This Blog is a resource tool for the students taking the "FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES" elective at Westborough High School, Westborough, Massachusetts.
Monday, September 10, 2012
PERIOD 6 - LITTLE BOXES
Today you read the story "Little Boxes" in class. Please share your thoughts about the story and the class discussion that followed in a reflective post. Make at least one comment about another student's post.
51 comments:
Robert MacElhaney
said...
My thoughts of the article we read in class today are that I think that having to decide what ethnicity you are can be hard for some people because your parents could be of different ethnic groups and maybe you are Latino, but the only have Hispanic. I also, think that it was nice that he sided with his mother because he felt closer to his mom and he looked up to her. I do believe though that it is hard to choose your identity sometimes because you do not want to be known as one thing if you are more than one. So I believe that the check boxes should be taken away and that there should be a line to right it what ethnic group you are.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a really deep essay making us think about ethnicity and stereotyping them. The writer having many ethnic backgrounds uses himself as an example of one ethnic group couldn't describe him because he was more than white, Asian or Hispanic. If someone were to say they were White, Hispanic, Asian, or Black, people would assume what their characteristics are without getting to know him. Using Little Boxes i feel like he is saying more and more people are being born of many ethnic backgrounds and that makes it hard to categorize them with one giant box. You need little boxes because everyone is more than one thing.
I think that the "Little Boxes" article we read in class today deals with prejudice in today’s society and how by checking "white" or "black" or "latino" right away there are assumptions made. There are stereotypes that blacks are a certain way and that whites are a certain way and that Asians are a certain way. Obviously the stereotypes are false but today’s article shows how there are more to a person than just a box with a check mark in it. We are complex and unique beings and it rightly suggests that on applications when a particular box is check marked it doesn’t tell the whole story. There is no way to identify the difference between a white person from the United States and one from Europe. The two are from different backgrounds and different cultures so by checking a box it does not necessarily reveal someone’s identity which is often what applications are for. To distinguish between a group of people that are similar in a certain way.
I enjoyed "Little Boxes" and I found the message that Wright delivered interesting. I had never completed an application before and thought how the stereotypical options could affect an individual so greatly. People such as Wright have a complex and diverse ethnic background, one that cannot be fully explained by filling in a dot for White, Black, etc. To do so would over generalize their background and overlook aspects of their character.
The “Little Boxes” story that we read in class today talks about classifications and how defining yourself isn’t always easy. When the main character of the story, Anthony, was faced with the task of having to fill out his race he didn’t know what to do because he was part Hispanic, Asian, English, and Irish, so he didn’t know what to put down on his form. This shows how you can’t just simply classify someone because setting a classification is saying what someone is, which is like a stereotype. He also goes on to say that where he was raised and went to school both impacted who he was, but there was no way to show that by checking off a box. This article shows how it’s impossible to simply define someone because every single person is different.
I agree with Mark McCauley that there is a strong prejudice in today's society. As the comic on the back of the article suggests, people form opinions of others based on general characteristics. People are not as simple as Hispanic, African, etc., they are complex and an individual cannot be properly represented through a quick judgement.
I thought the article "little boxes" was very interesting. Many people just check the little boxes without second thoughts, but the author actually thought of what people would think of him for checking certain boxes. Checking a certain box could have brought certain stereotypes upon him that were not true at all. Since he had so many different ethnicities, the possibilities were endless. In the end, the author realized that the judgements based on which box you select aren't true.
I like what Jake said about how answering the question would over generalize a person’s background and overlook aspects of their character. I think that’s true because different cultures raise their kids differently and instill different morals in their children, so just checking off a box wouldn’t show all of that.
