the socioeconomic drop that often happens, especially for women, when divorce occurs and when children are involved. I don’t know that it’s really negative or not, it is just what it is.
I think the line gets blurred between what is avowed and what is ascribed, kind of like which came first the chicken or the egg. Some of your avowed identities probably are or may be a result of what was ascribed to you. We all like to think we are who we are because we want to be that way, but environmental influence is strong. How do you feel about any of your avowed identities that developed from an ascribed identity?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The easiest group to come up with answers to was for Anglos. The Internet and U.S. history books are saturated with information about the contributions of Anglos. Even though other ethnicities have made important, if not critical, contributions to U.S. history, specific individuals are not as renowned as in the case of the Anglo ethnicity. I would have to venture that it was not important to identify the individual contributions of different ethnicities when history was being made and written by Anglos. Also, when we go way back into history, recordings of events may have been limited, lost or destroyed, or people relied more on word of mouth than the written word and therefore some information specific individuals of different ethnicities was lost. Most of the individuals I looked for were of historical significance as these were the people I thought had the highest probability of being documented.
It was easier to come up with the male gender in regards to people. This was applicable regardless of the specific ethnicity I was looking for. Females were not as easily identified before the 1800’s. Again, the same reason for why it was difficult to find different ethnicities is the same reason why it was more difficult to find women in history. The Anglo male is most often documented in historical references as having some significant contribution to the development of the U.S. and Europe. As the Internet is basically a creation of an Anglo society perhaps it isn't surprising then that most of the information I found was predominantly Anglo. Although, I would have to say out of everything in which to get information, the Internet is by far the most diverse.
U.S. history records and discusses the contributions of the male Anglo more than any other ethnic group. Ethnic and gender groups are vaguely mentioned but are not discussed in the history of the U.S. until at least the late 1800’s to 1900’s. At least the contributions of specific individuals belonging to these groups are not called to attention. When other groups are discussed, it is not always in the same positive light as Anglo’s are mentioned. Native Americans were heathens, barbaric savages; Blacks were sub-human and treated with less care and respect than the animals that were owned by slave owners. Women were objects to be owned, objectified, and admired but were not to have say in the daily running of households or business. Need I mention the Salem witch trials? How many male witches were burned at the stake? Asians, although used for the building of our transportation infrastructure at the time, were not allowed to become citizens and were definitely not treated as such during WWII. The discrimination and hostilities against Mexican’s continues to this day, with little true understanding of the contributions that Mexican’s, even illegal ones, have made to U.S. history and economic success. The list goes on. I think some groups are not talked about in the history of the U.S. because of discrimination, embarrassment, and attitudes that the history of the U.S. was created on the backs of Anglos with little or no contributions by other ethnic, gender, or other groups. To quote Chris Rock, “It’s all right, cause it’s all white”
When we consider why minority groups are less represented in history we should look at the text book changes Texas is trying to establish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history), it might shed a light on how history is recorded and modified through time.
What are your thoughts on the way Texas is attempting to change their textbooks in an effort to rewrite history?
It was easier to come up with the male gender in regards to people. This was applicable regardless of the specific ethnicity I was looking for. Females were not as easily identified before the 1800’s. Again, the same reason for why it was difficult to find different ethnicities is the same reason why it was more difficult to find women in history. The Anglo male is most often documented in historical references as having some significant contribution to the development of the U.S. and Europe. As the Internet is basically a creation of an Anglo society perhaps it isn't surprising then that most of the information I found was predominantly Anglo. Although, I would have to say out of everything in which to get information, the Internet is by far the most diverse.
U.S. history records and discusses the contributions of the male Anglo more than any other ethnic group. Ethnic and gender groups are vaguely mentioned but are not discussed in the history of the U.S. until at least the late 1800’s to 1900’s. At least the contributions of specific individuals belonging to these groups are not called to attention. When other groups are discussed, it is not always in the same positive light as Anglo’s are mentioned. Native Americans were heathens, barbaric savages; Blacks were sub-human and treated with less care and respect than the animals that were owned by slave owners. Women were objects to be owned, objectified, and admired but were not to have say in the daily running of households or business. Need I mention the Salem witch trials? How many male witches were burned at the stake? Asians, although used for the building of our transportation infrastructure at the time, were not allowed to become citizens and were definitely not treated as such during WWII. The discrimination and hostilities against Mexican’s continues to this day, with little true understanding of the contributions that Mexican’s, even illegal ones, have made to U.S. history and economic success. The list goes on. I think some groups are not talked about in the history of the U.S. because of discrimination, embarrassment, and attitudes that the history of the U.S. was created on the backs of Anglos with little or no contributions by other ethnic, gender, or other groups. To quote Chris Rock, “It’s all right, cause it’s all white”
When we consider why minority groups are less represented in history we should look at the text book changes Texas is trying to establish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history), it might shed a light on how history is recorded and modified through time.
