In this class I learned that the most important aspect in intercultural communication is really being secure in yourself enough to make attempts. It is also important to be educated about other cultures, be empathetic and open to learning new things. It is important not to impose your own beliefs on others. It is also impossible to completely escape your own background, so being cognoscente of the reality of it is important. Knowing about where your experience is coming form and knowing what parts to embrace and what parts to resist is important as well.
My intercultural communication expertise is not spectacular. It isn't horrible either, it's more communication in general that I'm not great with; I'm good with empathy and being willing to accept others and learn form them, it's the self confidence portion that is my issue. I'm not comfortable talking to people that I see everyday, with the exception of very close friends. I am really terrified about making a mistake talking to anyone and alienating them. I am actively working on this and know it's a real problem. Academic discussions are a different story, if that's the venue I get very intensely involved. Face to face, I am a really good listener that part I've got down and really care about people; but, I tend to be very unsure when it comes time to talk. When I initiate a topic, it always seems to be received with silence or you think too much; so, I really don't know what to say in conversations. If the other person initiates the topic then the convesrations tend to go great.
Basically what I need to do to improve is to just step out of my comfort zone and engage in more conversations. For sure there will be failures, but I will never get any better if I don't actually get over my shyness and talk. Also, something that is important in general is to never stop learning, because the second that complacency about one's abilities is gained then they tend to stagnate. Another thing that I can do is to travel more, staying in the same environment minimizes the opportunities that I will have to meet new people, and limits how much I can learn. I have always wanted to travel internationally, so the first step there would be to get a passport and save up money to be able to travel. I think my first stop would be Japan, I already study it's history a lot and I am trying to learn Japanese. Before, intentional travel I would like to live in a large metropolitan area, as it would be a good opportunity to meet a wide array of people.
What are the most important things that you learned form this class?
How do you feel that it was impacted by the electronic format?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Activity Eleven
A major intercultural conflict that is happening right now relates to the increasing polarization of the two major political parties in America. This is not a new conflict, but one that has been escalating since before we were born. The current state has gone beyond what has ever existed in the past, arguably. There is basic divide lies in the belief of what the government's role should be, either handling protection and security, such as the military and leaving the internal affairs to the individual states and the private sector; or, to put the responsibility of government in domestic affairs of caretaker and regulation, such as overseeing health care and providing public services.
A large part of how bad the divide has gotten has less to do with the actual politicians themselves, and more to do with the sensational story that it has become in the media and the fact that the most extreme voices have found a voice there. The extremes are on both sides. Journalistic practices have tended much more toward the editorial and tend to sensationalize every conflict. This narrative has been picked up by both sides and used to demonize the opponents. Watching add campaigns gives a very clear demonstration of this, what is usually seen is less about the qualifications of the candidate and more about the malfeasance of his/her opponent.
The major conflict issues have to do with what exactly the role of government should be, the role of separation of church and state, views on immigration, gun control, and many more. There are no end of issues that are very divided; however the real issue is not the fact that there is major disagreement, but the conflict styles being used to address the differences of opinion and the demand of individuals in the political scene to adhere to the tenants of the party(s) and the punishment of descent on minor issues.
The two major styles that are being used to address political debate in America tend to be the Dominating style and the Avoiding style. These are not good strategies in combination. Every issue is being taken as an attack by the parties, and the other in turn responds in kind. This leads to a shouting match in which the conflicts grow increasingly dire and no real solutions are found. The issues that neither want to touch are ignored, or avoided even when they are glaringly obvious, and demanding of attention. Such as natural disasters, eg. the current oil spill, neither the government or BP seems to be doing very well in coming up with a realistic solution.
The entirety of the conflict will never be resolved, but having discourse is healthy in a democratic system, if both sides listen to each other. The best solution to the problem of the exteems and lack of practical action would be to actually have real debate, real conversation and actually have both sides listen to each other. Instead of attacking they would be able to reach some kind of compromise that would lead to a workable solution. Perhaps, no one would be completely satisfied, but when allowing the wide range of diversity that is promised in America, if the system is working right compromise that all can live with is inevitable.
Do you think that having a real discussion with practical problem solving is possible in today's political climate?
What do you think would help bridge the political divide that is happening today?
A large part of how bad the divide has gotten has less to do with the actual politicians themselves, and more to do with the sensational story that it has become in the media and the fact that the most extreme voices have found a voice there. The extremes are on both sides. Journalistic practices have tended much more toward the editorial and tend to sensationalize every conflict. This narrative has been picked up by both sides and used to demonize the opponents. Watching add campaigns gives a very clear demonstration of this, what is usually seen is less about the qualifications of the candidate and more about the malfeasance of his/her opponent.
The major conflict issues have to do with what exactly the role of government should be, the role of separation of church and state, views on immigration, gun control, and many more. There are no end of issues that are very divided; however the real issue is not the fact that there is major disagreement, but the conflict styles being used to address the differences of opinion and the demand of individuals in the political scene to adhere to the tenants of the party(s) and the punishment of descent on minor issues.
The two major styles that are being used to address political debate in America tend to be the Dominating style and the Avoiding style. These are not good strategies in combination. Every issue is being taken as an attack by the parties, and the other in turn responds in kind. This leads to a shouting match in which the conflicts grow increasingly dire and no real solutions are found. The issues that neither want to touch are ignored, or avoided even when they are glaringly obvious, and demanding of attention. Such as natural disasters, eg. the current oil spill, neither the government or BP seems to be doing very well in coming up with a realistic solution.
The entirety of the conflict will never be resolved, but having discourse is healthy in a democratic system, if both sides listen to each other. The best solution to the problem of the exteems and lack of practical action would be to actually have real debate, real conversation and actually have both sides listen to each other. Instead of attacking they would be able to reach some kind of compromise that would lead to a workable solution. Perhaps, no one would be completely satisfied, but when allowing the wide range of diversity that is promised in America, if the system is working right compromise that all can live with is inevitable.
Do you think that having a real discussion with practical problem solving is possible in today's political climate?
What do you think would help bridge the political divide that is happening today?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
My Culture: Defined Here as my Blood Relatives
1. Who do the members of your culture consider to be part of their family?: My culture defines blood relatives as part of their family and no one else. Friends are allowed, but even dates are not truly welcome until their is an engagement in place. Also, friends are not to be discussed with the family until you are the eldest person in the room, and the eldest person, my grandmother, is the center of everyone's concern and what she wants is the law. We do not specifically have to adhere to her beliefs but we must never contradict them openly, and that includes being polite and listening while she goes on about how she believes that it is morally wrong for women to wear pants.
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family members?: Wow, my mother's family has this down to a science. My grandmother is the head of the family and she relegates specific tasks to each child. Her sons do specific chores, each has their own. My Aunt Eileen does her taxes and takes her to the doctor, my mother takes her shopping. Her grandchildren are mostly in their thirty's and each has a specific thing that she talks to them about and nothing else, and for me and my sister we are the youngest by about 15 years so we are the babies in her eyes and will never progress in her eyes beyond the age of three, and when she is around we are supposed to show her the rapt and eager attention of children of that age. As for my immediate family: my mother runs the house, she makes all the decisions, controls the finances and almost all of the chores. My father is considered the breadwinner, despite the fact that he and my mother work at the same company and have equivalent salaries and hours. He is excused from all but laundry because of this title. He is also viewed as the disciplinarian, however, in reality that is my mother's job. Basically in real power he is the convenient figure head, no power but gets the appearance of it. I am the good girl, I am quiet and have to keep the peace. I listen to everyone's complaints about each other and offer empathy and sympathy but get non in return. Whenever, my dad or sister has a bad day it is seen as my responsibility to fix it. I am expected to succeed the most, do well in school and have good judgment. My sister is the baby and the wild child. She is expected to screw up and fly off the handle when things don't go her way. She is expected to get good grades, but not as good; however, she gets to actually express her emotions and gets to be fun and be my Mom's friend.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same house/area as their family after adolescence?: No, family members are encouraged to go away from home, to college. After college is a different story, then we are supposed to return and assume adult rules in caring for the matriarch--my grandmother--and after her my mother. The unspoken expectation is that we experience college and get the independence out of our system.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating and meeting people with whom to become romantically involved?: Well, basically we are supposed to look for people who are reminiscent of our grandfather; who died when my mother was about six or so, so I have no idea what he is like, this only applies to the women, the men need to find reminiscence of grandmother. It is a little different for my sister and I because all of the recent precedents before us were male, so now the family doesn't know what to expect from girls. However, some rules are clear: he must be beyond clean cut, white, Lutheran or willing to raise children Lutheran, have a skilled profession but not be an intellectual, as that is seriously looked down upon, and have no knowledge of other cultures in a realistic sense. My interest in Japan frightens my family. Oh and he must be male. An interest in art and music is good, but just to dabble in, as these are seen as too fanciful and unrealistic of professions, as is acting. A tradesman would be best in their eyes.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in your culture?: In my culture the marriage proposal is a man asking a woman to marry him, down on one knee. There is a little leeway there, the woman can do the asking, but then the man is teased. The proposal itself is not witnessed by the family, unless the man is part of the family and brings the woman to a family gathering and proposes there, as otherwise the significant other would have an icy reception.