I think that the story "Little Boxes" was very interesting. Before reading this article, I had never thought more of checking off a box with your ethnicity than what I simply thought it was: just checking off a box. The thought had never really occurred to me that by doing that, I am categorizing myself with a group of people, and in a sense, almost agreeing to stereotyping. I think that Anthony E. Wright does a good job with pointing out flaws in our society's system today and by taking something people never think of too seriously and creating a bigger picture of how people stereotype each other. I also like at the end how he says, "My background and position have affected me, but I dislike trying to be treated from that information. I am Anthony E. Wright, and the rest of the information about me should come from what I write, what I say, and how I act. Nothing else." I think he is trying to say that a lot of times, people will take one quick look at others and take a first impression from that quick look, or in his case, make an assumption from a checked box and selectively group them into a category, which is unfair.
Before reading "Little Boxes" today, I never had thought twice about checking off the little boxes on forms, since I typically fit nicely into the categories given to me. Nor had I thought about how the person on the other end (if there even is still a person on the other end) reading my form probably thought they had a perfect image of what I was like. But, people are more than the little boxes they check off on these forms. There are thousands upon thousands of people who could check off the same boxes as me, but none of us are alike.
I agree with Mike Lubsen on how Anthony needed to think about which little boxes he labelled himself with, because each one would bring different stereotypes into the picture. Especially when he could only pick one label, he had to consider which label he most aligned with, which still would not be an accurate depiction of a person.
I agree with what Mark McCauley said. Assumptions are always made right away which isn't a good thing at all. Not only are these stereotypes made but their also false. I really like when he said checking a box doesn't necessarily reveal someone's identity.
I though that "Little Boxes" was a fantastically written essay that gave you insight into the mind of somebody most likely quite different from yourself, and made you see things from their point of view. It demonstrated a problem that most people overlook and have no second thoughts of, but can be deeply bothersome and even insulting to others. The person that you are transcends ethnic labels. No little box can explain to anyone who you are or what you can become.
I also liked what Mark noted about prejudice. When someone sees on an application what race someone identifies as, they immediately stereotype the person and do develop preconceived notions about them. This is wrong; no person can be summed up in one little box.
While I was reading the article "Little Boxes" it made me realize how difficult the decision is for a person to determine their true identity if they are of multiple backgrounds. Since they can't determine their true identity, they cant determine which group of friends to associate themselves with. This can cause problems such as depression and anxiety. I think that people shouldn't necessarily associate themselves with people of their ethnicity, but with the people that have the same beliefs and ideas as them.
I agree with what Jake Yanoff said. I also never thought about how the boxes could promote stereotypical thoughts, I just checked "White" and never thought twice about it.
The article “Little Boxes” reflects to us how easy it is to stereotype others, and how generalizations of others are made in everyday situations. Being from a pretty average lineage of people, I had much thought towards checking the little box “white” when filling out a form, or completing an SAT. This article helped open my eyes to the fact that each and every one of us comes from a different background and we each have different stories. It is the collaboration of those stories that give us the character we have today. Generalizing people is a very easy thing to do, and it has been made even easier through the use of these standardized tests or application processes. These “little boxes” describe only one tiny aspect of our character, and before we begin generalizing and stereotyping people, we need to have the understanding that everyone contains more to their character than what meets the eye.
I agree with what John Maguire said about how it can be hard to choose what people to hang out with because of your race and that it is hard to choose what ethnic background you want to be if you have multiple ones. Also, that you should hang out with ture friends that agree and like the same things as you.
I agree and come from the same point of view as Mike Damiano; I may come from a simple background and have the pretty standard lineage, but compared to other people who may’ve checked the same little box as me, my character is most likely vastly different. I think Mike brings up a great point that there are several types of people who, through these forms, are forced into one narrow category.
I agree with Mike Damiano because I've never really given any thought of what is projected from checking off these little boxes until I read this article. I used to just think they were a very small informative part of a survey or test. I also think he makes a great point when he says that there are so many people that could check off the same boxes, but not one person is alike because it's true.
I found the article “Little Boxes” to be very fascinating. Before reading this article, I never thought about what it means to check off the little boxes. I didn’t realize that by checking off a box I am categorizing myself with a certain group of people. For Anthony, he is a mix of several different ethnicities so it is hard for him to be categorized by little boxes. At the end, I like how he says, “I am Anthony E. Wright, and the rest of the information about me should come from what I write, what I say, and how I act. Nothing else." People tend to stereotype others by what is checked in the little boxes, but in reality there is so much more to a person than their ethnicity.
