So far this is what I have come up with for the group final.
Part One: "Literature Review"
So far I have found one good source for our project. Pretty much all information on the site is cited correctly and many of them are from academic sources.
http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html
Part Two: "The Argument"
*rough outline*
1. Evaluation: Problems with having Prostitution Illegal in the U.S.
I. Promotes and/or supplies Crime
-Trafficking
-Drug use
-Rape, Incest etc...
-"Pimps"
-Money generated to criminal organizations
II. Social Problems
-Stigma
-Transmission of venereal diseases such as HIV
-Issue of morality, right v wrong, or argument based on religious grounds
III. Definition itself
-What is the meaning of "Prostitution" itself?
2. Proposal: Institutionalizing/Legalizing Prostitution in the U.S (Consider if we should legalize just by state laws (Michigan), or legalizing at a federal (U.S) level.
I. Legalizing Prostitution in Mich or U.S would solve many problems
-By institutionalizing prostitution, income would be generated for the state or federal government
-Reduce drug use and some crimes
-By legalizing prostitution, you would require "Prostitutes" to do mandatory health visits thus preventing and or reducing the spread of venereal diseases.
-By legalizing prostitution, it will reduce stigma and be introduced as a actual job or profession.
-Having legal rules, definitions, laws regarding "Prostitution," it will become a more concrete item in society, (becomes less of a vague term).
Some things to consider:
-Many countries have already legalized Prostitution such as Germany, Netherlands, Nevada (legalized at a state level) etc...
Connect it to our proposal and say how it has solved certain issues.
*statistics & facts* http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772
-Historical/Religious grounds
-Issue of morality
arguments - someone shouldn't pay someone for sex. It is ethically or religiously wrong.
- sex should not be sold as an object, it is more than that.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Evaluation Proposal Final.
So far for the class we have come up with a couple of topics.
-Legalizing Prostitution
-Gas Prices
-Institution of Marriage
-Legalizing Prostitution
-Gas Prices
-Institution of Marriage
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Definition Paper: "Terrorism."
"Terrorism"
Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” In the world of global politics, things are seemingly black and white. However, that is not the case when uncovering the truth behind the clever tactics used by politicians and the news media, reflecting the several shades of gray in between. This scenario is especially visible in the world of politics in Western governments. The media often bends the truth behind events to label certain governments or faction groups with different political perspectives as evil or many times as “terrorist organizations”. The term “terrorism” and “global terrorism,” are phrases used by the media and western governments alike to justify military actions. From a neutral standpoint, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are politically and emotionally charged, but they are also highly ambiguous. From a western standpoint, however, the term “terrorism” allows certain actions performed by western governments deemed politically correct. For example, the War in Afghanistan bluntly labels opposing governments or faction groups as “terrorists.” In order to fully understand how the two terms work, the public must know the history behind them, as well as the truth in how western governments use biased and/or ambiguous language to further their agendas of reaching certain political goals.
The diction western governments choose in their political advancements is always chosen for a specific purpose. This powerful, rhetorical strategy is administered to align the public to think and feel a certain way. An example is the misuse of the word “jihadi” or “jihadist” during post 9/11 times, when both the U.S government and news repeatedly labeled “global terrorists” as “jihadist” or “jihadi”. The U.S government and news media used these particular words to portray the opposing forces as religious extremists. When informing the general American public about religious terms, most will not know what the words truly mean, but they may have preconceived notions of what the definitions could actually be. For many, “jihadi” or “jihadist” is a term for one who will do anything in order to terrorize or make a point to certain groups of people, even if it means to commit suicide for a “holy war”. However, the actual meaning is much different from the one created by society. “Jihad” literally translates to “struggle.” Every Muslim has within themselves a struggle, categorized into a greater and lesser struggle. Greater struggles for a Muslim is are spiritual conflicts: a struggle for self-improvement, against vices such as greed and selfishness. Similarly, lesser struggles are wars in defense of Islam, which can be only waged if the enemy has struck first. During post-9/11 times, the U.S government and media labeled the entire Muslim population of the world as “terrorists,” significantly aiding the U.S in the war against so called “terrorism.” By broadening the scope of the enemy by simply stating that the U.S. military opposed “jihadi” or “jihadist”, it was convenient for the U.S. to unjustly label all Muslims as terrorists.
