Articles & Other Nonfiction Writings



Using the User: Google Glass
Lemelia Bonner

Google Glass and its applications are the stuff of futuristic fantasy. The smart-technology headgear, which was introduced to the pubic in 2012, gives users the kind of power many of us have dreamed of possessing, but never thought possible, at least not in our lifetimes. Google Glass is essentially a very mini PC that can be worn like fashionable eyewear and operated by hands-free voice recognition or with q slight rolling finger motion on the stem. To view the Google Glass screen, one only needs to avert the eye at a thirty degree angle. The display mirrors the familiar smart technology format one sees on an iPhone, and can easily provide access to information needed on the go. It sounds fantastic. But is it, really? Is it a viable product that users will really want once they figure out how much it costs, how its functionality compares to existing devices, and what the inherent problems are with Google Glass?
The earliest Google Glass prototypes were relatively clunky and obtrusive. The helmet-like apparatus weighed several pounds and was, therefore, too cumbersome to be beneficial to the average consumer. Now that the product is more streamlined, and even stylish, more people may find it attractive and worth looking into, literally and figuratively. But at a price tag of $1,500, it is likely that the only buyers will be techies who get excited by new gadgets and don't have better things to do with their money. The best target market would probably be fictional characters in sci-fi movies and on shows like “The Big Bang Theory.” Only a handful of software companies have created applications for Google Glass, and it does not appear as though others will be jumping on the bandwagon anytime soon. It does not appear as if anyone is asking them to, or hoping they will.
Like every form of new technology, Google Glass is not without problematic areas of function and potential for misuse. Many people find them silly and odd looking. The act of averting one eye to look at a screen is not comfortable, and also takes the eye off of things it really should be on, such as traffic. A number of ethical issues have also arisen. Google Glass makes it very easy to spy on others, and even record or take photos of them without them or anyone else being the wiser. That in itself may be illegal. It would also be possible to capture others' personal information, such as account or PIN numbers, passwords, and the like. Google has attempted to address some of these issues, and to put blocking measure in place, but a few brainy IT types have already figured out to circumvent these measures. There is not a lot to commend Google Glass. It is not user friendly, there are not enough applications, it costs too much, and it could land a user in big trouble. It is a good idea whose time has not yet come.


