My Response to "Teaching Tolerance in America"

In the writing “Teaching Tolerance in America”, the author Dudley Erskine Devlin talks about how he feels racial and class divisions among students is tearing apart high schools. I believe he has many great points, even though my experiences at Lima Senior have not been as extreme as some of his examples.

In my own experiences, I do not think students at Lima Senior discriminate against races that are not their own. I notice that in many classrooms, we tend to sit by people who are our same race, but it is not intended maliciously. Overall, I don’t think we even care about the color of people’s skin. I think it is really funny when speakers talk to us about being more tolerant and not focusing on our differences. While the speaker is going on and on, I cannot help but think this is something I already unconsciously know and that he is only bringing more attention to our differences by making a big deal out of it. I think a student from the writing felt the same way when he said he didn’t like having notions of tolerance and acceptance “shoved down his throat”. I think the best way to learn tolerance is by interacting with people of different races and recognizing what all we have in common.

At Lima Senior I somewhat notice, at least more than racial discrimination, gender problems. There are many times I see ladies in the hallways getting unwanted attention from a group of guys. However, Devlin’s idea of having single-sex classes is ridiculous. The real world is not divided up into a male and female section, so why should a school be? There are also many relationships between males and females that are positive.

By reading this writing, I tried to evaluate situations I have been in so that I could relate. Looking at our school, I think we do pretty good in focusing more on personality than appearance. Even though Lima gets a bad rap, I think that overall we are more culturally rounded and tolerant than some schools around us.

We Like What We're Used To

The article “Today’s Special”, by David Sedaris, talks about the high-end New York style restaurant. The writing describes the huge difference between the elaborate food served in these kinds of restaurants and regular American foods, such as hot dogs. While reading his descriptions about the food, I ultimately got that he was also explaining the huge differences between two kinds of lifestyles: the luxurious and the normal. In the article the narrator felt like he did not belong, or even wanted to belong, with the kind of people who regularly went to these upper-class restaurants.

If you were brought up in that kind of life, going to an artsy fartsy restaurant like the one talked about in the writing would be considered normal. You would probably enjoy the foods and the luxurious atmosphere. You would probably be used to dressing in formal just to go out to get a bite to eat. You would probably argue that cooking is an art, because that is how you view it and always have. Foods have all the different colors and textures, but just a different medium- a plate. Chefs can also be creative when it comes to combining different ingredients to create new and unique tastes. I think that maybe some people, the narrator and me included, may disagree with all the hype only because we are not used to the luxurious lifestyle.

Even though this luxurious kind of lifestyle is top choice for some, it is definitely not for me. I could not imagine paying top dollar for food that I can eat in a couple bites. I like feeling full. I would also probably throw up if I had some of the items off the menu from the writing. I have not grown up eating those kinds of food. Personally, I do not think mint would go well with fish at all and I do not consider spiced ham to be even close to what I call “dessert”. I would much rather prefer a hot dog stuffed with hog lips and eyelids. Why? Because that is what I am used to.

Raid Leaves Families Fractured, Especially Children

After reading “Raid Leaves Families Fractured”, a writing by Bruce Finley, I could not help but feel that the United States government were at fault. The issue revolves around an incident where the government (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raided a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant and arrested a number of illegal workers. The illegal workers were locked up immediately and family members had a hard time finding out where they were. A major issue brought up in the writing involved children being left without a parent to look after them. I am not saying I agree with people illegally working in our country and taking advantage of free medical care and subsidies, but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement could have approached the problem at a more humane angle.

Many illegal workers in this meatpacking plant had families to support. Out of desperation, many tried to sneak under the U.S. laws and work in our country. Once again, I am not in favor of illegal immigration, but many innocent children and other family members were affected by this raid. If you look at the situation from a parent’s point of view, it is heartbreaking. Some parents were going to extreme measures and putting themselves on the line to provide for their children and, because of it, got taken away from their children. In many cases, children had to be adopted or were put in the government system. I believe the illegal immigrants could have been dealt with in a different way, so families could at least stay together. I blame the Immigration and Customs Enforcement administration in failing to plan for the repercussions of the raid; mainly, leaving kids parentless and fending for themselves.

I was also heated because the companies who hired these illegal immigrants did not get into any trouble with the law. It is not right to punish the individuals who were working so hard to make ends meet, then let the corporation off the hook. The company is the one that hired these workers and accepted the documentation for employment. Because of this, I believe that the Swift & Co. also contributed to the pain of so many children and should be held responsible. In the end, we are all human and it is not right to treat people, especially children, in this way.

My Response to "Who's A Looter?"

While first looking at the New York Times article “Who’s A Looter”, by Tania Ralli, my immediate response was that the newspaper publishing these photos were being sort of racist. Like many other people, I only looked at the pictures and captions concerning victims of hurricane Katrina and assumed there was racist motive behind it. However, after reading the whole article, it seemed to make more sense. First of all, the pictures were published in two separate newspapers. Each newspaper has a different way of wording things and a different attitude towards its stories. I agree that these pictures could not reflect the prejudice of a single media outlet.

Another good point in the article states that the photographers have guidelines in determining whether they use the words “looting” or “carrying” in their captions. Mr. Martin, the photographer of the picture with the black man, actually saw the man enter a grocery store and come out with these goods. Mr. Graythen, the photographer of the white couple, claimed the couple did not go in the store so had to “draw his own conclusions” in how they got the food. According to the A.P. guidelines that were set in place before Hurricane Katrina struck to determine whether “looting” or “carrying” should be used in captions, both of these photographers did what they were supposed to do.

Even though there can be a huge debate on whether these captions were malicious or not, I think that Mr. Graythen put in best in an email message when he wrote: “Now is no time to pass judgment on those trying to stay alive. Now is no time to argue semantics about finding versus looting. Now is no time to argue if this is a white versus black issue.”