Today I thought about people that I surround myself by and how they share the same goals, aspirations, and qualities as me. I guess the law of attraction is as accurate as they say it is. For some reason people who are like minded gravitate towards each other. I do not know if its because a particular group of people find a comfort zone with each other or if its because that cluster of people are more driven and focused by surrounding themselves with the same type of people. Every group has a stamp of generalization branded upon them. By this I mean a label that is convenient and adheres to the laws of social psychology. A prime example of this is when a group of people who are deeply religious travel together some people might call them the "church folk" or when a group of really smart kids travel in packs they call them the "nerds". These are classifications that distinguish different groups based upon the alignment of common ideologies.
It seems so cliche but its true, the people who you surround yourself with define who you are and vice versa. People's attributes rub off on you. For example if you surround yourself by intelligent people the the likelihood of you becoming intelligent is higher. A paradigm of this is in the IV league schools where the rigorous coursework and the competitive atmosphere breeds stellar students. This is not to say that if you do not go to an IV league school you won’t be a stellar student, but you have a greater chance of becoming a top notch student by attending an IVY League school where everybody competes to get the highest grade! Thus the high graduation rate at prestigious schools. On the other hand for people who do not value their education the same thing applies. A situation that personifies this concept is one where all your friends drop out of high school then you will be more likely to drop out of high school too. A result of this is the high dropout rates in teh inner city public schools. Social psychology theories explain how people are more prone to partake in an activity if everybody else around them is doing the same thing. This can be seen in an activity as simple as an audience clapping. When one person claps another person will stand up to clap and the rest of the audience begins clapping. This is a perfect illustration of how social psychology rules our daily social interactions and our human connection.
This is also seen when you are competing in a sport. For instance if you are a basketball player and you train with Michael Jordan this will make you way better than any other basketball player. Of course you need to have some raw talent the same mentality but training with him will give you an edge on the competition. Or if you train with a wrestler that is better than you, you will have a chance to improve your skills and compete at the highest level possible. Again it comes down to who you choose to be a part of your supporting cast. The same thing goes for negativity and positivity. When you hang out with people that have a negative mindset that attitude will surely permeate your life and influence your thoughts and actions. Positivity works the same way. If you are positive-minded the positivity will work out in your best interest and brighten up your day whenever you are feeling down or gloomy.
This is also seen in everyday things such as people that you associate yourself with repeating your actions or sayings. For example if I frequently use a certain phrase and I spend a lot of time around you, you will naturally start to use that same phrase, it is just human nature and its bound to happen! A scenario where this is seen often is with slang. If I greet my friend with "wassup man" everyday he will most likely start to use the same phrase. The same thing goes for actions and personalities. If I hang out with a person that constantly puts other people down then it is just a matter of time before I will surely repeat this act.
These are my thoughts on how you can become a product of your environment. Some people are able to resist the negative external influences. Some of these are the strongest people mentally; they are able to resist any actions that are not their own and tend to be negative they rather choose to embrace the positive influences! This is Arod signing off until next time!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Rulers and paradoxes.
Yesterday I was watching a special on the Holocaust. They depicted some of that atrocities that occurred during that period in history. Then it was mentioned that there was a rumor that Hitler's grandmother was Jewish and that Hitler was also part Jewish. Whether it is speculation, a rumor, or fact we will never really know. But the thought is bizarre and nebulous. Beyond everything it is extremely paradoxical. This would have depicted how we as humans embody self hatred and try to vehemently reject what we view as flaws. How can you oppress your own people or people that share your blood line? Since Hitler despised and oppressed the Jewish people maybe he didn't want his perceived weakness to be projected by any revelation of his Jewish heritage, so maybe the documents or any remnants of his ethnic history was eradicated before anybody could get their hands on it. He had a tumultuous relationship with his father who was stern and strict himself which could explain his inferiority complex and the voracious desire to be powerful and dominant. But to hypothetically think that he would enslave and kill his own people is self contradictory and shows how much we as humans subconsciously or consciously reject who we are and hate ourselves. It is a true a testament to the phenomenon of paradox that perpetually plagues the human existence.
Moving on to another nefarious dictator who's reign was concurrent with Hitler's is Rafael Trujillo from the Dominican Republic who ironically was born in my parent's hometown of San Cristobal. Trujillo is historically known to have a Haitian grandmother. The stark irony strikes again. He killed an abominable amount of Haitians in his day because he viewed them as inferior and thought they were damaging or polluting the race. Some of his legacy still lingers in DR ( Dominican Republic) as some Dominicans have animosity towards Haitians and vice versa. Here we see that he was trying to reject his Haitian heritage and what better way than to marginalize Haitians and massacre thousands of them. Trujillo was a heartless tyrant who killed anybody who opposed his regime not just Haitians. Before he ordered the killings of Haitians he covered up the fact that he was part Haitian. Trujillo had one of the longest reigns of any dictator and ruled Dominican Republic for 30 years from 1930-1961.
