Today I would like to write a friendly critique of one of my other classmate's blog posts.
In this blog post, my classmate contends that they believe the phrase "if you're not for it, you're against it" should apply to government. My classmate is essentially saying that someone should either support 100% of the governments rules and regulations, or be against 100% of them. I understand my classmate to mean that they believe any set of beliefs that does not fit either of these strict absolutes is in some way illogical.
If my understanding of my classmate's blog is correct, then I must say that I firmly disagree. After all, isn't the very structure of democracy built around the assumption that there will be disagreement on issues? A government in concordance to the ideology put forth by my classmate could only exist as an authoritarian government. Rules and regulations would be decided by the ruling class with complete obedience expected from all subordinates. The population of society without decision making power would never be allowed to have an opinion, and dissidents would be swiftly crushed.
Of course this kind of government I have described is not merely a hypothetical. Two prominent examples that come to mind are Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. Few would argue that either of these governments were just, and yet all of their actions were legal by their own standards. Of course that kind of moral putrefaction happens often in authoritarian governments, often enough to ponder if corruption of justice is simply inevitable when power is concentrated in the hands of so few.
Yet even with democracy here the United States there have been many laws that were later found to be unjust. Slavery for example was once perfectly legal, as was segregation after it. Yet under a system of absolutes, we would have to say that anyone who opposed and broke laws during this time period must fit into the "against" government category. One such individual who fits into this category is Harriet Tubman, as attempting to free slaves was once highly illegal. According to my classmate, people such as Harriet must comply with one of two options in order to be logical. They must either forfeit all government benefits--declaring themselves against government--, or support slavery/segregation, declaring themselves for government. Under the view of dividing all opinions into two absolutes, these would be the only two options. Harriet Tubman fits into nether of these categories, and she should not be expected to either.
Essentially it seems to me that my classmate's view does not account for laws that are unjust. As I believe that unjust laws will always have the potential to exist, I do not think absolute obedience to all laws should ever be seen as the only logical option for those who wish to support the government.
Vocab--
putrefaction: moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles
Concordance: agreement of opinions
Friday, December 4, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Like a blog
Todays blog will be a brief diatribe on several different subjects
The first subject I would like to discuss is anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder, but to some people it is actually a fairly appealing concept. The idea of not having a government constantly badgering you about things, or having to obey any rules at all is a desirable concept to many. Could Anarchy ever work though? I do not believe so. After all anarchy is not just some theoretical idea that has never been tested, anarchy has actually happened thousands of times throughout history. The reality is that no place where anarchy occurs ever stays anarchic. Eventually a few factions will become stronger then the others and they will fight until one of them emerges as the dominant faction. In addition, all societies have a desire to govern their members. From this desire emerges government. So it is no surprise really that in every instance where anarchy has occurred it was only a matter of time before a new government was set up. Considering all of this, I believe anarchy to be perhaps an impossible concept to really sustain. Why some people still cling to the idea of it as some salvation from the present structure of government I'm not really sure.
The second issue I'd like to blog about today is cowardice. We may like to think of our society as in general being full of very brave people who are willing to risk harm to themselves for altruistic ends-- essentially good Samaritans--but I am not so sure that is really the case. Perhaps in general the society of the USA is filled with more altruistic people then selfish ones, I can really only speculate since I have not traveled the country extensively. I do know however there are many places I have seen where the cowardly seem to out number the brave. I should take a second and explain what I mean by cowardly. A coward would be someone who while they may be capable of helping someone in need, they choose not to. I have pondered why someone would act in such a manner and I have concluded that the reason may be related to four different factors.
The first factor is confidence, an individual is capable of helping in one sense but may view themselves to be incapable. For example lets say you come upon a women being beaten. If your walking by you may notice that the attacker is no larger then you are, indeed they may even be smaller in psychical size. However let us suppose that you have never been in a fight in your entire life. Are you really going to feel very confidant stepping in to protect that individual against someone who might know a little more about conflict then you, and could easily hurt you? Some people would still try and help the lady, but others would keep on walking by, fearful of getting caught up in anything. They would rationalize the decision as being a correct one because if they were the only ones around, they could easily draw harm upon themselves. At this point in my hypothetical I should also note that while it's true you can call the police if you have a phone, that won't always solve the issue. Would you stand around and do nothing while you waited for a police car to make the five minute, ten minute, or who knows how long drive to you? Sometimes there simply isn't time to wait for someone else to drive down and solve the problem.
