Why Are Asians Stereotyped?

As humans, we stereotype people everyday based on the color of their skin. In class, we've recently been discussing the stereotypes we place on African Americans and how society has deemed them as "criminals". This got me thinking about how we stereotype people of other races... Asians in particular.

We typically think of Asians as smart, competitive, and good at everything they do. But why? After reading an article written by the BBC, I think I've come up with an answer: China's one child policy.

In China, couples are legally only allowed to have one child. When parents only have one child, they don't have to divide their money and attention between numerous children and can spend all their money on one. The parents are now able to invest their money in the best schools, tutors, piano teachers, etc for their child. They pay a lot of attention to that child in hopes that they will succeed. By only being allowed to have one child, the parents are being forced to put all their eggs in one basket. They want their child to have the best life they can, so they push them to do well in school and activities.

The single children in China develop very differently than a child with siblings would. They aren't able to have that close relationship with a brother or sister that lasts a lifetime and can only have short term relationships with friends as they grow up. Studies have found that only children are "significantly less trusting, less trustworthy" and less optimistic.

China's one child policy has since been relaxed slightly and some parents are now able to qualify to have more than one child. However, many parents chose not to have more children because they feel like since they would have to divide their attention and money between several children, their children will feel lost in competition with other children. Do you think the one child policy has benefitted the single children or hurt them?

Tornadoes vs. Typhoons: Who Wins?

A couple weeks ago, a destructive tornado hit the Illinois town of Washington.The tornado covered a lot of ground and damaged more than 2,400 homes. The death toll has risen to 7 and many of the survivors are telling their inspirational stories about how they made it through all their hardships regarding the tornado. It was all over the news. Every time I turned the TV on every news station would be talking about this "disaster". I assumed the extreme amount of coverage was because I live in Illinois and this is an event that has occurred close to home. But I got a call from a friend in Connecticut asking if I was okay and if my house got destroyed. I was surprised to get a call from her because I didn't expect the news coverage to reach other parts of the United States, and if it did I thought it would be minor coverage. She thought it was weird that I was surprised and told me that the news channels made it seem like a horrible disaster had destroyed every one's homes.

Not too long before the tornadoes hit Illinois, a devastating typhoon destroyed the Philippines. The death toll is nearly 4,000 and continues to rise as debris is being cleaned up. Almost twice as many people have already been killed in the Philippines than the number of homes damaged in Washington, IL. Yet, our attention is focused more on those affected in Illinois than those affected in the Philippines. Only 14% of Americans said that they have contributed to relief efforts for the typhoon. When surveyed, less than a third of Americans said they were following the news on the typhoon in the Philippines. This is less than half of the Americans that followed the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Why?

One may argue that we see more people from Illinois in our daily lives. However, an article in the LA Times states that there are 3.4 million Filipinos living in the United States (roughly 1.25X the population of Chicago) and America has strong political ties to the Philippines. Then why are people so uninterested in the disaster in the Philippines? Why is there more news coverage of the tornadoes than there is of the typhoon?

Are Rentable Bikes Safe?

This past summer I took a trip to  New York City and was surprised at the amount of Citi Bike Stations that I saw. There was about one every 4 blocks and at one time I could probably see 15 people using a Citi Bike. I really liked the idea of rentable bikes as an environmentally friendly alternative to cars and hoped that it would catch on.

In June of 2013, Chicago implemented a similar system into its own City: Divvy Bikes. I tried Divvy bikes out for the first time over this past long weekend.  It's a little stressful to ride bikes through the busy streets of Chicago and I was pretty surprised that although they encourage you to wear a helmet, they don't require you to wear one nor do they have any for rent (you would have to bring your own). After going through the system, I found it would be very unlikely that someone would just happen to bring a helmet around with them.

So when I went home I googled what kind of training is required before you rent a Divvy bike, and found out there is none!  At the posts where you rent the bikes they don't even have an introductory video of rules you must follow. They have online training you can check out, but basically anybody can pay $7 to rent a Divvy Bike to get around town. It's very unlikely that anyone's going to look up Divvy Bike training online.  On an article from the Huffington Post website there was a video of a lady riding her Divvy bike in the middle Lake Shore Drive!  Although this is not technically illegal because it is a Drive, not an Expressway, this is totally not safe. This woman could easily be killed because she is not wearing a helmet and is doing something unsafe, and I'm sure she isn't the only one out there.

