It was finals week. I was sprinting towards the lecture hall to take my first ever final exam in college. I was about 10 minutes late. I finally entered the room but there was a different professor in the room. I didn’t get too concerned though because I thought “this is how they do it in QC.” I took the scantron and the test paper and went to the back of the room. Before starting, I looked around the room, looking for familiar faces, but I could find none.I brushed that off too because I thought “this is how they do it in QC.” After all, it WAS the anthropology test…
When I started the test, I thought it was a bit weird. The questions weren’t related to what we did in class. At first I thought it was just a hard test. But eventually I got the feeling that I was perhaps in the wrong room. I kept looking around the room for someone, anyone I knew. I thought I saw a few. But still I went down to check with the professor to ask what class this was. She said it was Anthro 101, which WAS the correct class. I went back to the back of the room, but five minutes later, I eventually realized that I was in the wrong room. I apologized to the professor and left.
So why did I think that I had an anthropology test on Tuesday at 1:15 pm in room 250? Because that’s what someone had told me. I had to ask someone else because I always missed the first half or so of that class… But why did that person give me erroneous information? Was it malicious intent? No, because I saw that person also looking for the test on that day. She was as clueless as me.
It was ironic because after all that source checking for online material, I wasnt able to judge the credibility of a REAL-LIFE source…
Flaws of Public Education
December 12, 2008
New York – A student from Queens college missed a final exam yesterday, after being told the wrong exam date by a classmate.
“I missed the test because one of my classmates told me the wrong date,” the student said when asked about why he didn’t know when the finals were.
This is another example that showcases how inefficient and underfunded the public education system is. Students aren’t told clearly about important dates and deadlines. No one is paid to call students to remind them of even about their final exams.
The underlying problem can be traced to the government and elected officials. It all comes down to funding for educational programs. Can students succeed in life when they attend seriously underfunded schools? It is the governments responsibility to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in life.
It was finals week. I was sprinting towards the lecture hall to take my first ever final exam in college. I was about 10 minutes late. I finally entered the room but there was a different professor in the room. I didn’t get too concerned though because I thought “this is how they do it in QC.” I took the scantron and the test paper and went to the back of the room. Before starting, I looked around the room, looking for familiar faces, but I could find none.I brushed that off too because I thought “this is how they do it in QC.” After all, it WAS the anthropology test…
When I started the test, I thought it was a bit weird. The questions weren’t related to what we did in class. At first I thought it was just a hard test. But eventually I got the feeling that I was perhaps in the wrong room. I kept looking around the room for someone, anyone I knew. I thought I saw a few. But still I went down to check with the professor to ask what class this was. She said it was Anthro 101, which WAS the correct class. I went back to the back of the room, but five minutes later, I eventually realized that I was in the wrong room. I apologized to the professor and left.
So why did I think that I had an anthropology test on Tuesday at 1:15 pm in room 250? Because that’s what someone had told me. I had to ask someone else because I always missed the first half or so of that class… But why did that person give me erroneous information? Was it malicious intent? No, because I saw that person also looking for the test on that day. She was as clueless as me.
It was ironic because after all that source checking for online material, I wasnt able to judge the credibility of a REAL-LIFE source…
In the article New Literacy by Clive Thomson, Clive Thompson takes the position that the internet is improving the literacy standards of the new generation. He provides support of his argument by quoting research done by Andrea Lunsford in Stanford University. In her research, Andrea Lunsford tries to show that the internet is improving literacy rates because people write specific content with the audience in mind. They are very concise and don’t waste too many words.
I agree with the position of Clive Thompson regarding literacy and the internet. However the argument is not very strong since it has only one supporting statement and that is based on someone else’s research. The whole argument sounds like its mainly publicity and exposure for the research of Andrea Lunsford. The argument would’ve been better and more effective if he had included other supporting statements. Also he should’ve brought up the opposing view and showed how they are wrong. His argument and credibility is further damaged when he says things like “…online media are pushing literacy into cool directions.” This makes it sound like he’s trying to show that he knows how young people think and act, when in fact he doesn’t.
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president. However, in reality, not allUS citizens are eligible to run for the presidency. The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from becoming the president, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. How can someone be told that they can achieve anything they want, only to be told later that they are ineligible to become the president of their own country? The constitution included the native-born clause as a proactive measure due to the political atmosphere of the US in the 1700s; but those conditions no longer exist. It is high time for the constitution to be amended to give all US citizens the right to run for president.
