Does America Embrace Diversity?

Flip through the pages of the New Trier year book and it seems obvious that we celebrate diversity at our school. Indo Pak, Filipino Club, and Chinese culture club are just a few of the ethnic organizations we take so much pride in sponsoring. And throughout (most of) America's history, people across the world have idolized our country as a place that welcomes all and opens up all kinds of doors that can only lead to a prosperous and happy future. But rather than instantly living the "American Dream," jumping into mainstream America, the vast majority of immigrants would move to slums to live with others of the same nationality, hence creating China towns, German towns, etc., throughout the country. But if America, and even New Trier, truly embrace diversity, why do foreigners seem to feel they must always stick with their own people? Obviously there were significant barriers, especially language, that immigrants faced and continue to face upon arrival at the U.S., which make instantly joining mainstream America virtually impossible. However, that does not explain why those who have grown up in America and speak English as a first language continue to associate themselves with others of their background. In the movie Mean Girls, as Lindsay Lohan's friend explains their school's cliques, she points out the cool Asians, Asian nerds, and cool black kids, to name a few. It seems that while we celebrate the idea of having a diverse population, it is instinctive that as individuals, we tend to stick with people of similar backgrounds; thus, having a segregated society is inevitable.


I found an article that discusses some of the psychology of this pattern. The author writes "On the one hand it is a frequent observation that individuals find it difficult to identify with a massive and monolithic society or state; individual identities are frequently hyphenated. The social fragmentations which serve as objects of identification can be based upon regional, ethnic, linguistic, racial, class, sex or age cleavages. Whatever their basis, and whatever their manifestation, it is not possible to deny the pervasive existence of these divisions. Pan-cultural universals such as this may best be interpreted as being rooted in some general human psychological need and the one postulated here is the need for some relatively small and stable reference and identity group."


We cannot help but want to stick to a smaller clique, one where we have much in common with others and can easily relate to them. Being with people who are similar to ourselves helps strengthen our own sense of identity because we get a better understanding of who we are through interacting with those who we believe are similar to ourselves. Our population as a whole may be diverse, but our cliques most often are not. It is in our nature to stick with our own kind, and so rather than always pushing foreigners to assimilate, we ought to accept our cultural differences and try to let immigrants live their own version of the American Dream, whatever that may be. The best, most realistic way to embrace diversity is to accept and embrace differences among ourselves. One question we have considered during this unit is whether or not we embrace diversity in America, and I think that while we cannot expect everyone of every race to live in one happy integrated society, we should embrace diversity by allowing American citizens, regardless of their background, to embrace their ethnicity, to allow their ethnicity to remain an important part of their identity, rather than pushing them to assimilate and ignore their background to better fit in with white mainstream America. So while embracing diversity does not mean we must fully integrate ourselves with those of differing backgrounds, it can mean that we continue to appreciate cultures that immigrants bring to America, and that we put less emphasis on pushing them to assimilate.

The Nuclear Dominoes

After discussing the Domino Theory, the U.S. policy of the 50's that promoted the belief that if one country came under the influence of communism, its neighboring countries would soon follow, it seems to me that today, we are living amidst a real domino effect when it comes to nations possessing nuclear arms. North Korea and Iran are both (likely) struggling to build nuclear programs against the will of the United States and the international community, and why? One of the most likely reasons is that they feel threatened as more and more nations develop nuclear weapons, these smaller nations understandably feel vulnerable without this incredible source of protection. So as more countries begin to arm themselves with nukes, even more countries will feel a desperate need to also develop this defense mechanism, hence creating a new sort of nuclear arms domino effect. So while Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad may be two insane leaders who should never be in possession of such destructive weapons, can we really blame them for wanting to be, when the rest of the world works to arm themselves?

I found an article discussing this topic, and it states that "CIA Director George J. Tenet warned yesterday that the 'desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge' among small countries, confronting the world with a new nuclear arms race that threatens to dismantle more than three decades of nonproliferation efforts. 'The 'domino theory' of the 21st century may well be nuclear,' Tenet said...'We have entered a new world of proliferation.'" Soon enough, many more countries could be in possession of nukes. With Iran and North Korea covertly constructing nuclear programs, we seem to be witnessing a secret nuclear arms race, and their acquisitions of nuclear weapons will only exacerbate the consequences of the nuclear domino effect. How do put a stop to these falling dominoes? The most obvious solution would be that no one have nukes. And while this is highly unrealistic, I think that before the United States try to get Iran, North Korea, and whoever else is trying to develop nuclear weapons, to terminate their programs, we should consider disassembling our own nuclear arsenal. If no one had them, no one would have justification for building them. Even if we claim to use them for the sole purpose of protecting our own citizens, before we even built this brutal weaponry, we should have further questioned the destructive power of nukes, their mass murder of people who, while they may be living in our enemy's territory, have no intention of harming our own people. One of the main questions we considered when studying war was when is killing civilians justified? And it seems that by simply possessing nuclear weapons, because they inevitably cause mass civilian casualties, countries make the statement that there are and will be times when killing thousands of innocent people is necessary. A human being is a human being, whether they be American, Vietnamese, Japanese, Russian, whatever, and before we construct a weapon that can kill hundreds of thousands, we must ask ourselves if owning, let alone dropping such a bomb, is ever really justified.