Socioeconomic Status and Health Disparities
Lemelia J. Bonner

Much has been written about disparities in health outcomes based on socioeconomic factors. Arguably, one of the most compelling reports on the topic comes to us by way of researchers Kyle Steenland, Jane Henley, and Michael Thun and their 1959 – 1996 study in two American Cancer Society cohorts. In this wide-ranging study, they found that improvements in general health care and greater access to that care somehow tends to widen social class and income disparities in health, This finding seems to go against all conventional thought and wisdom. Understanding that, in the U.S. specifically, certain groups have historically had less power and fewer resources, it is generally assumed that there is a clear and traceable connection between those disparities and certain poor health outcomes. If this is not the actual case, we need to begin questioning much of what we think we know, going as far as to the very root of our cosmological existence.
Socioeconomic status generally refers to the measurement of a combination of factors, including income, education, and level or type of occupation. It is often associated with other factors such as race and ethnicity, so that socioeconomic status also tends to define certain groups and the individuals themselves. We see it in terms of power, class, and the ability (or inability) to move between strata of a society. Because of historical prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S., groups that are discriminated against typically find themselves clustered in communities where resources are fewer and of lesser quality. There is also less predictability and greater instability in terms of jobs, education, housing, and all that is needed for healthful living. To an appreciable degree, we can observe many of the same disparities in terms of age (the young and the elderly), gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and disability.
There are a few things that we knew for sure, that are documented and verifiable. We know, for example, that low birth weight contributes to many poor health outcomes, and that racial and ethnic minority women tend to have a higher percentage of low-birth-weight babies. We know that certain minorities have a greater incidence of avoidable diseases and avail themselves less frequently of tests and services to detect certain serious diseases and types of illness. We know that racial and ethnic minorities (especially African-American and Latino) are more likely to be diagnosed with serious mental illness and involuntarily committed to institutions (American Psychological Association, 2014). And we know that children in impoverished communities are more exposed to substance abuse and its trafficking. We also know that the type and frequency of violent crime that occurs in these areas adds to the mortality and morbidity rates of people with a lower socioeconomic status.
In spite of all we know and can quantify in regard to poor health outcomes and certain correlations of socioeconomic status, there is still much that we don't understand or have the ability to consistently predict. Steenland, Henley, and Thun's work suggests that social scientists may be disregarding, or giving too little attention to, investigations of the psychosocial processes that contribute to health. Perhaps more focus is needed on culture, on family systems, belief systems, approaches to relationships, and thoughts and feelings about self and one's sense of a connection or lack of connection to community, the world, and even the universe. This sounds like a more holistic approach, and it is. We live in word that is constantly in flux and in need of constant evaluation and re-evaluation of paradigms. In William E Connolly's 2003 work, The Fragility of Things: Self-Organizing Processes, Neoliberal Fantasies, and Democratic Activism,
he discusses worldwide interacting systems that impact every aspect of our lives and the inherent creatives capacities of those systems. They hold positive potentialities for us as individuals and as a society that we are not always aware of.
In the long run, health may have less to do with artificial systems of classification and more to do with a sure sense of identity and self-worth. When individuals take negative classifications upon themselves, there is the unavoidable tendency to lose hope. There is a tendency toward depression and a lack of care for oneself, because there is a sense of unimportance to the world. Whether expressed or not, an individual of low socioeconomic status often feels undeserving of happiness, healthiness, or even longevity. Hope and a positive outlook are essential to prosperous living. In fact, most of the essentials for a productive and satisfying life are ethereal cost nothing, and therein lies the problem. There is much money to be made in the distribution and delivery of pharmaceuticals, and in doctor visits, medical procedures, and hospital stays. There is a well-established system that provides many jobs and can only sustain itself through a process of keeping people only temporarily well and treating symptoms rather than the whole person. Practitioners who use natural methods and help others learn to heal themselves are effectively disallowed from participation in most current systems of care.
In his keynote talk to the 2013 Radical Democracy Conference, William E. Connolly speaks of the power of small increments of change by individuals that, over time, create movements that can eventually become gobal in nature. He gives as an example the choices to begin recycling, to choose a hybrid car, or to join the Slow Food movement as parts of 'green' living. As individuals worldwide embrace a concern for the planet and begin living what they believe, a new spirit and energy is birthed and gains momentum. It is very real, and has a metaphysical component. Humans are creative beings, and collaborative co-creators in nature, whether we grasp and appreciate it or not. Once human beings become more aware of how they connect to every part of the universe, good health for all will become a normal and expected state of being, and easier to attain.

References
American Psychological Association. (2014). Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic
-erm.aspx.
Paula Braveman, MD, MPHa Catherine Cubbin, PhDa Kristen Marchi, MPHa Susan Egerter,
PhDa Gilberto Chavez, MD, MPHb. (Sep-Oct 2001). Public Health Reports, Research
Articles: Measuring Socioeconomic Status/Position in Studies of Racial/Ethnic Disparities:
Maternal and Infant Health. Retrieved from http://publichealthreports.org/issueopen.cf?
Connolly, William E. (2013). The Fragility of Things: Self-Organizing Processes, Neoliberal
Fantasies, and Democratic Activism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Print.


The Intragroup Tribute As a Response to Domination:
The Function of Award Shows in America