I really enjoyed the article "Little Boxes" today. I found it to be very interesting how the article he wrote told so much more about who he was than any little box ever could have. The little boxes this man described were so broadly general, especially for Wright, a man who comes from so many different cultural groups. For Wright to check off any one of those little boxes would be disrespectful to himself and to his ancestors, for downplaying who he is and where he came from. I hope society can learn and understand that each person is so uniquely different and someday eliminate these "boxes" and stereotypes in our society.
I like what David Tubman said about the article, had I not stepped inside of Wright's shoes I would have never understood what it was like to be generalized, when your background is so diverse.
I enjoyed the article “Little Boxes” for a few reasons. I found it very interesting that he looked so deeply and was able to connect the little boxes that everyone mindlessly fills into applications directly into who he was as a person. He looked into because he wasn’t classified and didn’t fit a social norm that the application and or boxes wanted him to. He was a mixture of cultures and was unsure of his religion, but he wanted to be seen for who he truly was rather than classified as a box. I personally never would have thought of how the boxes fit those who aren’t a certain norm. I just always go through and try to get through the boxes as fast as I can, without thinking. But this shows real insight into how other people think of themselves as well as classify themselves.
I agree with Jake Yanoff. I never even thought of how it could frustrate people who don't fit a certain stereotype. I just check off white and move onto the next box, never having to think twice about it.
After reading the article, “Little Boxes”, my perspective on applications and documents that have you identify yourself by checking boxes has completely changed. Not only does the author of the article have a complex background, but so do many other individuals. These documents that require you to check boxes which “identify” who you are, create stereotypes and assumptions about the individuals that are not true. A new system needs to replace the current one to allow people to reveal their true background, and to give the reviewer of the documents a more accurate way of looking at individuals.
I like how Johnny’s comment took into consideration the possible risks that people face when they are pressured to choose which group they belong with.
Before reading "Little Boxes" I never thought twice about checking off those boxes on application forms. I never really thought about how difficult it might be for other people to fill them out because more and more people are coming from very diverse backgrounds. I agree that these boxes shouldn't be the basis of someone's perspective of you, but i don't think that everyone is going to stereotype you based off of them. I feel that the boxes are often used just to get a general sense of who the person is, and not the complete story behind them. But still, this article has opened my eyes and made me think twice about how other people feel about filling about "little boxes."
I agree with Robert when he says that there should be a space to write your choices to the choices under the little boxes. This would give a more accurate background behind someone and give people with more diverse ethnicities a chance to express who they really are.
I agree with Juli that the boxes only describe a small part of our character. People need to understand that everyone contains more than what meets the eye. We all have different backgrounds and personal stories that make us who we are, so we shouldn’t categorize or stereotype an individual.
After reading the article, “Little Boxes”, my perspective on applications and documents that have you identify yourself by checking boxes has completely changed. Not only does the author of the article have a complex background, but so do many other individuals. These documents that require you to check boxes which “identify” who you are, create stereotypes and assumptions about the individuals that are not true. A new system needs to replace the current one to allow people to reveal their true background, and to give the reviewer of the documents a more accurate way of looking at individuals.
I like how Johnny’s comment took into consideration the possible risks that people face when they are pressured to choose which group they belong with.
My opinion on the article was that our society has begun to over generalize certain groups, whether they be ethnic, economic, or religion. We all assume that people can fit into one of these little boxes that doesn't really tell who they truly are. It also came a a little eye opener because I myself am white on both sides, have been middle class my entire life, and because I seem to fit into these little boxes I never even thought about people that do have different backgrounds and how they deal with it. These are terms that were originally use to describe people, but they seem to be causing more problems than help at this point.
I agree with Mike Damiano when he says that even though some people can just check off these little boxes, none of us are exactly alike. These describing terms don't really describe us as people.
