Arab-Americans

Similarities between the Position of Arab-American after September 11, 2001 and the Position of Japanese-Americans after December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor)

 

Prior to 9/11, Arab-Americans had a similar experience like other immigrants in the United States.  Studies shows that before the 9/11 incident, Arab-Americans were recognized for being economically, politically, and spiritually diverse group (Katherine, 2010). However, following the 9/11 attack that was carried out by radical Al-Qaeda terrorists, fear, sorrow, and anger of the attack led many non-Arab Americans citizens to associate Arab-Americans with the 9/11 attack (Katherine, 2010). As a result, barely a year after the attack, over 700 violent incidents targeting Arab-Americans were reported in the United States; a typical indication that the 9/11 attack the relationship between Arab-Americans and other races in the United States. .

 

Similarly, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941 led to souring relationship between Japanese-Americans and non-Japanese Americans. For instance, in February 1942, barely two months after the attack, President Roosevelt issued an order which led to the relocation of Japanese-Americans, both citizens and aliens (Morella, 2012). Such order was meant to protect Japanese-Americans from attacks by Americans who had developed anti-Japanese attitudes.

 

The 9/11 attack led to discrimination and anti-trust towards Arab-Americans. Studies show that approximately 65% of Arab-Americans reported incidences of embarrassment (Katherine, 2010). The 9/11 attack created a scenario where Arab-Americans were referred to as extremists and terrorists. Such discrimination and anti-trust towards the Arab-Americans (Muslim) made them to be denied permission to build a mosque near ground zero on the basis that they may cause more harm to Americans (Katherine, 2010). Similarly, the December 7, 1947 attacks led to embarrassment and discrimination against Japanese-Americans (Morella, 2012). In fact, within weeks all Japanese-Americans were sent to permanent relocations centers outside restricted military zones because they were considered to be a security threat.  

 

Differences between the Position of Arab-American after September 11, 2001 and the Position of Japanese-Americans after December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor)

 

Whereas after the December 7, 1947 tragedy Roosevelt President ordered more than 117, 000 persons of Japanese descent to be relocated to military restricted center (Morella, 2012); for instance, Persons of Japanese ancestry in Western Washington State were relocated to Puyallup Fairgrounds near Tacoma, this differed from the December 7, 1947 incident, because the 9/11 terrorists attack did not lead to relocation of Arab-Americans. For instance, Muslims enjoyed freedom of movement and religion within the US even after the terror attack as evidenced by the fact that they were granted permission to construct a mosque in New York despite that they were denied such capacity immediately after the terror attack. As evident in the 9/11 tragedy, terrorism affects everyone. Depression afflicted many people both Americans and non-Americans. Such experience also portrayed America as vulnerable and that terrorism is the fact of life for everyone. In addition, the December 7, 1947 tragedy called for a different attitude about war and giving to the war. Moreover, although war is not part of culture, war is the culture, that is why people’s way of life changes radically following war.

Continue Reading

Why People Use Drug and How the Society Reacts to It

Why People Use Drug and How the Society Reacts to It - essay sample

There is hardly anyone who is unaware of the severe consequences drugs have on a person ‒ both on his or her body and psychology‒ yet the number of drug addicted people is rising at an alarming rate. The reasons for that should be found in a person itself and its motives to use drugs, as well as in a way society chooses to deal with this acute problem.

 

There are several possible reasons why a person decides to use drugs knowing that it is dangerous. Firstly, this might be due to an individual’s difficult emotional state, such as anxiety or depression. Nowadays, when the life is getting more and more stressful, people often resort to drugs to make their life easier, even if just for a short period of time. Drug intoxication might as well be a way to cope with bad memories. Secondly, a person might see others having fun while being intoxicated, and conclude that drugs can make their lives more interesting, too. There is also boredom which leads to teens’ and young adults’ drug addiction. All mentioned above means that people use drugs being well aware of the consequences, but sometimes a person become addicted “accidentally”, for example, when taking pain killers while treating a serious injury. In this case, prescribed drugs result in dependency.

