Nov 30 2009
Nov 22 2009
Blog 10: Which Visual Maus Presentation in your class section impressed you the most? What about it made it effective?
This week isn’t so much about responding to the leaders, so I’m going to leave the responses by the leaders in the regular response list this week.
Nov 16 2009
Blog 9: Thoreau stated in his “Civil Disobedience”: “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.” Does this maxim apply more today or less, and why or why not?
BLOG LEADERS FOR THE WEEK:
ammonclark:
I believe that there is a fine line between to much government and not enough government. I believe that it applies more today because of better communication technology. Less technology means that information could be old and long past due for a decision. This means the government must decide more because the people cannot. There are problems that stop this and one of them is people that don’t get involved. Government should do less because we can be better educated but we will not take action. Until the people of America take government in our own hands we cannot reduce what the government does.
rainmaker:
I think that is should apply to our day and age more than in the past. Although people did take more initiative in getting things done WITH their government in the past, we should take responsibility and advantage of the technological advances of communication (like ammonclark said.) We have all the resources and knowledge we could ever want at our fingertips. I would hope that if government officials stepped back for a bit just to see what the people would do, that we as members of this democratic system would step up and demonstrate our right to voice our opinions and use what our forefathers fought so hard to win for us. I think there’s a good chance we would step it up. This generation is the most critically thinking of any that have come before.
Govrenment is what keeps a country in line, so to speak. Without it, our country, for example would result in chaos because a vast majority cannot govern themselves. However, I strongly agree with that motto because the government gets out of hand and tries to control too much. Today, the government is over doing things with strict decisions and exotic ideas that are going to throw our nation eskew. The government does not take to this motto possibly because they are afriad of making a mess of things even though they are doing so anyways. The government should look back on times when there was not so much control over the people to see how much better thigns would be if they stepped back a little.
I think this maxim does apply today. Today, Government is more involved than we think. They have crazy technology where they can hack into cellphones and watch you through your camera on the phone and here what you are saying. It reminds me of the movie Eagle Eye, this is how are techonolgy is today. The government can find any information they want to. It makes me wonder how involved the goverment is in our everyday lives, and what other devices they use to get information. The whole T.V. system going to HD could possibly have to do with the goverment. We never know and they could monitor our every move if they wanted to. So i do think that this maxim does apply to today because government does need to govern less, yet it has worked for us all these years that they must be doing something right. Government does need to back off a little though.
chriskelly:
I also believe that this is more true today. A good display of this is in the movie Welcome to Mooseport. In the movie, a previous president campaigns against a well known plumber of the town Mooseport. In one of the debates, the former president goes on about how he will hire all these specialist in different fields to figure out if a Stop sign should be put up. Because, one the owner of the house where the stop sign would be put doesn’t want it there becuase of the lights But, the plumber just asks her if she has tried black out curtains. This is just an example of how normal citizens can get a job done faster, with just as good if not better results.
I agree with this quote and believe it still applies today but it is not acted upon. I believe that the government tries to control our life too much and we let them. I do believe that there should be some government control of course but I think people should be left up to a lot of decision making as well. And though America claims to be a free country I believe we are slowly losing our freedom. But it is sad because regardless of what happens or what is going on no one will be happy with the government. More or less, people will complain.
It applies more, because as you knowthe government is trying to redo the health care plan which isn’t working out so well. So if the government just sets rules and would help to make things work then it would be a lot better and people would believe more in the government then they would trust them to make big decisions such as the healthcare plan and such.
I think that it applies less today than it did back then. With all of the advances in technology and travel the world is much more complex place than it was in his time. So that requires the government to have to do more to keep everything under control then they did back then. However, I do think that there is a point when the government has to stop getting involved. We may be coming up to that point if we aren’t already there.
britanyschoenrock:
When I read this quote I kinda agreed with it, and I believe this maxim does apply to us in our day. Government is so important to people that I’ve seen. Personally, I don’t really get involved with the government, cause it’s never really been a interest. It bugs me how they have government everywhere, especially in how technology has increased. All over T.V., radio, cell phones, just really everywhere. I think sometimes people take to much interest, and then it contols peoples lives. I do think we should have governmental control, but we should be able to make choices, and possibly influence the government.
Nov 09 2009
Blog 8: Do you think most people are able to see all sides of an argument or just their side? Why? What about you?
