Summary and Response to “Fear Not Globalization” by Joseph S. Nye Jr.:
“Fear Not Globalization” is an essay by Joseph S. Nye Jr. that discusses the issue of Globalization. Nye discourages the notion that globalization will destroy countries self cultures and become Americanize. He also points out that when other countries develop into global powers, we should not see that there cultures have become identical to those that have already developed. The next fact is that when people look back to the past, he asks them to name a culture that hasn’t changed? These examples help prove that the act of Globalization helps countries and does not destroy their cultures and replace them with American culture.
Response:
I agree with Nye Jr. that globalization does not totally destroy cultures and Americanize the world. It might affect cultures, but throughout history, cultures have been affected by other cultures and other influences. Just look at the time period of Alexander the Great, as he conquered people, Greek culture was spread across Asia where it was assimilated into the cultures of the area. The period of the Roman Empire is another example. Although it combined people from all over Europe assimilated them into the Roman Culture, the Empire fell and from the different groups of people, today’s modern cultures developed. It just proves that Culture well always be changing.
For those who think that Globalization means being Americanize, Nye points out that it that the globalization of other countries also causes change in America’s Culture. I agree with this because looking at the examples that Nye gave us, such as Pokemon and Sony. Both of these products have affected the younger generations. They grow with these things as part of their culture, when in the beginning they were influence by the Japanese. It’s just proof that America is not the only influence in the process of Globalization.
Towards the end of the essay, Nye talks about what might happen in the future because of the process of globalization. In the future the U.S.’s power and influence actually might diminish because of globalization. The negative views might go away. This is very possible. Right now the U.S. is a powerful and influential force but as time goes on, another country might rise beyond us and then we won’t be viewed as a threatening force.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Journal Entry 4
Summery and Response to “Besieged by “friends”” by Heather Havrilesky:
In Heather Havrilesky’s essay “Besieged by “friends””, she brings up the issue of how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood and how Arabs respond to it. In her writing, she talks about a documentary by Charles C. Stuart. He went around to various countries in the Middle East, asking people what they thought about American Movies and television. Most of his responses from these people are negative because they are angry at the way they are portrayed in movies. Havrilesky brings up also brings up the idea that the stereotypes of people in movies portray the U.S. foreign policy at any given time, such as during WW II with the Japanese and Arabs after Sept. 11. She then ends that we would be angry if it was us being portrayed as stereotypes.
Response:
Heather Havrilesky provides an example of people who have become angry at how they are portrayed as stereotypes in the media. Right now it is Arabs who have this problem, in the past and still today, it was Japanese, Chinese, African American, etc. who were portrayed in the media as stereotypes. These people believe that these stereotypes hurt their cultures and how others view them.
It is reasonable that these people are angry with Hollywood and the media. Who wants their culture to be represented by a stereotype that doesn’t define them, makes them look terrible, or mocks them? The image of the Middle East being filled with terrorist has become blown out of proportion by the media after 9/11. Havrilesky points this out in her essay’s introduction, mocking the image that Hollywood has created of the Middle East. She says that it must be dusty, camels running around everywhere, and terrorist everywhere. The way she words it, you can tell that she’s over exaggerating to make the point that Hollywood shows the Middle East as a Stereotype. I would have to agree with her, in most movies that take place in the Middle East, its dusty, camels are everywhere, and there is always a terrorist around. It is the most common image that people think of. The fact though is that it isn’t true.
The same thing can be seen in moves of the past. Native Americans can always be seen as savages or drunks in old westerns. African Americans in older movies were servants, ignorant people, or criminals. There are a number of stereotypes that I could name off. Even at farmers of the mid west are stereotyped by people on the coast. One of my friends met someone at their school from the East coast. They asked my friend if we drive tractors to school.
I agree with Havrilesky, that Hollywood is hurting others cultures. Today we see only the radical parts of culture in the Middle East. This is only a small part of it. It is also seems true that the Hollywood images of people only occur when it mirrors the U.S.’s foreign policy like Havrilesky points out in her essay. I think that this hurts the American people because it cause them to believe in lies about other cultures, which can hurt relations with these cultures.
In Heather Havrilesky’s essay “Besieged by “friends””, she brings up the issue of how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood and how Arabs respond to it. In her writing, she talks about a documentary by Charles C. Stuart. He went around to various countries in the Middle East, asking people what they thought about American Movies and television. Most of his responses from these people are negative because they are angry at the way they are portrayed in movies. Havrilesky brings up also brings up the idea that the stereotypes of people in movies portray the U.S. foreign policy at any given time, such as during WW II with the Japanese and Arabs after Sept. 11. She then ends that we would be angry if it was us being portrayed as stereotypes.
