I was driving back from the gym the other day, and somehow my mind wandered to how the colloquial meanings of words change over time; in particular, I thought about the word immigrant. Perhaps it was seeing an Hispanic person drive past me in the other lane, or perhaps it was the burrito I was going to have after I returned home; nonetheless, the thought had entered my mind.
I remember being taught about immigration in grade school and learning about the (highly propagandized) belief that each and every immigrant came to the US in search of the "perfect life," aka the "American Dream," and that it was achievable by working hard and being an upstanding citizen. In particular, we were taught that everyone in the world wants to be like us, (a rather egotistical and tangential point) and that we should be accepting of those who emerged from different cultures.
Coming from a town where approximately 1/3 of students in my high school were Caucasian, with the other 2/3 reserved mostly for East Asian and Indian, with a few African Americans mixed in, I am used to diversity; I never found anyone's culture, regardless of their origins, to be that strange. I still held the innate belief that immigrants should be accepted by all, and I held it to heart.
I assume that you would expect my belief to have changed, and I suppose it has, though not without undue influence from external sources; in other words, because the word "immigration" has been so often coupled with pejorative terms of late, I have noticed that some of my opinions have become less welcoming and amiable. That being said, I still act on my geniality to its fullest extent.
To call someone an "immigrant" in America is now a sign of derogation; where it once simply described someone's status as an American citizen, it now has come to implicitly stand for "intruder," "criminal," "interloper," etc.
Why should a simple word change so drastically?
A few years ago, illegal immigration from the southernmost border of the United States became a hot topic, as it does every so often. Those crossing the border were portrayed as attempting to steal very "precious" American jobs by working for below minimum wage, along with giving birth to children in the US in order to have their kids be American citizens, somehow enabling the child's parents to be retrieved somehow later (though it's ludicrous, seeing as the child has to wait until he/she is 18 to apply for residency for his/her parents, and then the typical waiting time is 10 years). Thus, the "immigrant" was tainted; an Arizona law allowed for police to "randomly check" people who seemed "suspicious"; pundits railed against the lack of security along the border, that there should be a gigantic fence, etc.
The same applies to the word "gay"; where it once meant "happy," it is now a synonym for "bad"; what causes the change in meanings? Is it simply one's perception of a certain group as defined by some rather meaningless characteristic?
I suppose there is no final thought to this post. I guess that's how my summer has been- no sense of finality.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Question of Culpability
Recently, the parents of deceased Rutgers student Tyler Clementi announced that they have preserved the right to sue Rutgers over their negligence to act on his behalf in the events leading to his tragic suicide. Mr. Clementi jumped off of the George Washington Bridge in late September after his roommate Dharun Ravi and classmate Molly Wei broadcast his sexual encounter with another man over the internet. While many would believe that the family is simply trying to take advantage of the sympathetic feelings towards the parents, it would be wise to mull over the finer details of the case and see whether or not the university was truly at fault.
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Labels:
dharun ravi,
gay,
lesbian,
lgbt,
molly wei,
rutgers,
suicide,
tyler clementi
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Movie Review: Dragons Forever
Jackie Chan has always been known for his astounding acrobatics and comedic follow-throughs; in Dragons Forever, he completes his usual routines and more in what I can only describe as one of his funniest movies. (It took a bit of insinuation on my part to understand all the jokes, as the subtitles I had for the movie weren't that good.)
Chan continues his epithet of "good guy" as a lawyer, in this case defending the owner of an industry that is polluting a nearby lake. He's quickly established as a Casanova, asking any and every pretty girl, excluding his assistant, to have lunch with him. In pursuing his client's case, he hires his two friends to spy on and coerce the owner of the lake into selling it to the industrial overlord. What ensues is a touching romance, extraordinary comedy and extraordinarily impressive acrobatics. The movie culminates in what can only be described as one of Jackie's best fight scenes against what appears to be a gay Nazi vampire.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Chan continues his epithet of "good guy" as a lawyer, in this case defending the owner of an industry that is polluting a nearby lake. He's quickly established as a Casanova, asking any and every pretty girl, excluding his assistant, to have lunch with him. In pursuing his client's case, he hires his two friends to spy on and coerce the owner of the lake into selling it to the industrial overlord. What ensues is a touching romance, extraordinary comedy and extraordinarily impressive acrobatics. The movie culminates in what can only be described as one of Jackie's best fight scenes against what appears to be a gay Nazi vampire.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Labels:
cheney,
dragons forever,
gay,
jackie chan,
movie review,
nazi,
vampire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)