Burlington High School

Burlington, Kansas

Teacher: Devra Parker

 

The Diversity Of A Nation

By Routh Taylor

12^th grade

 

 

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stifled. I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.”

 

The Earth is populated by roughly three billion people. So, naturally, with that many people, there are differences of character and beliefs. Gandhi could not have said it any better: the diversity of the Earth’s inhabitants is something to be desired; however, no culture should think they are superior to or try to dominate another. By definition diversity is a point or respect in which things differ. Having an assortment of people in the United States makes our lives interesting. America has…been [referred] as the melting pot of cultures and, in my belief, should…stay that way.

 

…Take religion, for instance. In America we are able to practice any religion we want…. This, in itself, is a little unusual because, all over the world, it seems there is usually one religion which dominates the rest and is taken to be the “only” religion of that region. Let’s use Iraq as an example. Predominantly, they are Muslim and…American soldiers [with a mixture of] religious backgrounds…are infidels

 

… [America is] the land of opportunity. Women are able to vote [and have the opportunity to]…become the…President of the United States.…Women work in the same occupations as men. African Americans are just as likely to own a large corporation as any Caucasian…and anyone can obtain some form of employment, whether he/she speaks English or not.

 

Due to the immense variation of cultural backgrounds, the American people are able to [experiment]. Everyone that comes to America brings with him/her a little piece of his/her own culture so we have within the United States our own little China Town, little Italy, and a mini Czech Republic, just to list a few. By having all of these condensed civilizations, we…are able to [enjoy] new and exotic foods, music, and customs. As James T. Ellison once said, “The real death of America will come when everyone is alike.”

 

My family is a combination of many different cultures and I am proud of it. In my heritage I have Native American, English, Scottish, Welsh, French-Canadian, and [perhaps] other [nationalities].…I have been raised…differently than a person who has a direct line to a single ethnic background. I have been exposed to many…beliefs and ancestral history. My family, in order to [keep in touch] with our accumulation of cultures, tries to incorporate [diversity] into our everyday life. We eat foods native to our ancestor’s homelands, visit historic places every chance we get, and attempt to practice [our various cultures].

 

I would like to believe, by having all the varied ethnic backgrounds, the American people are more open minded and hopefully not as judgmental of other cultures and beliefs. Sadly, even today we are having conflicts between the races. In the South, there are still the pre-civil war beliefs that have carried over into present day….For example, in a current Louisiana court case there is evidence that racism is still thriving. …However, there are numerous people who believe segregation is wrong and agree with me when I say: all men are created equal, no matter the color of their skin or the religion they follow.

 

Every living thing has basic rights, personal responsibilities and occasionally we do what is best for the common good. By having diversity in the United States, we are able to experience what makes us who we are. The differences of people allow us, as a nation, to better ourselves. Also, having a variety of individuals and beliefs makes it easier to understand that although one action may be good for some people, we are able to see that, for others, it poses a problem. We are able to learn from our mistakes and, in turn, balance three incredibly important ideals…: personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the common good. After all, is it not our duty to try and make this world as peaceful as we possibly can?

 

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

 

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?  “…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.”  Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

 

I think Mr. Reiter made some very solid points for the difference between freedom and equality however I think he could have worded this essay better. For instance, when he stated that the only time American’s will be equal is in the grave aggravated me. Yes, I realize that we do not have a “perfect” society of complete equality but over the last couple of decades we have made great improvements compared to how it used to be. Also, Reiter made the people of the United States sound as though they were nothing more than materialistic, snobby, and prudish. As I was reading the essay I felt as though he over used the word American. If he had of changed it to United States or eliminated it all together the essay in my opinion might have been more interesting to read.

 

Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.”  To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

 

Chris Carney attributed his feelings to the founder of the Constitution, James Madison. In his essay he explained how Madison believed in both civic virtues and the common good of the people. Civic virtue means that a person would set aside their interests for the common good of others. Both of these make it so the individual has to realize what is most important to him/her.

 

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

In this paragraph it directly pertains to the essay topic incredibly well because it shows how there must be a constant and stable balance between the common good and personal responsibility. Emperor Diocletian’s government believed they were helping the people by making everyone equal, however, in truth they were hurting the economy and the peoples well being. 

