Essay --

With a topic as frequently discussed as racial discrimination within our criminal justice system, there are many opinions and theories as to why our correctional facilities are populated with the type of inmates that are housed within. Fortunately, it has not been proven true that our criminal justice system is run in a racially discriminating manner, rather debated and analyzed in many lights. Discrimination is prohibited, as a matter of constitutional and statutory law, in a wide range of settings (Banks, Eberhardt & Ross, 2006). Who is it that teaches us who to be afraid of within society? Who are the â€Å"bad guys† that we should avoid? How many times do our parents tell us during our childhood to avoid certain people and places? Examples being a stranger with a van, neighborhoods to avoid late at night and other precautions that shape the way we think and believe as we grow of the dangers within our society. These same precautions that we are accustomed to during our ch ildhood become embedded into our minds throughout adolescence and leading into adulthood. How do our parents determine who the â€Å"bad guys† are that we ought to avoid? If our own parents are raising us to distinguish between individuals, are they possibly raising us in a racially discriminating way? If that were the case, then who are we to criticize our criminal justice system for possibly doing the same? Criminologists generally agree that young people are more likely to commit crime than old people, men more than women, city dwellers more than country folk, the poor more than the rich, and the minorities more than whites (Cole, 1999). Logically, there is no one criteria of who can be immediately classified as the â€Å"type† of person that would commit crimes and the... ...e to look for and apprehend individuals. As Cole (1999) explained, police departments must be willing to disclose to the public the demographics of their enforcement tactics. If society is not aware of why the police is going after the individuals they are, society is left to assume their own reasons which more often than not leads to the thought of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is not a just way to run a criminal justice system nor any other aspect of our free communities. As a country, the United States has come a long way and as a nation has given us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Until there is concrete proof that the criminal justice system is being run on a racial basis, it would behoove us to trust those in charge and continue following the laws in place to make the best possible example for others within our society.

Daughter from DaNang Essay

Micro Assessment The majority of developmental theories say that children must develop a secure primary attachment in order to develop in a healthy manner. A secure and strong attachment is clearly essential for healthy future relationships. John Bowlby’s studies in childhood development led him to the conclusion that a strong attachment to a caregiver provides a necessary sense of security and foundation. Without such a relationship in place, Bowlby found that a great deal of developmental energy is expended in the search for stability and security. In general, those without such attachments are fearful and are less willing to seek out and learn from new experiences (Hutchison, 2013). The video did portray a close relationship between Heidi’s siblings and their mother. Heidi says she has happy memories from her child hood growing up in Vietnam (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). This leads me to believe she had formed an attachment with her mother. Bowlby says if the attachment figure is broken o r disrupted during a child’s critical developmental stage the child will suffer irreversible long- term damage. Heidi was completely uprooted toward the end of this critical period (Hutchison, 2013). She was 6 years old when her mother dropped her off at the orphanage operated by the Holt Adoption Agency. This is traumatic, and she says how she used to cry for her mother. She said she believed there was something wrong with her and that is why she was sent away (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Once in America Heidi was adopted by a single woman named Ann Neville. Heidi describes Ann as a cold, non – loving person. She provided material things but never any affection. One summer evening while Heidi was home from college, she came home one night to find herself locked out. When she returned the next day her mother had Heidi’s bags packed and said she was no longer welcome in her house. As far as Ann was concerned, she no longer had a daughter. Heidi has not spoken to her adopted mother since (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). This was the second time Heidi had been abandoned  by her mother figure. According to Erik Erikson’s stages of Psychosocial Development she would not make it past the 1st stage (Hutchison, 2013). Although Heidi is well over the age