6. What is a typical wedding like?: I am a lot and I mean a lot younger than the rest of my family on my mothers side, as I am using here as my definition of my culture, so the only wedding that I have ever witnessed was my Uncle's second marriage, I was about four to six at the time. It was a church wedding and it was a small simple ceremony. The must is the religious setting for the wedding, or if it is to be outside with strong religious connotation. The reception is far more important than the wedding itself, as the wedding is for the couple in theory and the reception is for the family aka grandma. The reception is expected to involve a small dance floor that no one over eight will use, a table for toasts and lots of tables for people to have long in-depth conversations.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce?: The view of divorce is that, well they weren't really part of the family, so good riddance. Unless, they were women that married into the family, except for those who swear, then they are the wronged party and the man is subjected to twenty questions about what he did wrong. Unless it is known that he is an alcoholic, then it is not his fault and the woman is believed to have not helped him enough and is a traitor for deserting him. Every divorce in my family has been due to alcoholism. However, there is one that is impending and that one is just a train-wreck waiting to implode that has nothing due to alcohol.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner?: The rights of each partner in divorce are seen as a fifty fifty split. Children are always agreed to be under joint custody, unless the father was an alcoholic and then those children are fully in their mother's custody and the family never sees them again. This has a lot to do with the majority of the family being men, in a matriarchal family and the mother being seen as the ultimate arbiter of children, but the father never wanting to lose contact. Property is always second and the children are the ultimate concern.
9. What is the general opinion of the culture toward homosexuality?: The simple answer toward the culture's opinion toward homosexuality is: they don't understand it and it frightens them. The culture is based upon the opinions of a depression era matriarch who thinks that it is immoral for women to wear pants. The women in the family tend to pretend that it doesn't exist and when they have to confront it they either think of cute stereotypes or cite biblical passages for why it makes them uncomfortable. The men are openly hostile. My sister and I are both bisexual and know that telling extended family will lead to no good. Also, select members of the family are willing to grudgingly tolerate homosexuality, but bisexuality is seen as being not only wrong but selfish and indecisive, so the explicit line of the family is that a bisexual person must make a choice one way or the other and stick with it for the rest of their life.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the same/different from yours regarding gender roles?: Oh, where to begin... my ideas are mostly very different. For example, at age six I refused to ever wear a dress or skirt again for the rest of my life. I also, feel that for a relationship whatever the genders of the people in it they need to be equal partners and not one with complete power and the other a figure head. My family tends to view women having the real power and there is an element of appeal to that, but it is a dangerous one--in the extreme--as it sets up dysfunction. Also, I believe that having such structured roles is unhealthy. The roles for the men especially, as they are set up to be figure heads, impotent and powerless while having to maintain the illusion of masters of their domain; it's just unhealthy. I also believe that homosexuality is not only valid, but a good thing and perfectly natural.
Do you believe that it is more typical to embrace or differ from your family's ideas about relationships?
How does a significant difference of opinion in this area affect family relationships? Is this effect generally positive or negative?
2. What are some roles and responsibilities of specific family members?: Wow, my mother's family has this down to a science. My grandmother is the head of the family and she relegates specific tasks to each child. Her sons do specific chores, each has their own. My Aunt Eileen does her taxes and takes her to the doctor, my mother takes her shopping. Her grandchildren are mostly in their thirty's and each has a specific thing that she talks to them about and nothing else, and for me and my sister we are the youngest by about 15 years so we are the babies in her eyes and will never progress in her eyes beyond the age of three, and when she is around we are supposed to show her the rapt and eager attention of children of that age. As for my immediate family: my mother runs the house, she makes all the decisions, controls the finances and almost all of the chores. My father is considered the breadwinner, despite the fact that he and my mother work at the same company and have equivalent salaries and hours. He is excused from all but laundry because of this title. He is also viewed as the disciplinarian, however, in reality that is my mother's job. Basically in real power he is the convenient figure head, no power but gets the appearance of it. I am the good girl, I am quiet and have to keep the peace. I listen to everyone's complaints about each other and offer empathy and sympathy but get non in return. Whenever, my dad or sister has a bad day it is seen as my responsibility to fix it. I am expected to succeed the most, do well in school and have good judgment. My sister is the baby and the wild child. She is expected to screw up and fly off the handle when things don't go her way. She is expected to get good grades, but not as good; however, she gets to actually express her emotions and gets to be fun and be my Mom's friend.
3. Are family members encouraged to stay in the same house/area as their family after adolescence?: No, family members are encouraged to go away from home, to college. After college is a different story, then we are supposed to return and assume adult rules in caring for the matriarch--my grandmother--and after her my mother. The unspoken expectation is that we experience college and get the independence out of our system.
4. What are the cultural norms and taboos regarding dating and meeting people with whom to become romantically involved?: Well, basically we are supposed to look for people who are reminiscent of our grandfather; who died when my mother was about six or so, so I have no idea what he is like, this only applies to the women, the men need to find reminiscence of grandmother. It is a little different for my sister and I because all of the recent precedents before us were male, so now the family doesn't know what to expect from girls. However, some rules are clear: he must be beyond clean cut, white, Lutheran or willing to raise children Lutheran, have a skilled profession but not be an intellectual, as that is seriously looked down upon, and have no knowledge of other cultures in a realistic sense. My interest in Japan frightens my family. Oh and he must be male. An interest in art and music is good, but just to dabble in, as these are seen as too fanciful and unrealistic of professions, as is acting. A tradesman would be best in their eyes.
5. How are marriage proposals conducted in your culture?: In my culture the marriage proposal is a man asking a woman to marry him, down on one knee. There is a little leeway there, the woman can do the asking, but then the man is teased. The proposal itself is not witnessed by the family, unless the man is part of the family and brings the woman to a family gathering and proposes there, as otherwise the significant other would have an icy reception.
6. What is a typical wedding like?: I am a lot and I mean a lot younger than the rest of my family on my mothers side, as I am using here as my definition of my culture, so the only wedding that I have ever witnessed was my Uncle's second marriage, I was about four to six at the time. It was a church wedding and it was a small simple ceremony. The must is the religious setting for the wedding, or if it is to be outside with strong religious connotation. The reception is far more important than the wedding itself, as the wedding is for the couple in theory and the reception is for the family aka grandma. The reception is expected to involve a small dance floor that no one over eight will use, a table for toasts and lots of tables for people to have long in-depth conversations.
7. How do members of the culture view divorce?: The view of divorce is that, well they weren't really part of the family, so good riddance. Unless, they were women that married into the family, except for those who swear, then they are the wronged party and the man is subjected to twenty questions about what he did wrong. Unless it is known that he is an alcoholic, then it is not his fault and the woman is believed to have not helped him enough and is a traitor for deserting him. Every divorce in my family has been due to alcoholism. However, there is one that is impending and that one is just a train-wreck waiting to implode that has nothing due to alcohol.
8. If divorce occurs, what are the rights of each partner?: The rights of each partner in divorce are seen as a fifty fifty split. Children are always agreed to be under joint custody, unless the father was an alcoholic and then those children are fully in their mother's custody and the family never sees them again. This has a lot to do with the majority of the family being men, in a matriarchal family and the mother being seen as the ultimate arbiter of children, but the father never wanting to lose contact. Property is always second and the children are the ultimate concern.
