March / April 2018
OPINION
Americans can’t use guns Justin Som Staff Writer
Mental Illness. Faulty background checks for gun licensing. Unregistered rifles made accessible to the public. Many Americans believe that these issues are at from the heart of the current gun violence epidemic in the U.S. Yet, most people fail to remember that gun control issues aren’t exclusively American. As easy as it may be to blame gun laws and the staggering amount of firearms made available to the public for gun deaths, Americans shouldn’t. Other nations have made similar types of rifles available to the public as the U.S. have, but they have far fewer incidents of gun violence. For instance, take Switzerland, which because of its compulsory army service for men, it allows for many military-issue weapons to be owned at home. The country permits for rifles to be openly transported in public as long as the weapon is unloaded and the bullets are stored separately. Any citizen that is at least 18 can apply for a gun acquisition license to see a gun dealer, or they can go through a private transaction which doesn’t require a license. Despite these open gun laws, compared to the U.S. with 4.2 gun homicide deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, Switzerland only has 0.3 gun homicide deaths per 100,000 inhabitants according to the Small Arms Survey. Americans must consider, “Why does the U.S. frequently experience mass gun violence, while other countries don’t?” The problem can’t be simplified down to a basis of either too tight or too loose gun control. Not including the attacks done by terrorists and radical groups, Europe’s last major mass shooting was in January 2015 in France at the headquarters of a newspaper. America’s last major shooting was in February 2018 in Parkland, Florida, the 26th major mass shooting since January 2015. The main difference between the mindsets of Americans and other countries lies in how Americans choose to use their guns. In nations like Israel and Switzerland, citizens own guns for the purpose of national defense from terrorist groups and radicals. On the other hand, Americans are often paranoid about their own self-defense because of the large crime rate in bigger cities. Yet, the most reasonable explanation for the large difference in gun deaths between the U.S. and other countries is
in training and testing. To even own a gun in other countries, buyers must pass written knowledge tests, mental examinations, and then demonstrate that they know how to properly use the gun’s loading and safety mechanisms. Moreover, as a further step for many of the countries that make the same guns available as the U.S., buyers must pass an accuracy test to show that they can hit a target with the weapon. These conditions should be installed into the American system of purchasing guns to promote safety and the proper usage of rifles. Testing requirements motivate buyers to take classes so that they can be more accurate with their weapon. As such, gun owners would be capable of hitting their target instead of missing and hitting a bystander. Admittedly, there are some countries which make many semi-automatic rifles and handguns available to the public without these explicit tests and still have lower gun homicide rates than the U.S. However, in light of the fact that these countries have compulsory military service, it still stands that those who own guns get at least the bare minimum of training on how to use them. Thus, despite the intense debates over gun control over the past decade, there is no definite proof that a change in current gun laws would necessarily lower gun violence. Even if lawmakers tighten the spectrum of available guns to the bare minimum of pistols and hunting rifles, there would still be people with guns who don’t know how or when to use them. The more viable solution would be to institute tests that teach gun buyers to better use their weapons and assess their mentality. But until these changes occur, it is highly probable that the number of gun homicides within the U.S. will only rise. Any introduction of guns into either schools or communities will not prevent mass shootings or the gun homicides, as there is no guarantee that the people who are given guns to protect others will know how to use them. For a more visual example, imagine if everyone who wanted to drive a car didn’t have to pass either the written permit test or the practical driving test. Undoubtedly, there would be car accidents and collisions everywhere because there are some people who just shouldn’t drive. That’s the problem with the current gun situation. It shouldn’t be harder for someone to get a driver’s license than to own a gun.