Just about anyone has access to these bikes, as long as they have a credit card. Literally a 5 year old would be able to ride their bikes if they stole daddy's credit card. I read an article in the New York Times about people in New York using the Citi Bikes to ride home from bars to avoid getting pulled over for drunk driving. Although drunk biking is not as dangerous as drunk driving, it is still extremely unsafe. The biker could seriously injure themselves. These rentable bike station would have no idea that drunk people are using their bikes for unsafe reasons. Breathalyzers or some other way to make sure the customer is sober could be implemented, but they would surely be expensive. Would it be worth the money to install something like a breathalyzer into each station? Would people use the bikes as much if helmets were rented out with the bikes?

Duck Dynasty in the Dining Room?

Last Friday night my new neighbors called me to babysit for them. I had never met them before and when I got to their house I was taken aback by something I saw. In their dining room stood a life sized cardboard cut-out of one of the characters from Duck Dynasty. If that wasn't weird enough already, they had dressed him up by tying an American flag bandana around his neck. This reminded me of the family who displayed a KKK robe that Isabel talked about during class the other day and made me think about the kind of things different families value. 

Of course there is a possibility that this is a leftover Halloween decoration, but Halloween was a couple weeks ago so that is a little unlikely. I wondered what the motivation was to display this cardboard cut-out. Were they proud of this Duck Dynasty character? Did they think he was "American"? Is this the kind of person they want to display for their kids? Or did they just think it was funny?
I hope that the family did not purchase this cut-out because they idolize the Duck Dynasty characters. 
I saw this before I had officially met the family and this definitely conveyed a certain message to me. Without even knowing them well, I had already judged them... Like Isabel's friend judged the family that displayed the robes of the KKK. 
What we choose to show others says a lot about us. It is so easy to make assumptions about a person just because of what we see. We judge people all the time. We like to think that only certain people live in the North Shore: wealthy, polite, classy people. When I saw the cardboard cut-out, I unconsciously categorized them as a different type of people than they actually are. 
Luckily, they turned out to be a normal family. 

Is the "Dream Car" Really the Best Choice?

 Everything seems to be becoming modern. New iPhones are coming out with fingerprint identification, people are using 3D printers to print objects, Google has even developed a "driverless car". All these new advances are great, but how are they going to change the way people normally act?

While reading an article by the BBC about the future of cars, all I could think about was the skills humans are going to lose by having a car that can basically do everything for them. Manufacturers predict that by 2050 people won't even need to touch the steering wheel. They say that new cars won'nt "even require [people] to take the controls". The word "require" really stood out to me and made it seem like taking the controls was such a hassle. "Require" implies that someone is being forced to do something against their will.  This makes the cars of the future seem luxurious compared to the cars that "require" that we control it. At first, this sounded cool to me, but when I thought about it more, it started to alarm me. If driving becomes so effortless, what will happen to the number of people who bike or walk to their destinations? It will go down, a lot. People will hardly know their way around their neighborhood since they are now able to completely zone out while driving. In this picture featured in the article, the drivers are not even paying attention to the road because the car doesn't "require" them to. Driving this kind of car would not demand any sort of brain function.

Once these autonomous cars become common, people will have little desire to enjoy the outdoors anymore. It is likely that the legal driving age will go down because drivers literally need no knowledge or awareness in order to drive their car... they basically aren't even driving. Young teens who normally wouldn't be able to drive - due to not being old enough to have a license - now can. Instead of biking to their friends house, all they will need to do is program their car to take them there. They would rarely need to ride their bikes or walk places. Obviously this is bad regarding their physical health, but they will also be missing out on the beautiful nature and fresh air around them.

There are some definite upsides of having this new technology implemented into cars. There would be fewer accidents and traffic jams, but I am not looking forward to the new mindset people will adapt. 

Evil Plans to Get Trick-Or-Treaters Healthy

Halloween is coming up and almost everyone is looking forward to collecting bagfuls of candy while trick-or-treating. I always end up eating way too much candy and feel so unhealthy afterwards. Halloween always makes me think about childhood obesity here in America and how unhealthy our country has become. I have to admit, sometimes it is embarrassing  to live in one of the world's fattest countries. It seems like people are starting to let themselves go and not care as much about health. For people that are trying to get healthy, I'm sure the abundance of candy around Halloween time isn't helping. 

