Sunday, February 28, 2010

Carlson

"This is a discourse about recapturing a romanticized lost American community, a "Father Knows Best" community where authority was respected, everybody "knew their places," and culture was homogenous"

Things like this above quote always interest me. People really do view the past with rose colored glasses. All of us have done it, myself included. As Carlson says, this vision of the past in romanticized. It never ran this ideally. Whenever I hear a "well back in my day..." story, I know that there are just details people fail to mention. Yes "back in your day" teenage girls may not have had babies, but "back in your day" they went to their aunt's house for the summer and swallowed all sorts of poison to induce an abortion. This put her at great risk. In addition "back in your day" didn't they have "negro only" schools and beating your wife after you got sloshed on your scotch on the rocks? Yes, there are things in today's society (homosexuality, pedophilia. Not that I'm comparing the two.) that were probably rarely heard 60 years ago, but that is because people didn't talk about it and kept it swept under the rug.

"Early in this century, the dismissal of gay teachers was legitimated as a way of keeping young people from being exposed to improper role models, lechery, and child molestation. Willard Waller, in his 1932 classic The Sociology of Teaching, argued that homosexuals should not be allowed to teach for several reasons. First, employing a disease metaphor, he argued that homosexual teachers represented a danger to their students since "nothing seems more certain than that homosexuality is contagious" "

This is another one that hits close to home. I am an Eagle Scout who is appalled by the BSA on the national level's policies towards homosexuality and atheism. For those that don't know, the BSA runs on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for their adult leaders in regards to homosexuality. They believe that a homosexual male is an "Improper role model" and forbidden from serving in adult leadership positions. They still follow the traditional 1950s model of "homosexuality=pedophilia" which, anyone with any sort of intelligence knows is not true. Even though for the most part, gay teachers are not dismissed, and people do not think of homosexuality as contagious, these beliefs still persist in 2010 within the BSA. Please don't take this as the program actively teaches bigotry. Most of us on the local level strongly disagree with these policies. I have written a letter to national for example, but have received no response. Surprise.

"Some young people, particularly in big cities, are beginning 10 bring their "OUT" identities to high school. affirming who they are and asserting their rights."

This has definitely changed since Carlson wrote this in 1997. It isn't that "some" young homosexuals are coming out in high school but appears that "most" of them are. I say this with some degree of uncertainty. This is because unlike some traits such as gender or ethnicity, homosexuality is not something you can figure out just by looking at someone. I do, however, feel as though most gays, at least in moderate-left states of the Northeast will "come out" in high school.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Spitting.

Dr. Bogad's spitting story intrigued me. There is no excuse for spitting at someone who has done absolutely nothing to you. I mean I'd understand if this was 1848 and I were a slave and I had a cruel master. Yeah, I'd probably want to spit too. But it isn't. There is no excuse for it, except rudeness.

I worked at the Woonsocket Wal-Mart for three years so I have seen underprivileged people and the way some of them act. It does not take money or status to have manners. Manners are part of everyone's cultures, and although there may be differences (such as speaking distance, certain behaviors while eating...etc)they basically operate on a principal of respect. Respect is found universally throughout the cultures of Earth, from the Aborigines to the English. You do not have to be part of the dominant culture to have manners.

I briefly looked up a few common rules of Hispanic etiquette. It seems that there is a great deal of chivalrous respect for women. Things such as opening doors, lighting ciggarettes and helping women with luggage are expected, and when meeting a woman for the first time, you should always call her seƱorita, as this implies a "virgin women" (which is important in the overtly Catholic Latin America, as pre-marital sex is forbidden). With this said, why would it be considered alright to spit and especially to spit at a women who in Hispanic culture are generally viewed so chivalrously?

Was this a problem with past immigrant groups? I have not read anything regarding this bit I'll keep an open mind. It's just I really can't picture my Nonna spitting at a WASP family in their Model-T. But who knows, in her older years she was referring to all the other women in the nursing home as "puttanas" which literally means "whore" but has the same connotation as calling someone a "bitch" in English. Maybe she did have a wild rebellious side. Haha.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Aria-Rodriguez

"My mother! My Father! After English became my primary language, I no longer knew what words to use in addressing my parents. The old Spanish words (those tender accents of sound) I had used earlier-mama and papa--l couldn't use anymore."

