allnighter

December 22, 2010

Its about 3 am in the morning and i’m still up typing away on my laptop. and the only reason is that i have been finishing my last minute school work thats due tomorrow. But hey what can i say, i’m a procrastinator and i’m damn good at it. anyways i barely have anything left to write about because i was finishing up the scholarship and 10 page paper. But i have only 2 more hours to blog and by god i will type till the sun rises. For now let me just put that English 110 was a blast i loved it. And im pretty sure so did all my class mates. Thank you professor!

research revisions

December 5, 2010

Jagroop Singh

Professor Alvarez

English 110

22 November 2010

Combined Child Rearing

Most of us live our lives not noticing the things around us and how they affect us. But after reading through Annette Lareau’s Unequal Childhoods we begin to really breakdown our past and begin to realize the many factors and elements from our past that shape the person that we are today. Lareau’s book divides childrearing into two simple methods concerted cultivation and natural growth. Whereas the concerted cultivation method brings up a child to be strong, confident, and independent. And where natural growth leads a child to grow up and raise themselves which makes them dependent on authority with a sense of confinement. But the outcomes of these methods present themselves in the future of the individual’s social lives.

In chapter three of Unequal Childhoods, we meet the character Garrett Tallinger. Born to a middleclass family and raised through the childrearing process of concerted cultivation, Garrett partakes in a variety of different activities. And like a majority of households in the nation, Garrett also has a sibling, a younger brother. But even though concerted cultivation does have its advantages, we also fail to see the many flaws with this method, like sibling rivalry and competition. Particularly in this situation the problem seems that even though Garrett’s parents have invested a lot in Garrett, they have over looked his younger brother, Sam who like any other child seeks their parents’ attention. And in this case it seems that Sam’s not exactly happy with this decision, clearly shown in his tantrums, cries, pouting, and constant lack of interest in the activates Garrett participates in, during the said time.(54). This can be clearly seen when Sam, driven to Garrett’s practices and games, plays and wanders for half an hour but then gets impatient. His behavior can reach a point where he gets so unhappy that he falls apart and it affects all the members of the Tallinger family. “The organization of middle-class family around individual children’s activities shapes the experience of all family members, including siblings who are not themselves involved in a given activity.” (53-54). Relatively speaking this states that the activities of one child will ultimately affect the other member’s of the family’s life. For example, at the ripe old age of 5, my father decided to enroll my big brother to a special tutoring program which would help him improve his academic skills. But somewhere along the line this affected me in the long run. Because when I would get picked up by my dad from kindergarten, then he would take me and go wait at my brother’s school for him to finish, where I would act the same way as Sam did going to Garrett’s games. Ultimately this would affect every single person in my immediate family because first, my bro would gain academic skills and learn to manage his time and focus, while pestered by my consistent whining. Second, my parents would have to change there schedule in order for it to balance out with my brothers and my schedule, and then deal with the problems I would cause. And third this single activity would not only isolate us two brothers but it would also take away the attention of my parents away from me, a huge element in the lives of young children. Simply put this activity made life for my family worse and in fact accomplished the opposite goal of concerted cultivation. And because of that personally I see concerted cultivation as over rated.

BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL GROWTH

In chapter four of Unequal Childhoods Annette Lareau illustrates child rearing, through the process of natural growth. Unlike Garrett Tallinger, Tyrec Taylor lives in a working class family whose parent can’t afford to invest in Tyrec like most middle to upper-class households would. This leads Tyrec to live his life by his own agenda and pace, where he gets to decide what he will do, when, and where. Ultimately where as a concerted cultivated child would have three to four activities planned daily or in the weekend, Tyrec’s family would be excited and planning for even a single event or activity talking place. More over kids such as Tyrec don’t learn the same basic rules and principles of society that a middle-class kid would learn. A normal day in the life of a natural growth kid would consist of one to two activities with no planning or prioritizing. Also a family which practices natural growth seems likely to be more individualistic. Meaning that any activity one member might do will not affect the other. Tyrec going out to play will not interfere with Mrs. Taylor’s work, or with Tyrec’s sibling’s activities. Lareau writes “Working class and poor families organize their time differently from middle-class families. Children’s organized activities do not set the pace of life”. (72-73). To put this in simpler terms would say that in Tyrec’s household each member runs on their own agenda which in no way shape or form predicts the pace of another family member. This directly correlates to not only my life but the lives of millions of other people. For example I come from a working class family, naturally having been raised up by the natural growth method of childrearing.