Aside from current examples, the words themselves have a history of their own. The term “terrorism” was first introduced in the 1790’s during a period known as the Reign of Terror in the French revolution as Terrorisme (In French). It was an onset of violence started by two rival faction groups fighting for the revolution, the Girondins and the Jacobins. The two forces fought for the Revolution, primarily against the old tyrannical leaders of then France.
During the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1970’s, the U.S government fully supported the Afghan people against the Red Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At the time, the U.S was ready to fight another war against a superpower and political ideology, Communism. This war is also known as the Cold War. The U.S government supported local Afghani freedom fighters called “The Mujahideen” by providing billions of dollars in military support. Ironically, at the onset of the “War on Terror” around thirty years later, the U.S. currently wages war with the same country that accepted financial support. As a result, “The Mujahideen” that were once known as “freedom-fighters” are now labelled as a terrorist organization along with the Taliban. To reiterate the point, the term “terrorism,” is used by western governments to label a certain faction or group of people as the enemy of the state who will commit atrocious crimes against humanity. In this case, however, the term lacks any real legitimacy because of the inconsistency and the significant subjectivity of the term for the interpreter.
The term “terrorism” is surrounded by much controversy and debate in recent times. The terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are obscure terms because there are no absolute definitions, reflecting that world issues are indeed not starkly black or white; rather, a multitude of greys. Additionally, in a study done by Jeffrey Record for the U.S Army, there are over 109 different definitions for “terrorism.” However, George W. Bush implemented the term “War on Terror” to describe the deployment of troops against extremist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice of words Bush decided to describe the war in Afghanistan was greatly debated on, because of the broadness of the term “War on Terror”. Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the masterminds of the war in Afghanistan, attempted to persuade Bush in using a less subjective term. In fact, he proposed the phrase “global struggle against violent extremism,” which remains a much more precise description of the who or what the U.S was fighting against. As of now, President Barack Obama’s administration has stopped using the term “War on Terror” to describe the current war in Afghanistan; instead the administration has started using the term ‘overseas contingency operations'. Obama’s administration has realized that the previous administration has misused or abused the language, especially the terms “terrorism” and “jihadi,” in order to gain the upper hand of the people. In addition, Reuters news networks has banned the term “terrorist” because of the term’s subjectivity and biased connotations.
In recent events, Osama Bin Laden, the symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda was found and shot inside his compound in Pakistan. One of the operational leaders of Al Qaeda, Ilyas Kashmiri, was also killed by a U.S drone. Thus the question arises, after the deaths of these leaders, are we still waging war against these so called “terrorists” or are we fighting something else now? The Americans’ sole presence in Afghanistan certainly incites Afghani civilians to rebel against U.S. forces because of the unwanted intrusion of foreigners. If American troops left Afghanistan and surrounding areas, there stands a hope for peace in the contingent areas of Afghanistan.
As mentioned previously, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” have no universal definition. As many say, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” which holds true in every logical sense. The term “terrorism” is simply a tool used by western governments to create an emotional appeal of the public to fight against a faction group or government that the western governments agree on. The U.N and other organizations have contemplated on a collective definition of what terrorism is; however no universally accepted definition has emerged for over 30 years. The news media and western governments practically spoon feed their ‘news’ to “educate” Americans as to what to think and what to believe in. Many students and college educators must fully understand how both governments and news media bias their information to make the public think one way or another, even if it may not be true. In short, the educated should mind the words portrayed in the media and reported by the government, instead of believing everything the government and media releases as the truth.
Works Cited:
Burkeman, Oliver. "Obama Administration Says Goodbye to 'war on Terror'"Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News, 25 Mar. 2009. Web..
Kinsley, Michael. "Defining Terrorism - By Michael Kinsley." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 20 July 2011..
