Week Seven

As I walked into class I was definitely not prepared to be immersed in another language. Although I managed to catch on as a listener, I became frustrated very quickly as a speaker because I had no idea whether or not I pronouncing the words correctly. Accuracy is a personality trait of mine, however, so it was kind of a personal issue that I dealt with. I'm glad Joyce chose to "overwhelm" us the way that she did. I think this is the situation one would encounter when traveling abroad to other countries where the English language just... isn't spoken! It was an interesting and appreciated culture shock.

I was incredibly interested in learning about Joyce's school. I plan on opening my own business, teaching music, and even though I will accept anyone who wants to learn, I know I will be catering to a mostly young crowd. This is because statistics prove retention of languages gets better the younger you start learning them. I know this has proven true to me in my own experience. I began learning piano at the age of 5 (as soon as I could read), and I know I will never forget the fundamentals of music. So hearing Joyce share her experiences and practices has helped me form new ideas and build on some that I've been working on already.

We moved on to watching a lengthy video documentary of languages around the world and throughout history. I liked and simultaneously disliked this film. I enjoyed the perspective it took on humans as animals. It is a perspective I share, in a way. In our most basic functions, that's all we are. It's our ability to think beyond ourselves that makes us unique. Our ability to plan, to consider the past and the future in our decision-making. It's very intriguing. However, I was disappointed that this film (or at least what we saw of it, I think we ended it early) didn't delve into "synthetic" communication. That is, new languages that may have evolved throughout the history of man, but aren't necessarily rooted in a "creaturely" background. For example, American Sign Language. And if you read that history, consider also this article, which I found to be a story of empowerment through language for a people previously oppressed.

I expressed my view of music as a language in earlier discussion and I will stand by that. As Nobuo Masataka points out, music is older and more ingrained into our DNA than any spoken language. As infants, we are able to express ourselves more musically than verbally. Not only that but look at the physical effects of music on our minds and bodies! It's so incredibly powerful! So powerful that it is therapeutic to those affected by autism and actually helps them develop the skills necessary to communicate more effectively using a verbal language. So, yes, I was disappointed that this wasn't touched on during the video, either. However, I realize this is a lot of information to cover in the short amount of time we had.

After the video we started discussing the articles assigned to us about language and culture. I'm worried that that my commentary during class was misinterpreted so hopefully as I react to these articles what I had to say will make more sense or seem less offensive than I feel it was perceived to be.

Robert D. King discusses whether or not English should be the law. I think that's a ridiculous idea, in all honesty. English is probably the most difficult Latin-based languages to learn! Sure, in American public education we are taught the fundamental rules and basic skills necessary for communicating in English, however, it scares me how few adults today have accurate and proper command of their native English language! I can't say that I know precisely which language we should choose to be an "official" language, but not English. That's just cruel.

English has so many rules, and then so many exceptions to rules, that it's pretty ridiculous, in my honest opinion. Sometimes I wonder what life would be like if we all spoke Spanish. I took a few semesters during my high school education, hardly enough to become fluent, but enough to grasp basic rules and fundamental understanding. In fact, the first semester I took was an immersion class: we were only allowed to speak Spanish and that is all that was spoken to us. It really made you learn the rules and even subtleties quickly.

To tie in some earlier comments, if we think back to more ancient times, language was your education. If you didn't learn to speak the "official" language you were considered uneducated. For example (and just from my own understanding) during the first centuries A.D. Rome had conquered the Middle East where Aramaic was the "common-tongue" and the Greek language was that of the scholars. Romans used Latin as their official language so now what was everyone expected to learn? Latin! (This is also a time when, if you read a previously linked article, we see the oppression of the deaf begin. It was theorized that learning could only occur through verbal communication.) So time went on and new countries emerged and cultures formed their own languages loosely (or tightly) based on different dialects of the Latin language. That's why today it's easy to find commonalities between "Romance Languages" when attempting to interpret from one to the other. If you know the basic Latin structures, you can usually figure out what a specific word represents.

Next we got into Jill K. Bishop's article "Bridging the Language and Culture Gap". This ties in strongly with enforcing a universally recognized communication system. It is imperative that workers effectively and efficiently communicate with each other in all situations, not just safety. I think every institution and business should make its own standard for it and stick to that standard. Success and advancements aren't about discrimination between peoples (as previously discussed), it is about unifying people.

This brings us to the last article, "Languishing Languages". This is a heart-breaking and hopeful piece to read. It discusses the various extinct languages, the ones that are on the verge of death, and the efforts made around the world to preserve them. My immediate instinct is to say "Why aren't governments funding projects to preserve and encourage these languages and cultures??" But then I start to follow that path of thought into "How many different branches would need funding? Who would do the work? How would we make sure all languages are included? Is there any hope in bringing some back to life?" Shortly, the list of questions becomes too long to keep track of and I realize that such efforts, although I'm sure some are being made, would eventually fizzle out. The truth is that even though there are a select and amazing few individuals who are utterly enraptured by ancient (and not-so-ancient) cultures and the languages associated with them, there are not enough to keep them all alive. So then I start wondering what this means...

