I think that Sam, the public school systems, and private school systems are absolutely right to start integrating Mandarin and Cantonese classes into their education programs. Mandarin is one of the most, if not the most, frequently spoken language in the world. English doesn’t even come close to the most frequently spoken language compared to the Mandarin. My roommate is actually from China and she’s been teaching a few words and phrases here and there. According to my roommate, when going to elementary school, she was required to learn both Mandarin and English while attending classes. She even told me that China has even created schools designed to prepare children to eventually study in a foreign country. In these schools, students study a different language (usually English, Korean, or Japanese) and learn about cultural aspects of the country they plan on traveling to. If our country could adopt more schooling programs designed to set students up for foreign studies, I’m sure that America could extend and strengthen its relationships with foreign countries. She has also told me how the Chinese public schooling systems have changed since she attended elementary school. Now students are required to learn three languages; Mandarin, English, and Cantonese. Cantonese is spoken more in southern provinces in China where Mandarin is spoken in mainland China. Cantonese is known to be spoken in Hong Kong, but many Cantonese speaking people travel to Canada. Apparently Canada’s three most spoken languages are Cantonese, English, and French (not in that specific order). So not only will students in China be able to communicate with their entire country, but also in foreign countries ranging from North America, Europe, and Australia. As a result from adopting foreign languages into China’s educational system, China has been able to extend its relationships all over the world. It’s also opened up opportunities for the heavily populated country to have people migrate to foreign countries and increase their opportunities in life. Learning a foreign language is like have the key to a new world. Just think of how many more opportunities the next generation would have if they learned a foreign language in school. The ultimate goal towards peace might be more realistic if countries could communicate with one another other. Instead of selfishly waiting for the other country to extend its hand out to our country, why doesn’t America take the first step towards peace by reaching their hand out first? The United States can extend peace to others and show a genuine care for anothers country by taking the time to learn how to talk to people in their comfortable native tongue. Integrating foreign language classes into our school system could also make the United States more welcoming towards immigrants. Mandarin is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. Why doesn’t the United States start there and then work our way down to less frequently spoken languages? I believe that language is the key to obtain peace, and if our country doesn’t invest in it, then we may never obtain what we are so desperately seeking.

Although the correlation between violent video games leading to aggressive violence has not been made, studies have shown that video games do have some impact on learning and behavior. Rape video games are not a positive influence regarding women’s safety and rights and may even encourage video game behavior to happen in real life. I fully understand women’s rights activists concern that these video games will send a message to men encouraging this type of behavior towards women, when in fact it’s absolutely inappropriate. The argument that rapists may use this video game as a venue to vent their aggression and anger does not necessarily mean that after playing a rape game their aggression will be reduced. In fact, this type of video game may encourage people to resolve solutions through conflict. Manufacturers must also keep in mind that there is a goal to all video games, and after meeting that goal, a reward will be given for a person who successfully completed that goal. If the goal in this video game is to rape and torture women who have fired the player from their job, who is to say that when the game is completed the player will not link success through aggression? The negative messages and innuendos to such a video game are just too risky to have on the market, or better yet anywhere. Players run the risk of becoming desensitized to women’s rights and aggression as a way to resolve resolutions. What if men around the world who have played this video game thought it was ok to rape and beat any woman into submission because they’ve become so desensitized to gender roles? I believe that the Japanese government needs to regulate these offensive games in order to not even give people the idea that this type of behavior is deemed “acceptable”. For lack of better words, the Japanese government shouldn’t give the devil a foothold because you never know when he’ll fully get past the door. To say the least, the Japanese Government’s reaction to Women’s rights activists was disappointing. I cannot speak for why they wouldn’t openly share with the public what they plan to do about the problem, but it was encouraging to know that one Japanese government official told CNN that the government is looking into the matter. Unfortunately, the guy who was interviewed over Skype thought that the government shouldn’t ban rape games even with the off chance of someone committing aggressive crimes towards women after playing the game. I think that not only is his answer selfish, but also ignorant to the problems that women face on a day to day basis. What surprised me even more is that the women interviewed over Skype wasn’t offended by the games material either. I believe that this woman probably hasn’t been exposed to violent rape crimes or has even looked into just how devastating rape and torture can be. The next step in stopping this aggressive rape message from becoming reality is to ask the Japanese government to ban these types of games and to also make more people aware of the negative affects these video games may have on society. With a well informed society, the chances of desensitized rape messages being spread will be limited.