Preventing naturalized citizens to run for the presidency is against democracy. For a democracy to work, all citizens must have equal rights and responsibilities. Denying a basic right to a large percent of citizens creates the illusion that some citizens are better than others. The concept of “citizens with limited rights”, essentially second-class citizens, promotes the idea that “all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
The book Animal Farm by George Orwell provides a good example of how a seemingly democratic group can turn into a totalitarian regime when one group has more privileges than others. In the beginning of the book, a group of animals take control of their farm and establish a democracy. They create seven Commandments, one of which says “All Animals are equal”. However, as time goes on, a group of animals (the pigs) begin to give themselves more privileges and deny the rights of other animals. Eventually, they gain absolute control over the animals and change the Seven Commandments to “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
This shows how our rights are taken away from us – gradually over time. We don’t lose our rights and freedoms overnight; we lose them gradually, in steps. Labeling and classifying citizens as “native born” and “naturalized”, and giving one group more rights than the other is dangerous for democracy. It is the starting point of more equality and injustice. There shouldn’t be any stratification in citizenship – if someone deserves the right to gain citizenship, they should have the same rights as other citizens, including the right to become the president.
To understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency in the first place, we must understand the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s. The US had just gained independence from the British Empire and adopted the then-radical idea of democracy. Without the protection of the British Empire and as a pioneer of democracy, the US was very vulnerable from invasion by other nations. It was possible for an enterprising monarch to gain vicarious control of the US by sending one of his or her subjects to the US to become a naturalized citizen, and eventually become the president. In other words, democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for president. The founding fathers reasoned that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal to the US, which is why they included the clause that only native-born citizens are eligible to become the president of the US. [1]
\
There was a need for excluding foreign-born citizens from the presidency during the 1700s because there was a viable threat of invasion back then. But today, in the21st century, such a threat no longer exists. The US is no longer a weak and vulnerable nation; Democracy is the dominant form of government in the world today; monarchy is all but obsolete. Now is the perfect time to amend the constitution and give all citizens equal rights. The founding fathers had the foresight to know that the world would change. They designed the constitution to adapt to changes in accord with the changes in the world, by creating procedures to amend the constitution. This is why the constitution is called a “living document.”
More than 12.8 million Americans are naturalized citizens [2]. Many of them came to the US with their parents when they were infants. They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only ONE homeland – the US. They love the US as much, if not more than any natural born citizen .And for all their patriotism and loyalty, they are ineligible to run for the presidency. Should kids be told that they can achieve anything they want in life if they work hard and do well in school only to be told later that they cannot run for president? And only because they are naturalized citizens? This may make them feel like second-class citizens and create resentment against the government. It may even lead to a loss of motivation and drive to succeed. Sure, not everyone who wants to become the president achieves their dream. But the idea that they can achieve anything they want acts as a placebo to keep them motivated. Without the placebo there will be a significant drop in motivation and desire to succeed.
Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but their claim isn’t supported by any facts. They are merely being ethnocentric and xenophobic. Naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US. Many of them had to work hard to gain citizenship and therefore they don’t take the perks of living here for granted. The anti-equal rights people also fail to consider the fact that native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country.
Other opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that “foreign people could buy their way into the presidency and exploit the US.” People who make such claims obviously lack knowledge about the political institutions of America. They lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the constitution – about the numerous checks and balances devised by the founding fathers to prevent just that. And more importantly, they ignore the American public. Any candidate would have to win the heart of the American public; and to do so, they would have to understand how the American public thinks; what the American public wants.
The US has changed dramatically since breaking off from the British Empire and becoming an independent nation. It has come a long way - from giving suffrage only to white men who owned land to all citizens; from marginalizing different ethnic groups to celebrating cultural diversity. The election of Barrack Obama broke the race barrier. The next step would be to allow all American citizens, native-born or naturalized, to become the president. We must always stay alert to ensure that our rights and freedoms aren’t taken away. And we must always strive to achieve “perfect democracy”.
