500 Word Reflective Essay

Sociology has opened my eyes to the many layers that society has. Debunking was not a term I was aware of nor was I putting into action. To debunk is to look past the obvious in an attempt to find less obvious and deeply rooted explanations of why society is the way it is. In the debunking mind set we cannot take for granted anything in our world that we are used to: we must seek the unfamiliar in the familiar and the familiar in the unfamiliar to see how the world is linked. In taking the time to view the world from multiple perspectives we can find, like I did, a new respect and interest in the world around us. I have learned many new concepts in this course and in each of these concepts debunking has played a major role. For any sociologist to discover a concept they need to debunk. For a person like me in a classroom to understand these concepts I need to debunk. I didn’t realize I had a preconceived notion of “race” until I was able to listen to Mr. Quist-Adade in class. By listening to his view of “race” and racism and taking time out of my day to look online and think about how I use the terms, I realized I did have a preconceived notion. To me “race” was natural, true, and obvious. I obviously did not take time to debunk. I believed that “race” was very slowly becoming a thing of the past. Now when I realized how I believed in “race”, I realize that it is nowhere near becoming a thing of the past. Society has played its part with me by engraving the so called rules of “race” into me and it is my job to debunk and unwind my automatic thoughts. “Race”, after taking this class, makes NO sense at all. In the debunking process I discovered that “race” is just a sad excuse for ethnocentrism. There will always be people who want to be better than other people and “race” is a terrible method of demoting one group and promoting another. It still boggles my mind how people can discriminate and segregate based on simple physical features. We are all the same and science proves this. I know how frustrated I would become if I entered into a conversation with someone who truly believed in “race”, but I would love to engage in an educated conversation like that once in my life. I cannot begin to understand how someone would be able to believe in “race” after taking a class like Sociology or by seeking scientific evidence. The power of “race” and racism are very true, I can see that, but why does it continue to have this power? This question will be with me for all my life as I, sadly, do not see the term “race” falling out from the human vocabulary. One day when it does fall out of the vocabulary I can’t even being to imagine how wonderful the world would be.

Coolest Concept #5: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that language is culture specific and that it precedes any thoughts. The language that each individual is brought up speaking and understanding shapes the way they see the world as different cultures have different expressions, signals, and even words. Any baby can be sculpted to speak a language and know it as his/her native tongue. This “natural” language flows in our personal thoughts without us second guessing it or even really paying attention to what is being said or how it is being said. It is the coolest concept because it illustrates how powerful the human mind is and how much we are capable of without thinking. I understand present-day Canadian culture because this is where I was raised and this is what I am used to. If I were to move to Brazil I would learn a new way of speaking and new ways to name items. Even if I were to go back to the 18^th century in Canada I’m sure I would have a hard time understanding things because life was different. Anything with language is fascinating as we don’t tend to pay much attention to it in day-to-day life.

Coolest Concept #4: Redlining

I would not say that redlining is “cool” but it is definitely an interesting concept. Redlining was basically done by circling areas on maps where large amounts of non-White/minorities were moving into or lived. Real-estate agents did this to caution and warn White people who were thinking of moving. By warning White people about the minority areas the agents were able to create multiple White suburban areas. In these areas property prices would remain high or increase in value while in the redlined areas prices would depreciate. It is the most interesting concept of the week because it shows how the social construct of “race” was actually implemented into laws and was able to shape the many suburban areas we know now in America. Redlining was a racist practise and automatically devalued the lives and incomes of minorities while increasing and promoting Whites. As stated in the article in the below link redlining is now considered discriminatory and against the law.

http://homebuying.about.com/od/glossaryqr/g/053107Redlining.htm

The Stanford Prison Experiment 1971 (Video): Dialectic

What question did the video raise?

What happens when you put good people in a bad place?

How did the video answer this question?

The video documents an experiment where unknowing individuals were selected and put into either a prison or guard role in a make believe prison. This negative environment showed that individuals in the authority roles, the guards, took the role seriously. Guards became overwhelmed with their power and exercised it regularly to punish the so called prisoners who in fact had done nothing wrong. The guards, seemingly good people in the outside world, transformed into negative, belittling people in this hostile environment. The prisoners were forced into obeying authority after trying to go against these fake guards in the beginning. Since the roles were so forced unto the individuals in the experiment they fully accepted them and acted them out in forms of rebellions and punishments.