Bragging about civilian deaths?

One of the questions we have discussed in class regarding war is when we're at war, are we fighting the civilians as well as the enemy's army? And is the murdering of civilians ever justified? And most Americans would agree that the civilians should very rarely be targets of our attacks.
Iraqis and Americans alike were appalled to hear of the atrocities committed by ex-soldier Steven Green, who is now one of six men on trial for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and the murder of her family, including her mother, father, and 6-year-old sister. According to the article I found detailing the crime, Green and five other soldiers drank whisky, played cards and plotted the attack, and Green was reportedly proud of his actions afterwards, celebrating at a barbeque and saying "that was awesome" and "I did that. I killed them."
Obviously this crime shows that these men had incredibly low morale, and these men deserve to be punished for this brutal crime. But while the line between civilians such as this family that was murdered and our real enemies may seem very obvious to us, after spending time at war, the line became blurred for Green. According to Patrick Bouldin, a public defender, Green had sought help dealing with grief and stress after the deaths of close colleagues, and refers to Green's mental state before the crime as "a perfect storm of insanity." Bouldin claims Green was unsure whether Iraqis encountered were friend or foe, because "They couldn't tell the village people and the farmers from the insurgents and the terrorists." While it is hard for me to believe that Green mistook this family for terrorists, though it is hard to say because of his mental instability, this reminded me of Born On the Fourth of July, where Ron Kovic and his platoon accidentally murder villagers; women and children in a hut in which the soldiers believed hid the enemy. While Ron's was unintentional, both events convey the way civilians bare the brute of warfare when it's in their home country.
Events such as these make us consider the consequences of war. Civilians often are the ones suffering consequences of our soldiers' mistakes, and even if we take all measures necessary to prevent innocent civilians from losing their lives, accidents happen, and there is simply no way to guarantee that only our enemies are killed. Thus when we go to war, we are essentially saying that killing innocent people is a risk we are willing to take. They will always suffer the consequences of the violence we bring by participating in a war. Not to say we should always use nonviolent means to accomplish our goals, but we should be hesitant to go to war because not only will we lose some of our own men, but will unavoidably cause harm to innocents in the opposing country.
Green's actions were cruel and inhumane, to say the least. And while it is hard for me to put myself in his place, the crime is somewhat more comprehensible when considering how his best friends were killed by Iraqis; so, Green and some of his fellow soldiers, drunk and stressed and confused, went out and got them back. This gut-wrenching event shows us just how cruel war can be, how insane it can make soldiers, and how it causes horrific things to happen to innocent people. Tragedies like this are never justified, but because they inevitably come with war, can we ever say a war is one hundred percent justifiable? Is the loss of innocent lives ever justifiable?

United States' World Image Today

As we discuss America's image throughout WWI and WWII, how our nation was viewed as a mediator, a hero, and even an ever-expanding, greedy empire, I began thinking about the United States' image in the world today. And, the first thing that came to mind was the Guantanamo Bay controversy. Many believe that while America may be a world superpower, we do not have the right to torture potentially innocent people of other countries in order to gain information they might not even have. Not only does torture taint the legitimacy of our legal system, but taints our world image. We like to think of ourselves as the heroic nation that comes to the rescue of groups being unjustly persecuted, we like to see the U.S. as the superhero of the world, saving innocent peoples from violence. But when we are the ones torturing innocent people and using illegitimate evidence gained via inhumane treatment in court, we destroy our world image and make ourselves look like the bad guys.
And even though President Obama has closed the Guantanamo Bay Prison, the image of the United States as a bullying nation remains prevalent. The situation is only worsened by the fact that images of the prison were made public; the world can see what United States military personnel were doing to gain information from suspected terrorists, which created much outrage. Not only were Americans embarrassed, but terrorist organizations very likely gained support from furious men seeking revenge on the American people. And while we may have gained some valuable information through these interrogation tactics, it seems that to many Americans, including President Obama, the negative impacts of this prison outweighed the benefits.
As we have seen throughout the U.S.'s war history, deciding to go to war always makes a statement about what we really stand for. America's war involvement has most often been caused by a sense of obligation to protect the weak and to do what is necessary to make amends between the parties in conflict. And as citizens of such a powerful nation, many feel obliged to maintain this reputation. But when we see pictures of Americans in Cuba torturing prisoners, we know our image is changing. We are becoming what we have long tried to avoid; a bully of a nation whose policies seem to say that we can do whatever we like because we're America and you can't do anything about it. And no matter how we try to excuse our actions, we are beginning to abuse our power, which can only result in downfall.
Millions have been and are being killed in the Darfur genocide, yet our nation, the savior, has failed to put a stop to the murder. If we were the nation we like to think we are, we would stop making decisions so selfishly and arrogantly and start actually helping those in need.

