|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 24, 2009 6:49:38 GMT -7
I know I will be slammed for putting this under the immigration thread, but if you think about it this case shows some of the difficulties of creating a "melting pot" of cultures in a society that has been built on immigration. Many have argued, particularly in the heyday of cultural diversity, that the melting pot analogy should be replaced by a salad bowl where the cultures remain distinct within the US Society. I think this case shows that some melting away of the culture of the country you left is critical.Four boys accused of raping girl, 8 The Associated Press updated 7:03 a.m. MT, Fri., July 24, 2009 PHOENIX - Officers responding to a report of hysterical screams found an 8-year-old girl partially clothed and four boys, some barely in their teens, running from an empty shed. The boys, ages 9 to 14, face charges ranging from sexual assault to kidnapping, police said Thursday. Authorities in Phoenix say it's one of the most horrific cases they've ever seen. Investigators said the boys lured the girl to an empty shed on July 16 under the pretense of offering her gum. The boys then held the girl down while they took turns raping her, police said. "She was brutally sexually assaulted for a period of about 10 to 15 minutes," police Sgt. Andy Hill said. The 14-year-old boy was charged Wednesday as an adult with two counts of sexual assault and kidnapping, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said. He appeared in court Thursday and was being held without bond. He does not yet have a defense lawyer. Charged as juveniles The other boys — ages 9, 10, and 13 — were charged as juveniles with sexual assault. The 10- and 13-year-old boys also were charged with kidnapping, the office said Thursday. "This is a deeply disturbing case that has gripped our community," Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said. "Our office will seek justice for the young victim in this heartrending situation." The outrage over the allegations has intensified when police said the girl's parents criticized her after the attack and blamed her for bringing shame on the family. "The father told the case worker and an officer in her presence that he didn't want her back. He said 'Take her, I don't want her,'" Hill said. Hill cited the family's background as the reason the family shunned the girl. All five children are refugees from the West African nation of Liberia. In some parts of Africa, women often are blamed for being raped for enticing men or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Girls who are raped often are shunned by their families. 'Shame-based culture' "It's a shame-based culture, so the crime is not as important as protecting the family name and the name of the community," said Tony Weedor, a Liberian refugee in Littleton, Colo., and co-founder of the CenterPoint International Foundation, which helps Liberians resettle in the United States. "I just feel so sorry for this little girl," he said. "Some of these people will not care about the trauma she's going through — they're more concerned about the shame she brought on the family." In recent years, Liberia has made efforts to combat rape under the leadership of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who has sought to dispel the stigma associated with sexual assault by publicly acknowledging that she was herself the victim of attempted rape during the country's civil war. The girl's healing process will be particularly difficult, said Paul Penzone of Childhelp, which aids young victims of crime. Authorities said the victim was in the care of Child Protective Services. 'Pack of wolves' "These four boys used what was a ploy to entice her to a place where they could take advantage of her almost like a pack of wolves," he said. "And what's so disturbing beyond the initial crime is the fact that a child needs to have somewhere to feel safe, and you would think that would be in a home with her own family," not in state custody, Penzone said. Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122954/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 25, 2009 7:51:00 GMT -7
I have always preferred the "salad bowl" analogy because there's less of an implied "necessity" for the loss of one's cultural uniqueness; one is allowed to add to the mix, rather than melt away. But that said, every culture has its negative qualities and the underlying point made is an excellent one. Sometimes, these negative extremes deserve a hard look and elimination.
The only thing I would add is a suggestion of caution, if the inference here is that this particular set of discriminatory beliefs regarding women didn't have its own hold on our culture. Certainly not to the same extreme, and it's a little loose, but....
many other "cultures" and nations have their own version....Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a great book: The Scarlet Letter, many years ago. In that book, the "Puritan" ethic was examined; the theme was one which described a willing female participant in adultery with a religious leader. Not the same thing at all; but if one reads the book, there is an argument to be made for the fact that she is seduced, enticed and misled. The innocent product of that relationship, a child named Pearl, is ostracized, maligned and victimized. Her innocence is irrelevant even in the face of furthering overriding religious values and norms.
Many of the values, norms and roles ascribed to women in that literary and religious setting can find their complimentary place alongside the extreme stance that is described by these parents and their understanding of their culture/religion. And those early Puritan values are as "American" as it gets....
As to the dominance of religion? Well, we were there too....historical perspectives argue amongst themselves as to how many were actually killed in Salem, but.....
