ydenysen-post4

Discourse and diversity

Different ethno and social groups can show us a different variable of diversity. The most valuable cultural issues open for us the interesting variable retrospections of the mentality specific ethno and social groups. For example in some languages we can find unusual archetypes for subjects so uncial, so we can not find definitions for them in another languages. For example, the name of the color khaki in English language has assimilation and all English speakers use that word without doubts, that is color light brownish, mostly known as a military color. However, in Slovenian languages, we can not find that word. Not surprisingly why. Because, in another languages there are not that kind of phenomena. In military people use a blue color of uniform and word khaki doesn’t reflect the reality of that ethno group. And if we can make lexical and semantical analysis of different languages and even dialects we can see a huge amount of diversity in mental system of different languages. Because, every language reflects the mentality of the specific ethno group or community. Differences in ideology, cultural clash, homogeneity develop internal dynamic of the languages in specific ways for every language. As for dialects I can tell that even in one population of the similar ethno groups we can follow all kinds of the lingustical variation on semantical. Culturally diverse different social groups and small communities can provide a small model for the world of how people with differences can learn to live together to make a difference. Because, the language is a way of thinking and exploring the thoughts on the verbal communicative level.

All you need is love...

Love not hate? The KKK? Did I miss something?

If language use can and does shape reality, is it possible that through a change in discourse, that the KKK can change or is changing? Is it possible that we are seeing the evolution of tolerance, albeit slow, within this organization?

Now certainly there is a whole lot more to this discourse than meets the eye. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the KKK will undoubtedly remain skeptical of their motives and messages. But again, I ask, can the introduction of this rhetoric effect a “positive” change on a “negative” organization?

PT 2.

If anything, this class has made me realize just how susceptible I am to the effects of discourse. In no way would I consider myself gullible... more like dependent on the "powers" in my life to dictate my reality. We live in such such a media rich world that it's easy to become bombarded and overwhelmed and taken in by discourse.

So with new resolve, I vow to spend a little less time watching the TV and surfing the net and a little more time walking my dog (we have the best conversations...)

discorse

I find things interesting that most people do not, when the website came up about the KKK I wanted to start laughing because of how they had everything look so innocent and that is what they want you to think is that they are innocent, that they are no longer a racist group. But most of us know better. (or at least I hope so)
most of us don't think about how people feel when we/they pull the racist card. there is a girl that I work with, she is 1/2 mexican and there are people in her church that say (one person in particular) "the only think mexican women are good for is crying" when I found this out I was very angry because when you pull the racist card you stop having feelings for anyone, you will be remembered as a person that nobody wants to be like. those people are remembered only as a horrible warning.
it's sad to think how bad racism still is, and I want to do my part to not be apart of prejadicism.

distorting reality

I thought it was interesting to learn how language can shape reality. The way things are worded and the descriptions given about certain situations affects the way that we think of them. I thought one of the best examples was with the rape trial. The defendant was not lying with the statements he made, but by not assigning blame it completely changed how everyone viewed what happened. Instead of saying "I did something," he said "Something happened," which is still the truth, but it makes it look like both parties were responsible.

Another example I found interesting was the writer's strike. Depending on who was "offering" and who was "demanding," one side looks like the bad guy and one side looks like the good guy, when really the words are interchangeable for both parties involved. When you think about it that way, it makes it hard to decide whose side you should be on.

What both examples show is that if you use the correct language, you can alter a situation to make it appear the way you want it to, and you can still technically be telling the truth.

Critical Discourse Analysis

I found the American hospital websites that we saw in class on Thursday interesting. We saw both a for profit hospital and a non profit hospital and both of them had a section on there about their finances and how much they pull in each year. Then we looked a European hospital website where there medical care is free over there, and there was not mention about money. I would have never thought twice about that because its a naturalization here in America.

I also found the KKK website kinda humerus, because you would expect it to be really hateful but they used a good choice of words and had it looking all friendly. You can even go get your authentic KKK t-shirt or hat, but my favorite one was the little figurine of a KKK guy all dressed up in his bed sheets, and for an extra $10 you can get his eyes lit up. And remember they want to spread a message of "love not hate". They really just want to spread the love with the fellow white man, and hate everyone else. It makes me understand on how people can get involved with and institution like that, they have you thinking that it is a really friendly concept.

"Political Talk" is aggravating

One of the most frustrating forms of language ‘naturalization’ is within politics. The discourse used in governmental positions is shrouded in both ideological and historical background. The source of political discourse lay in the hands of those who wrote the constitution and the time period in which it was practiced. Even during this time period however, I believe that this type of political discourse was created to keep others out of federal government decision-making. Furthermore, it has created a barrier between ordinary people and those in government. Those who contributed in the creation and debate of democracy were well educated, upper-class white men. And although the constitution proved to benefit the people in which it was written for, it is disproportionate in the benefits given to the authors themselves.
The early debate between Federalist and Anti-federalists was fraught with disagreement about the potential of ‘ordinary’ people to participate in government decisions. Some of the most renowned founders can be cited, referring to the masses as “ A bewildered herd, fraught with fleets of passion, and incapable of making rational decisions.” And although the constitution revolves around those revered phrases such as “By the people, for the people”, the overhanging power is most certainly within government. This hidden ideology is very much apparent in today’s democracy. The very people who are supposed to actively participate are feeling powerless and insignificant.
Perhaps that reason for this is due to a lack of understanding. When I turn on the television and listen to C-Span for example, I am sometimes confused by what they are talking about. And although I understand both current issues within government and the general system in which it functions, sometimes I feel like I’m listening to another language. It is obvious that people who hold governmental positions are well educated people, with this comes an elevated ability to utilize this ‘language’ in order to function within the system. But when everyone within this institution is speaking in a way that they understand one another, it does not mean that people outside of it can. How can people be expected to participate if we cannot understand one another on an agreed plane of dialog? If citizens wish to be active and aware of political working, they must first understand the lingo.
My assertion here, is that the type of dialect used within the political realm is purposefully used as a tool to keep power above the people. Furthermore, it has been naturalized within society to mean nothing more than “political talk”.

The KKK is not A-okay

In class, I was very surprised how the KKK used language in their website. To me, the KKK is both a backwards, and very wrong organization. I thought their website was interesting because I was expecting it to be very outwardly racist, which we saw was not the case. Instead, the website tried to present the organization as spreading faith and love. It gave me a bit more understanding of why some people are see this group in a different way then I. Since the group represents themselves as spreading "love" and "a Christian way of life" children brought up in this world, do not see this organization as innately evil. The language used in the website is naturalized to many of these followers. They don't think of the group's message as wrong or backwards. They see it as spreading love to their fellow (white) man. This is interesting to me, because I've been brought up to believe looking at the KKK in any type of positive way as preposterous. It is not naturalized for me to hear words like "love" and relate them to this group. Unlike their members, I cannot accept their words as truth, but as simply a load of crap. It is strange for me to realize there is an entire group of people for whom it is natural to think of this group in a positive way. I thought the website was a great example of the way institutions use discourse to control the way people think.