Racial Prejudices Essay Example for Free

Racial Prejudices Essay What is prejudice? set of learned beliefs and values that lead a person to be biased against other members of other groups. -prejudices are convenient(bequem,brauchbar,passend) and inaccurate. - people are not seen as individuals, biased people label other people to special groups -prejudice is mostly based on inaccurate information about people Prejudice originates from three common parts(these parts make up a prejudiced belief): 1. Generalisations -a very broad , simple statement about a group of people -here is perhaps an appropriate point to provide an example:All catholics or when the word they figures strongly -key words for generalisations are all and they generalisations are also very inaccurate , because we are not justified in saying that all members of these group or race share the same characteristic features. G. are unfair descriptions of people and they are mostly based on very incomplete information. Having met one member from a different group with an extraordinary behaviour ,we often assume that all mebers of this group show this same extraordinary behaviour. 2. Stereotyping. -exaggerated,often negative image of a particular group of people -a stereotyp often contains a grain of truth , but this grain of truth is combined with an exaggerated and undue image of this group. Ethnocentricity -there are two types of prejudices: 1. prejudice against all outsidersyour group is the only right and proper,all other groups are excludud,other groups are portrayed as being strange and inferior. 2. prejudice against specific groups- you are able to cope with some other groups,but you disapprove a special group of their religionthats why you have a prejudice against this particular group. But this kind of prejudice does not express that your religion is the best and that all other religions are worser than your own one. You are only biased against this particular religion. -prejudice against all other groups is called ethnocentricity Prejudice and discrimination Discrimination: -Speaking of Discrimination against a special group we mean the combination of prejudice with actions In this sense the word discriminating means that we are treating a group in a negative way. -the effect of people are discriminated against:loss in terms of money ,housing,education -the forms of Discrimination: 1. verbal abuse(anti-locution)through specific termsundermines their confidence-feeling of I am not desired in this society 2. Discrimination in jobsRefusal of jobs to a groupdisadvantage in terms of jobs,income,personal decline. 3. Attack on propertydestruction of carsExpulsion because there is a lack of physical security 4. Physical attack-Assaults on group members;stabs;deathsfurther lack of security;anger;frustration;formation of self-defence groups 5. Genocidemass murder of allextermination of whole families and cultural groups. Racial prejudice or racism -always aimed at special groups -racism bases on the belief that one group(identified by their physical appearance,the skin colour) is naturally superior to other groups-the superior group therefore holds the view that other groups get inferior opportunities and treatment,the belief in superiority is only the medium or justification for repressing other groups. -racism:hostility of any group towards other groups on the basis of perceived physical features. Why do we have prejudices? several reasons: 1. the warped personality. -children brought up in a tense and repressive family-inclination towards own authoritarian attitudes -individuals resentment about his or her childhood finds an outlet in hostility towards minorities -As to Adorno the prejudice springs from harsh childhoods and defective personalities 2. Scapegoating -frustration-aggression theory combined with the use of the idea of scapegoat= The own failure of people(such as financial security,good job,status symbol) evokes frustration. The people are not acquainted with the real cause of their failure. Their frustration develops into aggression. Frequently,as a result the people search for weaker groups to lay the blame on them. This groups are guilty of an individuals failure and frustration these people taking blame for an failure of other people are described or represented by scapegoats. Conformity -friends ,family your whole environment will induce you to share their views. They prevail upon you to be prejudiced against a special group. -The group pressure will cause you to agree with the group you are member of.

