This Blog is a resource tool for the students taking the "FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES" elective at Westborough High School, Westborough, Massachusetts.
Friday, February 11, 2011
PERIOD 7 - "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. Mr. Gallagher
31 comments:
Amanda Hutchinson
said...
Today in class we discussed the story “Little Boxes”. We discussed our ideas about generalization and whether we believe it is right or not. I believe that in certain situations such as police trying to identify a suspect it is okay to make generalizations. In cases such as these the police are describing the suspect and making generalizations in order to protect other people. There are also negative sides to generalization, such as the college application process. Your race shouldn’t effect whether you get into college or not. Also, like in Anthony Wright’s case, many people are more than one race and instead of checking off a box to include them self within a certain race, they are excluding themselves from the other races that they are. Generalization makes one’s true identity uncertain and raises the question of whether genetics or culture affects ones identity more.
I agree with Amanda's post that generalizing has both its pros and its cons. However, I thought that Anthony took the classification process a little too seriously. Yes generalization can cause some confusion as far as identity goes, but I think in his case when he was applying for colleges that it serves to make the process easier for the board of admissions. Also, I dont really understand why he was so upset by the "little boxes" especially when the applications do provide the 'other' line to write alternative ethnicities and so forth.
I feel like Anthony's point of view was a bit extreme. It seemed to me that he was taking in too much to determine what ethnicity he considers himself as. We automatically judge someone when we meet them and it's not something we can prevent. It's kind of an unconscious thing. I can understand why people become offended by what others immediately classify that person as if it's wrong, but we need to take into consideration that we aren't going to know exactly what someone is when we meet them. It takes talking to them to figure out what they consider themselves as.
In response to Amanda's post, it definitely makes sense that in some situations generalization is okay like in police cases. Otherwise I feel as if it can be bad like in the job process as we had discussed in class. Some people do favor one sex over the other or neglect one race and that's not right. You should judge based on the application.
I found the story "Little boxes" to be very interesting. I thought that Anthony made some very valid points in the story.I think the best line in the story was when Anthony said that he shouldn't be judged on his ethnicity but rather on his thoughts and actions. I totally agree with him when he states this. I thought Amanda did a good job talking about generalizations and how in some instances it is ok to generalize and how generalization does affect ones identity.
The article brought up a point that I had never really considered about how some people may have trouble generalizing themselves in a certain category on an application. However, I think an application is designed to show your identity and characteristics in different areas of the applications. Just because you check off boxes about your ethnicity doesn’t necessarily mean that completely defines you as a person.
I thought Amanda brought up a good point about how someone's race shouldn't determine their acceptance in college. A certain race shouldn't have an advantage or disadvantage over another race.
I believe Anthony point in the story was a little bias. He was upset at the generalizations made, but because he comes from so many back rounds, i believe his point was unfair. I am almost 90% swedish, and the rest is french canadian, english, and german. I think Anthony should of thought of people that could be put in those boxes and be okay with that. Many people have to be, because they are used in daily life. No one goes into an interview and excepts to tell everyone what their back round story is, even though they are okay with checking off the box that is the most like them. I agree with Amanda when she says "generalization make's one true identity uncertain", because generalizing things does create some confusion with identity, but can also be very helpful, for instance when someone fills out a medical form, they generalize about their past injuries and sicknesses. No one is so precise because there is no need to be.
Unfortunatley in today's society people are defined by boxes. Most of the time that you fill out an application whether it be for college or a job it always has you fill out little boxes. It is generalizing and sometimes that is a positive but sometimes it is not because not enough is being said about what type of a person you are when you just check off a box. I agree with Anthony in this situation a little box just doesnt say enough about the type of person you are.
I agree with Brenda. I think that it is interesting to see that some people do have trouble generalizing themselves. I also agree with the other thing that she said in that just cause you are checking off a box doesnt mean it defines you as a person. On the other hand it doesnt show who you really are.
The story “little Boxes” confused me at first; I didn’t understand what the big issue was with checking off certain traits that described you. But then I started to realize that I was comfortable thinking that way because unfortunately that’s the way society has set up for our thinking today. As the class discussion developed I realized the significance of generalizing when it comes to identity and how damaging it can truly be.
I believe that Wright was correct in his ideas. Generalizations are typically negative and imply multiple stereotypes associated with them, just like Mr. Gallagher’s allusion to the black=fried chicken association. However, generalizations and groups also help in many ways. Like Deborah Tannen (?) said in her excerpt, groups help us make sense of the world and people around us. They also act as part of a survival tactic, due to the fact that we are able to use associations in such a way that protects us in certain situations. I believe that there are both bad and good generalizations, but what it really comes down to is how those generalizations are used. We can use the information we know about a certain group of people in order to embrace them and understand their point of view and culture. On the other hand, we can also use this information in a hurtful, damaging way that alienates us from that group. I think the reason Wright doesn’t regard generalizations in a good light is because he doesn’t encounter the good ones often, or is confused by them and has his identity thrown into question.