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president. However, in reality, not allUS citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for the presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. How can someone be told that they can achieve anything they want, only to be told later that they are ineligible to become the president of their own country? The concept of “citizens” with limited rights (essentially second-class citizens) promotes the idea that “all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Therefore it is a necessity to remove the native-born clause from the constitution in order to preserve and promote the ideal of democracy. Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but they are simply being xenophobic, since naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US. Also, they fail to consider the fact that native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country.
To understand why the constitution disqualifies foreign-born citizens from the presidency, we must understand the political and social atmosphere of the US during the 1700s. The US had gained independence from the British Empire after a long and bloody revolution. After becoming a sovereign nation, it adopted the then-radical idea of democracy. As a young nation and a pioneer of democracy, the US was very vulnerable at the time. There was a very real possibility for an enterprising monarch to send a subject to become the head of the US, thereby gaining vicarious control of the US. In other words, democracy was a liability if everyone was allowed to run for president. The founding fathers believed that anyone born in the US would be much more likely to be loyal. And that is why they included the clause that only native-born citizens can become the president of the US. There was a need for this measure during the 1700s since there was a viable threat back then. But today, in the age of globalization and cultural interconnections, such a threat no longer exists.
About 8% of Americans are naturalized citizens. Many of them came to the US with their parents when they were infants. They grew up with American culture, they went to school in America, they pay allegiance to the US and they know only ONE homeland – the US. They love the US as much, if not more than any natural born citizen .And for all their patriotism and loyalty, they are ineligible to run for the presidency. Should kids be told that they can achieve anything they want in life if they work hard and do well in school only to be told later that they cannot run for president? And only because they are naturalized citizens? This might lead them to have an inferiority complex. They will feel like second class citizens. In some extreme cases, it may even lead to a loss in motivation. Sure, not everyone who wants to become the president achieves their dream. But the idea that they can achieve anything is a placebo to keep them motivated. Take away the placebo and u have a loss of motivation.
Preventing naturalized citizens from becoming the president is against democracy. In a democracy, all citizenz are equal. denying a large percentage of “citizens” the right to run for president fosters the image of second-class citizens, and is a double standard. There shouldn’t be any stratification in citizenship – if anyone deserves the right to gain citizenship, they should have the same rights as other citizens, including the right to become the president.
Some opponents of this amendment claim that certain foreign people could buy their way to the presidency and then be a puppet to another nation. People who make such claims obviously lack knowledge about the political institutions of America. They lack basic knowledge about the core ideals of the consititution – about the numerous checks and balances devised by the founding fathers to preven just that. And most importantly, they ignore the American public – any candidate would have to win the heart of the American public; and to do so, they would have to understand how the American public thinks; what the American public cherishes; to be PART of the American public.
Other opponents of the amendment argue that naturalized citizens are not loyal citizens. Once again, there claim is not based on any facts. Naturalised citizens are one of the most loyal groups in America. They have a much higher perception of how great America is. Many of them had to work hard to become naturalized citizens of the US and appreciate the US even more so for that. Natural born citizens may sometimes take the US and the perks of living in the US for granted; however a naturalized citizen would never do so and cherish the opportunity to nbe in the US.
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president. However, in reality, not allUS citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution prevents anyone born outside the US from running for the presidency, even if they are legal citizens of the US. This is a double-standard and against the spirit of democracy and equality. How can someone be told that they can achieve anything they want, only to be told later that they are ineligible to become the president of their own country? The concept of “citizens” with limited rights (essentially second-class citizens) promotes the idea that “all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Therefore it is a necessity to remove the native-born clause from the constitution in order to preserve and promote the ideal of democracy. Opponents of removing the native-born clause claim that naturalized citizens are a disloyal group; but they are simply being xenophobic, since naturalized citizens have more reasons to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of the US. Also, they fail to consider the fact that native-born citizens are equally susceptible of putting their personal interests above the interests of their country.
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president despite their race. However in reality not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution bars any one not born in the US from a chance at becoming the president, even if they are legal citizens of the US. Does this seem unjust and shortsighted? At this point in history it most certainly does. As the world is becoming smaller due to technology and as we become increasingly multicultural, it becomes more and more difficult to define what an American is. In fact many famous Americans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pamela Anderson, who are instantly recognized as “American” throughout the world are in fact not born here. So should the constitution be amended to allow any US citizen regardless of where they are born to run for the presidency? Definitely. I’ll go one step further and predict that it is inevitable.