9. What is the general opinion of the culture toward homosexuality?: The simple answer toward the culture's opinion toward homosexuality is: they don't understand it and it frightens them. The culture is based upon the opinions of a depression era matriarch who thinks that it is immoral for women to wear pants. The women in the family tend to pretend that it doesn't exist and when they have to confront it they either think of cute stereotypes or cite biblical passages for why it makes them uncomfortable. The men are openly hostile. My sister and I are both bisexual and know that telling extended family will lead to no good. Also, select members of the family are willing to grudgingly tolerate homosexuality, but bisexuality is seen as being not only wrong but selfish and indecisive, so the explicit line of the family is that a bisexual person must make a choice one way or the other and stick with it for the rest of their life.
10. How are the general perspectives of this culture the same/different from yours regarding gender roles?: Oh, where to begin... my ideas are mostly very different. For example, at age six I refused to ever wear a dress or skirt again for the rest of my life. I also, feel that for a relationship whatever the genders of the people in it they need to be equal partners and not one with complete power and the other a figure head. My family tends to view women having the real power and there is an element of appeal to that, but it is a dangerous one--in the extreme--as it sets up dysfunction. Also, I believe that having such structured roles is unhealthy. The roles for the men especially, as they are set up to be figure heads, impotent and powerless while having to maintain the illusion of masters of their domain; it's just unhealthy. I also believe that homosexuality is not only valid, but a good thing and perfectly natural.
Do you believe that it is more typical to embrace or differ from your family's ideas about relationships?
How does a significant difference of opinion in this area affect family relationships? Is this effect generally positive or negative?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Television
I don't actually have TV at my apartment, and Hulu's been a bit disappointing lately, so I went with TV shows I own on DVD for this assignment. I own mostly BBC shows so to fit the criteria of American television, I had the choice of either Firefly or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I chose Buffy as Firefly is set in an alternate future of an evil alliance of planets and rogue space cowboys; so Buffy it was.
I am willing to bet that most of you have a pretty good idea of the premise of the show, a girl (Buffy Summers) is chosen to "fight vampire, demons and the forces of darkness" (opening of seasons one and two). I decided to focus on season seven as what it is to be American good and bad is really well represented in the clash between the rest of the group and the character of Andrew Wells.
All of the characters, except for Giles who is British, are very young and attractive. They dress very stylishly and most of them have died hair. This holds true for Andrew as well, he is always dressed very hip, except when he's wearing an apron and oven mitts. Most of them wear leather coats at some point in the series. Basically, the message is that Americans are beautiful and cool. However, not all of the characters are "beautiful," the character Jonathan for instance is very normal looking and he is given a few moments of true heroism. Though he gets quiet heroism of doing the right thing with no reward. This is one of the show's main themes actually, the "hero" does big dramatic things and saves the day, but the quiet person who does the right thing and helps out is ignored except for small moments when their contributions are celebrated, because they are selfless in them. Andrew doesn't really fit into that category either, he is more the face of what people imagining impeding dealing with reality.
While most of the character are very pragmatic and goal oriented, Andrew lives in his own little fantasy world where he imagines his life as a super-villain, or relives the past in highly unrealistic ways; he also never stops talking. He tries to help and connect, but his own construction of reality is so far off from everyone else that it is all but impossible.
The rest of the characters are rather tight knit and by this season very pragmatic, to the point of being incredibly harsh and cold. The results are what matters and in another main point of the show to be a nice/good person means sacrificing your ability to be effective. To survive in America means to shut off your heart and be hard, isolated and alone. However, despite this they are heroes because they do the hard thing and not the kind thing.
The show is set in a small college town in California, definitely playing into the American glamor aspect with California. However, the small town setting--while chosen to parody horror movie settings--gives it a down to earth feel. Most of the characters have some sort of superpower, Buffy is a slayer, Willow is a witch, Dawn (Buffy's sister) used to be a dimensional key, Anya used to be a vengeance demon, at the same time a different kind of power is highlighted in the character Xander who "sees more than anyone knows because no one is watching him. [He's] the guy who fixes the windows." Highlighting, that while being hard is sometimes necessary for doing what is needed, there is an unappreciated power in just caring and doing what you can without reward or even acknowledgment.
I know that Joss Whedon's [the creator] take on American culture is at once typical and atypical. He enjoys highlighting what is expected and at the same time addressing what is under the surface being just as important. His shows tend not to depict a straightforward view of Americans, but instead creates a complex image that often gives more questions than answers.
Do you think that any TV show no matter how ambitious can create a truly accurate portrayal of a society?
What do you think that the image of American's is abroad? Do you think that it is accurate? What would you like it to be?
I am willing to bet that most of you have a pretty good idea of the premise of the show, a girl (Buffy Summers) is chosen to "fight vampire, demons and the forces of darkness" (opening of seasons one and two). I decided to focus on season seven as what it is to be American good and bad is really well represented in the clash between the rest of the group and the character of Andrew Wells.
All of the characters, except for Giles who is British, are very young and attractive. They dress very stylishly and most of them have died hair. This holds true for Andrew as well, he is always dressed very hip, except when he's wearing an apron and oven mitts. Most of them wear leather coats at some point in the series. Basically, the message is that Americans are beautiful and cool. However, not all of the characters are "beautiful," the character Jonathan for instance is very normal looking and he is given a few moments of true heroism. Though he gets quiet heroism of doing the right thing with no reward. This is one of the show's main themes actually, the "hero" does big dramatic things and saves the day, but the quiet person who does the right thing and helps out is ignored except for small moments when their contributions are celebrated, because they are selfless in them. Andrew doesn't really fit into that category either, he is more the face of what people imagining impeding dealing with reality.
While most of the character are very pragmatic and goal oriented, Andrew lives in his own little fantasy world where he imagines his life as a super-villain, or relives the past in highly unrealistic ways; he also never stops talking. He tries to help and connect, but his own construction of reality is so far off from everyone else that it is all but impossible.
The rest of the characters are rather tight knit and by this season very pragmatic, to the point of being incredibly harsh and cold. The results are what matters and in another main point of the show to be a nice/good person means sacrificing your ability to be effective. To survive in America means to shut off your heart and be hard, isolated and alone. However, despite this they are heroes because they do the hard thing and not the kind thing.
The show is set in a small college town in California, definitely playing into the American glamor aspect with California. However, the small town setting--while chosen to parody horror movie settings--gives it a down to earth feel. Most of the characters have some sort of superpower, Buffy is a slayer, Willow is a witch, Dawn (Buffy's sister) used to be a dimensional key, Anya used to be a vengeance demon, at the same time a different kind of power is highlighted in the character Xander who "sees more than anyone knows because no one is watching him. [He's] the guy who fixes the windows." Highlighting, that while being hard is sometimes necessary for doing what is needed, there is an unappreciated power in just caring and doing what you can without reward or even acknowledgment.
I know that Joss Whedon's [the creator] take on American culture is at once typical and atypical. He enjoys highlighting what is expected and at the same time addressing what is under the surface being just as important. His shows tend not to depict a straightforward view of Americans, but instead creates a complex image that often gives more questions than answers.
Do you think that any TV show no matter how ambitious can create a truly accurate portrayal of a society?
What do you think that the image of American's is abroad? Do you think that it is accurate? What would you like it to be?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Transition
Yesterday my roommate moved out. I am currently in the middle of a transition to getting the new one moved in. I have had roommates before but that was when I lived in the dorms, so dealing with it in an apartment is a whole new experience. This is also the first that I have ever encountered a roommate who spaced her move out over two months, and stayed a full week past when she stopped paying rent. It has been an interesting experience to say the least.
However it has not all been bad, she is easily the best roommate I have ever had, minus the hellish move-out experience. She left for good yesterday and now I have the task of rearranging furniture and cleaning and organizing so as to make a good impression on the next roommate. She is planning on stopping by the 8th and will make her final decision about the move in then.
I am a mix of saddened and elated, and overall just plain stressed out about the whole situation. Any transition is complicated and a mixed bag of good and bad, but this has had so many ridiculous hangups that it has me reeling with stress. I didn't really sleep last night as I knew that today was devoted to taking the first exam and rearranging.
Yet, with the exception of wishing that a good roommate wasn't leaving, it is exhilarating to have my run of the place for the first time ever. Then there is the issues of signing a new lease, and arranging to have carpets cleaned, and well everything that goes into the practical side of preparation for a new roommate. At the moment I feel a tad overwhelmed, but I know that this is a fabulous opportunity to use in a positive fashion.
What are some constant challenges and benefits that occur when people go through transitions?
What are steps that a person can take to make transitions in their life as painless as possible?