In both these scenarios we can see that both of these men have been afflicted by self hatred and seek out the entity within themselves that they hated the most and persecuted the entity to its fullest extent. But while they were killing the Haitians and Jews they were actually killing themselves. Now that is PARADOX and IRONY in nutshell. This internal conflict is not unique as we see in our everyday lives how people deny their own race or ethnic origin. It is evident in the Black and Latino community where some people hate themselves subconsciously because of the way they are treated! It is also evident in other ethnicities. Is this a plausible theory, you be the judge! This is ARod signing off!
Moving on to another nefarious dictator who's reign was concurrent with Hitler's is Rafael Trujillo from the Dominican Republic who ironically was born in my parent's hometown of San Cristobal. Trujillo is historically known to have a Haitian grandmother. The stark irony strikes again. He killed an abominable amount of Haitians in his day because he viewed them as inferior and thought they were damaging or polluting the race. Some of his legacy still lingers in DR ( Dominican Republic) as some Dominicans have animosity towards Haitians and vice versa. Here we see that he was trying to reject his Haitian heritage and what better way than to marginalize Haitians and massacre thousands of them. Trujillo was a heartless tyrant who killed anybody who opposed his regime not just Haitians. Before he ordered the killings of Haitians he covered up the fact that he was part Haitian. Trujillo had one of the longest reigns of any dictator and ruled Dominican Republic for 30 years from 1930-1961.
In both these scenarios we can see that both of these men have been afflicted by self hatred and seek out the entity within themselves that they hated the most and persecuted the entity to its fullest extent. But while they were killing the Haitians and Jews they were actually killing themselves. Now that is PARADOX and IRONY in nutshell. This internal conflict is not unique as we see in our everyday lives how people deny their own race or ethnic origin. It is evident in the Black and Latino community where some people hate themselves subconsciously because of the way they are treated! It is also evident in other ethnicities. Is this a plausible theory, you be the judge! This is ARod signing off!
Geographic connection to social class
I was thinking the other day about geographic location of cities and their connection with crime and demographics. I have noticed that the southern areas of most cities are the most poverty stricken areas. The Northern parts are usually the most affluent areas. If the dichotomy is not as polarized the northern and southern areas still tend to be demographically and economically distinct. Maybe it could be a conspiracy where the government or society subconsciously or consciously pigeonholed everybody from the lower economic strata in one area and it always tend to be in the south. Or maybe it just happened to be that way. But this within itself has some powerful symbolism. South represents down. So it can be either interpreted as society regarding these areas as inferior or the people who draw these district lines and set the geographic boundaries trying to keep the population in these "southern areas down".
Lets take the Bronx for example. The Bronx in general but more specifically the southern part of the Bronx in recent history has been the residential area for the black and Latino underclass. It was jaw dropping when I rode the train one day and had an epiphany. I was downtown around 42nd street and as the train's trajectory progressed uptown towards the Bronx more and more Whites and Asians got off the train ad more Blacks and Latinos boarded the train. I was in the awe at how polarized most neighborhoods and boroughs were. New York's segregation has less to do with race and more with social class. I believe the Bronx is the most concentrated borough in terms of the minority population or people of color if you will. This is also the borough with the lowest social class and is home to many blue collar workers. It has been like this since the 60s when the Bronx was in the worse predicament socioeconomically. Plagued by the crack epidemic, low employment rate, high crime rate, and landlords incinerating buildings to collect insurance, it was a city of chaos and turmoil and it was deemed as one of the worst national urban centers crimewise.
If you go to LA the southern part is also the worst part crimewise and it is what would be defined in slang as "the hood". The southern part contains Watts and Compton which are two districts that have highest crime rates in Los Angeles and possibly in the state of California. they also have the lowest income per household which makes sense, since there is a significant trend between crime ad poverty. These two areas are predominantly black and Latino.
Lets go to "Chi-town" Chicago. This city's southern quadrant also has the highest crime rate in the city of Chicago. This area is predominantly Black and also has a low median household income. Atlanta and Philadelphia's southsides are also the most impoverished areas in their respective cities. This is apparent throughout the Unites States not just New York City or Los Angeles. It is a ubiquitous problem.
The property value in these urban centers are also low which explains the poor surrounding schools and lack of resources. Now my question is: was this geographically constructed on purpose to isolate all the poor people in "the southern areas" to signify oppression and avoid the dissemination of the underclass? Or was it just set up like this subconsciously. I will leave that question for you to answer. Until next time this is ARod signing off!
Lets take the Bronx for example. The Bronx in general but more specifically the southern part of the Bronx in recent history has been the residential area for the black and Latino underclass. It was jaw dropping when I rode the train one day and had an epiphany. I was downtown around 42nd street and as the train's trajectory progressed uptown towards the Bronx more and more Whites and Asians got off the train ad more Blacks and Latinos boarded the train. I was in the awe at how polarized most neighborhoods and boroughs were. New York's segregation has less to do with race and more with social class. I believe the Bronx is the most concentrated borough in terms of the minority population or people of color if you will. This is also the borough with the lowest social class and is home to many blue collar workers. It has been like this since the 60s when the Bronx was in the worse predicament socioeconomically. Plagued by the crack epidemic, low employment rate, high crime rate, and landlords incinerating buildings to collect insurance, it was a city of chaos and turmoil and it was deemed as one of the worst national urban centers crimewise.