What are your thoughts on the way Texas is attempting to change their textbooks in an effort to rewrite history?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
My Ethnicity - Assignment 3
I am primarily Hispanic of Mexican descent. I also am part German and Irish as well. As I grow older I realize that my ethnic background has influenced me more than what I had originally thought it had, although the general environment in which I was raised had the largest influence on me and it was not specifically ethnically related. My sense of family, my work ethic, my religious affiliation, and the reverence and respect I hold for certain members of my family have all been influenced by my ethnicity. Also, although I do not live within or often associate socially within my own ethnical group, I maintain a sense of kinship with most Hispanic’s I meet. It is a visible common factor that we share and can immediately associate with. I liken it to being in the military; you are a part of a group that no matter where you go you can associate with and develop some form of camaraderie with.
I’m a fairly light skinned Hispanic, but if you are paying attention at all, it is evident I am not white. In this age of such wide diversity, often I don’t think people know exactly what ethnicity I am unless I tell them my name. If they are aware of Hispanic ethnicities, the pronunciation of my name gives it away. Without this, I think it would be easy for someone to think I’m Middle Eastern (which I think did actually happen after 9/11 – it cost a bank my business and a mortgage as a matter of fact), Indian, Puerto Rican, and once, a long time ago, someone even thought I was Asian. I could also be an Italian! Overseas I was even probably thought to be Turkish (Germans at the time, and probably still, weren’t very keen on Turks).
Yes, I do believe it has influenced the way some people communicate with me – verbally and non-verbally as well as inflection and tone. If you mean do they speak louder, or assume I don’t speak English etc. no, just the way they talk to me. Mexican’s assume I can speak fluent Spanish and are a bit disgusted to find out I can’t sometimes. I have been discriminated against and talked down to more times than I care which I believe was directly associated with my ethnicity – without my giving them any indication of what I was. I have had racial slurs thrown at me, even ones that weren’t even associated with my ethnicity. Most people are decent though and communicate without these types of biases. The state of the country at a given time and where I’m living within the U.S., or elsewhere, along with my ethnicity also influences how people communicate with me.
The problem is it is easy when you are visibly ethnically different to assume someone is communicating with or treating you differently because of your ethnicity. It could be there is something else, non-ethnically related, that is really the cause, but how do you know?
I’m a fairly light skinned Hispanic, but if you are paying attention at all, it is evident I am not white. In this age of such wide diversity, often I don’t think people know exactly what ethnicity I am unless I tell them my name. If they are aware of Hispanic ethnicities, the pronunciation of my name gives it away. Without this, I think it would be easy for someone to think I’m Middle Eastern (which I think did actually happen after 9/11 – it cost a bank my business and a mortgage as a matter of fact), Indian, Puerto Rican, and once, a long time ago, someone even thought I was Asian. I could also be an Italian! Overseas I was even probably thought to be Turkish (Germans at the time, and probably still, weren’t very keen on Turks).
Yes, I do believe it has influenced the way some people communicate with me – verbally and non-verbally as well as inflection and tone. If you mean do they speak louder, or assume I don’t speak English etc. no, just the way they talk to me. Mexican’s assume I can speak fluent Spanish and are a bit disgusted to find out I can’t sometimes. I have been discriminated against and talked down to more times than I care which I believe was directly associated with my ethnicity – without my giving them any indication of what I was. I have had racial slurs thrown at me, even ones that weren’t even associated with my ethnicity. Most people are decent though and communicate without these types of biases. The state of the country at a given time and where I’m living within the U.S., or elsewhere, along with my ethnicity also influences how people communicate with me.
The problem is it is easy when you are visibly ethnically different to assume someone is communicating with or treating you differently because of your ethnicity. It could be there is something else, non-ethnically related, that is really the cause, but how do you know?
People Watching - Assignment 2
I went to a restaurant to observe people, one I have only been in one time before. Although I didn’t understand it at the time, just by walking in and taking out a notebook I had already violated rule number one; single Hispanic females eating alone are different. I came in and sat down alone and then moved to a different table when I couldn’t get a good view of all the people in the restaurant. Moving seats after sitting down is another violation of the rules; don't do strange things that look suspicious. Pulling out a notebook and writing in a place where people are supposed to be eating broke rule number three; the appearance of monitoring someone even when in a public place and even when not confirmed, is cause for suspicion. Finally, staring (for periods of more than a second or two) is an invasion of privacy and looks of suspect or irritation will be shot back at you.