First, I wonder what it would mean for these ancient (or not) cultures to know that people from outside their cultures are learning their languages and customs. I just wonder. Then, I start to think about what caused these cultures and languages to lose steam in the first place. I conclude that it's because there are too many of us. Cultures have been overrun and dominated since the beginning of time. One culture wanted more land and more space, they wanted to expand, and the opposing culture was just too weak to stop them. So... was it wrong, then, of the dominating culture to succeed in its efforts? What if the situation had been reversed and the opposing culture instead wiped out the offences? It's an ethical gray area, honestly. Like, consider earlier when I referred to the Roman Empire. What if... it never happened? What kind of world would be living in? Well, we certainly wouldn't be speaking English!

I guess I would say then that culture comes down to a "survival of the fittest". Does that mean it's okay that other cultures die out along with their languages? Maybe, maybe not. Whether we like or not, every culture exists to extend its own life. However, that ultimately means that eventually, some will die and some will flourish. Some will wax, some will wane. Do I think it's right to forget about these cultures and their languages as part of our heritage? No. I do think it's important to be able to see where we have been and how we got to  where we are. It's important to see how our societies have been molded by our ancestors and assess whether or not we have met the goals they wanted for the future of their society. Some people can answer yes, some will answer no. But how do we preserve our heritage? How do we document a culture that had no written histories? It certainly is a troubling and problematic question. We can only hope that we can answer it soon before our histories die entirely.

On the other hand, our world is over-populated. One thing that made ancient (or not) cultures prominent was space. There was lots of space between people, ideas were isolated. We live in an age of instant mass communication. It's nearly impossible to go somewhere and not see another person (who may or may not have a different culture or heritage than our own.) Not just the United States, but the entire world has become a cultural "melting pot". I think in an earlier blog I talked about the United States being more of a "tossed salad" than melting pot. I still believe that perspective is valid since the U.S. is a country that values heritage of other cultures. However, we can't believe that these cultures are going to last forever. We can't pretend that as people continue to freely mix and mingle in this "melting pot" of a world, that we aren't going to eventually come to one, singular culture. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, or even in the next couple hundred years, but the next millennium? Most likely. We may not even have individual countries anymore, just a group of world leaders. Who really knows all the answers? I don't. But I can say for sure that eventually the past isn't going to matter. Eventually we will be at a singular (and pivotal) moment (of a few generations, most likely) where everything is uniform. Like leaving stew in the pot too long, eventually it all homogenizes to the same consistency. That is when I believe history will end and something new will begin.

To sum up my statements, though, I want to say that yes, I believe heritage is important as a society. Do I believe heritage is important on an individual? Yes and no. To some people it is. To some it isn't. If you're going to tell me that I'm a terrible person because I don't fully embrace the culture of my heritage by practicing their beliefs and speaking the language, I'll probably tell you to go shove it. I was born when and where and how because of events in the past that I can't control today. Maybe those events have given me some sort of advantage, for some people... they were born with a disadvantage. As far as the past defining who I am today, I say that's a load of bull. Maybe some sort of inescapable fate provided me with potential, but at the end of the day who I really and truly am comes down to the choices I make, the actions I take. Personally, I've seen the other side of what I am. It didn't have anything to do with my culture or heritage. And honestly, I would say that experience made me realize who I am now and what I am capable of becoming.

A lot of people will say differently. And I can't argue the subjective path. Everyone's heritage means something different to them. But I think it's kind of silly to say that it's the only way we can realize who we are. Who are you if you're an orphan, then? Not every orphan gets adopted. I admit, there's definitely a culture of its own happening there, but is it one that should be kept alive? Just a thought. I think too many people are too quick to define themselves as a reaction to the world instead of by their action within it.

Finally, I have some questions from Kim's blog to answer:

"You and two friends are studying abroad in Japan. When you are with those other two people, would you speak more English or more Japanese?"

I think it depends on the circumstances under which we in Japan in the first place. Are we there to study the Japanese culture specifically? Or are we there for a new experience in learning material we could easily learn in our native land? Personally, I would want to speak Japanese because I would want to be able to function in a higher capacity within the Japanese culture. (As in, I wouldn't just want to be a resident tourist.)

"Do you think tattoos say something about the people who have them?"

Yes and no. I think that everyone gets inked or pierced for their own reasons. Maybe for a majority it's due to mainstream fashion. But I know that personally, my tattoos are meant to tell you something specific about me. My piercings have their own stories, as well. But I can't deny that there is a social stigma related to body art and modification. Maybe this stigma is on it's way out of the door with older generations, but at one time tattoos and piercings (other than ear lobes) tainted your first-impressions in society. This is an interesting subject that I'm going to do a research paper on in the future, but for now, suffice to say that I want my tattoos to tell you something about me but I can't tell you what you think of me when you see my tattoos.