So, if you use the salad bowl analogy.....each culture has many positive and some negative qualities in its "identity". We do need to "evolve" and grow, and this is why our constitution is considered to be a "living" document. As we grow, we learn to lessen and/or eliminate those extreme cultural influences that cause harm, but the unique and meaningful aspects of each of our "origins" can contribute to depth and maturity too
in music, a single theme is great, even heartfelt. but when countermelodies and other themes, bridges to other musical avenues are added, that original theme still anchors, but it can be expanded and developed into a fully scored piece where every "voice" is heard and integral to the overall piece
your overall point? They come from a different country, and must abide by our laws, regardless of what their cultural/religious norms are. If they aren't deported, they will have to adapt, just as all others have. The arguments as to whether or not these parents should have anything more to do with their daughter -- what a can of worms. In either case, most states have laws that protect the safety and interests of the child...my hope is that she is well cared for and gets the help she needs, first.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 25, 2009 8:27:51 GMT -7
Never been a fan of the salad bowl as a concept for the whole - it implies two much separation and uniqueness - never a good thing as History has shown for building a unified nation - look at the former Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. The implication of a melting pot is that the blending of cultures, which by implication means retention of the individual flavors as components of the whole, is that a new nation is formed with its own zesty flavor of culture. The comon argument against that it is the suppression or amputation of the original culture is just wrong.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 25, 2009 9:47:58 GMT -7
Never been a fan of the salad bowl as a concept for the whole - it implies two much separation and uniqueness - never a good thing as History has shown for building a unified nation - look at the former Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. The implication of a melting pot is that the blending of cultures, which by implication means retention of the individual flavors as components of the whole, is that a new nation is formed with its own zesty flavor of culture. The comon argument against that it is the suppression or amputation of the original culture is just wrong. well, perhaps from your perspective it's "wrong" but from mine, there are different aspects to the argument. In your original opinon, you express the idea that negative aspects of one's culture should be eliminated and I think that if they're harmful to others, this is a good thing to do. This, to me, constitutes the negative in the "too much" you cite. Extremes can indeed be very negative, even harmful. You aren't arguing for suppressing or amputating the original culture, and neither am I. Not everybody agrees with what you describe as the "implication of the melting pot". Other people have different understandings of what this term means, and others still, see differences in the way the term is defined, and how groups try to implement those definitions. And this doesn't neccesarily have to be a "bad" thing, in and of itself. I like the "blending" idea, except that in many cases, people don't tend to argue on behalf of retaining individual flavors. What many argue for is a distinct "national" identity (flavor)...and they want to define what that is, many times, in rather exclusionary or particular language. So there "should be" one overriding flavor made up of individual components, which, I can also see at times, but to me, this can be extreme too. In a way, this kind of flies in the face of the ethic of individualism that Americans embrace...and I understand it's a difficult argument and a very difficult line to dance on.....we want people to be individuals, but within a society built upon individual strengths and diversity within that concept though, I think it's great for individuals to define for themselves who they are. This way, they're responsible for the good and the bad. If you contribute to society in ways that enrich us, even better. If, in your cultural ethos, you express ideas or behave in ways that hurt or kill people, this deserves examination, and perhaps legal intervention. I say "perhaps" because many activities that were endorsed by civil rights leaders were, arguably, either considered unacceptable by larger societal mores, or they were illegal. It is a fine line sometimes There were any number of distinct groups that contributed the "flavor" to the founding of this country, and each group was comprised of individuals who reportedly were allowed to self-determine--at least this was the idea. Just because you are a cucumber in a bowl full of broccoli, it doesn't mean you cannot contribute. But there have been times in our history, even contemporary events sometimes, when we forget that we all contribute I don't fully agree with those who dictate to me that I am American, and I don't fully agree with those who dictate to me that I am Mexican-American, or German-American, or French-American. I don't agree with people who want to tell me what or who I am, let alone without asking me first, who I am. Being a citizen of this country means I have the responsibility and the right to speak for myself And I am very, very grateful that I've been born into a country that allows me the freedom to think this way. The truth is that, for me, I am all of these things, as well as a person who can understand that I'm free to consider other perspectives too. If it should come to a point where later in life, because of the things I experience, I choose to self-identify in a very different way than I do now, I will still be grateful for the freedom I have to do so. Frankly, this is, I think a big part of what makes me a United States Citizen....my gratitude for the ability