How can one group of people be offended by what another group of people call their racial category? Just because a racial category may have had a negative connotation in the past does not mean that it still carries that same weight today. Most words used towards categorizing ethnicity groups do not have negative connotations associated with them, but I think that people place negative connotations on different racial groups to make themselves feel superior over others; and just as easily as connotations on a racial group are made, they can just as easily be taken away. It all depends on what the majority of society wants to associate a word with. On the other hand, the Census is not designed to assert that one group of people is better than the other. Instead, it’s designed to collect data to (a lot of times) make the lives of those who are struggling a little better. One guy who was interviewed by CNN stated that the government is trying to be politically correct by using the word ‘negro’ on the census, and that government officials have a better chance at including everyone by using such a word. Another woman was offended that government would even put that word on the Census. I believe that in the end it doesn’t matter what people associate themselves as because when it comes down to it, we’re all people. Yes it’s true that a lot of people are heavily rooted in their culture, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but when it comes down to it we’re all just people trying to get by in the world. As far as what people identify themselves as, I think that people should base their decisions off of what they have some biological connections to, what culture they were exposed to, and whatever they want to associated as. This really shouldn’t be such a big deal, but people like to make things much more complicated than they need to be. I mean, if people are really feeling like their being placed in a box, then they should mark more than one category, selection the ‘other’ option and then explain the rest of whatever they want to be listed as. Unfortunately, if people can’t get past the language used on the Census form then the government will have an inaccurate reading of how many people there are in America. In response, people who are really suffering may not get the help they need because the government didn’t think there were as many people as there are in need of support. If people can just look beyond the words, understand what the government’s intentions are with the census, and just associate themselves with whatever they want to be, than people who are in need of government support can be helped. Until America can get over the words used to categorize themselves, people will be placed in a box; a box of ignorance.

Whoever came up with the phrase, “Stick and Stones can break my bones but words can never heard me” must have either been in a very high position of society’s hierarchy or holding onto a false illusion which they called pride. After the confirmation of Obama’s health care reform, protestors of the new health care policy proceeded to harass lawmakers both physically and verbally when leaving to go home. Although physical violence was for the most part contained, law enforcement officials could do very little about the abusive phrases being thrown at Congress members without infringing on their first Amendment rights. Some representatives like James Clyburn were shocked to hear the verbal abusive directed towards them, but were not phased by it believing that the abuse had a deeper meaning than just the disapproval of a health care bill. I for one completely agree with representative Clyburn in saying that this protest was more about those who have less power expressing their frustrations through means of violence. Just because the public may not have as much power as an elected official to make decisions regarding the nation, doesn’t mean they need to resort any form of violence to express their feelings. It not only makes the rest of society look insensitive but also incompetent to handle information that the government provides. First of all, the government hides enough information from the public as it is, so why would they want to keep citizens up to date with new policies if society can’t handle it without becoming violent? Second of all, name calling is not only hurtful but childish. Repetitive verbal blows can eventually affect a person’s self-esteem and maybe even cause them to become bitter towards the offenders. I mean, what makes people think that become hostile towards those who have an influence in our lives will continue to pursue what’s best for our nation and not just pursue their own individual interests? Representatives in Congress are trying to improve the lives of citizens all-over the nation. Of course there are going to be people who disagree with some of the policies and philosophies being presented. So instead of creating larger rift between our nation’s officials and the public, why can’t our nation find means to resolve issues through peaceful matters? Racial slurs and name calling only continues to keep our nation divided. Representative James Clyburn told reporters that he had not seen this type of protesting since the 1960’s when sit-ins were conducted over segregation matters. If these types of riots held during the segregation movement are staring to reappear within society, this shows that our nation has not grown when it comes to making peace between races. Not only are these physical and verbally abusive riots disappointing, but they beg people to ask the question if the United States has improved to dismiss racial tension and segregation within society; after hearing the words exchanged during the Tea Party Protests, apparently not.

