Sunday, September 25, 2011
Friday, July 2, 2010
Einstein
“I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
--Einstein
--Einstein
Rev. Al Sharpton vs. Glenn Beck
Beck stated that his rally on August 28th at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (on the anniversary of MLK's I Have A Dream speech) will "reclaim the Civil Rights Movement...We were the people who did it in the first place." This is hilarious enough coming from the face of the party that is anti gay marriage, anti choice, and anti immigrant (among other things) but the best part was when he got the smackdown from the Reverend Al Sharpton. I absolutely LOVE that Sharpton can completely and totally crush Glenn Beck regarding the civil rights movement without even talking about race. This man is my hero. Seriously.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Racism
I've been thinking a lot about racism lately. There are two things that happened to me recently to cause this:
a) I was talking to my uncle, and he used a line I've heard so many times: "I'm just sick of pressing 1 for English."
b) I was talking to my mom and learned something new about my family. See, my dad had a sister that we never talked about. I learned a bit about her over time (her name, that she has 3 boys) but no one really talked about her, ever. All I knew what that she had been effectively kicked out of the famly and no one ever talked to her. Naturally, I assumed the worst. I thought she had murdered someone or something like that. Yesterday I learned what horrible thing she did. She married a black man. My grandmother had been incredibly racist. She was the head of the family and what she said was gospel. So when she decided that her daughter was no longer welcome due to the race of her husband, that was it. My grandmother died when I was about a year old, but no one welcomed my aunt back to the family. Apparently, she was fairly poor and she, her husband, or her kids (or some combination of the above) have done some fairly undesirable things. I don't really know the details. My grandfather started talking to her again, but I guess there was just too much bitterness there for her to feel welcome in our family. It breaks my heart that I've only met her once (at my dad's funeral) and I've never met my cousins.
I don't understand how people can justify their racism. I know often they don't see what they're doing as racism, like with the English thing. I don't understand why people get so angry about the fact that a large number of Americans speak Spanish as a first language. I know a lot of times people equate Spanish-speakers as illegal. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there are 34.6 million people in the US who speak Spanish at home. The "press 2 for Spanish" thing (and offering legal forms in Spanish) is catering to our own citizens. Plus, in areas with a high concentration of Spanish-speakers, it makes sense from a business perspective to offer phone menus in Spanish. Catering to one's client base is being a smart business, not anti-American. What's interesting to me is why this is a problem. I don't have any reaction at all when I'm on the phone and hear "press 1 for English". It's obvious that some people do, though. What is causing them to be offended? Is it simply the reminder that people exist who are different than them? Where did the idea that here in America we speak English and only English come from, anyway? I've heard this argument: "If I moved to France, I would have to learn French. This is America. They have to learn English." The problem with that argument is that some countries (such as France) have their national identity closely tied to their national language. The French language is a huge part of the culture. But America is not one of those countries. It was built on the idea of being a land of opportunity for those who can't make it in their home countries. I know that, historically, there has been backlash and racism against every major group of people that moved here. I understand that at this point in history, America (or at least parts of America) is racist against Spanish-speakers (and those from the middle-east, thanks to 9/11). But what's the point? No good can come from racism. We as a nation have learned this lesson time and time again. I don't understand how people can be so patriotic and yet be so racist. In one breath they talk about how in America all men are created equal, and then they turn around and discriminate against the groups of people they don't like. I just don't understand.
a) I was talking to my uncle, and he used a line I've heard so many times: "I'm just sick of pressing 1 for English."
b) I was talking to my mom and learned something new about my family. See, my dad had a sister that we never talked about. I learned a bit about her over time (her name, that she has 3 boys) but no one really talked about her, ever. All I knew what that she had been effectively kicked out of the famly and no one ever talked to her. Naturally, I assumed the worst. I thought she had murdered someone or something like that. Yesterday I learned what horrible thing she did. She married a black man. My grandmother had been incredibly racist. She was the head of the family and what she said was gospel. So when she decided that her daughter was no longer welcome due to the race of her husband, that was it. My grandmother died when I was about a year old, but no one welcomed my aunt back to the family. Apparently, she was fairly poor and she, her husband, or her kids (or some combination of the above) have done some fairly undesirable things. I don't really know the details. My grandfather started talking to her again, but I guess there was just too much bitterness there for her to feel welcome in our family. It breaks my heart that I've only met her once (at my dad's funeral) and I've never met my cousins.