However it has not all been bad, she is easily the best roommate I have ever had, minus the hellish move-out experience. She left for good yesterday and now I have the task of rearranging furniture and cleaning and organizing so as to make a good impression on the next roommate. She is planning on stopping by the 8th and will make her final decision about the move in then.
I am a mix of saddened and elated, and overall just plain stressed out about the whole situation. Any transition is complicated and a mixed bag of good and bad, but this has had so many ridiculous hangups that it has me reeling with stress. I didn't really sleep last night as I knew that today was devoted to taking the first exam and rearranging.
Yet, with the exception of wishing that a good roommate wasn't leaving, it is exhilarating to have my run of the place for the first time ever. Then there is the issues of signing a new lease, and arranging to have carpets cleaned, and well everything that goes into the practical side of preparation for a new roommate. At the moment I feel a tad overwhelmed, but I know that this is a fabulous opportunity to use in a positive fashion.
What are some constant challenges and benefits that occur when people go through transitions?
What are steps that a person can take to make transitions in their life as painless as possible?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
This was so uncomfortable.
Of all of the activities that we have had to do for this class, this one has been the most uncomfortable for me. I am not the type of person who is good at initiating conversation to begin with, and my goals in communication tend to be involved in keeping harmony; except in academic discussions I tend to get very forceful in those. The entire idea of intentionally making people uncomfortable did not sit very well with me. I tend to have a hard time interpenetrating nonverbal behavior, in the correct time frame for an appropriate action, and as such my responses tend to be off or too delayed, and it makes things uncomfortable. The entire idea of adding more unease to that was drastically unpleasant.
However, an assignment is an assignment, so I went ahead. The first conversation that I had was with a very good friend whom I shall call friend B. For this one I chose to do the two minute stare. I chose to do this one because with this friend it wouldn't turn unpleasant, but would end up being hilarious. She noticed withing the first 30 seconds that I was staring and in response began to stare back. It ended up being a staring contest where we were trying to get the other to crack up and we both succeeded. The staring started across a table and ended up with her pulling her chair in close and with our faces almost nose to nose. After the contest that had developed ended I told her about the assignment and she listened for a sentence and then started talking about her job which she hates.
This one went well, but I also chose a friend that I knew would think of the assignment as a game and think nothing of it. Anyone else would have been really unnerved, especially coming form me, as I am far more likely to make too little eye contact as opposed to too much.
The second conversation was with another friend, friend M. This was the no eye contact conversation. She noticed this quickly and kept asking me if everything was all right. This ended up being the entire rest of the conversation, was her asking me to tell her what was wrong. When I debriefed her, she laughed in a relieved fashion and then got angry about making her think that something was wrong. The anger lasted for only a few moments and then she asked me to tell her all about the class.
This conversation felt really lousy. The lack of eye contact really disturbed my friend and worse made her worry about me. It did not feel good to mess with someone and upset them, even if it was for a class.
The third conversation was with my roommate. This was the try and back someone into corner conversation. It didn't work. My roommate kept moving forward subtly as well, so she would get too close and then step back and it ended up being that I just got really close and she asked what the heck I was doing. At that point it had been two minutes and I told her. She was alright with it, but really unhappy about that being an assignment.
This assignment has easily been one of the most uncomfortable things that I have ever been asked to do. I really do not like to add to my natural social awkwardness. However it was interesting to see different reactions, most people that I encountered were only grudgingly accepting of it as an assignment and the other honestly didn't care.
What kinds of reactions did you encounter when trying out this assignment?
What do you think that the reactions tell us about nonverbal normative behavior?
However, an assignment is an assignment, so I went ahead. The first conversation that I had was with a very good friend whom I shall call friend B. For this one I chose to do the two minute stare. I chose to do this one because with this friend it wouldn't turn unpleasant, but would end up being hilarious. She noticed withing the first 30 seconds that I was staring and in response began to stare back. It ended up being a staring contest where we were trying to get the other to crack up and we both succeeded. The staring started across a table and ended up with her pulling her chair in close and with our faces almost nose to nose. After the contest that had developed ended I told her about the assignment and she listened for a sentence and then started talking about her job which she hates.
This one went well, but I also chose a friend that I knew would think of the assignment as a game and think nothing of it. Anyone else would have been really unnerved, especially coming form me, as I am far more likely to make too little eye contact as opposed to too much.
The second conversation was with another friend, friend M. This was the no eye contact conversation. She noticed this quickly and kept asking me if everything was all right. This ended up being the entire rest of the conversation, was her asking me to tell her what was wrong. When I debriefed her, she laughed in a relieved fashion and then got angry about making her think that something was wrong. The anger lasted for only a few moments and then she asked me to tell her all about the class.
This conversation felt really lousy. The lack of eye contact really disturbed my friend and worse made her worry about me. It did not feel good to mess with someone and upset them, even if it was for a class.
The third conversation was with my roommate. This was the try and back someone into corner conversation. It didn't work. My roommate kept moving forward subtly as well, so she would get too close and then step back and it ended up being that I just got really close and she asked what the heck I was doing. At that point it had been two minutes and I told her. She was alright with it, but really unhappy about that being an assignment.
This assignment has easily been one of the most uncomfortable things that I have ever been asked to do. I really do not like to add to my natural social awkwardness. However it was interesting to see different reactions, most people that I encountered were only grudgingly accepting of it as an assignment and the other honestly didn't care.
What kinds of reactions did you encounter when trying out this assignment?
What do you think that the reactions tell us about nonverbal normative behavior?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Language in the US
This was actually pretty fun. Online quizzes are generally thought of as pretty fun or at the least not the worst way to spend a fifteen to twenty minutes. Today was not a disappointment, not only were the quizzes fun, they were challenging.
The first quiz, which was about matching dialects to areas was very challenging. The snippets that we were given were very succinct, which made it hard to get many clues from speech patterns. Also, many of the voices were very different so comparing slight differences in similar speakers was pretty much a non option. I was pleased that I got two correct I guessed that voice C was midland and that voice K was south. However, no one voice form the choices had strong accents, and therefore it was essentially straining your ears for the barest hint of a clue. Basically the test confirmed that I have barely ever been out of West Allis/Minnesota.
I did better on the Vowel Power quiz. I got two right again, but I came very close on most of the others. I got socks and desk correct; however, for buses I guessed boss's and grind and grade are pretty close. However, for block I guessed like. This quiz had such short snatches of sound that it was very difficult to understand it if you didn't get the word immediately. In fact the only one that I replayed was the one that I got the most incorrect.
The only real issue with the quizzes was getting to them, the first few times that I tried the links they just flat out did not work. I tried many options, shutting down the internet and then powering off my computer. Nothing. The next time around I tried what seems silly to me that I tried that late to make the links work. Instead of just clicking on them I copied them into a new window and then they worked just fine. I wounder if the problem was opening them from a pdf? I have no idea if that was the case or not, but it seems the most plausible.
It would have been nice to have more data to go on than the quick little samples that we heard, but I can understand their reasoning for giving such brief samples; it really made me pay attention. I had to give the samples my entire focus and concentration and I still got most of them wrong.
I am not terribly surprised that I got so many wrong, as I have almost never been out of Wisconsin. The grand total of my travels include: New York, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina--but only an airport layover, Washington D.C., Florida, and well anywhere that my buss made stops in between Wisconsin and Florida/D.C.
What areas/regions of the country were you most able to identify the dialects of? Why?
Were you easily able to identify the middle/midwest dialect? Why or why not?
The first quiz, which was about matching dialects to areas was very challenging. The snippets that we were given were very succinct, which made it hard to get many clues from speech patterns. Also, many of the voices were very different so comparing slight differences in similar speakers was pretty much a non option. I was pleased that I got two correct I guessed that voice C was midland and that voice K was south. However, no one voice form the choices had strong accents, and therefore it was essentially straining your ears for the barest hint of a clue. Basically the test confirmed that I have barely ever been out of West Allis/Minnesota.
I did better on the Vowel Power quiz. I got two right again, but I came very close on most of the others. I got socks and desk correct; however, for buses I guessed boss's and grind and grade are pretty close. However, for block I guessed like. This quiz had such short snatches of sound that it was very difficult to understand it if you didn't get the word immediately. In fact the only one that I replayed was the one that I got the most incorrect.
