Best of the Week
of Sept. 8, 2002
Best of Week
Archives
Here are the most intriguing cross-cultural exchanges
either begun or advanced during the week of Sept. 8, 2002, as
selected by Y? These postings, as well as "Best of the Week" entries
from previous weeks, also can be found by accessing Y?'s database
using the search form, or, in the case of
answers posted before April 24, 1999, in the
Original Archives (all questions
from the Original Archives have been entered into the database as
well). In the Original Archives, as well as in the database, you will
find questions that have received answers, as well as questions still
awaiting responses. You are encouraged to answer any questions
relevant to your demographic background, as well as to ask any
provocative question you desire. Answers posted are not necessarily
meant to represent the views of an entire demographic group, but can
provide a window into the insights of an individual from that
group.
First-time users should first make a quick stop
at Y?'s guidelines pages for asking and
answering questions.
The book on Y? is
here!
"Why Do White People Smell
Like Wet Dogs
When They Come Out Of The Rain?"
Order it here!
Read the Associated Press story
on "Wet Dogs"
Question:
What are the pros and cons of being a lawyer?
POSTED 9/10/2002
Ashley J., Kinston, AL, United States,
<platinum_princess53@hotmail.com>, 17, Female, Agnostic,
White/Caucasian, Straight, Student, Less than High School Diploma,
Middle class, Mesg ID 4242002125549
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
I'm an Italian American who grew up in New York City. My whole
life I've heard people use the derogatory term 'guinea' when speaking
about Italians. What is the origin of this word?
POSTED 9/12/2002
Ariane M., Ft. Myers, FL, United States,
<TropicalToots@aol.com>, 31, Female, Catholic, White/Caucasian,
Straight, Estetician, 2 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
911200265033
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
I'm a gay teenager who lives in a fairly intolerant area of the
South, and I've noticed that many people are disgusted at the thought
of two gay guys or lesbians displaying affection in public, be it
simple hand holding or kissing. Conversely, I see straight people
showing affection all the time, usually much more than anyone cares
to see. Why the double standard?
POSTED 9/10/2002
Robert, Panama City, FL, United States,
<VeggieBoyCharles@excite.com>, 15, Male, Agnostic,
White/Caucasian, Gay, Student, Less than High School Diploma, Middle
class, Mesg ID 49200282216
Responses:
Why the disparity between
public displays of affection for straights and gays? That's the way
it has always been. Most straight people to whom you point out the
inequities will argue in their favor (for various reasons), but some
may stop and realize they are bombarded with heterosexual imagery
everywhere, in advertising, television, movies, in public, etc.
That's one of the reasons so many gay people have flocked to
metropolitan areas with a gay population and gay bars, where they can
feel free to express themselves emotionally and physically without
fear of reprisal. As you learn more about gays and lesbians and the
struggle for equality, you will come across many other inequities
that don't make logical sense. Some straight people are against
listing 'sexual orientation' as a protected employment class like
race, gender, age, religion or disability, mistakenly thinking it
would only protect gays. Just the opposite: it is currently legal to
fire someone for being straight, and a 'sexual orientation'
protection clause would protect them, too. Marriage and benefits are
another sore issue, with straights seeing marriage as a religious
right reserved solely for them. What they fail to realize is that
there are many benefits that come along with marriage that, because
gays and lesbians are not permitted to wed the partner of their
choice, gays are discriminatorially denied homosexuals. The federal
government has identified more than 1,400 benefits exclusively
available to married heterosexuals, including inheritance, medical
decisions, naturalizing a foreign born spouse, adoption, etc.
New ground is being
broken every day. Some steps are gained and others lost. I am hopeful
that in my lifetime there will be no inequities based on who you
love.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Doug, Phoenix, AZ,
United States, 39, Male, New Age/Metaphysical, White/Caucasian, Gay,
Administrator, 2 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
9112002102245
One word:
Heterocentrism. 90 to 95 percent of the population is heterosexual.
They are used to seeing only heterosexual-based life around them.
That is the 'norm.' Anything out of the 'norm' is immediately noticed
and categorized as anything from weird to threatening. And then a
response is thought of - anything from a hard stare to a hard punch
or kick. The majority generally rules, although they always forget
about Supreme Court rulings protecting against the 'tyranny of the
majority.' Things are better now than they have been, but that is (of
course) very dependent on which part of the country you happen to
live in.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Mark B., Dallas, TX,
United States, <civic-si@swbell.net>, 41, Male, Christian,
White/Caucasian, Gay, financial analyst, 2 Years of College, Lower
middle class, Mesg ID 911200264500
I think the showing of
affection from gays and lesbians is bothersome to some but not all.
