| Summary: | OPINION 4 theconcordian.org • October 20, 2016 THE CONCORDIAN jwagner5@cord.edu When setting a table, on which side of the plate should one place the spoon? Which types of clothing are okay to wear to work, and which aren’t? Is it appropriate to have visible piercings or tattoos in a professional setting? These questions are all related to etiquette and professionalism, qualities that employers and society in general value greatly. Professionalism is valued so much, in fact, that Concordia just hosted an etiquette dinner in order to teach students how to eat and behave properly in a formal setting. Society looks down on those who appear disheveled, unkempt or otherwise “unprofessional,” regardless of the professional qualities of the individual. It’s time to move past the antiquated ideas of professionalism and etiquette and embrace individualism and comfortability. Americans need to readdress their views on dress codes and dinner etiquette, while also remembering that the U.S. view of professionalism does not fit every culture. Nearly every business has some kind of dress code. Oftentimes, dress codes detail exactly what types of clothing are appropriate, whether tattoos and piercings can be visible and whether certain types of jewelry are allowed. Dress codes are supposed to increase productivity and promote a more professional tone in business environments due to the popular belief that dressing up makes one more focused and efficient. However, Jennifer Baumgartner, psychologist and author of “You Are What You Wear,” says, “There is no absolute scientific study to prove that attire impacts productivity.” If there is no concrete evidence that one’s clothing affects his or her work, then why not let people be comfortable? Dress clothes are very expensive and they’re not always the easiest clothes to wear. Being able to wear something casual and comfortable at work could go far in making work more enjoyable. Having visible tattoos or piercings shouldn’t be taboo, either. The only reason why anybody views tattoos and piercings as unprofessional is because they have always been against the rules. In order for the common view of tattoos and piercings to change, dress codes everywhere need to change first. The individuality and diversity in style that would result from a lack of dress code would be a beautiful expression of freedom. Right now, society cares less about how people feel than how they appear. Once the meaning of professionalism is updated to be more focused on comfortability than uniformity, work will be a much nicer place to be. There are only a few things one must do to survive, and humans learn what those things are and how to do them as babies. People are born knowing how to eat. At no point does a person, whether a baby or an adult, have trouble understanding the concept of eating. Why, then, is it okay for anybody to say somebody is eating incorrectly? If Billy uses the wrong fork to eat salad, is he now a bad person? Of course not. It simply means that Billy wasn’t raised using multiple forks for one meal. At some point, the strict formality of dining etiquette simply touts a privileged upbringing. Concordia hosted an etiquette dinner on Oct. 13, in which interested students had the opportunity to learn how to eat properly. Frankly, it’s ridiculous to suggest that any way of eating is improper or impolite. Eating is natural and human, and it should stay that way. Professionalism and etiquette are not universal concepts. The idea of professionalism in the U.S. is just that — a U.S. idea based in U.S. values. Each culture has its own idea of professionalism and behavior, and to expect all people to uphold one culture’s ideals is borderline xenophobic. Slurping from a drink or soup is seen as rude in the U.S., but in Japan, slurping indicates satisfaction and is actually viewed as giving praise to the cook. While Americans worry about which fork to use, some people in countries like India eat using only their hands. To one of those Indians, etiquette has a completely different definition than the one accepted by many people in the U.S. The American notion of professional dress — a suit and tie or conservative dress — is a Western idea, one that does not reflect different cultures and their ideas of formality. How, then, is it possible to dictate what people can and cannot wear or look like? To assert Western ideas of politeness on all people is not only unfair, it is discriminatory. People are held to high standards of behavior and dress in most professional settings, but it doesn’t need to be that way. If society shifts its focus from all people being the same to embracing the differences that each person has, universal acceptance could soon follow. If people could be comfortable and express their individuality while also promoting universal acceptance, etiquette and professionalism would eventually be concepts of the past. Professionalism is overrated ‘Right now, society cares less about how people feel than how they appear.’ Industrial farming not sustainable sliebig@cord.edu Wendell Berry, author and environmental activist, said, “To be interested in food but not in food production in clearly absurd.” To most people in the U.S., food is simply something one conveniently finds in a supermarket; it is also a commodity that never seems to run short, despite the prolonged hunger problem in the U.S. But, where does all this food come from? It comes from seeds that have been engineered to give higher crop yields, along with the assistance of fertilizers and pesticides among other agricultural chemicals, of course. Utilizing genetically modified crops, the current popular means of growing food for the U.S., is inefficient and environmentally degrading. Though it does lead to higher crop yields, genetically modified crops — and the chemicals necessary to ensure the high crop yields — degrade the soil beyond any repair that would naturally occur in our lifetimes. In a way, the degradation of soil by genetically modified crops traps farmers. Because their soil is degraded due to the genetically modified cropping system, they might find it difficult to grow any sort of non-genetically modified crop and attain even a semblance of the high yields gleaned from genetically modified crops. These crop types result in soil nearly devoid of nutrients, perhaps also in part by the single crop that has been grown on said plot of soil for possibly several growing seasons. Inefficient/industrial farming practices lead to food that is more expensive, less fresh and more likely to be thrown away earlier than it ought to be. Many of the issues noted previously could be rectified if the U.S. placed greater emphasis on urban farming, which when practiced correctly is more sustainable and yields crops grown with significantly fewer chemicals than commonly used in industrial farming. Aside from the health advantages to the consumer of more local farming, the price of said food is ideally lower, as the packaging and transportation costs associated with produce from industrial farming is greatly lessened. Packaging on fresh produce is relatively superfluous, and transportation of the produce is at a minimum because said produce was grown locally — say, within an hour of the town or city that it is