Blog 1

Since this blog encompasses two weeks of readings, there is a lot to discuss. Out of the first set of readings, I really enjoyed going through the Choi article, "Nobody Simply Vanishes: The Politics of Disappearance". The article begins with a discussion of essentialism which I found to be very interesting. It made me think about some of the topics that we have been discussing in my IDEA class this semester. We're studying the ecology of human development and we just finished up talking about the human genome, gene expression, and a number of other related issues. We read a few articles by Robert Sapolsky in which he explored the above issues and dictated them in a way that a non-biologist could understand. There was the nature/nuture argument which stemmed out into gene-environment interactions and how different expressions can create different people. The article by Choi reminded me a lot of some of the same issues. In the article, the author notes that, "on one hand, persons are linked to identities they do not choose or participate in developing; on the other hand, they are categorically separated by inherent propensities and other traits. In this sense, barriers are erected that affect negatively both personal initiative and interaction among individuals and groups," (Choi, 1). This, to me, related so much to the idea that genes are the sole output for phenotypical expression- that environment has nothing to do with any of the expression of traits and identities of people. The idea that people look, act, feel, etc. they way that they are/do because of specific genes ONLY, and that they can't do anything about the expression. To me, it just relates to how Choi explains essentialism- tying people to specific identities and categories through something that they can't do anything about.

From the second set of readings, I enjoyed Geeta Kothari's, "If You Are What You Eat, Then What Am I?". The story was humorous, and at the same time brought to the surface several issues that are very real in today's world concerning race, ethnicity, etc. I was able to relate to this story because I used to have a close friend that was originally from India and her family partook in a lot of the traditional food customs in their home in United States. I would be invited for dinner sometimes and had the opportunity to eat some of their traditional foods. It was always quite the experience, but it was very interesting to see how her parents so genuinely idealized and connected to their culture and tradition. Although at times, my friend had some of the same feelings that the main character had in the story- she wanted to eat and drink normal food and beverage- when I say "normal" meaning American. My friend's parents, like those in the story, sometimes took offense when she asked why they had to eat the things they did and why they couldn't eat things that other families could. Overall, it was just very interesting how Kothari took a look at culture and ethnicity through a humorous story about tuna :)