"Hamas: Government or Terrorist Organization? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. National Public Radio, 6 Dec. 2006. Web. 20 July 2011..
Ganor, Boaz. DEFINING TERRORISM: IS ONE MAN’S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN’S FREEDOM FIGHTER? Vol. 3. Herzlia, Israel: Routledge, 2002. 2002. Web.
Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” In the world of global politics, things are seemingly black and white. However, that is not the case when uncovering the truth behind the clever tactics used by politicians and the news media, reflecting the several shades of gray in between. This scenario is especially visible in the world of politics in Western governments. The media often bends the truth behind events to label certain governments or faction groups with different political perspectives as evil or many times as “terrorist organizations”. The term “terrorism” and “global terrorism,” are phrases used by the media and western governments alike to justify military actions. From a neutral standpoint, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are politically and emotionally charged, but they are also highly ambiguous. From a western standpoint, however, the term “terrorism” allows certain actions performed by western governments deemed politically correct. For example, the War in Afghanistan bluntly labels opposing governments or faction groups as “terrorists.” In order to fully understand how the two terms work, the public must know the history behind them, as well as the truth in how western governments use biased and/or ambiguous language to further their agendas of reaching certain political goals.
The diction western governments choose in their political advancements is always chosen for a specific purpose. This powerful, rhetorical strategy is administered to align the public to think and feel a certain way. An example is the misuse of the word “jihadi” or “jihadist” during post 9/11 times, when both the U.S government and news repeatedly labeled “global terrorists” as “jihadist” or “jihadi”. The U.S government and news media used these particular words to portray the opposing forces as religious extremists. When informing the general American public about religious terms, most will not know what the words truly mean, but they may have preconceived notions of what the definitions could actually be. For many, “jihadi” or “jihadist” is a term for one who will do anything in order to terrorize or make a point to certain groups of people, even if it means to commit suicide for a “holy war”. However, the actual meaning is much different from the one created by society. “Jihad” literally translates to “struggle.” Every Muslim has within themselves a struggle, categorized into a greater and lesser struggle. Greater struggles for a Muslim is are spiritual conflicts: a struggle for self-improvement, against vices such as greed and selfishness. Similarly, lesser struggles are wars in defense of Islam, which can be only waged if the enemy has struck first. During post-9/11 times, the U.S government and media labeled the entire Muslim population of the world as “terrorists,” significantly aiding the U.S in the war against so called “terrorism.” By broadening the scope of the enemy by simply stating that the U.S. military opposed “jihadi” or “jihadist”, it was convenient for the U.S. to unjustly label all Muslims as terrorists.
Aside from current examples, the words themselves have a history of their own. The term “terrorism” was first introduced in the 1790’s during a period known as the Reign of Terror in the French revolution as Terrorisme (In French). It was an onset of violence started by two rival faction groups fighting for the revolution, the Girondins and the Jacobins. The two forces fought for the Revolution, primarily against the old tyrannical leaders of then France.
During the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1970’s, the U.S government fully supported the Afghan people against the Red Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At the time, the U.S was ready to fight another war against a superpower and political ideology, Communism. This war is also known as the Cold War. The U.S government supported local Afghani freedom fighters called “The Mujahideen” by providing billions of dollars in military support. Ironically, at the onset of the “War on Terror” around thirty years later, the U.S. currently wages war with the same country that accepted financial support. As a result, “The Mujahideen” that were once known as “freedom-fighters” are now labelled as a terrorist organization along with the Taliban. To reiterate the point, the term “terrorism,” is used by western governments to label a certain faction or group of people as the enemy of the state who will commit atrocious crimes against humanity. In this case, however, the term lacks any real legitimacy because of the inconsistency and the significant subjectivity of the term for the interpreter.