Which leads me to the second factor. I believe that unfortunately, we as a society like to train people that taking any kind of action themselves to solve certain problems is wrong. It is preached often that "taking the law into your own hands" is something to be avoided at all costs. If you have a problem, call the police. Hide away in some corner if necessary, barricade yourself. Run, get away, or hide while you wait for someone else to show up and solve your problem. Fighting is bad, and by effect, the message implies that defending yourself is bad. Whether this is a necessary evil or not is not what I'm discussing, but rather the overall effect on society. I think that if you train people to wait for others to solve certain kinds of problems, that training is going to stick with them. Instead of helping that person who needs help, they will call someone else and be done with it. Regardless of whether there's a possibility that by the time the police show up it could be to late for the person in need of help, people will be to scared to endure harm to themselves as well as break one of societies sacred rules of letting other people solve their problems for them. After all, the law does not take kindly to anyone who disobeys this rule even accidentally.
This was not always the case with the law, 50 years ago judges were given much more leniency on how to sentence a defendant based on the individual characteristics of their case. In order to combat organized crime however, sentencing guidelines were drastically reformed with stiff minimum sentences imposed for every crime.
A third factor could be decline of social stigmatization. Social consequences are often a powerful motivator, but as the number of people who can relate to inaction in times of crisis grows, the practice of socially shaming those individuals who choose to do nothing at all weakens.
The fourth factor of course is simple indifference. Some people just don't see it as being any of their business what is happening to someone else, or they just don't care. Still other more sociopathic people even seem to think suffering of random strangers is funny.
In summary I believe that the fear of the situation as well as fear of potential legal consequences are the two main reasons why otherwise good people may choose not to help their neighbors.
Vocab-
Sociopathic : of or relating to a sociopathic personality
Salvation: a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness
The first subject I would like to discuss is anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder, but to some people it is actually a fairly appealing concept. The idea of not having a government constantly badgering you about things, or having to obey any rules at all is a desirable concept to many. Could Anarchy ever work though? I do not believe so. After all anarchy is not just some theoretical idea that has never been tested, anarchy has actually happened thousands of times throughout history. The reality is that no place where anarchy occurs ever stays anarchic. Eventually a few factions will become stronger then the others and they will fight until one of them emerges as the dominant faction. In addition, all societies have a desire to govern their members. From this desire emerges government. So it is no surprise really that in every instance where anarchy has occurred it was only a matter of time before a new government was set up. Considering all of this, I believe anarchy to be perhaps an impossible concept to really sustain. Why some people still cling to the idea of it as some salvation from the present structure of government I'm not really sure.
The second issue I'd like to blog about today is cowardice. We may like to think of our society as in general being full of very brave people who are willing to risk harm to themselves for altruistic ends-- essentially good Samaritans--but I am not so sure that is really the case. Perhaps in general the society of the USA is filled with more altruistic people then selfish ones, I can really only speculate since I have not traveled the country extensively. I do know however there are many places I have seen where the cowardly seem to out number the brave. I should take a second and explain what I mean by cowardly. A coward would be someone who while they may be capable of helping someone in need, they choose not to. I have pondered why someone would act in such a manner and I have concluded that the reason may be related to four different factors.
The first factor is confidence, an individual is capable of helping in one sense but may view themselves to be incapable. For example lets say you come upon a women being beaten. If your walking by you may notice that the attacker is no larger then you are, indeed they may even be smaller in psychical size. However let us suppose that you have never been in a fight in your entire life. Are you really going to feel very confidant stepping in to protect that individual against someone who might know a little more about conflict then you, and could easily hurt you? Some people would still try and help the lady, but others would keep on walking by, fearful of getting caught up in anything. They would rationalize the decision as being a correct one because if they were the only ones around, they could easily draw harm upon themselves. At this point in my hypothetical I should also note that while it's true you can call the police if you have a phone, that won't always solve the issue. Would you stand around and do nothing while you waited for a police car to make the five minute, ten minute, or who knows how long drive to you? Sometimes there simply isn't time to wait for someone else to drive down and solve the problem.