It is a proud day in the course of women’s history. Should the glorifying of the first female high school football coach be considered a such an extravagant event? In my opinion it shouldn’t, but by no means should this event be down-graded. Unfortunately, society is still predominately run by a rich white male monarchy; they have the power to set expectations for gender roles and enforce them. Although the distribution of men to women in the work force is balancing out, gender expectations and the inequality of job placement based on sex alone still takes place. If society were more open about giving jobs to people based on their behavior, skills, and qualifications (like how any system that calls itself ‘just’ should operate) than this event would not be as monumental as it is. So although it is unfortunate to see how our nation is still so segregated (not only race wise but gender wise too), it is exciting to see what Natalie Randolph will bring to the Calvin Coolidge high school football team.
As Natalie’s interview continues, CNN’s Campbell Brown mentions Natalie’s press interview where Natalie says that being female has nothing to do with essentially coaching football. She later goes on to say that she does not feel the need to prove that females can coach football, but rather she explained how she had more to prove to herself and to her team. This pattern of thinking brought me to an interesting parallel. As most Americans know, hurricane Katrina in 2005 displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes living in the city of New Orleans. With some of my relatives living in New Orleans and being one of my home towns, my family as well as millions of Americans felt the pain and devastation of this unexpected tragedy. During one point in time, hundreds of thousands of people who had lost their homes were all crammed into the Superdome. To say the least, after hurricane Katrina, the morale of these people was completely decimated. New Orleanians turned to America’s favorite pass time, their national football team (the New Orleans Saints), to take their minds away from this tragedy and to rekindle their weary spirits. Until 2010, the New Orleans Saints had never gone to a super bowl tournament. Before playing in their big super bowl game, quarter back Drew Brees and his team stood in the superdome where they reminisced on all the New Orleanians who were forced to place their trust in this football field to provide them with hope of a better future. Drew went later on went to say that the New Orleans Saints had more riding on their shoulders than just the pressure to win a football game; instead they had the hopes and dreams of all the people from New Orleans to restore. Natalie in a way is in the same predicament. She implies in her interview that she doesn’t need to prove her worth as a football coach just because she is female, but instead she wants her team to be successful and in a way, help carry the hopes and dreams of her team through coaching. Little does she know that she also has the hopes and dreams of women around the nation who were waiting for someone like her to break this gender mold. The New Orleans Saints later went on to win the super bowl this year for their first super bowl win. Time can only tell what type of success Natalie will bring to the Calvin Coolidge football team. Yet she has already brought success for women everywhere by breaking the male dominated gender mold and by rightfully earning the title of head football coach.

In my opinion, I believe that both money and race speak volumes when influencing the Criminal Justice System. I agree that not all judges and lawyers are racists, but discrimination still takes place within our system. I also think that money speaks louder than skin tones in some cases and can affect a convicted offender’s chances of being charged for a crime. It seems that minority incarceration just kind of depends on surrounding circumstances, justice official’s values and beliefs, and financial situations.

I’ve heard many explanations as to why discrimination still takes place within the criminal justice system. I mean, with the statistics we’ve seen in class where approximately half of prison populations hold African Americans clearly shows that race does play a factor in our courts system. Some people have said that people of color just flat out commit more crimes than whites do. There is no evidence that links a person’s race to committing more crimes. On the other hand, sociodemographic reasons besides race (such as income, age, and gender) have been linked to crime. The majority of minority groups are suffering from economic disadvantages. Like Sam was saying in class the other day, whites got to the top of the hill and did not allow people of color to have the same opportunities as whites; even after the Civil War and Civil Rights Movements. Poorer people may resort to crime because they were not given the same opportunities that whites have. Income figures of racial groups do have correlation though. An offender’s support system, employment status, housing, and previous criminal offenses are all taken into consideration in the court system. Poorer people may not be able to afford an attorney or pay for bail. Due to financial reasons, Judges may be less likely to drop charges. So it may seem that race is the primary decision maker in how the Criminal Justice System functions when in fact it maybe more of an income discrepancy.