"Should we make language classes mandatory? Why or why not? Do you think this would compromise other cultures?"

Yes, because pretending that we could live, succeed, and advance as any kind of society without a common standard of effective and efficient communication would be blatantly lying to ourselves. And absolutely this would compromise other cultures, but as I have stated before, that's a price we pay for advancement. I don't think we need to beat a native culture out of people, but I definitely think that in order to advance any society there has to be a common culture.

"What makes languages disappear? How can we preserve languages?"

Well, languages disappear because the culture isn't necessary to the survival of a race or nation anymore. It just goes back to what I said about the ebb and flow tide of humanity. As far as preservation goes, I think that the more dedication our governments show to saving our heritages the more they will be able to stay alive.

"Should we have an official language for the United States? Why or why not?"

Well, this goes back to "yes, having a standard of communication is important" but as for the U.S. having one specifically, that's difficult to gauge. It says a lot about our culture as Americans. I think that as we start to see English dying out as the most spoken language in the world, the American culture will start to change as well. If we want to try and preserve that as long as we can, then I vote "yes, let's decide on one right now". But if we're willing to let our culture ebb and flow, then we don't really need one.

All that being said, I realize I have a lot of controversial viewpoints, but as I grow in this world I realize more and more that holding onto the past only holds back progress. Just as cultures ebb and flow, so generations have cycles. I think it's time to start considering just how idealistic we can realistically be.

So, good luck and safe travels to all those headed to China! I look forward to your safe returns and tales of adventure abroad!

Week Six

I think this is my shortest blog yet. This week we took a look at Native American culture. Blogging this week is especially difficult for me because this is a cultural area that I have not been exposed to a lot and am still not familiar with. In fact, our guest speaker helped raise my awareness of just how recently Native Americans have been persecuted.

Loren Yellowbird, a park ranger from Fort Buford, graciously donated his time to our class Tuesday night to impart historical and current cultural knowledge to us, but also to relate moving personal experiences with us. His words were not wasted on us! Accurate historical and traditional cultural information is difficult to find because the culture was basically beaten out of them in American history. And now that they are finally allowed cultural and religious freedom, it has become incredibly difficult to preserve and pass on their heritage. Younger generations seem to have become "Americanized". And what are Americans good at? Following whatever culture is mainstream. Another problem I could see is that there aren't enough teachers of the heritage; not enough people encouraging the practices.

I also appreciated Loren's openness about his personal experiences. He first shared with us about the animosity between his tribe and another due to the Arikara involvement with General Custer. Although this wasn't really a surprising occurrence, it was something I hadn't ever considered before. Also, he was open about his experiences growing up and learning to hate the "white man". But after harboring that hate he was able to let go of it eventually.

We were also assigned to read some articles and visit some websites. It's difficult for me to form perspectives about these articles and websites because the only information I had about the situations were from these sources themselves.

Native American culture is fascinating to me, but it is so difficult for me to formulate opinions and perspectives because the information is so different from every source. It is a culture that I want to support and a heritage I want preserved, and I want to learn more about the many cultures that make up Native American heritage throughout the rest of my life.

Purple, Green, and Gold

These are the official colors of Mardi Gras, famously celebrated in New Orleans, Louisiana. The name "Mardi Gras" translates to "Fat Tuesday", which was originally a Catholic holiday celebrated on the last Tuesday before Lent (a time of sobriety and fasting) by consuming the last meat and alcohol in the home. This often became a time of overindulgence by Catholics, and when the French-Catholic settlers came to New Orleans in the early 1700s, this Fat Tuesday, or "Mardi Gras", celebrations became an extravagant holiday.

Traditional Mardis Gras practices include dressing in costumes and masks, playing and listening to varieties of Jazz music, and taking the opportunity to participate in some mayhem! Jazz music is blared throughout the entire city by marching bands and on floats in the gigantic parade. Everyone wears costumes and masks in order to keep their identities secret while they participate in this holiday of overindulgence. Mardis Gras is also an opportunity for blatant and over-the-top cross-dressing as part of the celebration.

Krewes (pronounced like crews? I'm not sure.) keep the Mardis Gras celebrations alive. They are private clubs that organize and sponsor the parade and other traditional events like balls and dances. Krewes formed when people began to worry that the outrageous antics of Mardis Gras celebrations would be outlawed.

Souvenirs of Mardis Gras are, of course, the beaded necklaces thrown from the floats during the parades, but also include different styles of cups and "doubloons", or coins, all decorated with different Krewe symbols. However, prizes thrown from floats can be quite valuable. Many people cherish the rare hand-painted coconuts of the Zulu Krewe.

Most of this information is paraphrased from this website.