Which leads me to the second factor. I believe that unfortunately, we as a society like to train people that taking any kind of action themselves to solve certain problems is wrong. It is preached often that "taking the law into your own hands" is something to be avoided at all costs. If you have a problem, call the police. Hide away in some corner if necessary, barricade yourself. Run, get away, or hide while you wait for someone else to show up and solve your problem. Fighting is bad, and by effect, the message implies that defending yourself is bad. Whether this is a necessary evil or not is not what I'm discussing, but rather the overall effect on society. I think that if you train people to wait for others to solve certain kinds of problems, that training is going to stick with them. Instead of helping that person who needs help, they will call someone else and be done with it. Regardless of whether there's a possibility that by the time the police show up it could be to late for the person in need of help, people will be to scared to endure harm to themselves as well as break one of societies sacred rules of letting other people solve their problems for them. After all, the law does not take kindly to anyone who disobeys this rule even accidentally.
This was not always the case with the law, 50 years ago judges were given much more leniency on how to sentence a defendant based on the individual characteristics of their case. In order to combat organized crime however, sentencing guidelines were drastically reformed with stiff minimum sentences imposed for every crime.
A third factor could be decline of social stigmatization. Social consequences are often a powerful motivator, but as the number of people who can relate to inaction in times of crisis grows, the practice of socially shaming those individuals who choose to do nothing at all weakens.
The fourth factor of course is simple indifference. Some people just don't see it as being any of their business what is happening to someone else, or they just don't care. Still other more sociopathic people even seem to think suffering of random strangers is funny.
In summary I believe that the fear of the situation as well as fear of potential legal consequences are the two main reasons why otherwise good people may choose not to help their neighbors.
Vocab-
Sociopathic : of or relating to a sociopathic personality
Salvation: a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Television
It seems that I generally hate the entertainment media of today, most productions of today seem to emanate repetition and stupidity. Sure I will admit that I like a good action movie now and then, but the range of what I find "good" has drastically shrunk from when I first started watching movies. Most action movies are just tired old formula movies, it's hard not to fall asleep while watching them.
All the little cliche details of these movies bug me. Like how the hero is always lucky enough to dodge dozens, even hundreds of bullets throughout the entire movie. Regardless of if the henchmen have machine guns firing 10 rounds per second, you can count on them to miss every time. Same thing with those explosions, things are always blowing up yet the hero is lucky enough to never be near them or be hit by falling debris.
I also supremely hate the "college jackass" type movies. Not only are they unfunny, but they perpetuate stereotypes of both men and women. The "men" portrayed within these films- if you can even call them that -care little about anyone or anything besides themselves. The women are the same way except in addition to being superficial, mindless pleasure seekers, they are also sluts. Yes I know the "culture" of media is not created to be realistic, and in some way people shouldn't expect it to be. I know that the people who make these kinds of movies/shows/productions would literally produce anything if they thought it would make them a profit. Nonetheless, that fact doesn't make them any less juvenile and annoying. The stupidity, the stereotypes, the fear mongering,the low standards, the propaganda, and the blatant disregard for any kind of realism all coalesce to form one momentous conglomeration of anserine drivel. Probably why I don't watch much tv.
Vocab-
Emanate: proceed or issue forth, as from a source
Anserine: having or revealing stupidity
All the little cliche details of these movies bug me. Like how the hero is always lucky enough to dodge dozens, even hundreds of bullets throughout the entire movie. Regardless of if the henchmen have machine guns firing 10 rounds per second, you can count on them to miss every time. Same thing with those explosions, things are always blowing up yet the hero is lucky enough to never be near them or be hit by falling debris.
I also supremely hate the "college jackass" type movies. Not only are they unfunny, but they perpetuate stereotypes of both men and women. The "men" portrayed within these films- if you can even call them that -care little about anyone or anything besides themselves. The women are the same way except in addition to being superficial, mindless pleasure seekers, they are also sluts. Yes I know the "culture" of media is not created to be realistic, and in some way people shouldn't expect it to be. I know that the people who make these kinds of movies/shows/productions would literally produce anything if they thought it would make them a profit. Nonetheless, that fact doesn't make them any less juvenile and annoying. The stupidity, the stereotypes, the fear mongering,the low standards, the propaganda, and the blatant disregard for any kind of realism all coalesce to form one momentous conglomeration of anserine drivel. Probably why I don't watch much tv.