From Songs of Limbs and Flesh and Heart Perhaps Too :: Creative Writing Essays

From Songs of Limbs and Flesh and Heart Perhaps Too "Am I desirable?" le dà ©sir/ desire Without the consistent reminder that the amorous subject is found sexually appealing, there is an attention to physical detail, a reassessment of worth, and of balance between what is called "inner and outer beauty" 1. In the mirror I am searching for what the other will be drawn to. And not only the other, but anyone: strangers, foes, past lovers. I am scanning legs, hair, and curve of thigh. Is it elbow, or nape of neck? For though in the past I fled from those who took little interest in me "as a person," I now crave this one-track regard just when I at last seem to be appreciated for "who I am." Hence a constant sense of unrest, seeking an other who balances these two desires. (Although I am inclined to believe that the latter must have, to some degree, the same lure to the superficial, only is more capable of hiding it for reasons of character or perhaps sexual feat.) 2. I have bought these new clothes - tighter/shorter/more exposing - for the purpose that the other will take note of the way my body looks in them, for a possible verbal response to a carnal reaction. Here I do not expect much, but wish perhaps the other could muster the words of Federico Garcia Lorca, "To see you naked is to remember the earth." I am thus seeking affirmation, approval. It boils down to ordinary sexual attention. I need to be reminded that the other finds me more than sufficiently, irresistibly at times, alluring. II. Looking at Lips I was once told that the dent between our lips and our noses is the fingerprint of an angel who has erased all knowledge of past lives before we are reborn into new ones. I find that my pinky fits nicely into mine, and wonder if perhaps fuller-lipped people had more memory that needed erasing, more interesting lives to be forgotten. Today my lips feel warm. They are chapping and at last picking up color, which I welcome (sans chapstick) to my otherwise pale features. In elementary school, my teachers seemed thin-lipped. In fashion magazines, gaunt women are featured with round, luscious lips. I can imagine the way their lips bundle up for the lipstick, then relax, allowing the colored stick to pull them side to side.

Ernesto Guevara de Serna Essay -- Ernest Che Guevara Biographies Essay

Ernesto Guevara de Serna Ernesto Guevara de Serna was born in Argentina in 1928 into a fairly privileged family. He developed serious asthma at the age of two, which would plague him throughout his life. He was home-schooled by his mother, Celia de la Serna. It was these early years when he became an eager reader of Marx, Engels, and Freud which all were all part of his father's library. He went to secondary school in 1941, the Colegio Nacional Dean Funes, Cordoba, where he excelled in literature and sports. At home he was impressed by the Spanish Civil War refugees and by the long series of political crises in Argentina. These culminated in the ‘Left Fascist’ dictatorship of Juan Peron, to whom the Guevara de la Sernas were opposed. These events and influences implanted ideas of contempt for the charade of parliamentary democracy, a hatred of military politicians and the army, the capitalist oligarchy, and, above all, U.S. imperialism. Although his parents, most notably his mother, were anti-Peronist activists, he did not take participate in revolutionary student movements and showed little interest in politics at Buenos Aires University (1947) where he studied medicine. He focused on understanding his own disease, and later became more interested in leprosy. In 1949 he made the first of his long journeys, exploring northern Argentina on a bicycle. This was the first time Ernesto came into contact with the very poor and the remnants of the Indian tribes. It was during this leave of absence from schooling that Guevara, now nicknamed "Che" (Italian origin meaning chum or buddy), first experienced the depth of poverty and suffering of his fellows. In 1951, after taking his exams, he made a much longer journey. He visited southern Argentina, Chile, where he met Salvador Allende, and Peru, where he worked for several weeks in the San Pablo leprosarium. He then was in Colombia at the time of La Violencia, and Venezuela and Miami where he was arrested but soon released. He returned home for his finals sure of only one thing: he did not want to become a middle-class general practitioner. He passed, specializing in dermatology, and went to La Paz, Bolivia, during the National Revolution in which he condemned as an opportunist. From there he went to Guatemala, arriving during the socialist Arbenz presidency. It was in Guatemala that he began ... ...reabouts were a secret and his death was widely rumored. He was in various African countries, notably the Congo surveying the possibilities of turning the Kinshasa rebellion into a Communist revolution, by Cuban-style guerrilla tactics. He returned to Cuba to train volunteers for that project, and took a force of 120 Cubans to the Congo. His men fought well, but the Kinshasa rebels did not. They were useless against the Belgian mercenaries, and by autumn 1965 Che had to advise Castro to withdraw Cuban aid. Che's final revolutionary adventure was in Bolivia where he grossly misjudged the revolutionary potential of that country with disastrous consequences. The attempt ended in his being captured by a Bolivian army unit and shot a day later. Because of his wild, romantic appearance, his dashing style, and his unwillingness to bend to any kind of establishment, Che became a legend and an idol for the revolutionary—and even the merely discontented—youth of the later 1960s and early 70's. He was a focus for the kind of desperate revolutionary action which seemed, to millions of young people, the only hope of destroying the world of middle class industrial capitalism and communism.