the trust vs. mistrust stage occurs, she still is unable to believe that either one of her mothers’ love her. After visiting Vietnam, she is quite sure it was not love driving her mother to show such affection, but rather financial reasons (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Her family is poor and they see Heidi as an escape from poverty. Heidi’s adaption to her American life is an example of a component in Jean Piaget’s Cognitive Theory called accommodation. Children are motivated to maintain a balance. Any experience that we cannot assimilate creates anxiety, but if our schemata are adjusted to accommodate the new experience, the desired state of equilibrium will be restored (Hutchison, 2013). In order for Heidi to adapt to her environment, she had to change the way she viewed everything. She was unable to change the environment so she had to change herself. Heidi became 101% Americanized (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Mezzo Assessment This documentary reveals the many confrontations of two cultures. It begins when an American soldier and a Vietnamese woman, Mai Thi Kim, who was abandoned by her husband, ensue a sexual relationship that results in a daughter, Mai Thi Heip also known as Heidi Bub. When the war ends and the American troops leave, Mai Thi Kim and her children are left to face the ridicule and scorn for Kim’s indiscretion of sleeping with an American soldier (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). This child was born half American and half Vietnamese. At the time there were rumors the Communist government was going to search for these children and kill them. They were a part of the enemy. In order to escape this persecution, the American government, along with several others governments, created Operation Baby Lift. They would put these children on planes and fly them to the United State where they would be given the opportunity for a better life. This is extremely telling of North American’s ethnocentr ism, assuming Americans could provide a better life to these children than their own parents (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). In America Heidi lived with her adopted mom in Pulaski, Tennessee. Ann was a dean at Pulaski’s Martin Methodist College. Heidi was baptized into the United Methodist Church, where she attended services, and Sunday school. Ann provided many material things for Heidi, taking her on great trips to various places and yet Heidi’s heart still longs for more. Heidi said she had everything growing up, but that she didn’t have a very loving mother. Ann sought hard to Americanize Heidi and often warned her to keep her Vietnamese heritage a secret. Ann is extremely adamant that if anyone asks where Heidi was born, she is to tell them Columbia, South Carolina (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). As Heidi enters her teenage years her relationship with her mother is strained. Anne cannot tolerate Heidi’s growing independence. The relationship comes to an abrupt end when Ann kick Heidi out of the house and denies she ever had a daughter (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Heidi’s biological mother does not have the money to provide material things like her adopted mother. She does have the capacity to love Heidi and expresses it openly, unlike her adopted mother (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). When Heidi returned to Vietnam to reunite with her family she experienced a dramatic culture shock. She was not properly prepared for the reunion. As a child she was forbidden to inquire about her heritage, so it was never discussed and she was never encouraged to learn about the Vietnam culture (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Heidi has a naà ¯ve idea that it is going to be a fairy tale ending. Heidi places huge expectations upon this visit to emotionally fill a void in her life from an unloving and damaged childhood. One of the major challenges Heidi faces was the dreadful clash between the two cultures. Heidi is overwhelmed by the open and often displays of affection. She says she was not raised in such a touchy, feely society so all of this affection was extremely uncomfortable. Heidi was raised as a single child by a single parent. She is not used to large families and having so many people around all the time. Heidi complains that she has only had 2 hours to herself the entire time sh e has been in Vietnam. She begins to feel the roles have been reversed because her mother is so clingy. It is as if she is the mother and her mother is the child (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). In Vietnamese culture family is very important. Extended family often live close or in the same home. In American this is not a common tradition. Generally when the children grow up they move out of their parents’ house to live independently and eventually begin a family of their own. Often families live hundreds of miles apart and may only see each other on holidays or