Vocab-
Emanate: proceed or issue forth, as from a source
Anserine: having or revealing stupidity
Friday, November 20, 2009
Followers and Leaders
A few years ago I was having a conversation with a friend about people. I was ruminating on the subject of why nobody ever seemed to take the initiative to change things, I suppose people seemed almost apathetic to me at the time. My friend had a simple response to me, and said something to the effect of: “well, we can’t all be leaders.” The concept behind this struck me as obvious and profound at the same time. I understood what my friend had said as meaning that a society where everyone was a leader would never function, every society needs followers.
Thinking on this subject further I have to say this mentality makes a lot of sense to me. After all, with a Darwinian perspective in mind, wouldn’t a society with many followers fare better then one with few? Having a small number of minds in charge of the decision making process instead of many allows for swift decisions. In the ancient world, I’m sure this was a considerable boon. Societies that were quick to collectively act would be more likely to out-compete ones who took long amounts of time for their decisions.
In this way perhaps people have become accustomed to following the will of their superiors for the collective good, and thus the state of democracy today is explained. After all if you’re a soldier and someone gives you an order then for the army to be efficient you had best follow that order instead of sitting around arguing about it. Since if every soldier questioned and argued about orders constantly, ones army would surely be destroyed by a more efficient army. So perhaps it could be said that group think is a kind of defense mechanism, just based on the natural way in which most of our societies function and have functioned. Leaders and followers, we need both to be successful.
Of course I won’t postulate that people can not switch between being a leader and being a follower. In fact I think that most all of us are leaders sometimes and followers other times. It is just the idea that some people tend to desire to be followers exclusively, with no will to lead anything whatsoever, which interests me.
Vocab:
Boon:Something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
Postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
Thinking on this subject further I have to say this mentality makes a lot of sense to me. After all, with a Darwinian perspective in mind, wouldn’t a society with many followers fare better then one with few? Having a small number of minds in charge of the decision making process instead of many allows for swift decisions. In the ancient world, I’m sure this was a considerable boon. Societies that were quick to collectively act would be more likely to out-compete ones who took long amounts of time for their decisions.
In this way perhaps people have become accustomed to following the will of their superiors for the collective good, and thus the state of democracy today is explained. After all if you’re a soldier and someone gives you an order then for the army to be efficient you had best follow that order instead of sitting around arguing about it. Since if every soldier questioned and argued about orders constantly, ones army would surely be destroyed by a more efficient army. So perhaps it could be said that group think is a kind of defense mechanism, just based on the natural way in which most of our societies function and have functioned. Leaders and followers, we need both to be successful.
Of course I won’t postulate that people can not switch between being a leader and being a follower. In fact I think that most all of us are leaders sometimes and followers other times. It is just the idea that some people tend to desire to be followers exclusively, with no will to lead anything whatsoever, which interests me.
Vocab:
Boon:Something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
Postulate: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Blog 10
Democrat or republican. Is it just me, or does the country seem polarized right now? Too many people seem to have slipped into some kind of "us and them" mentality, it's kind of annoying. Personally I identify a little bit with democrats and a little bit with republicans. I was raised a democrat and both my parents are democrats, but I'm happy to say I've matured past the "us and them" mentality that still plagues many others in our society. I've learned to empathize with the other side. After all, republicans are not evil people. Some of the people who run that party may seem a little bit shifty, but most of the votes in republican party actually come from the "average" working class person. These kinds of people vote for the republican party because of they believe in things like family values and national security. Republican leaders promise these individuals that their issues will be taken care of, which is why those same leaders get their votes. I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is that most republican voters are just normal people trying to do what they believe is right. They don't deserve to be laughed at or dehumanized.
Unfortunately I suppose the lack of empathy for the other side is somewhat predictable. Just like ants, some people seem to slip into a kind of "follower mode" when dealing with anything they regard as "enemies". Their brains shut off, and they blindly follow whoever they have chosen as their leader. They don't see their job as thinking, their job is to attack the other sides position and tear it down.
