Yoshino starts his essay by informing the reader of the idea he’s about to introduce; covering. He begins stating “Everyone covers. To cover is to tone down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream.” (Yoshino 539.) He uses a personal definition to define this word, one that he created himself for the sake of the argument. This method could have been problematic, but instead he keeps his definition non-emotional and precise yet incredibly inclusive. Assimilation is introduced through the line “I recognize the value of assimilation, which is often necessary to fluid social interaction, to peaceful coexistence, and even to the dialogue through which difference is valued.” (Yoshino 540.) Rather than defining it, Yoshino shares with the reader his view of assimilation. Instead of giving a definition he offers a new perspective, allowing the reader to see better from his point of view. The third word defined is Authenticity. Authenticity is introduced by Yoshino as “our common human wish to express ourselves without being impeded by unreasoning demands for conformity.” (Yoshino 540.) In the next sentence, he expresses how rather than using tones of “legal impersonality” and “political terms” he decided to write in a more intimate voice, so that he would maintain his own authenticity as a gay man and an Asian-American. Thus he personally reflects the own meanings that he presents in these writings. It’s important to hold onto yourself, and Yoshino does a great job with this. These definitions are to the point, deliberately worded, and quite easily understandable.
10/24/2018 Don’t Let My Classmate’s Deaths Be in Vain
Question: Is this piece of writing part of a conversation? Does it encourage conversation?
In this article that my group read, we hear the story of a freshman who survived a school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Christine Yared calls for more gun control, sparking a discussion from where the parkland students stand. This article is a part of a conversation, it’s an attempt to become a spark in it. Christine experienced first hand what gun violence can do to people, even in a place where she felt safe. A place where her family felt safe, and now there is something new for all to worry about. This article is a very important part of the gun violence conversation because it is actively calling for people to start discussing the ideas that are brought up and the points that Yared raises.
October 10, A response to The Primacy of Practice: Local Agreements
In most cultures people diverse people are able to exist in harmony because of shared values. Appiah presents a new angle to look at these values, his belief is that values are a matter of perspective. A good example of this could be a comparison between Christian values and Buddhist values. Buddhists believe in “Samma Vayama,” which translates to right effort. According to the Vipassana Fellowship, The Samma Vayama exists “to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states; to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;” The christian faith also believes in finding personal well being through service. Today the faith has eight fundamental social values, one of them being service. Service is defined by the Evangelical Alliance as “meaning is found in service rather than self-centeredness.” Although both faiths believe in similar concepts they have different reasonings that bring them there, because values are defined by perspectives rather than definitions.
Appiah discusses the American governmental system, specifically the first amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Americans are able to agree that protecting religion is a positive decision, but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. These questions could be extreme, like what to do if an established religion starts taking violent actions, or would it be okay to create areas where religious institutions couldn’t be built.
Sources Used
https://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp5.php
http://www.ethos.org.au/site/Ethos/filesystem/documents/In-depth/Politics/Eight-Core-Christian-Values-Brian-Edgar.pdf
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
For October 8, The Art of Social change
When a group of people is committed by their culture to do something harmful to their own people, change is very difficult. In the article “She Ran From the Cut” By Jina Moore Nice Leng’ete’s story is told. She is a woman from a tribe in Kenya that helped combat Female Genital Mutilation. In the article “The Art of Social Change” by Kwame Anthony Appiah a similar story is told, but the focus is on Chinese Foot-binding in the late nineteenth century. Both of these events are similar in the way that they are continued because of tradition, cause great suffering to the women who receive either, and it’s men who primarily kept both alive. With both stories, a woman born into either of these societies could have been forced to mutilate their body. This mutilation was done because it was tradition, and a person who was non-compliant would be ostracized by their community and not be able to marry.
In both cases, pain creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. In both cases extreme agony was avoidable, as there was no base for either besides in the cultural sense. Conversation is needed for a change. In the case of Nice Leng’ete, Kenyan methods for “the cut” involved dancing and singing, it was a beatiful ceremony for women coming of age, except that one aspect kept it from being that. Nice Leng’ete decided that it was time for a change, so she started a conversation in the most classical sense. She made people realize that change was accessible and possible, just by using her voice and learning new methods to replace the old ones.
A response to “My Intractable, Gun-Loving, Anti-Government, Right-Wing Cousin (Who I Like a Lot)” by Ron Currie Jr.
In this article Ron Currie Jr. explores his relationship with a cousin that has a very different worldview from his own. His cousin Ben is a far right leaning individual that some would possibly label as an extremist, while Ron is a liberal that lives in Portland, a city he describes as “a town so liberal they charge a fee on plastic shopping bags.” Ron and Ben both grew up together in Central Maine, where they both shared hobbies that others would consider a bit geeky, but then a divide came in their life. Ron became a journalist while Ben joined the military. They set out on completely different paths from this point and developed ideas completely separate from one another. In the end they are able to get along and likely learn a lot from one another, but there is a problem.
Ron brings up a problem that has become all too prevalent in our current day and age, and that’s bad communication. Ron brings up that he and Ben could have “courteous conversations about our disagreements, something we’re routinely told is impossible these days.” The last part of that statement makes me uncertain about how much I can agree with Ron’s opinions in the rest of the article. Throughout the article he’s a bit biased, leaning towards a fear of leaving his comfort zone while having no qualms about stating his opinions towards those he feels are lesser than him. The people Ron feels are lesser than him are typical gun owning, right wing, Americans. Otherwise known as people just like the rest of us.
I do partially agree with Ron’s idea that we have forgotten how to get along, but Ron is kind of a problem in all of this. While Ben sticks up for his beliefs Ron seems to have an innate conviction that his ideas are superior to those that are held by those opposite him. Ron and a lot of the public has forgotten that in the end, we are all people. In our own lives, our beliefs tend to be backed by the things that are important to us in our own lives and other strong opinions we hold. These notions are formed because we think they are good and correct. How hard is it to imagine that a person who appears to be a polar opposite of yourself went through a very similar process when creating their own opinions?
