No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service
For the past few months, I have been focusing on the events and the principles behind the founding of our nation. During these studies, I often wondered how some of the ideas we cling to became entrenched in our paradigms of perception. For instance, there are words that have become taboo because of the ways they have been used. They are so taboo, in fact, that it has become nearly impossible to use the words constructively, because using them either shuts off the mechanism in the brain that controls attention span, or their mentioning automatically invites a defensive posture. Two of the unwitting victims are the words "politics" and "discrimination." The demise of valid uses of these words is sadly apparent when we discuss the issue of "free trade" with China.
First, since negotiations with foreign governments can only justly and efficiently be done through representation of our own government, the issue inherently involves politics. There is no way of getting around it. Second, the decision is really whether or not to discriminate against the Chinese government fundamentally on the basis that we do not agree with their methods of controlling internal civil affairs. Are we right to presume we have the authority to judge the actions of a foreign government when our own government has, in fact, from time to time, been guilty of many of the same things we accuse the Chinese government of doing?
One might be inclined to profess that we have no authority to judge, lest we open up the possibility of allowing ourselves to be judged. However, if we are just and consistent, is that
Dickens 2
such a terrible proposition? While America is proud of its diversity, that diversity should not be used to steal our attention from the common, unifying principles, which sets America apart from the rest of the world. They are the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Without those principles, we have no claim to freedom, so I'm not certain why there is an effort to categorically reject them.
Retail establishments are apt to decide with whom they will do business based on criteria that is not necessarily relevant to a person's quality or depth of character. Patrons must be wearing certain articles of clothing, or they are not admitted. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Many of the more highly rated restaurants even require a coat and tie for their customers.
China's record of human rights violations is long and mind-boggling. Atrocities such as purging tens of millions of people during the Cultural Revolution, its infamous one-child-per-couple Population Policy, persistent oppression of Tibet and the bloody June 4 massacre at Tienanmen Square in 1989 have given the Chinese government a reputation of having little respect for human life. And yet, despite its tarnished record, China maintains its Most Favoured Nation trade status with the US and is one of Canada's top ten recipients of bilateral trade. As supposed supporters of human rights, Canadian and US governments have developed hypocritical attitudes toward China, compromising ethical values for material gain. Instead, North American nations should restrict aid and trade with China to programs that can be used to encourage social reforms.
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
We’ve all done it: walking down a hallway, judging someone or thinking someone is less than what we perceive ourselves to be based on the color of their skin or how they are dressed, or even their physical features. The author of The Language of Prejudice, Gordon Allport, shares how we live in a society where we are ridiculed for being less than a culture who labels themselves as dominant. This essay reveals the classifications made to the American morale. Allport analyzes in many ways how language can stimulate prejudice and the connection between language and prejudice.
...cording to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment,” New American Standard Bible, John 7:24. If we are not judging someone righteously, then we should not be judging. To judge someone righteously simply means that we judge them against the word of God, not against our own opinions or feelings. If we do not Judge righteously, then judging is not justified.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon was quoted as stating that his visit to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “changed the world…to build a bridge across sixteen thousand miles and twenty-two years of hostilities.” By meeting with Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing, Nixon took groundbreaking first steps to opening relations and formally recognizing the People’s Republic of China. The history of the aforementioned hostilities between the United States and the PRC dates back to the Chinese Communist Party’s takeover of mainland China following its civil war in the post-World War II era. When the PRC was formally proclaimed in 1949 towards the close of the Chinese Civil War, the United States decided against recognizing its establishment and instead chose to back Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China. This decision was a product of its political environment, as President Harry Truman had just established the Truman Doctrine, which sought to check presumed Communist and Soviet aims to expand. In order to remain consistent and credible with its containment policy, a precedent was set and relations between the United States and the PRC remained closed. Tensions were only exacerbated during the Korean War in the 1950’s as the PRC intervened on behalf of the North Koreans and during the War in Vietnam in the 1970’s in their support of the North Vietnamese. Thus it is understandable that to the public eye, Nixon’s meeting with Mao Zedong in 1972 seemed to come out of the blue and was difficult to interpret given the context of Sino-US relations in the two deca...
Free speech. Affirmative action. Political correctness. These three things all have at least one key thing common and that one thing can be summed up as this: To you, the reader; to me, the writer; and to anyone and everyone you talk to about those three things, they will have a different meaning with a different story with a different reason for them being defined that way. The discussion cannot end simply with our own stories, but begin with those stories and transcend into something new with being exposed to different ideas and viewpoints that may or may not match our own. D’souza, Taylor, Robbins and all other authors mentioned in this piece can help everyone to grow in their personal definitions of free speech, affirmative action and political correctness.
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
the ones to judge people even though we do it’s ultimately god’s word and his and his only decision to accept them into his gate of heaven.
As a whole, racism is largely focused on individual people and very specific acts of oppression against very specific groups of people. But how do you define race? Omi and Winant (1994) argue that race and racism definitions as a whole are limited because they “neglect the institutional and ideological nature of race in America” (p. 10). Race relations are so ingrained in American culture that a 'true' definition of race has never been properly established. The narrow focus on individuals fails to note the impact racism has on society as a whole, especially in politics (Omi and Winant, p. 15). The authors also quote Glazer and Moynihan (1963) stating that ethnic groups are not solely bound by skin color or even by place of origin, but more commonly by “ties of interest” (Omi and Winant p. 18). By defining race and ethnicity by biological means, the fact that these ethnic and racia...
Society shapes racial inequality in the modern United States and Wayne Brekhus (2015) looks at how social marking is an element of culture in American society. When discussing race, people tend to talk about discrimination against marginalized communities (i.e. non-whites, females, homosexuals, etc.). They actively look at the marked category--those marginalized communities-- and the unmarked goes ignored. Berkhus believes that there are two possible reasons why these unmarked categories are avoided. Either the issue is psychological where individuals “deliberate[ly] disciplin[e] the mind to ignore the irrelevant” or it is sociological and is caused by the “deeply ingrained unconscious pattern of cultural or subcultural selective attention
A lot of restaurants allow waiters to wear regular blue jeans and the restaurant's tee shirt to work. This might not seem like a big deal, but when one gets out of class an...
...able they really are with overtly racist stereotypes; and even with all the “human right”’ movements that spring about there is still the need for long-lasting solution against combating prejudices. By displaying stereotypes jokingly, especially ones that pertained for the Asian population, Yang proves not only do people hold prejudice against other groups with his examples of Asian stereotypes, but that stereotypes are still prevalent in today’s society.
Racist and racism are provocative words in American society. To some, they become curse words. They are descriptive words of reality that cannot be denied. Some people believe that race is the primary determinant of human abilities and capacities and behave as if racial differences produce inherent superiorities. People of color are often injured by these judgements and actions whether they are directly or indirectly racist. Just as individuals can act in racist ways, so can institutions. Institutions can be overtly or inherently racist. Institutions can also injure people. The outcome is nonetheless racist, if not intentional (Randall).
The American principle of democracy promotion and human rights protection minimized the Sino- American relations after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989, the US Presidents-George Bush and Bill Clinton- playing a key role in determining the further American foreign policy towards China. In order to have a better understanding about the conflict of Tiananmen and its influence on further American relations with the People’s Republic of China, this paper gives a short background of the bilateral relations until 1990. Historically, the United States and China did not have good relations due to the political regime of China. In addition, China was not developed economically to have trade or any kind of relations with the US. According to some historical data, the first China-US negotiations at the ambassadorial level started on August 1, 1955.
Interests: China’s leaders desire to improve their nation’s economy while preserving political stability. They want to censor political discussions to prevent “westernization” of China,