Now I should stop right here and say that I consider myself more of a democrat than a republican. In fact I believe that many republican policies are essentially nonsense designed to help big corporations, but not the average person. Under George W Bush there even seemed to be corruption within the white house itself. Former lobbyists being appointed to key positions within organizations they used to fight again? Didn't seem right to me.
Just because I dislike this kind of thing however it isn't going to cause me to slip into group-think mode, but I can't say the same for all democrats. I think some democrats have become so hateful of the opposition that there's essentially no point in even trying to talk to them about considering opposing points of view. For example if I tried to explain to one of these people that I was a social democrat but that I believed in family values, I'd automatically get lumped into the "enemy" category and they would stop listening to what I had to say.
Of course I like to think that most of us democrats are not like that at all. But whenever I encounter such intolerant people I find them very exacerbating to be around. I suppose it doesn't help that categorizing and labeling are rampantly perpetuated by both liberals and conservatives alike, and when it's all said and done everyone has developed a set of stereotypes to go along with the words used by the opposition. Which is of course why we have to keep renaming things, so from now on I declare family values to be known as "personal-group liberties". Yes I support personal-group liberties, and I hope everyone else does too.
Vocab:
Perpetuated: Cause to continue or prevail; "perpetuate a myth"
Exacerbating: Exasperate or irritate
Unfortunately I suppose the lack of empathy for the other side is somewhat predictable. Just like ants, some people seem to slip into a kind of "follower mode" when dealing with anything they regard as "enemies". Their brains shut off, and they blindly follow whoever they have chosen as their leader. They don't see their job as thinking, their job is to attack the other sides position and tear it down.
Now I should stop right here and say that I consider myself more of a democrat than a republican. In fact I believe that many republican policies are essentially nonsense designed to help big corporations, but not the average person. Under George W Bush there even seemed to be corruption within the white house itself. Former lobbyists being appointed to key positions within organizations they used to fight again? Didn't seem right to me.
Just because I dislike this kind of thing however it isn't going to cause me to slip into group-think mode, but I can't say the same for all democrats. I think some democrats have become so hateful of the opposition that there's essentially no point in even trying to talk to them about considering opposing points of view. For example if I tried to explain to one of these people that I was a social democrat but that I believed in family values, I'd automatically get lumped into the "enemy" category and they would stop listening to what I had to say.
Of course I like to think that most of us democrats are not like that at all. But whenever I encounter such intolerant people I find them very exacerbating to be around. I suppose it doesn't help that categorizing and labeling are rampantly perpetuated by both liberals and conservatives alike, and when it's all said and done everyone has developed a set of stereotypes to go along with the words used by the opposition. Which is of course why we have to keep renaming things, so from now on I declare family values to be known as "personal-group liberties". Yes I support personal-group liberties, and I hope everyone else does too.
Vocab:
Perpetuated: Cause to continue or prevail; "perpetuate a myth"
Exacerbating: Exasperate or irritate
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Blog 9
The world is facing many problems today. Overpopulation, food shortages, species extinction, deforestation, etc. The list goes on. Makes me wonder about the future of our planet, as well as ourselves. As sadly, there is no real solution for many of these problems as of today. The world population is at 7 billion people, with nearly one billion classified as living in "chronic starvation". In the future things are simply predicted to get worse. As the global population increases, our food supplies dwindle. Food scarcity is already causing global prices of food to rise, the supply just cannot meet the demand anymore. We bought ourselves some time with the green revolution of the 1950s, but now it seems that that time is running out.
We have over-fished the oceans causing 90% of all large fish to be gone from them. We have polluted both the air and water, and it is estimated that due to the ensuing ocean acidification the ocean may eventually be uninhabitable by anything but microbes. So we can either use our sophisticated technology to rapidly exterminate all fish from the earth-- thus compounding our food shortage-- or we can poison them by turning their water into acid. At the same time as this can be happening, we can be confidant that the starving people across Asia and Africa will become ever more desperate as rainfall patterns change and dry areas become even more desiccated then they were before. To compound all of this, we are facing a massive die off of species.