I think that Mardi Gras is an incredibly culturally diverse holiday and is an important icon within the American nation. Even though it began as a celebration of a Catholic tradition, it has come to mean much more than that to so many people. I believe this is a great example of how the traditions of one culture (in this case, French-Catholics) can open doors of tradition and celebration for many more cultures, and even people who claim no culture in particular.

I got the idea for Mardis Gras from my traditional practice of Lent. Lent is a tradition that I do celebrate because I think it serves as an important reminder to me of just what things in this world are truly important and how thankful I should be for the life of plenty I lead. It serves as a time of reflection on my faith and religious beliefs.

However, I am not Catholic so Fat Tuesday was never really a holiday for me and I wanted to know more about it!

Week Five

While watching "Journey to a Hate-Free Millennium" in class, I was suddenly overwhelmed with questions. I'm going to record them all here and hope that maybe one day I can answer them all.

Why is a hate crime that happens in Wyoming so much more devastating to a nation than the hundreds that happen in more metropolitan areas?

Why do we think that the Midwest culture is somehow immune to acts of hate and violence? Why would we think that the kinds of people who commit hate crimes wouldn't exist here? (Taking into account statistics of social populations and what kinds of people commit hate crimes.)

Is there a time of year or time of social climate trend that hate crimes are more prevalent during?

What makes people victims of hate crimes? Are there any concrete similarities? (Personalities, cultures, education, social status, geographical/social location?)

What are the motivations of those who commit hate crimes? Are they doing it for subjective or perceived objective satisfaction? Is there a difference in motivations between non-fatal and fatal hate crimes? do most hate crimes start with the intent of death or are most fatalities accidental?

Why do racists want to live in a culturally homogeneous nation? Are there some cultures that band together to find common ground in cultural superiority?

How hopeless does a kid have to be to think that murder/suicide is an option? Why is it that hope is taken from kids? Why would kids do that to each other? Can this happen to anyone or do other psychological circumstances have to be prime?

Why do good people suffer for the sins of others? Why do racial extremists believe that they are justifiably good people?

Why are hate crimes so much more impacting on society than crimes not found to have hate-crime-standard motivations? Why is "hate crime" its own category in the law? What makes us think we are capable of judging the motivations for crime? Are hate crimes punished and penalized differently?

Can racists change their views? Is it too ingrained or just surface-level issues getting out of control?

Why are hate crimes so violent?

Do we secretly hate ourselves and when we see ourselves reflected in others, we start hating them?

Why is communication so difficult? Why can't we teach universally efficient methods of communication?

Why are we so hesitant to talk about cultural diversity with younger generations?

Why do we mistake complacency and apathy for tolerance?

How can religions develop such extreme branches? why do people become so arrogant toward their beliefs? Why do we, who claim the same faith, not call out those who speak for us?

How is it that as a nation we still tolerate racism?

What role does media play in the developing character of our children?

How are these ideas of hate perpetuated through families?

Why is compassion such a difficult idea for us to practice? Are we scared that by showing compassion to someone whose culture we do not agree with we are somehow agreeing with their beliefs and abandoning our own?

Why can't we connect on the must basic commonality between us all:  humanity.

Why are artistic expressions and symbolic actions made so controversial? Why can't we admire art no matter its motivation?

How can one human condemn another in this life or the next?

So yes, these are a lot of questions that may or may not have concrete answers. Mostly, I think that society has begun stereotyping stereotypes. We say "All stereotyping is bad." when really, if we didn't stereotype to some extent, and recognize the good skills or perspectives of different cultures, there would be no need to diversify our places of work. In other words, we have made the mistake of turning distinction between two things into a "good or bad" situation. Or, because two things are different, one must be good and one must be bad. An example: Two scarves are made of the same material in the same design. One is red and one is blue. Now, there is a distinction between similar scarves. It doesn't mean that one is more effective than the other, or that one is less effective.

Another example: In the winter I wear a hat that comes down over my ears. My friend wears ear-muffs. Both headpieces keep our ears safe from the cold and wind. I like my hat because it also keeps the rest of my hair warm. My friend likes ear-muffs because they don't mess up her hair. Neither of us thinks one is better than the other, we simply make the distinction between which one will function more effectively according to each of our needs. What does this have to do with equality? We both see the scarves or headpieces through the same "eyes", so to speak.

Societies confuse the differences between making a distinction and inequality. We all deserve to be seen the same in the "eyes" of the law, yet judgment will always differ because there are many distinctions to take into consideration. This is why we have a Bill of Rights.

Here is where I answer Kim's question:

"What's more important? Free speech or Cultural Sensitivity (and I am not talking about legally or what should be a law. I'm asking which is more important to you.)"

Free speech, hands down. Without the freedom of speech any ruling body is able to force you into submission. Any ruling body. If one chose cultural sensitivity, the effort would be futile as every culture would simply submit to one culture -- a ruling culture. (If you don't believe me, read The Handmaid's Tale [which is by a Canadian author, on a side-note, where their freedom of speech is not protected.]) Freedom of speech ensures each subject under rule their individuality of thought and opinion formation. Think of it like this: would you rather someone hate you because they are allowed to or love you because they are forced to? I know which one I would choose.