Fortunately, Barack Obama has begun working to repair the U.S.'s world image. At the end of his European tour, he stopped at Istanbul, Turkey, a primarily Muslim state, and spoke of how the U.S. was "ready to re-engage with the world, including Muslims." This as well as the closing of Guantanamo Prison have helped our country appear more cooperative, less arrogant, and more likeable overall! While America may have gained a bad rep from Bush's eight years in office, it seems we can expect that Obama's administration will improve the way we are viewed by the nations and the people of the world.

Shoot for the Clouds: Paying for College

When we first discussed the implications of poverty, we talked about how people with less money have fewer choices. And as juniors in high school, a large financial decision looms near; which college to go to. When we were younger, our parents always told us we could go anywhere we wanted, Harvard, Yale, wherever, as long as we worked hard enough. But in 11th and 12th grade, reality sets in. Not only is it nearly impossible to be admitted into these top schools, but paying for them is a huge financial burden! And the economic recession has only made paying for schools even more difficult. According to an article I found about the struggles people face when paying for college, "the average graduate owes average graduate owes $21,000, a number experts expect to rise sharply in the next few years. The typical undergrad also carries $2,200 in credit card debt, according to the nation's largest student lender." For years, students have been in enormous debt when they graduate from college, but this situation will, unquestionably, deteriorate on behalf of the current state of the economy. With recourses scarce, families have been forced to cut into college savings and spend them now, whether it be to pay the rent, the mortgage, or for groceries. And furthermore, many families never even had a decent savings account; 65 percent of parents put away less than 5,000 dollars in college savings, and 43 percent of these people had never even started saving for their child's college education. With colleges more reluctant to hand out student loans, banks more hesitant to lend struggling families large sums of money, hard working high school students are being forced to turn down their top college choices, the ones they have worked so hard to be admitted into, and turning to the cheaper, less selective schools.
It seems to me that the economic recession is altering the American Dream. We are now deemed unrealistic when we think that we can go anywhere, do anything, as long as we work hard enough, because there are so many financial obstacles that were either not there before, or that we are simply more wary of. Because our country has suffered tremendously from people getting into too much debt, we must stop thinking so idealistically, believing one day, we will get a job with a better salary that allows us to pay off our debts, and be a little more realistic; we must make the best decisions for the time being, rather than expecting things to always be better in the future. The "American" perspective has always been optimistic, but maybe this optimism has gotten us into trouble, into such debt. Students and their families are being forced to think realistically about their financial future, and are choosing the cheaper college, even if this cheaper school was not that "good school" they had always dreamed of going to. The American Dream for America's students has changed; it is no longer simply a question of how hard did you work? What grades did you get? Now, we must also consider where our parents can afford to send us, rather than deciding to worry about that after we graduate and owe thousands of dollars in student loans. The financial struggles our country is facing have put many American teens and their families in a more down to earth and practical mindset, even if this means, as Kathy Frenzel, a mother preparing to pay for her child's college education, says, telling your kids not to shoot for the moon, but to shoot for the clouds instead.

Immigrants and Job Losses- Are they to blame?

