Recent events have caused an increase in the number of people wishing to move to the European country. Migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other war-torn regions moved to more prosperous lands to find protection and hope for the future. There is no reliable data on how many people arrived in Germany and how many received legal status or were sent back. The refugee camp is a large area surrounded by a fence, which can only be entered with a special pass. Each person who arrives at the base is provided with meals for the entire period of stay. All residents of the camp can use medical services as needed. A significant part of the adaptation process is the assistance of public organizations. In addition to international organizations such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and others, local community foundations successfully operate in Germany. For example, the state-owned Deutsche Bahn organization (railway) gives a few hundred vacancies directly to refugees (Al Masri, 2021). Despite modest living conditions, refugees receive the necessary assistance, protection, and guidance in adjusting to a new place of residence.
Trains of Misery describes a significantly different process during the Great Depression era. Latin America was hit hard by the Great Depression of the 1930s, which spread after the US Wall Street stock market crash in 1929. Thousands of Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans wanted to leave the States due to a lack of work and a hazardous situation based on national strife. This situation differs as it affects the process of repatriation to the homeland. The Great Depression did not affect Mexico like Chile, Peru, and Brazil, but returning Mexicans faced the same housing and food concerns they had to solve themselves (Gutiérrez, 2020). The current movement of safeguarding immigrants and refugees is a more competent and thoughtful approach. The value of human life has grown markedly, and the general globalization of the world sets a standard for universal humanism.
References
Al Masri, F., Müller, M., Nebl, J. 2021. “Quality of Life among Syrian Refugees in Germany: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.” Archives of Public Health 79, 213. Web.
Gutiérrez, L. D. 2020. “Trains of Misery: Repatriate Voices and Responses in Northern Mexico during the Great Depression.” Journal of American Ethnic History 39, no. 4: 13–26. Web.
The Moral Issues Of Lobster Boiling
Introduction
In the article “Consider the Lobster,” D. F. Wallace discusses the ethical issues of boiling lobsters alive for culinary purposes. The author considers the various arguments of proponents as well as opponents of this procedure. As such, the fact whether lobsters are able to feel pain or not constitutes the central question of the article. Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” (4). In this regard, after reading the article and contemplating for some time on this problem, I am confident that the answer to the latter question should be ‘no.’
Overall Reaction to the Article
Before providing the reasons that boiling the lobsters alive is an immoral practice, I would like to, first, provide the overall reaction to the piece. This discussion is important as it will illustrate the aspects of an article that helped to shape my point of view. Considering that, I think that Wallace’s article is effective in terms of message delivery because it professionally combines purely logical thinking and argumentation with vivid descriptions that evoke rich emotions. On the one hand, the author analyzes the difference between the human beings’ and the lobsters’ perceptions of pain and what determines this distinction based on the previous scientific findings. On the other hand, the article depicts how lobsters behave before being placed in hot water and during the boiling process.
For this reason, my first reaction to the article was feeling pain for the creatures and anger towards such a practice. In this respect, the quote “although note already the semiconscious euphemism “prepared,” which in the case of lobsters really means killing them right there in our kitchens” best represents my original reaction (Wallace 5). However, I was not totally consumed by those emotions as the further reading also necessitated some ‘cold thinking.’ For instance, at some point in the discussion, I, without noticing it, started seriously considering the possibility of the fact that lobsters may not feel the pain. As a result, I am glad that this happened, as now I am more confident in my opinion because it is not only based on emotional reaction but also on ‘pure’ reflection and analysis.
Personal Moral Stance
As mentioned above, I consider the practice of boiling lobsters morally unjustified. Although the research is still not fully conclusive about the fact that these creatures feel pain and suffer, it is still better to stop such a practice under uncertainty. Indeed, there are various other ways how people can end lobsters’ lives before cooking them, which are seemingly associated with less pain. Yet, the preference for this practice is explained solely by the better taste of the dish. Thus, to solve this issue, it is necessary to juxtapose the risk of causing suffering to a living organism with potential hedonic benefits. In other words, in case people stop boiling lobsters alive, although these creatures do not feel pain, consumers only have to abandon some of their sensations. On the contrary, in case lobsters do feel pain from such a practice and are actively boiled alive, then humanity is the reason for millions of living creatures’ suffering each year. Therefore, in my opinion, any person who is concerned with the morality of this procedure would agree that under uncertainty, the behavior described in the former scenario is preferable.
