Do you know anyone who has made fun of someone because they are different? Have you done it yourself? Acceptance is an important skill to use and understand. Everyday, people from different backgrounds, heritage, or people different than ourselves are encountered. For example, if acceptance isn’t understood then people may feel hurt or discriminated against. In the writings, “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?,” “Without Title,” and “American Flag Stands for Tolerance,” all demonstrate people discriminating others because they are different than themselves. Beginning with the newspaper editorial, “American Flag Stands for Tolerance,” Ronald J. Allen explains the issue of burning the American flag as a form of expression. In a 5-to-4 vote, …show more content…
the Supreme Court decided that a person has the right to burn the American flag as an expression of protest. Allen explains that the Supreme Court was not wrong: “The Supreme Court was not wrong. Indeed, a decision contrary to the one reached would have been a definitive step away from our national aspirations.” (Allen 22-4). Here Allen notes that if the Supreme Court had made the wrong decision, there would be outrage, granted that if a huge mistake would have been made. Our national aspirations are both ideas of conscience and expression, nevertheless making the wrong decision would intertwine those beliefs. On the other hand, with the Supreme Court's decision, Allen knew that the dissenters or the people who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision: “The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument.” (Allen 39-40). In other words, Allen knows that people will disagree with his opinion, hence why Allen explains that the act of burning the flag isn't against the law, but whereas it is a fundamental value such as freedom of conscience. Thus, the court case is a display of different people having varying opinions. Similarly, “Without Title,” by Diane Glancy explains how the city life and the modern way of life is different from the Native American beliefs and values. When the dad goes to work, he brings home the remains of the buffalo: “and went to work in the packing house. When he brought home his horns and hides, my mother said get rid of them.” (Glancy 10-14). Furthermore, Glancy describes that the wife has either moved on from the Native American beliefs or that she isn’t from Native American descent. Alternatively, the wife does not agree with her husband on the remains of the buffalo, in which she is not respecting her husband's beliefs. On the other hand, while the father is sleeping, the child hears his snores as a buffalo snort: “Oh, I couldn't see it but it was there, and in the night I heard his buffalo grunts like a snore.” (Glancy 20-23). For this reason, The daughter heard the snort because she misses the beliefs that she left when moving to the city. While the daughter wants to believe in her past beliefs, the mother refuses to accept her past, wanting to forget, or maybe not remember what she left when moving to the city. Equally, the short story, “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?” Etgar Keret demonstrates the difference between an ambitious boy named Yoni and a lonely, antisocial man named Sergei.
Yoni is aspiring to become a filmmaker, so he decides to film a documentary of the different people in the Middle East: “Yonatan had a brilliant idea for a documentary. He'd knock on doors. Just him. No camera crew, no nonsense. Just Yonatan, on his own, a small camera in hand, asking, If you found a talking goldfish that granted you three wishes, what would you wish for?” (Keret 1-4). As Yoni is asking, he received varying answers from a lot of different people, some being more poignant than others. Next, he goes to Sergei’s house, and he has a different experience than any other person he asked. With this in mind, Sergei does not like when people knock on his door due to his past with the KGB knocking on his door due to his father’s Zionism. Surprisingly, when Sergei opens the door, Yoni sees the goldfish and runs into Sergei’s house: “Sergei doesn't like this, doesn't like that the boy is almost at it, already reaching for the jar. In this instant Sergei understands the boy didn't come for television, what he came for, specifically, is to snatch Sergei's fish, to steal it away.” (Keret 95-98). As Yoni enters Sergei’s house, Sergei does not know what to do because, initially, he has not ever had this happen in a long time. In the events that happen, Sergei rushes to conclusions about Yoni and instantly believes Yoni will steal his
fish. The writings in the “Ourselves and Others,” unit, talk about acceptance of other people. Whether it be accepting or discriminating people based on their wants, needs, or beliefs. Furthermore, in today's society, we discriminate all of the time. Discrimination has become almost blind to us. In fact, some people cannot see when they are truly not accepting people for who they are. Discrimination can come in many different ways, but so does acceptance.
At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even threatened with physical injury, but many were offended by the jesture made by Johnson. The Texas penal code forbids the desecration of a venerated object.
After ruling the case in Johnson’s favor, it made it difficult to make a law banning the act of flag burning. Laws would be suggested and one would make it to the supreme court. The law would make flag burning a national offense punishable by law. Unfortunately the same majority decision as in the Texas v. Johnson case would arise as a five-to-four majority agreed once again that the law would abridge the right to freedom of speech. Seeing as the same judges presided over the case, the same defense was used to justify their ruling on the law. It was unconstitutional to abridge speech and by their ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the majority still viewed flag burning as a form of symbolic speech. Not only did the ruling in Texas v. Johnson hinder immediate lawmaking against flag burning, but it also divided a nation for a time. Johnson burned the flag, so he says, as an act against the Reagan administration. If this was so as he claimed that divided the nation, not only against him but against the supreme court. You have the protestors during the time who agreed with Johnson, the patriots against Johnson, and those left confused about what was right and wrong. No one side was right, yet no one side was wrong in their eyes. Johnson’s act was crude and even to those who agreed with his right to freedom of speech, they didn’t view his act as unpunishable. The case made the nation doubt itself and its
Stripes and stars forever, right? Well, what exactly does that mean? The American Flag can be seen almost anywhere. From the high-school, to the ball park, and even in our homes, the American flag stands as a symbol of all that is good and true in America. When one thinks of the flag, they usually think of the blood that was shed for this country. It was shed so that we could have liberties, such as, freedom of speech and expression, which fall under the first amendment rights of the Constitution. However, when you think of a burning flag, what comes to mind? One might say it shows disrespect and hatred to a country that has given so much. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Lee Johnson was accused of desecrating a sacred object, but, his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Although his actions may have been offensive, he did not utter fighting words. By burning the flag, Johnson did not infringe upon another's natural human rights. He was simply expressing his outrage towards the government, which is within the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.