If you go to LA the southern part is also the worst part crimewise and it is what would be defined in slang as "the hood". The southern part contains Watts and Compton which are two districts that have highest crime rates in Los Angeles and possibly in the state of California. they also have the lowest income per household which makes sense, since there is a significant trend between crime ad poverty. These two areas are predominantly black and Latino.
Lets go to "Chi-town" Chicago. This city's southern quadrant also has the highest crime rate in the city of Chicago. This area is predominantly Black and also has a low median household income. Atlanta and Philadelphia's southsides are also the most impoverished areas in their respective cities. This is apparent throughout the Unites States not just New York City or Los Angeles. It is a ubiquitous problem.
The property value in these urban centers are also low which explains the poor surrounding schools and lack of resources. Now my question is: was this geographically constructed on purpose to isolate all the poor people in "the southern areas" to signify oppression and avoid the dissemination of the underclass? Or was it just set up like this subconsciously. I will leave that question for you to answer. Until next time this is ARod signing off!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Perceptions and Reality
What is perception and what is reality it is an age old dilemma or question. The facets of this phenomena has more to do with our experience as humans and how we view the world and less with the empirical notions of the term. It is obscure to a certain extent because it is difficult to draw the line between reality and perception.
The text book definition of reality is the quality or state of being real! In my eyes reality is the concrete entity of any type of situation. The textbook definition of perception is immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition. I define perception as the concept of how an individual views the world, or how one's perspective can lead to judgment on a given situation. In addition I think reality is more of a collective truth and absolute fact on the other hand perception is more personal and entails an autonomous viewpoint. I see reality as an objective concept rather than subjective, it tends to be more empirical. The working definition of reality in a practical setting seems to be "the actual situation at hand" and it is supposed to be a concept that people visualize through an unbiased lens while not integrating any personal feelings. Theoretically, reality should be more validated by substancial evidence and it should be the most accurate and popular assessment of any experience or situation because it is indicative of the population's consensus as well as the communal viewpoint.
But the contradiction to this lies within the counterpart itself. Everything is perception. Unfortunately most perceptions tend to be negative. For example in a scenario where a male personal trainer is helping a woman do a stretching exercise and somebody behind a glass window notices that the personal trainer is touching her hips in order to get her to stretch better, one might view that as inappropriate. Now the person who viewed it as inappropriate behind the glass was not close enough to actually observe the "reality" of the situation or simply did not ask the personal trainer what he was doing, therefore he misunderstood the situation and as a result thinks the personal trainer is a pervert.
Perception is what determines how the world will view us and vise versa. But a simple example where reality's objectivity is discredited is when it comes to characterization of material things. For example lets take a car being purple for instance. A hundred people saw the car together under the same conditions on the same day at the same time and seventy of them thought it was blue but the other thirty of them thought it was purple so according to the statistics the more popular one is blue which is correct and is a fact. But for the people who said the car was purple it is factual from their view point so how can I dispute that? Another nebulous aspect to the perception-reality dichotomy is when you involve past personal experiences. A possible scenario is where a young African American male is at an interview for an internship and the interviewer who is an older white male asks him if he plays basketball then he pauses in disgust because he thinks the question is blatantly racist and uncalled for. The younger male proceeds to accuse the older guy of racism because of his biases based on his personal experiences where he encountered racism from his white counterpart. These experiences have led him to believe that the perceived conceptions are racist, although they could be misconceptions. But to him the perception is reality because this is what he sees with his own eyes and what he believes to be true. How can we defy anybody's gut feelings or convictions on any given situation? The individual is supposed to be an expert on his own feelings, insight, and perception most of all. Who am I to tell somebody that they are wrong in their own intuition? The young African American male views any questions that encompass stereotypical roles for African Americans as racist and he will continue to do so. If the alternate scenario involves a young white male who was asked the same question but he did not view it as racist, the perception is entirely different which now becomes his reality. So the conundrum becomes which is the actual reality which is a bit redundant but serves its purpose. In the scenario it turns out that the "real reality" form an objective and unbiased perspective. The "real reality" is that the white man was not racist and was just trying to start a casual conversation. This is distinct from both men's perceptions.
When I say everything is perception I meant it. The majority of the time people will cast judgements internally without knowing the whole spectrum of the situation or circumstances of any given situation. This causes a big gap of unfamiliarity between the perceptive and realistic viewpoints. One last scenario that can be applied universally is where morals and values comes into play. For example what if 1000 people fill out a survey and 800 of them think that abortion is ethically justified while 200 believe abortion to be ethically wrong. Th reality rule would tell us that the 800 of them who thought abortion was right would be the population who is theoretically right according to the reality of the situation, but when you incorporate values and morals, the 200 people who viewed abortion as wrong becomes those people's realities from a subjective perspective. Moreover if you focus on a particular group the reality will vary. For example the religious crowd's reality is that abortion is ethically wrong regardless of the survey statistics. You cannot discredit somebody else's opinions when distinguishing a perception from reality!
But as we know this issue is very enigmatic and a good metaphor to compare it to would be a dog chasing its tail. I use this metaphor because it identifies a revolving door where you end up right where you started! The dichotomy between fact and opinion, subjective and objective, and perception and reality is going to be one that is perpetually puzzling in its nature however it is a topic that is very thought provoking. I hope this leads to more discussion on this abstract facet of everyday life.