How does the answer match our own ideas and experiences?

The human mind is a unique thing. I would like to say that if I was put into this experiment I would not become an evil guard, however, authority can be corruptive. It is amazing that in such a small time the mind can be moulded into believing a certain situation so much that we start to act it and allow it to form who we are.

Nickel and Dimed (Video): Affective

This video is about how all jobs require skills but not necessarily all jobs can provide adequate income to live on and support one’s self. In the United States, Wall Street doesn’t see the issues of inadequate jobs: they are simply not exposed to those living conditions. The video’s main message is that the comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor.

I FEEL that this video is an important tool to show the upper classes that there are many people living in many different ways in just one country. For a small case study this video shows the state of emergency that America is in and does a good job at it.

I THINK that even though this video is somewhat out-dated it is still applicable to the US’s economy, especially with the recent crash. The space between rich and poor in America is widening constantly as the rich really do get richer and the poor are not presented with the opportunities. Many jobs do require a lot of effort and take a toll on its employees, like the waitress said in this video. Having jobs such as this paying minimum wage to individuals who are over the age of 25 and can’t get a different job doesn’t seem right.

I BELIEVE that people who are currently not making enough income through 2 or 3 jobs could put some of that effort and time into bettering their life through looking for opportunities. There are many, not enough, but many companies and people who donate or give scholarships to people who have potential and dedication. Opportunities do exist; it is up to people to find them no matter what the challenges may be.

I KNOW that “fixing” the wages and incomes of millions of people is not an easy task. It is daunting and I doubt it will ever be truly fixed. I know that there are many people in the country who are unaware of this situation because they are living a privileged life – knowledge of the gap between rich and poor must first be spread before this situation can be alleviated.

 

Race the House We Live In (Video): Paraphrastic Reading

This video talked about the housing situation in America in post-war times. Americans came home and wanted to start up lives in Suburban areas because of rates, advertising, and the need to settle down. The Suburban areas quickly became segregated through real estate agents having the power to give better mortgages and rates to white individuals and give poor rates and mortgages to minorities. Charts were made of areas that were strictly white and areas that were, in a sense, a ghetto and that were named “Hazardous” areas. The properties in Suburban areas became expensive while properties in the ghettos depreciated in value. White Americans had a better chance for sustainable living as their homes appreciated and they were able to use this advantage to send their children to school and take advantage of other privileges. It was public policy that minority groups could not purchase homes or land in Suburban areas as to allow White Americans to prosper.

The most important segment of the video:

Whites moving to the suburbs were being subsidised in the accumulation of wealth. While Blacks were being divested. These were public policy decisions. In which, on one hand, people were given access to property, given title and subsequently wealth. And on another hand, where people were not given access to property, did not generate wealth, and did not generate opportunity for the next generation.

This segment is the most important because it clearly states that public policy caused a massive divide between the “haves” and the “have nots”. It was an agreement the larger public made, in the real estate sector, to promote Whites and demote Blacks. From this point on there was obviously an advantage for Whites regarding living conditions, income, school, and overall equity.

The Phantom of the Race: The Myth of Race and the Reality of Racism by Charles Quist-Adade : Paraphrastic

In summary this article wants to clearly communicate that “race” does not exist. Science proves that there are not enough differences between “races” that constitute a reason for segregation. Science also shows that the physical characteristics that humans choose to base “race” on are simply characteristics that derive from where the first humans migrated too: just like animals, the human race has adapted over time to different climatic situations. Unlike animals there are not different types of humans like “races” try to depict. Humans are competitive in nature and have divided themselves into different “races” as almost a means to be competitive. Many humans discriminate and demote based on the fake word “race”. It is important and crucial that individuals can see “race” as a human and social construct. In doing so the world can move forward based on facts.

I believe the following to be the most important section of the article:

There are no genetic markers that set the so-called races apart. And as Pilar Ossorio points out in Race, it is impossible to locate any genetic markers “that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race.” In fact, 96.8% of the genetic code between Blacks and Whites is shared, with only a maximum of 0.032 of the genes varying between any White or Black person. The variation between Whites and Asians is 0.019 (98.1% similarity). These differences are far too small to indicate subspeciation, as such phenomenon would typically be characterized by variation many times greater than the above numbers.