Response:
Heather Havrilesky provides an example of people who have become angry at how they are portrayed as stereotypes in the media. Right now it is Arabs who have this problem, in the past and still today, it was Japanese, Chinese, African American, etc. who were portrayed in the media as stereotypes. These people believe that these stereotypes hurt their cultures and how others view them.
It is reasonable that these people are angry with Hollywood and the media. Who wants their culture to be represented by a stereotype that doesn’t define them, makes them look terrible, or mocks them? The image of the Middle East being filled with terrorist has become blown out of proportion by the media after 9/11. Havrilesky points this out in her essay’s introduction, mocking the image that Hollywood has created of the Middle East. She says that it must be dusty, camels running around everywhere, and terrorist everywhere. The way she words it, you can tell that she’s over exaggerating to make the point that Hollywood shows the Middle East as a Stereotype. I would have to agree with her, in most movies that take place in the Middle East, its dusty, camels are everywhere, and there is always a terrorist around. It is the most common image that people think of. The fact though is that it isn’t true.
The same thing can be seen in moves of the past. Native Americans can always be seen as savages or drunks in old westerns. African Americans in older movies were servants, ignorant people, or criminals. There are a number of stereotypes that I could name off. Even at farmers of the mid west are stereotyped by people on the coast. One of my friends met someone at their school from the East coast. They asked my friend if we drive tractors to school.
I agree with Havrilesky, that Hollywood is hurting others cultures. Today we see only the radical parts of culture in the Middle East. This is only a small part of it. It is also seems true that the Hollywood images of people only occur when it mirrors the U.S.’s foreign policy like Havrilesky points out in her essay. I think that this hurts the American people because it cause them to believe in lies about other cultures, which can hurt relations with these cultures.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Journal entry 3
Summary and Response to “Talking Trash” by Andy Rooney:
In Andy Rooney’s essay “Talking Trash”, he brings up the issue of Americans being wasteful. He does this by writing about his trip to the dump and grocery store and commenting on things he notices and pointing out facts of how we as Americans and even himself are wasteful. He points out how much garbage New York City makes and where most of it comes from is packaging. He then ask what will happen if we continue dumping garbage and using up all our non renewable resources.
Response:
Andy Rooney makes some good points in his essay “Talking Trash”, such as that we are wasteful people and that we are using up all our national resources and not really trying to reuse the land. He points all this out but all he does in complain and does not offer a solution the problem. Instead he offers an “oh well” Attitude.
Rooney tries to show that we as Americans our wasteful by giving an account of his Saturday trip to the city dump. He describes that he has a carload of news papers, bottle, cans, etc. He then base his experience that we are wasteful. The funny thing is that pretty much every that he is dumping is actually recyclable. He complains about the amount of trash but what is he doing in the story? He’s dumping garbage. He personally is not doing anything about this problem. It for this reason I believe that he is a hypocrite.
It’s a good thing that he’s pointing the problem out and even saying that he’s part of it, but he doesn’t do anything besides complains. He could at least talk about recycling, or at least offer ways for Americans to be less wasteful. This problem was caused by our generation, his generation and the ones before it and now we have to live with it. He offers this “oh well” attitude by doing this, as if he knows that it’s a problem but it won’t affect him in the long run. Instead it will fall upon the future generations.
Overall, Rooney’s essay is effective at pointing out the problems with our wasteful society. His story helps him to relate to everyone and get his message across. The only thing wrong is that he offers and “oh well” attitude, which is doesn’t help to solve the problem.
In Andy Rooney’s essay “Talking Trash”, he brings up the issue of Americans being wasteful. He does this by writing about his trip to the dump and grocery store and commenting on things he notices and pointing out facts of how we as Americans and even himself are wasteful. He points out how much garbage New York City makes and where most of it comes from is packaging. He then ask what will happen if we continue dumping garbage and using up all our non renewable resources.
Response:
Andy Rooney makes some good points in his essay “Talking Trash”, such as that we are wasteful people and that we are using up all our national resources and not really trying to reuse the land. He points all this out but all he does in complain and does not offer a solution the problem. Instead he offers an “oh well” Attitude.
