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?
Saturday, May 29, 2010
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)