I previously blogged about how interesting I thought it was that a friend of mine does not embrace his Mexican side. I thought about how this happens sometimes with minorities. Then, I began to reflect. I began to realize I do this exact thing very frequently!
I am over 75% Irish, the other 25% being mostly German, with a hint of French. I have a very traditional Irish first name, and my middle name is even more Irish: MÃ ire (pronounce Maura – it is Gaelic, which is very old Irish). As anyone of my close friends could tell you, I have an immensely strong Irish pride. However, to my “dismay”, my last name is completely German. I can not even recall the amount of times I have said something along the lines of, “Yes, my last name is German, but I’m over 75% Irish! It’s not even FAIR!” Or when people ask me what nationality I am; I usually only respond with Irish and rarely mention my other 25%.
I couldn’t help but wonder, “Why?” Why did I make such a big deal about it? And all I can say is that I am more proud of my Irish background than my German, which is not even a sound answer. I think it is because my family heavily emphasizes my Irish side (my Mom being 100% Irish). My Dad is the one who I get my German from, and he is simply indifferent about it.
I had never really thought about how it does not have to necessarily be in relation to a minority for someone to want to cover up or hide where they come from.
The pride one has in their nationality, race, or heritage, largely comes from outside factors. In my friend’s case, his Dad cut ties because of the social stigma, for me it was a family factor. However, in the end we can never really escape who we are and what our last name is… I guess being a woman I could change that…Just marry Irish. Ah Ha! The answer to all my problems.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Fighting the Heritage
We have been talking in class a lot recently about the significance race plays in society, but also on an individual level. One way to categorize race is by language. One language that we have identified as having a stigma is Spanish. It is seen as “non-white”, therefore making it different. Certain assumptions come from outsiders, along with speaking this language. Sometimes people of Spanish decent try to cut ties with their Spanish heritage in order to get away from these assumptions.
A very dear friend of mine is 50% Mexican (from his Dad) and 50% Puerto Rican (from his Mother). However, they only truly embrace their Puerto Rican side. For the longest time, I could not understand why. I found that it was because of the heavy influence from their father.
Their father did not have any pride in his heritage. When I asked him (the Dad) once on occasion about if he had ever been to
My friend has a very "American" name; however, his younger brother’s name is very clearly of Spanish decent. I found out that the Mother wanted to name my friend “Junior”, a typical name for the first born in a Spanish household. However, the Father put his foot down. “No way, was my boy being name something like that,” he said as he was recalling the story. (The Father lost the battle of naming his younger son.) He said that his Dad did give him such a blatantly Hispanic name.
I still did not quite understand why there was such a resistance to his heritage. I found that it all started with his childhood. He was the only Mexican in a predominantly black and Irish neighborhood on the south side of
I found out later, that it had been something his father had done as well. He wanted to make sure that he was not necessarily fighting the stigma, but taking himself out of it completely. He believed he was at some sort of disadvantage by playing up his Mexican side. So in order to oblige with rules and norms society had developed, he cut himself away from his heritage.
Rich means Longevity
The theory explained in the article "Life at the Top in America…" had never completely occurred to me before. Richer people of society, like Mr. Miele, are at a greater advantage in the world of medical attention, than those of Ewa Gora of lower class status. Although Miele and Gora both had the same medical problem, they received completely different treatment; which resulted in vastly different permanent health problems. Because Miele had several connections at better hospitals, he was given much better treatment, because it was available to him. Whereas Gora, after neglecting care because she was afraid of the costs, did not even have a choice in which hospital she wanted to go. Gora was sent to the
So let’s say Miele represents one part of society (rich) and Gora another (poor). One group of society was able to maximize the resources at hand better; therefore they were able given the advantage of better health. This sounds a lot like Marx’s conflict theory. Resources are made more available to those of the upper class. Similarly in the example of education, because wealthier families spend much more money on their children’s school preparation when compared with their poorer counterparts, children from lower income families whose knowledge and skills are far behind those of their classmates from wealthier families enter school at a disadvantage. The same can be said about medical attention. Because wealthier people are able to spend money on surgeries and medications, their conditions are better. Compared to poorer people who can’t take time off of work when they are injured or ill, so that only makes their medical condition worse, with faint hope of improvement. I think this is a sad aspect to the stratification of society. I think it’s different when speaking about how, “wealthy are at an advantage because they can afford to go to college”, versus “wealthy people are at an advantage because they can afford their heart medication.” This is something that I hope really changes. Because it’s true that everyone has the right to go further an education or get that great job, but at some point we have to look at the basics: everyone has the right to live a long and healthy life regardless of their social status.
So let’s say Miele represents one part of society (rich) and Gora another (poor). One group of society was able to maximize the resources at hand better; therefore they were able given the advantage of better health. This sounds a lot like Marx’s conflict theory. Resources are made more available to those of the upper class. Similarly in the example of education, because wealthier families spend much more money on their children’s school preparation when compared with their poorer counterparts, children from lower income families whose knowledge and skills are far behind those of their classmates from wealthier families enter school at a disadvantage. The same can be said about medical attention. Because wealthier people are able to spend money on surgeries and medications, their conditions are better. Compared to poorer people who can’t take time off of work when they are injured or ill, so that only makes their medical condition worse, with faint hope of improvement. I think this is a sad aspect to the stratification of society. I think it’s different when speaking about how, “wealthy are at an advantage because they can afford to go to college”, versus “wealthy people are at an advantage because they can afford their heart medication.” This is something that I hope really changes. Because it’s true that everyone has the right to go further an education or get that great job, but at some point we have to look at the basics: everyone has the right to live a long and healthy life regardless of their social status.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
America: Melting Pot or Not?