to see myself as a radish in the salad.... oh, forget that I don't like radishes....but I do like tomatoes. They contribute a lot, they "blend" well, and yet retain all of the unique characteristics that make them tomatoes. I may not always agree with my neighbor, but as a citizen of this country, I defend my neighbor's right to think what he wants. If what he thinks or wants doesn't comply with the law, I may have misgivings, I may not want my kids to play with his. But if he comes from a different mind-set, wants to define me in another way, I will defend his right to do that. I just will disagree, and I will live by the standards I believe define me more accurately. I am an American. But, so are my neighbors to the south, in South America. Whenever I cross the bridge and am asked to declare what my nationality is? I say: "United States citizen". I know not everybody agrees with my perspective. Similarly, I don't agree with the notion that because I am "American", I have to think as "an American". I want to be able to be a little more balanced in determining what that means for and to--me. You aren't going to get "slammed" by me for expressing what you believe, Snil. I understand what you are saying and where your beliefs come from. In some ways, I even kind of agree...but for me, the salad analogy comes closer. You can still blend flavors and be unified and healthy sometimes, it's the language that gets us hung up, but the overall notions of unity and progress are good ideals. They may not always mean the same things for you and I. But that too, is part of the unique aspect of being a citizen of this country. And rest assured, as diverse and different as we can be as individuals, we are still a very caring people and part of a world community of progress and caring people. This article was in the news the same day as the one you posted: This is off the AP Calif. man pulls girl from burning SUV on freeway July 23, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Highway Patrol is calling a Southern California man a hero for rescuing a 3-year-old girl from a burning vehicle on a Los Angeles-area freeway.
John McDonald of West Covina was driving on Interstate 10 in El Monte Wednesday when he saw an overturned sports utility vehicle engulfed in flames.
Video footage shows him running to help as three people who escaped the burning SUV ran away. The CHP says the driver of the SUV shouted that her granddaughter was still inside, and McDonald went in to pull the girl out.
Both were treated for minor injuries.
McDonald told KABC-TV he jumped into action because he felt it was "something that needed to be done."
The cause of the crash is under investigation.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 25, 2009 9:49:30 GMT -7
Here is an update on the story off of CNN:
(CNN) -- The president of Liberia spoke Friday on the sexual assault of an 8-year-old Liberian refugee in Phoenix, Arizona, decrying reports that the parents believe their family has been shamed by the girl.
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf says the girl, her family and the alleged rapists should receive counseling.
"This is not a question of shame on the family. It is the question of an assault on a young child. That cannot be tolerated," said President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, speaking by telephone.
Police have charged four boys, ages 9 to 14, in the case. The boys also are Liberian refugees.
"We are so saddened," Sirleaf said. "We are deeply distressed at this behavior on the part of our young Liberians and very saddened at this 8-year-old child who has been so victimized."
Phoenix police say the boys used an offer of chewing gum to lure the girl to a storage shed at an apartment complex on July 16. There, they allege, the four boys restrained and sexually assaulted her.
The 14-year-old was charged as an adult Thursday and will face two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping. The other three boys were charged in juvenile court with sexual assault, and two of them also were charged with kidnapping, Thomas said.
Speaking from Liberia, Sirleaf said the family's reaction to the incident is wrong. "They should help that child who has been traumatized," she said.
She suggested the family members "need serious counseling because, clearly, they are doing something that is no longer acceptable in our society here."
She also called upon Phoenix authorities to counsel the alleged attackers. "They have to pay the penalty, but we also want to make sure that they are counseled ... that they will have an opportunity to change and become useful citizens, not only in the United States but when they return home."
Detectives said the girl was placed in the custody of Phoenix child protective services after the attack because of her parents' attitude toward her.
"The parents felt that they had been shamed or embarrassed by their child," Phoenix police Sgt. Andy Hill said Thursday.
Tony Weedor -- co-founder of the CenterPoint International Foundation, which aids Liberians in the United States and provides aid for those still in Liberia -- agreed with Hill. He said rape was not against the law in Liberia until 2006.
"The family [believes they] have been shamed by her ... and they're more concerned about that than the crime," he said.
Sirleaf said the family should not be concerned about that.
"Let me say very clearly that rape is a problem in Liberia also. There is a strong law regarding that," she said.
Milton Barnes, Liberia's ambassador to the United States, said he also will step in to help the victim.
"Our primary concern is this child," he said. "We intend to work with the authorities and the family to make sure she is safe, protected and there is certain sensitivity exercised towards her."
Edwin Sele, the deputy ambassador, also responded to the incident.
"Having heard the story myself, I'm outraged," he said. "In Liberia, the family and law enforcement officers would be embracing the victim. To hear that the family is not doing that, that should be an isolated case."