special occasions. Vietnamese live in a collective society where the prosperity of the group is  the goal. They are community oriented, they take care of each other. So when Heidi’s sister, who is extremely poor, asks Heidi for more money that is entirely acceptable in their culture. It is normal and even expected for the wealthier family members to take care of the poorer ones. Those who make it to the States or another prosperous nation, are expected to send money back to their family. The children are expected to take care of their parents because the parents took care of the children when they were young (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). The video displays another example of how Vietnamese have a collective culture when Heidi returns, not only is her entire family excited to reunite, but the entire community is waiting to see her, they never forgot Heidi (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Heidi thought her sister was rude and she was insulted by her bold request. When Heidi’s brother mentions it is her turn to take care of their mother, Heidi explodes in anger (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). The United States is stigmatized an individualistic society, people tend to look out for themselves. What is theirs is theirs and no obligation to provide for others. This is most often true in urban areas, but in more rural parts, families do take care of their own. People in smaller communities tend to take care of each other, maybe not to the extent they do in Vietnam, but they do look out for one another. Language is a barrier for Heidi. Although her mother and some of her family members are able to speak English, Heidi does not speak Vietnamese and does not understand the language. It is difficult to communicate and makes interactions challenging (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Macro Assessment Daughter from Danang originates with American’s ethnocentrism and the declaration of â€Å"Operation Babylift.† by President Ford. Many American soldiers had left behind what was referred to as national embarrassment, American soldiers had slept with the enemy and fathered children with the women of Vietnam, these children came to be known as Amerasians. It was feared that the Communists threatened to kill both mother and child of this mixed race. President Ford made available over two million dollars for the needs of thousands of children that would be airlifted out of Vietnam to in efforts to avoid mass slaughter of the innocent, and provide a better living for the children (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). The ethnocentrism is clear when  the video shows a clip of an American social worker attempting to convince Vietnamese women to send their children to the United States. The Vietnamese feared the Communists could kill their children and the United States, along with other countries, were taking them away. What an awful experience for the mothers and children.  Heidi’s new life in the United States did provide her with opportunities she would have never received otherwise. The United States is a wealthier country than Vietnam. Most Vietnamese live in poverty and have little opportunity to improve financially. Vietnamese do not have the access to education that Westerners have. Heidi is a college graduate and her sister only made it through the 6th grade (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Vietnam lack many of the modern conveniences Heidi has grown accustomed to. Vietnam is a poor country, the people cannot afford the common luxuries American’s use in their daily life. When she is walking through the town she is stunned to see people cooking food on the side walk. At the market Heidi cannot get her mother out of there fast enough. The hot temperature, raw fish, and the smells are all too much for her to handle (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). You can see the surprise on her face when she first arrives to her family’s home. The family does not have indoor plumbing, the family must go to the bathroom outside and shower by pouring a bucket of water over themselves. Heidi also observes her mother washing laundry outside in a basin with a bar of soap, the dishes were also washed outside in basin as well (Dolgin & Franco, 2002). Summary The video portrays though Vietnamese have less materials belongings than Westerners does not mean they are less happy. Vietnamese place much more importance on the family relationships and love for each other. I think if Heidi had prepared herself for her visit by educating herself on the Vietnamese culture, thing would have turned out differently. At least she would not have been taken off guard with so much touching, constant family around, and their forwardness about money. The movie ends with Heidi consciously alienating herself from her cultural roots. She goes back to the familiar world of her adopted grandma’s home, where the most profound conversation is whether the corn is rotten in the refrigerator. She goes  back to a dopey husband who has not a clue. â€Å"We stopped talking about your (Heidi’s) trip because we were not getting anywhere.