I completely agree with Mike. On any form with little boxes, I just check them off without even thinking about it, because I always fit into a specific category. In Anthony's case, he was so diverse, it didn't feel right selecting just one.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a story that really told the story for a lot of Americans today. The population in America today has become so diverse that people can't truly designate themselves just as one ethnic background. this was the problem for the writer in "Little Boxes" because he was hispanic and asian but looked more cauasian than either and when he went to visit his hispanic family they didn't really know how to classify him. so my opinion on those "Little Boxes" you have to fill out on applications and what not is that they are dumb and really force someone to generalize who they are which is impossible because everyone is a mix of ethnicities and to disregard the rest by checking off a certain box i feel is disrespectful to your heritage.
i like David's closing comment saying that you need little boxes that are more specific than big generalized boxes that don't truly classify anyone cause people are too diverse.
The "Little Boxes" was a helpful reminder that stereotypes aren't as harmless as they can seem. Sometimes people may just generalize or over simplify to easier explain something but often times, such as with the author, these generalizations get rid of a key part of someone's identity.
I agree with Jake. Often times I find myself in a similar situation where I don't think twice about what the boxes mean when I'm filling them out. In reality these boxes should only be used as a precursor to who someone is.
I agree with the author that overgeneralizations can severely limit your identity. I think that there was a point in time where “little boxes” on forms or applications made more sense because the majority of people used to have parents of the same ethnicity, and religion, and etc. Identities used to be more straightforwardly defined. In changing times, there are a lot more people who can’t trace their ancestry back to one country, interracial marriages in America are very common and openly accepted, religion has become a belief that people are allowed to pick up individually for themselves. I think moving forward, that some alterations will have to be made to categorize people, because rarely anyone anymore fits into just one little box but several.
I think Little Boxes accuratley represented how everyone should feel about filling out those forms. It is impossible to write down everything about yourself in one form. The only thing that companys or other people can take away from a form where you plug in your race, is steryotypes. Because they haven't had a conversation with you or if they don't know you at all, then they will paint a picture of you in their mind using the sterotypes they believe are true. I feel that Wright had a problem putting down his race and who he was because it is too hard to describe yourself just by filling in those little boxes.
I think Kensie makes a good point about how she never really thought of these little boxes as an injustice until she read this article. I hadn’t really thought about it either, but it’s so true how diverse and unique people are, and there’s no way you can capture all that with just a few check marks.
I like what Jake said about how by filling in those boxes made whoever was reading the form overlook certain aspects of their character. It leads to untrue steryotypes and unfair opinions.
I agree with the message in “Little Boxes,” that deals with the degrading categorization that “little boxes” have on someone’s life. In the story, the author explains that there are so many significant aspects of his life that cannot simply be placed into “little boxes.” This includes his ethnic backgrounds and cultural beliefs, as well as his own personal identity. I also think that the intention of the little boxes is not to try to place people into categories, but to simply get a better idea of who they are. This being said; however, also brings up the argument that looking at checked boxes on a piece of paper cannot always tell you much about a person anyway, since there is so much more to people than can fit into the boxes. Basically, I think that to really understand someone, you would need to understand where he or she comes from. This includes their history, ethnicity, and cultural and personal beliefs and this cannot all be understood from checked boxes on a piece of paper.
I agree with what Tom mentioned regarding stereotypes. The only information that can be received from basic applications are what is checked in the boxes that define someone’s race, religious beliefs, etc. which may also imply certain stereotypes. Stereotypes are unfortunate and unfair judgments of people based on what is checked on application form boxes. The point of the applications are to try to give the employers, or whoever else, a better understanding of who they are dealing with before they have the chance to meet with them in person. Realistically speaking, the only way to truly get to know someone is by meeting them in person and understanding their background.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a very interesting story. I feel that the overall message that this story is trying to convey is that there are many parts that make you who you really are, and it is so difficult to choose one or two specific characteristics to identify yourself. So in essence, you can’t really choose one thing that makes you who you are.