As a young kid my parents both became very hard working people just like a majority of other working class parents, holding down two jobs or full time jobs to survive. In the process this left my brother and me to fend and raise ourselves. Coming from a working class family, my father and mother had to deal with the disadvantages of being immigrants. Because of that I learned how to fend for myself, take care of myself, and how to live. I would go out to play at the playground, bored or alone and when I had nothing to do I would start to “wing” things. Meaning that I would do whatever came to mind. Since I have an older brother I spent a majority of my childhood with him. We both watched each others’ backs and tried our best to decode the ever-growing outside world. As opposed to discipline through lectures, speeches, and timeouts I would get my ass beat. Every time I would make a mistake or do something in appropriate I would get a belt, hanger, shoe, or a two-by-four across the back. But even though all of this occurred my parents never had a hand in what I did or how I did it. My life never determined the pace of their life or even change their life and schedule. Basically this quote illustrate the setup of a middle class and working class family environment, so different and unique that in one family the actions of one member of the family will determine the outcome for the whole family. As opposed to the working class where each member can lead separate and somewhat satisfying lives which will have no impact on how their kin will live their life.

Now let’s put the mass stereotype, that portrays wealthier middle class and upper class children to be the type of kids who take their rights and position for granted, in to perspective. Children usually seem to misunderstand between “privilege” and “rights”, having a sense of entitlement. Mrs. Tallinger mentions two different ways that a child can feel after experiencing an activity. The first as a hero, where you squeeze out the entire satisfaction you can and take it all in. or you can feel like a goat who practically becomes the loser who in essence finds out who their real friends are. Mrs. Tallinger goes on to say that through various planned activities, a young child at the age of nine or ten can mature faster and can play a much more active role in their own life. For example, “children who play on organized teams develop the ability to perform in public, in front of adults, including strangers” (61). A child exposed to said activities gradually improves their real-life skills through performance-based assessments in routinely life. “Middle –class children may take for granted their “right” to be involved in various activities. Their parents, though, remain conscious of the advantages such participation brings to their children” (60). Simply put a child will never appreciate thing at an unripe age. But as they grow and develop they will see the value of activities and the significant role it plays in their life, much like their parents do. But in contrast a mother and father will always see, rather think of, the important and positive impact of active involvement.

Growing up I knew that I wouldn’t exactly participate in a sports team or have rich parents who could afford to invest in me. So I would take to the playground and round up kids to play sports. But at age 13, my parents decided to put me in a minor league sports team. Having the background I did I jumped at the opportunity and became as participant as possible. Soon I got to the point where I took the team for granted saying that it wasn’t important and that basically that there is no “I in Team”. Then a few years later when my parents again forced me to join my high school football team I tried to treat it the way I did my previous team but failed miserably. As I had matured over the years, I realized that when in a team a person must learn to become a part of that team, and the team must learn that all actions reflect on the whole team not just one single person. When I talked to my parents about it they looked at me and told me that even though it took a while I finally understood the true reason they had urged me to participate in to sports at a young age. Going back to the original Lareau quote one can see how it relates to actual life. Where in concerted cultivation even though a child may be unappreciative and take things for granted, the parents stay smart enough to know that later in life the child will understand and benefit greatly from their experiences.

INSIDE THE PARENTS MIND

Children in middle class families tend to have a predetermined schedule of tasks that will keep them preoccupied throughout their leisure time. Thus limiting their creativity and capping the growth of these kids in that direction. On the other hand working class and poor families have parents who do not get very involved in their kid’s life leading them to “show more creativity, spontaneity, enjoyment, and initiative” (83). Though the parents pay minimal attention to these kids, that doesn’t mean they do not care, it simply means that they believe they have no obligation too, and have an obligation to get them fed, clothed, schooled, etc. Ultimately they feel the children should be exposed to these natural occurring experiences. The difference in this issue between a middle class family and a working/poor class family seems that middle class parents see it not as an investment of money on the child but as a privilege to be able to invest time in the child.

Whereas middle/poor class parents see it more as an obligation to be a part of their kids life and the hardest part is to make time for it. “The lack of adult attention and involvement in their activities leaves children in working class and poor homes free to concentrate on pleasing themselves” (83). In my much younger years, my parents both full time workers, I pretty much planned out my whole life. I decide to involve my self with activates that kept me entertained but at the same time simulated all my initiative skills. Meaning that because my relationship with my parents wasn’t one where they were involved twenty-four-seven I had to pick and choose things where I had to be creative to enjoy it. Things like playing with sticks and stones would become baseball, and grabbing a beach ball and using the side walk would become volleyball. All that gave me an initiative to be a much more interesting and live person as opposed to a puppet.