No one can fight science. Many people have the word “race” so engrained in them that when you try to tell them there is no such thing they just can’t accept it. However, if you have the ability to show them cold hard facts, there is no way anyone could repudiate them. Science is truth.  

 

Who Will Liberate Liberia? By Charles Quist-Adade : Dialectic

What question did the text raise?

Who will focus on and liberate Liberia when all the attention has fallen to Iraq mainly due to oil benefits for America?

How did the text answer this question?

The text highlights the ridiculous amounts of money the American government has spent on the war in the Middle East and spent/offering for the killing of Saddam Hussein. The price tag of 4 billion dollars comes along with supporting the war in Iraq per month – the government doesn’t even bat an eyelash at this. The Orwellian world sees nothing wrong with this because Iraq represents terrorism and must be demolished. This world neglects to see that the amount of money they are spending on revenge filled attacks could be put to a better use like health care or food for an extremely large portion of the world’s population. The fact that Iraq has a large quantity of oil only aids the American government in wanting their troops and influence there. Why would Americans waste time in a non-oil-bearing Liberia? Humans want to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain: Americans want to gain oil for themselves. Compassion does not rank high in American’s thoughts.

How does the answer match our own ideas and experiences?

I agree with the Mini-Max Theory. Humans want to do what is in their own best interest as to maximize pleasures and benefits and minimize pain and discomfort. There are very few individuals in the world who will go out of there way, with great force, to help someone else or a cause for no personal benefit. The Orwellian world is not one of these individuals. For government to spend money on a situation it must benefit the government. Helping people because it is the right thing to do is put to the way side when there is a situation that could, for example, bring oil to the home land. Two huge concepts as children we learn are to help and to share, somewhere along the line of politics this simple concepts were lost. It should take one politician or one person to see that action needs to be taken in a place like Liberia and this action should be immediately taken. There should be no need for thousands of common people to have to bring an issue this large to the government and have to convince the government it is worth it.

September 11: Forgiveness is Not Part of the Lessons Learned by Charles Quist-Adade : Affective

This article is about the lack of forgiveness the Bush Administration has in regards to September 11. The word “forgiveness” does not come up in Bush’s speeches; he focuses his efforts on revenge as he desires an eye for an eye. This attitude is ethnocentric and nationalistic as he chooses to harm thousands of people’s lives in his angry moments. Forgiveness is not something that is being asked of the American people, but it is something that the American people always search for and seek in dealing with other country’s issues. Forgiveness is a two way street but the Bush Administration doesn’t want to play by those rules.

I FEEL like I want to shake some sense into the Bush Administration. No political figure should be using the system to reap revenge. No political figure should take action just based on their anger and in the moment feelings.  

I THINK that there is absolutely no solid reason why the Bush Administration should be in Iraq. To this day they have spent trillions of dollars… for what?! Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead but that is all that has come out of this. Too many people have died and too many people have been angered. This anger will not be subdued with more war, as time passes this anger grows.

I BELIEVE that forgiveness would have been proper, forgiveness over time.  Revenge has never put anyone in a better place – look at human history!

I KNOW that forgiveness is a lot to ask for and takes years to occur. I couldn’t imagine what pain the family and friends of loved ones who died have gone through and are going through. Forgiveness is the mature way to go about a situation like this. The war that has occurred prolongs that chances of having the slightest bit of forgiveness.

Negotiation, Not Retribution by Charles Quist-Adade : Dialectic

What question did the text raise?

Why does the human race seek retribution and revenge over negotiation?

How did the test answer this question?

“Men do not learn from history.” Human beings live in the moment with their feelings and values, even individuals who have political power. When the September 11 attacks occurred the Bush Administration did not take much time in analyzing the effects if they launched war, in the grand scheme of things, they simply launched war. The fear in America of Osama bin Laden was understandable. It was understandable that the government wanted to protect and serve its people. What doesn’t add up, in my mind, is that the government in “protecting” its people through war have killed thousands of innocent people. Instead of thinking in the moment and wanting revenge people need to learn to step back, put their egos to the side, and peacefully negotiate so that those who are in fault are punished and those who are innocent are free to enjoy life.

How does the answer match our own ideas and experiences?

I agree that the human race, as a whole, does not learn from history. If we do learn from history it is either after several failed situations or it is just too late. Humans fall victim to thinking in the short term, aka the “here and now”, and because of this judgements are made too hastily and actions are put into action must to fast.