I babysit for a very health-conscious family. Instead of giving out candy to trick-or-treaters, they are giving out little bags of almonds and dried fruit. I thought this was a very good idea and would make Halloween slightly healthier for the trick-or-treaters. This pack of almonds and dried fruit might spark the motivation someone needs to get healthier. If other people starting catching on and making small changes like this, we will see the obesity epidemic decline.

 

I heard a story about a woman who took "getting people healthy" way too far. On  She had a basket full of candy and a separate basket full of letters telling kids and their parents (in a nice way) that they should get healthy. As each trick-or -treater came by, she would let them pick from one of her baskets depending on how fat she thought they were. I agree with her that our country needs to be healthier, but I think it should be done in a way that won't target specific people and demoralize them. The mental health of America is just as important as the physical health.

Are Other Races Being Given Advantages?

Affirmative Action Blog Post

After hearing aboutIt seems like colleges have been placing more and more emphasis on ethnicity during the application process. They keep wanting a more and more diverse student body. On applications they request that you state your race and religion, which I don't think should be considered at all during the application process. I think that scholarships should be given based on merit, not on race. By accepting more African Americans, Indians, and Asians just because they are diverse, colleges are making it increasingly harder for Caucasians to get in. I think that if one student is more qualified than another, they should be accepted rather than the less qualified student. If colleges accept racially diverse students over white students even if they aren't as smart, all they're going to get are African American, Asian, and Mexican students doing poorly in their classes. Students that weren't qualified to begin with are going to have a much harder time handling the workload and learning the material.

I don't think race should be considered at all in the applications. However, I do think that income and residency should be considered, which could in turn give blacks who might live in a poor neighborhood a better chance of getting in. I just don't think it would be fair to accept a black student whose parents are lawyers and make $200,000 a year instead of a white student whose parents didn't go to college and live in a trailer park. I think it's great that colleges want different races to be equally represented on their campus, but I don't think that students that aren't white should have an easier time getting in.  

Gender-Specific Toys Draw Boys and Girls Further Apart

After our discussion of gender roles in class the other day, I began to think about where these gender roles start to make their appereance and when kids start to accept them. I think it all begins with what parents instil in their kids at a young age, specifically the types of toys they buy for their kids to play with. By purchasing toys that are geared towards one specific gender such as Barbies or Nerf guns, parents are showing their children who they should be and what they should like.

In an article titled "Guys and Dolls No More?" about gender-based toy marketing the author says that more and more toys have become gender-specific. Nowadays it is very hard to find a toy in a magazine that isn't geared to a specific gender. Parents buy these gender-specific toys because they don't want their child to be different; if all the other little girls like Barbies, they think their daughter should like Barbies too so she has something in common with the other girls. Interstingly, parents are less likely to buy their son "girl toys" than they are to buy their daughter "boy toys". They want their son to appear more manly and not to cross over into the "pink zone" possibly to avoid harassment for seeming gay. Parents think they are doing their child good by buying them toys that will keep them "within the lines", but really they are just adding to the inequalities between men and women. It makes it harder and harder to cross this "line" because children experience more peer pressure to play with the toys that are specific to their gender. I think that having gender-specific toys is a step backwards in terms of equality between men and women.

Should Technology Really Be Top Priority?

The release of the new iPhone 5s got me thinking about how much technology - specifically Apple - has affected not only my life, but the lives of almost everyone in the US. I read Carolyn DeLarm's blog post about how everyone seems to be craving the new iPhones, and I totally agree. Our country has welcomed Apple technology into its everyday life: print newspapers are being replaced by online newspapers, schools like New Trier are using iPads in class to help the students learn, and texting or iMessaging seems like the most used form of communication. To me, we seem to rely on it more than we should.

Every year, Interbrand, a brand consultancy, makes a chart of the top 100 most valuable brands based on criteria such as how much money they made and how quickly they're expanding. Last year, Apple was ranked number 2 on that list under Coco-Cola. This year, Apple trumped all and became the most valuable company followed by Google, then by Coco-Cola. In fact, out of the top 10 brands, 5 of them were technology companies: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and Intel.