With the internet becoming a commonplace and inextricable part of life, especially for the “new generation”, we have to redefine what reading means in the digital age. Is it better to read books in the traditional style or read on the internet? Motoko Rich explores this question in the article Literacy Debate: Online, R U really reading? He argues that although the two styles are different, both are essential.The internet is the future; anyone seeking a good job should have above-average digital skills. At the same time, they should be a proficient reader, with the ability to focus on linear narratives for an extended period.
The first half of the article looks at the question from a pro-book perspective. Proponents of traditional reading methods argue that books help readers develop intellectual and emotional growth whereas online reading only provides disjunct information with numerous distractions. They believe that learning can only be acquired through prolonged exposure to books. They attribute declining scores on standardized tests to the fact that students spend more time online that reading books. Many articles on the web are poorly written with incorrect grammar, which become part of many peoples’ speech.
The next half of the article presents the pro-web view. According to this view, reading online is better than not reading at all. Most teenagers do not read novels and books for fun; the internet provides a fun way for reading. A study that gave low-income kids internet access found that their reading scores increased. The internet also allows a topic to be more thoroughly examined than a book. It is much easier to view multiple viewpoints on the web since a book usually expresses only the opinions of the author only. Research is also much easier and efficient on the internet.
As our technology continues to improve and evolve, we are introduced to new concepts and new ways of doing things. However, technology also makes some of our traditional ways of doing things obsolete and force change. A good example is the effect of the “New Media”, which refers to digital works, over the “old media”, which includes newspapers and books. In the article New Media and the slow death of the written word, Mark Zeltner, mentions how most of his young students prefer to read online and avoid the printed word altogether. While this is a major cause of concern for him, he concedes that writing for the internet also has many inherent benefits and urges his students to embrace the New Media.
Zeltner introduces ten rules for writers of the New Media to follow. The first of these rules is to “write tight”. It means that writers should be concise and to the point, without beating around the bush. This is a good guideline to follow for many types of articles, especially informational articles. However, not all writers would be able to achieve their goals if they were too brief and only gave facts. For example, in a persuasive article, such as an article promoting a candidate or a political agenda, it is essential to infuse the text with suitable adjectives and include subtle hints to influence and mold peoples’ perceptions.
The second rule, “break the text into appropriate chunks” goes hand-in-hand with the third rule, “think in modules, not chapters”. It is the writer’s job to determine not only what information to include, but how the reader should view it. The computer screen is inconvenient for reading because it can display only a certain amount of information at a time. Longer articles that require constant scrolling or numerous clicking are very annoying and may frustrate readers. Also, there is a risk of losing the train of thought and ultimately missing the point of the article. Using modules and easy- to-view text can help readers overcome the physical limitations of the computer screen.
The next three rules describe how we can embellish our articles by taking full advantage of technology. Pictures, audio and video all enhance the meaning of a work. For instance, an article about a Stradivarius violin (which usually costs more than a million dollars) will be greatly enhanced by a video showing the characteristics and tone of the instrument. However, pictures and videos should not be overused since they can be distracting and sometimes may divert attention from the article.
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of the United States was historic because it showed that any US citizen with the desire, dedication and talent could become the president despite their race. However in reality not all US citizens are eligible for the office of the president. The constitution bars any one not born in the US from a chance at becoming the president, even if they are legal citizens of the US. Does this seem unjust and shortsighted? At this point in history it most certainly does. As the world is becoming smaller due to technology and as we become increasingly multicultural, it becomes more and more difficult to define what an American is. In fact many famous Americans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pamela Anderson, who are instantly recognized as “American” throughout the world are in fact not born here. So should the constitution be amended to allow any US citizen regardless of where they are born to run for the presidency? Definitely. I’ll go one step further and predict that it is inevitable.
Queens College is known as one of the best schools of the CUNY system. According to the Princeton Review it is among one of the best colleges in America. While I find Queens college to be mostly agreeable (so far) there is one thing that I dislike very much – the fact that students have to pay for something as trivial as a game of pool, ping-pong or tennis. These should be freely accessible to anyone with a Queens College ID. It’s a crime to make people pay each time they want to take a break from studies or have something to do during gaps between classes.
