The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Should NOT Be Banned Essay examples

Many books around the world have been banned because they are offensive. One example is Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a novel about the journey of a thirteen-year-old boy named Huck, who fabricates his own death to run away with an escaped slave named Jim. The two voyage in a raft along the Mississippi River to gain their individual freedom. In addition, Huck gains a new understanding about humanity. Huck Finn has been creating great controversy on both sides of the argument: to ban or to keep in the school curriculum. Currently â€Å"much debate has surrounded Mark Twain’s Huck Finn since its publication in 1885, but none has been more pervasive, explosive, and divisive than that surrounding the issue on race† (Chadwick-Joshua xi). In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain, characters speak with a racist dialect. The way that characters speak and address African Americans causes a tremendous amount of controversy regardin g whether to ban or keep the book in public schools. Huck Finn is thought to be a racist book, and some of Mark Twain’s audiences believe that it should be banned from school curriculum. The main reason the public wants Huck Finn to be banned is because of its racial dialect. The use of the word â€Å"nigger† is used repeatedly throughout the novel. Some people say that â€Å"Twain’s consistent use of the word ‘nigger’ is†¦troubling to readers† (James). The fact that the word is so often used throughout the book offends many African Americans. It is offensive because the word â€Å"nigger† has very strong negative connotations and past references to blacks as slaves. Hughes describes, â€Å"The word nigger to colored people of high and low degree is like a red rag to a bull. Used rightly or wron... ... Works Cited â€Å"A Rationale for Teaching Huckleberry Finn.† EXPLORING Novels. Online Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center – Junior. St. Francis High School – GA. Web.17 Feb. 2014. Chadwick-Joshua, Jocelyn. The Jim Dilemma: Reading Race in Huckleberry Finn. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1998. Print. Henry, Peaches. â€Å"The Struggle for tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huck Finn.† Huck Finn Controversy. Western Michigan University, July 2002. Web. 25 Feb 2014. â€Å"Huck Finn Teacher’s Guide. About the Book.† PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2014. James, Pearl. â€Å"Overview of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.† EXPLORING Novels. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center – Junior. Gale. St. Francis High School – GA. Web. 1 March. 2014. Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Bantam, 1981. Print.

The Economic Factors Affecting Poverty

Poverty is a major problem in the United States today. This mind map includes the categories of individual behavior, social factors, economic factors, political factors, and cultural factors are all contributing forces that causes poverty. For economic factors, low wages would be the variable that would lead to poverty. Families that receive low wages would barely support their living expenses. Thus they would not have enough money for programs that would aid their children†s education. Some families think that crime has better incentives than working a low paying job and thus crime could be put in as an economic factor that leads to poverty. Not having enough money for programs like education leads to the individual behavior of illiteracy and lower education, since the parents cannot afford to send their children to upper level education. And if these children know that they have no future in higher education, they will not have the motivation to do well in school and thus dropping out of school. In turn this will lead to having low self-esteem because they know that they will basically be stuck in poverty for the rest of their lives. This will eventually lead to substance abuse because they need something to overcome their high levels of stress that is produced by low self-esteem. In turn substance abuse could lead to sickness and disease, and then could possibly lead to mental illness. Once this happens, individual behavior will cause families to be in poverty. For social factors, discrimination would be the variable that causes poverty. Racial discrimination from an employer could lead for that person to not receive a higher paying job, in which could lead to violence from the potential employee towards the employer. In turn a crime could be committed in revolt of the employer. Thus the social factor of violence interconnects with the economic factor of crime. Also racial discrimination could lead to institutional discrimination. Thus this will lead to substandard schools in which teachers are told to split up a class and place each student in a designated group depending on their race and the teacher†s assumptions of the student†s learning ability from their social classifications. For cultural factors, biased IQ test would be interconnected to substandard schools. These tests measure a student†s school achievement. And if there are substandard schools, the students who are placed into the higher groups, the will do better than those who are placed in a lower group. And thus these IQ tests would lead to the deficiency theory, which suggests that ‘the poor are poor because they do not measure up to the more well to do in intellectual endowment.† Also the social factor of racial discrimination is interconnected to the cultural factor of minority race. Those who are the minority, the main culture will produce basic assumptions about minority†s abilities to be successful or well to do. For political factors, meritocracy would be interconnected to minority race. Meritocracy basically is the social classification by ability. Thus the assumptions produced will the levels of ability. The power elite produces meritocracy. These are the people who believe that ‘the fundamental assumption of capitalism is individual gain without regard for what the resulting behaviors may mean for other people†, especially those in poverty. Also the poor are not significantly counted in the US Census, so the government is misinformed on the levels of poverty.

Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory Essays

Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory Essays Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory Paper Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory Paper A group comprises two or more individuals, who interact with each other, share common goals, are interdependent and acknowledge their formation as a group. People join groups for several reasons. Amongst these reasons are, for interpersonal needs, support and commitment and group synergy. Interpersonal needs include ones desire for inclusion, where the individual is desirous of establishing an identity with others, which is often used as a way of self-verification. Individuals need affection and joining a group is an excellent way of establishing relationships and making friends. Another component of interpersonal needs, is a sense of control, where the individual wants to prove his/her abilities and being in a group serves as an outlet to demonstrate these abilities. Support and commitment is important to an individual, as he/she may want to undertake a project but finds that he/she would be far more motivated, if working in a group. Also, the support given to each group member, by the other members reinforces commitment to the project being undertaken. Group Synergy refers to the idea that two or more heads are better than one, and that groups are more capable of producing higher quality work than the individual would. Group Synergy also recognizes that groups make better decisions than individuals. Groups go through five (5) stages of development. It is important to note that to move from one stage to another can only be achieved on the basis of the success of the goals of the preceding stage. The first stage is forming. At this primary level, group members come together and each individual collects data about the similarities and differences of the other members. The major task of forming is orientation, where its members become oriented to the group task(s) as well as each other. Discussion is centered on the approach(es), as well as similar concerns about the task(s). The second stage is storming. As the groups members attempt to organize the task(s), conflict is inevitable, due to personal beliefs or ideas. At this stage, members compromise their own beliefs to suit the groups organization. Because of fear of exposure or failure, there will be an increased desire for structural clarification and commitment. Questions concerning leadership and responsibility roles arise during this stage, as well as the reward system and criteria for evaluation. Once these concerns are addressed, the group moves on to the third stage, norming. Norming is characterized by cohesion. At this stage, members are concerned about problem solving and are willing to change preconceived ideas, on the basis of facts which are presented by other members and actively ask questions of one another. During this stage, members begin to identify with one another and acknowledge that the group is working in a unit. This contributes to the development of group cohesion. Assuming that the goal(s) of the three preceding stages are accomplished, the group moves on to stage four, which is performing. At this level, the need for group approval is past and members are capable of working independently, in sub-groups or as total unit with equal facility. Group unity is complete, morale is high and loyalty is intense. There is support in problem-solving and an emphasis on achievement. The final stage, adjourning, involves the termination of tasks and disengagement from relationships. Members are recognized and acknowledged for their contribution, participation and achievement, and are now ready to part company and disintegrate as a single unit. Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory have different assumptions about the nature of groups. Social Identity Theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979 and 3 central ideas; categorization, identification and comparison. In order to understand our social environment, one has to categorize individuals. For example, to classify an individual as a black person is quite vague. However, when the same individual is classified as Jamaican, teacher or Baptist, the individual takes on a clearer meaning. Identification carries two meanings. At times, individuals may refer to themselves as we versus them and at other times I versus him/her. This indicates that there are times when individuals think of themselves as members of a group and times when the individuals think of themselves as a single unit. When individuals refer to themselves as we, the we represents the individuals in-group, or group to which the individual belongs to. When the individual refers to them, the them is the out-group, or group that the individual does not belong to. The final component of Social Identity Theory is social comparison. Individuals need to feel good about them themselves and so in the context of being part of the in-group, the individual seeks to maximize the difference between the in-group and the out-group so that the in-group is always reflected in a more positive light than then out-group. In 1971, Tajfel et al conducted an experiment which they called the Minimal Group Experiment. This experiment was conducted to ascertain whether competition was a necessary condition for ethnocentrism, the belief that ones in-group is superior to ones out-group. The experiment used a group of Bristol school boys as its subjects. These boys were show slide projections with varying numbers of dots. The boys were told that there some people in the group who were under estimators and over estimators of the dots being displayed. The second task involved splitting the boys into two groups, which they were made to think that one group consisted of over estimators and the