The only real issue with the quizzes was getting to them, the first few times that I tried the links they just flat out did not work. I tried many options, shutting down the internet and then powering off my computer. Nothing. The next time around I tried what seems silly to me that I tried that late to make the links work. Instead of just clicking on them I copied them into a new window and then they worked just fine. I wounder if the problem was opening them from a pdf? I have no idea if that was the case or not, but it seems the most plausible.
It would have been nice to have more data to go on than the quick little samples that we heard, but I can understand their reasoning for giving such brief samples; it really made me pay attention. I had to give the samples my entire focus and concentration and I still got most of them wrong.
I am not terribly surprised that I got so many wrong, as I have almost never been out of Wisconsin. The grand total of my travels include: New York, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina--but only an airport layover, Washington D.C., Florida, and well anywhere that my buss made stops in between Wisconsin and Florida/D.C.
What areas/regions of the country were you most able to identify the dialects of? Why?
Were you easily able to identify the middle/midwest dialect? Why or why not?
Who am I: According to Myself and Others
Avowed Identities:
kind
intelligent
good writer
bisexual
artistic
caregiver
liberal
socially awkward
unique/odd (good odd)
geeky and proud of it!
reader
history
good memory
horrible at spelling
Ascribed Identities:
quiet
naive
artistic
show off
caring
kind/polite/nice
socially awkward
timid
good singer
bad singer
good memory
buff bad at names, dates, directions
I have been ascribed the identity of quiet by almost everyone that I have ever meet casually, or have not formed a bond with, or who has never been in a class with me that allows discussions. I tend to reinforce this, as I enjoy listening and learning about people and am very aware that my interests are ... very rarely on the same page as others. Being fascinated, with the construct of language and how its nuances amuse you tends not to go over so well. Also, it is hard to turn that interest off, when every conversation that you ever have had , or ever will have directly feeds into that particular interest. But, I don't mind being thought of as quiet as it gives me much more opportunity to listen and when you listen to people you get to know them quite well, and hear some fascinating things.
I have been ascribed the identity of naive since coming to college, by older students. It has been fairly accurate, as living on my own for the first time I had a lot to learn. Also, everyone will be naive about something for the rest of their lives. This one I have attempted to resist it have been: to learn a lot about things that I want to know about, work on gaining much more practical knowledge, and just trial and error with real life situations.
I have been ascribed the identity of artistic very early on, when I was really little by family and friends and teachers. It is one that I really really avow as well, and cherish as a part of myself. However, becoming complacent with it is a bad thing, so I am constantly trying to expand upon it and challenge myself to develop my artistically.
My sister has ascribed me a show off. There is a certain level of competition in siblings, but I tend to dread competition, and it scares me more than anything on earth. I honestly will do most anything to avoid competition, and am fine not getting recognition if it means avoiding competition. Except in trivia games and air hockey; with those I get really, really competitive. I don't really try and resist that one, I just ignore her.
I have been ascribed kind/polite/nice by coworkers, group members, friends, teachers, and customers. With being happily quiet and self admittedly odd, in I think a good way, the fact that people tend to remember about me is being nice. I like to listen to people and really try to empathize, I also like to care for others; hence, studying to be a teacher. I know that I don't achieve this all of the time and at times can lose patience, or be too accommodating. However, this matters a lot to me in an avowed identity, so hearing that it is also ascribed is good to hear. However, it is again something that I cannot be complacent with.
As far as socially awkward, that has been ascribed to me by a lot of people, particularly one set of coworkers. When people don't see it as a good thing they call me weird, when they think it is a good thing they call it unique, or humorous. I own this quality as a part of myself. I like the things that I like, and for the reasons that I like. I try and resist how it can impact communication negatively by really trying to listen to people and finding something to empathize with in others.
The good singer/bad singer ascription comes form mostly my sister and friends. Many of my friends think that I am a good singer, not great but good. Many people are surprised at how low my voice is, there are selected base notes that I can hit, but soprano is way out of my ability. My sister is actually trained and wants to do something professional with her voice, she also has perfect pitch. She doesn't belive that I have a good voice, but she has really high expectations. My resistance to these ascriptions is basically to sing for myself, I do not want to do anything in particular with my voice, and instead of singing in a professional manner I would rather figure out how to move my mouth while singing to imitate the vocal intonation of the singer on the recording of songs. I have gotten very good at imitating Tim Curry and do an almost perfect copy of Rod from Avenue Q.
As for memory: I have been ascribed a good or bad memory depending on what I have been asked to remember. I have no real memory of names, dates and directions. Well, directions if you want it in muscle memory, but intellectual recollection; no dice. However, if you want the lyrics to dinosaur songs that I heard when I was three or the specifics in a lecture topic; I'm your girl. I have a good memory, except for names, dates and directions. I resist this ascription by writing down names, dates and directions.
What ascriptions do you think that we hold on to the most, the accurate or the inaccurate?
Why?
How might it be possible to have two polar opposite ascriptions and or avowed identities bot be true at the same time?
kind
intelligent
good writer
bisexual
artistic
caregiver
liberal
socially awkward
unique/odd (good odd)
geeky and proud of it!
reader
history
good memory
horrible at spelling
Ascribed Identities:
quiet
naive
artistic
show off
caring
kind/polite/nice
socially awkward
timid
good singer
bad singer
good memory
buff bad at names, dates, directions
I have been ascribed the identity of quiet by almost everyone that I have ever meet casually, or have not formed a bond with, or who has never been in a class with me that allows discussions. I tend to reinforce this, as I enjoy listening and learning about people and am very aware that my interests are ... very rarely on the same page as others. Being fascinated, with the construct of language and how its nuances amuse you tends not to go over so well. Also, it is hard to turn that interest off, when every conversation that you ever have had , or ever will have directly feeds into that particular interest. But, I don't mind being thought of as quiet as it gives me much more opportunity to listen and when you listen to people you get to know them quite well, and hear some fascinating things.
I have been ascribed the identity of naive since coming to college, by older students. It has been fairly accurate, as living on my own for the first time I had a lot to learn. Also, everyone will be naive about something for the rest of their lives. This one I have attempted to resist it have been: to learn a lot about things that I want to know about, work on gaining much more practical knowledge, and just trial and error with real life situations.
I have been ascribed the identity of artistic very early on, when I was really little by family and friends and teachers. It is one that I really really avow as well, and cherish as a part of myself. However, becoming complacent with it is a bad thing, so I am constantly trying to expand upon it and challenge myself to develop my artistically.
My sister has ascribed me a show off. There is a certain level of competition in siblings, but I tend to dread competition, and it scares me more than anything on earth. I honestly will do most anything to avoid competition, and am fine not getting recognition if it means avoiding competition. Except in trivia games and air hockey; with those I get really, really competitive. I don't really try and resist that one, I just ignore her.
I have been ascribed kind/polite/nice by coworkers, group members, friends, teachers, and customers. With being happily quiet and self admittedly odd, in I think a good way, the fact that people tend to remember about me is being nice. I like to listen to people and really try to empathize, I also like to care for others; hence, studying to be a teacher. I know that I don't achieve this all of the time and at times can lose patience, or be too accommodating. However, this matters a lot to me in an avowed identity, so hearing that it is also ascribed is good to hear. However, it is again something that I cannot be complacent with.
As far as socially awkward, that has been ascribed to me by a lot of people, particularly one set of coworkers. When people don't see it as a good thing they call me weird, when they think it is a good thing they call it unique, or humorous. I own this quality as a part of myself. I like the things that I like, and for the reasons that I like. I try and resist how it can impact communication negatively by really trying to listen to people and finding something to empathize with in others.
The good singer/bad singer ascription comes form mostly my sister and friends. Many of my friends think that I am a good singer, not great but good. Many people are surprised at how low my voice is, there are selected base notes that I can hit, but soprano is way out of my ability. My sister is actually trained and wants to do something professional with her voice, she also has perfect pitch. She doesn't belive that I have a good voice, but she has really high expectations. My resistance to these ascriptions is basically to sing for myself, I do not want to do anything in particular with my voice, and instead of singing in a professional manner I would rather figure out how to move my mouth while singing to imitate the vocal intonation of the singer on the recording of songs. I have gotten very good at imitating Tim Curry and do an almost perfect copy of Rod from Avenue Q.
As for memory: I have been ascribed a good or bad memory depending on what I have been asked to remember. I have no real memory of names, dates and directions. Well, directions if you want it in muscle memory, but intellectual recollection; no dice. However, if you want the lyrics to dinosaur songs that I heard when I was three or the specifics in a lecture topic; I'm your girl. I have a good memory, except for names, dates and directions. I resist this ascription by writing down names, dates and directions.
