Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?

On the left side, we have a salad bowl. Clearly, on the right side there's a melting pot. The difference is clear: the salad bowl has distinct components to it that result in a variety of textures, colors, and flavors, whereas the melting pot combines and layers flavors into one that has a unique flavor. These are two schools of thoughts on multiculturalism in America and around the world. On one hand, the salad bowl concept entails different cultures mixing in interaction but not altogether merging. On the other hand, the melting pot concept is the notion of various heterogeneous cultures "melting" into one homogeneous American society. One encourages pluralism, and another encourages assimilation. 

At this point, I'd like YOU to cast a vote on which cultural idea you're in favor of, melting pot or salad bowl: http://pollmaker.vote/p/C9RIN80O

Personally, I support the salad bowl cultural idea more. Although some want one uniform American culture, I love the idea of distinctive groups remaining harmonious. Salad bowl makes me Pakistani American, not American American. It preserves the concept of ethnicity and nationality as two distinct entities. On the other hand, one question on the melting pot theory that's never answered is what culture are we trying to melt into? In many cases, it's the white American culture.

This picture is the essential reason why I'm wary of the notion of melting pot. It can lead to forced assimilation, as seen above. Similarly, Teddy Roosevelt was quoted saying, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language". No one should be forced to conform to a certain culture, regardless of if it's American, Iranian, Pakistani, or Japanese. 

How can you say no to this?

From Untied to United (States)

This year, I'm taking AP Economics and it's safe to say I find many of the concepts hard to grasp. I took it as a classic AP, and last year during scheduling season didn't even consider the possibility of it being a struggle; just like my other social studies APs, I'd study and get the right grades.

Boy, was I wrong!

Flash forward to today, and not only do I not find it interesting, but I go out of each test thinking I could either get a 94 or a 78. One thing I've heard is that those who struggle in AP Econ flourish in AP Pysch, and vice versa. To me, this makes a lot of sense. Economics, as exemplified by Thomas Sowell, is all about the "market (operating) so much more efficiently than... 'need'" (Sowell 500). On the other hand, psychology entails gaining an understanding of the human brain and the mental factors that effect human interaction. Economics completely ignores any wants, "needs", or "mushy thinking" whereas psychology literally studies it (500).

Anyways, in my opinion, economics is heartless. Free market thinkers scorn the concept of need by saying you only need a "car" if the "taxpayers" pay for it, and if it comes out of your pocket, you'd just get a "brake job". I truly don't think this is a breakthrough in disproving human need, but just shows our ability to settle. For example, suppose I had to buy lunch at school but only had $1. In one scenario, my friend offers to lend me $2 to buy the special, and in another scenario I just settled for a bag of chips. In scenario 2, I didn't need lunch any less, but had to make do with what I had. That's the situation of countless Americans around our country; they don't need a car, food, clothes, housing, any less when they settle for a bike, McDonald's, hand-me downs, and the streets. Many will think that it's not (in the scenarios) my friend's responsibility to lend me money, but in the United States of America, we should live up to that name and help each other out. There will be a time when a line needs to be drawn, but that's another discussion. As for now, Americans should help each other out and instead of being separate, distinct, and unemotional (untied), we should be communal, generous, and understanding (united).

WATER. IS. WET.

Prompt: Analyze the two passages and write a claim comparing and contrasting the purpose of the writer.

Passage 1:

Inside a Genetics Biology Bacteriology and Embryology class, sat a group of students in the corner of the room. Wait, scratch that- stood a group of students in the corner of the room. They were passionately debating a controversial topic: the possibility of water being wet or not. The majority of the group stood in the position that water isn't wet, except for a two truth seekers. In the background, the substitute teacher stood in awe and a little bit of confusion wondering what was going on, and added the debate into her sub notes. Ironically, another GBBE teacher at the same time dropped a huge jug of water- form meeting content.

Passage 2:

AM I SURROUNDED BY IGNORANCE? Everyone around me- Justin, Paige, even my own lab partner Alicia- thought water isn't wet. Well today, I'm here to prove to all of my readers that water is INDEED wet. First and foremost I have the two GBBE teachers on my side: "any two molecules that are touching are wet". Furthermore, by the law of syllogism, fire is hot, hence water is wet. One definition of wet is "liquid that makes something damp" THEREFORE water applies in that definition! I know many of you've seen that video on twitter saying water isn't wet because "water in a water bottle can't be dried", BUT IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH PAPER TOWEL YOU USE. To anyone that says water can't be wet because it makes other things wet, that's just like saying fire cant be hot because it makes other things hot. If you think water isn't wet you're a confused human being, sorry.

Don't be Salty at the Homeless

This week, we discussed homelessness and poverty by reading "On Dumpster Diving". Eigner was very blunt by simply stating, "I live from the refuse of others". The topic of giving money to the homeless came up and it reminded me of something I witnessed in Pakistan. Every instance we were on the road, be it in the congested city or the traffic lights or even on the highways there would be a homeless person. They actually walk right up to your car window, knock until you roll it down, and plead for money. This might sound tedious and a little extra but I didn't even feel attacked by it. The poverty in Pakistan is really, really bad. Shockingly, the Edhi Foundation, Pakistan's largest charity doesn't have a specific means to address homelessness just because it's too big of a problem. And sadly, my relatives who live there have gotten used to it, hence numb to it. 

They'll will go out of their way to de-emphasize this problem, saying there's a "network of bosses" who employ their impoverished lackeys to take the innocent upper classes' money. When I was in a bazaar (open market) my cousin literally debated a little boy who was eagerly trying to sell her a color book. Don't get me wrong, I love my family, but sometimes they don't recognize the privilege they're born into. In reality, their theory might actually be plausible (https://tribune.com.pk/story/540841/begging-becomes-business-in-pakistan/) , but that doesn't mean people in this form of organized crime aren't in a bad situation. People will go out of their way to talk and cry about a problem, but won't do anything to solve it. The same thing is with homelessness; we don't think it's our job to fix it, but one day the problem could possibly reach us.