Pulling another excerpt from Kim's blog:

"Kara brought up in class why do we confuse apathy and tolerance. I, honestly, believe we confuse the two because we don't think it affects us. Until we see the big picture, we have no idea of how devastating these realities are."

I agree with this statement somewhat, and I think it applies to a question I asked earlier: "Why is a hate crime that happens in Wyoming so much more devastating to a nation than the hundreds that happen in more metropolitan areas?" I think we get caught up in the small picture, because that is what we are a part of. I believe that in the Midwest it's harder to even understand that there is a big picture because large areas of social "melting pots" are incredibly distant from us. Living in our small picture world, perhaps we look out of the fish bowl and see the room around us, but I don't believe it is until we leap out of our fish bowls and become a part of the big picture ourselves that we realize how we are affected by the actions of others.

"Who is to blame for our society acting the way we do? Do we blame parents? TV? Media? Something else?"

Hmm... Blame the perpetuation of ignorance and greed as acceptable ways of life? America's capitalist economy had the unfortunate down-side of creating an opportunistic personality among its citizens. We do whatever it takes to have money/be successful. This often means taking advantage of different peoples whose values are different from our own, people who willingly give us something for nothing in return. Now, I'm not saying that I'm against capitalism, I'm just saying that there are some extremists who have twisted ideas of success/power.

So, yes. We can blame anyone and everyone but until we decide to "be the change we want to see in the world", change will never happen. It will take as long to usher in a new sense of understanding as it was to corrupt a non-existent understanding in the first place. In other words, we need to do what's right and encourage others to do what is right, then wait a couple hundred years and see what becomes of it.

I'm just going to pull the rest of Kim's blog here and answer the questions she gives in [ brackets ]:

"In the video and in the articles it said that people target transgendered individuals, homosexuals, and others because they won't fight back. Lots of these individuals do not report the cases. Why? It is also stated that law enforcement does not understand these groups of people. How do we change that? [ Unfortunately, we probably can't. Our civil law-enforcement is made up of citizens from the general populous. Until we start teaching the fundamentals of effective communication to everyone, all the time, no matter what, we will never overcome the boundaries of understanding. People just don't know how to communicate. It's more than just talking and hearing, it's about articulation and presentation, and using "I" statements not "you" statements, etc. Unfortunately, the reason effective communication isn't taught is that no one wants to learn it. We are happier being ignorant because it's easy. How sick is that. We choose to not understand others because it is easier than dealing with our emotions and understanding their feelings. And it's our God-given right to be ignorant in the U.S. of A. ]

Do you think hate crime laws make it seem like it is worse to kill a homosexual than a heterosexual? [ I'll reiterate the point I made earlier about the law in application to this question. The Law must have "eyes" of equality. There are certain standards of treatment that every citizen is entitled to. Unfortunately, it is not our right to ask for more entitlement than someone else. In this specific scenario, the homosexual community has no right to request that one who commits a crime against a homosexual be judged in any way differently than one who has committed a crime against someone of any other cultural category. The Law is also prohibited from judging a criminal more or less harshly due to his or her motivation for the crime. The Law is restricted to facts, not speculation. And, try as we may, the Law will never be able to tell me or any one else, let alone a criminal (who is still a citizen of the United States) how we feel. So, to sum up my response: No, I do not think hate crime laws make it seem worse to kill one culture over another. I think hate crime laws belittle the Law and make basic human rights and entitlements seem arbitrary. ]

"Hate crime laws aren't at all about eliminating hate; they're about eliminating what leftists happen to hate. Leftists feel sympathy for minorities and homosexuals, so they get protections, but not for whites and heterosexuals, so they get protection?" Do you agree/disagree? Why? [ Honestly, I'm not sure that I understand this question. I think it is trying to say that due to leftist sympathies for minority cultures, those minority cultures are given priority over majority cultures in the Law. I suppose I both (or neither) agree and disagree. Leftists especially have the habit of confusing distinctions between things with categorizing them into "right, wrong, good or bad". Whatever the reason, people are still people, humans are still humans. Although the letter of the Law is strict and applies to all of us, unconditionally, the spirit of the Law is subjective. There will never be a one-size-fits-all law when it comes to human behavior. ]

Do you agree with this statement? "Racism"--a black person cannot be racist because a prerequisite for this is that a group must wield the power to oppress. [ Anyone can be racist against a different race or even their own. Racism stems from wanting power: either you have none and you want it, or you have it and you want more. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unfortunately, humans function in accordance to self-interest. It is a difficult creaturely trait to overcome. Power provides food, shelter, companionship. Who wouldn't want power? ]