I agree with what Amanda said about Anthony’s strong bias throughout the article and I also think that in some cases like Amanda said, it should be considered acceptable.
The "Little Boxes" brings up many points about how someones identity can be jeoprodized when filling in their ethnicity or religion on any type of questionnaire or survey. Checking off a box to identify someone's religion or ethnicity creates a very general picture of who someone is. A person my classify themselves under multiple religions or ethnicities, but them may not always be able to identify these aspects. This is very problematic and a person deserves to identify themselves completely, as any ethnicity or religion that they choose.
I agree with what Amanada said regarding certain times that it is ok for generalizations to be made. In her example of when a police officer is trying to identify a suspect and the generalize who the possible suspect could be, this is a perfect example of when making a generalization is exceptable.
I agree with both Amandas. Generalizations tend to bring confusion in terms of personal identity, but honestly speaking, I do not have a real problem with the boxes on applications and such. As I am over 50% English, with a side of scottish and french-canadian, I am not really bothered when I click on the "caucasian" box. Sometimes, I feel a little disconcerted when I see that white includes being middle-eastern on some applications, but I know that I will not be mistaken for something I'm not, due to my obviously european last name. It's not that I dislike being inclusive with the middle-east, I just don't associate "white/caucasian" with "middle-eastern". But I digress..
I agree with what Carli said, in that the way we go about generalizing can be catagorized as either good or bad; but generalization in itself cannot be.
In the article "Little Boxes" Student Anthony Wright brings to light that the little boxes taht we fill in don't always cover the truth. America is a melting pot made up of many ethnic groups religions and beliefts. In the little boxes the only things it should be asking is american or non american. I like Amanda post about how she talks about the college application thing and also agree with her about the generalization makes someone identity uncertain.
In the story “Little Boxes” the idea of generalization and identifying yourself was discussed. I do not agree with the people checking boxes and identifying themselves with a group during the college process is right or politically correct. I do understand that it helps the colleges with statistics but I also don’t see why people should have to identify themselves under certain labels as part of the process of admissions, their application should have nothing to do with religion, nationality, skin color, or any other generalizations. With that being said there is typically the box that allows people to opt out of identifying themselves, so I think Anthony may have taken the question to seriously. There are always positives and negatives to everything and I do believe generalization in some cases can be good such as generalizing police suspects like mentioned in class. There are faults in using generalization but when it is being used for the greater good I think it is justifiable.
I agree with Brenda with her point that I never really thought of how that question may be difficult for some people to check off. I always see white and check it off; I am not native american or Hispanic or any of the other typical options but what about the other line. If I were to fill that out I would have trouble deciding what to put.
I agree with amanda in the sense that generalization is necessary in certain situations for the safety and protection of others. However, i believe there are more negatives to generalization than there are positives.
This story described how surveys leave spaces for you to check a box that best describes yourself. However, these boxes often times lack at truly describing ones background or identity. I feel like surveys such as these should be more specific so people don't have to generalize there identity which ultimately jeopardizes who they really are.
i think the story we discuses in class was right on. it just easier as a person to just to generalize someone for the way they look and act. it doesn't do us as humans just. i don't really agree with Emily's opinion about how anthony is being over dramatic or why people think its wrong to be offended. by you classifying a group of people you are taking that persons identity away which is taking the most important part of that person.
“Little Boxes” I think it is a great story the helps us to understand how people see the world in a different point. It is not fair to classify or discriminate people just by their race, color, or religion. Because we all are the same the only thing the make us different is the color or where we come from, but still we all are humans. I agree with Michael it is not right to generalize someone for the way they look and act because we don’t know the person really well.
I personally think Deborah Tannen said it best when she stated, "this natural and useful ability to see patterns of similarity has unfortunate consequences. It is offensive to reduce an individual to a category, and it is also misleading." I agree that it's offensive in most cases to categorize people, but I also feel it can be useful in some cases and not be offensive. An example of this is the same example used in class of a cop conducting an investigation and only interviewing those who fit the description.
I like how steve stated what checking off a box does. Steve said, "Checking off a box to identify someone's religion or ethnicity creates a very general picture of who someone is." I completely agree with this statement and also agree with him that a person has the right to completely identify themselves, rather than be limited to general options.
Although I wasn't present for the entire "Little Boxes" exercise I did find the lesson it was trying to teach very interesting. Even though it is often easier to generalize and assume things about other people it does have a limiting affect on their identity. By generalizing or buying into certain beliefs about a group of people I think we rob people of their own individualism. Ultimately this can have a very damaging effect because by robbing people of their individualism we lose sight of who they are as a person and what they are truly like aside from the groups they associate with.