Thousands of people use the New York City public transit every day.Most metro cards contain the phrase “The NYC transit has transported more people than the next two biggest systems combined in 2008”. One would expect such a large and widely used system of such a famous and advanced city to be immaculate, easily navigable and perhaps even enjoyable to use. The truth however, as anyone who ever had to travel from Queens to Manhattan via public transit knows, is grim.
Monday, September 28, 2009
In his article What the internet is doing to our brains, Nicholas Carr states that the internet is atrophying our ability to read lengthy articles and staying focused on a particular topic. I couldn’t agree more – ordinarily I would never read an article as long as his. In fact he probably made the article that long intentionally to make his point.
However I do not agree that we are losing our ability to read long articles or books. Its just that we do not read lengthy articles on the internet. The reason for this is that during most of our browsing time we aren’t looking for anything specific. We just look around for anything to catch our interest. But once we do find something interesting, we tend to read through the whole thing.
Mr. Carr claims that people who do online research “skim through articles, hopping from one source to another.” I agree with this point, but this is not evidence that the internet is diminishing our reading abilities. The nature of the internet necessitates skimming – to find relevant information from the enormous amounts of ambient crap. When I do research online, I first skim through articles to find if contains information that I’m looking for. And when I do find relevant information, I prefer the articles to be long and informative.
In the article The internet is no substitute for the dying newspaper, Chris Hedges claims that the declining newspaper industry is a blow to democracy. He depicts the newspaper as an angel, complete with a halo. According to him, newspapers provide “the means for citizens to examine themselves, to ferret out lies and the abuse of power by elected officials and corrupt businesses, to give a voice to those who would, without the press, have no voice, and to follow, in ways a private citizen cannot, the daily workings of local, state and federal government.” And he dismisses the internet as full of bias and opinions.
Although newspapers generally have more resources than individual bloggers, they are equally prone to bias. Whereas bloggers display bias on an individual level, newspapers are subject to bias on a much larger scale. Newspapers are often controlled by an organization or political party, who alter information to influence people to promote their goals. So newspapers can actually be more sinister and harmful to democracy than the internet.
What the Internet is doing to our brains
By Nicholas Carr
Main Points:
-The internet makes research very quick and efficient these days, saving us the tedium and the time-consuming process of reading through long articles and books
-However it is also diminishing and atrophying our ability to stay focused on a particular task
-The technologies that we use influence the way we think
-The author suggests that Google is trying to create artificial intelligence to replace the human mind
-He foresees a future where humans will simply become like machines and he is strongly opposed to such an idea
The Internet is No Substitute for the dying Newspaper Industry
By Chris Hedges
Main Points:
-The decline of the newspaper industry is about the rise of the “corporate state”
-Newspapers spend a lot of money to provide honest and objective news, whereas the internet provides biased news at little or no expense
-Newspapers have liability for the truthfulness of their facts whereas bloggers do not
-The demise of traditional media will be a demise to democracy, because the internet is browsed through an “ideological lense”
-Today’s media is all about making a profit and not about informing people what they need to know
-The author claims that our society is in a decline
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Satirical News
While doing some research for a class, I came across a video captioned “White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase”. Intrigued, I clicked on it, and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. What appeared in the video certainly did not seem plausible, yet I didn’t catch on that it was a satire until I read the rolling headlines at the bottom of the screen that said “Yankees hire Pakistani cricketer just to be assholes.” This is how I came to know The Onion.
The Onion makes extremely exaggerated and humorous articles appear plausible – by giving it the rhetoric and feel of the “professional media.” In the Obama video for instance, they started off with the serious-sounding music, showed comments from a “White House representative”, called upon “expert witnesses”, had a live teleconference and during the entire time they maintained a serious demeanor that we associate with “the News”.
The Onion also satirizes current events and turns serious stories into funny ones. The Obama story is clearly based on some truth – the declining public euphoria over Obama’s election and the fact that Obama is not succeeding in alleviating the problems of reality. It achieves this by over-exaggerating. The tone of the stories are lightened and turned humorous by intentionally losing credibility with the viewer.
After Christianity, it’s on to Masonry
September 22, 2009
New York - Dan Brown, the author of controversial books Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, has released his newest work, The Lost Symbol, yesterday, at the local bookstore.