What ascriptions do you think that we hold on to the most, the accurate or the inaccurate?
Why?
How might it be possible to have two polar opposite ascriptions and or avowed identities bot be true at the same time?
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Activity Number Four
Activity number four was a very sobering experience. I do badly with names to begin with and I got so panicked with that the first go around was a disaster. I exceeded the time and when trying to see if it submitted accidentally started the second go so that did not go well, but the second time I had focus and really absorbed what the activity was showing me. I know far too few names from far too many categories.
For ethnic groups that I could think of names from in order of easiest to hardest was: white, black, asian, hispanic/latino, and then middle eastern. For white I had a name for every category except women before 1600's I could think of multiple examples from Victorian England but they didn't fit the time frame and women from mythology didn't count. I had no trouble naming the men, and in fact with the exception of naming black men and women the numbers of men that I could name were always higher. I knew a decent number of prominent figures such as our president, Martin Luther King Jr. and Maya Angelou. I knew a good range of names of Asian men, not really due to any class and more to do with my obsession of Japanese history and art. I was having no end of trouble however trying to find any examples of women who where not actors. I was completely lost when it came to naming hispanic men who were not actors or Juan Peron, and I only could think of Sonia Sotameior and Eva Peron for women. I was completely and utterly lost when it came to naming anyone of middle eastern descent, I could only think of dictators and Muhammad Ali. I could think of absolutely no women.
It is clear that "history" as it is taught in the US is the story of white men and in very, very, very recent times prominent figures who have stood out and fought for equality. Now we are starting to get to learn about prominent African American leaders, at long last, and some Hispanic leaders. However, mostly what is taught about Hipanic leaders is about dictators that the United States had conflict with, and the representation of middle easterner's is even worse. The majority of what we here is about countries and leaders who the United States currently views as a threats, the crusades and the Turkish empire. These are not generally seen as positive things in the US, never mind that in the crusades that it was the European armies that destroyed the irrigation systems that are a root of many of today's tensions. Asian ethnic groups are well represented in a world history class and if you are learning about World War Two. World War Two doesn't tend to be flattering and world history doesn't provide many specific names.
The reason that these groups are ignored is because, the group in the united states that has the most power is white males. The history of the US has been, white people came and whiped out the Native Americans, involuntarily brought over African slaves and did it's best to keep everyone else out of the country. The Alien and Sedition Acts effectively kept out almost all middle easterners, limited Asian immigration to almost nothing and kept "undesirable" Europeans to the bare minimum. It set the pattern that America has held most of its life: it says to the world you are welcome and means if you are too different stay out. This is not a message that schools really want to teach us, as we went though the civil rights movement, so that means that the country has forgotten its past and is now everything that it claims to be. In other words a really big heaping helping of denial.
Backtracking a bit to discuss gender: thought the majority of history--that has written records--the western/European world has been primarily patriarchal. These societies have at times been to the point where women did not have rights at all; starting around the time of the industrial revolution and the enlightenment this let up somewhat, and varied from country to country. Even so women were still clearly second class to their male counterparts. When women finally won suffrage it was during a time where things got a tad better; however, things were still very bad. The greatest strides came around the same time as ending segregation; remember this is within most of our parent's lifetimes, and then anti discrimination laws came into effect. Women could enter the work force more freely, oh and I almost forgot to mention World War Two, women got a very real taste of freedom when they got factory jobs which was the impetus to demand societal change. On paper things seem equal, except for pay, however; for both ethnicity and gender the American response is largely the same earnest attempts and strides, that once attitudes had changed slightly those in power tried to forget about the past wrongs as soon as possible.
What is it about the US that makes it try to deny everything that it did oppressively historically?
How does this effect the ability for real intercultural communication today?
For ethnic groups that I could think of names from in order of easiest to hardest was: white, black, asian, hispanic/latino, and then middle eastern. For white I had a name for every category except women before 1600's I could think of multiple examples from Victorian England but they didn't fit the time frame and women from mythology didn't count. I had no trouble naming the men, and in fact with the exception of naming black men and women the numbers of men that I could name were always higher. I knew a decent number of prominent figures such as our president, Martin Luther King Jr. and Maya Angelou. I knew a good range of names of Asian men, not really due to any class and more to do with my obsession of Japanese history and art. I was having no end of trouble however trying to find any examples of women who where not actors. I was completely lost when it came to naming hispanic men who were not actors or Juan Peron, and I only could think of Sonia Sotameior and Eva Peron for women. I was completely and utterly lost when it came to naming anyone of middle eastern descent, I could only think of dictators and Muhammad Ali. I could think of absolutely no women.
It is clear that "history" as it is taught in the US is the story of white men and in very, very, very recent times prominent figures who have stood out and fought for equality. Now we are starting to get to learn about prominent African American leaders, at long last, and some Hispanic leaders. However, mostly what is taught about Hipanic leaders is about dictators that the United States had conflict with, and the representation of middle easterner's is even worse. The majority of what we here is about countries and leaders who the United States currently views as a threats, the crusades and the Turkish empire. These are not generally seen as positive things in the US, never mind that in the crusades that it was the European armies that destroyed the irrigation systems that are a root of many of today's tensions. Asian ethnic groups are well represented in a world history class and if you are learning about World War Two. World War Two doesn't tend to be flattering and world history doesn't provide many specific names.
The reason that these groups are ignored is because, the group in the united states that has the most power is white males. The history of the US has been, white people came and whiped out the Native Americans, involuntarily brought over African slaves and did it's best to keep everyone else out of the country. The Alien and Sedition Acts effectively kept out almost all middle easterners, limited Asian immigration to almost nothing and kept "undesirable" Europeans to the bare minimum. It set the pattern that America has held most of its life: it says to the world you are welcome and means if you are too different stay out. This is not a message that schools really want to teach us, as we went though the civil rights movement, so that means that the country has forgotten its past and is now everything that it claims to be. In other words a really big heaping helping of denial.
Backtracking a bit to discuss gender: thought the majority of history--that has written records--the western/European world has been primarily patriarchal. These societies have at times been to the point where women did not have rights at all; starting around the time of the industrial revolution and the enlightenment this let up somewhat, and varied from country to country. Even so women were still clearly second class to their male counterparts. When women finally won suffrage it was during a time where things got a tad better; however, things were still very bad. The greatest strides came around the same time as ending segregation; remember this is within most of our parent's lifetimes, and then anti discrimination laws came into effect. Women could enter the work force more freely, oh and I almost forgot to mention World War Two, women got a very real taste of freedom when they got factory jobs which was the impetus to demand societal change. On paper things seem equal, except for pay, however; for both ethnicity and gender the American response is largely the same earnest attempts and strides, that once attitudes had changed slightly those in power tried to forget about the past wrongs as soon as possible.
What is it about the US that makes it try to deny everything that it did oppressively historically?
How does this effect the ability for real intercultural communication today?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Mystery of My Ethnic Background
There are questions that seem like they should have easy answers, but then turn out to become a baffling puzzle and the strangest part is that those who should know just don't seem to care. I know very little of my own ethnicity: I know that I am Caucasian and there is Germain and Irish in there, but not how much or even ballpark ideas of the proportions. It seemed like a good opportunity to talk to my parents to find out more, as talking about the past is a taboo subject in my family. The answer that I got over and over again was that they just didn't know.
This is what I was able to find out: my mother's mother may be second generation American, but my mother isn't sure. In any case she is unequivocally and completely German, but chooses to believe that since she married a man who was half Irish and half Polish that she is completely Irish. As far as her father goes she has no idea who the rest of his family even is, nor how long they had been in the country. My great-grandparents on my grandmothers side only spoke German and lived in Wasau where they ran a farm and lived together in a communal setting. My grandmother was born in 1920 and made it through the ninth grade; during world war two she came to Milwaukee to work a factory job and she grew up incredibly poor. She was and is intensely Lutheran.
My father's information is that his mother's biological father, not the man who raised her was all or mostly German. He has absolutely no idea about her mother or anyone on his father's side. All he knows is that his grandparents were veterans and farmers/paper mill workers who lived in rural Wisconsin in the town of Hancock. His father was stationed in Alaska during World War Two and that no one had more than a high school education. His dad worked at a paper mill then delivered oil to farmers and then started his own crop spraying business. Basically his family felt that being American was their ethnicity and what they descended from was irrelevant. However, they were devoutly--depending on the person--Baptist.