It would particularly bother someone if they don't understand that
gays and lesbians are just the same as straight couples. Or maybe
they have just never been witness to the showing of an affectionate
gay/lesbian couple. It could probably scare someone who has never
seen it before. Could you imagine what a person would think if they'd
never witnessed a straight couple show affection?
POSTED 9/12/2002
Sara C., Davison, MI,
United States, 22, Female, Christian, White/Caucasian, Straight,
Student, 2 Years of College, Lower class, Mesg ID 911200283548
I have had this
discussion with my father many a time. He feels that by showing
affection in public, gays and lesbians are flaunting their sexuality.
I counter by saying it is a natural part of any relationship.
Unfortunately, many straight people seem to feel that while they
don't mind people being gay, they don't want to have to acknowledge
it, which seems to me to be just as prejudiced. I live in the middle
of London, but even so, very rarely do I see any public displays of
affection between gay people, and gay-friendly as I am, it still
causes me to do a slight double-take when I do see it, simply because
it is so rare. Unfortunately, until more gay people feel able to
express affection in public (which is unlikely, due to the volume of
prejudice), it will not be regarded as commonplace, which in turn
will discourage gay people from doing so. It's a vicious circle. Be
aware though, that plenty of straights really aren't bothered by gay
PDAs.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Anne, London, NA,
United Kingdom, 19, Female, White/Caucasian, Straight, student,
Middle class, Mesg ID 912200280140
It is seen as an
unnatural thing to see two men or two women being affectionate,
whereas it is more natural to see men and women kissing and holding
hands.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Cinque, Palo Alto, CA,
United States, 31, Male, Baptist, Black/African American, Straight,
Customer Service Rep, 2 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
912200295053
Heterosexuals are
allowed to show affection but not homosexuals because heterosexuality
is the norm and the way the Creator made it. God made men and women
for a reason. If homosexuality was condoned, He would have made two
Eves or two Adams. Society is still offeneded to see homosexual
attraction because of our moral beliefs, and seeing two men or two
women holding hands or kissing is backward and isn't meant to be.
Consider the difference in the sex organs: God didn't intend two
penises or a penis and anus to come together, nor two vaginas.
Furthermore, I don't believe people are born gay; you turn gay.
Regardless of what people say, homosexuality is a choice. The Creator
didn't make anyone gay; why would God wire someone to live in a way
He said very clearly was an abomination and a lifestyle He so greatly
despises?
POSTED 9/12/2002
Monique M., Ft. Myers,
FL, United States, Female, Mesg ID 912200212121
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
My fiance is Puerto Rican, and I've noticed how much importance
their culture's music and dancing is to him and his family. Is it
just his family, or is it the whole Puerto Rican culture?
POSTED 9/12/2002
Sara C., Davison, MI, United States, 22, Female, Christian,
White/Caucasian, Straight, Student, 2 Years of College, Lower class,
Mesg ID 911200282130
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
I'm black and my best friend is white. We're alike in many
ways, except that she doesn't use a washcloth when she showers or
bathes. She says they're useless. I, on the other hand, could never
feel clean without one (or at least a scrunchy). Is this a race thing
or what?
POSTED 9/9/2002
Corinne, Dallas, TX, United States, 41, Female, Methodist,
Black/African American, Straight, Executive Assistant, 4 Years of
College, Middle class, Mesg ID 972002102558
Responses:
I am white. I and all my
family have always used a wash cloth. Actually, I never heard of
anyone not using one.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Tony, Chicago, IL,
United States, 55, Male, White/Caucasian, Straight, Executive, Over 4
Years of College, Upper middle class, Mesg ID 99200240532
I saw a similar
question posted here a few weeks ago. I didn't respond then, but I'll
respond now. Until very recently, I washed with just my hands and a
bar of soap. The main reason was that I could never get the hang of
the washcloth. It would always slide around and was difficult to keep
hold of, and like your friend, I didn't see much point. A few weeks
ago, though, I bought a pair of showering gloves. They are made of a
loofah-like plastic weave that's rougher than a wash cloth, and they
work great. I wash just like I used to, but now there's something on
my hands that makes it more effective.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Karl, Tulsa, OK, United
States, 30, Male, Lutheran, White/Caucasian, Straight, Librarian,
Over 4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 910200295102
As far as I know, this
is not a racial issue. I'm white, and not only do I use a washcloth,
I have separate ones for my body and face.