Intermarriage †opposition Essay

Marshall Sklare was able to articulate the fears of many older Jews and he wrote: Intermarriage (and its sociodemographic consequences) can no longer be treated as marginal when it is the result of a deep-rooted sociopolitical ideology and value structure and a function of lifestyle, residential pattern and educational and occupational structure †¦ The intermarriage issue has become central to the internal struggles of American Jewry (1982, p. 37). Aside from the fact that the older generation seemed to be in a perpetual survival mode of existence, keeping to themselves to continue Jewish values and traditions, there is a deeper reason why many are opposed to the idea of exogamy. Steven Bayme explains that the rise of intermarriage is a threat because it can only mean the, â€Å"†¦ decline of Jewish commitment, a weakness in Jewish identity, a failure of Jewish education and the Jewish family to bring about the commitment to Jewish continuity†¦ † (2002, p. 226). If this is true then it will just reveal the error of their ways. This is because suppressing the symptoms will not make the sickness go away. If the symptom for impiety and the shortcomings of a flawed educational system is the high rate of intermarriage then opposing exogamy will not change the fact that there is problem with Judaism. Traditionalists made their opinions known; that they do not agree to intermarriages but this seems to be an idea suited for past generations who cannot see the possibility of compromise in the land of the heathen. A popular 1950s joke regarding this matter was an accurate depiction of how parents felt about their children marrying non-Jews. The following dialog is between a young Jewish soldier coming home from the Korean War and his mother. Before the young man left Korea he calls his mother to inform her about the good news (Shapiro, year, p. 233). Son: I have survived the war without being wounded. Mother: That is good. Son: I am bringing home a Korean wife Mother: That is also good. Son: We don’t have a place to live. Mother: That’s okay. You can stay in my apartment. Son: But you live in a one-bedroom apartment. Mother: That’s no problem. After I put the phone down I am going to jump out of the window, and you will have the entire apartment to yourself. According to Bayme, when it dawned upon the Jewish community that intermarriage is snowballing into something that can overwhelm them, the reaction was radical and aimed at the jugular to forcibly stop the perceived madness and he adds: When the first news of the growth of intermarriage occurred, communal leaders responded with agony and handwriting. Virtually all Jewish organizations passed resolutions and statements signaling opposition to intermarriage. Conferences were held about what we can do in the face of this tidal wave (2002, p. 226). Calvin Goldsheider pointed out that even as late as the 20th century the reaction was fairly dramatic. Opposition to the marriage was made plain by, â€Å"†¦ Jewish mourning rituals of sitting shiva or reciting kaddish†¦ † (2004, p. 29). It must have been a disconcerting sight for a son to see his parents lamenting his decision to take a bride not from his people. Rising Tide But it seems that no matter what type of measures was put in place to discourage interfaith marriages; more and more Jews chose to be joined with a non-Jew. It is therefore understandable that others may conclude rebellion to the norms and traditions of Judaism as the number one culprit. But more and more studies claim the contrary. In fact Shapiro remarked the traditional scape goat for the high rate of intermarriage no longer applies. Marshall Sklare, a noted sociologist on American Jewry, warned that, â€Å"†¦ attributing intermarriage among Jews to self-hatred, cowardice in the face of anti-Semitism, or social climbing misread its etiology †¦ because marriages with Gentiles increased while anti-Semitism was dwindling and many of the social traditional status distinctions were being swept away† (as qtd. in Shapiro, 1992, p. 235). Bayme supports the finding of Shapiro and Sklare and was very practical in his approach for he said that differences in religion are not a significant consideration to young couples of today. Bayme also added that American society values romantic love more than it values differences in religious beliefs. And to top all that Jews are contending with an unexpected external force, â€Å"†¦ 87 percent of Americans welcome marriage to a Jew†¦ † a rather surprising revelation considering what the Jews had to endure for centuries (2002, 226). Now if the reasons for the rising rate of interfaith marriages can be explained in terms of love, openness, acceptance and the realization that every human being is created equal in the sight of God then what kind of community will dare go against universally accepted principles? More so, what kind of community will have the resolve to continually fight for exogamy in the face of a â€Å"love† assault? Surely, only a few can resist the advances of a determined lover and that may well be the number one reason why this crisis – at least in the eyes of Jewish elders – could not be contained. Resolution Marshall Sklare minced no words in asserting that there are only two definitive actions that can be used to settle the issue: 1. Change the social structure and value orientation of the American Jewish community; or 2.accommodate and accept the intermarried (1982, p. 37). Since option no. 1 is clearly unacceptable then the Jewish people are only left with one choice and it is to go out and welcome the non-Jew spouse into Jewish life. This is a view espoused by Calvin Goldscheider who believes that it is a blessing in disguise and contrary to antiquated and popular opinion the high rate of intermarriage will ensure the survival of the Jewish race both in numbers and in cultural distinctiveness. A seemingly incompatible set of ideas considering the nature of Jewish life. Goldscheider summarizes his argument into the following statements: The key indicators of an ethnic community’s strength, however, are not who marries whom, but the activities that their grandchildren engage in. A group’s continuity depends on the ethnic and religious commitments of the family. Focusing on families and the ethnic commitments of the young redirects questions about assimilation away from biology and marriage and toward economic activities, cultural obligations and how parents pass on traditions to their children. In this regard, the American Jewish community is surviving, maybe even thriving† (2003, p. 282). Goldscheider arrived at the aforementioned conclusion as a consequence of the following research findings: ? The decline of the American Jewish community is a product of exaggeration and sensationalization of the facts; ? Interfaith marriages were assumed to result in complete and immediate conversion of the Jewish partner into non-Jewish religion, practices, and customs;? the terms used to define modern day Jews were biased towards the already assumed conclusion that there is a significant decline in their numbers; ? The numbers did not add up considering that there is a significant number of non-Jewish spouses who convert to Judaism, or informally integrate into the community and follow Jewish customs and traditions; and ? previous studies did not account the fact that in many intermarriages the intermarried couples decided that their children will grow up as Jews or at least encourage them to practice Jewish customs and traditions.

