Today race is thought of differently than it ever was before. With so many mixes out there it is almost impossible to guess a person’s race based solely on appearance. Race is not something we can see or even prove scientifically. In modern terms, “race is a socially constructed category composed of people who share biologically transmitted traits that members of society consider important. ” (Farrell 2012). Which means race is something made up by humans to categorize people who share biological traits.
In a scientific sense race cannot be proven or even real, however race is still very important. The idea of race is modern; people have not always been categorized in this way. “Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, even language. ” (web sight activity) Not until people started exploring and moving across seas did they distinguish differences among others and have a need for classification.
Over time and as immigration became popular there was more intermarriage, new races and ethnic groups. Today sociologist understand race as a social concept and not a biological fact. For example White Americans are able to choose and pass for what race and ethnic backgrounds they want to claim. The decision to claim Irish American, rather than Irish and French American depends on the situation. During St. Patrick’s Day one might claim to be Irish and not French because the French is irreverent to the situation.
This person would be called an optional ethnic because their social situation makes it most convenient to be just Irish. Another example is when parents fill out their children’s census ancestry reports. “Only about 60 percent of the children of English-German marriages are labeled as English-German or German-English. About 15 percent of the children of these parents are simplified to just English, and another 15 percent are reported as just German. The remainder of the children are either not given an ancestry or are described as American. (pg 98 Optional Ethnicites Mary Waters 2004) This shows how easy it is for whites to pass for which ever race is more convenient and it has nothing to do with biology. On the other hand, a black person does not have this luxury. “In the United States, individuals who are actually “black” by the logic of hypo-descent have attempted to skirt the discriminatory barriers imposed by law and custom by attempting to “pass” for white. Ironically, these same individuals would not be able to pass for “black” in many Latin American societies. (pg 23 racial formations 2007 michael omi and Howard winant)
Since there are so many ideas of black, someone who has even the slightest bit of black in them generally is seen as black and cannot pass for anything else. expand Countries and places all over the world view race differently, this is why race is socially constructed and cannot be proven scientifically. For example “in many Latin American countries, race is not a meta-concept based on biological categories but rather a classification dependent on time and context. “the determination and relative salience of race categories depend not on their “inherent” nature as physical characteristics but on the historical development of the context in which these categories are valued. Within this framework, the points of social reference in which a given individual operates are important determinants of racial identity. ” (pg 59 rethinking the color line 2007 Charles gallagher) This Latin American idea of race coming from language, family history and upbringing proves race is socially constructed.
Write about Plato’s Symposium
Write about Plato’s Symposium.
For the two readings, separately, present a 250 word summary of the reading and an analysis devoted to a close reading of a passage from the reading of no less than 250 words and no more than 500. Pithiness and economy of phrase are of great importance in this assignment. The summaries should be thought of as a preliminary for the analyses to follow—summarize those aspects of the assigned reading that you will analyze. Provide separate headers for Plato’s Symposium (Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/251747515/Plato-Symposium-Literal-Translation-by-Seth-Benardete) and Plutarch’s Alcibiades (Source: Plutarch. Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Volume I. Arthur Hugh Clough, trans. New York: Modern Library, 2001. Pages 258-290.) as well as headers for the summary and analysis sections. Include word counts at the end of each section. Again, the word counts should be as follows: Plato’s Symposium Summary 250 words, Analysis minimum 250 words/maximum 500 words; Total: minimum 500 words, maximum 750 words. Plutarch’s Alcibiades Summary 250 words, Analysis minimum 250 words/maximum 500 words; Total: minimum 500 words, maximum 750 words. HELPFUL FEEDBACK: Summaries and analyses should be source heavy, meaning it would be alright if every sentence had a citation. You don’t have to include that many citations, but that standard should give you an idea of how much to justify the claims you make with references to support them. Plato citations should look like Plato, 297a, line 2. Basically, cite whenever possible in the summaries. Each analysis should pick a single, meaningful passage to analyze, whether a sentence or a small section, and block quote it in the beginning, so that the word count starts afterward. Cite whenever there is information in the text to justify your analysis claims and if applicable, you can tie back the passage to how it relates to each reading, respectively in the separate sections. This paper should be overwhelmed with particulars from the text. // There are two parts to these weekly papers—summary and analysis. The two sections should be distinct. Good exegesis requires strong organization, and parsing your thoughts between the ‘objective’ summary, and the ‘subjective’ analysis. The summary points me to “facts” from the text. The analysis interprets those facts. Opinions and feelings have no place here. Delineating summary from analysis is an essential first step in bringing order to your thinking. So the two parts of the paper should be distinct, but related. The summary should include only those aspects of the text that pertain to the material examined in the analysis. And you should use each section to ‘sharpen’ the other, removing anything repetitive or non-essential and developing anything that remains unclear. This will require some revision—there’s a process of discovery and craftsmanship, fitting together the two pieces once you’ve completed the rough outline. // Remove all but the most essential language from the page. Meaning, strip each sentence down to its essentials. Begin with the summary. If it’s not telling me something important about the text, take it out. Keep an eye on diction. This will mean breaking a longer sentence up into two or more smaller sentences, removing most adjectives and adverbs, subordinate and prepositional phrases, and anything that repeats information already laid out in the paper. // The exegete will “use the text to explain the text.” The inference from this is that, when you find yourself discussing material or ideas or terms not found in the text, what you’re writing is no longer exegesis. It may be tempting to rely on more familiar, modern terms and concepts—fascism, rights, values, ideology, etc. But none of these have a place in exegesis of the material. Greeks didn’t use those words, didn’t think in those terms. Thank you
Essay Help “>Essay Help
https://onlinecustomessaywriting.com/