POSTED 9/12/2002
C, Austin, TX, United
States, 30s, Female, Jewish, White/Caucasian, Straight, lawyer, Over
4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 910200233152
I am white and always
use a scrunchy - it's easier to distribute the shower gel. I must
say, though, that while many things can be attributed to race, many
more come down to the individual preference, nothing more than that.
You do seem slightly over-keen to look to race as the reason for our
differences!
POSTED 9/12/2002
Anne, London, NA,
United Kingdom, 19, Female, White/Caucasian, student, Middle class,
Mesg ID 912200274352
Using or not using
washclothes while bathing is not a race thing. I think it is an
individual thing. I am white and use washclothes when bathing.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Lisa M., St.
Clairsville, OH, United States, <lisa_millhouse@hotmail.com>,
32, Female, Christian, White/Caucasian, Straight, College Student, 2
Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 9122002110950
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
Americans talk so much these days about how all targeted
killing of any civilians for any reason is terrorism. How do you view
nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in light of that?
POSTED 6/26/2002
Karim, Cairo, NA, Egypt, 21, Male, Muslim, Arab, Student, 4
Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 626200224616
Responses:
The use of nuclear weapons on Japan was done in the context of a
world war (formally declared) in which Japan instigated U.S.
involvement through its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, in which
thousands of Americans were killed. Is it terrorism? On one level
yes, as it convinced the Japanese to surrender, which they were not
willing to do by any other means. However, in the context of declared
war, I would not consider it terrorism. The Japan you know today was
not the Imperial Japan of pre-World War II. Read up on the
colonialist ambitions the Japanese had for the Pacific islands,
Philippines, Southeast Asia and China. What I consider terrorism is
the following; Israeli soldiers and civilians indiscriminately
killing Palestinians, including children; Islamic fundamentalists
blowing themselves up in a crowded Jewish areas indiscriminately
killing Jews, including children; U.S. weapons sold to Israel or any
country to be used for the purpose of killing innocent civilians;
oppressive regimes like the Taliban who rule through terror;
militants who steal international aid for themselves, creating
epidemic starvation and death; and ethnic, tribal and religious
conflicts waged through genocide.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Misho, Las Vegas, NV, United States, 36, Female, White/Caucasian,
Analyst, Over 4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 626200252726
Many Americans now look upon the atomic bombings as one of the
most shameful things the United States ever did. Speaking as a
historian, most of my profession now admits (and teaches in their
classes) that the bombings were unnecessary, vengeful and done for
reasons of racism and an unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the
Soviet Union. But there are also still many Americans, particularly
those who were brainwashed by World War II propaganda, who think the
bombings were justified as revenge for Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was
such a direct attack on American and particularly white American
notions of invincibility that it infuriated them to a level of hatred
never unleashed before on any other ethnic group. (And that is saying
quite a lot, given what's happened to blacks, American Indians, etc,
in this country.) They simply felt they HAD to have revenge and get
their bloodlust sated by these bombings. Some will bring up the old
lie that the bombings were done to 'save a million American lives,'
but historians debunked that decades ago. Truman simply made the
number up, (the real estimate was between 10,000 to 30,000) and all
his generals (even Patton) thought both the bombs and an invasion
were not needed to finish off Japan.
POSTED 9/9/2002
A.C.C., Phoenix, AZ, United States, Male, Mexican and American
Indian, Historian, Over 4 Years of College, Mesg ID 72200214712
You're not paying close enough attention. The U.S. policy not only
specifies the targeting of civilians in its definition of terrorism,
but also that it is committed by non-state organizations, in non-war
situations. Unlike Israel and the Palestinians, Japan and the United
States were two states actively at war. (The Palestininans have been
unwilling to adopt the modern values necessary for them to have their
own state and military, clinging instead to ineffective and backward
ways like suicide bombings.) As the U.S. military began to defeat the
Japanese in battle after battle, they found that the Japanese would
not surrender (except when booby-trapping themselves with grenades
like today's suicide bombers), forcing the Americans to kill them.