This did not surprise me because I have an iPhone and I basically rely on it. I use it for virtually everything from getting directions to looking up definitions and I feel naked if I am missing it for even one day. Although there are some obvious benefits of having readily available technology in our personal lives (I'm not talking about technology used for powering cars or launching rockets), I think the effects of it are bad for the most part because we feel the need to spend so much time staring at a screen; it's entertaining, convenient, and informative. Spending so much time on the internet makes people much lazier, weakens our real-life social skills, and distracts us. A boy in my Latin class spends the whole period every day playing games on his iPad. His iPad has become such a distraction that he thinks it is more important to play his games and entertain himself than it is to learn.

My mom always reminds me that the best moments of my life are not going to happen over text or on the internet. I think personal technology has its benefits, but people need to understand that they shouldn't spend so much time using it.

Steps Taken in Favor of LGBT Community

I was at a regatta for rowing this past Saturday and during all of my 3 years of being on rowing and going to countless regattas I've never seen anything as amazing and inspiring as what I saw this weekend. I noticed that there was an organization called the Chicago Rowing Union that I'd never seen before setting up their boats. I saw that my history teacher (who is gay) from last year was on the team. After asking around and looking it up myself, I found out that the Chicago Rowing Union is a LGBT rowing association... not to mention, the only one in the midwest and one of three in the entire world.

This was so touching because homophobia has become more apparent within the past decade and this organization shows the LGBT community that even though they might receive hate from many people, improvements are being made to make their lives better. Now they know they can row without being anxious that they are being judged or that people will harass them and make fun of them.

I think America is going in the right direction regarding steps being taken to help out the LGBT community. Even though I wish there were more than 3 LGBT friendly rowing associations, I am happy and hopeful that more will be formed.

"American" Plot Line Applies in Space, Too

Last Friday in class we discussed the typical "American plot line" that Hollywood movies follow. The main character usually starts out fortunate, then his luck goes downhill, then uphill and he ends up happier than he ever was. These types of movies supposedly leave the audience the most satisfied because the audience wants the characters to be happy and defeat the bad guy (or overcome whatever obstacle was the conflict in the story).

This weekend I watched the new Star Trek Into Darkness that just came out on DVD and I had the "American plot line" in mind while I watched it. This is where the spoiler alert applies. If you haven't seen it, don't read on. So basically, everything starts out normally and everyone is happy. Then things get ugly when this bad guy, Khan, comes into play and tries to kill everyone. So far, this seems exactly like the plot line for Hollywood movies. Then Captain Kirk dies while saving his whole crew from Khan, which threw me off a little bit because based on the American plot line, things should've ended on a good note not with the main character's death. Then, (surprise surprise) Captain Kirk gets brought back to life and the day has been saved again. I got a little bit annoyed that it becomes pretty easy to predict movies when you realize most of them follow the same plot line. Even though I was annoyed that the end was so predictable, many movie critics wrote in their reviews that they enjoyed the ending. A critic writing for The Atlantic writes that he liked the ending and it "flagged" his interest.

I think that Hollywood should start supporting more movies that don't follow the "American plot line" because I find them redundant and more predictable.

Miley vs. Syria

At my block party last night, I was talking to my 40-some year old neighbor and she brought up the topic of Miley Cyrus' VMA performance. I was pretty surprised because I had no idea the older community was at all interested in Miley Cyrus' twerking ability. I had the impression that only Miley-obsessed-teens still talked about her. This prompted me to go look at just how interested people actually were in Miley Cyrus. After reading an article in the Huffington post about the interest in Miley Cyrus at the VMA's and Syria, I was blown away. The Google searches (by Americans) for Miley Cyrus' performance outnumbers searches for Syria a whopping 6:1. After reading further, I calmed down a bit when I found out there were 3X more Syria news stories than Miley news stories. Further, the articles in major newspapers about Syria outnumber Miley articles 11:1.

It is not surprising to me that writers for the New York Times and other newspapers choose to write about Syria rather than Miley because they are professional journalists and the average newspaper reader is probably going to be more interested in that than Miley. The average age of someone who watches TV news reports is probably less than that of a newspaper reader. The average computer user is probably even younger than both groups. It seems to me that the younger Americans are focusing their attention on the wrong things. Even though I am glad newspapers chose not to write tons of articles about Miley's twerking, it still bothers me that the average American is 6X more likely to Google Miley Cyrus than Syria. Is a VMA performance really more important than genocides in Syria?