MY CHILDHOOD

When I asked my parents how they raised me, they had a very funny story to tell me. At first it started out as a joke because they didn’t know that this was crucial information for my work but they are very carefree and elusive, so they tried to avoid the conversation. But I did manage to weasel out some very important things about how they raised me. According to my parents, our family was not financially stable. We lived in Anaheim, California where my father worked as a clerk at a convenience store and decided to move to Queens, New York. Here he drove a taxi and tried to make ends meet at home, while my mother looked after me and my brother. Easy to see, my brother and I were never really invested in when it came to extracurricular activities. But when my father did manage to earn a little extra cash, he spent it mostly on my older brother in things like private tutoring and such. But as a kid I didn’t really understand the whole situation so I lived at my own pace, doing things that pleased me and kept me entertained. According to my mother, since my father was working full time and my mom did all the house chores she usually left me and my brother to play by ourselves or with the neighbor’s kids since she couldn’t spend too much time on us, because if she did she wouldn’t be able to finish her work which would interfere with more significant factors of our daily life. “When you were small, you were extremely active and we couldn’t always provide you with everything but we tried our best and managed to raise a fine young man” (Kaur). When I interviewed my mother she kept getting emotional and kept saying how she tried their best. She would repeatedly mention that every single moment she and my dad had to themselves they chose to spend on my brother and I. Now because I have this type of background it directly interferes with Lareau’s theory. Since I don’t fall into either category, it seems that I happen to fall in the middle where most other immigrant families and other ethnic groups fall into. This is the category in which the parents care about their child and also try their best to play an active role in their child’s life. But because they are limited in doing so because of their financial status, jobs, or specific issues, does not mean that they are using a natural growth method of childrearing but in fact are using a combination of both concerted cultivation and natural growth. This also applies to my childhood, due to the fact that although my parents were working class, they managed to have planned actives for me but at the same time allowed me to grow on my own where I planned for my self and kept myself busy. And because of that it seems as though I have adopted the benefits to both methods of childrearing. Such as a sense of independence, entitlement, reasoning with authority, ability to distribute my time efficiently, etc. All in all my point here is to show that there are many ways to raise children, not just the black and white sides which Lareau shows.

The way I was raised seems to emanate from the way my parents were raised. Basically meaning that my parents came from working class and low class families, and the way they raised me is based on how their parents raised them. For example my mother stated that she was from a working class family with little wealth and had to work her entire life just so here whole family could survive all ten of them. She mentions that her parents couldn’t be involved in her life all too much for various reasons, all of them relating to the natural growth method of child rearing. “My parents never really played an active part in my life for many reasons:

    • they never had much time to themselves
    • we always had to put family needs before individual needs
    • Poverty stricken families don’t have the luxury of leisure and money” (Kaur).

Aside from the obvious reasons my mother’s childhood shows why it’s harder for low class and middle class parents to play and active role in their Childs lives. Mainly, and in my mother’s case, it was the decision made by her parents’ to choose family over individual needs. Not only that, but because of the amount of work and labor each member had to put in to the family effort left very little to no leisure time and in case that there was it would be filled with school work.

The way concerted cultivation works in most cases is when the parents work and bring home a fairly large income to support to child. Then they must allocate enough free time to spend with their child which will allow them to notice things their child has potential in and from there expand that in to a talent through various activities. But notice how the factors of life change in this case. First the income must be high, second the parent must have time to invest in their child, and third the parent must be willing to sacrifice both time and money to expand the Child’s talent. All of which are rarely ever available to the low and working class families. But in the case that they are exposed to opportunities such as these most of the parent’s would rather choose to invest it in the overall being of the family instead of the child. Not because they do not view their child as inferior or unimportant but when they weigh the pro’s of investment on the child to the pro’s of investment on the family. The advantages that investing on the family seem to be a lot better in the long run where parents think they will be able to provide better for their child. For example, when my father moved to NYC he worked for several years as a 7/11 manager and managed to save up around $5000. Now at that time he could have invested in me and my brother but instead he invested it on buying his own taxi. And in this specific case, my dad’s investment paid off. Because he bought that taxi he managed to make millions in the past thirty years and now can afford to invest in my brother and me with things like college education and such. So in simpler terms it isn’t always the status of a family that determines the way a child is raised but more of how the parents seem opportunities and choose to invest overall.

Everything that happens impacts our life in one way or another. Looking at both methods I believe that either strategy is a very positive way of raising a child. Through concerted cultivation a parent can literally mold the type of person the child will become and give them an advantage in certain social environments. And through natural growth a child can learn how to tackle the world at a young age and “learn the tricks of the trade” which can give that person an advantage in many situations. But when compared to my own upbringing I noticed many flaws in Lareau’s theory. One thing I noticed was that Lareau used a very extreme example. Either the families she used where extremely poor or moderately wealthy. And she forgot to mention the families which used both methods of childrearing like I was. Either way children still have a hand in their own upbringing, because children still have free will and aren’t robots. But after reading the book I am grateful for who I am and how I turned out to be. And finally understand what things affect a persons persona.

Work Cited

Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: U of.  California P, 2003. Print.

Kaur, Davinder. Personal interview. 25 November. 2010.

December 2, 2010

I’m pretty sure that everyone remembers the Maury Show. Well this is Red Grant doing a parody of the show and its just hilarious. But the funny thing is that when I think back, the show seems exactly the same as he described. But if you didn’t notice something very peculiar is that in his reenactment he used a racial class that we all stereotype about in the particular case, which are black people. To me it’s just funny how I picked this up after reading “Unequal Childhoods”.

blog number …. IDK!!