Blog Leader 02-1:
I really think that it depends on the conversation. I think that if people have enough information on the subject then they may be able to see both sides. A lot of people have an argument because they want to argue what they think is right. But I do believe that if it is a mutual subject then they would be able to see all sides of the argument because they know more of what is going on. Some people though actually do not see all sides and think their opinion is the right one. People should look back and see that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But in another way I think that people are able to see all sides of the Argument but they think that what they have learned is the right way and they don’t want to change their opinion. There is times when i can see all sides of the argument but in some ways I can only see why mine is the right way.
-jaimeadamson
Blog Leader 02-2:
It all depends on what the argument is about and how that person is. If it is an everyday kind of subject i believe that the person will see both sides of the argument. If its something the individual doesn’t know much about then maybe he wont see both sides of the argument. People may see both sides but they have there own opinion on what is right. I usually see both sides of the argument but there has been times where i haven’t.
-wesleyselby
Blog Leader 10-1:
I think that people can see all the sides to the argument, it just needs to be explained to them.It also has to do with the argument it self and what it is on. There are somethings some people can not get at all that’s just not the way they think, and they will argue about it. When it has to do with everyday things that is when both sides can be seen clearly. But just because they can see were the other person is coming from does not mean that they have to agree with it. I can usually see both sides but i do not change my argument just because that. If i am wrong I just admit it and move on.
-iangoodger
Blog Leader 10-2:
In my past experiences it has mattered on how heated the argument got and if I liked the person. Many arguments can easily turn personal and shift off the main subject matter. In those cases, the issue is still there without any resolution or conclusion. In particular if you are having an argument with someone you don’t like, even if the other person is right, you may not agree with them only because of who he/she is. A lot of us have strong opinions and are quick to express them because we want to be heard. In my life I realize I need to listen and consider all sides with just as much intensity as I express mine.
-j0garcia
Blog Leader 14-1:
i think if you are in an argument in the first place, you are having trouble seeing both sides. there’s maybe a disagreement when people disagree with each other and their points of view. i think most people would like their side to be the opinion of most people or for them to be right, so they have a hard time seeing the other side or sometimes even they just don’t want to hear other views. i’m not going to lie i have a hard time listening to things i don’t want to hear, and sometimes it takes a falling out or being mad for me to see what’s really going on.
-shalonnarencheron
Blog Leader 14-3:
I think most people are just able to see their side of the argument. If people could see both sides then the arguments wouldn’t be as strong. Some people can see both sides to an argument but part of arguing is choosing a side and taking it.
Blog Leader 10-1:
In general people don’t acknowledge both sides of an argument because they are biased. I usually see both sides even if I don’t agree with them and when people argue they don’t recognize the opposition’s argument as valid or noteworthy.
-davidattali
Blog SAPM-1:
I think that it is very hard for most people to see every side of an argument. Most people base their opinion and stick to it no matter what the other side has to say. They listen but don’t hear what the other side has to say. They Don’t take all the information in, they pick what they want and leave the rest out. I try to be even but often find myself picking a side.
-yoshiscott
I think everyone can see all sides of an argument. you have to take inconsideration both sides. if you don’t then the side your siding with wont always be right with others and they would want to no why you picked that side. you need to find out a why you picked that side and you need to see why others haven’t. so its always a good thing to look at others point of views as well as yours.
-sillystring
Blog SAAM-2:
I believe it all just depends on the person. Many people will only see their side of the argument and wont even consider the other side because they are stubborn and get defensive. Most people who have any experience in debating or are just good arguers look at both sides of an argument so that they can make an educated response to it. I try to see both sides of an argument as much as i can though sometimes I find myself getting defensive. Anyone can argue a point, but it takes one who is proficient at debated to be able to view both sides of a story or argument and then be able to make an educated and unbiased opinion about it.
-voltronon
Blog Leader SAAM-3:
I think that most of the time people only see their own side of the argument. If someone decides something is right, they will usually stand by their opinion and never change their mind, no matter how good the other argument is. I think a lot of the time they could see another side to it if they wanted to, but they are too stubborn to admit that anyone else could be right.
-emmaduncan
Blog Leader 14-3:
I agree with 02-1, it really does depend on the conversation topic and the information you know. But it also depends on the person. A lot of people are pretty strong minded and are not willing to see other peoples sides if it is not their own, this makes them a little ignorant. People are very capable of seeing both sides of an argument if they are willing to try. Personally I feel that when I understand the other side I am able to make my argument stronger because ultimately I understand it better.
