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.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
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)