 

It is also known that people with a family history of drug abuse are more likely to become addicted. Thus, a family, culture and the society plays a major role in an individual’s choice. This is logical, because all of them shape person’s character and lifestyle. For instance, if there is a lack of the facilities for youth, they have more free time than needed and use drugs to escape boredom. Or, if a society has a strong religious commitment, there is a chance people will not use drugs because their religion forbids them to. However, these are only some of the reasons why people take or do not take drugs, and it does not mean that an individual who, for example, believes in God, will never become drug addicted.

 

The two ways in which the society suggests to cope with drug addiction are the harm reduction and abstinence. In my opinion, the first model is more appropriate since it helps minimize the risks for other people. For example, giving new syringes in exchange for the used ones can help protect the users from HIV, and, as the result, keep it from further spreading. Apart from that, as it has already been mentioned, the reasons why people use drugs vary greatly, and simply taking away a coping mechanism cannot resolve the issue. Therefore, I regard the harm reduction model as prior to the abstinence-based medical one.

Continue Reading

Sociological Theories

Sociological Theories essay

Work and family balance is still differentiated along gender lines. Men are traditionally viewed as providers, and are expected to support the family economically. At home, men are deemed aggressive and task oriented; they are the unrivaled instrumental leaders and have minimal involvement in housework even when the spouses are working. Women were traditionally expected to stay at home, carrying out housework and nurturing the young; they are the expressive leaders (Wallen, 2002). A present day working woman has to grapple with the responsibilities of maintaining a home. Girls grow up knowing that it is their responsibility to take care of the home and children while the boys gain the mentality that they are the sole providers and, therefore, should not involve themselves in any housework (Calhoun et al., 2002).

 

 Working parents are nowadays resorting to different childcare arrangements to reduce absenteeism at work. Workplace policies, like those prohibiting the use of company resources for family-related issues, were introduced to draw the boundaries between work and family lives. However, there is a significant integration of family and work life in some cases, effectively eroding the work-personal life boundary. The family set-up has substantially changed thanks to the division of labor and the shifting family composition (Wallen, 2002).

 

Using the conflict theory, Wallen (2002) analyzes the conflicting nature of the roles played by men and women in the workplace and in the family. Traditionally, a man’s wage was given primary importance as opposed to the woman’s wage. Employment of women accords them greater decision-making ability, setting the stage for marital conflict. Men do not take an equal share of responsibility at home, and the women bear the greatest responsibility (Wallen, 2002).

 

Work and family represent competing interests of various parties involved. It has been shown that among dual couples, one may take work-related stress of his or her partner personally, leading to marital conflict. Presence of extended family members may also cause conflict, as they compete for attention and articulate their demands. There may be a conflict in the workplace between the employee and employer when the former tries to balance the obligations at the workplace with impromptu family needs (Wallen, 2002).

 

Symbolic interactionalism theory derives the meanings that people attach to work and family, and how the meanings shape their daily interactions. A significant number of people regard work as interference, reducing the time they spend with their families, causing fatigue, irritability, and lack of energy. Women abandon their traditional housekeeping role to seek employment in order to supplement or provide income for family sustenance. Men with working wives assist them in chores around the home, easing the pressure on them (Wallen, 2002).

 

Functionalist theory explores how each individual is part of a whole, and that whole is an interrelated system of parts, each having a role to play. At work, one may play a certain role that may either conflict or complement his or her role in the family. The individual may adopt multiple strategies to ensure the smooth running of the family. At work, the skills acquired while carrying out of one’s roles and attitude towards the roles may either complement the roles in the family or cause problems in the family (Calhoun et al., 2002).

 

Social, economic, and technological changes in society negatively affect the individual by bringing about unprecedented occurrences. At the workplace, a worker might be unable to take up the new roles expected of him or her: causing a breakdown in the work life. At home, the individual might be alienated from the family due to advances in technology and increased economic pressures which he or she cannot accommodate (Wallen, 2002).

Continue Reading