-amandatillotson
Blog Leader SAAM 04:
I believe that everyone is able to see all sides to an argument, they just choose not to agree, or they are so stubborn that they won’t even try to see other sides. People like this drive me crazy! When I am having a dispute over something with another person, it is easy for me to see the reasons backing up the person’s beliefs but I choose to stick to my reasons. I feel that most everyone does so because of pride that we all have and, like Amanda said, knowing the reasons behind another’s argument can strengthen your belief in your own argument.
-amberliwilde
Blog Leader SAAM-4:
Most people are able to see both sides of an argument and give it some credit. The problem is that the ‘ability’ to see it does not mean that they ‘try’ to see it. It has to be shown to them and explained before they will accept it. Most people are pretty even minded about arguments and can take in others sides calmly even if they don’t agree with them, but there are the people out there who will not listen to or see any other side but there own. If you have ever met one of these people, then you know what I am talking about. It’s not even fun to argue with them, because you know that they are not listening. I don’t know when it happened, but sometime in my childhood I developed the instinctive action to try and see the other side and know where there coming from. I think that everyone should try and develop this skill, whether to make their own argument better or to just understand. Remember being able to see the other side does not mean that you have to agree with it.
-kingsoloman
Nov 02 2009
Blog 7: This generation is often referred to as more of a visual generation, which includes the use of media like YouTube, video games, movies, or even comics. Is the prominence of the visual in society now a positive or negative thing and why?
Blog Leader 10-1:
I think it can be seen as positive and negative. Positive because movies for example has been apart of our culture for years, this is rather recent however I say it is positive because it gives people things to do with family and friends. On the other hand, which I do not neccessarily agree with, this can also be negative because the most common argument is placed on the fact that majority of video game players, movie watchers are younger children and violent games is supposedly making kids believe that violence is acceptable. I believe that a visual generation in general can be used affectively for visual aids for school and they can give really great life messages to which we should follow. In all I believe a visual generation has more positive than negative.
-rozflores
Blog Leader SAAM 1:
I think it’s positive. Things like YouTube, video games, and movies can give us more visual, instead of using our imagination which can give us different views than what authors really wanted. It’s easier to watch a movie ( one hour and half ), instead of reading the book ( days ) which could save us tons of time during school. It’s also one of the really great ways for families to bond with each other and other relatives. The only thing I have against this is the games, it’s not bad to play games, but there should be a limit on how much you should play because a lot of children tend to get really addicted and spend almost no time outside of them.
-tapan
Blog Leader 14-1:
I think that it can be positive and negative. It’s really amazing that we have the technology we do but, at the same time I think that it has made us a lazier people. I agree with tapan’s statement saying watching a movie is easier than reading a book.. There are so many different things we can do to get around putting in our time through technology. I think it is sad that we have to watch a movie to see a visual of what really happened. We can read a book and think for ourselves when doing so. I think technology is a necessity in our world and how we live however, I think some people abuse it.
-kathleenhigginson
Blog Leader SAAM 2:
Personally, i think it is both positve and negative. I think it can be a positive thing because people can still spend time together doing these things and because of these things people can become iformed about things a lot quicker than before. Some negative effects of this, are that people who do choose to spend time together doing these activities do not end up spending the quality time together that they could. Also, it has been proven that electronic, visual, objects kill brain cells that can never be replaced. So if this visual generations keeps going and getting worse then not only will people be getting dumber and dumber but they will also start to lose understanding of the world around them. They will not know about the world around them because if they are always spending time indoors (which is where these objects and activities take place) then they will slowly loose the knowledge they could gain from the outdoors. I do think that these are both good and bad but i think it is more harmful than good.
I also think that there are both positives and negatives to being a visual society. It is a good way of communitcation and seeing parts of the world that someone might not otherwise get the opportunities to see. It can provide fun activities for family and friends to do together. But overall I think that the negatives outway the positives. People are getting adicted to computer and videos games. They aren’t taking time to go outside and learn new things on their own. TV is killing brain cells and people are becoming very lazy because there is no need to work hard with all of this new technology. I think that having visual is hindering our society.
-westoncleveland1
Blog Leader SAAM 3:
I also think that there are both positives and negatives to being a visual society. It is a good way of communitcation and seeing parts of the world that someone might not otherwise get the opportunities to see. It can provide fun activities for family and friends to do together. But overall I think that the negatives outway the positives. People are getting adicted to computer and videos games. They aren’t taking time to go outside and learn new things on their own. TV is killing brain cells and people are becoming very lazy because there is no need to work hard with all of this new technology. I think that having visual is hindering our society.