Rooney tries to show that we as Americans our wasteful by giving an account of his Saturday trip to the city dump. He describes that he has a carload of news papers, bottle, cans, etc. He then base his experience that we are wasteful. The funny thing is that pretty much every that he is dumping is actually recyclable. He complains about the amount of trash but what is he doing in the story? He’s dumping garbage. He personally is not doing anything about this problem. It for this reason I believe that he is a hypocrite.
It’s a good thing that he’s pointing the problem out and even saying that he’s part of it, but he doesn’t do anything besides complains. He could at least talk about recycling, or at least offer ways for Americans to be less wasteful. This problem was caused by our generation, his generation and the ones before it and now we have to live with it. He offers this “oh well” attitude by doing this, as if he knows that it’s a problem but it won’t affect him in the long run. Instead it will fall upon the future generations.
Overall, Rooney’s essay is effective at pointing out the problems with our wasteful society. His story helps him to relate to everyone and get his message across. The only thing wrong is that he offers and “oh well” attitude, which is doesn’t help to solve the problem.
Journal entry Two
Summary and Response to “Justice for Women” by Ellen Goodman:
In Ellen Goodman’s essay “Justice for Women”, she brings up issue of justice for women around the world. She catches the reader’s attention by providing stories of injustices to women in places such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan. For women and men with feelings that women everywhere should be treated equal to men, these stories infuriate them. Goodman points out that the image of the United States being a fighter for women rights is contradicted by the government’s act of not signing an international treaty for a bill of rights of women around the world.
Response:
Goodman makes a good point about Americans contradicting themselves. If we want to promote equality for women everywhere we have to be united with everyone, by not signing the treaty we say but we don’t do. We hurt our image and give those who hurt women more of cause to reject the treaty.
This essay also hurts my pride in America and I think it will for others. The fact that politicians are just pushing back the act of just looking at the treaty, tells us how prepared the government is on promoting women rights internationally. The fact they the United States help make the treaty is worse yet. It says that we want other countries to do this but America doesn’t have to or that we are above them.
She used the stories at the beginning to get the reader’s attention because it such a horrible act of injustice. It appeals to the reader’s emotions. They get angry at the injustice and it causes them to read on to see what the rest of the essay says. She gives us the idea that this is going to be an essay about a country in the middle east, but instead it goes back to the United States. This caused me to do double take and see what article I was reading again. I use to believe that America was always a supporter of women’s rights internationally. Then this essay came along I read the part about the treaty and it turned my idea of the government being a supporter of women rights upside down. Goodman lists the bogus reasons the government gave so that they could push back the signing of the treating. This just infuriates me of what bureaucrats can do and how they can mess everything up. I also agree with Goodman that by not signing the treaty, it gives the Taliban the idea that the treaty is not universal. So they continue mistreat women. In the end, not signing the treaty hurts more than it helps.
At the end Goodman says that when people here about injustices against women, it gives them the impulse to do something. I just wish that out government would get the impulse to do something useful on this treaty’s account and help women internationally.
In Ellen Goodman’s essay “Justice for Women”, she brings up issue of justice for women around the world. She catches the reader’s attention by providing stories of injustices to women in places such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan. For women and men with feelings that women everywhere should be treated equal to men, these stories infuriate them. Goodman points out that the image of the United States being a fighter for women rights is contradicted by the government’s act of not signing an international treaty for a bill of rights of women around the world.
Response:
Goodman makes a good point about Americans contradicting themselves. If we want to promote equality for women everywhere we have to be united with everyone, by not signing the treaty we say but we don’t do. We hurt our image and give those who hurt women more of cause to reject the treaty.
This essay also hurts my pride in America and I think it will for others. The fact that politicians are just pushing back the act of just looking at the treaty, tells us how prepared the government is on promoting women rights internationally. The fact they the United States help make the treaty is worse yet. It says that we want other countries to do this but America doesn’t have to or that we are above them.
She used the stories at the beginning to get the reader’s attention because it such a horrible act of injustice. It appeals to the reader’s emotions. They get angry at the injustice and it causes them to read on to see what the rest of the essay says. She gives us the idea that this is going to be an essay about a country in the middle east, but instead it goes back to the United States. This caused me to do double take and see what article I was reading again. I use to believe that America was always a supporter of women’s rights internationally. Then this essay came along I read the part about the treaty and it turned my idea of the government being a supporter of women rights upside down. Goodman lists the bogus reasons the government gave so that they could push back the signing of the treating. This just infuriates me of what bureaucrats can do and how they can mess everything up. I also agree with Goodman that by not signing the treaty, it gives the Taliban the idea that the treaty is not universal. So they continue mistreat women. In the end, not signing the treaty hurts more than it helps.