The Roaring 20s essays

The Roaring 20's essays How ya gonna keep em down on the farm, after theyve seen Paree? This popular song is the essence of the Roaring 20s. Times were beginning to change, and many different situations and events contributed to the change. Some of these contributors were The Prohibition, The Scopes Trial, Changing Roles of Women, Education and Pop Culture, and The Harlem Renaissance. The Prohibition was the complete ban of alcohol in America. An Amendment was added into the constitution prohibiting the transportation or sale of any kind of alcohol. Reformers in the Christian church were convinced that liquor was the main cause of the nations problems and corruption. At first, saloons closed, and things calmed down, but then the country got sick of not being able to choose what they wanted to do. Many immigrants thought of liquor being part of socializing, and not a sin. This was when illegal sales of alcohol began. Speakeasies, which were hidden saloons, started opening, and the people were able to get their liquor. Bootleggers bought their liquor in Canada and smuggled it in for others. Many criminals found a new way of making money, and organized crime, such as the mob, grew in both numbers and income. This had an impact in the culture because since the nation could not get what they wanted, they had to go to other, illegal, places for their needs and wants. The nation became dependent on criminals to get what they wanted, and the nation has continued to deteriorate ever since. The Scopes Trial was a major trial over evolution versus creation. This trial gained national recognition and was reported on daily by big-city reporters. Tennessee had made a law banning the teaching of evolution in schools, and one teacher named John T. Scopes broke that law. The American Civil Liberties Union promised they would defend him, and got him the most famous lawyer of that day. Clarence Darrow was a well-known, respected lawyer, an...

