Dangers of single stories Module one

Sophi Felbinger posted

This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll.

Adjust automatic marking as read setting

The term single story, Chimamanda Adichie mentions that people take false perceptions we form about individuals, groups and countries. You put a summary into your head about what you may think about those individuals, groups and countries and go with it. When you are taking false information and lack of facts, and persuading the audience and making them believe what you are saying is the full truth. A single story believed in the United States for example could be immigration in the united States. Majority of the North Americans have this problem with Mexicans and illegal immigration. This would be considered a dangerous single story because if we continually discuss Mexicans in this manner, in our heads we will be forming some sort of connection. we are only looking at one point of view, our point of view. Therefore, we lack our facts and the full truth to this single story. One way we can address single stories is to welcome people with open arms, approach them with the willingness to learn about them. You can always ask questions and get to know them. This way you can also share your story to people who may need to hear it so they can see it from a different perspective as well. The only view we see is our point of view, seeing it from someone else’s perspective can always help seeing it in a different light. The way we can dispel dangerous myths is to share our stories. Many of us put an idea about something in our head and keep it like that, sharing your story gives many a different perspective and new ways to look at things. This can help our world by coming together and getting to know others instead of assuming about an individual, groups or countries and look at things differently.

Single Stories- Module one

Valery Osorio Lozano posted

A “single story” can be defined as a stereotypical view of a person, culture, or country that is repeatedly passed along as the truth. I am Colombian, and a “single story” that has always been around in my life is the idea that Colombians are drug dealers, and we must all know Pablo Escobar. 
Narcos, a television show, is the perfect example of this “single story.” The show focuses on Pablo Escobar’s career as a drug cartel leader in Colombia. This single story limits what people know and believe about Colombians! People do not talk about how beautiful our country is, how great our soccer team is, how our carnivals are incredibly fun, or how diverse we are in all aspects. This lack of knowledge about us creates a divide between us and those who stick to their stereotypes. However, there are ways we can address the issue of believing this “single story.” One way is by gaining knowledge about the things you do not know. Instead of blindly following the things you hear – do research. Read a book, visit a country, or attend a seminar if possible. Disney’s 
Encanto is a great example of this. The movie has multiple depictions of things that are part of Colombian culture. From examples of food to their vivid floral details, they created a wonderful depiction of what Colombia is like, instead of focusing on the one stereotypical idea. This also allowed viewers to appreciate the culture and possibly become interested in learning more about it, which ties back into educating yourself. While my “single story” is not incredibly harmful, there are many that are, and that is why educating yourself to fight “single stories” is important.

Reproducing social inequality- Module 2

Kamryn Kollo posted

Annette Lareau touches on a very wide variety of points in her discussion.  Truthfully, I found that it made her argument a bit more difficult to follow due to the broad spectrum. Nevertheless, her main concern in her research is how different socioeconomic backgrounds affects children and their overall quest for success. Family socialization between middle and working class parents changes between each social class. Lareau explains that the middle class parents, in her observations, were more hands-on and eluded more of a “helicopter parent” role.  The children of these middle class, educated parents were also involved in a variety of extracurricular activities such as a sport or musical outlet. Her presumption is that these children have a higher probability of continuing onto college and obtaining a higher-paying job with their college degree, just as their parents did. 

On the other hand, her observations of the working class families showed a more hands-off approach to parenting.  This method did not include after school activities, as the labor-hours task on mothers excludes this possibility. With this method, children learn a more self-sufficient and obedient role.  However, Laraeu claims that a large amount of these children eventually dropped out of high school and joined the working class, just as their parents. 

Personally I think that nature vs. nurture plays a large role in this equation of the difference in socioeconomic background and how they reproduce social inequality. Laraeu explains the middle class’ parenting style as “concerted cultivation” where the parents essentially curate an experience and focus on helping their children independently develop their traits and skills.  Whereas the working class’ style was “the accomplishment of natural growth” and it focused on giving children directives and ensuring the basic needs were met such as food, housing, and other necessities. I view “Concerted Cultivation” as the nurture affect, as the parents often intervene and help curate their children’s set of skills, knowledge, and expertise.  “The accomplishment of natural growth” could be argued as the nature affect because it takes a more hands off approach, allowing the child to spontaneously thrive. 

Homeless communities in America. -Module 2

Kamryn Kollo posted

Where I am from, a majority of the homeless population struggle with substance abuse.  Most of those substances are meth, crack, heroin, etc. So when I learned that Alan Graham’s village community did not require sobriety, I immediately did not support the idea.  I understand Grahams claims that the housing will not end homelessness, but that community will.  It does make sense that when people feel loved, seen, and respected, that they become the best versions of themselves.  However, this seems like a wide opportunity to be taken advantage of.  If something like this village were to pop up in my area, I can almost promise that the drug abusers would take over, they would find their community with other drug users and thus a breeding ground would arise. A community like this relies on private funding and hours upon hours of volunteer work from hundreds of people. 

One positive point I can make from this development idea, is that many homeless people have a hard time acquiring a job due to lack of mailing address.  Alan Graham’s community eliminates this issue entirely, and even promotes hard work by requiring a small rental payment.  This is a form of financial rehabilitation, which is excellent.  This gives individuals a chance to get back on their feet, pay their own way a little bit, and work their way back up.  However, how long can they stay? Is there an income cap? I would be very interested to learn more about the day to day official rules of the park. 

Alan Graham believes that it is our job, as a society, as a community, to help our homeless population.  Which I do not entirely disagree with.  I love the selfless model that he has produced.  However, I do not think it is applicable in many areas of this country as it relies solely on human kindness and resources.