Then again, just because income does play a large factor in an offender’s opportunities to escape incarceration doesn’t mean that race is completely excluded from this argument. Some people believe that the Criminal Justice System is racist or that society is racist which leads to a racism in the courts. Evidence of racial profiling unfortunately still takes place. Some police officers arrest offenders of color even when they have no justification or reason to do so. Arrest rates of minorities are a lot higher than their offenses justify. The fact alone that more people of color are incarcerated than whites shows that our Criminal Justice System has some problems. Stereotyping about a racial group can lead to more arrest rates as well. After September 11th, homeland security has kept a vigilant eye on Muslims and those with a Middle Eastern background. Racial discrimination still takes place and continues to corrupt many officials’ rulings of justice. Although money talks, skin color can speak louder to some justice officials.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides of the argument as to why minorities are incarcerated more than whites are both valid. Racial discrimination and income advantages may all be limited to the type of offense, community in which the offense took place, defendants, and surrounding circumstances. A corrupted system can never truly be fixed, but when people work together for justice’s sake, changes can be made to make the system as fair as possible.

It’s absolutely true to say that people from the North American tend to focus more on the differences between black and whites and often neglect to include other cultures in conversation. Unfortunately a lot of people from North America seem to think that everything just boils down to black and white. The images that Americans see everyday have constant subliminal messages that white has to be the good while black must be evil. I believe that the media has made a profound effect on which cultural groups Americans focus their attention on. Slavery of African Americans and their journey towards individual rights was highly publicized during the Civil Rights movements. But what about the slavery of Native Americans and how Europeans took over their land by force? Why were journalists so disinterested in this group of people? Of course the media could not provide coverage of the subject matter using technology during the time. Depressingly, written accounts of Native Americans are often found in small paragraphs in American history books and do not provide extensive information on Native Americans struggle. This leads me to believe that the media just wasn’t interested enough in hearing Native Americans side of the story. I’m sure some journalists thought that what Europeans were doing was wrong while others didn’t see Native Americans as an dramatic enough topic to cover(probably due to Native Americans not having the fire power and disease resistance to fight back and also because coverage would remind Europeans that killing off innocent people was wrong). On the other hand, there was extensive media coverage of African Americans and what this group of people had to say during the civil rights movement. Did white people start to see their legal control over African Americans start to fade and in a panic decided to make other whites aware of what was going on through the media in hopes of white supremacy support? Could be. During the times of old slavery, African Americans were important enough to slave owners to protect because slaves were so expensive. Due to greedy reasons to keep blacks alive, this may have allowed for the African American population to grow. In contrast, Europeans either could not hold onto large amounts of Native American slaves while conquering the land or did not have enough transportation to ship slaves back to Europe. I believe that Native Americans worth, in the eyes of Europeans, was not as highly regarded as white Americans had for their African American slaves. Thus Native Americans were not seen as a threat to whites and did not make dramatic enough stories for the media to cover. On the flip side, African Americans grew in population, wanted the rights that they deserve, and were eventually seen as a threat to white supremacy. Due to this fact alone, the media had a field day with covering the dramatic stories of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and other Civil Rights activists. People are influenced by the media more than they think. The media tells us how to dress, what to buy, what to discuss, and how to think. I believe that the media coverage during the Civil Rights movement has a direct affect on why North Americans seems to think that everything ultimately comes down to blacks and whites. But does it really come down to just black and whites? How narrow minded are we if people think this fallacy is true.