† Unfortunately it has been 2 years and Heidi has not responded to any of her families letters. It seems unlikely she ever will. My hope is that she can overcome her scars and teach her children about their heritage. Provide them with the opportunity to learn who they are. References Dolgin, G.(Producer), & Dolgin, G., Franco,V. (Directors). (2002). Daughter from Danang [Video].Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AU VUe2HX0 Hutchison, E. D. (2013). Essentials Of Human Behavior: Integrating Person, Environment, and the Life Cycle. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

How to Use Direct Object Pronouns in the Past Tense

In almost any language, pronouns play an important part in enabling fluid conversation, keeping us from repeating the same word over and over and sounding like this: Did you find the glasses? Where are the glasses? Oh, I saw the glasses earlier. Oh, I found the glasses. Let’s put the glasses on the table. Here we are discussing direct object pronouns: those that substitute nouns that answer to the questions who or what without the use of any preposition (not to whom, or for which, or to that). Hence, they are called direct; they substitute the object and link it directly to the verb. For example, I eat the sandwich: I eat it; I see the boys: I see them; I buy the glasses: I buy them; I read the book: I read it; I love Giulio: I love him. In English, when pronouns substitute nouns they do not alter or color the verb or other parts of speech; not even the word order changes. In Italian, however, they do. Here, we are going to look at direct object pronouns and how they interact with compound verb tenses such as the passato prossimo. Pronomi Diretti: Direct Object Pronouns To quickly refresh your memory, in Italian the direct object pronouns are: mi me ti you lo him or it (masculine singular) la her or it (feminine singular) ci us vi you (plural) li them (masculine plural) le them (feminine plural) As you see, the mi, ti, ci and vi stay the same regardless of gender (I see you; you see me; we see you; you see us), but the third person singular and plural—he, she, it, and them—have two genders: lo, la, li, le. For example, il libro (which is singular masculine) or a male person is substituted by the pronoun lo; la penna (singular feminine) or a female person by la; i libri (plural masculine) or plural male persons by i; le penne (plural feminine) or plural female persons by le. (Do not confuse pronouns with articles!) These pronouns require a bit of mental dexterity, but once your mind has become used to the process of automatically attaching gender and number to everything (because one must), it becomes automatic. Using Direct Object Pronouns in the Present In Italian, with verbs in the present tense the direct object pronoun precedes the verb, which is counterintuitive in English, but the verb itself stays the same. For example: Capisci me? Do you understand me? SÃ ¬, ti capisco. Yes, I understand you (you I understand).Leggi il libro? Do you read the book? SÃ ¬, lo leggo. Yes, I read it (it I read).Compri la casa? Are you buying the house? SÃ ¬, la compro. Yes, I am buying it (it I buy).Ci vedete? Do you see us? SÃ ¬, vi vedo. Yes, I see you (you I see).Leggete i libri? Do you read the books? SÃ ¬, li leggiamo. Yes, I we read them (them we read).Comprate le case? Are you buying the houses? SÃ ¬, le compriamo. Yes, we are buying them (them we buy). In the negative, you place the negation before the pronoun and the verb: No, non lo vedo. Passato Prossimo: Agreement of the Past Participle In a construction with direct object pronouns in a compound tense such as the passato prossimo—any tense with the past participle—the past participle acts like an adjective and must be modified to suit the gender and number of the object. So, you choose your pronoun, going through the same assessment of whether the object is feminine or masculine, singular or plural; then you quickly modify your past participle to agree accordingly as if it were an adjective. Remember that we are talking about direct objects here: objects that are in a direct relation to a transitive verb, which has an object and uses avere as the auxiliary (in the case of reflexive verbs and other intransitive verbs with essere as auxiliary, the past participle modifies but for different reasons and thats a topic for another day). Let’s take a look at what happens with the pronoun and the past participle in an example in the passato prossimo. Lets use a question since questions are natural constructions for pronouns: Avete visto Teresa? Did you see Teresa, or have you seen Teresa? We want to answer that, yes, we saw her yesterday at the market. Immediately you determine the following: The past participle of vedere: vistoThe correct passato prossimo conjugation: abbiamo vistoThe object: Teresa, feminine singularThe corresponding direct object pronoun for Teresa: la Your past participle is quickly made feminine and singular; your direct object pronoun moves to the beginning of the sentence, before the verb, and you get your answer: La abbiamo vista al mercato ieri. If you want to answer in the negative—no, we have not seen her—you put your negation before both the pronoun and the verb, but the same rules follow: No, non la abbiamo vista. When using the third person singular and third person plural direct object pronouns, the past participle must respect gender and number (with ti, for example, it can stay the same—visto/a—and with vi too— visto/i). Both in writing and in speaking, the third person singular pronuns la and lo can be contracted if followed by a vowel or h: lho vista; labbiamo vista; lavete vista. You do not contract the plural pronouns. Lets Practice: Facciamo Pratica Lets go through the steps with another couple of examples: Dove hai comprato i tuoi pantaloni? Where did you buy your pants? You want to answer that you bought them in America last year. Again, you identify your needed pieces of information: The past participle of comprare: compratoThe correct verb conjugation: ho compratoThe object: pantaloni, masculine pluralThe correct direct object pronoun for pantaloni: li Adjusting your past participle accordingly and moving your pronoun, you find your answer: Li ho comprati in America lanno scorso. Again: I bambini hanno ricevuto le lettere? Did the children get the letters? We want to answer that, yes, they received them. The past participle of ricevere: ricevutoThe correct verb conjugation: hanno ricevutoThe object: le lettere, feminine pluralThe correct direct object pronoun for lettere: le Adjusting the past participle for gender and number, your answer is: SÃ ¬, le hanno ricevute. Or, in the negative, No, non le hanno ricevute. Remember, you do not contract the plural pronouns. Other Compound Tenses In other compound tenses in any of the verb modes, the pronominal construction works the same way. Lets make the sentence above indicative trapassato prossimo: I bambini non avevano ricevuto le lettere? Hadnt the children received the letters? You want to answer that yes, they had received them but they lost them. Perdere also is transitive and its participle is perse (or perdute); your direct object pronoun is still le. You make your new past participle agree, and move your pronoun, and you have your answer: SÃ ¬, le avevano ricevute ma le hanno perse. Lets look at a variation of the same sentence in the congiuntivo trapassato: La mamma sperava che i bambini avessero ricevuto le lettere. Mother had hoped that the children had received the letters. You want to answer that, yes, they received them and they read them, but then they lost them. Your object is still the same lettere; all the verbs involved are transitive (with the addition now of the past participle of leggere, letto) and your direct object pronoun is still le. You move your pronoun and you modify your past participles and you have your answer: SÃ ¬, le avevano ricevute e le hanno lette, ma le hanno perse. Direct Object Pronouns and Infinitives Note that in pronominal constructions that use the infinitive together with helping verbs volere, dovere, and potere, but also with other so-called servile verbs such as sapere, andare, venire, cercare, sperare, and riuscire, the direct object pronoun goes before either of the verbs OR can be attached as a suffix to the infinitive (minus the final e). Voglio comprare la frutta: la voglio comprare or voglio comprarla (I want to buy fruit: I want to buy it).Veniamo a prendere i bambini: li veniamo a prendere or veniamo a prenderli (we are coming to get the children: we are coming to get them).Vado a trovare il nonno: lo vado a trovare or vado a trovarlo (I am going to visit Grandfather: I am going to visit him).Cerco di vedere i miei nipoti domani: li cerco di vedere domani or cerco di vederli domani (I will try to see my nephews tomorrow: I will try to see them).Vorrei salutare mio figlio: lo vorrei salutare or vorrei salutarlo (I would like to say hello to my son: I would like to say hello to him). Direct or Indirect Only transitive verbs in Italian are followed by direct objects, though there are some subtle exceptions, such as piangere (to cry), vivere (to live), and piovere (to rain), which are intransitive but have an implicit object. However, transitive verbs may also have indirect objects (or both), and they do not necessarily match from English to Italian. In English, you say hello to someone and it gets a preposition; in Italian, salutare (to say hello) is transitive, uses no preposition, and therefore gets a direct object and a direct object pronoun. In English you call someone (direct); in Italian you call to someone (and telefonare is, in fact, intransitive). A word of advice: When thinking about Italian pronouns in relation to verbs, it is helpful to not compare how things work in English. Buon lavoro!