I don't understand how people can justify their racism. I know often they don't see what they're doing as racism, like with the English thing. I don't understand why people get so angry about the fact that a large number of Americans speak Spanish as a first language. I know a lot of times people equate Spanish-speakers as illegal. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there are 34.6 million people in the US who speak Spanish at home. The "press 2 for Spanish" thing (and offering legal forms in Spanish) is catering to our own citizens. Plus, in areas with a high concentration of Spanish-speakers, it makes sense from a business perspective to offer phone menus in Spanish. Catering to one's client base is being a smart business, not anti-American. What's interesting to me is why this is a problem. I don't have any reaction at all when I'm on the phone and hear "press 1 for English". It's obvious that some people do, though. What is causing them to be offended? Is it simply the reminder that people exist who are different than them? Where did the idea that here in America we speak English and only English come from, anyway? I've heard this argument: "If I moved to France, I would have to learn French. This is America. They have to learn English." The problem with that argument is that some countries (such as France) have their national identity closely tied to their national language. The French language is a huge part of the culture. But America is not one of those countries. It was built on the idea of being a land of opportunity for those who can't make it in their home countries. I know that, historically, there has been backlash and racism against every major group of people that moved here. I understand that at this point in history, America (or at least parts of America) is racist against Spanish-speakers (and those from the middle-east, thanks to 9/11). But what's the point? No good can come from racism. We as a nation have learned this lesson time and time again. I don't understand how people can be so patriotic and yet be so racist. In one breath they talk about how in America all men are created equal, and then they turn around and discriminate against the groups of people they don't like. I just don't understand.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Texas to change history books
I know that I'm late talking about this, but I've still got a lot to say. The Texas school board approved a change in the social studies curriculum. They think that the current history books have a liberal bias and are taking steps to correct that. They are trying to cast conservative historical figures in a more flattering light than they currently are. The problem? There were no historians, sociologists, or economists consulted at the meetings. Some of the issues they are concerned with are:
And yet, they have a point. Conservatives are portrayed in a bad light in history textbooks. I think this is for good reason - social and moral progress has historically been opposed by conservatives. For example, the eradication of slavery. Or women's sufferage. Or marriage equality (both interracial marriage and gay marriage). When we're viewing the debate about interracial marriage from our modern perspective, the conservatives who opposed it are inevitably going to look like douchebags. BUT. I do agree with the fact that it may go a bit too far. I know that growing up with these American history textbooks, I definitely saw quite a bit of us/them and good guys/bad guys mentality. This isn't helpful for learning about others and about cultures different from one's own, which is the whole point of history class. We just learned "they had slaves in the south. That was bad. So we fought with them to free the slaves and we won! The good guys won! Yay liberals!" I'm embarrassed to admit how old I was when I first realized that America isn't always the good guy. A bit more of the other side's story might be good for students.
So who gets to decide what really happened? These history textbooks should reflect historical reality as much as possible. I think that that's an admirable goal. But who gets to decide what "historical reality" is? Obviously, there are some things that are not debatable, and history is one of the areas where this happens a lot. Some things either happened or they didn't. However, there can be grey area, even in history. Is there such a thing as objective reality? I don't know. So what happens when two people's realities don't match up? This happens. So who wins? The people with the power. History is written by the winners. So does that mean that liberals are the winners? The liberals do seem to win in the end (at least on issues of social and moral progress), and we have written the history books. But what happens when the conservatives fight back? What does that mean for the future?
- The separation of church and state. They don't think that the U.S. Constitution supports this idea and want to remove it from the textbooks. This fits nicely in with their idea that America was founded on Christian principles by Christians. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. 1) Establishment Clause. 2) Treaty of Tripoli. The U.S. is NOT a Christian nation, and it never was. It is (and was always intended to be) a country that grants to its citizens the freedom of religion. This means that every citizen can choose for himself which religion he belongs to, if he wishes to be part of one at all. No citizen should be forced to follow the rules of any one religion, and no one religion should be endorsed by the government. This means that NO, the U.S. is not a Christian nation.
- Evolution v. Intelligent Design. Obviously, they are working to teach the theory of intelligent design in the classrooms along with evolution. This is a problem because the whole premise of intelligent design assumes that there is a creator, which is an endorsement of religion. This directly violates the first ammendment.
- Casting conservatives in a more positive light. They want to explore more deeply the positive things that conservatives have done for history, such as supporting civil rights legislation. Fine. But who first came up with the legislation? Not conservatives.