According to Jean-Christophe Vié, Deputy Head of IUCN’s Species Programme this is a serious problem as well. “Think of fisheries without fishes, logging without trees, tourism without coral reefs or other wildlife, crops without pollinators,” says Vié. “Imagine the damage to our economies and societies if they were lost. All the plants and animals that make up Earth’s amazing wildlife have a specific role and contribute to essentials like food, medicine, oxygen, pure water, crop pollination, carbon storage and soil fertilization. Economies are utterly dependent on species diversity. We need them all, in large numbers. We quite literally cannot afford to lose them.
Well I guess all of this means that the world is going to need to make some changes in the following years, as we can't afford to think of this task as a simple doddle.
Vocab:
Desiccated: Dehydrated
Doddle: An easy task
We have over-fished the oceans causing 90% of all large fish to be gone from them. We have polluted both the air and water, and it is estimated that due to the ensuing ocean acidification the ocean may eventually be uninhabitable by anything but microbes. So we can either use our sophisticated technology to rapidly exterminate all fish from the earth-- thus compounding our food shortage-- or we can poison them by turning their water into acid. At the same time as this can be happening, we can be confidant that the starving people across Asia and Africa will become ever more desperate as rainfall patterns change and dry areas become even more desiccated then they were before. To compound all of this, we are facing a massive die off of species.
According to Jean-Christophe Vié, Deputy Head of IUCN’s Species Programme this is a serious problem as well. “Think of fisheries without fishes, logging without trees, tourism without coral reefs or other wildlife, crops without pollinators,” says Vié. “Imagine the damage to our economies and societies if they were lost. All the plants and animals that make up Earth’s amazing wildlife have a specific role and contribute to essentials like food, medicine, oxygen, pure water, crop pollination, carbon storage and soil fertilization. Economies are utterly dependent on species diversity. We need them all, in large numbers. We quite literally cannot afford to lose them.
Well I guess all of this means that the world is going to need to make some changes in the following years, as we can't afford to think of this task as a simple doddle.
Vocab:
Desiccated: Dehydrated
Doddle: An easy task
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Differences
Sometimes I wonder about the world today. I wonder how so many of our problems seems to come from our stereotyping of other peoples differences. Whether it's race, religion, wealth, culture, or simple ideology everywhere I look there seems to be judging and stereotyping going on. I'd say this kind of pigeonholing was the silent elephant in the room, but it actually seems more like a tyrannosaurus. Whether or not people openly shout slurs on the street doesn't really reflect how judgmental or bias a given place is. It simply reflects that most of them want to avoid the "bigot" or "jerk" label which might be put upon them by those outside their own group if their prejudices were out in the open.
And is it better this way, that everyone should simply shut up and pretend there is no issue? Some people seem to believe so. Instead of confronting the various stereotypes with facts and smashing them down, many in our society employ a "shutup everything is fine" kind of approach. The main idea seems to be that if we don't acknowledge stereotypes, then they magically disappear. Then we wonder why despite how "progressed" we become there is still fragmenting and infighting going on in our society. Or maybe I should not say "we", maybe I should just say "I". Since while most people seem to think of "progression" when it comes to stereotyping as being a racial thing, I am looking at the big picture. Racism is not the root of this way of thinking, it is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
The problem is that some people just seem to have a natural tendency to form themselves into some kind of caste system. They group up with others who they perceive as being "worthy" of hanging around them, then lump anyone who does not fit into that category of people as being inferior and having no value. Often this category of "worthy" people is defined in a way that based on purely superficial traits. Looking a certain way. Talking a certain way. Thinking a certain way. Why people have such a need to categorize themselves in this way is anyones guess. Maybe people have a need to look down on others so they feel superior. Maybe it's just a form of tribalism. Who really knows, but this is a problem I believe that must be addressed by our educational system.
I was in a class just earlier today when I noticed a few symptoms of this problem. I'm not really sure what it is about this class, but it seems to have attracted a more elitist audience then other classes I can remember. Yet I would describe my classmates from this class as having a certain kind of conventional intelligence. They seem confidant and are effective communicators, maybe even slightly charismatic. But at the same time they are arrogant.
