neighborhood living as the minority

Attending the diversity event was an eye opener for me and because we had to choose one side or the other it made the event all the more interesting. The topics brought up were based on issues that society deals with everyday but avoids taking about because of its controversy. The one question that comes to mind when I think about the event was about one’s comfort level when living in a neighborhood with people of their same race vs. living in a neighborhood and being the minority. Most people said race wouldn’t affect them but a few lingered the other way. With the progress in society on racial issues, people shouldn’t feel uncomfortable around other races to the point where it would determine their living arrangements; however I do understand the other perspective. When white kids hang out with white kids, and black kids hang out with black kids, it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily racist, it just means they are more comfortable around each other, being the same race, possibly having the same values, and sharing the same traditions. A Hispanic community would celebrate customs and holidays that they share, but if a family of another race were to live in this community they may feel left out or uneducated about the Hispanic customs. Depending on the family, this may or may not play a role when a family is deciding on where to live. Growing up in Chicago with this perspective, it was easy to enjoy and understand places like China town, the polish community, or Devon( dominantly Indian community).

Blog #1: Diversity Event

“Wearing a culture’s traditional clothing as a costume is offensive.” This was a statement I found particularly hard to respond to at the diversity event. I have always found the way in which Americans generally respond to other culture’s clothing to be obnoxious and insensitive. We call kimonos and saris “exotic,” but to someone from Japan or India they are as common as pair of crocs. If a girl wears a kimono to a costume party and claims to be a geisha, or if she wears something similar to a sari and claims to be a harem girl, she perpetuates the quixotic, other-culture mentality that adds to the social distance between the United States and other nations. At the same time, it seems restrictive to limit costume possibilities. What about those who choose to dress as American Indians for Halloween? Such costumes generally have little to no tribal affiliation and may even represent movie characters, such as Tiger Lily from Peter Pan. However it is undeniable that costumes based on traditional American Indian clothing insult the pride and honor of those who wore and still wear the real McCoy. When choosing a Halloween costume this year, I will stick to something less controversial.

Hitler in History

"I think Hitler has been the most influential historical figure in the last hundred years."

I completely disagree with this statement. Even though navisism, the holocaust, and world war two have been traumatic events I think the main reason people would see Hitler as so influential is because of how much press is given to these topics. This is not to say that what happened was not horrific but it is not the most horrific by standards of the time. Stalin is responsible for the death of 17 million Russians. Hitler on the other hand killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people. Although both horrendous, Hitler is seemed to be considered more villainous character in todays interpretations of history. I would personally expect that this discrepancy is a result of Hitler killing both his own people and the people of several other countries. Alternatively Stalin was killing mostly his own people who in the modern day would prefer not to bring attention to their horrific rulers genocidal tendencies, considering much of the Soviet Union is still pereserved today in Russia.

Diversity Event

I thought that participating in the diversity event was very interesting. It really made me think about controversial issues and my opinion on them. For some of the questions it was hard to pick a side because I didn’t really agree or disagree with them. They were over very hard topics that were more complicated than just agreeing or disagreeing. One question that I thought was really interesting was the question about whether or not most stereotypes were based on some truth. I went to the agree side, not because I think that stereotypes are always true for all people of a certain group, but they wouldn’t be there unless they were based on something. Not everyone in a group is the exact same, everyone is their own person no matter what group they belong to. However, groups are groups because they have certain characteristics in common with one another. A stereotype is a generalization about a group; it doesn’t mean that everyone in that group is a certain way. Stereotypes are always going to be there for every group, it’s whether or not you base your actions and thoughts on them that matters.

FIG DIVERSITY EVENT

Fig Diversity Event

"I would be more afraid to fight an African-American than a Jewish person."

I was unable to attend the Diversity Event, so I haven’t heard all the options. However, the ones that were emailed to me were all pretty shocking, thought provoking, and all could be answered in an unavoidable offensive way. It’s difficult to answer any of them because I feel like any position I take is going to seem racist. Out of my options I chose “I would be more afraid to fight an African-American rather than a Jewish person.” My opinion on this would be, Yes, I would be more afraid to fight an African-American than a Jewish person. I’d be more afraid to fight an African-American person based on their physical appearance, compared to the average Jewish person’s physical appearance. However, it’s difficult to make a decision on this topic because African-American is a race, and anyone of any race can be Jewish or any other religion. But in most cases (in my stereotypical opinion), an African-American will probably be more physically fit than a Jewish person. Most African-Americans are more physically fit than others and have the stereotype of being “tougher”. I also believe that they have a more known reputation of being involved with physical violence.