December 2, 2010

So it’s been almost a month sine I last blog and I think with only a week or so off class left I will blog as much as possible. But this will be so annoying and my life is going to suck. Anyways today was honestly one of the most epic days in my college life so far and I loved every single moment. It started off with me waking up with an Indian accent, which is not really normal (surprisingly). Then I came to campus at around 8:45 am and got some tea but I ended up putting in to much milk and drank hot milk with sugar, which tasted really good. And then I headed of to my extremely boring economics class in which the professor called Andrew Jackson a “first class son of a bitch”, which had me dying the whole time. But soon after I got bored and decided to skip philosophy which I’m pretty sure was a bad idea… but o well. So with nothing to do I ended up going to the Student Union with my friend, Amrr, and goofed around till Mursal showed up and we ended up talking about life and I had to persuade his girlfriend to come to QC for him. But then without notice my ex and Amrr’s girlfriend showed up with their friend Julie and soon after her boy friend and our friend Mark showed up, which mad things really uncomfortable. And that’s when the drama really started and things got funny. First, Amrr and his girl ended up fighting which resulted with them both just ignoring each other all afternoon. Then Julie and Mark swapped spit for hours on end, and my ex tried to get me to get back together with her by running a guilt trip, which would have worked if I didn’t happen to be a grade A douche bag. After her failed attempt she left and I felt relieved and ended up getting glares from her friends which I laughed at. But fortunately Mursal’s girlfriend showed up and lightened the mood because I ended up messing around with Mursal and his girl. This was extremely fun just because I managed to piss of mursal, and I will refrain from detail, mostly because he will get even angrier.  Anyways the drama continued when Julie’s ex started calling and managed to piss off me, Julie, Amrr, and Amrr’s girl. O yea I forgot to mention that I managed to get us kicked out of the Hillel.

pie paragraph final

November 23, 2010

Jagroop Singh

Professor Alvarez

English 110

22 November 2010

Combined Child Rearing

In chapter three of Unequal Childhoods, we meet the character Garrett Tallinger. Born to a middleclass family and raised through the childrearing process of concerted cultivation, Garrett partakes in a variety of different activities. And like a majority of households in the nation, Garrett also has a sibling, a younger brother. But even though concerted cultivation does have its advantages, we also fail to see the many flaws with this method, like sibling rivalry and competition. Particularly in this situation the problem seems that even though Garrett’s parents have invested a lot in Garrett, they have over looked his younger brother, Sam who like any other child seeks their parents’ attention. And in this case it seems that Sam’s not exactly happy with this decision, clearly shown in his tantrums, cries, pouting, and constant lack of interest in the activates Garrett participates in, during the said time.(54). This can be clearly seen when Sam, driven to Garrett’s practices and games, plays and wanders for half an hour but then gets impatient. His behavior can reach a point where he gets so unhappy that he falls apart and it affects all the members of the Tallinger family. “The organization of middle-class family around individual children’s activities shapes the experience of all family members, including siblings who are not themselves involved in a given activity.” (53-54). Relatively speaking this states that the activities of one child will ultimately affect the other member’s of the family’s life. For example, at the ripe old age of 5, my father decided to enroll my big brother to a special tutoring program which would help him improve his academic skills. But somewhere along the line this affected me in the long run. Because when I would get picked up by my dad from kindergarten, then he would take me and go wait at my brother’s school for him to finish, where I would act the same way as Sam did going to Garrett’s games. Ultimately this would affect every single person in my immediate family because first, my bro would gain academic skills and learn to manage his time and focus, while pestered by my consistent whining. Second, my parents would have to change there schedule in order for it to balance out with my brothers and my schedule, and then deal with the problems I would cause. And third this single activity would not only isolate us two brothers but it would also take away the attention of my parents away from me, a huge element in the lives of young children. Simply put this activity made life for my family worse and in fact accomplished the opposite goal of concerted cultivation. And because of that personally I see concerted cultivation as over rated.

