Every person undergoes the process of shaping mental outlook; however, it depends on an individual whether or not he or she will have his or her world vision become an ever-elevating multi-faceted virtue or the one dominated by stereotypes, an ingrained and somewhat oversimplified idea of material world and people. Stereotypes-obsessed people tend to derive knowledge from media resources, such as newspapers and TV programs, which have stereotyped our perception of the world since they are far more entertaining digital alternatives to classical elitist or sophisticated paper sources of knowledge that idle-minded people resort to. Dangerous is such an alliance between people and media inasmuch as newspapers, preview trailers, programs, and movies are commercial of nature, which means these sensation-driven or box-office takings-obsessed projects hyperbolize, misrepresent the reality as well as misinterpreting certain historical events, creating ridiculous and over-exaggerated stereotypes about historical figures, politicians, culture and other national aspects of any given nation.
The means of generating stereotypes are many, varying from newspapers, magazines to television sitcoms, movies and talk shows regardless of the country of their birth. The problem is that each who happens to possess a number of traits of a stereotyped class of individuals is automatically classified as one of this kind. The now rather obsolete albeit well-developed stereotype about women’s role of hearth keepers was popularized through books and media sources. As per other fixed ideas, stocky people with well-developed muscles should have low IQ, sailors must be serious tusslers, seeking every opportunity to booze and leave somebody bruised and battled while politicians ought to be corrupt. These are deep-rooted stereotypes that we build without any good knowledge of each individual’s out of this kind belonging to a stereotypical category. More specifically, stereotypes may fall into multiple subtypes with regard to food, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, traditions, warfare, and history, to name a few.
These are general international stereotypes applicable to people as a whole; still, as per national stereotypes, for example, the USA is a fast food, popcorn consumer and the place where people get killed by gangsters, being caught in crossfire, fugitives cowboy theft cars in the process of being chased by police, Stallone-like war heroes exterminate foes in numbers. England is stereotypically thought of as the country of noble knights, queens and multiple trade colonies all over the world. Italy is considered the country of conquering Roman praetorians defeating barbaric hordes, the country of wine drinkers, and macaroni eaters while its insular part Sicily, is firmly regarded as the birthplace of gangsters. Greece is viewed through the alembic of Greek dances, constantly rebelling people, olive oil, vine, a famous Gods pantheon, 300 Spartans showing a true feat of strength against the immense hordes of Persians in the battle of Thermopylae and earlier Trojan War, involving Achilles. Egypt is associated with pyramids in Giza, Sphinx cats, and side view images with signature wigs. Columbia is a drug country, Brazil boasts carnivals, coffee, and a world-class football, Holland tolerates proscribed substances use as well as homosexualism, Switzerland is the country of chocolate, cheese, and very secure banks, Mongolia is the country of nomadic belligerent Genghis-Khan-like folk, and Japan is the birthplace of samurai.
Such are very few examples of stereotypical perception of different countries’ representatives. People are used to attaching these labels after watching these folks represented that way in movies and sitcoms or depicted in newspapers. The problem is their true image is largely misrepresented by sometimes unscrupulous profit-oriented editors, screenwriters and journalists, whose modified product causes people to develop a false system of values and views as well as shaping the wrong picture of the world around them.
Choice and Happiness
In order for every person to be happy it is necessary that one have a freedom of choice since it grants the opportunity of choosing what life objective to set, what profession to master, and who to spend the whole life with. Being deprived of a choosing alternative no more makes a person a full-fledged individual than it creates a feeling of happiness and life satisfaction. How a person who is devoid of choice freedom is supposed to be happy when he or she is not the one to make a choice that has the potential of determining the course of life?
They who are not in a choosing capacity are hardly self-sufficient individuals; however, if truth be told, it is not always that we voluntarily surrender our God-given rights. Children born to North Korean parents happen not to enjoy the whole range of rights, including that of choice. Nor do they acquire these rights with the course of time. The state of democracy, which is prerequisite to the freedom of choice, in this country is such that it hardly leaves a possibility of choosing, if at all, to put it mildly. This is the nation, of which every person has him- or herself brainwashed by ideological machine, turning them into bigots who believe in skillfully crafted stereotypes about the capitalistic world and are ready, willing and able to press the nuclear button, whenever necessary. They are manipulated by an opportunistic leader who acts like a medieval abuser by eliminating his closest entourage, though having been educated in Europe and in human values respecting environment. There is no saying about the possibility of having any alternative in a country where people get incarcerated by a new-emerged dictatorial abuser for not mourning the loss of the late leader properly. There is no opportunity to make a choice on whether or not to dissemble in a hypocritical manner by squeezing out a tear or openly celebrating the demise of a ruthless and inhumane communist leader. In banana republics and selective Asian and African countries, such as Burma, Myanmar, Somali, to name a few, where the power situation is close to being despotic people do not tend to exercise human rights of choice in their fullness as well.