The term “terrorism” is surrounded by much controversy and debate in recent times. The terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” are obscure terms because there are no absolute definitions, reflecting that world issues are indeed not starkly black or white; rather, a multitude of greys. Additionally, in a study done by Jeffrey Record for the U.S Army, there are over 109 different definitions for “terrorism.” However, George W. Bush implemented the term “War on Terror” to describe the deployment of troops against extremist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The choice of words Bush decided to describe the war in Afghanistan was greatly debated on, because of the broadness of the term “War on Terror”. Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the masterminds of the war in Afghanistan, attempted to persuade Bush in using a less subjective term. In fact, he proposed the phrase “global struggle against violent extremism,” which remains a much more precise description of the who or what the U.S was fighting against. As of now, President Barack Obama’s administration has stopped using the term “War on Terror” to describe the current war in Afghanistan; instead the administration has started using the term ‘overseas contingency operations'. Obama’s administration has realized that the previous administration has misused or abused the language, especially the terms “terrorism” and “jihadi,” in order to gain the upper hand of the people. In addition, Reuters news networks has banned the term “terrorist” because of the term’s subjectivity and biased connotations.
In recent events, Osama Bin Laden, the symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda was found and shot inside his compound in Pakistan. One of the operational leaders of Al Qaeda, Ilyas Kashmiri, was also killed by a U.S drone. Thus the question arises, after the deaths of these leaders, are we still waging war against these so called “terrorists” or are we fighting something else now? The Americans’ sole presence in Afghanistan certainly incites Afghani civilians to rebel against U.S. forces because of the unwanted intrusion of foreigners. If American troops left Afghanistan and surrounding areas, there stands a hope for peace in the contingent areas of Afghanistan.
As mentioned previously, the terms “terrorism” and “global terrorism” have no universal definition. As many say, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” which holds true in every logical sense. The term “terrorism” is simply a tool used by western governments to create an emotional appeal of the public to fight against a faction group or government that the western governments agree on. The U.N and other organizations have contemplated on a collective definition of what terrorism is; however no universally accepted definition has emerged for over 30 years. The news media and western governments practically spoon feed their ‘news’ to “educate” Americans as to what to think and what to believe in. Many students and college educators must fully understand how both governments and news media bias their information to make the public think one way or another, even if it may not be true. In short, the educated should mind the words portrayed in the media and reported by the government, instead of believing everything the government and media releases as the truth.
Works Cited:
Burkeman, Oliver. "Obama Administration Says Goodbye to 'war on Terror'"Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News, 25 Mar. 2009. Web.
Kinsley, Michael. "Defining Terrorism - By Michael Kinsley." Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 5 Oct. 2001. Web. 20 July 2011.
"Hamas: Government or Terrorist Organization? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. National Public Radio, 6 Dec. 2006. Web. 20 July 2011.
Ganor, Boaz. DEFINING TERRORISM: IS ONE MAN’S TERRORIST ANOTHER MAN’S FREEDOM FIGHTER? Vol. 3. Herzlia, Israel: Routledge, 2002. 2002. Web.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Rough draft of my Definition Paper.
Exigence-> Due to the unfolding events recently in the “War on Terror,” namely Osama Bin Laden’s death, What is the U.S fighting now, after the death of Osama Bin Laden and Ilyas Kashmiri (One of the top leader of Al-Qaeda)? What is “War on Terror” now that these leaders are dead?
Intro-> (Two or Three Paragraphs) Focusing on giving background on the term “Terrorism” specifically on how the term “War on Terror” was used in order to justify the U.S’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then explain because of the ongoing controversy of the term, why was the term removed from use from the U.S government. (Use the source from the Guardian Article that talks about how this term was discontinued in Obama’s Administration). Explain how situations in the global arena are never ‘black and white,’ or ‘good’ v ‘bad,’ and explain how governments around the world facilitate many emotionally charged terms in order to control the public.
The term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism,” is a phrase often used by the media and governments alike to justify their actions in war. From a neutral standpoint, the terms are politically and emotionally charged but more importantly more ambiguous than they seem.
Body Paragraph One-> Explain the term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism,” in a historical context. Use examples such as the Iraq-Iran war from 1980, and the Afghan-Soviet war from 1979 and explain how back then we use to help these groups that we now consider to be “Terrorist” organizations. Use many other examples to further elaborate on how the term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism” was used historically.