51 comments:
My thoughts of the article we read in class today are that I think that having to decide what ethnicity you are can be hard for some people because your parents could be of different ethnic groups and maybe you are Latino, but the only have Hispanic. I also, think that it was nice that he sided with his mother because he felt closer to his mom and he looked up to her. I do believe though that it is hard to choose your identity sometimes because you do not want to be known as one thing if you are more than one. So I believe that the check boxes should be taken away and that there should be a line to right it what ethnic group you are.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a really deep essay making us think about ethnicity and stereotyping them. The writer having many ethnic backgrounds uses himself as an example of one ethnic group couldn't describe him because he was more than white, Asian or Hispanic. If someone were to say they were White, Hispanic, Asian, or Black, people would assume what their characteristics are without getting to know him. Using Little Boxes i feel like he is saying more and more people are being born of many ethnic backgrounds and that makes it hard to categorize them with one giant box. You need little boxes because everyone is more than one thing.
I think that the "Little Boxes" article we read in class today deals with prejudice in today’s society and how by checking "white" or "black" or "latino" right away there are assumptions made. There are stereotypes that blacks are a certain way and that whites are a certain way and that Asians are a certain way. Obviously the stereotypes are false but today’s article shows how there are more to a person than just a box with a check mark in it. We are complex and unique beings and it rightly suggests that on applications when a particular box is check marked it doesn’t tell the whole story. There is no way to identify the difference between a white person from the United States and one from Europe. The two are from different backgrounds and different cultures so by checking a box it does not necessarily reveal someone’s identity which is often what applications are for. To distinguish between a group of people that are similar in a certain way.
I enjoyed "Little Boxes" and I found the message that Wright delivered interesting. I had never completed an application before and thought how the stereotypical options could affect an individual so greatly. People such as Wright have a complex and diverse ethnic background, one that cannot be fully explained by filling in a dot for White, Black, etc. To do so would over generalize their background and overlook aspects of their character.
The “Little Boxes” story that we read in class today talks about classifications and how defining yourself isn’t always easy. When the main character of the story, Anthony, was faced with the task of having to fill out his race he didn’t know what to do because he was part Hispanic, Asian, English, and Irish, so he didn’t know what to put down on his form. This shows how you can’t just simply classify someone because setting a classification is saying what someone is, which is like a stereotype. He also goes on to say that where he was raised and went to school both impacted who he was, but there was no way to show that by checking off a box. This article shows how it’s impossible to simply define someone because every single person is different.
I agree with Mark McCauley that there is a strong prejudice in today's society. As the comic on the back of the article suggests, people form opinions of others based on general characteristics. People are not as simple as Hispanic, African, etc., they are complex and an individual cannot be properly represented through a quick judgement.
I thought the article "little boxes" was very interesting. Many people just check the little boxes without second thoughts, but the author actually thought of what people would think of him for checking certain boxes. Checking a certain box could have brought certain stereotypes upon him that were not true at all. Since he had so many different ethnicities, the possibilities were endless. In the end, the author realized that the judgements based on which box you select aren't true.
I like what Jake said about how answering the question would over generalize a person’s background and overlook aspects of their character. I think that’s true because different cultures raise their kids differently and instill different morals in their children, so just checking off a box wouldn’t show all of that.
I think that the story "Little Boxes" was very interesting. Before reading this article, I had never thought more of checking off a box with your ethnicity than what I simply thought it was: just checking off a box. The thought had never really occurred to me that by doing that, I am categorizing myself with a group of people, and in a sense, almost agreeing to stereotyping. I think that Anthony E. Wright does a good job with pointing out flaws in our society's system today and by taking something people never think of too seriously and creating a bigger picture of how people stereotype each other. I also like at the end how he says, "My background and position have affected me, but I dislike trying to be treated from that information. I am Anthony E. Wright, and the rest of the information about me should come from what I write, what I say, and how I act. Nothing else." I think he is trying to say that a lot of times, people will take one quick look at others and take a first impression from that quick look, or in his case, make an assumption from a checked box and selectively group them into a category, which is unfair.