I was not present at the event, but I was told that the opposing viewers basically said that they disagreed because it would just be giving into a stereotype, and they didn’t want to do that. But, seriously? I think that their positions might change if they were actually put into the situation.

At the same time though, I feel like there is no correct answer to this scenario. Ignoring stereotypes, it’s basically asking me who do I have more “hatred” for?.. African-Americans? Or Jewish people? To make an argument out of this you have to use stereotypes because otherwise it wouldn’t matter who you fought. So technically, it would be fair. But in my in my opinion, based on stereotypes, I would still rather fight the Jewish person rather than the African-American person.

Diversity Event

The diversity event was very exciting. I was surprised by some of the questions that were asked to us. One of the statements during the event that was asked was if we agree or disagree with “Women who wear revealing clothes want to be raped”. I disagreed with this statement as well as the majority of other people if not all the people participating in this event. I believe that no one wants to be raped or deserves to be raped no matter who they are or what they are doing. I believe that the impact from society has formed this statement.. In our society today, nudity has become a comparison to sex because of the way women dress. In different cultures of the world for example, women are to keep their body covered head to toe because of the fear of being raped. Whereas in the United States people wear whatever pleases them even though it has given people the mindset that they want sex. Most women who wear revealing clothing have no intention in mind to look for a male but only to boost their self-esteem and make their feelings better about themselves or help them feel more attractive.

Diversity Event

The Diversity Event was a unique way to allow us to express ourselves and our thoughts on many of the current issues. I liked the event because it gave everyone a chance to make a decision, without necessarily speaking, and choose a side that they felt interpreted the way they felt. It gave a broad, eye-opening, prospective on most of the intellectual feelings within just a few floors of a residential hall. However, I did find one situation provoking. The question along the lines of “fighting an African American is much worse than fighting a Jewish person,” I felt, was unnecessary because it had already depicted between two previously minority groups. I just don’t think that was a proper question.
Unfortunately, I still had to pick a side. I agreed to the comment that fighting an African American is much worse than fighting a Jewish person simply because of stories from friends that I’ve heard, but no actual experiences. I haven’t heard a situation with a rampaging Jew. I could not bring any statistics to the discussion about this statement because I most definitely don’t know enough to improvise one or the other. One side says that, from personal experiences, African Americans would most likely win a fight because they know some brutal African Americans. On the other side there was a comment arguing the previous statement but sadly I did not catch it. Conclusively, I say that you cannot decide the basis of winning a fight on racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Discussion

One of the questions I found interesting in the diversity event was whether dressing in the attire of a person from another culture for a costume party or Halloween was offensive. I do not think it is because people do it all the time, and I believe it is more of a way of celebrating that culture than making fun of it. In fact, I’ve taken a few hula classes and the instructors encouraged us to dress in hula attire, even though I’m not Hawaiian. But we were celebrating Hawaiian culture, and I think that that’s what people are doing when they dress like that for costume parties or Halloween too. I don’t think it has anything to do with being racist or mocking other cultures. I think many people just like experiencing other styles and cultures, and doing something other than what is ordinary for them. I think the diversity event was very informative about teaching us other’s views and some ideas that are prevalent in society. The discussion afterwards was also very insightful because I learned other people’s opinions on the questions, since we weren’t able to speak during the activity.

Single Mothers

"It is impossible for a mother to have a job and take care of a family." This statement was the one that had the biggest effect on me. I went to an all girl high school that instilled empowerment in our minds. The teachers encouraged us to believe that we could do just as much with a man than we could without a man. Also, my mom has been a single, full-time working parent for 15 years. Therefore, I strongly disagree that it is impossible for a mother to raise a family and have a job at the same time. Yes, it might be a difficult task for a mother to devote time to her job, her family, and her social life, but it in many cases has proven to stray from the word impossible. For instance, my mom works twelve hours a day, five times a week, and both my brother and my sister have graduated college, never gotten in big trouble, and are successful with their careers. After managing to do all of this, she has also found time to go out on the weekends with her friends. I love my mom to death, but she is an ordinary woman, therefore any other female has the potential to achieve just as much as she has.