31 comments:
Today in class we discussed the story “Little Boxes”. We discussed our ideas about generalization and whether we believe it is right or not. I believe that in certain situations such as police trying to identify a suspect it is okay to make generalizations. In cases such as these the police are describing the suspect and making generalizations in order to protect other people. There are also negative sides to generalization, such as the college application process. Your race shouldn’t effect whether you get into college or not. Also, like in Anthony Wright’s case, many people are more than one race and instead of checking off a box to include them self within a certain race, they are excluding themselves from the other races that they are. Generalization makes one’s true identity uncertain and raises the question of whether genetics or culture affects ones identity more.
I agree with Amanda's post that generalizing has both its pros and its cons. However, I thought that Anthony took the classification process a little too seriously. Yes generalization can cause some confusion as far as identity goes, but I think in his case when he was applying for colleges that it serves to make the process easier for the board of admissions. Also, I dont really understand why he was so upset by the "little boxes" especially when the applications do provide the 'other' line to write alternative ethnicities and so forth.
I feel like Anthony's point of view was a bit extreme. It seemed to me that he was taking in too much to determine what ethnicity he considers himself as. We automatically judge someone when we meet them and it's not something we can prevent. It's kind of an unconscious thing. I can understand why people become offended by what others immediately classify that person as if it's wrong, but we need to take into consideration that we aren't going to know exactly what someone is when we meet them. It takes talking to them to figure out what they consider themselves as.
In response to Amanda's post, it definitely makes sense that in some situations generalization is okay like in police cases. Otherwise I feel as if it can be bad like in the job process as we had discussed in class. Some people do favor one sex over the other or neglect one race and that's not right. You should judge based on the application.
I found the story "Little boxes" to be very interesting. I thought that Anthony made some very valid points in the story.I think the best line in the story was when Anthony said that he shouldn't be judged on his ethnicity but rather on his thoughts and actions. I totally agree with him when he states this. I thought Amanda did a good job talking about generalizations and how in some instances it is ok to generalize and how generalization does affect ones identity.
The article brought up a point that I had never really considered about how some people may have trouble generalizing themselves in a certain category on an application. However, I think an application is designed to show your identity and characteristics in different areas of the applications. Just because you check off boxes about your ethnicity doesn’t necessarily mean that completely defines you as a person.
I thought Amanda brought up a good point about how someone's race shouldn't determine their acceptance in college. A certain race shouldn't have an advantage or disadvantage over another race.
I believe Anthony point in the story was a little bias. He was upset at the generalizations made, but because he comes from so many back rounds, i believe his point was unfair. I am almost 90% swedish, and the rest is french canadian, english, and german. I think Anthony should of thought of people that could be put in those boxes and be okay with that. Many people have to be, because they are used in daily life. No one goes into an interview and excepts to tell everyone what their back round story is, even though they are okay with checking off the box that is the most like them. I agree with Amanda when she says "generalization make's one true identity uncertain", because generalizing things does create some confusion with identity, but can also be very helpful, for instance when someone fills out a medical form, they generalize about their past injuries and sicknesses. No one is so precise because there is no need to be.
I was absent this day.
Unfortunatley in today's society people are defined by boxes. Most of the time that you fill out an application whether it be for college or a job it always has you fill out little boxes. It is generalizing and sometimes that is a positive but sometimes it is not because not enough is being said about what type of a person you are when you just check off a box. I agree with Anthony in this situation a little box just doesnt say enough about the type of person you are.
I agree with Brenda. I think that it is interesting to see that some people do have trouble generalizing themselves. I also agree with the other thing that she said in that just cause you are checking off a box doesnt mean it defines you as a person. On the other hand it doesnt show who you really are.
The story “little Boxes” confused me at first; I didn’t understand what the big issue was with checking off certain traits that described you. But then I started to realize that I was comfortable thinking that way because unfortunately that’s the way society has set up for our thinking today. As the class discussion developed I realized the significance of generalizing when it comes to identity and how damaging it can truly be.
I believe that Wright was correct in his ideas. Generalizations are typically negative and imply multiple stereotypes associated with them, just like Mr. Gallagher’s allusion to the black=fried chicken association. However, generalizations and groups also help in many ways. Like Deborah Tannen (?) said in her excerpt, groups help us make sense of the world and people around us. They also act as part of a survival tactic, due to the fact that we are able to use associations in such a way that protects us in certain situations. I believe that there are both bad and good generalizations, but what it really comes down to is how those generalizations are used. We can use the information we know about a certain group of people in order to embrace them and understand their point of view and culture. On the other hand, we can also use this information in a hurtful, damaging way that alienates us from that group. I think the reason Wright doesn’t regard generalizations in a good light is because he doesn’t encounter the good ones often, or is confused by them and has his identity thrown into question.