I don't understand why he felt the need to not use those words. English is my primary language and the primary language of both of my parents. It was not, however, the primary language of 3 out of 4 of my grandparents. Although I do not refer to any of my grandparents by non-English terms, I did refer to my great grandmother as "nonna" which means "grandmother" in Italian. My father also referred to her as nonna and to paternal grandmother as "Meme" which is a French-Canadian way of saying grandmother. I mean, if trying to learn a different language, I don't think you need to eliminate it from yourself. Speaking different languages and holding on to little bits of your native culture are good things.

"The moment after the visitors left, the change was observed. 'Ahora, speak to us en ingles,' my father and mother united to tell us."

This quote reminded me of stories my paternal grandparents told me. Both of them have told me when they were kids, their mothers would speak to them in French (for my grandfather) or Italian (for my grandmother)and expect them to talk back to them in English. I think this was a good strategy. It allowed both my grandparents to hold onto both languages, the language of their ethnicity and the language of the dominant culture. In addition, I think this really helped their parents fine tune their English as I know my Nonna had trouble early on with English (she emigrated from Italy in the 1910's)

"their English voices slowly prying loose my ties to my other name, its three notes, Ri-car-do."

That's sad. A name is a name. There is no need to invoke Anglicization on someone's given name. It should be the choice of the bearer of the name if they wish to go by something else.


I think the author of this piece was very whiny to tell the truth. Blamed the fact that he had to learn English on all of his problems. I was a bit relieved at the end though that he realized that assimilation was essential. As super liberal as I am, I believe the ability to speak English is a must in the USA (kinda like Lisa Delpit's work, stressing people to teach the rules of the dominant culture.). I do not believe in publicly catering to people's lack of understanding of English, as I feel this hinders more than helps. As I've hinted 3 out of 4 of my grandparents did not learn English as their first language, and all of them became adept speakers and fairly successful individuals. In addition, their parents were able to support their children and not blame it on discrimination as during the time of their emigration, the culture of power was even more narrow and only referred to WASPs which they were not.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Jonathan Kozol-Amazing Grace

“but she assures me that it's better than the other major hospital that serves the area, a city run institution known as Lincoln Hospital, which has been denied accreditation more than once over the years because of the failure of the staff to monitor patients after surgery and to enter critical data in their records. At least 12 people, including two infants, says the Times, have died because of staff mistakes at Lincoln, which is the hospital relied upon by families in the St. Ann's neighborhood.”


This amazes me how this can happen in the USA. How can any hospital in this country have these sort of things occur? It’s not even like the hospital is in the backwoods of West Virginia or something either. The hospital is in the middle of New York City! Even the supposed “mega liberal” New York City cannot provide for these people. Just the thought of a hospital being referred to as a “cesspool” is an abysmal shock. This should be a wakeup call to the country that something really needs to be done with our healthcare system. Of course, it always more convenient for those with the power to change the situation to ignore the poor rather than doing something about it. That’s too much work. What other industrialized nation does this so blatantly?



"The point is that they put a lot of things into our neighborhood that no one wants," she says. "The waste incinerator is just one more lovely way of showing their affection.”



Another lovely abuse of the poor. Let’s put a waste incinerator into their neighborhood! They won’t notice! Besides they’re not really people anyways. They don’t have money to line our pockets with.

It’s sad that these people have very little power just because they don’t have money or influence. You would think that people would have the decency to have these plants in areas with a low population density. Although I’m not sure of New York City’s geography, if it’s depiction in comic books is any indication, there are abandoned islands throughout the harbor. These would be much more likely candidates for a location for these plants. Even if there weren’t abandoned locations, would it not make more sense to move these plants out of the city? I mean as much as an environmentalist I am, I think we need to take care of people first.




“A person who works in a real job at a place like Chemical Bank, she tells me, is a rare exception in the neighborhood. "Almost no one here has jobs like that. Some are too sick. They live on SSI"-a federal program for sick and disabled people. Maybe five or six in 25, she says, have some legitimate employment. "Another five or ten are selling drugs or doing prostitution.”



That is a startling number. It makes me wonder why that is that so many people are qualified for SSI. Surely the rates of crippling injuries aren’t that much higher in this community? I also wonder what the effect this has on the children in the area. They might see SSI as the only way of gaining income and that would definitely have a negative effect on them. Same with seeing so many people unemployed or selling drugs or engaging in prostitution.



One point I’d like to bring up is the rampant drug use that seems to be present in the neighborhood described. I’m wondering why if people see all the problems associated with its use and the cost of such behaviors why it would keep going. I mean, just because you aren’t from the privileged class doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have common sense. I’d think it’d be apparent to see the connections.