The text book definition of reality is the quality or state of being real! In my eyes reality is the concrete entity of any type of situation. The textbook definition of perception is immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition. I define perception as the concept of how an individual views the world, or how one's perspective can lead to judgment on a given situation. In addition I think reality is more of a collective truth and absolute fact on the other hand perception is more personal and entails an autonomous viewpoint. I see reality as an objective concept rather than subjective, it tends to be more empirical. The working definition of reality in a practical setting seems to be "the actual situation at hand" and it is supposed to be a concept that people visualize through an unbiased lens while not integrating any personal feelings. Theoretically, reality should be more validated by substancial evidence and it should be the most accurate and popular assessment of any experience or situation because it is indicative of the population's consensus as well as the communal viewpoint.
But the contradiction to this lies within the counterpart itself. Everything is perception. Unfortunately most perceptions tend to be negative. For example in a scenario where a male personal trainer is helping a woman do a stretching exercise and somebody behind a glass window notices that the personal trainer is touching her hips in order to get her to stretch better, one might view that as inappropriate. Now the person who viewed it as inappropriate behind the glass was not close enough to actually observe the "reality" of the situation or simply did not ask the personal trainer what he was doing, therefore he misunderstood the situation and as a result thinks the personal trainer is a pervert.
Perception is what determines how the world will view us and vise versa. But a simple example where reality's objectivity is discredited is when it comes to characterization of material things. For example lets take a car being purple for instance. A hundred people saw the car together under the same conditions on the same day at the same time and seventy of them thought it was blue but the other thirty of them thought it was purple so according to the statistics the more popular one is blue which is correct and is a fact. But for the people who said the car was purple it is factual from their view point so how can I dispute that? Another nebulous aspect to the perception-reality dichotomy is when you involve past personal experiences. A possible scenario is where a young African American male is at an interview for an internship and the interviewer who is an older white male asks him if he plays basketball then he pauses in disgust because he thinks the question is blatantly racist and uncalled for. The younger male proceeds to accuse the older guy of racism because of his biases based on his personal experiences where he encountered racism from his white counterpart. These experiences have led him to believe that the perceived conceptions are racist, although they could be misconceptions. But to him the perception is reality because this is what he sees with his own eyes and what he believes to be true. How can we defy anybody's gut feelings or convictions on any given situation? The individual is supposed to be an expert on his own feelings, insight, and perception most of all. Who am I to tell somebody that they are wrong in their own intuition? The young African American male views any questions that encompass stereotypical roles for African Americans as racist and he will continue to do so. If the alternate scenario involves a young white male who was asked the same question but he did not view it as racist, the perception is entirely different which now becomes his reality. So the conundrum becomes which is the actual reality which is a bit redundant but serves its purpose. In the scenario it turns out that the "real reality" form an objective and unbiased perspective. The "real reality" is that the white man was not racist and was just trying to start a casual conversation. This is distinct from both men's perceptions.
When I say everything is perception I meant it. The majority of the time people will cast judgements internally without knowing the whole spectrum of the situation or circumstances of any given situation. This causes a big gap of unfamiliarity between the perceptive and realistic viewpoints. One last scenario that can be applied universally is where morals and values comes into play. For example what if 1000 people fill out a survey and 800 of them think that abortion is ethically justified while 200 believe abortion to be ethically wrong. Th reality rule would tell us that the 800 of them who thought abortion was right would be the population who is theoretically right according to the reality of the situation, but when you incorporate values and morals, the 200 people who viewed abortion as wrong becomes those people's realities from a subjective perspective. Moreover if you focus on a particular group the reality will vary. For example the religious crowd's reality is that abortion is ethically wrong regardless of the survey statistics. You cannot discredit somebody else's opinions when distinguishing a perception from reality!
But as we know this issue is very enigmatic and a good metaphor to compare it to would be a dog chasing its tail. I use this metaphor because it identifies a revolving door where you end up right where you started! The dichotomy between fact and opinion, subjective and objective, and perception and reality is going to be one that is perpetually puzzling in its nature however it is a topic that is very thought provoking. I hope this leads to more discussion on this abstract facet of everyday life.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Cities and attitudes
This past weekend I spoke to a friend abut New York City and she told me that she would never live in New York because people have these bad attitudes, but she love to visit. I quickly defended my city and told her that its just a FRONT!
Depending on the city you live in the general vibe, lifestyle, personality is going to vary. I find it to be shaped by the environment and location of the city, the population, and its history. In NYC people wear "mean muggs" and are hustlers. In LA everybody is super laid back. Down south everybody is so hospitable. Evey region has its signature personality.
