A political viewpoint that favors native inhabitants over immigrants is the best description of a Nativist.
Option 1
<h3><u>Explanation:</u></h3>
A nativist by definition is a person or a public viewpoint that favors the provision of better privileges and rights to native residents and inhabitants of an area as opposed to immigrants who merely shifter to the area. A nativist is not a politician related to and favoring only Roman Catholics to office as it relates to all natives and not just Roman Catholics.
A Nativist isn’t necessarily cruel but every cruel leader isn’t a Nativist. A Native American activist is also a decent description but a native activist need not support natives exclusively, just because he is native, making option 1 the best answer.
Well, I don't know what exactly it taught you, but for me it taught me a list of things:
- how to work cohesively with people with dramatically different ideas than me
- how to appreciate and participate in other cultures
- my actions and the results are dependent on me
- social systems are drastically different and are dependent on your cultural background
- There are universal human wishes and things with which you can bond
- the importance of social support, and the significance of belonging to a community
These are just a couple things I learned from moving cross-culturally throughout my life.
Critical thinking could be used in this example to actively engage with the proposition and propose an alternative or another proposition. Maybe in my own life experience I've known women who drive better than man, so I already have first hand example of how this is a misbelieve, but in order to prove this i have to go a step further.
---
Skepticism should refrain us from making statement from things we don't know yet. The proposition is a generality and thus already tell us that is a prejudice, but moreover when we are talking about things without having knowledge is a good scientific practise to step back and know the argument before speaking.
---
Objectivity is what we should aim when examine datas and proposition. Once we have the data, we could objectevely tell if this proposition respects the truth or not. Some importance should also be given to the motivation and the qualitative data, and not only the raw quantitative data, as reading and analyse only one type could lead to more misunderstading.
---
Curiosity is what we should always bring to the table in everyday matter. In the proposition, we could step back and ask why this is a well consolidates rumour, or why are the reasons behind this saying. Curiosity should be the driven to explain the world in a more complex and rich way comparing to the way other people may live.
---
Other examples of proposition that could be examine by the scientific approach are almost endless. "Women are not good at STEM fields" for example, or "Men generally are more qualified leaders". It is possible to argue that every proposition could be examine in a scientific approach, and maybe we all should do it so.