Hobson’s choice have children who are born into authoritarian families, sometimes being forced into opting for a life trade they have no inclination for. Parents may choose them to follow in their ancestors’ footsteps as well as wanting similar success achieved. To put a simple example, a child who shows the signs of excellence in humanitarian disciplines may be made choose “exact sciences” a potentially good aviator has to become an accountant while a person who has every chance to make an excellent president joins the army of policemen. Because of parents’ feelings children may break their whole lives by not choosing the right course of life. Not only are people put in a no choice situation when it comes to selecting profession, but they may be in no capacity for deciding on who their future spouse is going to be. In selective Islamic countries, such as Turkey, young men and women hardly have the right to choose. The Kurdish people, or Kurds, who partly inhabit the territory of contemporary Turkey will not suffer their children to get married, without them selecting a future spouse on their own, with no consent needed on the part of their child. Future newlyweds do not necessarily have to know each other well enough prior to getting married.
Still, sometimes the lack of choice is much needed for a number of understandable reasons. Conscientious and aware people with mature vision and the feeling of responsibility, a wide mental outlook and firm societal attitude should enjoy the freedom of choice. If a person does not possess such attributes, then it is wise for a country to have such people’s rights limited. Mentally handicapped, rebellious, delinquent and people displaying deviation and other kinds of asocial misdemeanor are to be barred from making an important choice, for instance, by participating in elections, taking into consideration unintentional or intentional harm that those put behind the bars or isolated may inflict in the aftermath of their exercising the right of making a choice.
With that in mind, freedom of choice is a major stipulation of happiness. So, if people are deprived of such a privilege there is no way they feel happy or satisfied. In some cases, however, the deprivation of rights is a must-take measure for dangerous society marginal persons.
Charity: Social Responsibility or Habits of Happiness
All world societies experience the problem of poverty, which depends of economy effectiveness, social sphere and a number of other factors. Poverty renders people jobless and incapable of paying taxes as well as making them forfeit their houses as a result after country being dealt a serious economic blow or being in the middle of undergoing recession or fundamental economic reforms. In some cases, reasons other than those mentioned, such as severe property damage or decease, expedite the process. Whatever the cause, the unemployed go as far as to beg alms, not being able to provide for the living after them being stripped of all their possessions. This is when human generosity, the habit of happiness, and social responsibility come into play. It is safe to admit there are mounting disputes as to whether the acts of charity that people put on display are due to the feeling of social responsibility or a simple habit of happiness. Whether it be social responsibility or happiness motivated donations, both are noble of nature since they contribute to the elevation of other people’s welfare. Be it to a fund, or simply to a beggar on the street, it does not change the fact that a person wants to do away with poverty by helping the needy people out of trouble.
Clearly, there is a difference between the two notions; however, both are done on a voluntarily basis. Social responsibility implies awareness as a driving factor to bonify for the benefit of society established for years and genetically passed on from one generation to another. Being born in a society, an individual acquires social traits and habits, including that of helping the poor out of their financial misery or poverty, the problem that is as old as this world. There is nobody to force these people to show some mercy or human kindness. More importantly than that, a moral obligation is what will not simply let them go past a person who goes begging. They are sometimes willing to help children recover from a heavy decease out of sympathy and a civil responsibility. All societies bar none have people ready to extend a helping hand, yet particularly strong is this feeling in the American society. Those socially responsible may have a noble impulse or they may have sermons and payers influence them as parishioners who find it their sacred duty to help their neighbor as the holy Bible tells them to.
The habit of happiness, in turn, suggests a donator derives pleasure out of granting money to the needy people, in other words, a person has the level of happiness go up, every time he or she doles out some money to those in need, even though it means cutting personal or family budget. The reason for people to act this way is putting themselves in the boots of the poor, receiving an opportunity of taking a detached view of how it feels like to fight desperately to make both ends meet. People whose biggest pleasure is making other people happier and more self-sufficient by virtue of charity are to be seen giving money, providing the needy with food, or handing over their personal belongings to the poor on quite a regular basis. They set an excellent example for other people to follow, which does work, with people awareness getting aroused more and more with every passing day. However, social responsibility is more of a duty than an actual desire or a habit of happiness. It seems that there would be no such social responsibility as charity save for society that created it while the habit of happiness sounds like a far more genuine desire to help that comes from the bottom of people’s heart. Even so, such a perception of both notions leaves plenty of room for a debate.
The only reason why people stand aloof from this problem or underestimate the gravity of poverty and the good of someone’s readiness to share his bottom dollar with a needy person is because he who is warm thinks all so. Some people expect their sins to be absolved by spending on charity, which is not uncommon among the rich and sometimes corrupt businessmen. If so, such a donation is nothing else but an indulgence, a medieval-like document granting absolution from sins. However, the better part of people are far from dispensing charity to the poor for such purposes, being driven by either social responsibility or the habit of happiness instead.