Before reading "Little Boxes" today, I never had thought twice about checking off the little boxes on forms, since I typically fit nicely into the categories given to me. Nor had I thought about how the person on the other end (if there even is still a person on the other end) reading my form probably thought they had a perfect image of what I was like. But, people are more than the little boxes they check off on these forms. There are thousands upon thousands of people who could check off the same boxes as me, but none of us are alike.
I agree with Mike Lubsen on how Anthony needed to think about which little boxes he labelled himself with, because each one would bring different stereotypes into the picture. Especially when he could only pick one label, he had to consider which label he most aligned with, which still would not be an accurate depiction of a person.
I agree with what Mark McCauley said. Assumptions are always made right away which isn't a good thing at all. Not only are these stereotypes made but their also false. I really like when he said checking a box doesn't necessarily reveal someone's identity.
I though that "Little Boxes" was a fantastically written essay that gave you insight into the mind of somebody most likely quite different from yourself, and made you see things from their point of view. It demonstrated a problem that most people overlook and have no second thoughts of, but can be deeply bothersome and even insulting to others. The person that you are transcends ethnic labels. No little box can explain to anyone who you are or what you can become.
I also liked what Mark noted about prejudice. When someone sees on an application what race someone identifies as, they immediately stereotype the person and do develop preconceived notions about them. This is wrong; no person can be summed up in one little box.
While I was reading the article "Little Boxes" it made me realize how difficult the decision is for a person to determine their true identity if they are of multiple backgrounds. Since they can't determine their true identity, they cant determine which group of friends to associate themselves with. This can cause problems such as depression and anxiety. I think that people shouldn't necessarily associate themselves with people of their ethnicity, but with the people that have the same beliefs and ideas as them.
I agree with what Jake Yanoff said. I also never thought about how the boxes could promote stereotypical thoughts, I just checked "White" and never thought twice about it.
The article “Little Boxes” reflects to us how easy it is to stereotype others, and how generalizations of others are made in everyday situations. Being from a pretty average lineage of people, I had much thought towards checking the little box “white” when filling out a form, or completing an SAT. This article helped open my eyes to the fact that each and every one of us comes from a different background and we each have different stories. It is the collaboration of those stories that give us the character we have today. Generalizing people is a very easy thing to do, and it has been made even easier through the use of these standardized tests or application processes. These “little boxes” describe only one tiny aspect of our character, and before we begin generalizing and stereotyping people, we need to have the understanding that everyone contains more to their character than what meets the eye.
I agree with what John Maguire said about how it can be hard to choose what people to hang out with because of your race and that it is hard to choose what ethnic background you want to be if you have multiple ones. Also, that you should hang out with ture friends that agree and like the same things as you.
I agree and come from the same point of view as Mike Damiano; I may come from a simple background and have the pretty standard lineage, but compared to other people who may’ve checked the same little box as me, my character is most likely vastly different. I think Mike brings up a great point that there are several types of people who, through these forms, are forced into one narrow category.
I agree with Mike Damiano because I've never really given any thought of what is projected from checking off these little boxes until I read this article. I used to just think they were a very small informative part of a survey or test. I also think he makes a great point when he says that there are so many people that could check off the same boxes, but not one person is alike because it's true.
I found the article “Little Boxes” to be very fascinating. Before reading this article, I never thought about what it means to check off the little boxes. I didn’t realize that by checking off a box I am categorizing myself with a certain group of people. For Anthony, he is a mix of several different ethnicities so it is hard for him to be categorized by little boxes. At the end, I like how he says, “I am Anthony E. Wright, and the rest of the information about me should come from what I write, what I say, and how I act. Nothing else." People tend to stereotype others by what is checked in the little boxes, but in reality there is so much more to a person than their ethnicity.