The story of Mr. Brown’s protagonist, Robert Langdon, is resumed after he found and procreated with the last remaining descendant of Jesus Christ and killed a few cardinals in the Vatican to strengthen the Catholic Church.
Of his new book, Mr. Brown said “There’s never enough controversy you know,,, There wouldn’t be any problems in the world today if only everyone wasn’t filled with so much love and compassion. The world needs more hate and misunderstandings of other cultures.”
The Pope and his chicks will have orgies of relief in the traditional Catholic style, since Christianity is not the target of Brown’s book this time around. Instead, it will be the Masons, who will be glad that their “secret society” will receive a few google hits. Basically this is an ordinary and clichéd case of where everyone is happy.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
In the article, “Blogs: All the noise that fits”, Michael Skube makes the point that blogging is not a legitimate form of journalism. It is based primarily on biased opinions and can never substitute the traditional “fact-finding” of reporters.
Skube mentions the quote “No man but a blockhead ever wrote but for money.” He implies that bloggers seemingly write for free, but more often than not, bloggers are political partisans, trying to advance their agenda, or promote their candidates.They express their opinions with a blatant disregard for facts or truth in the hope of fulfilling their political goals.
Bloggers do not want to be labeled as "journalists", or even be associated with the "mainstream media", yet, ironically, they are BECOMING the mainstream media as time passes by and more and more people follow and post blogs.
Bloggers simply dispense their opinions, from the comfort of their homes, and the safety of hiding behind their computers, whereas a true journalist painstakingly finds and verifies facts, occasionally putting himself or herself in danger. As an example, he mentions Claude Sitton, a reporter from the NewYork Times, who was threatend with death by a group of rednecks while he and another reporter were investigating segregation in the south.
The articles by Sullivan and Skube are in stark contrast to each other. While Sullivan claims that blogging will make the established press obsolete and advocates the embracing of blogging as a primary source of news, Skube argues that blogging will never become a legitimate form of journalism. Sullivan shows how blogs can eventually lead to profitability whereas Skube believes blogs are written to advance personal or political agendas.
The tone of the two articles are also very different. While Sullivan clearly approves of the blogging revolution, Skube dismisses it at as a bunch of biased opinions and nothing more.
I agree with Skube and believe that blogging cannot make the established press obsolete. I view blogging as a means to express opinions on articles based on unbiased facts, written by journalists who were paid to do so. No one does anything for free, and does a good job for it. Therefore I believe that blogging is good for commentary and opinions only, and that the established press is here to stay.
When I think of Jamaica, the first image that comes to my mind is that of an overflowing garbage can. Then, the image expands to include a shabby street with a broken pavement, and unkempt houses with unkempt lawns. Occasionally, a few rats scurry around in the garbage can. Suddenly a flock of pigeons come flying out of nowhere. And the squirrels look really scary and don’t budge. That, is my charming little mental image of my favorite place-where-I-live, called Jamaica.
Many people have a similar stereotypical view of Jamaica, although perhaps not as vivid as mine. I came to Jamaica about three years ago, and I moved from a more … affluent place than Jamaica. Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a horrible mental image of Jamaica – a bad first impression due to a sudden change in surroundings. I have since grown accustomed to Jamaica, and can earnestly say that it’s not a bad place at all. In fact, if I was given the option of living anywhere in New York, I would choose to live in Jamaica.
Jamaica is one of the most ethnically diverse places in Queens. It is possible to verify this fact simply by walking around for a few minutes. There are people of various colours and ethnicities; people that speak different languages; people that wear different clothes; people that smell different. People play all types of music (except for classical of course), loudly and especially during the night. The upside to this diversity is that there is a lot of food - there are restaurants literally everywhere and cuisines from all over the world to sample.
Jamaica is not only diverse in terms of people; it is also diverse in terms of where people live. The same street can have a house with a beautiful lawn and garden next to a smelly and crappy apartment. Although most people are middle-class-ish, many rich people live here also.
The diversity, and essence of Jamaica is best captured by the image at the bottom. It shows a basketball court next to a tennis court. Since basketball is generally considered to be the sport of the “poor” and tennis is generally considered to be the sport of the “rich”, it is only fitting that in a place as diverse as Jamaica, such stereotypes are melted away.