Blog Leader 10-2:
I believe that it can be used in a positive and negative way. Positive in a way that there is a lot of information you can obtain for just about anything under the sun that you want to find info about. In the same sense it can be very negative. There are a lot of people that put such crude things on these technologies that it can be a very scary place especially for younger children. But if used in the right way it can be a very good resource for all ages.
-triciajo
Blog Leader 14-2:
I believe that it is taking a negative toll on this generation because we are lacking in our other four senses while the vision sense takes over. Not only do we diminish in our ability to listen or experience feeling, but we discriminate against those who do not have the ability to experience vision. Maybe if we all stepped out of our visual media boxes and tried being blind for a day we would come to appreciate the other four senses that are being put on the back burner more fully.
-auntgigi
Blog Leader SAPM 1:
I think that it is both a positive and negative influence on our society. I think that it is taking away from our social abilities and making it so that people do not know how to communicate in person because they are so used to being able to talk to people over the internet or cell phone so they do not know how to interact with other people. I think that it is positive though because the technology makes it easier to communicate with people that we would otherwise not be able to talk to such as the soldiers over seas. So i think that it depends on how it is used.
-andrewcoonen
Blog Leader SAPM 2:
I feel that the prominence of visual in society is a very good thing. However, like most good things in life, this aspect of society can often be misused. These visual products can be used: (1) as trustworthy resources for school studies, (2) to discover what is socially acceptable, (3) to learn a skill, (4) or to just enjoy your free time. The only time that the effects of visual elements do not prosper in the world is when kids misuse this privilege. This is done by doing things like watching movies or videos that swear or have pornography in them, or any other thing that teaches one a bad morale. Everyone learns, feels, and thinks differently. The fact is, that some people just learn better visually. That’s the way that I am. Besides, I think that sight is our most dominate sense. We use it more than all of the others. So why not capitalize on that part of life?
-heathjohnson
Blog Leader 02-2:
The argument can go both ways. Media is one thing that brings people together. In a social atmosphere, you can get together with your family and friends and watch a movie or play a video game. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a point when too much is really too much. In the negative aspect, the use of technology has taken away from many people’s social skills. More and more people are resorting to only communicating through the internet, and even relying on the internet to find one’s spouse.
Blog Leader 14-3:
i agree whit the leader in the fact that movies are a part of our history and that they can be used in a positive way. i don’t feel that violence in video games is a problem if the person is of age. the notion that these games paint the wrong image to children is true, but the games are not made with the intention that children would be playing them. the real responsibility lies with the parents to monitor the games their children are playing. video games have a lot of good uses. such as a tool to learn teem work, tactics, to improve eye hand combination, and it can be a healthy way to release anger. so i feel that it is a good thing that we as a generation are more visual.
-imyogybear
Blog Leader SAAM 4:
I personally think that it has both a positive and negative effect on society. Technology is very helpful with things such as, research, news, and information. But it also is very negative, for example, we are very dependent on our cell phones and computers, we have lost communication skills, and we tend to waste our time on things such as video games, and tv. We just need to balance out the positives and negatives.
-alovell
Oct 28 2009
Blog 6: Do those, like Art Spiegelman, who did not experience the Holocaust or other atrocities have the authority or right to write about them?
REMEMBER: We have blog leaders again, so you have to wait until they respond before the rest of you can respond to them!
Blog Leader SAAM-1:
I think that it is alright for people who did not actually experience the events to write about them. Especially in cases such as that of Art Spiegelman. He was merely writing what his father told him, and his father actually did experience the Holocaust. Everything he wrote was based on what his father said. It would be nearly the exact same as if his father wrote the book instead. So I think that it is alright.
-Mattbray
Blog Leader SAAM-2:
I think that it is definately alright for people who did not experience the Holocaust or other things to write about them. I think it is best when they know someone who has been through such things so they can get an accurate story told, instead of things they think happen. More people will read something they know is factual and that someone has experienced and has been written about. I do not think that they are obligated to write about it, but that they definately have the authority.