Acculturation causes dilemmas Maya Benjamin Staff Writer
It’s hard to fit in and it’s even harder when people do not want you to fit in. For the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that arrive in U.S. each year, the choice between acculturating or assimilating to American life continues to be a tough one. Merriam-Webster states that acculturation is the process of cultural modification of an individual, group, or people by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture while still maintaining aspects of your own culture. Assimilation is the process of adapting or adjusting to the culture of a group or nation. Acculturation and assimilation are options that both come with positives and negatives. Throughout all U.S. history, Americans have been less than accepting of new cultures, which has led to problems for immigrants. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, banning Chinese people from immigrating to the U.S. The act came on the heels of fear from white
Americans that the Chinese were taking their jobs and driving down wages, when in actuality white Americans were being paid more than Chinese laborers. With the influx of undocumented immigrants in America, some caution is necessary, but caution to the point of fear and disgust is unreasonable. But, Americans’ unnecessary fear and dislike for immigrants has resulted in violence. Following 9/11, hate crimes against Muslims immediately surged. According to FBI data, after 9/11 in 2001, there were 481 attacks reported against Muslims, up from 28 the past year. One of the most horrific examples of a hate crime after 9/11 took place on Sept. 15, 2001. Mistaking Balbir Singh Sodhi for a Muslim due the turban Sodhi was wearing, Frank Roque shot Sodhi five times. But in actuality, Sodhi was apart of the Sikh faith. Events like these are not isolated incidents, they are actually a part of America’s dark history. In Rock Springs, Wyoming in 1885, 150
white miners attacked Chinese immigrants living in their town by setting fire to their homes and businesses, murdering 28 people. Between the 1870s and 1880s, there were at least 153 anti-Chinese riots throughout the West Coast. In March of 1891, antiItalian sentiments reached a head in New Orleans when 11 Italian Americans were lynched by a mob for their alleged role in the murder of a local police chief, David Hennessy. Twelve out of 19 of the defendants were not convicted. In order to combat the violence against them, many minorities began creating ethnic enclaves. An ethnic enclave is a geographic area with a high ethnic population and specific cultural identity. Ethnic enclaves first began appearing across the U.S. in the second half of the 19th century as a way to minimize violence against minorities and to help them gain adequate housing and jobs. With the creation of ethnic enclaves, they were able to gain the resources they desperately needed. The Chinatowns that began appearing across the
U.S. are prime examples of this. In San Francisco’s Chinatown, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association provided legal representation, organized a private community watch patrol for the neighborhood and offered health services along with other services that were not available to the Chinese outside of Chinatown. But more often than not, one would find that ethnic enclaves were not met with the respect they deserve. In October of 2014, a San Francisco tour guide went on a racist tirade that included chants of “F**k Chinatown,” and calling for the citizens of Chinatown to assimilate to American culture. San Francisco’s tour guide’s rants about Chinatown and assimilation show the harsh reality that immigrants face, choosing to assimilate or acculturate into society. If immigrants assimilated and attempted to be a part of American culture, they were met with violence and hatred. If they acculturated, immigrants were told they needed to assimilate. Their choice wasn’t good enough.
15 The Penn Perspective Sophie Penn
“I became a journalist to come as close as possible to the heart of the world.” -Henry Luce
Tourism fails to educate
When I was in middle school, my extended family took a trip to the Dominican Republic, where we stayed for two weeks at a Club Med. We stayed in miniature houses right in the middle of the resort. Every day there were different activities for the kids, such as soccer, archery, swimming, and my personal favorite, trapeze swinging. There were big all-you-can-eat buffets for every meal, and while my cousins and I were being entertained by the employees functioning as camp counselors, our parents were off snorkeling, drinking, and doing whatever else adults do on their time off. When I returned from my trip, my friends bombarded me with questions about what it was like being in the Dominican Republic. I didn’t know how to respond. My entire trip had taken place inside a resort, where everything we saw was specifically designed to target tourists. I had absolutely no idea what the country was actually like outside of that resort. Let me reiterate that. I had just visited the Dominican Republic, a country that shared territory with Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world. And what had I done there? I had overindulged myself in food, played games, and tanned. I had been an active participant in what I like to call the “tourist lens.” To this day, I still know very little about the Dominican Republic, and my experience there has been mirrored through multiple other trips. I’ve gone on safaris in Africa, experienced the nightlife of Prague in the Czech Republic, and swam with turtles on the beaches of Mexico. Yet, not once have I done volunteer work on these trips. I’ve almost never interacted with the locals, and somehow I’ve repeatedly failed to come back with a single piece of relevant information about the country I was staying in. Every out-of-country experience I’ve had in my young life has led me to one conclusion: tourism does not provide an accurate representation of a place or country. When I traveled to Africa last winter, I was determined to positively contribute to the local communities throughout our trip. However, my family didn’t exactly have the same experience in mind. Where I was interested in service work, outreach, and further educating myself on the conditions of residents of small villages in Zambia and Zimbabwe, my family was busy planning an elaborate safari trip involving tour guides, fancy resorts, and private jets. I felt as if I was doing a disservice to myself and the African countries by failing to use my privilege to help in any productive sense. While on our trip, we briefly stopped in a local village in Zimbabwe, where we spent less than an hour out of our 10-day trip to get a first-hand glimpse of what it was like to live in a third-world country. In that single hour, I learned more about the country and its people than I did the rest of the trip. I spoke to a family that had built their own huts from mud and clay. I heard of a neighboring woman who was about to walk 10 miles alone to a hospital while going into labor. I was introduced to a girl not much older than me, whose fouryear-old son hid behind her legs as we spoke. I was unprepared for the culture shock that I experienced, as the rest of our trip had been spent touring the jungles and safaris of Africa, looking for different animals to photograph with our expensive cameras. There’s a huge tourism industry targeted at wealthy tourists, but the experience gained as a tourist is very different from the reality of many countries. Oftentimes, those boasting of their worldly experiences traveling with family and friends have no real conception of the place they visited — and how would they, with so many tourist spots being designed to appeal to foreigners and mimic their own living environments. The best way to experience another culture and environment is not to arrange an elaborate trip full of tours and sightseeing, but to fully immerse oneself in the culture of the locals. Not only does this genuine form of traveling allow for a more realistic world view — it’s also cheaper and more fulfilling.