- Casting liberals in a more negative light. They want to play up the bad things that liberals have done. For example, they want to stress people like Malcolm X and the violence he promoted along side of Martin Luther King Jr.
- Thomas Jefferson. The problem with him is that he was the person who first coined the phrase "separation of church and state". We can see the issue here. So they're trying to cut him out.
And yet, they have a point. Conservatives are portrayed in a bad light in history textbooks. I think this is for good reason - social and moral progress has historically been opposed by conservatives. For example, the eradication of slavery. Or women's sufferage. Or marriage equality (both interracial marriage and gay marriage). When we're viewing the debate about interracial marriage from our modern perspective, the conservatives who opposed it are inevitably going to look like douchebags. BUT. I do agree with the fact that it may go a bit too far. I know that growing up with these American history textbooks, I definitely saw quite a bit of us/them and good guys/bad guys mentality. This isn't helpful for learning about others and about cultures different from one's own, which is the whole point of history class. We just learned "they had slaves in the south. That was bad. So we fought with them to free the slaves and we won! The good guys won! Yay liberals!" I'm embarrassed to admit how old I was when I first realized that America isn't always the good guy. A bit more of the other side's story might be good for students.
So who gets to decide what really happened? These history textbooks should reflect historical reality as much as possible. I think that that's an admirable goal. But who gets to decide what "historical reality" is? Obviously, there are some things that are not debatable, and history is one of the areas where this happens a lot. Some things either happened or they didn't. However, there can be grey area, even in history. Is there such a thing as objective reality? I don't know. So what happens when two people's realities don't match up? This happens. So who wins? The people with the power. History is written by the winners. So does that mean that liberals are the winners? The liberals do seem to win in the end (at least on issues of social and moral progress), and we have written the history books. But what happens when the conservatives fight back? What does that mean for the future?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Is this supposed to be funny?
Yesterday I went to a Catholic mass for a First Communion ceremony. Everything was fine until the very end of the mass, when the priest told a joke:
A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.The whole congretation laughed. This was interesting to me and I had a number of different reactions. The first reaction was from the gut (OMG not all atheists are arrogant and pompous and use their classrooms as a soapbox!). Then I thought wait a minute, why are they all laughing and I'm not? I wasn't offended by the joke. I'm used to that characterization of atheists AND I was on their turf. The difference in our reaction to the joke is what interested me. I think that they saw the joke as "good Christian boy stands up for God/his beliefs, and is witty to boot! Haha!", whereas I saw the joke as "young man creates violence in the name of God/religion, and the rest of the class applauds him". The fact that punching someone in the face so hard that they are out cold turns from "bad" to "good" when said person is an atheist (AND a member of the ACLU! For shame!) is sad, and honestly a bit frightening.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, 'GOD if you are real then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes.' The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, 'Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting.'
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, 'What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?' The Marine calmly replied, 'GOD was too busy today protecting America 's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me.'
The classroom erupted in cheers!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Marriage Equality
For easy future reference, I've decided to put up the information I used for my presentation on marriage equality for my Social Problems in American Society class.
The state of affairs in the U.S.:
-Five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and Washington D.C. allow gay marriage.
-Two states (Rhode Island and New York) recognize gay marriages performed out of state.
-Eight states (New Jersey, California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin) allow civil unions.
-Of the 8 states that allow civil unions, only New Jersey gives couples in civil unions the same rights as those in civil marriages. California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington give civil unions most of the rights given to civil marriages. Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin give them only some of the same rights.
DOMA:
The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that :
1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
Rights currently being denied to gay couples:
There are over 1,000 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, as well as around 300 provided by each individual state. Even if the state allows gay marriage, gay couples will still be denied their federal rights, thanks to DOMA. These rights include but are not limited to:
Who else (besides the couple) does this affect?:
-Children of the same-sex couple. Many psychological studies have shown that children raised by two parents of the same gender do not have any major differences in developmental outcomes than those raised by two heterosexual parents. They do, however, face prejudice and homophobia from peers and adults due to their homosexual parents. They also do not have the same protection under the law that children of married couples do. They face the possibility of being separated from their surviving parent if the biological parent dies and they haven't filed for adoption. They also face loss of income, benefits, insurance, and even sometimes the right to the home they live in.
-Gay children. Gay children are affected by this issue because they are being told, directly or indirectly, that they are not the same as everyone else and that they don't deserve the same happiness and protection under the law that straight people receive.