It seems that in the midst of this economic crisis, many other large issues, such as immigration, are being overlooked, when these issues are, in fact, all very connected. As we studied in class, during times of economic downturn, people tend to point at a scapegoat as the cause of job losses. It seems to me that today's main scapegoats are those who handed out and received the AIG bonuses, as they seem to embody the irresponsibility that has plagued our nation's economy. However, I was curious to see what Americans' attitudes are towards immigration, because immigrants have always been an identifiable, vulnerable scapegoat.
When the issue of Mexican immigration arises, many Americans like to point out that these people simply cross the border and take jobs from hardworking and deserving Americans. This is a much debated point; however, I found an article that proves that immigrants coming to the U.S. to work temporarily really are not having a large impact on our economy and causing job losses. According to a report by an American public policy organization, H-1B visa-holders, the temporary work visa, represent a mere seven in 10,000 civilian workers in the U.S. Nonetheless, United States lawmakers are continuing to find ways to put restrictions on the visa, and the Senate "recently cleared a bill that restricts hiring of H1-B visa holders by financial services firm receiving government bailout funds." The report from the NAFP (National Foundation for American Policy) proves that the U.S. "backlash against H-1B visa usage" is unnecessary, and according to an executive at a large Indian IT firm that figured among the top 10 H1B users, "There are over 5 million unemployed people in the US. How can 65,000 H-1B visa holders be held responsible for job losses?"
While these are tough times, and we all want to see hardworking Americans get back on their feet, it's time we stopped pointing fingers. These immigrants, especially the ones with a visa, have done nothing wrong. Like the classic "American Dream," they have come to our country looking to improve their lives, go from rags to riches, or if not riches, at least a decent life for themselves and their families. We live in a culture where it is almost instinctive to want to climb from poverty to privilege, and when we see others, such as immigrants, making their trek more successfully than us, we tend to blame them for our own problems. Americans need to wake up and see that these immigrants are not causing job losses, and, as Duke University professor and Harvard researcher Vivek Wadwa says, "While the xenophobes go on their witch-hunt and blame immigrants for the loss of jobs, the best and the brightest are leaving the US and taking the economic recovery with them." Adopting protectionist policies would deter many foreigners with great potential to help aid this country, and according to the article, Chinese and Indian professors are turning back to their home countries and finding greater opportunities now than ever before. Our economy is a competitive one, especially today. However, as we should have learn from past experiences, scapegoating is rarely the solution to a problem, and by significantly reducing the number of visas our government will grant, which would neither provide significantly more Americans with jobs (because as we saw, the numbers were too low for it to have an impact), and would push away some valuable, even ingenious foreigners, which would be detrimental to our country in the long run.

Reccession Leads to Moderation?

I was listening to the radio the other morning, and the talk show hosts were discussing how the extremely wealthy Americans are trying to be discrete about their wealth these days. When they shop at stores like Chanel, they ask for garbage bags to carry their purchases in so that people don't see that they just spent thousands on, say, designer shoes. Today, being thrifty is in, and spending excessive amounts on designer clothes is seen as greedy and even wasteful. This discussion made me wonder how our economy today has affected our consumer culture. How has this economic downturn affected Americans' attitudes as consumers?
An article in Time Magazine titled "How Consumers Shop Differently Today" details how Americans are shopping more wisely these days, preparing for themselves for the worst case scenario in order to ensure financial security in the future. As writer Sean Gregory explains in the article, "Sure, I can afford the plasma television now, but should I save that $2,000, in case I get laid off tomorrow?" Turbulent financial times inevitably make people more careful with their money. We can only hope that this recession will make people more cautious about spending, but could this caution, this increased reluctance to spend $2,000, make our nation as a whole less greedy? By design, consumer culture trains people to take as much as they can for as little as possible, causing many Americans to have a sort of "Buy, buy, buy" and "Give me more" mentality. However, the acute awareness many are gaining of the importance of saving has taught many to resist those material temptations. As Gregory explains, "There's the fundamental realization that Americans have woken up. Their bellies are too big, their cars are too big, their homes are too big, their debts are too big, and they have to go on some kind of a diet." Essentially, Americans just might be realizing that they do not have to take everything that they can get. Greed is what fundamentally drives consumer culture. Americans have always tried to get the most bang for their buck. That's why Supersizing a meal at McDonalds is so appealing. More food for only a few cents more, why not? Forget about your waistline, a deal's a deal, right? Well, hopefully this recession will make Americans rethink some of their choices and use more caution, whether they're watching their wallets or their weight. Overindulgence has always been acceptable, even encouraged, in this country, until now. We have always tried to buy as much as we possibly can, because in a consumer culture, material goods represent wealth, success, even happiness. But when there is less money around for spending, we are forced to consume in moderation. And the longer America spends in a period of moderation, the spend, spend, spend idea of American culture will decline and become unacceptable, and fewer Americans will live outside their means, and maybe, our society will be less materialistic and greedy.