In NYC the reason why people have this austere and stone cold outlook is because of the social climate. If you walk down the street with a permanent smile on your face there is the possibility that you will either get conned or held up. It is the harsh reality. Also we are in a city of hustlers, nobody wants to look gullible or naive. Apart form that the hustlers mentality makes us work hard and we live a fast paced life because of that. Also the extremely dense population promotes the hustler mentality and makes it a dog eat dog atmosphere thus the harsh attitudes; you become a product of your environment. We are always in a rush because there are so many people in the city so when other people are in a rush or hustling and bustling to get somewhere you have to make the necessary adjustments in order to survive, after a while the lifestyle rubs off on you. But beneath the "frown" of the average new yorker is a radiant smile and horizon of happiness. There is a particular swag that is unique to New York. We never sleep and there are tons of places to go in the NYC. You will never get bored, I guarantee that. We have a certain swag that is misconceived as egotistical and pompous. This is exactly why some people hate on us. I think the swag emanates from the notion that we think we are the best or from the adage that says "if you make it in New York you can make it anywhere." The cultural dynamic in New York makes it interesting, with so many ethnicities it is an eclectic city, it is the place to live for everybody who wants to live here and can adapt. New York also has the latest in fashion trends and slang because of its innovative culture. New York residents usually tell it like it is. In New York everything is raw and organic, what you see is what you get and that is the bottom line!
As far as LA, I have not been there but I can tell from secondhand accounts that it is very laid back. My logic behind this is that it is so spread out. It is easier to be laid back and maneuver when your environment is spread out. This allows for everybody to have their personal space without having to compete for air or for privacy. Another factor that contributes to this is that it was and still is a hipster type of city and has a tolerant culture because of the amalgamation of so many different musical tastes, ethnicities, and cultures. I think the drug usage which dates back to the 60s has a historical impact on the culture and makes the culture more tolerant and freethinkerish. Nice beaches, the sun, and what could be considered pleasurable weather to most makes the social climate more lax. The cars that they ride also enable them to be more" laid back" as they take their time to cruise in the low riders.The city's residents are so laid back and happy because of the weather and the stress free environment. It is also described as being more on the superficial side because of Hollywood and all the name brand clothing. Also LA residents say that people are not as confrontational as they are in New York in general. LA is definitely a place to be if you want to be around the glitz, and the glamour, while having fun and chilling out at the same time.
The third place I am going to talk about is the South because I have been there several times but mostly just passing by. First of all Atlanta is really mellow and hospitable. I think the reason it is like that is because of the rural environment that surrounds it. This rural environment allows a very open and welcoming type of vibe. It is also the most polarized with NYC in terms of pace. It has a very slow pace. Usually people in the South take their time with everything especially in the grocery store. Some parts of the South still stuck in the 1800s in terms of attitude towards race and very much still segregated. But there are urban areas in the South such as Atlanta that are really nice and self sufficient in terms of black businesses and self empowerment. For me the south is reminiscent of a big happy family. The city of Atlanta has some of the most beautiful women and some of the most talented artists in the world. The sweet attitude of the city's residents makes you feel right at home!
All of these cities are special in their own way. The beauty of it is to able to learn about the different cultures and to be respectful of one another's cities!
Depending on the city you live in the general vibe, lifestyle, personality is going to vary. I find it to be shaped by the environment and location of the city, the population, and its history. In NYC people wear "mean muggs" and are hustlers. In LA everybody is super laid back. Down south everybody is so hospitable. Evey region has its signature personality.
In NYC the reason why people have this austere and stone cold outlook is because of the social climate. If you walk down the street with a permanent smile on your face there is the possibility that you will either get conned or held up. It is the harsh reality. Also we are in a city of hustlers, nobody wants to look gullible or naive. Apart form that the hustlers mentality makes us work hard and we live a fast paced life because of that. Also the extremely dense population promotes the hustler mentality and makes it a dog eat dog atmosphere thus the harsh attitudes; you become a product of your environment. We are always in a rush because there are so many people in the city so when other people are in a rush or hustling and bustling to get somewhere you have to make the necessary adjustments in order to survive, after a while the lifestyle rubs off on you. But beneath the "frown" of the average new yorker is a radiant smile and horizon of happiness. There is a particular swag that is unique to New York. We never sleep and there are tons of places to go in the NYC. You will never get bored, I guarantee that. We have a certain swag that is misconceived as egotistical and pompous. This is exactly why some people hate on us. I think the swag emanates from the notion that we think we are the best or from the adage that says "if you make it in New York you can make it anywhere." The cultural dynamic in New York makes it interesting, with so many ethnicities it is an eclectic city, it is the place to live for everybody who wants to live here and can adapt. New York also has the latest in fashion trends and slang because of its innovative culture. New York residents usually tell it like it is. In New York everything is raw and organic, what you see is what you get and that is the bottom line!
As far as LA, I have not been there but I can tell from secondhand accounts that it is very laid back. My logic behind this is that it is so spread out. It is easier to be laid back and maneuver when your environment is spread out. This allows for everybody to have their personal space without having to compete for air or for privacy. Another factor that contributes to this is that it was and still is a hipster type of city and has a tolerant culture because of the amalgamation of so many different musical tastes, ethnicities, and cultures. I think the drug usage which dates back to the 60s has a historical impact on the culture and makes the culture more tolerant and freethinkerish. Nice beaches, the sun, and what could be considered pleasurable weather to most makes the social climate more lax. The cars that they ride also enable them to be more" laid back" as they take their time to cruise in the low riders.The city's residents are so laid back and happy because of the weather and the stress free environment. It is also described as being more on the superficial side because of Hollywood and all the name brand clothing. Also LA residents say that people are not as confrontational as they are in New York in general. LA is definitely a place to be if you want to be around the glitz, and the glamour, while having fun and chilling out at the same time.