-Society as a whole is hugely affected by this issue. This is one of the most polarizing issues in the public arena at the moment. Some people judge others based on what they believe about gay marriage in a way that they don't for other issues. Some people vote for political leaders based largely on their views of gay marriage, often neglecting other important aspects about these politicians. Since gay marriage is such a huge issue, it takes up quite a bit of the public's caring capacity, and as such other important issues often don't get the attention they deserve.
This is a matter of basic human rights.
It is not a question of religious morality v immorality. In America, not everyone is required to follow the rules of one religion. Therefore, what any particular holy book or religion has to say about homosexuality is inconsequential when deciding who gets protection under the law.
It is not a question of tradition. The definition of marriage has changed over the years. Marriage used to be (and still is in some cases and certain parts of the world) used for:
Sources:
www.marriageequality.org
(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, published in the American Sociological Review (April 2001).
The state of affairs in the U.S.:
-Five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and Washington D.C. allow gay marriage.
-Two states (Rhode Island and New York) recognize gay marriages performed out of state.
-Eight states (New Jersey, California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin) allow civil unions.
-Of the 8 states that allow civil unions, only New Jersey gives couples in civil unions the same rights as those in civil marriages. California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington give civil unions most of the rights given to civil marriages. Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin give them only some of the same rights.
DOMA:
The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that :
1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
This gave the states free reign to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriages. It also denies same-sex couples that are legally married all of the federal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.
Rights currently being denied to gay couples:
There are over 1,000 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, as well as around 300 provided by each individual state. Even if the state allows gay marriage, gay couples will still be denied their federal rights, thanks to DOMA. These rights include but are not limited to:
- making medical, legal, and financial decisions for the partner
- hospital visitation
- inheritance without a will
- suing for wrongful death and/or emotional distress if the partner dies or is injured
- drafting a will or trust for the partner
- paid leave or sick time to care for ill partner or partner's child
- unemployment insurance if one has to relocate due to the partner's job
- health insurance under the partner's plan
- death benefits for surviving partner and children
- leave of absence after death of the partner
- right to live with the partner in senior citizen housing developments
- filing jointly on taxes
- sponsoring a partner for citizenship
- holding both partners as equal parents
- child support and custody
- conjugal visits to the partner in prison
- right to use necessary force to prevent partner from wrongful injury
- right not to be forced to testify against partner in court
- ability to authorize medical treatment of partner's biological child
Who else (besides the couple) does this affect?:
-Children of the same-sex couple. Many psychological studies have shown that children raised by two parents of the same gender do not have any major differences in developmental outcomes than those raised by two heterosexual parents. They do, however, face prejudice and homophobia from peers and adults due to their homosexual parents. They also do not have the same protection under the law that children of married couples do. They face the possibility of being separated from their surviving parent if the biological parent dies and they haven't filed for adoption. They also face loss of income, benefits, insurance, and even sometimes the right to the home they live in.
-Gay children. Gay children are affected by this issue because they are being told, directly or indirectly, that they are not the same as everyone else and that they don't deserve the same happiness and protection under the law that straight people receive.
-Society as a whole is hugely affected by this issue. This is one of the most polarizing issues in the public arena at the moment. Some people judge others based on what they believe about gay marriage in a way that they don't for other issues. Some people vote for political leaders based largely on their views of gay marriage, often neglecting other important aspects about these politicians. Since gay marriage is such a huge issue, it takes up quite a bit of the public's caring capacity, and as such other important issues often don't get the attention they deserve.
This is a matter of basic human rights.
It is not a question of religious morality v immorality. In America, not everyone is required to follow the rules of one religion. Therefore, what any particular holy book or religion has to say about homosexuality is inconsequential when deciding who gets protection under the law.
It is not a question of tradition. The definition of marriage has changed over the years. Marriage used to be (and still is in some cases and certain parts of the world) used for:
- political purposes
- improving one's social status
- improving one's economic status
- procreation (and only procreation)
- certainty as to the paternity of the children
- the subjugation of women
- family obligation
- one man and multiple women
- one woman and multiple men
- multiple women and multiple men
- a man and a young girl
- two people who did not meet until their wedding day
- a man and a "mail-order bride"
- people of the same religion
- people of the same race (side note: interracial marriage wasn't fully legal in the U.S. until 1967)
- people of the same gender (see: early Roman Empire, Ming Dynasty, early Zhou Dynasty)
Sources:
www.marriageequality.org
National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org)
Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage by Davina Kotulski Ph.D. Superior Court of DC (http://www.dccourts.gov/)(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, published in the American Sociological Review (April 2001).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