Lemelia J. Bonner


Domination of subgroups and minorities by the majority is a defining feature of American culture. This goes back to the earliest days of the country's history. For the purposes of this study, the term “majority” is used to denote that group comprised of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant , adult, heterosexual males. Since the inception of America by western European settlers, this group has sought to claim and exploit the land's resources (including other human beings) for their own benefit. Judging by the historical record of their collective actions, this is a benefit majority members perceive as a virtual birthright. Thus, it is within bounds for them to push other groups aside, force them out, ship them in, restrict their rights, and to define other groups and individuals in whatever way suits their present needs. This type of oppression is part and parcel of the American existence. America is unique in its makeup, but human nature is the same everywhere. It is human nature for the oppressed to respond and attempt to survive and thrive by whatever means necessary. It is every human being's desire to define her/himself, as opposed to accepting the labels others may place on them. We uplift ourselves by recognizing and paying tribute to those we perceive as similarly oppressed. Throughout American history, minority groups have devised ways to formally honor one another for positive attributes that the majority overlooks or trivializes. One of the most conspicuous, contemporary vehicles for this type of recognition is the annual, televised award show.
In 2013, eighty-seven award shows of one kind or another were televised in the United States. These shows run the gamut, from the ever-popular Annual Academy Awards to the obscure Mark Twain American Humor Awards. The vast majority of these shows hold no interest for the typical American viewer, no matter what subgroup(s) they identify with, which is a testament to their very specialized nature. Obviously, most of these shows were created fora specific purpose, that being a subgroup's internal desire for recognition and approval. A brief examination of the website ActualSchedules.com reveals a clear pattern of award show development over the past few decades, with an increasing amount of programming dedicated to minorities, based on race, ethnicity, age group, gender, and sexual orientation.
One of the most striking and revealing aspects of the awards show roster is the near-absence of ones dedicated to strong women. There is the Collegiate Women Sports Awards show and the relatively new Black Girls Rock! Awards, but the majority of the shows decorating women still revolve around women's physical attributes and white America's standard of beauty, most notably, the Miss USA, Miss America, and Miss Universe Pageants. Sponsors of these pageants will assert that they are primarily aimed at recognizing the achievements of the young women involved, yet, they still feature swim suit and evening gowns categories for judging.
The largest subgroup categories fall under the mantle of race and ethnicity. Only two minorities are represented at the present, those being blacks (African-Americans) and Latinos. For African-Americans, most revolve around unique styles of music, including, the Soul Train Music Awards, Gospel Music Association's Dove Awards, and the BET (Back Entertainment Television) Hip Hop Awards. To recognize achievements of African-Americans in other spheres of influence, there are BET Honors and the NAACP Image Awards.
In recent years, and in keeping with the large influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants to America, quite a few award shows have been created specifically for that population. They are similar in nature and number to those for the black community, and include, Billboard Latin Music Awards, the Annual Latin Grammy Awards, and American Latino Media Arts Awards. Latino achievement in areas outside of music include the Annual Hispanic Heritage Awards. Clearly, when it comes to recognition based on race and ethnicity, the focus is on maintaining pride in traditional expressions of culture for the generations to come.
Over the past two decades, an emphasis on the contributions of youth to the American culture has taken hold. These awards shows recognize talented and high-achieving youth in the areas of music, television and film, science and technology, and social and business enterprise, and volunteerism. Youth award programs include the Annual Kids’ (and Teen's) Choice Awards, the Radio Disney Music Awards, Young Hollywood Awards, and the Annual TeenNick Halo Awards.
There are a couple of 'newer' award shows that reflect America's growing awareness and acceptance of some of the most marginalized individuals in our country. The NewNowNext Awards first aired in 2008, are presented by the Logo channel. Logo's programming is lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered themed, and their awards are aimed at achievements by individuals who self-identify in those ways, as well as those who identify as 'straight' but impact LGBT communities in positive ways. The Annual PRISM Awards honor those in the entertainment community who accurately and sensitively portray individuals affected by mental disorders and substance abuse.
Domination by one group over another is so insidious and detrimental to a society as a whole because it causes individuals to develop a self-hatred that is hard to break. With the loss of a positive self image, there are only three remaining alternatives for the minority. One must either: 1) sink into despair; 2) try to become more like members of the majority; or 3) find meaningful ways to embrace and celebrate the differences. The latter is, arguably, the better choice, for all concerned. Whether they appreciate it or not, the majority group in America benefits from society's diversity in immeasurable ways, and there is the potential to derive even more benefits if all groups are allowed to flourish. The more well-rounded and multi-faceted we are, the more we become valuable leaders and citizens of the world.

References
ActualSchedules.com. (2013, Jan 2). Complete List of 2014 Televised Award Shows. (Web log)
award.html
Colins, Patricia Hill. (2006). From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, Nationalism, and
Feminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ferber, Abby L., Jimenez, Christina M., Hererra, Andrea O'Reilly, & Samuels, Dena R. (2009).
The Matrix Reader: Examining the Dynamics of Oppression and Privilege. New York:
McGraw Hill.