Body Paragraph Two-> Possibly look at the controversy and problems the term “War on Terror” has caused and what are the criticisms against the term and why has the Obama administration and numerous other organizations have stopped using the term.
Body Paragraph Three-> Investigate on what is “War on Terror” now, after the death of two of the top leaders of terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
I’m still thinking about the third body paragraph and my conclusion, however I have already have created some thoughts on how to write my paper, especially my introductory paragraphs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/obama-war-terror-overseas-contingency-operations
Intro-> (Two or Three Paragraphs) Focusing on giving background on the term “Terrorism” specifically on how the term “War on Terror” was used in order to justify the U.S’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then explain because of the ongoing controversy of the term, why was the term removed from use from the U.S government. (Use the source from the Guardian Article that talks about how this term was discontinued in Obama’s Administration). Explain how situations in the global arena are never ‘black and white,’ or ‘good’ v ‘bad,’ and explain how governments around the world facilitate many emotionally charged terms in order to control the public.
The term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism,” is a phrase often used by the media and governments alike to justify their actions in war. From a neutral standpoint, the terms are politically and emotionally charged but more importantly more ambiguous than they seem.
Body Paragraph One-> Explain the term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism,” in a historical context. Use examples such as the Iraq-Iran war from 1980, and the Afghan-Soviet war from 1979 and explain how back then we use to help these groups that we now consider to be “Terrorist” organizations. Use many other examples to further elaborate on how the term “Terrorism” and “Global Terrorism” was used historically.
Body Paragraph Two-> Possibly look at the controversy and problems the term “War on Terror” has caused and what are the criticisms against the term and why has the Obama administration and numerous other organizations have stopped using the term.
Body Paragraph Three-> Investigate on what is “War on Terror” now, after the death of two of the top leaders of terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
I’m still thinking about the third body paragraph and my conclusion, however I have already have created some thoughts on how to write my paper, especially my introductory paragraphs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/obama-war-terror-overseas-contingency-operations
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Thoughts for the Definition Paper.
Definition Paper.
1. Defining “Terrorism” or “War on Terror”.
2. My audience is the educated public.
3. Exigence. Due to the unfolding events recently in the “War on Terror,” namely Osama Bin Laden’s death, What is the U.S fighting now, after the death of Osama Bin Laden and Ilyas Kashmiri (One of the top leader of Al-Qaeda)? What is “War on Terror” now that these leaders are dead?
I haven’t come up with a concrete thesis yet, but I will soon.
One source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/05/19/chomsky
1. Defining “Terrorism” or “War on Terror”.
2. My audience is the educated public.
3. Exigence. Due to the unfolding events recently in the “War on Terror,” namely Osama Bin Laden’s death, What is the U.S fighting now, after the death of Osama Bin Laden and Ilyas Kashmiri (One of the top leader of Al-Qaeda)? What is “War on Terror” now that these leaders are dead?
I haven’t come up with a concrete thesis yet, but I will soon.
One source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/05/19/chomsky
Friday, July 8, 2011
What I learned from English 1020.
The top two things that I have improved on from my English 1020 class was the use of Rhetorical Strategies and improvement of my grammar. Rhetorical Strategies that include Ethos, Pathos, and Logos but also other strategies writers use to make their argument. I have used these strategies in my paper and it has improved my writing substantially. In addition, my grammar has improved. I'm more familiar with correct quoting, and what to underline or italisize or what not to italisize or underline. I also learned how to introduce a quotes properly and then elaborate afterwards in order to properly quote a outside source. I also learned to critically think before writing a paper, there must be a reason for writing it. Questions such as "So what? Who cares?" should be asked.
Defining Technology
Technology [Téchne + Logía]
Most people consider Technology as a tool such as a computer or video camera that makes their lives easier and convenient. However, Technology was the most important invention to develop human kind. The invention of the application of fire was the catalyzer that evolved humans to begin the 'hunter gathering' style of life. Technology to me is application of science to improve the human condition. The application of science could be in any category of science including social sciences. Many ignore the daily tools in their lives as just appliances, and don't consider tools such as the typewriter, a book, etc... People will have different definitions for the word Technology. Depending on the person, of his or her background and environment, they may consider Technology completely differently than me.