The best estimates that the United States had at the time showed that
a full-scale land assault on Japan would cost more lives than using
atomic weapons (not nuclear, as you inaccurately state). The decision
was not made lightly. Remember, the Japanese could have avoided this
fate by 1) not committing an unprovoked, atrocious attack on the
United States, and 2) heeding the United States' warnings about the
new super weapon. Unfortunately, they did not choose either path.
Instead, they kept fighting. Obviously, the United States would have
preferred not to have been forced to kill civilians. The consensus
was that it was an ugly, nasty, brutal job, but a job that had to be
done, nevertheless. That was the thinking at the time, right or
wrong. The result was horrible and should never be repeated. But even
if Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be defined as terrorism, that would not
excuse terrorism. Here's an example: if a murderer makes the
statement that murder is immoral and should never be committed, is he
wrong? No. In that case the murderer would be absolutely correct.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Rick, Springfield, OH, United States, Male, Atheist,
White/Caucasian, Straight, Over 4 Years of College, Middle class,
Mesg ID 72200214931
I am a history major and have taken particular interest in
Japanese military history. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were not necessary in order for the Allies to win the war, but they
were necessary to minimize casualties on both sides. In Okinawa, when
U.S. soldiers hit the ground, massive numbers of Japanese civilians,
including women hanging onto little children, heaved themselves over
cliffs to avoid surrender. This stems from the Bushido culture, which
revolves around the Shinto religion, which advocates ancestor worship
- meaning that everything you do in this life affects the afterlife
of all of your ancestors. So by committing an act of surrender, you
not only doom yourself, you doom all of your ancestors for eternity.
The United States dropped the atom bombs in order to prove as swiftly
as possible that there was no way at that point that Japan could win.
Germany and Italy had long since surrendered, so in effect it was
Japan vs. the world. The sooner Japanese civilians recognized this,
the more lives could be saved. Because these tragedies occurred to
save lives, I don't consider them terrorism. No one yet has given me
sufficient argument to prove that the bombing of the World Trade
Center was done to preserve life, so that constitutes terrorism
(until someone explains to me otherwise, which I remain open to).
POSTED 9/9/2002
Jessica K., Huntsville, TX, United States, 22, Female, Agnostic,
White/Caucasian, Bisexual, epileptic, student, 2 Years of College,
Middle class, Mesg ID 72200230306
In all definitions of terrorism, the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki fall well within the criteria. As were similiar raids in
Dresden and other areas of Germany during the same war, as well as
various bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, as well as
much of the wars the United States has participated in throughout its
history. Historically, the United States (as well as virtually every
other country in the world) has no moral leg to stand on when
battling 'terrorism,' as most countries won their freedom by actions
that can be construed as terrorism, and often fought off countries or
groups dedicated to ending their security and prosperity with
terrorist tactics. However, war isn't a question of morality, it's
about survival for your people. Just as Al Qaeda firmly believes it
is fighting a totalitarian Western threat to its own interests,
Americans believed that fighting facism, communism and now Al Qaeda
is basically the right thing to do, knowing that some acts are
basically terrorism and civilians will be killed. To quote the cliche
so often invoked recently, one man's terrorist is another man's
freedom fighter. Feelings of religious, ethnic or political tribalism
often elicit such feelings at opposite ends of the cultural spectrum.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Seamus, Charlestown, MA, United States, 22, Male, White/Caucasian,
Construction, Mesg ID 72200235617
I spent two years in the Hiroshima area. I've talked to several
people who were there and experienced the horror of it firsthand. I
don't mean to condone the actions that were taken there, but it was
war. It was an open conflict in which both sides committed
unspeakable atrocities. While I don't know whether the United States
was right in using the atomic bomb, the mentality of the Japanese
people (from my limited experience) was that they would die before
surrenduring. There are mixed feelings in Japan, too. There is a
strong feeling that even they viewed it as the only feasible end to
the war. Had the United States conducted a full invasion of the
islands, there would have many times the casualties, both military
and civilian, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regarding the targeting
of civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both chosen for the
concentration of military installations. Had the United States
intentionaly targeted civilians, it would have bombed Osaka or Tokyo,
both of which had much higher concentrations of civilian populations.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Norm J., Farmington, NM, United States,
<me1yoyo@hotmail.com>, 23, Male, White/Caucasian, Student, 4
Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID 72200295503
The atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible events
in history. However, there was a good reason behind them. By August
1945, Japan had lost the war (the war they started with a
treaty-breaking sneak attack). Their resources and manpower were
depleted, and their ally Germany had surrendered months before.