At the end Goodman says that when people here about injustices against women, it gives them the impulse to do something. I just wish that out government would get the impulse to do something useful on this treaty’s account and help women internationally.
Journal entry one
Summary and Response to “Love and Race” by Nicholas D. Kristof.
In Nicholas D. Kristof’s essay called “Love and Race”, he brings up the issue of interracial marriage in today’s society. He informs the reader of how views on this matter have changed in the past 50 years and for the better. By using evidence and facts, he proves that marriage between different ethnic groups are happening more and has the hope that they will build bridges between the barriers that divide people of different ethnic backgrounds.
Response:
By the facts the Kristof provided in his essay “Love and Race”, I would have to agree that the increase in interracial is a “happy trend”. All we ever hear about is racism, intolerance and injustice in our country’s past and present. Then this comes and its wonderful news to show that change is coming. This essay is the proof that we are starting to knock down the walls that divide us.
In his essay, Kristof gives us a bunch of stats that prove the interracial marriages are on the rise. I can see this to be true in my daily life at Iowa State. Walking across campus, I see interracial couples all the time. College institutions are places that encourage interaction with people of all different ethnic backgrounds. It is these interactions that I believe lead to the increase in interracial marriages.
I would also agree with Krisof that the media is trying to promote interracial marriages and couples. We see it all the time now in movies and on TV. It’s a good thing that this is happening. People get a lot of influence from the media around them and for once this influence is actually good.
Looking at the past of our country, we can see a lot terrible things that happened. Segregation, racism, hate crimes, and intolerance. It’s a sad part of our history, one that I wish that we could erase. Well we can’t erase it but we can try to make up for it. This information about the rising numbers of interracial marriages proves that the times are changing. It proves that people are accepting and tolerant of each other.
This is the sign of a happy trend because like Kristoff said, it’s leading to the breaking down of barriers between people of different ethnic backgrounds. For once it’s not a trend that is hurting anyone, instead its helping the cause of acceptance and equality. I would have to agree with Kristoff that this is the beginning of change because people in the U.S. Still don’t accept it. Most are southerners with old prejudices or older generations that still hold on to the prejudices of their time. But it’s a sign of something good and new. Over time we will become the older generation and hopefull prejudices of the past are just a memory then.
Response:
By the facts the Kristof provided in his essay “Love and Race”, I would have to agree that the increase in interracial is a “happy trend”. All we ever hear about is racism, intolerance and injustice in our country’s past and present. Then this comes and its wonderful news to show that change is coming. This essay is the proof that we are starting to knock down the walls that divide us.
In his essay, Kristof gives us a bunch of stats that prove the interracial marriages are on the rise. I can see this to be true in my daily life at Iowa State. Walking across campus, I see interracial couples all the time. College institutions are places that encourage interaction with people of all different ethnic backgrounds. It is these interactions that I believe lead to the increase in interracial marriages.
I would also agree with Krisof that the media is trying to promote interracial marriages and couples. We see it all the time now in movies and on TV. It’s a good thing that this is happening. People get a lot of influence from the media around them and for once this influence is actually good.
Looking at the past of our country, we can see a lot terrible things that happened. Segregation, racism, hate crimes, and intolerance. It’s a sad part of our history, one that I wish that we could erase. Well we can’t erase it but we can try to make up for it. This information about the rising numbers of interracial marriages proves that the times are changing. It proves that people are accepting and tolerant of each other.
This is the sign of a happy trend because like Kristoff said, it’s leading to the breaking down of barriers between people of different ethnic backgrounds. For once it’s not a trend that is hurting anyone, instead its helping the cause of acceptance and equality. I would have to agree with Kristoff that this is the beginning of change because people in the U.S. Still don’t accept it. Most are southerners with old prejudices or older generations that still hold on to the prejudices of their time. But it’s a sign of something good and new. Over time we will become the older generation and hopefull prejudices of the past are just a memory then.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Response to "The Globalization of Eating Disorders by Susan Bordo
I agree with Susan Bordo in the fact that images affect us and that eating disorders are a global problem. Images of models and things that look " perfect" are all around us. We compare ourselves to these images and find out that we dont match them quite often. We dont realize that these people are a small percentage of world population and in no way define what normal or average is. Instead of being ourselves, we let the media influence us and take control of us in a sense. I truly believe that the media had spread eating disorders around the world. Media tells people all around the world what is popular and appealing. Again agreeing with Bordo that until we realize what we allow to influence us, we can not start a change for the better
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)