I really enjoyed the article "Little Boxes" today. I found it to be very interesting how the article he wrote told so much more about who he was than any little box ever could have. The little boxes this man described were so broadly general, especially for Wright, a man who comes from so many different cultural groups. For Wright to check off any one of those little boxes would be disrespectful to himself and to his ancestors, for downplaying who he is and where he came from. I hope society can learn and understand that each person is so uniquely different and someday eliminate these "boxes" and stereotypes in our society.
I like what David Tubman said about the article, had I not stepped inside of Wright's shoes I would have never understood what it was like to be generalized, when your background is so diverse.
I enjoyed the article “Little Boxes” for a few reasons. I found it very interesting that he looked so deeply and was able to connect the little boxes that everyone mindlessly fills into applications directly into who he was as a person. He looked into because he wasn’t classified and didn’t fit a social norm that the application and or boxes wanted him to. He was a mixture of cultures and was unsure of his religion, but he wanted to be seen for who he truly was rather than classified as a box. I personally never would have thought of how the boxes fit those who aren’t a certain norm. I just always go through and try to get through the boxes as fast as I can, without thinking. But this shows real insight into how other people think of themselves as well as classify themselves.
I agree with Jake Yanoff. I never even thought of how it could frustrate people who don't fit a certain stereotype. I just check off white and move onto the next box, never having to think twice about it.
After reading the article, “Little Boxes”, my perspective on applications and documents that have you identify yourself by checking boxes has completely changed. Not only does the author of the article have a complex background, but so do many other individuals. These documents that require you to check boxes which “identify” who you are, create stereotypes and assumptions about the individuals that are not true. A new system needs to replace the current one to allow people to reveal their true background, and to give the reviewer of the documents a more accurate way of looking at individuals.
I like how Johnny’s comment took into consideration the possible risks that people face when they are pressured to choose which group they belong with.
Before reading "Little Boxes" I never thought twice about checking off those boxes on application forms. I never really thought about how difficult it might be for other people to fill them out because more and more people are coming from very diverse backgrounds. I agree that these boxes shouldn't be the basis of someone's perspective of you, but i don't think that everyone is going to stereotype you based off of them. I feel that the boxes are often used just to get a general sense of who the person is, and not the complete story behind them. But still, this article has opened my eyes and made me think twice about how other people feel about filling about "little boxes."
I agree with Robert when he says that there should be a space to write your choices to the choices under the little boxes. This would give a more accurate background behind someone and give people with more diverse ethnicities a chance to express who they really are.
I liked Johnny's comment about the risks that people face when they choose to be friends with a certain group.
I agree with Juli that the boxes only describe a small part of our character. People need to understand that everyone contains more than what meets the eye. We all have different backgrounds and personal stories that make us who we are, so we shouldn’t categorize or stereotype an individual.
After reading the article, “Little Boxes”, my perspective on applications and documents that have you identify yourself by checking boxes has completely changed. Not only does the author of the article have a complex background, but so do many other individuals. These documents that require you to check boxes which “identify” who you are, create stereotypes and assumptions about the individuals that are not true. A new system needs to replace the current one to allow people to reveal their true background, and to give the reviewer of the documents a more accurate way of looking at individuals.
I like how Johnny’s comment took into consideration the possible risks that people face when they are pressured to choose which group they belong with.
My opinion on the article was that our society has begun to over generalize certain groups, whether they be ethnic, economic, or religion. We all assume that people can fit into one of these little boxes that doesn't really tell who they truly are. It also came a a little eye opener because I myself am white on both sides, have been middle class my entire life, and because I seem to fit into these little boxes I never even thought about people that do have different backgrounds and how they deal with it. These are terms that were originally use to describe people, but they seem to be causing more problems than help at this point.
I agree with Mike Damiano when he says that even though some people can just check off these little boxes, none of us are exactly alike. These describing terms don't really describe us as people.
