Answer:
Conflict
Explanation:
In general terms, we can see that sociological perspectives focus on two opposing themes: While the structural or functionalist approach views society as composed of varios parts, having each a function that when fullfilled , it makes a contribution to the society's equilibrium.
The kurds have a long history as ethnic group , being in middle east. Bein identified themsevles apart from Arabic majorities and having a more progressive , secular, and western orientation, they fail still to be recognized as a state nation.
This is why Conflict theorists would argue in the case of Kurds:
Why the society has failed or why kurds have not been assimilated and giving a function and meaning?
Then they would see society as divided into groups each with different power and resources that are in a dynamic of constant struggle and exploit with one another (Turkey vs Kurds)
The answer is Pierre Bourdieu. His theory is more focused on order and dynamics of society. He thinks that if a person inherits power, it is easier for the society to have social order. He studies the physical aspect of social life and its impact on social order. He has done several kinds of research about different kinds of capitals which include the cultural, symbolic and emotional aspects of it.
It is the oldest known civilization in the Americas and one of the five sites where civilization originated independently and indigenously in the ancient world, flourishing between the 30th and 18th centuries BC. It pre-dated the Mesoamerican Olmec civilization by nearly two millennia.
<span>To divide we the people to weaken us, set us against each other with blame games and propaganda. Party loyalty blinders keep us from watching too closely what our own party representatives are doing against our own interests.
Like professional wrestlers they appear to be bitter rivals in public but are the best of friends behind closed doors. They have led us to think that only someone from their parties can win an election. If we vote for a third party candidate we have "thrown our vote away" on someone who stands no chance of winning and let that "evil other party" candidate win. We feel compelled to vote for the "lesser" of the two evils being offered.
Consider this: Both parties of the Senate said that the TARP bill lacked oversight to protect the taxpayer's money (concerning the original 3 page one passed by the House of Representatives). They claimed they were going to add protection and oversight to it. Then behind closed doors they added 137 pages of earmark spending and NO oversight or protection. Bush signed it and they closed the 110 Session of Congress knowing that they had an automatic pay raise in place. Both parties were involved so no evil other party blame games could be played.
Instead they faked outrage when the AIG bonus news came out and blamed the Management for not following rules which they had failed to put into the TARP bill in the first place. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KRXnYgu...</span>
Answer:
salad bowl
Explanation:
The integration of different cultures and beliefs represent the metaphor salad bowl. Like the different veggies in a salad bowl, different cultures and beliefs are merged and linked in a society.
The same kind of integration is seen in the urban area where Mr. Torrence teaches. There are some students who have immigrant parents and they speak a language other than English. All these circumstances reflect the metaphor salad bowl.