The third place I am going to talk about is the South because I have been there several times but mostly just passing by. First of all Atlanta is really mellow and hospitable. I think the reason it is like that is because of the rural environment that surrounds it. This rural environment allows a very open and welcoming type of vibe. It is also the most polarized with NYC in terms of pace. It has a very slow pace. Usually people in the South take their time with everything especially in the grocery store. Some parts of the South still stuck in the 1800s in terms of attitude towards race and very much still segregated. But there are urban areas in the South such as Atlanta that are really nice and self sufficient in terms of black businesses and self empowerment. For me the south is reminiscent of a big happy family. The city of Atlanta has some of the most beautiful women and some of the most talented artists in the world. The sweet attitude of the city's residents makes you feel right at home!
All of these cities are special in their own way. The beauty of it is to able to learn about the different cultures and to be respectful of one another's cities!
Single moms in the Black and Latino community
I have pondered over this for a while. I have observed and made mental note of all of the male acquaintances and friends I know that have turned out to be successful and who haven't had any encounters with the law. Then I have observed the friends and acquaintances that have had run ins with the law or have been rebellious. The single most important factor seems to be whether or not he comes from a household where he had his father around when he was growing up. In 2007 3,138 black males sentenced prisoners per 100,000 1,259 Hispanic male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 Hispanic males compared to 481 white male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 white males. Now this is definitely indicative of a biased judicial system. This means that in 2007 there were roughly three percent of black males incarcerated, this number is likely to increase because of the significant increase in the amount of prisons being built.
This is relevant to my argument because the people that end up in these jails are products of single mom homes. The dominant reason for them being in jail seems to be that they have a fatherless background. I actually met several people that said that they suffered because their father was not around and ended up disobeying their mother. One particular case is a young kid that I spoke to I believe he was in his early 20s was paralyzed from the waste down. He caught a stray bullet in his back and it hit his spine. He said he was just hanging out with his boys creating mischief as all young kids do when one day this targedy occurred. He said that he didn't have a father around so he was not able to be monitored or disciplined properly. The US Census Bureau said that "Father absence contributes to crime and delinquency. Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers." This is not to say that moms who raise kids on their own do not deserve all the merit and praise in the world but it is really difficult to raise a kid when the father is not around. Neither am I saying that a kid who grows up in a wholesome household with both parents will not get into trouble and eventually become incarcerated, but the chances are more likely if they come from a single mom home. The absence of a father is socially, mentally, economically, emotionally and most of all psychologically detrimental to the child especially if he is a male. I was speaking to a 30 year old mom the other day and she said that her 8 year old kid's biological father is not in the picture, but then she got married to a man who is now his stepfather. She would give her son advice and he would disregard it as opposed to when his stepfather told him the same thing he responded better. This means that there is a certain connection between father and son that cannot be duplicated.
The motif here seems to be that there needs to be more accountability in terms of fathering children in this country or just being there for your kid. A father is more than just a father: he is a confidant, a friend, a role model , a teacher, a provider. Kids who end up growing up in these backgrounds are devoid of fathers form the beginning. They basically have no standard to follow. There is nobody to show them how to treat a woman , how to shoot basketball, how to stay focused in school, how to avoid drugs, how to be a good citizen, and finally how to be a good father. Another aspect to this is that they can also have a strong male relative such as an uncle or grandfather that can keep the child in line which is just as conducive to a male's growth (especially in the adolescent and teen years when boys are just trying to figure out who they are)as a biological father. What I am saying is that you need a positive male role model who can show his son or surrogate son the ropes.
I have cousins who have gone down the wrong path because their father was not around. I am a staunch listener to Hip Hop, and different rappers will rap about how they were raised in single parent (mom) homes. These kids are getting incarcerated more because they do not have their father to show them the way and to discipline them. Another man in his 40s told me how he got arrested when he was 12. He was acting out in school, was rebellious and got into trouble in the streets. He said that all his actions were a cry for paternal attention. He was just so frustrated and angry that he did not have a father so he took it out on the world.
As you can see not having a father can lead you towards jail or a life of crime. When these kids become vulnerable because dad is not there to show him the right thing to do then is at risk for incarceration criminal activities, joining gangs and much more. During the tumultuous teenage years a kid needs a father to console him, support and and most of all set a positive example. I thank God for having a father who has been a good role model and has showed me alot by example. Having a father at home is an integral and crucial part of rearing a male child especially in a Black and Latino urban household where we are at higher risks for incarceration.
In conclusion fathers need to step up and start taking care of their children before their kid grows up deprived and is not given a fair chance!