To the Majority Opinion it’s a flag of our nation but to the Dissenting opinion its means more than just a flag. It means “White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & velour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice." In this case the Dissenting opinion gave reasons why flag burning should be banned. Eventually Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act banned flag burning regardless of whether the person burning the flag intended to cause offense to
“this is going to be a treasure” Kristina stated from the other side of the room
That flag represented your mother and father, your sister and brother, your friends, neighbors, and everyone at home. I wonder what they would say if someone asked them permission to burn the American flag?
Criss Jami, a modern American poet, essayist, and philosopher, best known for his book, Killosophy, wrote, “It’s not at all hard to understand a person; it’s only hard to listen without bias.” In today’s world, differences form an obstinate barrier in relationships with others. To overcome this tremendous obstacle, one must resolve to communicate, look past stereotypes, and extend friendship to those who are different.
The Confederate flag was used symbolically during the Civil War. To southerner’s, the flag represented a source of southern pride as well as a way of remembering the fallen Confederates. As the Civil War proceeded, the meaning of the flag began to change. Currently, the flag is being used as a symbol for racism. Due to this change in meaning, controversy over the flag has been exponentially growing. Although many would argue the original meaning behind the flag and that it is a symbol of historical culture that should not be forgotten, the flag should be banned due to its representation of racism and the seceding of the states.
Still people in this day a century later struggle with this problem. While some are blissfully ignorant of their actions and consequences, some lay awake in torment every night as their Bigot’s actions follow them around like a cloud. An effort will be made, now and again, to control their Bigot; to let it out only when it is needed in the presence of unpleasant personas. But human nature, by nature, is difficult and stubborn, and shall not be easily tamed. Bigots may take many forms, with many unpleasant problems tied to them, and one shall encounter them in oneself and in others one is attached to in
The dissenting opinion to the previous idea is that the government's legitimate interest in preserving the symbolic value of the flag is, however, essentially the same that may have motivated a particular act of flag burning. The flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality, and tolerance -- ideas that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout our history. The flag embodies the spirit of our national commitment to those ideals. To the world, the flag is our promise that we will continue to strive for these ideals. To us, the flag is a reminder both that the struggle for li...
There is much controversy surrounding the idea of patriotism and the iconography of the American flag in today’s society. Some believe patriotism is simply the act of supporting the decisions of the leaders of the country. Others say, to be patriotic, people should be outspoken and voice their oppositions to what is going on in the government. Opinions also differ on the idea of what the American flag represents. One opinion of the flags representation is that the flag represents our history, and the formerly mentioned idea of patriotism. Others believe the flag also represents our history as a nation, but these beliefs focus much more heavily on the negative aspects of our history; such as slavery and other injustices carried out by our nation. These people often believe we should find a new iconography for our country’s ideas of patriotism. As Barbara Kingsolver states in “And Our Flag Was Still There,” “Patriotism seems to be falling to whoever claims it loudest, and we’re left struggling to find a definition in a clamor of reaction” (Pg. 1). Therefore, every American’s duty is to define patriotism amongst the clamor of reaction, recapture the American flag’s representation, and create a new icon for the flag.
The First Amendment should not protect burning a respected object such as the American flag. By burning the flag, you are basically contradicting your expression. Why would you be burning a symbol of freedom and then insist that it is your right to burn your freedom. It does not make any sense to burn a well know symbol of freedom and then say that it is your right to burn it. Also, it is extremely disrespectful to burn an American flag unless it is ripped or damaged, not as a result of some ridiculous symbolism act. The bottom line about respecting the American flag is to remember what it stands for and to be mindful of what it took to receive the high honor it holds today.
The Confederate flag is a controversial symbol with a long and complicated history. And after hundreds of years of fierce opposition and ardent support, one thing is clear: nothing is clear. Many consider the flag a symbol of heritage and history, but many others see it as a symbol of racism and supremacist values. While we believe that the Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression and racial superiority, the ambiguity surrounding the flag’s meaning is enough to necessitate a ban. No matter its original intention, there is no doubt that the flag has been used to symbolize some of the darkest ideologies in the history (and present) of the United States. The flag is widely regarded as a symbol of hatred by black students and, at the end of the
A man named William James, an American philosopher, once said, “Acceptance of what has happened is the first step to overcoming the consequences of any misfortune.”
Apel as a way to express her stances. As pointed out by Apel, “The word ‘desecration’ implies that the flag is sacred, and the government (separation of church and state) can't say that something is sacred.” According to Marsh, another issue arises. The government and state governments would have legal room to define “flag” how they choose. She uses the District of Columbia as an example: they describe the US flag in 4 USC Section 3, "... [to] publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt, either by word or act, upon any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" (qtd. in Marsh). As Marsh stated, it could be considered “casting contempt” by simply expressing dislike for the colors red, white, and blue. Marsh ends with stating that burning the American flag would not cause concern over national