With my violation of the rules out of the way, here is what I observed. I noticed that women constantly converse, even while eating. They face each other directly, make almost constant eye contact when speaking, their speech is very animated and they often use hand gestures, they tend to lean forward when talking to each other, and consistently affirm their attention in a conversation with nodding, hmm’ing and ah’ing. They maintain their focus on the conversation they are involved in and didn’t appear to look around and make note of their surroundings or the other people. Their conversation was very animated and their facial expressions varied between smiling and laughing to looks of concern and seriousness.
The younger men I observed conversed far less than the women were not inclined to maintain more than a few seconds of eye contact at any given point, were less animated, and actually just seemed to be more relaxed. It was as if the conversation could happen or not and they weren’t concerned with it. One strange thing I noticed was a group of four men, where only three of the men from the group sat together and the other man sat at a different table. I overheard the one of the three men tell the waitress that the single man was with them. This single man just sat by himself and read a newspaper. Even when the newspaper was finished being read, he just sat there looking around. Never once did he attempt to make any conversation with the men he was supposedly with.
When two older men entered the restaurant, they sat directly across from each other, made more eye contact, and employed sporadic hand gestures when speaking. Their conversation was less fast paced than the women and eye contact was broken frequently but none-the-less still persisted. Perhaps it was because of their age, number, or relationship, but they appeared to be more willing to engage in active communication with each other than the younger men.
I should mention that the restaurant seemed to contain mostly middle-age to elderly men and women, there was no diversity outside of gender, and I was seated in a family style restaurant, not a bar.
As I mentioned in the beginning, I believe I did break some of the rules. The affect of breaking the rules were the looks of suspicion shot my way. I have no doubt if any other radically different behavior was exhibited in the presence of these people, they would either ignore it but show disapproval, curiosity, or they would leave the restaurant. The place I was in was a pretty "keep to yourself" kind of place where I don't think someone would directly speak out or against any behavior they thought was strange or different. Avoidance would most likely be the harshest reaction to deal with anything outside of the normal.
Do you think the communication pattern styles like I listed above are the same between genders regardless of the generation, or are their differences? This question refers specifically to face-to-face communication styles, not Internet, text, etc.
With my violation of the rules out of the way, here is what I observed. I noticed that women constantly converse, even while eating. They face each other directly, make almost constant eye contact when speaking, their speech is very animated and they often use hand gestures, they tend to lean forward when talking to each other, and consistently affirm their attention in a conversation with nodding, hmm’ing and ah’ing. They maintain their focus on the conversation they are involved in and didn’t appear to look around and make note of their surroundings or the other people. Their conversation was very animated and their facial expressions varied between smiling and laughing to looks of concern and seriousness.
The younger men I observed conversed far less than the women were not inclined to maintain more than a few seconds of eye contact at any given point, were less animated, and actually just seemed to be more relaxed. It was as if the conversation could happen or not and they weren’t concerned with it. One strange thing I noticed was a group of four men, where only three of the men from the group sat together and the other man sat at a different table. I overheard the one of the three men tell the waitress that the single man was with them. This single man just sat by himself and read a newspaper. Even when the newspaper was finished being read, he just sat there looking around. Never once did he attempt to make any conversation with the men he was supposedly with.
When two older men entered the restaurant, they sat directly across from each other, made more eye contact, and employed sporadic hand gestures when speaking. Their conversation was less fast paced than the women and eye contact was broken frequently but none-the-less still persisted. Perhaps it was because of their age, number, or relationship, but they appeared to be more willing to engage in active communication with each other than the younger men.
I should mention that the restaurant seemed to contain mostly middle-age to elderly men and women, there was no diversity outside of gender, and I was seated in a family style restaurant, not a bar.
As I mentioned in the beginning, I believe I did break some of the rules. The affect of breaking the rules were the looks of suspicion shot my way. I have no doubt if any other radically different behavior was exhibited in the presence of these people, they would either ignore it but show disapproval, curiosity, or they would leave the restaurant. The place I was in was a pretty "keep to yourself" kind of place where I don't think someone would directly speak out or against any behavior they thought was strange or different. Avoidance would most likely be the harshest reaction to deal with anything outside of the normal.