How to Use Functions and Procedures in Delphi

How to Use Functions and Procedures in Delphi Have you ever found yourself writing the same code over and over to perform some common task within event handlers? Yes! Its time for you to learn about programs within a program. Lets call those mini-programs subroutines. Intro to subroutines Subroutines are an important part of any programming language, and ​Delphi is no exception. In Delphi, there are generally two types of subroutines: a ​function and a procedure. The usual difference between a function and a procedure is that a function can return a value, and a procedure generally will not do so. A function is normally called as a part of an expression. Take a look at the following examples: procedure SayHello(const sWhat:string) ; begin ShowMessage(Hello sWhat) ; end; function YearsOld(const BirthYear:integer): integer; var Year, Month, Day : Word; begin DecodeDate(Date, Year, Month, Day) ; Result : Year - BirthYear; end; Once subroutines have been defined, we can call them one or more times: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject) ; begin SayHello(Delphi User) ; end; procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject) ; begin SayHello(Zarko Gajic) ; ShowMessage(You are IntToStr(YearsOld(1973)) years old!) ; end; Functions and Procedures As we can see, both functions and procedures act like mini-programs. In particular, they can have their own type, constants and variable declarations inside them. Take a closer look at a (miscellaneous) SomeCalc function: function SomeCalc (const sStr: string; const iYear, iMonth: integer; var iDay:integer): boolean; begin ... end; Every procedure or function begins with a header that identifies the procedure or function and lists the parameters the routine uses if any. The parameters are listed in parentheses. Each parameter has an identifying name and usually has a type. A semicolon separates parameters in a parameter list from one another. sStr, iYear, and iMonth are called constant parameters. Constant parameters cannot be changed by the function (or procedure). The iDay is passed as a var parameter, and we can make changes to it, inside the subroutine. Functions, since they return values, must have a return type declared at the end of the header. The return value of a function is given by the (final) assignment to its name. Since every function implicitly has a local variable Result of the same type as the functions return value, assigning to Result has the same effect as assigning to the name of the function. Positioning and Calling Subroutines Subroutines are always placed in the implementation section of the unit. Such subroutines can be called (used) by an event handler or subroutine in the same unit that is defined after it. Note: the uses clause of a unit tells you which units it can call. If we want a specific subroutine in a Unit1 to be usable by the event handlers or subroutines in another unit (say Unit2), we have to: Add Unit1 to the uses clause of Unit2Place a copy of the header of the subroutine in the interface section of the Unit1. This means that subroutines whose headers are given in the interface section are global in scope. When we call a function (or a procedure) inside its own unit, we use its name with whatever parameters are needed. On another hand, if we call a global subroutine (defined in some other unit, e.g. MyUnit) we use the name of the unit followed by a period. ... //SayHello procedure is defined inside this unit SayHello(Delphi User) ; //YearsOld function is defined inside MyUnit unit Dummy : MyUnit.YearsOld(1973) ; ... Note: functions or procedures can have their own subroutines​ embedded inside them. An embedded subroutine is local to the container subroutine and cannot be used by other parts of the program. Something like: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject) ; function IsSmall(const sStr:string):boolean; begin //IsSmall returns True if sStr is in lowercase, False otherwise Result:LowerCase(sStr)sStr; end; begin //IsSmall can only be uses inside Button1 OnClick event if IsSmall(Edit1.Text) then ShowMessage(All small caps in Edit1.Text) else ShowMessage(Not all small caps in Edit1.Text) ; end;

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Can the government require people to get a special license in order to spread their religious message or promote their religious beliefs in residential neighborhoods? That used to be common, but it was challenged by Jehovahs Witnesses who argued that the government didnt have the authority to impose such restrictions on people. Fast Facts: Cantwell v. Connecticut Case Argued: March 29, 1940Decision Issued: May 20, 1940Petitioner: Newton D. Cantwell, Jesse L. Cantwell, and Russell D. Cantwell, Jehovahs Witnesses proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, who were arrested and convicted under a Connecticut statute banning the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposesRespondent: The state of ConnecticutKey Question: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?  Majority Decision: Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, MurphyDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech violating the First Amendments guarantee of free speech as well as the First and 14th Amendments guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion. Background Information Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovahs Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied. The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion - such a decision was simply outside the governments secular authority. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominantly Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled Enemies which attacked Catholicism. Cantwell alleged that the statute they had been convicted under infringed upon their right to free speech and challenged it in the courts. Court Decision With Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious, which gave government officials too much authority over religious questions. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. Even if an error by the secretary can be corrected by the courts, the process still serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint: To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution. The breach of the peace accusation arose because the three accosted two Catholics in a strongly Catholic neighborhood and played them a phonograph record which, in their opinion, insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Court voided this conviction under the clear-and-present danger test, ruling that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed others. Cantwell and his sons may have been spreading a message that was unwelcome and disturbing, but they did not physically attack anyone. According to the Court, the Cantwells simply did not pose a threat to public order merely by spreading their message: In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. Significance This judgment prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a threat to public order. This decision was also notable because it was the first time that the Court had incorporated the Free Exercise Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment - and after this case, it always has.