Most people consider Technology as a tool such as a computer or video camera that makes their lives easier and convenient. However, Technology was the most important invention to develop human kind. The invention of the application of fire was the catalyzer that evolved humans to begin the 'hunter gathering' style of life. Technology to me is application of science to improve the human condition. The application of science could be in any category of science including social sciences. Many ignore the daily tools in their lives as just appliances, and don't consider tools such as the typewriter, a book, etc... People will have different definitions for the word Technology. Depending on the person, of his or her background and environment, they may consider Technology completely differently than me.
Definition Paper
Definition Paper
-Criteria Match
X is defined by A B & C.
-Resemblance
Compare two objects or one subject fits into a larger subject based on criteria
X is actually Y because of A B & C
1. Exigence <- Important
2. Go Beyond
Cultural Summary
Definitional
3. Think who your audience is
[It doesn't have to be a positive definition paper, you can have a negative definition paper]
-Criteria Match
X is defined by A B & C.
-Resemblance
Compare two objects or one subject fits into a larger subject based on criteria
X is actually Y because of A B & C
1. Exigence <- Important
2. Go Beyond
Cultural Summary
Definitional
3. Think who your audience is
[It doesn't have to be a positive definition paper, you can have a negative definition paper]
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Third Culture Kids (TCKs)
Third Culture Kids
Many people don’t know that President Barack Obama and a number of his cabinet members were Third Culture Kids (TCKs). According to the U.S. State Department, “a Third Culture Kid is known as someone who, as a child, has spent a significant period of time in one or more culture(s) other than his or her own, thus integrating elements of those cultures and their own birth culture, into a third culture.” Although many people are not familiar with this term, it is necessary to acknowledge different cultures especially when countries are becoming more interdependent: economically, socially, and politically. The term “Third Culture Kids” was first coined by sociologist and TCK Dr. Ruth Hill Useem forty years ago, when the Internet and dozens of networking tools did not exist for people like her. Many agree that this is the age of Information Technology, when a person can instantly reconnect with a friend thousands of miles away. In today’s society Internet is available for most parts of the world, technology has become a positive tool that transforms the TCK culture today.
Technology has progressed significantly from the invention of electricity by Thomas Edison to the advent of the World Wide Web. This intricate network has connected billions of people across the world; it is needless to say that technology has changed all forms of cultures, even becoming a culture of its own. According to a Gallup poll, “Americans' frequent use of the Internet has almost doubled over the last five years; 48% now report using the Internet more than one hour per day compared to 26% in 2002.” This is an important fact because it provides information as to how many Americans are being influenced by the Internet, thereby including the TCK population. However, the most important change the Internet has brought upon the global community is the democratization of information among those who have access to the World Wide Web. In today’s Internet culture, anyone has the right and ability to interpret opinions online and also voice their own. As third world countries develop into an industrial society, TCKs will solve problems that might arise from neo-colonialism, defusing potentially insidious threats that may ruin many lives in a country.The ongoing ‘Arab Spring’ situation is a direct result of the free flow of unaccountable information on the Web, but it demonstrates the fact that the Internet has brought change across all cultures in the world including the TCK culture.
The ‘Internet’ has become a culture in itself. As Dave Healy describes it, “From one perspective, the Internet represents, for community-minded citizens, an almost limitless potential for an associational life. No longer limited by geographical happenstance to the interactions that might develop in a town or neighborhood or workplace, individuals can free themselves from the accidents of physical location to create their own virtual places.” (University of Exeter) Healy explains that communities are no longer bounded by physical distance, and people can connect with each other regardless of the physical limitations. Even when isolated from others, a person is simultaneously connected to a global community. The Web is such that anyone can be immersed in a culture that is almost limitless in knowledge, whether desired or not. When the United States was first discovered, it was known to many as the ‘new frontier’ or the as the ‘new world’, likewise the Internet has arguably become this ‘new frontier’ for American society.