Do you think the communication pattern styles like I listed above are the same between genders regardless of the generation, or are their differences? This question refers specifically to face-to-face communication styles, not Internet, text, etc.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Far and Away - the immigrant experience
In the movie “Far and Away” the two main characters, Shannon and Joseph, were influenced by different forces to move from Ireland to the America. Shannon was a rich, spoiled, and strong willed woman who refused to conform to the ideas of womanhood her mother seemed intent on pushing upon her. Her mother would reinforce the stereotypical ideas of what a true lady of quality should act like anytime Shannon stepped out of line. This pressure was increased by her would be suitor, Stephen, who supported her mother’s view of what a lady should be like and had already begun to exert his influence on Shannon to conform. Shannon’s father, Daniel, felt just as trapped as Shannon but for the most part, did nothing to interfere with his wife’s decisions. For these reasons Shannon wanted to flee Ireland. She wanted to go to America because she felt oppressed in Ireland and because she the idea that America would be a place where she could be free of the constrictions she was currently under. She would be rid of the sexist influences of her mother and Stephen and would be in a country where land was free, everyone prospered, and women were not as oppressed as she felt.
Joseph dreamed of the day he would own his own land. He believed that the true measure and meaning of a man was in the land that he owned and until he had some of his own he would not settle. He had no intention in the beginning of the movie of going to America to get his land even after Shannon told him of the free land they were offering there. He continued to hope that he would be able to own land there in Ireland. Only after his father’s death, his home burning to the ground, his attempted murder of the landlord (Daniel), and his pending death at the hands of Stephen did Joseph consider going to America. His decision was a spur of the moment, life over death situation with no well thought out plan for what America would hold for him. He didn’t make the decision to go as much as circumstances made it for him.
Daniel and Nora, Shannon’s parents, and her suitor Stephen left Ireland after their house burned to the ground by a mob of angry tenants. As they had nothing left to stay there for, they decided to go to America in an attempt to find their daughter. I think Daniel was looking for an adventure and so when the fates had decided he would no longer have a home in Ireland, he found little issue in moving to America. Anything that would bring some sense of excitement and youth to his life he was more than willing to try. They still had money and could afford to go to America and live comfortably.
Stephen went to find his would be wife, I guess. It’s difficult to tell in the movie if his interest was really in Shannon or in the money she represented. He obviously like power, had no qualms about abusing it, and was already beginning to direct Shannon in her actions, but I don’t remember hearing that he actually loved her, I think he just wanted to own her and she knew it. As her owner, he couldn’t possibly let her get away. I don’t think he cared if he was in America or not, he was just following the money.
What are your opinions on the exploitation of immigrants by their own ethinic groups like Shannon and Joseph were? Were Shannon and Joseph being helped or being used?
Joseph dreamed of the day he would own his own land. He believed that the true measure and meaning of a man was in the land that he owned and until he had some of his own he would not settle. He had no intention in the beginning of the movie of going to America to get his land even after Shannon told him of the free land they were offering there. He continued to hope that he would be able to own land there in Ireland. Only after his father’s death, his home burning to the ground, his attempted murder of the landlord (Daniel), and his pending death at the hands of Stephen did Joseph consider going to America. His decision was a spur of the moment, life over death situation with no well thought out plan for what America would hold for him. He didn’t make the decision to go as much as circumstances made it for him.
Daniel and Nora, Shannon’s parents, and her suitor Stephen left Ireland after their house burned to the ground by a mob of angry tenants. As they had nothing left to stay there for, they decided to go to America in an attempt to find their daughter. I think Daniel was looking for an adventure and so when the fates had decided he would no longer have a home in Ireland, he found little issue in moving to America. Anything that would bring some sense of excitement and youth to his life he was more than willing to try. They still had money and could afford to go to America and live comfortably.
Stephen went to find his would be wife, I guess. It’s difficult to tell in the movie if his interest was really in Shannon or in the money she represented. He obviously like power, had no qualms about abusing it, and was already beginning to direct Shannon in her actions, but I don’t remember hearing that he actually loved her, I think he just wanted to own her and she knew it. As her owner, he couldn’t possibly let her get away. I don’t think he cared if he was in America or not, he was just following the money.
What are your opinions on the exploitation of immigrants by their own ethinic groups like Shannon and Joseph were? Were Shannon and Joseph being helped or being used?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Two truths and a lie...
1. I rent an apartment in Austria year round.
2. I was born in Mexico.
3. I lived in Germany for 3 years, California for 6, and Michigan for 4.
2. I was born in Mexico.
3. I lived in Germany for 3 years, California for 6, and Michigan for 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