My ethnic background has not played a part in my life to a great extent. Certainly it has played some part, but for most of my life I had no idea what my ethnic background was beyond white and some Irish. I don't feel that my ethnic background is very important to deciding who I am, unless the argument is made that the lack of knowing it made a huge impact. That was influential, I never really understood all of the festivals down at the lakefront when I was growing up that celebrated ethnic heritage. My parents were rather intense on the fact that it did not matter what we were we were Americans and that was what mattered. I have always been a tad unnerved out by that, and found it sad that they refused to tell us anything about our heritage.
More so than ethnic background the biggest influence on us was my mother's religion. My mother is very Lutheran. Church every Sunday, bible every night and she even picked a house with the church at the other end of the block. She volunteered constantly and guilted us about helping out more. To my mom religion was everything: it was far more important than her husband, her children or even her own happiness. She is not the paragon of tolerance, though she likes to believe that she is, but will unhappily endure most things she disagrees with, but if I were to ever tell her that I do not believe in Christianity she would have a panic attack.
The extent that religion was a part of our lives, and how it was handled shaped me greatly. I learned from the way my mother handled it to constantly evaluate my self for any wrong doing and mentally punish every flaw; to assume that I am always in the wrong and that timidity is all important. These are things that I am obviously aware are bad now. However, it also gave me a chance to get to work with kids and there I discovered what will be my life long passion: teaching. The secret rejection of Christianity has also given my sister and I a bond that has brought us much closer. I'd say that it evens out.
I am willing to bet that people aren't terribly aware of my ethnic heritage, as I am not even aware on an entire fourth of it definitely and only know half with a semblance of certainty. However, I do know with certainty that my Grandmother on my mother's side is not in any way shape or form Irish, however much she may think and or say that she is.
How important is it to know your ethnic background?
What are some potential advantages from being largely unaware of it?
This is what I was able to find out: my mother's mother may be second generation American, but my mother isn't sure. In any case she is unequivocally and completely German, but chooses to believe that since she married a man who was half Irish and half Polish that she is completely Irish. As far as her father goes she has no idea who the rest of his family even is, nor how long they had been in the country. My great-grandparents on my grandmothers side only spoke German and lived in Wasau where they ran a farm and lived together in a communal setting. My grandmother was born in 1920 and made it through the ninth grade; during world war two she came to Milwaukee to work a factory job and she grew up incredibly poor. She was and is intensely Lutheran.
My father's information is that his mother's biological father, not the man who raised her was all or mostly German. He has absolutely no idea about her mother or anyone on his father's side. All he knows is that his grandparents were veterans and farmers/paper mill workers who lived in rural Wisconsin in the town of Hancock. His father was stationed in Alaska during World War Two and that no one had more than a high school education. His dad worked at a paper mill then delivered oil to farmers and then started his own crop spraying business. Basically his family felt that being American was their ethnicity and what they descended from was irrelevant. However, they were devoutly--depending on the person--Baptist.
My ethnic background has not played a part in my life to a great extent. Certainly it has played some part, but for most of my life I had no idea what my ethnic background was beyond white and some Irish. I don't feel that my ethnic background is very important to deciding who I am, unless the argument is made that the lack of knowing it made a huge impact. That was influential, I never really understood all of the festivals down at the lakefront when I was growing up that celebrated ethnic heritage. My parents were rather intense on the fact that it did not matter what we were we were Americans and that was what mattered. I have always been a tad unnerved out by that, and found it sad that they refused to tell us anything about our heritage.
More so than ethnic background the biggest influence on us was my mother's religion. My mother is very Lutheran. Church every Sunday, bible every night and she even picked a house with the church at the other end of the block. She volunteered constantly and guilted us about helping out more. To my mom religion was everything: it was far more important than her husband, her children or even her own happiness. She is not the paragon of tolerance, though she likes to believe that she is, but will unhappily endure most things she disagrees with, but if I were to ever tell her that I do not believe in Christianity she would have a panic attack.
The extent that religion was a part of our lives, and how it was handled shaped me greatly. I learned from the way my mother handled it to constantly evaluate my self for any wrong doing and mentally punish every flaw; to assume that I am always in the wrong and that timidity is all important. These are things that I am obviously aware are bad now. However, it also gave me a chance to get to work with kids and there I discovered what will be my life long passion: teaching. The secret rejection of Christianity has also given my sister and I a bond that has brought us much closer. I'd say that it evens out.
I am willing to bet that people aren't terribly aware of my ethnic heritage, as I am not even aware on an entire fourth of it definitely and only know half with a semblance of certainty. However, I do know with certainty that my Grandmother on my mother's side is not in any way shape or form Irish, however much she may think and or say that she is.
How important is it to know your ethnic background?
What are some potential advantages from being largely unaware of it?
Cellphones and Ice
For the past week I have been visiting my family back in West Allis. This has also led to my being a taxi for my sister upon her finishing the school day at her high school. Yesterday, she was running extremely, extremely late so it afforded me a great opportunity to observe the behavior of the students waiting for a ride and the family members waiting to pick them up.
Almost every student who stood waiting for a ride spent the majority of the time ignoring the other students and talking on a cell phone. There were a grand total of three students who did not talk on a cell phone while waiting, and one of them was with a student who did, and while they were clearly walking together and waiting together his friend and or sibling ignored him the whole time even waiving off the one question he asked brushing him away to talk on the phone more.
I heard absolutely no verbal communication as I had to wait in my car, but the nonverbal communication spoke volumes. Each student stood in their own little niche of the pavement about six to four feet apart, if anyone were to move even slightly from their designated/chosen spot the others would freeze a little and glare until the student in question returned to approximately where they were standing before. Those who had cellphones, had very closed posture and stance. For example this almost six foot tall brunet girl stood with one hand on the phone the other wrapped around her waist like she was protecting herself and her feet were pressed to the ground as if she expected to make a dash for it at any moment.
Going to the two other students who did not have cell phones: these two were clearly friends or at least desperate for conversation and talked animatedly. They made eye contact, they gestured with their arms and they stood closer, but with a railing in between them. They stayed a bout three feet apart, with a railing in between them, and when a student with a cellphone walked through their conversation it ended.
The rules for the students clearly were to guard yourself form each other: even the friends were separated by a reiling and when someone came to close to their conversation they seemed to decide that it was too risky to continue. Another rule clearly seemed to be almost everyone wanted to be left themselves as the harsh reactions to moving out of ones designated space seems to suggest. A third rule seemed to be that phone conversations took precedence over the people actually present, as evidenced by the boys walking together where one was ignored over the phone conversation.
It was clear that if someone were to break this isolation they would be reacted to very unfavorably. For example if someone were to tap any of these kids on the shoulder it would not be surprising to see that person getting punched or at the very least recoiled away from. Even the waiting family extended this attitude. No one left their vehicle to wait for their student and the only person who left when the student arrived was a parent helping to push a wheelchair into a van, and they were glared at by all around. This was not a friendly environment.
Trying to communicate in this setting would be a challenge even if you knew the rules. The rules were essentially do not communicate unless it is to someone on the other end of a phone. Asking a question, or simply arriving were met with suspicion and hostility.
If you had to communicate in a hostel environment, how wold you go about it?
What factors do you believe may have led to creating such a hostel environment?
Almost every student who stood waiting for a ride spent the majority of the time ignoring the other students and talking on a cell phone. There were a grand total of three students who did not talk on a cell phone while waiting, and one of them was with a student who did, and while they were clearly walking together and waiting together his friend and or sibling ignored him the whole time even waiving off the one question he asked brushing him away to talk on the phone more.
I heard absolutely no verbal communication as I had to wait in my car, but the nonverbal communication spoke volumes. Each student stood in their own little niche of the pavement about six to four feet apart, if anyone were to move even slightly from their designated/chosen spot the others would freeze a little and glare until the student in question returned to approximately where they were standing before. Those who had cellphones, had very closed posture and stance. For example this almost six foot tall brunet girl stood with one hand on the phone the other wrapped around her waist like she was protecting herself and her feet were pressed to the ground as if she expected to make a dash for it at any moment.
Going to the two other students who did not have cell phones: these two were clearly friends or at least desperate for conversation and talked animatedly. They made eye contact, they gestured with their arms and they stood closer, but with a railing in between them. They stayed a bout three feet apart, with a railing in between them, and when a student with a cellphone walked through their conversation it ended.