Native American Influence on Culture in the United States
Lemelia J. Bonner

Native-Americans, the people indigenous to what would become the United States mainland, are often the forgotten ones when it comes to recognition of major contributions to American culture. This was their home first and, like anyone's home, it already had named places, animals, artifacts, and ways of living and relating to the world and beyond. Much of what our culture encompasses today is as a direct result of the earliest interactions between the native people and the first European settlers. Out of both cooperation and conflict, a uniquely American culture was forged. These influences can be seen in our form of government, agriculture, language, family systems, and our overall health and welfare.
In the United States, students are taught very little about Native-Americans in the early grades. There has been a little more cultural sensitivity in recent decades, so that now Indians are not regarded as mere savages. Still, they often remain caricature-like representations who shared maize with Pilgrims, fought losing battles with frontiersmen, and eventually wound up on reservations where they live in relative poverty, hold powwows, sell rugs and turquoise jewelry, and sometimes run casinos. The true story of the Native-Americans, both then and now, is far more fascinating and complex.
When the early colonists arrived from England, they found a people who, in appearance and in the way they comported themselves, were completely unfamiliar. The settlers had difficulty comprehending and coming to terms with their modes of commerce, their connection to the land, their familial relationships, and their forms of worship. In fear of the differences confronting them, and considering themselves a good and 'godly' people, these Europeans promptly labeled the natives heathens, and then assigned to them all the attributes that go with being less than fully human. One of the first observations the settlers made was that these people
openly bathed themselves, with water. Such a practice was frowned upon in the Old World at the
time, as giving over to lustfulness, and they lacked understanding of the benefits of such a process (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2014). Now, Americans lead the world in concerns about personal hygiene.
Many of the crops being grown by the Indians along the eastern coast of the newly 'discovered' land were also new to the colonists. Corn, or maize, was plentiful, as were squash, beans, tomatoes, potatoes, and tobacco. Not only did many of these plants have healthy, medicinal, or recreational qualities, but they were excellent seed crops that could flourish in both large and household gardens. By the time Europeans came on scene, the natives had well established agricultural methods, including crop rotation, and had cultivated and domesticated hardy varieties of all type of edible plants. The colonists learned from them well, and quickly found ways to exploit the land and its plentiful produce for gain both at home and abroad. Tobacco built much of what would become the American South, and corn continues to be a mainstay of the U.S. Economy.
New plants and foods came with new names. Added to the American lexicon through the Indians are words like cashew, cayenne, persimmon, hickory, and pecan. There were never-before-seen animals that had names, like moose, skunk, muskrat, chipmunk, caribou, woodchuck, cougar, manatee, and coyote. We now have fun sliding down snowy hills on toboggans, relax on hammocks slung between trees, and enjoy barbecues thanks to our early native friends. Fully half of the states in America have names taken from the language of the Indians who first populated the region, and countless cities, counties, and bodies of water throughout the country are so named. American Indian language has even changed the course of a war. The Axis Powers were aided by the U.S. Army's employment of Navajo language during World War II. It served as a secret code the Japanese were unable to break (Nusantara, 2013).
One of the most important contributions by Native-Americans is also one of the least
known and appreciated. Long before the Continental Congress met, and long before there was anything united about the early colonies, the was the Iroquois Nation. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the British and French were involved in ongoing conflict, each trying to gain control of the North American continent. Much of the fighting took place in the region that would become New York state, a region inhabited by the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Senecas, and Onondagas. These associated tribes banded together to form the Iroquois Confederacy, primarily as a defense against invasion by the Europeans. They created a council of clan and village chiefs. Each of these tribal representatives had a single vote, and equanimity was required in all governing decisions. The Iroquois Constitution was widely circulated among the early statesmen of the colonies, and provided the framework for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Iroquois conceived their pact as one established to create and maintain peace, order, and equity. Interestingly, in the Native-American culture, women were active participants in all social and legal affairs. Theirs was a matrilineal society, an idea which was completely foreign to the Europeans. It is possible that the Indians' familial structure and hieracrhy planted the seeds of the women's rights movement that would come later. It is also possible that their ways of relating to nature, to spirit, and to one another is the basis for many grassroots liberal and 'new age' movements in the United States. Native-American influences are undeniable and inextricable from the greater American experience and culture. Many of their contributions have been downplayed and overlooked. There is much to be gained by re-dissecting American history and looking at it through the lens of a culture that has often been misrepresented. Native-American ideals are what America claims to aspire to, but has not come close to achieving for all its citizens.
References
Many Worlds. (2011). The Six Nations: Oldest Participatory Democracy on Earth. Retrieved
nces-on-modern-american-cluture/.
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2014). Teaching Tolerance: Native American Influences in U.S.