Third Culture Kids stem from all nations across the globe, as sons and daughters of diplomats, businessmen, army personnel, and preachers. Often, these kids are immersed in as many as three or four different cultures and also speak many languages. Though they seem worldly and educated of different cultures, many do not have a definite identity of what they are. When asked the simplest question, “Where are you from?,” answers will be more than complicated but also very personal. Most TCKs are also very accepting of other cultures and are open in their way of thinking. Ruth Van Reken, author of Third Culture Kids, exclaims, “Many ATCKs are now in positions of influence and power. Their capacity to often think “outside the box” can offer new and creative thinking for doing business and living in our globalizing world. But that same thinking can create fear for those who see the world from a more traditional world view.” Reken summarized the importance of TCKs and their influence towards the globalizing society, but on the other hand it creates problems for those who are very conservative in terms of globalization and diversification.
As mentioned earlier in the paper, President Obama was a TCK, and a number of his cabinet members were TCKs. However, many people were unaware of that fact, or even the term itself. President Obama spent several of his formative years overseas in Indonesia from 1968 to 1971 in an Indonesian elementary school. In addition, a number of his cabinet members including Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor for President Obama, grew up in Shiraz, Iran and London, England. Other members of his political team were also TCKs, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Security Advisor James L. Jones. Political pundits and the general public have focused on determining Obama’s racial identity, but they have ignored his cultural identity. This lack of knowledge about the TCKs is detrimental to society as a whole. It is necessary to know about certain cultures, especially TCKs, when many of them become political figures and important members in the global community.
Ultimately, Internet technology and TCKs have become one. TCKs use and live by Internet technology in order to solve their problems today. While most people do use Internet technology to connect with friends and family members, TCKs have high importance in using Internet technology to go on with their lives. Many TCKs have identity conflicts arising from their complex cultural backgrounds. They struggle with self identity and many are detached from friends. They often struggle with relocating to new places, some even encounter depression in failing to adjust to their new environment. According to the U.S State Department, “By the time a TCK is a teenager, he has either become adept at coping as the new kid on the block or has withdrawn into himself, no longer making the effort to make new friends over and over again.” (Kay Eakin) However, this has changed in the past five years. No longer do TCKs have to say goodbye to their friends once they relocate to another country. Thanks to the age of Information Technology, anyone can reconnect with friends or family thousands of miles away. These social networking tools did not exist 20 years ago and that is why many TCKs struggled with self-destructive problems. However, TCKs now have the chance to be able to keep their friendships and relationships alive, by using tools such as Skype, Facebook, Twitter and so on. In short, Internet technology and TCK culture have become a distinct, yet diverse culture. It has become a necessity for TCKs, to avoid possible problems such as depression, addiction, and other negative behaviors. Thus, Internet technology has saved the TCK culture.
TCKs will only have a greater importance in a growing global community, making it important for the uninformed to know about the TCK culture. As TCKs don’t have a concrete identity; they associate themselves with many ethnic cultures, and many have aloof personalities. A prime example of someone who possesses this personality trait is President Obama, he presents himself as someone who is above all problems, someone who understands the global society; someone who feels empathy towards others. Internet technology has changed and has been infused into the TCK culture. Internet technology, especially Facebook and Skype has had an especially big influence on TCKs. It has changed many cultures, though it is uncertain as to how Internet technology will affect third world countries and cultures.
Works Cited:
Morales, Lymari. "Nearly Half of Americans Are Frequent Internet Users." Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management. Gallup, 2 Jan. 2009. Web. 03 July 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/113638/Nearly-Half-Americans-Frequent-Internet-Users.aspx>.
<http://services.exeter.ac.uk/cmit/media/texts/porter1996/healy1997_cyberspace_and_place.pdf>.
Van Reken, Ruth E. "Third Culture Kids - Telegraph." Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph Online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. The Telegraph, 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 04 July 2011.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)