I completely agree with Mike. On any form with little boxes, I just check them off without even thinking about it, because I always fit into a specific category. In Anthony's case, he was so diverse, it didn't feel right selecting just one.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a story that really told the story for a lot of Americans today. The population in America today has become so diverse that people can't truly designate themselves just as one ethnic background. this was the problem for the writer in "Little Boxes" because he was hispanic and asian but looked more cauasian than either and when he went to visit his hispanic family they didn't really know how to classify him. so my opinion on those "Little Boxes" you have to fill out on applications and what not is that they are dumb and really force someone to generalize who they are which is impossible because everyone is a mix of ethnicities and to disregard the rest by checking off a certain box i feel is disrespectful to your heritage.
i like David's closing comment saying that you need little boxes that are more specific than big generalized boxes that don't truly classify anyone cause people are too diverse.
The "Little Boxes" was a helpful reminder that stereotypes aren't as harmless as they can seem. Sometimes people may just generalize or over simplify to easier explain something but often times, such as with the author, these generalizations get rid of a key part of someone's identity.
I agree with Jake. Often times I find myself in a similar situation where I don't think twice about what the boxes mean when I'm filling them out. In reality these boxes should only be used as a precursor to who someone is.
I agree with the author that overgeneralizations can severely limit your identity. I think that there was a point in time where “little boxes” on forms or applications made more sense because the majority of people used to have parents of the same ethnicity, and religion, and etc. Identities used to be more straightforwardly defined. In changing times, there are a lot more people who can’t trace their ancestry back to one country, interracial marriages in America are very common and openly accepted, religion has become a belief that people are allowed to pick up individually for themselves. I think moving forward, that some alterations will have to be made to categorize people, because rarely anyone anymore fits into just one little box but several.
I think Little Boxes accuratley represented how everyone should feel about filling out those forms. It is impossible to write down everything about yourself in one form. The only thing that companys or other people can take away from a form where you plug in your race, is steryotypes. Because they haven't had a conversation with you or if they don't know you at all, then they will paint a picture of you in their mind using the sterotypes they believe are true. I feel that Wright had a problem putting down his race and who he was because it is too hard to describe yourself just by filling in those little boxes.
I think Kensie makes a good point about how she never really thought of these little boxes as an injustice until she read this article. I hadn’t really thought about it either, but it’s so true how diverse and unique people are, and there’s no way you can capture all that with just a few check marks.
I like what Jake said about how by filling in those boxes made whoever was reading the form overlook certain aspects of their character. It leads to untrue steryotypes and unfair opinions.
I agree with the message in “Little Boxes,” that deals with the degrading categorization that “little boxes” have on someone’s life. In the story, the author explains that there are so many significant aspects of his life that cannot simply be placed into “little boxes.” This includes his ethnic backgrounds and cultural beliefs, as well as his own personal identity. I also think that the intention of the little boxes is not to try to place people into categories, but to simply get a better idea of who they are. This being said; however, also brings up the argument that looking at checked boxes on a piece of paper cannot always tell you much about a person anyway, since there is so much more to people than can fit into the boxes. Basically, I think that to really understand someone, you would need to understand where he or she comes from. This includes their history, ethnicity, and cultural and personal beliefs and this cannot all be understood from checked boxes on a piece of paper.
I agree with what Tom mentioned regarding stereotypes. The only information that can be received from basic applications are what is checked in the boxes that define someone’s race, religious beliefs, etc. which may also imply certain stereotypes. Stereotypes are unfortunate and unfair judgments of people based on what is checked on application form boxes. The point of the applications are to try to give the employers, or whoever else, a better understanding of who they are dealing with before they have the chance to meet with them in person. Realistically speaking, the only way to truly get to know someone is by meeting them in person and understanding their background.
I thought "Little Boxes" was a very interesting story. I feel that the overall message that this story is trying to convey is that there are many parts that make you who you really are, and it is so difficult to choose one or two specific characteristics to identify yourself. So in essence, you can’t really choose one thing that makes you who you are.
I agree with Dan, that this story can relate to American society today because you cannot really pick one ethnicity to define someone today.
i was absent from school on this day
i was absent from school on this day
I was absent this day.
Post a Comment