-bradyjensen86
Blog Leader 14- 1:
I think that they have a right to write about them. It’s a historical event, anyone can write about it. I think its a matter of how well it is taken up by the literary community. If you have a religious activist who is all about the word of God writing about Gay rights, it might seem a little contradictory and a little less credible. It just doesn’t seem to go well together. Art Spiegelman on the other hand experienced this is a second nature, sort of. It was his father who went through it, so he wasn’t completely ignorant about it. If things such as this cant be written by one person and ONLY the survivors then it brings up the question: what can anyone write? we will only have to stick t what we know in writing and that is part of the fun of writing- expanding your experience and knowledge and allowing ohers to read it for themselves and form their own opinion about what you have written. I’ll use this for example because it is widely known and i think it’s perfect: Twilight. According to the author, her vampires sparkle in the sun, but according to other writer (such as Anne Rice) they burn in the sun or are hurt tremendously. Its a matter of opinion and how you want others to see it. Now does that mean one is better than the other? no. So, i think anyone should be able to write about whatever they so choose, if they experience it or not. it’s not WHAT they write, but HOW they write it.
-mtrunik
Blog Leader SAAM-3:
I agree with Mattbray, I don’t think it should matter whether you have first-hand experience with a certain occurrence in history in order to write a book about it. Although if you do write about a historical event I believe it should be factual, in my opinion Art Spiegelmen did the right thing by getting perfect background experience (his father). So yes from me!
-jonjones
Blog Leader 10-1:
If people who didn’t experience something don’t write about it then we would have much less stuff to read. There isn’t going to be anyone living that was alive in the middle ages but someone has to write about it. In the case of Maus he was taking the information directly from his father. From the reading I would say there is no way his father would have wrote about it on his own. That does not go to say that everyone should write about everything. I would go on writing books about philosophy because I don’t know about it. If Hitler wrote a book about the holocaust from the Jews point of view it wouldn’t be very credible. Which is what it all comes down to, Credibility. Some people are qualified to write about certain things some people are not.
-garrywhitely
Blog Leader 10-2:
I believe people do have the right to write about whichever topic they desire. Because they are writing about historical events really puts the author at risk for the big question of being credible. I do not doubt that people will question the writings of these authors; but the importance’s of it, and where they are getting the information from is what makes them have a right. For instance in Maus; Art Spiegelman shows the world a graphical view of the Holocaust through his father’s eyes. In my mind that is an important experience to tell and more personable than a text book.
-KimberlySpicer
Blog Leader SAPM-1:
I think he should have rights to write about Holocaust. Because everyone should be allowed to write about anything they want. Art got the story for his book from a man who has experienced the Holocaust. Which makes it totally fine for him to write a story about it. If people stopped writing about what they haven’t experienced then we wouldn’t have many books to read. There would not be many fiction stories and reading would be extremely boring. As long as the writer is not making stuff about something that has really happened, I believe that the writer should have rights to write about it.
-tigerjz32
Blog Leader SAAM 4:
Everyone has got the right to share their own voice and opinion. I think its definately okay to Art to have written that book, it was an amazing book! If Art didn’t write it, nobody would know the story because there is no way his father would ever have written it. Most Holocaust survivors try to avoid reliving their past (writing about their life would make them relive it), so somebody has got to write it down for them, right?
-lisacash
Blog Leader 02-1:
I believe that it truly depends on the situation. In the case of Art Spiegelman I feel that he does have the authority to write about the Holocaust because his father did, and in turn it did affect the relationship with his father because it changed who his father was. He got the stories and first hand experiences directly from someone who had gone through it. On the other hand there are some people out there that write about the Holocaust and other events that happened throughout history that should not be writing about it. They either do not have a personal experience about it or do not do enough research on it and in turn end up shedding the improper light on the subject.
Do those, like Art Spiegelman, who did not experience the Holocaust or other atrocities have the authority or right to write about them?”
-tyleradams1
Blog Leader-14-2:
I think that Art Spiegelman does have the right to write about things in the Holocaust even though he did not experience it because he has the right to share a survivors story that is no longer living. For him to raise awareness about it and share one individuals story in a way that is able to reach people our age in a graphic novel is very respectable. Since it hit him so hard to the point that he was physically and mentally depressed. If he felt that way just living the story onto a page, do you think it was a good idea for us to read it? If we can feel at least an ounce of what the survivors felt at that time, then I think it is a good idea for stories to be shared that way.
-silkedayley
Blog Leader 2-2:
I think it is ok to write about the holocaust even if they were not involved in it. Art Speigleman had good information due to his father being in it that being ok. I dont agree on people writing about it if they have no facts and they just look up what others have written about it and make their own story or whatnot. So if they have family or someone they know were involved with or actually a jew in the holocaust they do have a right to write about it.