During the class today we were watching a video, and as part of the video the voice of a black man was describing the effect of hurricane Katrina. He was speaking in a rather informal manner, just like he was talking to someone out on the street. Some of my classmates thought this was funny and they laughed openly at his manner of speaking. Yet, if they had actually given the man a chance before they laughed they would have seen that he was not a stupid man and he made a few good points. Sadly I can't say I was terribly surprised by my classmates behavior. People just seem unable to control themselves when they see or hear something that sounds "stupid", and they just laugh. Whether it's flagrantly laughing at a fellow classmate for asking what they thought was an idiotic question, laughing at someone for talking in a certain manner, or just for not having the right "look", the central problem seems to me that they are not being accepting of diversity. No not diversity of race. Diversity of thought. Just because someone is not thinking in the same manner as you or does not grasp one thing as quickly as you, it does not make them "wrong". It just makes them different. Neither better nor worse.
However many people don't seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. I think it is about time for our educational system to rise to the challenge. Instead of a "accept this other person or else" mentality we need to really focus on convincing other people that differences don't mean inferiority. Convincing them, as opposed to beating them with the stick of social shame should they fail to comply. Because while we can silence the voicing of prejudices in public with that approach, we cannot destroy them. And we must destroy them, because if you look around to see who is laughing in my class you do not see some strange, backwards, freaks of nature. You see ordinary people, who simply do not know any better.
Vocab:
Pigeonhole:a specific (often simplistic) category
Flagrant: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible
And is it better this way, that everyone should simply shut up and pretend there is no issue? Some people seem to believe so. Instead of confronting the various stereotypes with facts and smashing them down, many in our society employ a "shutup everything is fine" kind of approach. The main idea seems to be that if we don't acknowledge stereotypes, then they magically disappear. Then we wonder why despite how "progressed" we become there is still fragmenting and infighting going on in our society. Or maybe I should not say "we", maybe I should just say "I". Since while most people seem to think of "progression" when it comes to stereotyping as being a racial thing, I am looking at the big picture. Racism is not the root of this way of thinking, it is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
The problem is that some people just seem to have a natural tendency to form themselves into some kind of caste system. They group up with others who they perceive as being "worthy" of hanging around them, then lump anyone who does not fit into that category of people as being inferior and having no value. Often this category of "worthy" people is defined in a way that based on purely superficial traits. Looking a certain way. Talking a certain way. Thinking a certain way. Why people have such a need to categorize themselves in this way is anyones guess. Maybe people have a need to look down on others so they feel superior. Maybe it's just a form of tribalism. Who really knows, but this is a problem I believe that must be addressed by our educational system.
I was in a class just earlier today when I noticed a few symptoms of this problem. I'm not really sure what it is about this class, but it seems to have attracted a more elitist audience then other classes I can remember. Yet I would describe my classmates from this class as having a certain kind of conventional intelligence. They seem confidant and are effective communicators, maybe even slightly charismatic. But at the same time they are arrogant.
During the class today we were watching a video, and as part of the video the voice of a black man was describing the effect of hurricane Katrina. He was speaking in a rather informal manner, just like he was talking to someone out on the street. Some of my classmates thought this was funny and they laughed openly at his manner of speaking. Yet, if they had actually given the man a chance before they laughed they would have seen that he was not a stupid man and he made a few good points. Sadly I can't say I was terribly surprised by my classmates behavior. People just seem unable to control themselves when they see or hear something that sounds "stupid", and they just laugh. Whether it's flagrantly laughing at a fellow classmate for asking what they thought was an idiotic question, laughing at someone for talking in a certain manner, or just for not having the right "look", the central problem seems to me that they are not being accepting of diversity. No not diversity of race. Diversity of thought. Just because someone is not thinking in the same manner as you or does not grasp one thing as quickly as you, it does not make them "wrong". It just makes them different. Neither better nor worse.
However many people don't seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. I think it is about time for our educational system to rise to the challenge. Instead of a "accept this other person or else" mentality we need to really focus on convincing other people that differences don't mean inferiority. Convincing them, as opposed to beating them with the stick of social shame should they fail to comply. Because while we can silence the voicing of prejudices in public with that approach, we cannot destroy them. And we must destroy them, because if you look around to see who is laughing in my class you do not see some strange, backwards, freaks of nature. You see ordinary people, who simply do not know any better.
Vocab:
Pigeonhole:a specific (often simplistic) category
Flagrant: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)