The rules for the students clearly were to guard yourself form each other: even the friends were separated by a reiling and when someone came to close to their conversation they seemed to decide that it was too risky to continue. Another rule clearly seemed to be almost everyone wanted to be left themselves as the harsh reactions to moving out of ones designated space seems to suggest. A third rule seemed to be that phone conversations took precedence over the people actually present, as evidenced by the boys walking together where one was ignored over the phone conversation.
It was clear that if someone were to break this isolation they would be reacted to very unfavorably. For example if someone were to tap any of these kids on the shoulder it would not be surprising to see that person getting punched or at the very least recoiled away from. Even the waiting family extended this attitude. No one left their vehicle to wait for their student and the only person who left when the student arrived was a parent helping to push a wheelchair into a van, and they were glared at by all around. This was not a friendly environment.
Trying to communicate in this setting would be a challenge even if you knew the rules. The rules were essentially do not communicate unless it is to someone on the other end of a phone. Asking a question, or simply arriving were met with suspicion and hostility.
If you had to communicate in a hostel environment, how wold you go about it?
What factors do you believe may have led to creating such a hostel environment?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Far And Away
America: the word has so many connotations both good and bad. The promise of what it claims to be and the the utter disappointment of what it actually has to offer. This is perhaps the best way to describe the immigrant experience; the hope of all that America claims to be, met with reality of what it actually is. It is hard, unfair and full of promises that are unrealistic and perhaps unattainable; however, this has seldom stopped people form trying as in the case of the movie Far And Away.
The movie centers around two characters: Joseph(Tom Cruise) and Shannon (Nicole Kidman) who meet when Shannon stabs John with a pitchfork when he comes to murder her father. One of the main themes of the movie is social class and the effect that that has on immigration and how it changes afterward. Joseph is a farmer, who is under the thumb of the landlord who just so happens to be Shannon's father. After his father dies and his home is burned to the ground he seeks revenge. His revenge does not go over terribly well, and Shannon, who wants to go to America to escape the expectations of her mother and the restrictions of her class--in the area of acceptable behavior--convinces him to join her on her quest to be modern in America by offering him the promise of land; well, that and not dying in a duel. Shannon wants to be in America because she believes it to be a paradise for her: modern, less restrictive, and fun without much work. Joseph goes because he has very little choice, he would die if he did not leave; however, the promise of his own land is tempting.
Upon arriving in the United States the roles of the protagonists become reversed. Shannon is robbed blind of the spoons that she stole from her mother and left destitute. Joseph is used to being destitute and has the skill set to survive in Boston. He finds them paying work very quickly in a chicken plucking factory where he does well, but Shannon struggles. She is used to a privileged existence, and now she has to do for herself. She does not work quickly and is constantly ridiculed by her boss; however, she cannot stand being talked to abusively and stands up for herself. This earns her respect but costs her money.
The primary challenge that both face is earning enough money to peruse their dream of getting their own land: for independence though by different definitions of from what. This problem is solved when Joseph goes to pick a fight to work off sexual tension and ends up entering the world of underground boxing. The Irish community leader acts as an organized crime boss, running a fight ring and giving to those who do for him. Once Joseph crosses him to defend Shannon they are worse off than at square one, they are exiled from the Irish community, and the rest of Boston is none to keen on the Irish. In fact when they approach a man begging to work in exchange for food or warmth he simply tells them over and over that he "doesn't hire Irish."
Once they hit rock bottom they end up breaking into a house and Shannon gets shot, to save her Joseph leaves her with her family. They both make their way to Oklahoma territory separately: Joseph through railway work, Shannon through family money. Here, the movie decides to drop reality a bit and give them a fairytale ending where they get their land together, with the slowest flag plant in history. The dream of America is reinforced; however, the movie overall does a decent job of highlighting the reality. The part where Shannon is teaching her mother how to wash clothing is particularly noteworthy, in this respect.
Shannon and Joseph achieve their dream, and until the end face circumstances that seem very reality based. Far And Away does a good job of detailing the dream and expectations of the immigrant experience, with the reality of what it entails. The ending may be a bit fantasy based, but most of the movie is decent in depicting realistic struggles--keeping in mind that this is a Hollywood drama. Will America ever live up to its promise? It's unlikely, but if nothing else it is a nation of people trying to achieve big dreams, so odds are even if reality never matches up it will not be a deterrent for people to keep on trying.
Questions:
What factors do you believe contribute to the success of organized crime in America? How are they hinted at in the movie?
How has the promise of America changed over time, and what are parts of that promise that still effect immigration in this day and age?
Are the challenges that modern day immigrants face still similar to those shown in the movie?
The movie centers around two characters: Joseph(Tom Cruise) and Shannon (Nicole Kidman) who meet when Shannon stabs John with a pitchfork when he comes to murder her father. One of the main themes of the movie is social class and the effect that that has on immigration and how it changes afterward. Joseph is a farmer, who is under the thumb of the landlord who just so happens to be Shannon's father. After his father dies and his home is burned to the ground he seeks revenge. His revenge does not go over terribly well, and Shannon, who wants to go to America to escape the expectations of her mother and the restrictions of her class--in the area of acceptable behavior--convinces him to join her on her quest to be modern in America by offering him the promise of land; well, that and not dying in a duel. Shannon wants to be in America because she believes it to be a paradise for her: modern, less restrictive, and fun without much work. Joseph goes because he has very little choice, he would die if he did not leave; however, the promise of his own land is tempting.
Upon arriving in the United States the roles of the protagonists become reversed. Shannon is robbed blind of the spoons that she stole from her mother and left destitute. Joseph is used to being destitute and has the skill set to survive in Boston. He finds them paying work very quickly in a chicken plucking factory where he does well, but Shannon struggles. She is used to a privileged existence, and now she has to do for herself. She does not work quickly and is constantly ridiculed by her boss; however, she cannot stand being talked to abusively and stands up for herself. This earns her respect but costs her money.
The primary challenge that both face is earning enough money to peruse their dream of getting their own land: for independence though by different definitions of from what. This problem is solved when Joseph goes to pick a fight to work off sexual tension and ends up entering the world of underground boxing. The Irish community leader acts as an organized crime boss, running a fight ring and giving to those who do for him. Once Joseph crosses him to defend Shannon they are worse off than at square one, they are exiled from the Irish community, and the rest of Boston is none to keen on the Irish. In fact when they approach a man begging to work in exchange for food or warmth he simply tells them over and over that he "doesn't hire Irish."
Once they hit rock bottom they end up breaking into a house and Shannon gets shot, to save her Joseph leaves her with her family. They both make their way to Oklahoma territory separately: Joseph through railway work, Shannon through family money. Here, the movie decides to drop reality a bit and give them a fairytale ending where they get their land together, with the slowest flag plant in history. The dream of America is reinforced; however, the movie overall does a decent job of highlighting the reality. The part where Shannon is teaching her mother how to wash clothing is particularly noteworthy, in this respect.
Shannon and Joseph achieve their dream, and until the end face circumstances that seem very reality based. Far And Away does a good job of detailing the dream and expectations of the immigrant experience, with the reality of what it entails. The ending may be a bit fantasy based, but most of the movie is decent in depicting realistic struggles--keeping in mind that this is a Hollywood drama. Will America ever live up to its promise? It's unlikely, but if nothing else it is a nation of people trying to achieve big dreams, so odds are even if reality never matches up it will not be a deterrent for people to keep on trying.
Questions:
What factors do you believe contribute to the success of organized crime in America? How are they hinted at in the movie?
How has the promise of America changed over time, and what are parts of that promise that still effect immigration in this day and age?
Are the challenges that modern day immigrants face still similar to those shown in the movie?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Hello Group Members
Hi,
My name is Meghan Foster. I have never created or participated in a blog before, so I would appreciate all the feedback that I can get as to whether or not I am doing things correctly. Well, I look forward to meeting you and can't wait to have discussions with all of you.
My name is Meghan Foster. I have never created or participated in a blog before, so I would appreciate all the feedback that I can get as to whether or not I am doing things correctly. Well, I look forward to meeting you and can't wait to have discussions with all of you.
Introductory Blog Activity
Two truths and a lie:
1. I own a pet rat.
2. I love horses.
3. I am an Art Education Major.
1. I own a pet rat.
2. I love horses.
3. I am an Art Education Major.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)