-carissaakohley
Oct 25 2009
Check the Updates Page for Information on This week.
Don’t worry about the Course Calendar for now… just look at the Update page for information.
Oct 11 2009
Blog 5: Do you think social experiments, like the one we did in class last week, are effective ways to help people understand what the holocaust was like? What role did you play in class? What was your experience like?
[I'm still working on the blog leading issue- stayed tuned for that part.]
Oct 05 2009
Blog 4: Do you think the war caused Vladick to be who his son Art knew? In other words, was it the war that changed Vladick, or was he always like that?
Leader 02-1:
I agree so far with the one comment that is up. I also think that his obsession with saving things that he knew to be useful was a product of the holocaust. he was already resourceful, but when he told his son that he never knew when he would need these resources, that said to me that his grandfather didn’t want his son to die because of his lack of resourcefulness. I mean a bent wire off the street that’s a little overboard for someone who has a home and money. I think these habits came from a war when he needed every tiny thing in the world to get by.
-Mowntainmancody
Sep 20 2009
Blog 2: Brent Staples in “Just Walk On By” talks about how he adjusted his behavior in order to make others more comfortable around him, since many people were afraid of him at night due to stereotypes about black men. Do you think he did the right thing by adjusting his behavior for others? [Respond to one or more of the Leaders' posts (from any section)- responses to Leaders can be posted any time between Tuesday and Friday at midnight. IF YOU ARE NOT A LEADER AND YOU RESPONDED ON MONDAY, I DELETED YOUR POST.]
Blog Leader sec 14-1:
I think he did do the right thing because if he didn’t adjust his behavior then everyone would still be afraid of him. Since he adjusted himself no one would judge him because of stereotypes. But on the other hand i’ve been taught to not follow the croud and do my own thing. But in this case i believe he did the right thing so he could fit in and not have everyone afraid of him.
-anders
Blog Leader sec 02-1:
I don’t think he did the right thing. I believe that if you are doing the right things and working to improve yourself to your own standards then any problem that someone else has with you is their own. You shouldn’t have to adjust yourself for everyone else. They need to accept you for who you are and if they are not willing to take the time to get to know the true you then they aren’t worth paying attention too. The only opinions that anyone should truely care about are the ones of closest friends and family, they typically don’t want you to change if they are already that close to you.
-cmelling
Blog Leader sec 14-2:
I believe that everyone has to make certain judgements of others in order to preserve their personal safety, however it is not appropriate to judge others based on color or ethnicity. I do not think he should have to change him self for others benefit of safety but some times it does help if you do not fit into a certain stereotype. You need to be comfortable with yourself.
-brionnemousseau
Blog Leader sec 02-2:
It is always important to respect and honor the thoughts and feelings of those around you. I think it shows a lot of integrity that he was WILLING to change his ways for the respect of other people. If every person in the world showed that much respect for others, not only would the world feel safer, but it may eliminate racism all together. By him being the prime example that a black man isnt by definition “scary” He’s also setting a new standard and hopefully a new label for his race.
-kylinye
Blog Leader sec 10-1:
I think he did do the right thing because he didn’t change who he was he only changed some of his tendencies. No one should have to change for anyone, but if some of the things I am doing are making it hard for me to walk around at night then I will probably change it to make it a more pleasant walk. After changing he probably stopped getting wrongly arrested by cops and being avoided. It’s sad that people have to change just to fit in, but it has to be done. Some people just need to adapt to survive or in this case lead a more normal life.
-romansanchez
Blog Leader sec 10-2:
For his situation, I feel like he did what he had to in order to make the people around him not as confrontational. He gave multiple examples where people were willing to hurt him for simply walking down a street or entering a building. He adjusted his behavior so that he doesnt end up as one of the stereotypical black men. Hopefully we each do the same thing, when we become aware of something that offends someone else, we change and adopt new behaviors in order to become more acceptable in society.
-sharnamazing
Blog Leader sec SAam-1:
i think we shouldn’t have to change to fit in a group. we should just be ourselves. But what brent staples did was correct because he didn’t do that for him he did that so that other people wouldn’t be scared of him. it is racist yes but that’s just how it goes. I think one should always respect one’s thought and feelings and if you see something’s bothering the person than you can try get rid of it or change it some way or another.