other group consisted of under estimators. What the boys did not know, was that in actuality, they were selected randomly. The task was to allocate points redeemable for money. What was discovered was that in-group favoritism was displayed even though each boy did not know who the other in-group members were. They still allocated more points to members of the in-group. Even though these same boys were linked in various ways, through sport teams or as neighbors, this did not have any meaning or impact on the way they allocated points and demonstrated in-group bias. A second experiment was conducted to endorse the findings of the preceding experiment. The boys were shown a series of paintings by two artists, Klee and Kadinsky. They were asked to choose their preference and were then divided into two groups. Again, the boys were unaware that the groups were not being divided according to artist preference. Again, the boys demonstrated in-group favoritism by allocating more points to in-group members. Based on these two experiments, Tajfel concluded that indeed, by categorizing the boys into meaningless groups caused blatant discrimination. A more recent display of Social Identity Theory in action is the of the Serbs uniting in solidarity to support their leader Slobodan Milosevic as he went before the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. While Milosevics policies had contributed to brutal war, economic ruin and widespread corruption, Serbs saw themselves as a group/nation going to trial, instead of Milosevic as an individual on trial. The trial came across as a threat to Serbs as a unit. They could not escape the social identity of being a serb, so the best mechanism they could use was to categorize themselves and distance themselves from the out-group, which are western countries. Realistic Group Conflict Theory is the idea that prejudice sometimes stems from competition between groups for scarce resources. In 1961, Sherif et al, set up the Robbers Cave Experiment. This experiment was a summer camp which consisted of 22 boys from similar backgrounds and family structure, who were all Caucasian. The boys were not acquainted prior to the camp, so they were allowed to get acquainted with each other, by sharing in various activities. The boys were then split into two groups; the Rattlers and the Eagles. Each group independently engaged in their own activities, which led to a more intimate relationship, where they had developed codes, jargon and nicknames. The next stage involved pitting both groups against each other for a prize, to determine what would happen when they came together after bonding with their own in-group. This was done via an organized tournament which included a treasure hunt and a baseball game. By the end of the tournament there was visible hostility as the groups began to call each other names and launched a food fight in the dining room. In a 1949 study, one school of thought for reducing hostility was to introduce a third group, which would represent the common enemy to both groups. This solution was not desirable to Sherif, as he thought it would widen the inter-group conflict to a larger scale. In order to resolve the hostile conflict, Sherif noted that the groups need more than just contact. They needed a series of goals which could only be accomplished when both groups efforts were combined. These goals are termed super ordinate goals. The series involved a water supply crisis, where both groups had to locate the fault by working together. A second goal which was set up is the hiring of a film. The camp had no money to pay for it, however, if both groups combined their financial resources they would be able to rent the film for the benefit of all. The third challenge was towing a broken down food truck together, using a rope they had used previously in a tug-of-war game, to get the truck started. The realization of success from working together gradually reduced conflict to the point where the boys became friends, from these experiences. This experiment supports that the use of super ordinate goals, which means that both groups share the same agenda of accomplishing a specific goal together, can reduce conflict. While both theories seek to reduce group conflict, Social Identity Theory leans towards a cognitive approach of in-group bias. If group members believe that they are in a group with others who share similar identities and goals, then bias towards in-group members exist. The reward does not have to be a physical one, as the aim is towards achieving high self-esteem. Group members will do all possible to preserve their superiority so that their self-esteem will always be high. Through re-categorizing individuals, prejudice and conflict may be reduced, as individuals tend to categorize in reference to self. This would mean that each time a group is re-categorized, individuals would be identifying with each group he/she is being classified with, hence reducing out-group discrimination since the individual would be identifying with others at different times. Realistic Group Conflict Theory leans towards a behavioral approach to conflict resolution, as demonstrated in the Robbers Cave Experiment. Initially, it was a case of survival of the fittest as they groups clamored for the scarce resource (tournament prize). However, through their collective actions, they were able to pool physical and financial resources to benefit both groups. It is through series behavioral actions that both groups realized they could accomplish the super ordinate goals set before them. Another difference between Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory is that Social Identity Theory places an emphasis on social competition, which has more to do with pride and self-esteem, while Realistic Group Conflict Theory uses objective competition which is vying for an object of social reality.