Hill said Thursday that protective services officers would "determine what's going to happen [to the girl] in the days ahead."
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 25, 2009 10:50:04 GMT -7
A salad is mixed tossed and done - remaining indiviudal flavors and unique ingrediaents that you start with at the begining.
Melting pot is always simmering and changing as new flavors are blended in the process. That to me is a better description of how "American" culture is constantly developing, changing and to a large degree improving with the addition of new ingredients in different measures. (That is a vague way of saying the different origins for our "waves" of immigrants add new flavor as time moves on, adding to - not over powering - the current culture of America.
The constant blending versus the sudden changing such as you get when you simply dump a lump of say anchovie into a salad. The anchovie in a salad remains anchovie and for a time over powers, dumped into a simmering melting pot it changes as does the previous mixture.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 25, 2009 10:59:22 GMT -7
what an image: stinky, salty fish! ...that unlike other ingredients, doesn't adapt..... I don't like anchovies, and I don't know if you do, but that sure had an impact, just as you intended...doesn't change the value of what either of us has posted though the truth is, either "mix" can still go bad, or burn...or burn out if no one durns down the flame on the dialogue, no? I think both analogies and work--or not...but the bottom line is this: you are "right" for you, and that is good. I am "right" for me, and we both "mix' well sometimes somtimes by choice or happenstance and sometimes, we don't...either by choice or happenstance. But we were both born and raised here, we come from different socio/cultural backgrounds and we both contribute lots of good things to society. As do most other citizens, and even most other non-citizens of this country a mix, however you want to describe it, is one that should grow and change....you can keep your decisions on how that should happen and I'll respect them. We grow and change nonetheless
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 25, 2009 13:23:08 GMT -7
I've been thinking about this some: "separation and uniqueness" juxtaposed against a dominant culture
groups ought not individuate "against" a dominant culture....acculturation should liken itself more to assimilation, that is, it should take place in a linear manner?
if this is so, why have any discussions about respecting difference? If you are perceived to be different by a dominant or larger group, then this is not good.... Why? Because it cuts against unity, as exemplified by a tendency toward "nationalist dogma"?
If we accept this premise and apply it to our history of "separate but equal", what do we have? Those who advocated against change in the civil rights era did so using this mentality They didn't want cultural shifts changing their perceived stability, and they resisted the change. They didn't want people thinking in individual, self-defined terms, they didn't welcome changes in attitudes toward minority groups or the accompanying choices these groups made in determining who they were or what they wanted. They didn't believe these groups had the "right" to "upset" the "order" of things..
But what the larger groups failed to recognize is that change was coming, because the "order" was one which accompanied sets of beliefs that were discriminatory and harmful. The civil rights era brought about challenges to "order" because those challenges were overdue, they were necessary and a critical means by which equality could come closer to being realized
and many civil rights era activists understood that challenging with "uniqueness" didn't mean "destabilizing" the whole of society....it just meant challenging the mindset of a prescribed belief system that was harmful
that things got rough, "destabilized" back then? That came about as a response to the challenges...that was the answer to the efforts that were made to change and diversify thinking-to change things for the better of everyone.
"Current cullture" was and is always being challenged and this isn't necessarily a "bad" thing. When the challenge is predicated on violence, from any extreme, we need to look hard at what it is this nation is supposed to stand for, and we need to answer with law.
I don't agree that when things like freedom of religion are juxatposed against states' or individual rights, that this is necessarily a bad thing. Because as we continue to grow and develop, we are learning about more than two or three sets of beliefs that contribute to our overall "religious freedom".
It's the same for other challenges we encounter as more and more people acculturate. Whether it's a pot of stew, soup or a salad or a pizza...each group is going to make its own contributions-and some might be controversial. But, given how we continue to grow, and what we've learned from our contemporary history, it'a good thing that we are challenged
this way, we don't settle into stasis, we aren't sacrificing our stability, we can still learn the dangers of extremism from outside and within, and we can learn to be more open and accepting of differing influences that enrich our society. In this day and age, I think we are closer to being sufficiently capable of discerning the differences between "cultural uniqueness" and threats to our ways of life.
I have heard and read the most productive dialogue, even from opposing points of view, stemming from the arrest of Louis Gates. Even the president was obliged to consider his own biases in the challenges that came as a result of his initial reaction.
This is a marked change from the dialogue that took place immediately after Rodney King's beating....and he was not a college professor. And I'd venture to say this hasn't come without cost. Sometimes, challenging accepted norms or "national values" is necessary. It keeps us just out of that Orwellian grip.
|
|