Diversity in Views that Don't Respect Diversity

The most shocking question within the Diversity Event (to which nobody said Agree to) was the one which posed the question, “Do homosexuals go to hell?” The obvious response was shock and awe, though there are many individuals within society that do believe that this questions an obviously true statement.
In discussing the veracity of such an ideal, it’s best to analyze why individuals see the world in such a light and what can be said to refute said thoughts.
The crux of the notion is seen in the claims of Fundamentalist Christians who distort the teachings of Leviticus, which see homosexuality as immoral. Key responses (in line with a Fundamentalist Christian chain of thought) include: 1) All humans are sinners, yet sins do not doom anybody to a lifetime in hell. 2) Leviticus also condemns other things such as shellfish and mixed-thread clothing. It makes no sense to pick and choose what to follow. 3) Teachings of Christ (that of love) offset much of the hatred that was followed by the early civilizations of the Old Testament.
Clearly, there is no reason to have such a viewpoint (even from the standpoint of those who hold the belief).

Diversity.

Throughout the diversity event, the discussion of controversial matters with the combination of either definitive agreement or disagreement with the statement created a well presented representation of two differing opinions. One specific question dealt with whether African Americans should still be upset over slavery and I had to disagree with this statement. Although everyone has the right to feel however they choose, animosity over past events that have been dealt with only creates further and unnecessary separation amongst people rather than a collective society in which we all belong as one. When one group has felt victimized by another for a long time, hatred is somewhat justifiable, however, once the problem has been resolved, resentment should eventually fade away instead of being fueled by more negative thoughts. Many would say that years and years of turmoil and unjust action supplement African Americans with the right to remain upset, but never-ending frustration and remaining hurt won't change the past, all we can do today is work towards changing relations among different races to create more positive situations and interactions.

Kate Egan Diversity Response

I really liked the diversity event. I was surprised by how controversial the topics were, but it gave us all an idea of how harsh the real world is. All of the questions made us think of what we believe. One of the questions that caught my attention was about it being ok or not okay to dress up in a costume depicting another racial group. Personally I think it depends on the situation and the person who would be wearing the costume. As long as the person wearing the costume isn’t doing it to be offensive and isn’t making fun of the group I believe it would be ok. However I know there are a lot of immature people who wouldn’t be able to handle the situation and would give offense to certain people. For Halloween I dressed up as an Indian. I was NOT doing this to make a scene or make fun of anyone. I was dressing up as Pocahontas. This question separated the group & even though we weren’t suppose to judge each other, I could kind of sense people were doing that. I guess I see it is okay if you dress up as a character. For example Pocahontas, mulan, or Michael Jordan. I do see where people could get the wrong idea when someone is dressed up and they may be offended, but we do have a choice. I just thought this was an interesting question, and I don’t mean to sound like I don’t care about these groups of people. Anyway I liked the diversity event a lot and it really made me see what I believe versus others.

Diversity Event Reflection Blog

I believe last week's diversity event was not just fun, but also extremely informational. It brought us together as a community in a way that helped us understand each other on a much more personal level. This is especially true when we are faced with issues that divide us on political, and even religious lines. One such question that I felt divided the group was the one that dealt with immigration raising taxes (I think that's what the question was directed at, but I can't remember it explicitly). When looking at this issue, almost all of us immediately jumped to illegal immigration, but I found it permissible to view the question on two front. The first being that any immigrant coming into our borders will cost the country money and raise our taxes. That being said, I view legal immigration as something that we should support, being that we are America (The melting pot of the world), even if that does mean that our debt and taxes are raised. On the other hand, I do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. My opinion holds that if our taxes are going to be raised by an immigrant's entrance into the country, then they should also bear the burden of that tax, which an illegal does not. Perhaps this is just me rambling about politics, but I found it funny that almost everyone in the group only saw the issue of illegal immigration, without ever acknowledging that legal immigration costs us money as well.

Diversity Question

The question I really liked seeing everyone's opinion on was the one where they asked if it was okay that African Americans take out their anger from being slaves so many years ago. I'm a big history buff, so I've learned a lot about slavery and what happened. But slavery is over. In 1863, the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves from states still in the Union. And a few years later when the South reentered the Union, all those slaves were free. So slavery is done. Blacks have been assimilated into American culture. They are equal to whites in America. So they shouldn't still be like "we were slaves, we were treated differently, so now we should get special treatment." That was over 100 years ago. Move on. Women didn't get the right to vote until after African Americans and we don't complain about it. I heard once that most African Americans in the USA right now, aren't even directly related to an ex-slave. So I think it was an appropriate question, a question to make people realize there aren't divides along class lines unless you put them there.