In chapter four of Unequal Childhoods Annette Lareau illustrates child rearing, through the process of natural growth. Unlike Garrett Tallinger, Tyrec Taylor lives in a working class family whose parent can’t afford to invest in Tyrec like most middle to upper-class households would. This leads Tyrec to live his life by his own agenda and pace, where he gets to decide what he will do, when, and where. Ultimately where as a concerted cultivated child would have three to four activities planned daily or in the weekend, Tyrec’s family would be excited and planning for even a single event or activity talking place. More over kids such as Tyrec don’t learn the same basic rules and principles of society that a middle-class kid would learn. A normal day in the life of a natural growth kid would consist of one to two activities with no planning or prioritizing. Also a family which practices natural growth seems likely to be more individualistic. Meaning that any activity one member might do will not affect the other. Tyrec going out to play will not interfere with Mrs. Taylor’s work, or with Tyrec’s sibling’s activities. Lareau writes “Working class and poor families organize their time differently from middle-class families. Children’s organized activities do not set the pace of life”. (72-73). To put this in simpler terms would say that in Tyrec’s household each member runs on their own agenda which in no way shape or form predicts the pace of another family member. This directly correlates to not only my life but the lives of millions of other people. For example I come from a working class family, naturally having been raised up by the natural growth method of childrearing. As a young kid my parents both became very hard working people just like a majority of other working class parents, holding down two jobs or full time jobs to survive. In the process this left my brother and me to fend and raise ourselves. Coming from a working class family, my father and mother had to deal with the disadvantages of being immigrants. Because of that I learned how to fend for myself, take care of myself, and how to live. I would go out to play at the playground, bored or alone and when I had nothing to do I would start to “wing” things. Meaning that I would do whatever came to mind. Since I have an older brother I spent a majority of my childhood with him. We both watched each others’ backs and tried our best to decode the ever-growing outside world. As opposed to discipline through lectures, speeches, and timeouts I would get my ass beat. Every time I would make a mistake or do something in appropriate I would get a belt, hanger, shoe, or a two-by-four across the back. But even though all of this occurred my parents never had a hand in what I did or how I did it. My life never determined the pace of their life or even change their life and schedule. Basically this quote illustrate the setup of a middle class and working class family environment, so different and unique that in one family the actions of one member of the family will determine the outcome for the whole family. As opposed to the working class where each member can lead separate and somewhat satisfying lives which will have no impact on how their kin will live their life.

Now let’s put the mass stereotype, that portrays wealthier middle class and upper class children to be the type of kids who take their rights and position for granted, in to perspective. Children usually seem to misunderstand between “privilege” and “rights”, having a sense of entitlement. Mrs. Tallinger mentions two different ways that a child can feel after experiencing an activity. The first as a hero, where you squeeze out the entire satisfaction you can and take it all in. or you can feel like a goat who practically becomes the loser who in essence finds out who their real friends are. Mrs. Tallinger goes on to say that through various planned activities, a young child at the age of nine or ten can mature faster and can play a much more active role in their own life. For example, “children who play on organized teams develop the ability to perform in public, in front of adults, including strangers” (61). A child exposed to said activities gradually improves their real-life skills through performance-based assessments in routinely life. “Middle –class children may take for granted their “right” to be involved in various activities. Their parents, though, remain conscious of the advantages such participation brings to their children” (60). Simply put a child will never appreciate thing at an unripe age. But as they grow and develop they will see the value of activities and the significant role it plays in their life, much like their parents do. But in contrast a mother and father will always see, rather think of, the important and positive impact of active involvement. Growing up I knew that I wouldn’t exactly participate in a sports team or have rich parents who could afford to invest in me. So I would take to the playground and round up kids to play sports. But at age 13, my parents decided to put me in a minor league sports team. Having the background I did I jumped at the opportunity and became as participant as possible. Soon I got to the point where I took the team for granted saying that it wasn’t important and that basically that there is no “I in Team”. Then a few years later when my parents again forced me to join my high school football team I tried to treat it the way I did my previous team but failed miserably. As I had matured over the years, I realized that when in a team a person must learn to become a part of that team, and the team must learn that all actions reflect on the whole team not just one single person. When I talked to my parents about it they looked at me and told me that even though it took a while I finally understood the true reason they had urged me to participate in to sports at a young age. Going back to the original Lareau quote one can see how it relates to actual life. Where in concerted cultivation even though a child may be unappreciative and take things for granted, the parents stay smart enough to know that later in life the child will understand and benefit greatly from their experiences.

Children in middle class families tend to have a predetermined schedule of tasks that will keep them preoccupied throughout their leisure time. Thus limiting their creativity and capping the growth of these kids in that direction. On the other hand working class and poor families have parents who do not get very involved in their kid’s life leading them to “show more creativity, spontaneity, enjoyment, and initiative” (83). Though the parents pay minimal attention to these kids, that doesn’t mean they do not care, it simply means that they believe they have no obligation too, and have an obligation to get them fed, clothed, schooled, etc. Ultimately they feel the children should be exposed to these natural occurring experiences. The difference in this issue between a middle class family and a working/poor class family seems that middle class parents see it not as an investment of money on the child but as a privilege to be able to invest time in the child.

Whereas middle/poor class parents see it more as an obligation to be a part of their kids life and the hardest part is to make time for it. “The lack of adult attention and involvement in their activities leaves children in working class and poor homes free to concentrate on pleasing themselves” (83). In my much younger years, my parents both full time workers, I pretty much planned out my whole life. I decide to involve my self with activates that kept me entertained but at the same time simulated all my initiative skills. Meaning that because my relationship with my parents wasn’t one where they were involved twenty-four-seven I had to pick and choose things where I had to be creative to enjoy it. Things like playing with sticks and stones would become baseball, and grabbing a beach ball and using the side walk would become volleyball. All that gave me an initiative to be a much more interesting and live person as opposed to a puppet.