Who are oppressed groups? Is hating one racial group worse than hating another? What can we do to stop hate crimes? [ One of my favorite jokes used to be "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally." Interchange the word "love" for "hate" and suddenly the connotation isn't so bad. Frank Herbert, the author of the Dune series (which is a fabulous philosophical adventure in societies), writes "Love and hate are two sides of the same coin. The capacity for one is the capacity for the other." Oppressed groups are any culture that another culture deems "unworthy" of being seen through the same "eyes". Also, oppressed groups are any group that chooses to be oppressed (I'm not saying oppression is the fault of the oppressed group, I just think that in America, there are plenty of ways to overcome oppression as an individual. Clinging to an oppressed "status" only makes you victimize yourself, in my opinion.) No, hating any one group of people more than you hate other groups of people isn't right. However, loving one group of people more than you love any other group isn't right, either! I believe that if we just continue to encourage the right frame of mind by leadership through example, eventually the world will be able to see everyone with the same "eyes". ]

What do you think of the statement at the end of the article about Matthew Shepard's Act "Are you going to be willing to look at the mourner in the eye and explain how justice dictates that the politically correct killer should get a relative slap on the wrist?" [ Justice is not equal! Justice is not as subjective as the crime committed! It absolutely drives me insane when we complain about our legal system's "justness". It is the best we can do. It isn't perfect. You know what? A lot of murderers and rapists and other criminals go free because they get great lawyers or because the District Attorney couldn't make an ample case for the People. The Law works because it is based on facts. It doesn't live in a world of speculation. It can only be objective otherwise we will end up in Minority Report being punished for crimes we haven't even physically committed. Justice is not equal, sometimes the truth cannot be brought to light, life isn't fair, and no one is entitled to rose-tinted glasses on the "eyes" of the Law. Tragedy has been a common theme in life since it began. I know I'm sounding terribly cold-hearted, but the reason that the Law is losing power and that justice is becoming corrupt is because people don't believe in it anymore. I believe in the American Justice System. And I don't believe that any one case will be exactly like another or that there will be any one law that can bring one crime to justice. But everyone has an equal chance at justice through the eyes of the law, no one is entitled to more and no one deserves less. ]"

To wrap up, I will discuss my thoughts on the "Stereotyping of Native Americans" article. Well, let me just start by saying "Dear Dolph L. Hatfield, Please stop prattling about social issues you obviously don't comprehend and go back to your lab of molecular biology and find a cure for cancer. Sincerely, Kara Swenson". I almost could not finish reading this article it was so speculative and surface-level. The worst part was when he claimed that "some races are equal to others" or that different cultures and societies can be "comparable" to each other. Honestly, what bullshit. All people are equal in the law, but don't go saying that my beliefs are equal to someone else's or that my traditions are just as significant as someone else's. If this were the case, everyone would have the same traditions and the same culture. To be more specific, Dr. Hatfield, my iconic figures are not the same as someone of a different religion. This brings us back to outdoor headpieces: hats vs. earmuffs. They are equally effective at keeping ears warm, but they are different in other areas of functionality.

Let me continue this discussion by directing you to an Online Thesaurus where I have requested synonyms for "discrimination" (which is Hatfield's main claim through this article).

Discrimination is used in three different parts of speech! Two of them have negative definitions, but the list of synonyms for those definitions is incredibly limited compared to the list for the definition "particularity in taste". This brings us right back to colored scarves. People who wear blue scarves certainly aren't biased against people who wear red scarves! It's just a preference! How did "discrimination" get such a negative connotation, anyway? I think we're beginning to discriminate against our own vocabularies.

So, Hatfield argues that American society negatively discriminates against native Americans by publicizing icons or iconic ideas of representation. He claims that we wouldn't treat other "equal" cultures that way. (I wonder if he has ever had pancakes or waffles with Aunt Jemima syrup on them...) The truth is that my parents are not bad people for proudly wearing "University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux" apparel. The truth is that a long, long time ago, back when our 21st century morals hadn't been thought of yet, a group of people built a school and decided they wanted their mascot to be a great, revered, (and admittedly, intimidating) icon. (In fact, I would say this is the truth for any school that has a "discriminatory" mascot.) I'm not going to sit here and say that it's "no big deal" for schools to embrace these "discriminatory" icons as their mascots, but I will say that I don't think anyone who is proud of their school mascot icon is simultaneously harboring thoughts of hatred toward the culture it comes from.

What I will admit is that there is another truth that runs parallel with iconic choices: they perpetuate inaccurate representations of the truth behind an icon or an iconic thought. Yesterday, these icons or iconic thoughts were chosen to represent a people or a product because they enforced a sense of superiority to those associated with them, for whatever reason, even the wrong ones. Today, our logos or mascots are icons because they are our logos and mascots. They have taken their own connotation in our society due to the beliefs we have associated with them. They enforce a sense of brother-and-sister-hood within us. They give us a place to belong, a society to find a home in.

