This study examines how Melody, a Korean transnational girl in the US, participates in high school AP (Advanced Placement) biology class, engages in identity work, and learns science. Melody was a daughter of a gireogi family (a transnational family separated for educational purposes), living with her mother and brother in the US. The recent increase of transnational educational migration among Asian students and the importance of identity in understanding students’ learning and participation motivated this study. I define identity as a type of personhood and view that it is always performed and negotiated by individuals in their social lives. Drawing on ethnographic data collected in Melody’s AP Biology class, I will show Melody constructed identities as a non-participant, limited English-proficient student and incompetent biology learner. Her identity construction was influenced by the meso level contexts (e.g., school, classroom) and personal contexts (e.g., gireogi family contexts). Yet, Melody constantly negotiated with these contexts to re-figure her identities to be more conducive to her biology learning and to enhance her classroom participation. This study demonstrates how individual students in the US, while coming from a stereotypically successful ethnic group, experience their life contexts and explore possibilities for learning and being in different ways. Implications include how researchers and teachers should pay attention to individual differences and contexts in order to better facilitate their science learning and classroom participation. I will also provide implications for education in countries that send gireogi families and transnational students.
Even though religious toleration is a risky policy, it increases the safety and security for state and individuals in most of the situations. To demonstrate this argument I compare Susan Mendus’s and T. M. Scanlon’s arguments of toleration. Both scholars argue that toleration is worth defending despite the fact that when the object of attack is a set of values, a way of life, the question of toleration is unattainable. In Susan Mendus’s view, T. M. Scanlon fails to focus his argument on terrorism. The question is about tolerating possible terrorists, their values, and the risk involved. Scanlon, on the other hand, argues that toleration takes place in informal politics through which the nature of a society is constantly redefined. Toleration is a virtue. A plainly intolerant attitude towards possible terrorists denies ‘the other’ being equal and full membership in a society. Mendus argues that terrorist acts are both religiously motivated and rational but an intolerant society is a society of fear, separation and isolation. She sees that toleration becomes possible and desirable among Salvationist religious groups. John Locke argued that disagreement is unavoidable, and consequently advocated seeking ways to secure peaceful co-existence, toleration and accommodation. Scanlon shows what can happen if a society is tolerant. If toleration means simply letting others be religious their own way, the result could also be an idiosyncratic religious environment. Mendus, however, discusses the idea of living among people who think and act differently. This can feel uncomfortable and lead to the temptation to ‘protect’ the society from certain forms of change and to limit freedom of expression. This approach, which is founded upon the idea of profoundly different worldviews, provides prospects for a different kind of accommodation from that of Scanlon.
drink and abounding in beds, and there was a dreadful and ill-smelling stench of frogs, dying and living and dead.5298ὑπὸ δὲ τούτων τῶν κακῶν ἐλαυνομένων τῶν ᾈγυπτίων τὸν Μωυσῆν ἐκέλευσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς οἴχεσθαι τοὺς Ἑβραίους λαβόντα, καὶ παραχρῆμα τοῦτ’ εἰπόντος ἠφάνιστο τῶν βατράχων τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἥ τε γῆ
that covers the entrails (Lev. 3:3) is to be burnt upon the altar. Josephus here provides a connection between the dietary and sacrificial laws.6As Altshuler (1977:91) remarks, the one notable exclusion from Josephus’ list is the prohibition of flesh torn from living beasts (Exod. 22:31, Lev. 7:24, 17
Δαυίδου μοίρας οὔτε κλῆρονWhile the leaders were saying these things to one another,1 a certain vile man who delighted in civil strife,2 Sabai,3 son of Bochori4 of the tribe of Benjamin,5 standing in the middle of the crowd, cried out in a loud voice:6 “None of us has a portion in David or an inheritance
.V. Coornhert’s seminal work, Ethics . This first line, taken from this inaugural English translation, captures well the intention of this work: to instruct in the language of the ‘ordinary’ Dutch citizen the meaning and mechanisms for livinga good life. Ethics explores in didactic and reflexive forms the values and
in [a situation of] such great poverty had not lacked for anything of what he needed, would be found to be thus vile and unholy17 towards him who had benefitted him that he would not only not save him from the wrong plotted against him by others, but would himself be solicitous to seek his [life
of Mariamme, who was living in wedlock with the king.5 It was clear that he believed Alexandra was somebody blessed with beautiful children.626ἐκείνης δὲ εἰς λόγους ἐλθούσης αὐτῷ πείθει γραψαμένην ἀμφοτέρων εἰκόνας Ἀντωνίῳ διαπέμψασθαι· θεασαμένου γὰρ οὐδενὸς ἀτευκτήσειν ὧν ἀξιοῖ.When she had a word
, καὶ ἀποθανεῖν δὲ κελεύσας ἅπαξ τῇ ἀδελφῇ Βερενίκῃ πολλὰ δεηθείσῃ τὴν σὴν σωτηρίαν ἐχαρίσατο;Although, as you say, I am a wretch,79 King Agrippa, who had granted80 your life to you when you had been sentenced by Vespasian to die,81 and who had presented [you] with so many goods82 —for what reason did
τοῦ Ἀμασία υἱός,King Hieroboam, after livingalife of total well-being1 and ruling for forty years,2 died and was buried in Samareia.3 His son Zacharias4 succeeded to the kingship.Zechariah (Zacharias) succeeds Jereboam216ἔτος ἤδη τέταρτον πρὸς τοῖς δέκα βασιλεύοντος Ἱεροβοάμου, τῶν δύο φυλῶν