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!