"Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of America" and "Asian American Panethnicity: Contemporary National and Transnational Possibilities" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 66-87)

Though these two passages were within the same section of Rosenblum and Travis' (2012) The Meaning of Difference, the experiences of those involved were/are incredibly different.

Those of Native American ancestry, also described as "Indian" have had to and continue to have such complex challenges with claiming, explaining, and justifying their background. An interesting piece to this passage was a comparison of the differences for one to claim themselves as Native American versus African American. "The logic that underlies the biological definition of racial identity becomes even more curious and complicated when one considers the striking difference in the way that American definitions assign individuals to the racial category of "Indian," as opposed to the racial category "black" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70). The passage continues to read, "Although people must have only the slightest trace of "black blood" to be forced into the category of "African American," modern American Indians must (1) formally produce (2) strong evidence of (3) often rather substantial amounts of "Indian blood" to be allowed entry into the corresponding racial category (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70).

Based on the complete reading of that passage, I wonder if the above is true because one has more to gain when they are of an American Indian tribe, because the United States owes a debt to that group for past atrocities. Of course, that can be said of the African American groups as well, but this is the question I am posing: Does the U.S. feel more indebted to American Indians versus other groups that it has previously/currently mistreats?

It is interesting that in the second passage another look into ethnicity really supports the idea that race is a social construct, and because of this, it is constantly evolving. It was interesting to read, though not surprising, that those U.S. citizens that have ties to various Asian countries are really much more than Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. "Arriving to the United States, nineteenth-century immigrants from Asian countries did not think of themselves as "Asians"....Asian immigrant groups did not even think of themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and so forth, but rather people from Toishan, Hoiping..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 76).

Though the generalization of people as Asians was novel then, it is actually being used as a way for some people to join in solidarity in more recent history. This was/is possible because as new generations grew up speaking English, people of various backgrounds could easily communicate. The idea of Pan-Asianism brings up a thought: Is it ideal for anyone to create a Pan-group, does it not create an us and them culture, or on the flip side, does it promote support among various people which aids in their abilities to navigate the world?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Can You See the Rainbow? The Roots of Denial" and "Not Blind Enough: Living in the Borderland Called Legal Blindness" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 317-330)

 "I tried very hard to be "normal," to be anonymous and to merge with the crowd" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 318).

"...lack of communication gave me a powerful unspoken message that my disability must be denied" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 318).

"...the behavior of adults clearly conveyed the message "You are not acceptable as you are" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 319).

I found the above quotes from Rosenblum & Travis (2012) to be powerful and telling of the challenges those with disabilities face. The first quote I believe disability or no, everyone can relate to. To be normal is a term I always found challenging; what does that exactly mean? There is no normal in any culture, as everyone has their own uniqueness that makes them an individual.

The second and third quotes made me think if my profession and how I face the clients I support. The clients all are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and my role in their lives is never to change that diagnosis but to support each individuals positive experience with their natural environments through creating specific behavior and skill programming. No plan or programming is the same because each individual is just that, an individual. A plan for one person would never fit a plan for another. Often, disabilities are viewed in a negative light. I have found it humbling to notice that some of my students are more skilled than I in certain area, that their disability has actually allowed them to understand something I cannot, or something I have yet to learn.

The important message that this article supports is that we should never deny someones disability or believe that someone with a disability needs to change or hide who they are. We are all individuals, and the idea of normalcy is certainly a false idea.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"What's Class Got to Do with It?," "More or Less Equal?," and "The Silver Spoon: Inheritance and the Staggered Start" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.130-145).

The following quotes from Rosenblum and Travis (2012) inspired the following post:

“…the United States now has greater income inequality and higher rates if poverty than other industrial countries” (p.140).

“Despite the ideology of meritocracy, the reality in America, as elsewhere, is inheritance first and merit second” (p.138).

The authors discuss that in the U.S., middle and lower class citizens will have increased difficulty transcending or moving up the socioeconomic ladder, as compared to wealthy citizens. This in part is due to the head start that wealthy citizens have, as they receive financial support from their wealthy families and do not have to work for their success or financial gains, since it is already there waiting for them. Due to this “staggered start” (p.136), people of the middle and lower classes may never increase their class standing, and if they do it may be one step out of 30, not really moving them very far up that ladder of financial success.

As a daughter of hard working middle class people of the U.S., I have felt this struggle. I have been blessed to go to both undergraduate and now, graduate college but the financial requirements were mine to pay. My parents supported me as much they could as an undergraduate student, helping me pay for books and expenses like that but the bulk of the expense was mine.

In many ways, I’m glad to have had to learn how to take care of myself financially. I won’t say it isn’t challenging to be friends with others who have no loans, and the opportunities to “quit life” to find themselves if they feel inclined, because they have their parents financial supports; however, I’m proud of what I have gained because I really earned it. I don’t fault others their socioeconomic standing because it’s not their fault that they are wealthier; I would honestly love to have a trust fund and wouldn’t turn down an offer for one.

The real question is why our country isn’t more merit based and how would that effect our society if generational inheritance wasn’t a huge component of people’s success? As a behaviorist, I would hypothesize that motivation to work hard and efficiently would increase significantly!

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

James A. Banks (2009) article, Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education

I have decided that my first post will be about the James A. Banks (2009) article, Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education. I found this article to be very relevant to the experiences I have daily when working for a mental health agency in Chittenden County, VT. My clients attend schools throughout this county, and it is apparent that there are cultural differences from school to school, and even classroom to classroom.

This article highlighted the 60^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and how educators should take the opportunity to consider how they should “consider the implications of the UDHR for educating citizens in multicultural democratic nations” (Banks, p. 100).

I appreciated how Banks discussed how we, as educators, need to transition to reinforcing the idea of being a “multicultural citizen” (Banks, 106). None of us have one culture we belong to, even if we have lived in the United States our entire life. Culture is a broad spectrum, and to try and limit ourselves doesn’t do our identities justice and reinforces the idea that we should live in a monoculture.

Moving forward, I want to try to incorporate the idea of “multicultural citizen” in my every day work (Banks, 106).  I think constantly asking the questions “What is culture?” and “How can I best support my clients’ culture?” is the strategy I will use to increase my awareness of the importance of this topic.