-harsh
Blog Leader sec SApm-1:
I truly do believe that racism is wrong but when it comes to something like this, then no. A girl must take extra precautions to ensure her safety no matter what or who it is!! The guy did right because it made people around him feel unsafe and insecure. Besides who wants to be surrounded by people who are afraid of what he’ll do. Most groups are judged by just a couple of peoples action but that still does not mean we should not be cautious but that does not mean we need to be totally afraid of a certain race or religion.
-brisinger
Blog Leader sec SApm-2:
I think that our society needs to be more accepting. People shouldn’t judge others based on their appearance. I think that it was considerate of Brent Staples to go out of his way to help others around him feel more comfortable but I also think that we should try not to put people in a situation where they are constantly forced to change what they do just to put others at ease. We shouldn’t make others feel like they are expected or required to change just for our benefit.
-laramartin
Blog Leader sec SAam-2:
Brent Staples was afraid of what others were thinking. Yes, he did adjust his behavior for those that were around him. But I don’t think that he had to. Our community needs to accept the fact of how we are all different inside and out. We need to accept everybody as they are. We shouldn’t change who we are to make others more comfortable to be around us. It doesn’t matter what race we are. We all need to get along and accept the fact that we are all different individuals. We can’t judge anybody from the first moment we see them.
-sarat29
Blog Leader sec 02-2:
I don’t think it’s fair to conform to make other people comfortable, but at the same time it’s about respect. He knows he is a good person who isn’t going to cause any harm, so at the same time it’s their problem. I liked how he was willing to change his behavior because he knew it made people nervous. That shows a lot about his character. It’s sad that he has to change things about himself, but it’s kind of the world we are living in today. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
-alythorne
Aug 03 2007
Blog 1: Do you think (sub)cultures in America that keep traditions that are not part of the mainstream culture hinder the ideal of integration? [Respond to one or more of the Leaders' posts (from any section)- responses to Leaders can be posted any time between Tuesday and Friday at midnight.]
Leader sec 02-1:
Our country has come a long way into accepting everyone as they are. Blacks are not slaves anymore, and immigrants under certain requirements, are allowed the right to become a citizen of the U.S. America is known as a melting pot of different cultures…that’s what makes this country a unique place. We are accepting different sub cultures such as Native Americans and Spanish, but that does not mean that we have to be what they are. We don’t have to become Catholic just because another is Catholic. Every person is allowed the freedom of having their own traditions and how they want to live their life. We all have our own preferences of what we believe in and traditions we practice, but we all come together in the fact that we are American, and we are free.
-ashleyheelis
Leader sec 10-1:
In the movie Alice’s restaurant we can find a perfect example of what happens when we ignore subcultures. Hippies derived from tiring to escape the mainstream. With that we found history repeated itself by isolating the subculture and saw example of police brutality along with public isolation. Subculture has made up the mainstream. I say this because everyone from the beginning of America came from somewhere and they had to exist in that diversity and still create things like the Declaration of Independence, which stated that all men should be created equal. If mainstream does not recognize subculture then we will find us in a government of communism. Freedom of speech won’t matter because it will derive from the diversity that comes from all cultures. V for Vendetta, Serenity, and Dances with Wolves, are all fine examples of the need to respect peoples of all cultures or we will see murder and violence. Jesus Christ even states that to go to heaven one must love his fellow man. If we do not sustain the types of integration to allow the forces of subcultures to be unrecognized, we would be just like the Nazi’s. Who wants that much hate when we could have so much peace? Sure integration slows government but that doesn’t mean we should not make them people do their jobs and make things easier by forgetting others. That’s what learning is all about. We just get better.
-mowntainmancodey
Leader sec 14-1:
America is a beautiful example of a country that is defined by its unity in spite of diversity; here there are so many different cultures and backgrounds and yet we’re all considered Americans. There was once a time where anyone here who was different, who was unlike the norm, was persecuted beyond belief. An example is when Africans were shipped here as slaves – since they didn’t look like the white man, they apparently weren’t equal to him. Another example is as recently as the 1800s, members of the LDS church were run out of Missouri because the governor had put out an Extermination Order for them. But since that time we have become wiser – just because an African American man has darker skin than a white man doesn’t mean in any way that he is less significant and just because someone is LDS doesn’t mean that he or she deserves to be killed. Simply because we have different backgrounds or beliefs doesn’t mean that we can’t be one unified country – by having different backgrounds and beliefs we can enrich our country’s culture. We can make it a place where anyone can come no matter what religion or ethnicity they are can feel as if they can keep their traditions, their culture, and remain accepted and safe here.