Diversity Event

I really enjoyed participating in the diversity event. The majority of the topics were very controversial and thought provoking for the individuals who participated. I found the question about how a girl dresses could depict if she wants to be raped extremely surprising. In my opinion, I don’t think anyone wants to get raped regardless of how they dress. A girl may give off the feeling of promiscuity because of her choice of outfit but that does not mean she wouldn’t consent to sex. I was on the side saying that how a girl dresses does not determine whether she wants to be raped. Just because a girl dresses a certain way, does not give another person the right to take advantage of her. The discussion we had after the activity was necessary because it help put the other side of the issues in perspective. We got to hear what our peers really thought about the issues that were presented. Although the majority of the people were on the same side as me, it was still interesting to hear the other side’s opinion.

Diversity Blogpost

Hey guys, a few quick updates to get you ready for our next blogpost (topic at bottom!):

1) The due date is being moved back to next Sunday, September 26th to give you plenty of time to do this assignment.

2) Unless you received an email from me personally, you only have to do 175-200 words for this blogpost since you came and stayed through the event.

3) Guidelines for this and all future blogposts:

A) 400-500 words (or 175-200 in this case) means that 399 or less and 501 or more aren't acceptable for most professors. As this class is meant to teach you how to succeed in college, including writing, your posts from here on out will be penalized 2 points for going under or over the word limit.  

B) Likewise your response (don't forget to do this too!!) will be penalized 1 point for going under or over the 75-100 word count.

C) Feel free to use "I" since this is deemed a response paper. It's ok to be informal in an informal setting.

D) A short grammatical note since many of you missed this last time (and I won't take off points, don't sweat it, but professors might!):  "affect" is a verb- you affect something- vs. "effect" is a noun- it has an effect on you. 

E) Also in all writing, refer to authors by their first and last name when you first introduce them and then their last thereafter. 

I hope these tips help you guys become better college-level writers, I wanted to go over them in class but we simply didn't have time!

4) Finally, the topic: Which question (please pick just one) from the diversity event did you find particularly surprising, offensive, thought-provoking, annoying, chaotic, funny, or weird? Did you join the "agree" or "disagree" side? What made you feel that way? What argument or statistics would you bring to a discussion about this statement? What does the other side say? How can you politely and thoughtfully refute their idea?

I really wanted to get you guys a list of the questions, but the office that put on the event won't give it to me. If you need helping coming up with a question to address, let me know!

Religion in Generation Me

Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me, chose not to include religion in her book. I believe that she did so because religion is a set of beliefs that an individual chooses to have faith in. Previous generations have accepted religion without questions. According to Generation Me, today’s youth doesn’t feel the same way. Melissa, age 20, says, “I live my life according to the morals, views, and standards that I create.” According to Twenge, Melissa’s opinion is representative of Generation Me in that Generation Me does not feel the need to adhere to one specific set of beliefs. We are so individualistic that accepting a set of beliefs that is already there is hard to do. Melissa also says, “I believe that whatever you feel, it’s personal… Everybody has their own idea of God and what God is… You have your own personal beliefs of how you feel about it and what’s acceptable for you and what’s right for you personally.” We would rather think about it ourselves and chose what we want to believe, rather than be told what to believe. However, in my opinion Twenge overlooked the members of Generation Me who do chose to believe in some form of organized religion. Even if most members of Generation Me chose to believe what ever they want, many of us do chose to follow a specific religion. Growing up with your parent’s religion may not be a choice, but it is a very personal choice to actually accept that religion as your own and to practice it in your everyday life. I was raised Catholic but it took a long time for me to actually accept God as my own and to make the choice to worship him. Going to church on Sunday because your parents make you is one thing but choosing to go on your own and actually caring about your faith is entirely different. Everyday, I have a choice to either live my life for my God and to follow the standards that He sets for me or to do whatever I want. I chose to follow God not because I feel I have to, I want to. It is an individual choice, just as choosing not to believe is. If Twenge had included the members of Generation Me who believe in an organized form of religion, she would have a stronger argument that Generation Me is individualistic because just as those who don’t believe in a specific religion chose not to, those who do chose to.