However, they were unwilling to stop fighting, and U.S. lives were
still being lost. It took those atomic bombings, a show of terrible
force, to convince Japan to surrender,and bring an end to the war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war that had brought suffering to
many. Acts of terrorism are the opposite: they perpetuate and
increase suffering.
POSTED 9/9/2002
D.J., Charlotte, NC, United States, 30, Male, Black/African
American, Mesg ID 74200224009
This should be a lesson to those who attack the United States,
like at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center: we didn't start these
wars, but indeed we finished them. The United States is slow to
anger, but we can be brutal in waging total war. Do you think Hitler
would have hesitated to use the bomb if he had it? Or Tojo? We had
it, we used it and saved the lives of millions of Japanese civilians
and U.S. soldiers by not having to invade Japan (which we would have
done). The losses at Okinawa and Saipan and Iwo Jima fortold
fanatical resistance, but we were out for unconditional surrender,
and got it. By the way, more people died in the conventional
firebombing of Tokyo than perished in the atomic attacks. Bin Laden
and the Arabs, like the Japanese, made a fatal mistake by
underestimating the resolve of the United States.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Chris, Kokomo, IN, United States, 44, Male, Catholic,
White/Caucasian, 4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
710200215021
It was a war crime, similar to the Japanese massacres in China,
but it convinced the Japanese to end the war. But what do old crimes
have to do with modern ones? Is it justified to take any historic
atrocity as an excuse for a modern crime? If yes, then how long are
you allowed to go back to find an appropriate human catastrophy to
justify the actual?
POSTED 9/9/2002
Alexander, Berlin, NA, Germany, 35, Male, Mesg ID 715200294357
I'm no American, but this calls for an answer. When the United
States nuked Japan, it was an attack on a country officially at war
with the United States, in alliance with other countries at war with
the United States. There was no declaration of war by the United
States against Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's home country), nor against
all Muslim countries. Or, more generally still, against the Umma.
Many Muslims live in the West, where they enjoy freedom to practice
their religion. The supposed 'war' between the West, especially the
United States, and the Umma (i.e. the community of Muslim believers)
is a figment of Islamist imagination. Furthermore, when the United
States bombed Japan, there was an assumption of civilian support to
the actions of the Japanese government, especially at Pearl Harbor.
Carrying war into the populace to undermine support of militarist
regimes was considered a legitimate means of warfare (see Dresden).
Thus, from a historical perspective the United States' actions are
coherent. From a modern perspective they are ethically wrong. Also,
the United States is not a totalitarian society but a democratic one.
Much support to the U.S. government has been created by the Sept. 11
attacks. Finally, what is the strategic goal behind the World Trade
Center attack? Converting the infidels to Islam? We all know that
isn't the case. Besides, the Koran prohibits proselytizing. Wasn't it
instead killing as many as possible? In what way would that benefit
the Umma? Has it? I don't think so. The Sept. 11 attack has only
reinforced the polarization of 'Others vs. Umma,' which is sad. Islam
should embrace all aspects of its tradition, a diverse tradition open
to life, learning and community. That calls for some self-criticism
on behalf of modern Islamic societies, which fall short of their
predecessors' achievements. Instead, there is much pointing of
fingers at the West. The easier way is to blame others instead of
shouldering responsibility. The history of Hiroshima does not
'rehabilitate' the World Trade Center attack.
POSTED 9/9/2002
T., Munich, NA, Germany, 33, Female, Atheist, Over 4 Years of
College, Mesg ID 718200295156
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
I have noticed that many Arab and/or Muslim groups are
resentful toward Westerners for associating them with terrorism
(understandably so, considering the rash of terrorist activities
throughout the world at the hands of Muslims/Middle Easterners) or
even referring to terrorists as Middle Eastern, etc. But why is their
anger not directed at the rabble-rousers committing the terrorism and
soiling their image? Their misguided anger would be like Catholic
priests blaming the media for their poor image, when it is
child-molesting priests who create such an impression.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Jay, New York, NY, United States, Female, Atheist,
White/Caucasian, Straight, Middle class, Mesg ID 96200262227
Responses:
The pervasive assumption
that terrorists are all from the Mideast and/or are Muslim is a
fallacy. Terrorism exists everywhere in the world, but as Americans
we have been mostly blissfully ignorant of its direct ramifications
until it happened on our own soil. Because the radical (but
organized) group that attacked on Sept. 11 was comprised of people
from the Mid- and Near-East, that is the face of terrorism in our
myopic experience. Start looking at your definiton of terrorism and
you'll see it's not limited to one group of easily definable people.