When I asked my parents how they raised me, they had a very funny story to tell me. At first it started out as a joke because they didn’t know that this was crucial information for my work but they are very carefree and elusive, so they tried to avoid the conversation. But I did manage to weasel out some very important things about how they raised me. According to my parents, our family was not financially stable. We lived in Anaheim, California where my father worked as a clerk at a convenience store and decided to move to Queens, New York. Here he drove a taxi and tried to make ends meet at home, while my mother looked after me and my brother. Easy to see, my brother and I were never really invested in when it came to extracurricular activities. But when my father did manage to earn a little extra cash, he spent it mostly on my older brother in things like private tutoring and such. But as a kid I didn’t really understand the whole situation so I lived at my own pace, doing things that pleased me and kept me entertained. According to my mother, since my father was working full time and my mom did all the house chores she usually left me and my brother to play by ourselves and with the neighbor’s kids since she couldn’t spend too much time on us, because if she did she wouldn’t be able to finish her work which would interfere with more significant factors of our daily life. “When you were small, you were extremely active and we couldn’t always provide you with everything but we tried our best and managed to raise a fine young man”. (Davinder Kaur). When I interviewed my mother she kept getting emotional and kept saying how she tried their best. She would repeatedly mention that every single moment she and my dad had to themselves they chose to spend on my brother and I. Now because I have this type of background it directly interferes with Lareau’s theory. Since I don’t fall into either category, it seems that I happen to fall in the middle where most other immigrant families and other ethnic groups fall into. This is the category in which the parents care about their child and also try their best to play an active role in their child’s life. But because they are limited in doing so because of their financial status, jobs, or specific issues, does not mean that they are using a natural growth method of childrearing but in fact are using a combination of both concerted cultivation and natural growth. This also applies to my childhood, due to the fact that although my parents were working class, they managed to have planned actives for me but at the same time allowed me to grow on my own where I planned for my self and kept myself busy. And because of that it seems as though I have adopted the benefits to both methods of childrearing. Such as a sense of independence, entitlement, reasoning with authority, ability to distribute my time efficiently, etc. All in all my point here is to show that there are many ways to raise children, not just the black and white sides which Lareau shows.

Work Cited

Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: U of.  California P, 2003. Print.

youtube time!!

October 21, 2010

i really don’t know why i put this up other then the fact that its so funny. just watch for yourself and you will see. but i wonder if it was legal, imagine all the noise it would cause in america.

the active citizen

October 21, 2010

On a personal level must people are thoughtful, cooperative, and willing to help. At times they will even lend out a helpful hand to complete strangers on the roadside or even give spare change to the homeless. But as we progress in our own lives, a cleavage begins to take shape which isolates each individual from the outside world, and from those who have taken refugee in their own private matters. Even we, the Americans, who thrive on a system of democracy, have forgotten that our participation in our economy is what enriches our lives with a sense of accomplishment and meaning. However the reason for recent retreat in social involvement is not because we feel the world is well, but because we feel totally unaffected by any political or social change made by our elite. As America’s economic booms seem to keep passing us by, we struggle to live off of meager paychecks. We worry about the rising costs of healthcare, the miseducation of our children, uncertain about social security, and even random violence. Worrying about all this just to wonder how we will survive in our old age, to overwhelmed to even think about how we can change or speak up. We worry and complain about so much but just shrug in the face of change and say there is nothing we can do, simply because we feel that the top 300 rich people have more wealth then the bottom 3 billion poor combined. But the issues at hand have now become so complex that we cannot comprehend the moral implications of the world as we see it. In a world where Nike pays Michael Jordan more to appear on an ad then all of its Indonesian workers combined we fail to grab the concept that the oblivious unbalance of wealth in the world is where all our problems lie. That the issue at hand is not why there is an unbalance but how can we even begin to address it. Yet what leaves most of us out of the game and standing on the sidelines is not that we fail to comprehend the complicity of the matter but the fear of what we do isn’t left in vain. This ultimately leads us to the Ethiopian proverb, “he who conceals his disease cannot be cured”. As a whole we need to learn that it will take a lot to heal our society and the faith that we had bestowed in it. But as we all have been convinced that there is nothing we can do it gives us this feeling of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is the failure to take action to make one’s life better which arises from a sense of not being in control. This encourages us to leave important decisions to others (elite, the top rich) which would explain the unbalanced distribution of wealth. Ironically, in a country born from a democratic revolution, to be an American means to be a political. Social withdrawal has become our norm, as defined by the ancient Greek anyone who is incapable or unable of being socially involved was an “idiot”. In present day this term seems to fit perfectly, anyone who can complain but fail to change should be called an idiot. All in all social intervention is very important not only for the health of the economy but also the individual. Being more involved keeps us on top, in control, and gives us a feel of achievement that will show that our efforts did not go in vain. Like all the social, economic, environmental, and even political workers we too can fight back some of this corruption and heal the world and our souls. Just by talking small steps we can start talking leaps and bounds across the country and soon change the nation to fit our lives for the better, all because we spoke up and that’s all we ever had to do.