After the article 15 Years on the Bottom Rung about Mr. Peralta and Mr. Zannikos, I began to wonder about the diversity of this country and how it is accepted and/or how it is not. America is viewed as a melting pot. "America has traditionally been referred to as a "melting pot," welcoming people from many different countries, races, and religions, all hoping to find freedom, new opportunities, and a better way of life." – Joyce Millet
The key difference I see from Millet’s quote is the word welcoming. America may welcome other types of life, but do we ever really accept them? Not really. How many times have you heard someone (in America) get frustrated talking to someone who doesn’t speak English, and finally they cry out “This is AMERICA! Learn the language! We speak English!!!” This is a true testimony for how Americans really feel about the melting pot theory. We are not accepting of other’s cultures, including language. And wouldn’t a melting pot mean that we accept the traditions or cultures of others?
Also, Americans try to force traditions or ways upon immigrants or minorities, just as the example above shows. In that same sense, Americans commonly do not have much tolerance for other culture’s traditions. In my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, there is a large Mexican population. On Cinco de Mayo, there are a lot of celebrations: block parties (or fiestas, if you will), Mexicans driving around with the Mexican flag on their car honking and yelling. The non-Hispanic people of Elgin do not try and embrace Mexican culture. This is not to say that they have to embrace, but they should at least tolerate it, but they don’t. People are usually very annoyed and I have heard comments made frequently regarding their celebratory actions. “Better stay at home today [Cinco de Mayo], Mexicans are running around like buffoons,” is how an elderly neighbor once described this day to me. Not so tolerant or accepting.
And by the same token, do immigrants living here ever feel the need to divulge into American culture. In 15 Years on the Bottom Rung, Mr. Peralta attempts to learn English (being a Spanish-speaking native), but then stops because it is too difficult. It is not completely imperative that he learns English, because he lives in a Spanish neighborhood and his jobs don’t require him to speak English. So in some sense, there are just separate sections of culture and nothing really ever has to mesh together. If people don’t have to learn English or more importantly, accept the American culture, how can we say we are a melting pot?
It if far more common nowadays to claim that America is a “Salad Bowl” or a “Mosaic”. The Immigrant populations of America are not “melting” with society, they merely exist. Wikipedia says a melting pot “is an analogy for the way in which heterogeneous societies become more homogeneous…” Clearly by the way American society is as separated as it is, America is not a melting pot. We are a society that consists of many different other societies- like a puzzle, salad, or mosaic, but not a melting pot. Maybe this will change in my lifetime, but for now I can’t help but wonder: how can America be a melting pot if none of the ingredients ever melt together to become one cohesive entity?
The key difference I see from Millet’s quote is the word welcoming. America may welcome other types of life, but do we ever really accept them? Not really. How many times have you heard someone (in America) get frustrated talking to someone who doesn’t speak English, and finally they cry out “This is AMERICA! Learn the language! We speak English!!!” This is a true testimony for how Americans really feel about the melting pot theory. We are not accepting of other’s cultures, including language. And wouldn’t a melting pot mean that we accept the traditions or cultures of others?
Also, Americans try to force traditions or ways upon immigrants or minorities, just as the example above shows. In that same sense, Americans commonly do not have much tolerance for other culture’s traditions. In my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, there is a large Mexican population. On Cinco de Mayo, there are a lot of celebrations: block parties (or fiestas, if you will), Mexicans driving around with the Mexican flag on their car honking and yelling. The non-Hispanic people of Elgin do not try and embrace Mexican culture. This is not to say that they have to embrace, but they should at least tolerate it, but they don’t. People are usually very annoyed and I have heard comments made frequently regarding their celebratory actions. “Better stay at home today [Cinco de Mayo], Mexicans are running around like buffoons,” is how an elderly neighbor once described this day to me. Not so tolerant or accepting.
And by the same token, do immigrants living here ever feel the need to divulge into American culture. In 15 Years on the Bottom Rung, Mr. Peralta attempts to learn English (being a Spanish-speaking native), but then stops because it is too difficult. It is not completely imperative that he learns English, because he lives in a Spanish neighborhood and his jobs don’t require him to speak English. So in some sense, there are just separate sections of culture and nothing really ever has to mesh together. If people don’t have to learn English or more importantly, accept the American culture, how can we say we are a melting pot?
It if far more common nowadays to claim that America is a “Salad Bowl” or a “Mosaic”. The Immigrant populations of America are not “melting” with society, they merely exist. Wikipedia says a melting pot “is an analogy for the way in which heterogeneous societies become more homogeneous…” Clearly by the way American society is as separated as it is, America is not a melting pot. We are a society that consists of many different other societies- like a puzzle, salad, or mosaic, but not a melting pot. Maybe this will change in my lifetime, but for now I can’t help but wonder: how can America be a melting pot if none of the ingredients ever melt together to become one cohesive entity?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)