It's a twisted ideology shared by radicals. Remember the the Khmer
Rouge? The slaughter in Bosnia? The Congo? What about the white
supremacists in Jasper, Texas? The podiatrist in Florida with his
explosives and maps to mosques? When you lump everyone into the same
category as being terrorists, you take the chance of not recognizing
the real threat when it comes. Remember Timothy McVeigh?
POSTED 9/10/2002
A. Adams, Los Angeles,
CA, United States, Over 4 Years of College, Mesg ID
9102002122743
The point is there are
200 million Arabs (15 percent or more of whom are non-Muslim) and
more than a billion Muslims. There is only a handful of extreme
Muslim groups, and we are angry at them, but we are also angry at you
for stigmatizing us and failing to see that there are moderate
Muslims. By the way, most Arabs have no problem with Europe, so it's
not the West, it's the United States that most people here hate (if
you wonder why, look at Palestine and Iraq). If I use your criteria
for judging people, then I should condemn all 20 million Jews in the
world for Sharon's massacres, or condemn all Hindus for the massacres
of Muslims in Eastern India, or hate Christians for their unmatched
crimes during the Crusades. Cliches are tacky however much you try to
make them make sense.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Karim, Cairo, NA,
Egypt, 22, Male, Muslim, Arab, Straight, Engineer, 4 Years of
College, Middle class, Mesg ID 99200245014
Whites tend to lash
back when associated with racism because they've famously associated
themselves with racism. Columbians lash back when associated with
narco-traffic because they've associated themselves with
narco-traffic. Blacks lash back when they're associated with street
crime because they've associated themselves with street crime. Same
for Middle-Easterners.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Justin, Chicago, IL,
United States, 28, Male, Atheist, White/Caucasian, 2 Years of
College, Lower middle class, Mesg ID 910200232552
My friend teaches ESL,
and many of the people are Muslim. One day, he came to class, and the
students wouldn't talk or make eye contact. He said, 'What's going
on?' They said: 'Today, I took the bus here. A woman called me a
terrible name and told me to go back to my country, but this IS my
country.' Another said:'I was spit on by some people. Everywhere I
go, they glare. Now, I just stay at home and am afraid to even go to
the corner store for milk, because even the man behind the counter
glares at me.' One woman said: 'I'm not even from anywhere near
Afghanistan. Why does everyone hate us?' Is it the same as Catholic
priests being angry at the media for reporting child molesting
priests? No. It is like Protestants walking by someone wearing a
Crucifix, spitting on them and calling them a child molester and a
pervert, and saying that Catholicism is inherently evil.
POSTED 9/12/2002
Craig, Minneapolis, MN,
United States, 39, Male, 4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
912200292630
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
For middle-class to rich people: Do you feel like you've missed
out on the genuine experience of life by being sheltered by your
money? And do you think poor people are more 'real' than you are?
POSTED 9/9/2002
Amber, n/a, AK, United States, 30, Female, Lower class, Mesg ID
97200235539
Responses:
My family is part of
'middle class' America, and many of my friends and co-workers come
from the middle or upper class. This does not shelter us or make us
any less 'real.' No matter what the class, we are victims of crime,
of terrorism, and in these economically unstable times, we do worry
about money. Our loved ones can get killed, our children can do drugs
and our lives can fall to pieces, just like yours. I think some
people who would be considered 'poor' have a skewered view of the
'real' world when all they see is poverty and dashed dreams. It's not
how much money you have in your pockets, it's how much you are
willing to work for what you want.
POSTED 9/10/2002
Mary, Philadelphia, PA,
United States, 29, Female, Middle class, Mesg ID 910200260430
I have had more
different experiences due to my family's wealth than I had without
it. I do not see this as a bad thing; some of these different
experiences include being able to travel and knowing I could afford
college (which I am paying for independently).
