Category: Uncategorized (Page 1 of 3)
Laila Lalami examined the word assimilate, a study of which would be incomplete without understanding past and present trends in immigration. Lalami provides several examples throughout history of how interactions between Americans and immigrants did not end well. At the turn of the twentieth century, political cartoons depicted “Irish refugees as drunken apes and Chinese immigrants as cannibals swallowing Uncle Sam” (Lalami). She also appears to conclude that America’s views towards immigration have remained hostile. Present day examples included a group of Romany people in Pennsylvania who were falsely accused of multiple unsanitary practices and a campus guest speaker claiming that Muslim headdresses should not be worn in America. She ends the paper by displaying how other countries, like Morocco, are willing to be open to people even though their practices violate the religious beliefs of the majority in the country. This explains Lalami’s techniques for explaining the word assimilation. First, she assumes the reader has a definition of assimilation or allows the reader to hold a definition of assimilation that may vary from her own. Second, she floods the reader with example upon example of how assimilation has failed time and time again. Finally, she concludes that our current principles of assimilation are unreasonable, impossible to achieve, and simply unnecessary. What makes Lalami interesting is that she was able to dismantle the whole idea of assimilation without ever giving a definition of the word.
Blog Response: Quotations should always be integrated fluidly. How does Yoshino integrate (introduce, insert, and explain) his quotes? Mark examples for using a colon, embedding, and using a signal phrase as you reread. Then choose a quote that you haven’t already written about and write about how he integrates the quote.
One quote I found interesting was the quote that Yoshino used a counterargument to his own thesis. It is as follows.
“She gave another example: ‘When I was in graduate school, there was an African-American man who studied German Romantic poetry. Under your model, I could easily see someone saying he was ‘covering’ his African-American identity by studying something so esoteric and highbrow. But it was clear to me he was studying Romantic poetry because he was seized by it.”
Yoshino integrated this quote using a colon. He uses the quote to propose a possible counterargument to his thesis. Yoshino uses this quote to explain to explain that just because someone is participating in activity that contradicts the stereotypes associated with their group does not necessarily mean they are covering. He warns that a too extreme view of covering can devalue a person’s individuality and even result in a perpetuation of stereotypes. Yoshino continues on to say that although this criticism bothers him, he considers it more of a warning than a dismantling of his entire thesis.
I found Yoshino’s definition of authenticity very intriguing, especially in terms of civil rights under the law. He states, “the new civil rights must harness this universal impulse towards authenticity. That impulse should press us toward thinking of civil rights less in terms of groups than in terms of our common humanity” (Yoshino 456). I found this intriguing because Yoshino focuses on a different aspect of authenticity. Rather than stressing the idea that everyone should be genuine, Yoshino says that authenticity is a shared “universal” desire that is an essential aspect of our “common humanity.” I like Yoshino’s definition of authenticity because of the applications it has in terms of civil rights law. Perhaps, instead of treating every civil rights as an evaluation of how authentic the person’s intentions are, we should focus more on whether or not the laws prevent the person from becoming their authentic self. It also encourages us to view civil rights issues as something that can unite us, rather than divide us. This definition of authenticity promotes the idea that everybody needs to be part of inclusion; it is not just an issue that minorities alone should be fighting for. I believe the practical application of Yoshino’s views on authenticity could encourage unity and promote social progress and this is why I like his definition of the term.
Blog Post: What does it mean to “modulate your outsider identity”? Do you agree that everyone has “outsider” aspects to their identities, aspects they might choose to hide?
To modulate your outsider identity is to hide or diminish any quality that may be viewed as undesirable by an inside group. The idea that people tend to cover traits they personally view as undesirable is universal. This is evident when people attempt to hide physical disabilities or change their name in an effort to hide their ethnicity. Covering is something everyone does, whether we know it or not, because we have all certain outsider qualities. It is impossible to not posses several outsider qualities because, depending on the insider groups one wishes to be a part of, the same quality can be both an insider and an outsider quality. Covering is significant, in terms of inclusion, because it as a common factor all people share. Too often we view inclusion as a way to get marginalized groups; women, people of color, gays, into the insider group. Covering makes one think that inclusion isn’t bringing people into existing groups; it is redefining our social structure so that everybody is in one inside group and no one is left on the outside. An understanding of covering, can lead to a view of inclusion that involves everyone doing an active part to redefine how we separate ourselves into groups.
Write a blog post about what you found more convincing and what you found less convincing. Do you think the authors’ messages to you was what they intended? Why or why not?
I did not find the Holmes article convincing at all. Two of her arguments greatly distracted from her argument and led me to question her credibility. The first was when she explained that a majority of white people do not believe that diversity should mean a 1 to 1 ratio of white people to people of color in the work place. She claimed that this was because white people were uncomfortable with such an even ratio. However, it must be considered that caucasian people make up a vast majority of our country and the 1 to 1 ratio, though ideal, is unachievable based on our current demographics. The other argument I did not support was her considering Matt Damon’s support of increased diversity on-screen “a striking example not just of mansplaining but also of whitesplaining” (Holmes 219). I personally feel that Damon’s main argument is that diversity should be present where people can see it on-screen, not just behind the scenes. I believe Holmes grossly misinterpreted his true message. I did find Hagan’s argument convincing. His article had a much lighter tone while still highlighting the key benefits of diversity through his personal story. His arguments seemed less extreme than Holmes, and therefore, easier to agree with.
Blog prompt: What does the podcast argue led to the remarkable changes in attitudes towards gay people? Are there other factors that you think led to those changes? Theorize about what leads to change in attitudes towards other people and what impedes (gets in the way of) change.
I found the podcast very interesting as it gave me a new look as to why the acceptance of gay people has skyrocketed in the last decade. The main reason the podcast gave for people being more accepting is that people of every race, age, ethnicity, and social class are gay and that is a factor not present in other types of discrimination. Psychologist Mahzarin Banaji believes this is why a rapid swing in public swing in public opinion on gay rights occurred. She describes her experience witnessing a gay rights parade in London. “London police marching – gay police, and straight police in support of gay police. I saw banners of, you know, the largest for-profit corporations in the world marching – Goldman Sachs, PWC, EY – each with their own banners. And I asked myself, what would a Black Lives Matter parade look like? Would the police be marching? Would these corporations have a banner in a parade of that kind? I doubt it.” (Vedantam). Clearly, our views on gay rights have changed much more rapidly than our views on race and other social issues. Another factor that I believe has also contributed to the increased acceptance of gay people is that many people are actually realizing for the first time how common it is to be gay. With increasing acceptance, more and more people are willing to be open about their sexuality and this in turn leads to more acceptance. In short, we have entered a positive cycle of increased acceptance. I think the main factors that inhibit change are a fixed mindset and an unwillingness to listen. Many people remain fixed in their ways because of a refusal to actually listen to the argument of others. Genuinely wanting to understand and know the struggles of people is what leads to increased acceptance and positive social change.
Recent Comments