Canadian Aboriginal Womenin the Pre-Columbian Era

Lemelia J. Bonner


In 2006, editors Mary-Ellen Kelm and Lorna Townsend published In the Days of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women's History in Canada. What was noteworthy about this book is that, for the first time, essays crafted by aboriginal woman were brought together into a collection that gave them voice over a period of three centuries. These essays give clear depictions of women in the areas of politics, business, religion, and within the family structure. Today, aboriginal women often represent their culture in the media, and perhaps more often than men. They are a rising force to be reckoned with. While this movement is an impressive change from the recent past, it is also a return to the esteemed positions aboriginal women held in the distant past.
Prior to European contact, the vast majority of native people lived in matrilineal societies, meaning family property and ancestry were passed down through the female members of the family. Many of the nations of North America could also be considered woman-centered (NWAC, 2014). They were often leaders in both government and spiritual matters. Both men and women were considered to be autonomous equals, even though their roles were different and well defined. Men were responsible for the provision of shelter, food, and clothing materials, while women rule the domesticate sphere, including child socialization and the planting and harvesting of crops. Women were revered as the givers and perpetuators of life. In fact, they were looked to as the primary source of all things creative and sustaining.
Because of their respected status in society, aboriginal women were protected by the males in their households. Abuse against women by their husbands was rare, in part because retribution and punishment could be swift and severe. Male blood relatives unfailingly confronted abusers and defended their female members. A man found guilty of abusing his wife could find himself facing castration, or even death. The traditional aboriginal family unit was very stable. The
expectation was that husbands and wives would be very loyal and compassionate with one another, and with their children. In like manner they care for their elders. In many respects, theirs was an ideal society.
Much of what is known about the aboriginal people has been passed down through their rich oral histories. In all of their creation myths, women are featured prominently, and the 'earth mother' is a common and central figure. In the Cree and Obijway stories, for example, a woman comes to care for the earth through a hole in the sky. A grandmother figure was responsible for coming to earth to teach man about medicinal plants and their uses. When offering thanks, they prayed to the four winds and to the mother earth as well as the great grandfather in the sky. The Dakotas speak of a woman who first brought them the pipe that they use to entreat the Great Creator in times of need (Aboriginal Justice, 2014). In all aspects of life and legend, equality was a common theme.
Every facet of aboriginal society was impacted when Anglo-Europeans came on the scene in the 15th century, and generally for the worse. The new explorers brought with them very different ways of viewing and being in the world. Not only were their societies patrilineal, but men were masters of women and considered superior to them in every way. Once the British had determined to conquer the natives and claim the land for themselves, a first order of business was to force the aboriginal people to give up their way of living as well. They were expected to conform to English common law, which specifically precluded women from civic participation. This meant women had no voting rights, could not own land, and could not enter into contracts of any sort. A near-complete breakdown of the traditional aboriginal family structure was the result.
The twenty-first century ancestors of the native people of Canada have yet to recover the better aspects of their lost culture. Women in contemporary society are routinely victimized, along with their children. Sexism, racism, and severe forms of domestic violence are prevalent, and women have found little sympathy and almost no voice in the current justice system. In 2002, it was estimated that eight in ten native women had suffered abuse at the hands of men they are married or related to. At the same time that men have been protected and sheltered, women have been penalized, quite literally. Women are grossly overrepresented in the prison system (OFIFC, 2008).
One of the ways a dominant culture can successfully sustain itself is by demoralizing and disenfranchising the physically stronger members of the 'other' society. Men who feel helpless when it comes to fulfilling their own roles within the family often take out their frustrations on the physically weaker among them, women and children. For that reason, it is often females who have to rise up against the tide and begin the process of restructuring. This is now taking place among the native people in Canada. Women are organizing themselves, speaking out in the media, and asserting their rights. They are calling upon the collective consciousness of their ancestors in bringing about a society of greater sense and sensibility.

References
The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. (2014). The Justice System and Aboriginal
People (Data file). Retrieved from http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter13.html.
Native Women's Association of Canada. (2014). Reclaiming Our Way of Being (Data file).
Retrieved from http://www.nwac.ca/.
Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. (2008). Traditional Women's Roles (Data file).








Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)