Blog #1: Generation Me

In undertaking Generation Me, Dr. Jean M. Twenge may have bitten off more than she can chew. Spanning three decades and practically the entire western world, one could argue that “GenMe” stands for “Generalize,” since that is the only method with which a population so expansive could be crammed into two hundred and fifty pages. Using statistics and personal narratives, Twenge discusses complex topics such as marriage, sexuality, and worldview with the intent of giving the most accurate description of this generation’s ideology. It’s a risky endeavor, and the only way Twenge could have made it riskier would have been to devote a chapter on religion.

While reading Generation Me I often felt a twinge of indignation, specifically over the chapters discussing marriage. GenMe marriages are less happy than those of the past because statistics show an increased divorce rate? Couldn’t the lower rate of divorce be attributed to the negative social stigma attached to the practice until it became more common (i.e. our day and age)? I wanted to turn to Dr. Twenge and explain how she was wrong, but there was no way to relieve my frustration. I can only imagine how someone would react to the slightest criticism of their dearly held beliefs, even if the criticism was unintentional on Twenge’s part and simply a result of the reader’s misinterpretation.

Religion is a sensitive topic. At this very moment human beings are either killing or being killed somewhere in the world for a religious belief. With convictions this strong it is only natural that one would be apprehensive about taking an angle on religion, specifically when one is already making blunt, risky statements that are likely to leave some uncomfortable and riled.

When an author gives their text to the world it’s because they hope the world will interact with it in some way. Interaction leads to reaction, and not all reactions are positive. If Twenge were to embark on a controversial topic like religion she could receive a lot of negative feedback, and its only understandable that she would want to avoid it.

Another possible reason for the absence of religion in Generation Me could be the fact that it’s just not as meaningful to this generation as it was to those in the past. I am aware that on the surface this contradicts what I have just said, that religion is so important to some that they would be hurling verbal stones at Twenge for taking an angle on it. At the same time, it is undeniable that this generation has lived through the strongest wave of secularization yet. A clear example of this has been the removal of religious influence in public schools. Christmas parties are no longer allowed, not to mention Christmas carols, and prayer of any kind is frowned upon. This is not to say that our generation lacks morality or isn’t interested in spirituality, just that the role it plays in our lives is different than our predecessors.

For instance, when introducing myself to someone I would never identify myself with a religion, whereas I might mention my hobbies, interests, or occupation. I have rarely been asked by an acquaintance if I prescribe to a particular faith and would be very unlikely to pose such a question to someone I do not know at a personal level. Religion to us has become something very private and altogether incidental. A person as an individual is more important than the god that individual worships.

So by not directly addressing religion, Twenge emphasizes the individualism and open-mindedness of this generation, while at the same time reducing the criticism she is most likely to face after writing such an analytical book.

Generation Me: Religion

Reading through Jean Twenge's Generation Me, she seemed to cover most aspects of society except for religion, which was an odd circumstance considering how controversial her novel played out to be. Although Twenge explored many topics that often end in heated debate, such as sexual orientation, she abstained from religion possibly in hopes of avoiding a shift in the books' overall purpose from exploring all factors of  "generation me" into an everlasting argument over religion. However, the lack of discussion over such a popular topic, which ultimately could have furthered her thesis, was peculiar and may have caused more of a problem for readers awaiting her perspective on religion in today's generation.

Generation Me differs very much so from other generations when considering religion; we are a part of the Modern Era, one that holds a higher importance upon human power rather than supernatural powers, consequently lowering religious expectations for much of our generation. Although there are still cases in which religion holds much significance, not being a part of church or bible study is no longer looked down upon by the masses. This acceptance may be rooted within the fact that over the years, people have become more comfortable with themselves, no matter how much they differ from others, providing them with more freedom to speak their own thoughts and opinions on even the most controversial topics. In relation to that, believers of atheism or agnosticism may have indeed risen in numbers, but this may merely be based on the new comfort people hold with themselves, allowing them to voice their beliefs and simply be more outspoken than previous times where discussions of such ideals were considered socially unacceptable. This recent assertion of independence allows people part of "generation me" to hold their own judgments of right and wrong, as well as a stronger sense of power over themselves as they are no longer subjected to following the rules supplied to them by their religion. We've become a generation full of curiosity and lack of satisfaction in what we've been taught to always accept, which in all honesty, I see as a positive change in humanity.