Throughout the late 20th century, Afghanistan was wrecked by a political instability, civil conflict, and international interference. Soviet forces occupied the counrty in 1979, but failed to defeat a determined rebellion by Mujaheddin fighters and eventually withdrew in 1989. That conflict lead to civil war as political and economic interests had broken the Mujaheddin union into competing parties. Popular frustration at the lawlessness, corruption, and the absences of peace allowed a new militant Islamic movement known as the “Taliban” to emerge in the south of the country. By 1996 Taliban fighters had captured Kabul, and by 2000 had gained control of around 95% of the country. Only the northeast, west, and certain areas in the center remained in the hands of the opposition, Northern Alliance. A major turning point came with the terrorist attacks of 2001. The US blamed Osama bin laden and his al Qaeda network, which had established a significant enigma in Afghanistan and had developed close ties with the Taliban leadership. International orders for Osama bin laden to be handed over to the USA were rebuffed by the Taliban, causing the US to lead military operations in early October. By December 2001 the northern alliance backed by union airpower and Special Forces, had driven the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies from power although significant members of both found shelter in the eastern and southern regions of Pakistan. From there they have continued to build up activist and terrorist attacks across the country. Opposing afghan parties reached an agreement in December 2001 on a temporary government structure for the country, pending the establishment of a permanent broad based representative and democratically elected government. The Bonn agreement set out the process for drafting a new constitution and holding presidential and parliamentary elections. The constitution was agreed on in January 2004 and President Hamid Karzai was elected in October of that year. The UN mandated international security assistance force (ISAF) to provide security and to control the Taliban. Due to inner conflict, the Soviet Union invaded in December of 1979. But the Mujaheddin, who were receiving significant financial and military assistance from the United States, China, and the Arab states fought back. The Soviet Union tried there best in invading Afghanistan but he Mujaheddin kept fighting back. The Soviet Union withdrew in February of 1989. An estimated 1.3 million Afghanis had been killed and 4.5 million had fled the country. The soviet losses were estimated at 15,000 casualties with 50,000 wounded. The Soviet Unions withdrawal led to hopes of an immediate end to the conflict, instead the issue escalated into a civil war. As civil war broke out, ethnic, political, and economic interests had broken the Mujaheddin union into competing parties. Kabul fell in the Mujaheddin power in April of 1992 and a new movement, the Taliban, appeared on the scene in the south. First seizing control of Kandahar and then the surrounding provinces. The movement took its name from its members, many of whom were drawn from the Islamic theology schools that had been established in afghani refugee camps in northeastern Pakistan during the 1980’s. The Islamic Taliban leadership presented itself as helping to get rid of all the conflict that the country faced after Soviet withdrawal. Due to popular frustration the Taliban quickly rose to power and stardom. And its forces were able to capture 9 out of 30 provinces by February of 1995. The movement received strong backing from Pakistan and its strong influential interservice intelligence agency (ISI), which assisted in the recruitment of members and provided weaponry and training and technical assistance. In September 11, 2001 Osama bin laden planned a terrorist attack on the USA, with the Taliban and the al Qaeda network. In 2009 president Obama made a decision to over throw the Taliban, and end the terrorism of the Taliban. Brining peace to the world and stabilizing the government of Afghanistan. Since then the USA has been trying to efficiently and effectively eradicate the Taliban who have turned from a civil army to a terrorist organization. Just like a bad apple in the bunch has to be removed before it soils the rest, the Taliban must be wiped out before it can cause further damage to the world. The USA’s nature in the issue of Afghanistan and the scope of its interest is to successfully bring this war to an end. What started with the US militaries Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), alongside the UK militaries “Operation Herrick” as a result of the 9/11 attacks has now become a full pledged counterinsurgency effort. The US has many roles other then just to end the war in Afghanistan. The USA must first and foremost capture the head of the Taliban. Without the leader of the terrorists captured there will be no way that the world can be rid of this undesirable disease. Then the USA must help establish a government for the country with a constitution, which models that of the worlds finest. With a new afghan government under the power of President Hamid Karzai, the USA now sets a new goal to make that government a more stable and politically strong government which is capable of maintaining control of its people. Along with building their government the USA plans on helping to build and train the afghani army. Due to years of conflict that the country has endured, the people of Afghanistan have been forced to move from their homes and have now become refugees. The USA’s position on the refugees in the country and its bordering countries is to work in collaboration with the UN and help establish safe refugee camps, and in the near future a permanent location for the civilians who were forced to leave their homes because of unsafe conditions. This will be part of the USA’s reconstruction plan for Afghanistan, which the congress has granted 2.3 billion dollars along with one billion dollars for NATO led international security forces. Alongside NATO the USA must also follow the role of repelling and suppressing anti-USA attacks, this must be done in order to guarantee future security and peace. Although the US had been able to stop anti-USA attacks, restarting from May of 2006 the attacks have begun once again. This is a must in order to assure future relationships between the USA and Afghanistan. With the aid of the resurgence of 30,000 troops that president Obama has made, the USA military must suppress rebellious oppression and prevent anymore future violence that can and will be made from terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is necessary to stop future terrorist activity for the common security of the land and the safety of the people. We must also strengthen our defenses inorder to prevent anymore breakouts, in response to the event that occurred in June of 2008. At which time Taliban fighters freed 1200 prisoners including 400 Taliban prisoners of war, in an assault on a Kandahar jail. With Afghanistan being responsible for more then 90% of the worlds illegal opium production, the UN must help to seize further production of the drug which most likely is used to financially help the terrorists along with helping them gain weapons through illegal trade. Eliminate the source of their finical power and they will slowly start to crumble. But the USA’s biggest role in Afghanistan is to successfully bring this war on terrorism to a conclusion. In conclusion the role of the USA in Afghanistan is to successfully eradicate the terrorist network established in Afghanistan. Not only from a frontal approach but an approach from every single side, from their government stand point to their financial power. The USA and NATO must come together under article 5, stating that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all, to grab the disease of terrorism from the root and pull it out of existence.