I agree with what Amanda said about Anthony’s strong bias throughout the article and I also think that in some cases like Amanda said, it should be considered acceptable.
The "Little Boxes" brings up many points about how someones identity can be jeoprodized when filling in their ethnicity or religion on any type of questionnaire or survey. Checking off a box to identify someone's religion or ethnicity creates a very general picture of who someone is. A person my classify themselves under multiple religions or ethnicities, but them may not always be able to identify these aspects. This is very problematic and a person deserves to identify themselves completely, as any ethnicity or religion that they choose.
I agree with what Amanada said regarding certain times that it is ok for generalizations to be made. In her example of when a police officer is trying to identify a suspect and the generalize who the possible suspect could be, this is a perfect example of when making a generalization is exceptable.
I agree with both Amandas. Generalizations tend to bring confusion in terms of personal identity, but honestly speaking, I do not have a real problem with the boxes on applications and such. As I am over 50% English, with a side of scottish and french-canadian, I am not really bothered when I click on the "caucasian" box. Sometimes, I feel a little disconcerted when I see that white includes being middle-eastern on some applications, but I know that I will not be mistaken for something I'm not, due to my obviously european last name. It's not that I dislike being inclusive with the middle-east, I just don't associate "white/caucasian" with "middle-eastern". But I digress..
I agree with what Carli said, in that the way we go about generalizing can be catagorized as either good or bad; but generalization in itself cannot be.
In the article "Little Boxes" Student Anthony Wright brings to light that the little boxes taht we fill in don't always cover the truth. America is a melting pot made up of many ethnic groups religions and beliefts. In the little boxes the only things it should be asking is american or non american. I like Amanda post about how she talks about the college application thing and also agree with her about the generalization makes someone identity uncertain.
In the story “Little Boxes” the idea of generalization and identifying yourself was discussed. I do not agree with the people checking boxes and identifying themselves with a group during the college process is right or politically correct. I do understand that it helps the colleges with statistics but I also don’t see why people should have to identify themselves under certain labels as part of the process of admissions, their application should have nothing to do with religion, nationality, skin color, or any other generalizations. With that being said there is typically the box that allows people to opt out of identifying themselves, so I think Anthony may have taken the question to seriously. There are always positives and negatives to everything and I do believe generalization in some cases can be good such as generalizing police suspects like mentioned in class. There are faults in using generalization but when it is being used for the greater good I think it is justifiable.
I agree with Brenda with her point that I never really thought of how that question may be difficult for some people to check off. I always see white and check it off; I am not native american or Hispanic or any of the other typical options but what about the other line. If I were to fill that out I would have trouble deciding what to put.
I agree with amanda in the sense that generalization is necessary in certain situations for the safety and protection of others. However, i believe there are more negatives to generalization than there are positives.
This story described how surveys leave spaces for you to check a box that best describes yourself. However, these boxes often times lack at truly describing ones background or identity. I feel like surveys such as these should be more specific so people don't have to generalize there identity which ultimately jeopardizes who they really are.
i think the story we discuses in class was right on. it just easier as a person to just to generalize someone for the way they look and act. it doesn't do us as humans just. i don't really agree with Emily's opinion about how anthony is being over dramatic or why people think its wrong to be offended. by you classifying a group of people you are taking that persons identity away which is taking the most important part of that person.
“Little Boxes” I think it is a great story the helps us to understand how people see the world in a different point. It is not fair to classify or discriminate people just by their race, color, or religion. Because we all are the same the only thing the make us different is the color or where we come from, but still we all are humans. I agree with Michael it is not right to generalize someone for the way they look and act because we don’t know the person really well.
I personally think Deborah Tannen said it best when she stated, "this natural and useful ability to see patterns of similarity has unfortunate consequences. It is offensive to reduce an individual to a category, and it is also misleading." I agree that it's offensive in most cases to categorize people, but I also feel it can be useful in some cases and not be offensive. An example of this is the same example used in class of a cop conducting an investigation and only interviewing those who fit the description.
I like how steve stated what checking off a box does. Steve said, "Checking off a box to identify someone's religion or ethnicity creates a very general picture of who someone is." I completely agree with this statement and also agree with him that a person has the right to completely identify themselves, rather than be limited to general options.
Although I wasn't present for the entire "Little Boxes" exercise I did find the lesson it was trying to teach very interesting. Even though it is often easier to generalize and assume things about other people it does have a limiting affect on their identity. By generalizing or buying into certain beliefs about a group of people I think we rob people of their own individualism. Ultimately this can have a very damaging effect because by robbing people of their individualism we lose sight of who they are as a person and what they are truly like aside from the groups they associate with.
Well said, Will Kenyon. Well said. You took in one paragraph what I've been trying to figure out how to say for days. XD
I was absent this day.
I was absent during this period.
Post a Comment