Connor and Kubota

Connor's article shows Connor's definition of culture, which is something that we tried to define in the beginning of this course.  They say that culture is, "'a set of patterns and rules share by a particular community.'"  This view of culture can suggest that there are cross-cultural differences, and cause analysis of those differences.  Some say that cross-cultural difference analyzation can be a form of discrimination.  Then the article mentions that not analyzing the difference can also be a form of neglect and discrimination.  So what does this mean for us?  When do we need to distinguish difference and when do we need to not distinguish difference?

In the article the contrastive rhetoric has been accused of guiding students to write for the cultural norm rather than use their own cultural difference.  This reminds me of the linguistics courses I have taken, and how acceptability is preferred to correctness and grammaticality is based on each dialect's every day speech use, not Standard English.  It is okay to tell a student that when writing a document that has to do with power or money (application, interview, grant writing, ect.) that you need to use Standard English.  In one of my classes we questioned why English is so widely studied in second language acquisition.  It is such a powerful language and has been spread through out history.  Since that time, we have globalized our business.  Having a universal language, at least in the business world, would make so many things easier.  However, having a universal language is impossible and dangerous to culture and society.  I think that World Standard Spoken English is a bad idea because of the strong connection with culture and language.

Kubota's article 1999, was describes how children of Japanese dissent are wrongly viewed based on the cultural views of the United States teachers.  It was interesting to see the educational perceptions that some have of Japanese culture being proven wrong.  Thinking that schools have "less emphasis on creativity, self expression, individualism, and critical thinking relative to U.S. education" is very wrong.  Even though the teachers may have a different format than the teachers in the United States that does not mean that the children are not developing through the same experiences.  The Japanese students are tapping into all different senses.  One interesting aspect is that they reinforce a collectivism rather than individualism, however it is wrong to think that the individual does not go into the community.  It is good for students to develop "both individual and group dimensions."  I feel as though there is a stigmatism against memorization skills across the United States and within this article.  I feel as though memorization is an excellent skill to practice because like it or not there are some things that you will have to do in this fast paced world that you need to remember some things for a short period of time.  This is why teachers should present their information in a variety of ways, so that their students can memorize things faster.  

I feel as though there are so many ways to teach material and other countries may have better methods and are worth investigating.  However, I also feel as though I will have restrictions by my colleges, administrators and parents.  Parents, for good reason want their children to be taught in a similar way that they were taught in order to help their children with homework and because they themselves turned out well because how they were taught.  Are my assumptions true?  Will I not be able to adopt a Hansei reflection section in my daily activities because of the norms of the school and community?