 

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

Kelly Lanier’s essay is a perfect example of how personal interest and common good must stay balanced. It shows how one person’s interest may not be good for other individuals around them. The freedom of the press, although a very important liberty, is one in which that could endanger others right to live. For example, if the media discloses information about where the United States top secret military base in Iraq is located, everyone at that base is now in imminent danger.

 

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators?   Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

When Joshua Spencer says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset,” he means that individual liberty can be taken away incredibly easily by the government, dictators, emperors, etc. But when it is possessed by a group of people, Individual Liberty can be detrimental to those in power. Spencer correlated that dictators try to limit or take away a persons individual liberty due to the fact that with such liberties the masses are a threat. By giving free handouts to the people, a dictator will gain followers and in a way eliminate their individual liberties. I strongly believe in Spencer’s assessment because it is in my opinion true. The government gives free items to people in order to gain their support. However, by doing so, the people of that particular government rely on their handouts and therefore lose their independence.

 

Q6-Luck Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?

 

Where would we be without the freedoms we have? They allow us to openly and publicly discuss or criticize the actions of the government. We can carry guns in order to protect ourselves, and we are allowed to practice any type of religion. Without these liberties we would be a dull, drone-like, puppet people under the control of our puppet master. Sure supposedly we would be taken care of and safe, but the result is having and being nothing. By having these freedoms, naturally there will be some conflict of interest but we need to take those in stride and remember what our ancestors went through in order to get us to where we are today. 

 

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree.  Do You?

 

I agree with Molly McGlone when she says that the Framers created the Constitution knowing it one day might need to be amended. The Constitution is specifically balanced so that the everyone has freedom along with protection. 

 

Q8- “Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree?  Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act.  How do you personally feel about these two issues?

 

I believe that a law should not take precedence over the Constitution. Also, if people wish to smoke they have that right. They are knowingly endangering their health, but they should smoke in designated areas. By doing this they are respecting other individual’s rights of not smoking. I do not think it should be banned everywhere because that would cause an unrest among the smoking society but having designated areas is the right way to allow both smokers and non-smokers to co-exist in public facilities. Having gun free school zones helps keep our posterity safe from accidental or plotted shootings. Although it does trample our right to bear arms, it should be common sense not to take a gun into school areas. In my opinion it is sad they had to create this law because really there shouldn’t be a need for it. 

 

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book?  Have you read it?

 

In Annie St. Romain’s essay she referred to The Giver. I personally, have never read this book. However, her essay has caused this piece of literature to go on my list of items to read.

 

Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups.  Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty.  Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay.  Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

I agree with both sides, due to the fact that they both make valid points. I believe that the government should not have to gain more power to restrain people because we as a people should not need the government to help fix our problems. We have all of these wonderful rights so that everyone can be happy. However, due to some of our rights, deadly problems have arisen. If giving the government is granted more powers it would help eliminate major problems taking place in our country. So in my opinion it might be worth it.

 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

There are millions of examples where personal responsibility should replace the need for laws. One such example is in larger cities it is illegal for individuals to walk across streets listening to an IPOD, MP3, or other music playing device. If people were more focused on what was going on around them, perhaps fewer people would be hit by cars every year in cities. Another case in point is the truancy laws which pertain to children having to attend school. If parents and their children were responsible these laws would be void because the individuals would attend school whether they had to or not. Finally, I believe that people should naturally know to drive slower in and around parks, schools, and daycare vicinities. It is common sense that children will be running around in these areas and in order to protect today’s youth we should drive slower and more cautiously.

 

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic.  In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. … These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.”  Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

Yes, I would love to believe that people would make the right choices that benefited their communities. And that everyone can do the right thing in life. Unfortunately, believing this is unrealistic. The people of today are mainly interested in themselves. We are known as being an incredibly selfish people who only worry about our own profits, well being, and lifestyle. If everyone did the right thing there would be no such thing as world hunger, genocides, or poverty. Everyone would stop and try to help those less fortunate. Our world would be a utopian society if everyone did the right thing and made the right choices. However, as we all know, our society is far from a utopian society.