Language has the ability to unify and separate people from all around the world at the same time. It has either been seen as a place of common ground or a barrier when living in society. Language not only is a device used for spoken communication, but also for the passing on of culture, history, and knowledge to future generations. When a language dies, a lot more than just a means of communication is lost. Most of the time people forget that the world’s foundations in technology, medicine, science, art, literature, etc. were all contributions from people who spoke a cornucopia of different languages. The world could discover new things about life and all the world has to offer if people just took the time and necessary precautions to protect endangered languages.

The goal of communication in life is shared meaning. What if we all spoke the same language though? Our insight on the world around us would be much more limited than it is now. God already determined in the book of Genesis that everyone speaking the same language was not a good idea. With everyone only speaking one tongue, there would only be one culture and one way of living life. Not everyone enjoys the same things in life and learns the same way. Multiple languages are necessary to create new cultures and experiences in life. Every language has something valuable to offer to society.

One word in one language may hold a different meaning and insight than the same word in another language. Verbal communication can be either denotative or connotative. Denotative is the literal and commonly accepted definition of a word while connotative is either slang or a cultural definition. Both forms of communication have value when contributing to society. One use of a word may provide further insight in one field of life while the same word in a different language can provide insight for another field. So by having more than one language we exponentially adding to the amount of knowledge the world has to offer. For example, in English we only have one word that describes the white fluffy precipitation that comes out of the sky; snow. In contrast, Eskimos has over 15 different words to describe this form of precipitation. Clearly Eskimos have a greater insight on this form of precipitation than English speakers do. Interestingly enough, I came across a hypothesis that further adds to the need of why multiple languages are so important and why they should be protected. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that the world is perceived differently by members of different communities and perception is transmitted and sustained by language. I think that this hypothesis is absolutely right when stating that knowledge is stemmed through perception and language is the primary vehicle for transmitting said information. A person might have a hard time thinking of something that cannot be expressed in their language, but if it has been thought of and can be expressed in another, than this is the beginning of unity within the world. The world needs to start protecting these valuable forms of communication or face the detriments and frustration of lost knowledge.

I believe that the French government wants to create laws banning burqas to maintain their French culture and to eliminate any threats of change to their culture in the near future. Does France have the right to be protective over their exclusive culture? I believe they do, but when they infringe on the rights and culture of citizens who do not match up to their cultural expectations, then I believe there is a problem. I understand the French government’s argument that burqas should be banned for identification purposes, but Muslim women living in France have verified that they will remove their burqas for identification reasons. With this problem solved, what is the actual problem with expressing yourself through what you wear? Just as some cultural practices may seem strange and unfamiliar, I’m sure that our cultural practices are just as foreign.

The French government’s argument to turn Muslim women into enlightened French citizens is completely ridiculous. What does the word ‘enlightened’ mean? If the French government thinks that enlightening someone involves forcing ones cultural practices on another, then the root of the problem is the ethnocentric view in the government. France actually needs immigrants to help their country repopulate if they even want a chance of maintaining their culture. With the discriminatory attitude that France is portraying to outside cultures, the chances of the country repopulating and sustaining their culture looks a little shaky. Just because someone is a citizen of a country doesn’t mean they need to completely give up their practices and traditions. People just assume that Muslim women are forced by their husbands or the men in their life to fully cover themselves in clothing. This documentary did the right thing by expressing how the women who wear these full burqas actually feel. The two women interviewed felt as though they wanted to wear the veils for reasons of piety and religious reasons. Who are we to deny people of what they want to believe and how they want to dress?

Even though the United States has been making strives to give women equal rights as men, a lot of countries still emphasize the inequality roles and differences in gender. The Muslim religion still emphasizes male dominance in their community over women. To Western European and the United States culture, this might seem to be a radical point of view. In reality, our western society’s mentality is not too far from the Muslim mentality (even though we may not express this reality so openly). The world is still a male dominated monarchy and women’s controversial issues are not always taken as seriously as males. I believe that these Muslim women who are fighting for their rights to wear what they please will need help addressing their rights with other people who view this no burqa policy as an injustice. In order for the French government to see their ethnocentric bias, people from all religions and nationalities will need to stand together to fight for these women’s rights.

response