This is relevant to my argument because the people that end up in these jails are products of single mom homes. The dominant reason for them being in jail seems to be that they have a fatherless background. I actually met several people that said that they suffered because their father was not around and ended up disobeying their mother. One particular case is a young kid that I spoke to I believe he was in his early 20s was paralyzed from the waste down. He caught a stray bullet in his back and it hit his spine. He said he was just hanging out with his boys creating mischief as all young kids do when one day this targedy occurred. He said that he didn't have a father around so he was not able to be monitored or disciplined properly. The US Census Bureau said that "Father absence contributes to crime and delinquency. Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers." This is not to say that moms who raise kids on their own do not deserve all the merit and praise in the world but it is really difficult to raise a kid when the father is not around. Neither am I saying that a kid who grows up in a wholesome household with both parents will not get into trouble and eventually become incarcerated, but the chances are more likely if they come from a single mom home. The absence of a father is socially, mentally, economically, emotionally and most of all psychologically detrimental to the child especially if he is a male. I was speaking to a 30 year old mom the other day and she said that her 8 year old kid's biological father is not in the picture, but then she got married to a man who is now his stepfather. She would give her son advice and he would disregard it as opposed to when his stepfather told him the same thing he responded better. This means that there is a certain connection between father and son that cannot be duplicated.
The motif here seems to be that there needs to be more accountability in terms of fathering children in this country or just being there for your kid. A father is more than just a father: he is a confidant, a friend, a role model , a teacher, a provider. Kids who end up growing up in these backgrounds are devoid of fathers form the beginning. They basically have no standard to follow. There is nobody to show them how to treat a woman , how to shoot basketball, how to stay focused in school, how to avoid drugs, how to be a good citizen, and finally how to be a good father. Another aspect to this is that they can also have a strong male relative such as an uncle or grandfather that can keep the child in line which is just as conducive to a male's growth (especially in the adolescent and teen years when boys are just trying to figure out who they are)as a biological father. What I am saying is that you need a positive male role model who can show his son or surrogate son the ropes.
I have cousins who have gone down the wrong path because their father was not around. I am a staunch listener to Hip Hop, and different rappers will rap about how they were raised in single parent (mom) homes. These kids are getting incarcerated more because they do not have their father to show them the way and to discipline them. Another man in his 40s told me how he got arrested when he was 12. He was acting out in school, was rebellious and got into trouble in the streets. He said that all his actions were a cry for paternal attention. He was just so frustrated and angry that he did not have a father so he took it out on the world.
As you can see not having a father can lead you towards jail or a life of crime. When these kids become vulnerable because dad is not there to show him the right thing to do then is at risk for incarceration criminal activities, joining gangs and much more. During the tumultuous teenage years a kid needs a father to console him, support and and most of all set a positive example. I thank God for having a father who has been a good role model and has showed me alot by example. Having a father at home is an integral and crucial part of rearing a male child especially in a Black and Latino urban household where we are at higher risks for incarceration.
In conclusion fathers need to step up and start taking care of their children before their kid grows up deprived and is not given a fair chance!
Technology
Hello Hello I am sorry I have been away for so long but I am back now! I was thinking the other day as I was texting like a maniac, I text a lot! Right then and there I had an epiphany; I am not the only one. Texting has become the primary form of contact for everybody across the world. It has reduced the amount of phone calls and more importantly decreased a more direct and personalized form of communication. The texting epidemic has become preposterous to the point that someone will be right next to you and you would rather text than just speak to them. This is symbolic and indicative of an even bigger problem:the evolution of technology is making our society more and more impersonal! Not only that but it is making us dumber to a certain extent.
I know what you are thinking there are two sides to this issue. Technology has improved our society in many ways. It has allowed global communication to become more feasible. It has also generated a space where information is infinitely available with a superfluous amounts of sources. It has also accommodated everyday life so that it facilitates daily tasks and makes life easier overall. In addition, it has helped us bridge gaps of unfamiliarity but has also widened them. We have become very impersonal and it has stunted social growth, personalization and interdependence that once dominated our planet. As a result it has also cultivated a culture of misunderstanding because when communication is reduced the understanding between one another and unity also declines. It has also lead to a phenomenon of alienation. We have isolated ourselves more because of technology for example, I am typing right now but I could be talking to my brother face to face. This a prototypical scenario that exemplifies how technology is cutting down our personal face to face contact.
The era of protechnology is a conondrum because it has reduced our personal communication however, we are able to communicate more often due to the propagation of technology. I think there are more pros than cons but the intimacy of the human race is suffering because of technology without a doubt. This has also contributed to the decline in gestures of love, appreciation, and expression of emotions overall. Nobody writes cards anymore or goes to somebody's house to wish them happy birthday, everything is either computerized or technologically oriented. This causes us to blanket our emotions and masquerades our facial and physical expressions and also distances what could be a close relationship.