-aliciatirre
Leader sec 02-2:
I think that integration is very important in the pop culture that we live in today, but i also believe that it is important for the emmigrant to keep their traditions alive. Foreigners shouldn’t just try to fit in because that is what the society tells them to do. They should try and stand out! It is good to be different from everyone else, especially if you are in a different country. I agree with those that support integration saying that we need to fit in. There are other ways that we can fit in that don’t make us change our traditions and culture. People that come to the U.S.A. must learn english. That feat alone sets them apart from everyone else. As they learn the language they will learn more about the culture. Then that person can choose to become part of their new culture, or can be a part of both at the same time. I know how it feels to be a foreigner and it is very hard, but i learned to adapt to the culture and also keep my american culture and traditions as well.
-taylor8
Leader sec SA, am-1:
I don’t think that the sub cultures and other non main stream cultures are slowing down the integration of the cultures. America is a free country and you can be a part of what ever culture you want to. That’s one of the points of coming to America is for free agency. You can be a part of what ever culture you want in America. But it is probably easier to fade in with the main stream than to be a part of one of the other cultures. This country is where all of the cultures come and just by all of them being in the same place brings them together. All of the cultures here one way or another have been integrated together with another culture. The integration is not slowing down.
-jacobcarter
Leader sec 14-2:
I’m going to take the opposing point of view just to mix it up. I do believe that smaller subcultures that hold onto to traditions and beliefs (that are not in mainstream society) do hinder their integration into what we call an American society. Regardless of what we say about how wonderful it is to be different, everyone who is different is usually not trying to stand out, and will assimilate themselves into what is socially acceptable in their region of locale, eventually forgetting their differences throughout generations.
This is why subcultures do not survive in mainstream American society. We don’t appreciate anyone for their differences anymore, and as Americans continue to grow towards the de-sensitized part of what we call normal, we will have failed to incorporate anybodies differences at all. We are growing up in that desensitized state of humanity today, and we are expected to not be different, but assimilated into a civil, and “normal” being.
-kayohbeewhy
Leader sec SA, am-2:
America is unique. Sub-cultures are a great example of America’s uniqueness. Say everyone was treated the same, had the same traditions, same beliefs, same holidays, etc., there wouldn’t be much uniqueness, besides say the color of skins. To be honest, I believe that there really is not a “mainstream”, but a majority. Everyone has different traditions, it’s just most in America have similar, which seems like we should exclude the sub-cultural traditions. Of course there are differences between what is “civilized” and what is not, but to say that sub-cultural traditions do not meet the requirements of “civil” is wrong. I’m sure it is hard being part of a subculture, but we, as Americans, should learn to accept other’s different beliefs.
-magician
Leader sec SA, pm-1:
I do not believe that sub-cultures in America hinder the ideal of integration. The idea of integration is to have people of different ethnic, religious, and other cultural backgrounds live and work together in harmony. If integration was hard for people of different backgrounds from “the norm,” then it means either the majority or the minority group is not making an effort to accept the other customs and work together peacefully.
-tonyaenyart
Leader sec 10-2:
America is one of the most plastic countries in the world. I’m not sure that i know what the “true” meaning of “integration” is, but I like to think that the ideal is what we have. Just a bit of everything, making a very diverse place to live.
One reason the US is such a meeting place is because of its ability to make dreams come true, to make it happen for you own your family without being told how or when to act. That has a value which attracts oodles of people from all over the world who are dreamers and creators but haven’t been able to put their dreams into practice. Just as soon as they can they’re here working their very best. Not only does this allow us to be more educated about the cultures of others but it enriches our communities with people who are fulfilling their dreams, who live high standards ( not always the case).
I believe that there are negatives to having many people of diverse backgrounds but I think that the good out ways the bad.
I can’t think of a better place a place where it is our country, where inspired people choose to live. God Bless America!
-cameronchamberlain
Leader sec SA, pm-2:
I don’t believe subcultures hinder the “American Way” because first of all America is what it is because of sub cultures if it weren’t for Immigration most of us wouldn’t be here today. America is one big mix of cultures just look all around you. If we didn’t have different beliefs or values then we’d all be the same and that wouldn’t work. Also sub cultures show us how we can be different or better we can all learn from each other and become a better people.
- westonishamon