Finally, Hatfield, I point you back to the perverted ideology of capitalism. People in America are out to be the best they can be, "discriminating against" (or as I like to think of it, recognizing a distinction between) native Americans was just another way to get us there. Don't anachronize your 21st century morals into a century you probably didn't even exist in. Also, don't assume that the standards of morality that existed back then exist today. You make your point to the letter of the Law, Hatfield, you go ahead and put on those rose-tinted glasses so you can see with different "eyes" and accuse others of being mean and nasty. But the truth is that we aren't mean and nasty, the truth is that you kind of sound like an idiot in this paper. People like you, Hatfield, perpetuate stereotypes and negative discrimination. Why don't you just educate us on the historical truths behind the icons that we hold dear and are everlastingly loyal to? (Probably because you don't know the history at all.) And most importantly, Hatfield, don't be a hypocrite. You agree that you can't tell a minority group how it feels or should feel, yet you come right out and accuse the majority of being the same hypercritical and ignorant majority it was in the past and harboring the same malicious intentions (which obviously, even those people didn't.) People like you, Hatfield, create victims instead of empowering the oppressed.

Week Four

Again, I manage to wait until the last possible second to do this blog. But, again, it's because I have been mulling over what to draw from my experiences. After reading everyone else's blogs, I feel that enough has been said about the content of our speakers' lectures, so I will only touch briefly on it and talk mostly about how I have "digested" the information. I hope I have something substantial to say!

Dr. Porthen, born in South Africa, took the time to share historical and social knowledge of her home country with us. She talked about the history of the nation, the history of it's people, and how the social climate has changed over time. The cultures have blended with one another or switched roles in the ruling/ruled classes. Yet through all of this unrest, South Africa is an economically superior country within the continent. Dr. Porthen was very passionate and had so much to say that it is difficult to make sense of my notes! Haha

Although she talked about many things like the music and food of different cultures, my favorite part was when she discussed the "reinvention" of the entire cultural rainbow. As I understood, the apartheid in South Africa reawakened the passion of many people to turn to their cultural traditions for strength. Yet as the tide turned in post-apartheid times, there was a period of "truth and reconciliation". This meant that citizens of South Africa were encouraged by their political leaders to communicate openly between cultures. This helped a lot of cultures that had developed a "superior or inferior" attitude toward different peoples rethink their strict standards and perspectives.

Corey from Canada was our second speaker of the evening. He had a lot of interesting information to share with us. It ranged from drinking age to hunting laws to standards of education. Time for a little compare and contrast, I say!

One thing that really irritates me as an American citizen who attempts to stay reasonably politically informed is people who say "America should just be like Canada." What. A. Pipedream. Canada's population is 33,739,900 as of 2009, reported by the World Bank. America's population is nearly 10 times that with 307,006,550! So, think of it like this: Watford City is a fair-sized small town in North Dakota. There are no stop lights in that town. None. But it doesn't really need them because it isn't densely populated. However, you couldn't just suddenly expect Fargo's traffic problems to be solved by removing all the stop lights in the city!

Yes, I am admitting that Canada is a very different culture to ours, currently. Liberated Canada is nearly 100 years America's junior. Now, even though they jumped on the Metric System bandwagon (again, as only a relatively small nation could do) and have adopted a more Socialistic economic view, if we look throughout the history of the USA, there are actually many similarities.

At one time, our speed limits were changing and were not as strongly enforced. At one time, the legal drinking age in America was 18, then shifted between states, before a federal enforcement of the consumption age of 21. At one time, recreational drugs were less frowned-upon. And at one time, America didn't even have game and fish laws. One could wonder if the reason Canada is so different from the U.S. is simply because it is going through developmental stages we have passed through already.

The biggest debate is, of course, healthcare. Yes, wouldn't it be nice to only wait half an hour to see the doctor? Well, aside from shipping 9 of our friends out of the country, there is really no way America could pass a public healthcare bill similar to Canada's. I went to the Canadian Health Care website and just read over what was posted there. The system in Canada is set up so that nearly eligible citizen is entitled to receive the same basic health care needs as their neighbor sponsored by their government. Cool, right? Well, not until we learn that there are many services not covered: dental services, optometrists, or even prescription medication. These benefits are offered as job incentives or through private insurance companies. Just read what the website has to say about its nation's private healthcare:

"In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.
The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.
Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.
Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs."

We learn from this brief synopsis that private companies aren't allowed to offer the same services as government-funded institutions because people don't want their neighbor with private health insurance to receive care faster than they who rely solely on the public health system.

Well, I guess that's all right. It seems a little selfishly motivated. I mean, if I could pay one doctor to treat me faster than another I have to wait in line to see for free, I would do it. It would reduce the number of people waiting for the public option. However, Corey did say that he never waited long and I don't remember if he is from a rural or metropolitan area. I concede that the opinion of actual public services rendered by Canada's public health care system is subjective to one being treated.