sold. However, local produce — especially when it is purchased in a store, such as a co-op — can border on exorbitantly expensive for the average consumer, thus making this fresh and local produce something to which the elite have principal stake. As I have mentioned in previous columns, there are places in the U.S. where people are not even able to access fresh produce and other healthy foods — usually places where racial and ethnic minorities reside. Perhaps a solution to this is eliminating the unnecessary food waste in the U.S., and instead using the food that is still good—even if outside its “expiration date”— but that grocery stores refuse to sell, and donating it to those in desperate need of food. Expiration dates on food are legally required on all baby formula, but the expiration date on all other products is not required; rather, it is a way to bring the consumer back to purchase new “good” food. While it is true that most food that has not undergone rigorous processing goes bad in a relatively short amount of time, the “sell by” and “use by” dates on food products are often earlier than the food’s actual expiration date. This is also a driving cause behind the exorbitant amount of food waste in the U.S. This is a major problem, because grocery stores are seemingly forced to throw out perfectly good produce and dairy. Surely, the unused “expired” food from grocery stores could be put to better use than sitting in a landfill. In our own homes, the typical practice is to throw out food that has passed the listed expiration date. With local farmers, there is no expiration date appended to the produce given. Why is the U.S. not placing more emphasis on local farmers and urban farming? This question is not meant to say that the U.S. has not made steps towards urban farming — it certainly has. However, the U.S. has a long way to go before the full potential of urban farming is taken advantage of by communities and individuals. There are a number of ways one could go about participating in urban or local farming. The easiest, perhaps, is to shop at a co-op if there is an affordable one nearby. Another way is to purchase a “share” of a Community Supported Agriculture program. This tends to be a more cost-efficient solution for those who cannot afford the Whole Foods prices associated with fresh and reasonably local produce. The higher-maintenance option is to purchase a plot in a community garden. Community gardens are still working to take a hold in the U.S. Despite this, the return on investment in a community garden is great, and the “owner,” who has grown all the crops yielded in that plot of soil, knows exactly what seeds were used and what chemicals or natural fertilizers (if absolutely needed) were used. From previous experience, I would gladly attest to the financial and environmental sustainability of a community garden. It is the epitome of local farming. However, the root to success of local and/or urban farming is the people’s’ willingness to engage with their community and a wish to personally connect to the farmer growing the produce they consume. In this case, it may be one part education and one part courage that will be needed for the potential success of local or urban farming to take root in communities. Regardless, as the yields of genetically modified crops stagnate and start to fall, people will eventually turn to their local farmers, and these local farmers — not the industrial farming corporations — will dictate the future of food production. ‘Why is the U.S. not placing more emphasis on local farmers and urban farming?’ Dakota Access to have all access jscarbr2@cord.edu Winter is coming. This knowledge is not just limited to Game of Thrones characters or fans of dank memes, but also to a small community in Texas. Dakota Access, a company based in the Lone Star State, is responsible for the construction of a pipeline that would carry 500,000 barrels of crude oil every day from North Dakota to Wisconsin. The company has faced resistance from thousands of individuals all over the world, yet Dakota Access has somehow managed to handle things fairly smoothly. But, soon these Southerners will face an even bigger challenge: the frozen tundra that is the Midwest. In order to prepare for this, engineers have already begun drafting a new strategy for preserving the pipeline—which is expected to be over a thousand miles long upon completion—so that it can resist the harsh and bitter winds that are colder than the hearts of those who are in charge of building it. Constance Billings, the corporation’s chief executive officer, says it would normally be difficult for a group of hot-headed people to figure out how to brace themselves for the cold, but this plan took just five minutes to brainstorm—about as long as it took them to justify the invasion and destruction of the indigenous lands with the construction of their project. The plan: In order to keep the oil from freezing, workers are to insulate the pipeline with hundreds and hundreds of dollar bills. This will ensure protection against the ongoing winter ahead. It also doubles as a giant piggy bank for corporate greed. The cost: While the original plan was to have the pipeline completed much earlier, the $30.8 billion project has been subjected to a number of legal delays. With the upcoming need for insulation, the project will now double in cost in order for it to brave the elements. The upside: Stuffing the pipeline with money is a great example of real life ties to capitalism and environmental justice. The pipeline is an actual political cartoon, which can save teachers several minutes of looking up examples of metaphors for their English classes. Billings says she is not concerned about the social or environmental impacts of the pipeline, but recognizes the short and long-term issues that come with this insulation plan. “The only people who will directly suffer from this plan are people like me,” Billings said, pulling out her wallet. “Look at this. I don’t have much money. I’m investing all I have into this plan, but ten dollars from my pocket now can mean tens of thousands of dollars later.” Funding is expected to come from the billions of dollars saved by building directly on indigenous lands instead of building elsewhere. Billings said their budget took several extra weeks to create, as they had to decide whether to use existing funds on a corporate office gelato machine, or for creating and supporting future projects in environmental racism. In the end, after a six-to- five vote, the budgetary committee decided on funding the latter. “As much as we all love a nice, cold dessert, we decided on something much cooler,” Billings said. “The warranty on those machines only last a few years anyway, but the destruction of cultures and land lasts forever. Sorry not sorry, Sioux.” Next on the list for Dakota Access: limiting Dakota access to clean water. Then, limiting Lakota access. And then Cheyenne access, followed by Ojibwe access. “Pretty soon Dakota Access will have all access,” Billings said. The money has already started going into the pipeline. ‘This plan took just five minutes to brainstorm—about as long as it took them to justify the invasion and destruction of the indigenous lands with the construction of their project.’
|
|---|