Technology has also impaired our intellectual capabilities. A common everyday example is little kids on the train and bus with sidekicks ( popular cellular phone) and no books in their hands. Where did the concept of reading and becoming more knowledgeable go, is all kids know is MTV and youtube? Nowadays Everybody is attached to a technological device at every moment. The idea of skateboarding, playing board games, going to the library, or engaging people has become obsolete. Intelligence and the appetite for knowledge is diminishing at an astonishing rate. People are also controlled by technology through the channeled media (pun intended). Technology has dumbed down the masses and made people less of critical thinkers and more of "yes people" (people that believe everything they see or hear). They accept everything they hear for true. I will digress for a brief moment. I've heard this adage in several places: believe none of what you hear none of what you read and only have of what you see!!!!! Technology has made it easier to believe things that we see or hear because it is conveyed through technology rather than face to face or in a more personal manner. But I want to throw a controversial topic out there: does it benefit the government to keep people uneducated and ignorant and have ongoing proliferation of technology? Also in a society dominated by capitalism if we started to use technology less and make less purchases on technology the economy would take a hit, which would not make the government happy! Another question is how much better of a world would this be if we were smarter? For example in urban areas if you do not have the latest technology or are caught reading a book you are ostracized and not accepted. This demonstrates a culture of poverty and ignorance that has been perpetuated and therefore has made us dumber. So coming back from the digression, technology has shown to be an oppressing force much more than empowering. If we were to detach ourselves from our cell phone, internet or video games we would be much smarter (especially Americans). At least in the suburbs the kids come from priviledged backgrounds and have better educations so technology is not that much of a handicap but this concept is the most significant to kids from urban neighborhoods who would be able to go further in their education if they put the games and tv away. This ideology displays the utmost veracity in the Ben Carson story where a young black kid in Detroit's inner city who got bad grades in elementary school became the top scholar in his class after reading books outside of his class material and abstaining from watching tv. Instead of being idle or just settling for menial jobs the urban nucleus can ameliorate their chances of succeeding by educating themselves inside and outside of the classroom. I have the firm conviction that technology hampers the intellectual growth of our youth especially in urban communities where they are deprived of a good education as far as schooling is concerned and on top of that they lack the self education outside of school which adds insult to injury.
In closing I would like to say that technology is a remarkable asset to modern society but I will also say that it has its drawbacks that can become harmful if they are not regulated. If we are not careful, sooner or later We WILL BECOME ROBOTS
I know what you are thinking there are two sides to this issue. Technology has improved our society in many ways. It has allowed global communication to become more feasible. It has also generated a space where information is infinitely available with a superfluous amounts of sources. It has also accommodated everyday life so that it facilitates daily tasks and makes life easier overall. In addition, it has helped us bridge gaps of unfamiliarity but has also widened them. We have become very impersonal and it has stunted social growth, personalization and interdependence that once dominated our planet. As a result it has also cultivated a culture of misunderstanding because when communication is reduced the understanding between one another and unity also declines. It has also lead to a phenomenon of alienation. We have isolated ourselves more because of technology for example, I am typing right now but I could be talking to my brother face to face. This a prototypical scenario that exemplifies how technology is cutting down our personal face to face contact.
The era of protechnology is a conondrum because it has reduced our personal communication however, we are able to communicate more often due to the propagation of technology. I think there are more pros than cons but the intimacy of the human race is suffering because of technology without a doubt. This has also contributed to the decline in gestures of love, appreciation, and expression of emotions overall. Nobody writes cards anymore or goes to somebody's house to wish them happy birthday, everything is either computerized or technologically oriented. This causes us to blanket our emotions and masquerades our facial and physical expressions and also distances what could be a close relationship.
Technology has also impaired our intellectual capabilities. A common everyday example is little kids on the train and bus with sidekicks ( popular cellular phone) and no books in their hands. Where did the concept of reading and becoming more knowledgeable go, is all kids know is MTV and youtube? Nowadays Everybody is attached to a technological device at every moment. The idea of skateboarding, playing board games, going to the library, or engaging people has become obsolete. Intelligence and the appetite for knowledge is diminishing at an astonishing rate. People are also controlled by technology through the channeled media (pun intended). Technology has dumbed down the masses and made people less of critical thinkers and more of "yes people" (people that believe everything they see or hear). They accept everything they hear for true. I will digress for a brief moment. I've heard this adage in several places: believe none of what you hear none of what you read and only have of what you see!!!!! Technology has made it easier to believe things that we see or hear because it is conveyed through technology rather than face to face or in a more personal manner. But I want to throw a controversial topic out there: does it benefit the government to keep people uneducated and ignorant and have ongoing proliferation of technology? Also in a society dominated by capitalism if we started to use technology less and make less purchases on technology the economy would take a hit, which would not make the government happy! Another question is how much better of a world would this be if we were smarter? For example in urban areas if you do not have the latest technology or are caught reading a book you are ostracized and not accepted. This demonstrates a culture of poverty and ignorance that has been perpetuated and therefore has made us dumber. So coming back from the digression, technology has shown to be an oppressing force much more than empowering. If we were to detach ourselves from our cell phone, internet or video games we would be much smarter (especially Americans). At least in the suburbs the kids come from priviledged backgrounds and have better educations so technology is not that much of a handicap but this concept is the most significant to kids from urban neighborhoods who would be able to go further in their education if they put the games and tv away. This ideology displays the utmost veracity in the Ben Carson story where a young black kid in Detroit's inner city who got bad grades in elementary school became the top scholar in his class after reading books outside of his class material and abstaining from watching tv. Instead of being idle or just settling for menial jobs the urban nucleus can ameliorate their chances of succeeding by educating themselves inside and outside of the classroom. I have the firm conviction that technology hampers the intellectual growth of our youth especially in urban communities where they are deprived of a good education as far as schooling is concerned and on top of that they lack the self education outside of school which adds insult to injury.
In closing I would like to say that technology is a remarkable asset to modern society but I will also say that it has its drawbacks that can become harmful if they are not regulated. If we are not careful, sooner or later We WILL BECOME ROBOTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)