A world without change is not reality it is a dream. The world and the people that live in it are constantly changing and so must our decisions. Given the circumstances people change their choices and their decisions just as their surrounding environment and their options change. Not only is that a natural instinct but also a preferable decision to get the best possible result out of the outcome. Sticking with your first choice is sometimes the smart move, but only when you are taking a test. Apply that policy to your life and you are bound to be a failure. For example Jim is talking the SAT and on the multiple choice question he comes across a question that he marks down the first time. But when Jim comes back to check his work he starts to second guess himself because he starts to debate it based on another answer choice. Since the circumstances have not changed at all there is no need to change, chances being that his first answer was correct because Jim saw that it made more sense and seemed better then the remaining answer choices. Most decisions we make in life are made with assumption and unclear judgment because they are made on the spot. But when we have a chance to weigh and think our options through, we began to second guess ourselves not because we are wrong but because we see that there was a better choice that could have been made. For example the civil rights era. For years whites felt as if they were superior to most other races, especially the blacks, and often expressed this superiority by means of violent acts and segregation. Now while white folk had become used to a lifestyle in which they had not only superiority over an entire race but also better rights and privileges, they were given an option of either making all men equal (ironically stated in the us constitution), or fight back to maintain and keep their preferred lifestyle. This gave rise of the civil rights movement. Now that the blacks had everything to gain and the whites with a whole lot to lose, the civil rights movement began to take form and shape under the watchful eyes of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and countless others. Blacks moved ahead with every successful boycott, sit-in, and riot. With these losing circumstances the whites changed their decision from suppressing the blacks to giving them equal protection and rights from the law. Another time when people should often consider their decision is when they are under circumstances and decisions that they made that go against them or force them to be unsatisfied. And as an example you can use Benedict Arnold. Originally a US general in the American Revolution, Benedict Arnold was considered by many to be the best general and most accomplished leader in the Continental Army. Without Arnold’s earlier contributions to their cause, the American Revolution might have been lost. But although he was a great general he changed sides to the british. And although he had many proud accomplishments, and completed many brave missions, his political adversaries investigated his accounts, and found charges of corruption. Thus disgusting and assulting his honor and reputation. Which lead Benedict to change his decision of staying in the US, where he would eventually be trialed, to start working with the british, who would provide him a luxurious life after war. Not only is changing your decision with the changing circumstances smart but just simply common sence. Nobody with a straight mind will sit back and not change their decision while the circumstance they are in change for either the best or the worst, simply because their first decision becomes insufficent and irrelevant.

there are two different types of writing styles that people have the first is formal and the second is informal. most of our formal writing is done at places like work or school. and our informal writing style seems to surface at almost any other situation or environment. to make it even simpler writhing done outside of school consist of various forms of slang and acronyms. such as lol, gotta, yo, u, r and etc. but the question here is how can you get school writing to be more like the writhing you do outside of school. well to answer this question all you have to do is lower the standards for English language, forget about grammar, and rip up the dictionary. and on top of that make the topics a lot more inviting and fun. because in truth the topics that most students write about in school are plain, dry, and boring. the worst part is that the amount of wring people do outside of school like texting to blogging, journals, and diary’s is amazing and astronomical. and if all that could be channeled in to writing academically, it would fantastic and we would have smarter kids. to me, there are ways of making the writing we do at school more like the writing outside of school. the first thing would be to simply make whatever it is you are writing about in school more interesting. the second would be to take off some of the requirements put on by teachers which ends up making the article less fun to write and less creative. which leads to my next point which is to make the topic more creative and interesting. instead of having to write about things like old dead people, and history, make students write about things they enjoy but still keeping a connection to the topic at hand in class. there are plenty of ways to make school writing more like writhing done outside of school all that you have to do is make it more appealing. but the main reason people write outside of school is because its not forced and its not chained with requirements and guide lined goals to reach at the end. if that can be accomplished in school then all the power to them.