One last point to make. Corey mentioned that the education level is higher in Canada. Again, I say, population! The public education system is far beyond America's because the student-educator ratio is not as dramatic as with the United States. Here's some statistics taken from Statistic Canada:

"In 2007/2008, the student-educator ratio was highest in Alberta (17.2 students/educator), British Columbia (16.5 students/educator), and Saskatchewan (15.3 students/educator) and lowest in Yukon (10.6 students/educator), Prince Edward Island, (11.5 students/educator) and Newfoundland and Labrador (12.5 students/educator)."

Compare this to the United States which can grow up to 18:1 students per educator nationally, according to the Digest of Education Statistics.

I would also argue that Canada's education plays a large role in its healthcare system. It is a fiscally responsible choice for a Canadian to become a doctor by studying in Canada. The debt to income ratio of Canadian physicians is much less than America's.

Time to move on to the reading. Three articles in particular stuck out in my mind. The first: Is the Glass Ceiling Truly Glass or Something More Variable? by James F. Guyot. This article briefly discusses the role of modern women in the American civil system. One specific idea kept reoccurring to me as I read this article: Women are chosen more often subjectively by peers or superiors than objectively by a vote of the public. I think that this observation truly speaks to the level of society. As educated individuals we are willing to look past gender stereotypes and base a choice on merit of the mind and soul, setting aside the drawbacks of the physical body. Yet as voting constituencies, keeping in mind that the IQ of a group is the lowest individual IQ among them divided by the number of people in the group, we are still limited to thinking in "traditional" gender roles.

To continue on that observation: In the article "Americans Prefer Male Boss to Female Boss" by Joseph Carroll, he shares:

"Women are more likely than men to state a specific preference for the gender of their boss, while men are more likely to say the gender of their boss does not matter to them. A majority of men say it makes no difference whether their boss is a man or a woman, while those who have a preference favor a man rather than a woman. Among women, 40% say they would prefer a new boss to be a man, while 26% would prefer a woman. Thirty-two percent of women say it makes no difference."

This is a very interesting "revelation" to me. It makes me question whether or not men claimed to have no preference for the sake of saving face but really do prefer one to the other. Or, it could also be that men truly do not have a preference and women are the more preferential group, in which case, we're the ones perpetuating our own stereotype. Or it could just simply be that women are more open to sharing their opinions than men are, who really knows? Just something to think about.

Personally, I'm pretty elated that I live in a culture where women are seen as equals to men. I'm going out on a limb here in speculating that the mid-west areas of the United States may have a much less difficult time seeing women as equals than in other areas. My reasoning behind this possible observation comes from the history of the area. Most of our heritage leads back to homesteading families. Everyone had to work in the fields, men or women. And, everyone had to take care of and raise the children, men or women. I won't try to deny the fact that physically speaking, men and women are built differently and are efficient at different things. However, that doesn't mean that the physical nature of the human body and mind cannot be overshadowed by the power of the mind. (As in, if a man and woman of equal education and merit are competing for the same job, the employer must look past physical attributes and their stereotypes to recognize the equal merit and education of the two. However, this is not to say that the differences in men and women cannot be situationally advantageous. Which leads me to my last article.)

Holger Kluge's speech titled "Reflections on Diversity" makes the point that cultural diversity can open new doors to business by providing fresh perspectives and new problem-solving techniques. I almost hate to draw this comparison because it is so disgusting but it is so accurate that I will do it anyway. Having a business made of one homogeneous culture group is similar to in-breeding. You can only go so far with what you have before you must begin acquiring "new blood", so to speak.

In agreement with this idea, it leads me into making my closing statements in regard to Affirmative Action. Personally, I think Affirmative Action was a lot similar to Dr. Porthen's speech of "truth and reconciliation" in South Africa. Affirmative Action not only held employer's accountable for breaking through cultural stereotypes, but it encouraged minorities to work toward the achievement of their educational and career goals. Today I hear people grumble about losing out on a job or a scholarship due to Affirmative Action. Although in the past I may have commiserated with them that the system is now corrupt and many minorities are given their jobs based on their cultural background than their actual merit for the job, now I think I would tend to disagree.

Now I'm starting to believe that, since I agree with Holger Kluge, many mainstream companies are beginning to see the benefits of hiring a worthy employee of minority culture (to that company.) Sometimes, a company may take the chance that one of a minority culture who maybe didn't quite meet the merit needed for the job could bring something more advantageous to the table that couldn't be foreseen. Not only does it bring in "new blood", but part of me wants to believe the best of human nature so I will also make this argument. I don't believe that we enjoy hurting each other. I think that one reason a culturally dominant society is hesitant to allow in a member of a minority is that we are scared to accidentally offend them, or hurt them in some way. And by doing that, maybe cast shadows upon our own culture that we don't want another culture to see, or even see ourselves.

This class got a lot of thoughts sparked in my mind, obviously. Two hours of blogging later... it's time for bed!