Future Behavior
Although the previous paragraph provided the rationale that is dictated by the mind, intuitively, I feel that lobsters do suffer when they are boiled. For this reason, I will most probably not eat lobster anymore in the future. As for my previous behavior, I consumed the latter creature once, but then I was not fully aware of the manner how the dish is made. However, due to Wallace’s description of the cooking process, now I know exactly how lobsters are prepared and do not want to cause these creatures any pain. Probably, as the author mentions, it is easier for me to make such a conclusion as I am not a ‘fan’ of this dish. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Wallace for inviting the readers to question themselves whether their arguments concerning the reviewed issue are explained by personal interests and preferences and not by pure logic (7). I think such reflective inquiry can help not only to make better moral judgments regarding the discussed issue but also to resolve some other ethical dilemmas.
Conclusion
Overall, the current essay intended to explain why after reading Wallace’s article, I think that boiling lobsters alive is wrong from the moral standpoint. It was shown that the reviewed piece could invoke strong emotions in me and was also thought-provoking. For this reason, my arguments against the lobster cooking practice included both intuitional and logical aspects. As for the former, it was mentioned that all the lobsters’ behavior when they are placed in the boiling water suggests that these creatures do feel pain. As for the latter, it was noted that under uncertainty, the risks of causing suffering to the living organism outweigh the benefits of abandoning the hedonic pleasure from the moral stance. Therefore, people should use other – potentially less painful – methods for cooking lobsters. Moreover, because of the reasons discussed above, I will also avoid eating lobsters in the future.
Work Cited
Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” Gourmet, Web.
America After World War I: A Melting Pot Or A Salad Bowl
Introduction
It is extremely likely that one has heard at least once in their life that the United States is one big melting pot. As a person gets older, they start to debate whether America is actually a melting pot – or if it is a salad bowl. In order to determine which term is more representative of the country, it is necessary to delve into these concepts first. Only then is it possible to look into America’s different time periods and come to particular conclusions? For once, it is interesting to find out that the aftermath of World War I, in one way or another, was characterized by both these occurrences.
Main body
The first rise of the melting pot theory to prominence is dated more than two hundred years. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur – a French immigrant – in 1782, described America’s demographic homogeneity as including “individuals of all nations…[who] melted into a new race of men” (Berray, 2019, p. 142). The desire to assimilate is described by Berray (2019) as a minority group’s adaptation to the lifestyle of the dominant group – the group whose cultural, political, and economic norms are the default. Such adaptation minimizes differences between minorities who hope to integrate into mainstream societies and these societies’ representatives.
When it comes to the salad bowl theory, its concept arose much later. According to Berray (2019), it happened in the 1960s, and its essence is in retaining people’s unique identities and recognizing differences that are inevitable in a multicultural society. In contrast to the melting pot theory, in which the dominant group’s influence prevails, either way, the salad bowl maintains the identity of minorities and allows them to exist as they are alongside dominant cultures. This obviates the need for the creation of homogeneous identities as per the melting pot, especially considering that such identities are not equally proportionated in terms of their corresponding constituents.
In order to determine which theory described the state of America post-World War I better, it is reasonable to turn to the events and policies occurring in the country at the time. As stated by Bitesize, during World War I, Americans were worried about the number of immigrants who came to the United States seeking escape from war and the consequent economic depression. Their primary concern was foreign culture and religion threatening their way of life – that is, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants’ way of life (Bitesize, n.d.). Americans’ fears were not unfounded: since people immigrated due to necessity, not desire, they did not have any ground to attempt to assimilate. Indeed, immigrants are reported to have retained their customs and spoken their languages, alongside not intending to alter their religious beliefs. Additionally, there were a lot of divisions due to people taking different sides concerning war. Consequently, one may come to the conclusion that this state of affairs resembled a salad bowl significantly more than a melting pot.
In that regard, it is interesting that the measures implemented by the American government due to that occasion can be called the measures to turn that salad bowl into a melting pot. According to Gloor n.d., during the war and subsequent years, policies of coercive education and employment were adopted in order to force immigrants to assimilate. The purpose of this process was to produce citizens conforming not only to the country’s democratic ideals but even to local habits, the American version of English, and major political and social ideologies. Such forceful Americanization can be labeled as a case of the melting pot policy, though carefully, since such processes are supposed to occur naturally.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the United States’ immigration situation after World War I is an example of a salad bowl theory in action. People who came to America did that amid safety concerns, and their lack of desire to assimilate is easily understandable. Measures employed by the government in order to make people adapt to the American way of life are an additional confirmation that initially, the immigrants’ approach resembled a salad bowl more than anything else.
References
Berray, M. (2019). A critical literary review of the Melting Pot and Salad Bowl Assimilation and integration theories. [PDF file]. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 6(1), 142-151. Web.
Bitesize. (n.d.). The Open Door policy and immigration to 1928. BBC. Web.
Gloor, L.B. (n.d.). From the Melting Pot to the Tossed Salad metaphor: Why coercive assimilation lacks the flavors Americans crave. [PDF file]. University of Hawaii at Hilo. Web.