POSTED 9/12/2002
Alex, Beloit, WI,
United States, 19, Male, Jewish, White/Caucasian, Student, High
School Diploma, Upper middle class, Mesg ID 911200273157
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Question:
I've always showered at night, and so has my family. I was
taught that it's better to shower at night because you don't bring
the grime of the day to bed with you. Recently I've realized how many
of my white friends shower in the morning. A friend told me
Westerners in general shower in the morning; Easterners at night. Is
this a racial thing? Cultural thing? Familial preference?
POSTED 9/5/2002
Sarah C., San Francisco area, CA, United States, 24, Female,
Agnostic, Asian, Over 4 Years of College, Upper middle class, Mesg ID
942002123458
Responses:
Unless I have a special
reason for showering in the morning or afternoon (for example, I get
back from an early-morning aerobics class or have been working in the
garden all morning and quit at 1:30 p.m.), I shower at night. It is
more convenient for me, and I don't have to get up so early in the
morning to take a shower, wash my hair, dry it, etc.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Tracy, Edmond, OK,
United States, Female, White/Caucasian, Mesg ID 952002122934
I feel better if I
shower before I go to bed. It relaxes me, and I sleep better, I
think. But sometimes I do shower in the morning.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Senetra, Anderson, IN,
United States, 28, Female, Baptist, Black/African American, 2 Years
of College, Mesg ID 95200231852
I shower during the
morning for two reasons: the first is that it's a pleasant way to
start the daya that really wakes me up and makes combing my hair
easier. The second, and main reason, is that I sweat a great deal at
night and due to my dreams often wake in a cold sweat.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Alex, Beloit, WI,
United States, 19, Male, Jewish, White/Caucasian, Student, High
School Diploma, Upper middle class, Mesg ID 952002104848
Sarah, don't laugh, but
for most of my adult life I've been taking two showers a day just to
reconcile the two halves of myself! I'm half Asian and half Caucasian
and was raised in two countries, one in the East and one in the West.
It seems that many Westerners regard the morning shower as a kind of
wake-up call and a psychological message that a new day has started.
And then again, many Asians (at least those of my family) regard it
as a necessary and vital thing to be able to wash the grime and dirt
of the daily grind away in the evening. I would love to know the real
reasons behind this behavior. Until then, I guess I'll just continue
with my two long showers a day.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Eurasian, Osaka, NA,
Japan, Mesg ID 96200244530
I've always showered in
the morning, and so has my family. I have to shower in the morning
because: 1) There's nothing else that wakes me up like a hot shower,
and 2) I have curly hair and can't brush it dry, so it needs to be
washed in the morning.
Perhaps, since Asians
generally have straight hair, it's easier for them to shower at
night, as they can just brush it in the morning.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Danielle, Southern, NJ,
United States, 27, Female, White/Caucasian, Over 4 Years of College,
Middle class, Mesg ID 96200282915
I think it's a matter
of preference. When I was a child, I always took baths at night, but
as I got older, I discovered I preferred having just-washed hair when
I went to school. I've stuck to the morning showers, for the most
part, unless I'm really filthy, sweaty or whatever. However, my
sister is strictly a nightly bath or shower person. Because I wash my
hair every day, I would rather wash it in the morning.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Annie, Lawrenceville,
GA, United States, 51, Female, Lutheran, White/Caucasian, Straight,
copy editor, Over 4 Years of College, Middle class, Mesg ID
96200292706
I shower in the morning
and at night before going to bed as well. Sometimes in the summer I
shower in the middle of the day, too. I guess it's personal
preference but I love water.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Rick, Oakland, CA,
United States, 40, Male, Management, Over 4 Years of College, Middle
class, Mesg ID 982002105651
I have showered in the
morning ever since junior high school. This way I'm 100 percent clean
when I go to school, and now a decade or so later, to work. If you
shower at night and then go straight to work the next morning, you
have the 'night sweats' and grime you accumulate over that eight
hours. Also, I like to comb my hair for the day while it is wet and
clean. The only real argument I can see for night showering is that
you can move to work a lot faster in the morning. Also, it probably
keeps your bed cleaner. But in the end, count me a morning shower
guy.
POSTED 9/9/2002
Brian, Kokomo, IN,
United States, 27, Male, Straight, management, 4 Years of College,
Middle class, Mesg ID 98200285129
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Copyright and
disclaimer