This wasn't a national or governmental policy or process, but I discovered an unfair policy at my high school graduation. I went to a public school, and there was a large population of my high school that came from immigrated families. Well, our school was having graduation at the Air Force Academy, and having the ceremony here wouldn't allow any person without a green card to come. This caused a lot of trouble with my friends' families because a lot of their grandparents didn't have green cards, so before a petition and protest caused the school to change venues, they wouldn't have been able to see their kids/grandkids graduate.

These are all positive solutions, but in our world and communities today, do you think we see more microresistence strategies, or negative consequences?

what all could finding out more look like? I'm curious to see how media and our strategies for research today could affect this tool.

For me personally, I am really bad with confrontation, so the "opening the door" microintervention would be something I need to work on. This is an issue that even need to be solved within my home, and its where I see microaggressions within the family and towards other groups the most. This could be a "comfortably uncomfortable" place where I can practice opening the door.

i’m surprised that microinterventions has that definition, but i’m glad that this is listed as a solution. I feel like while it’s crucial to address the ones creating tension, the initially more efficient solution is to invest in microinterventions. It's so important to open up those bridges and build one, and it might be easier before trying to revive another's burned bridge.

I wonder how certain immoralities tie into breaking down the barriers of injustice and micro aggressions. whenever i would see this growing up, before knowing what micro aggression was, i would always criticize instances as the offender having too much pride. so, breaking down barriers and key issues, should we focus on inner values or visable issues that would deny those instances of corruption in the heart?

When people are singled out in a group, they seem to be ignored above all things. Even the people that what to claim that they are exclusive also want to show that they are being "inclusive" to the one singled out by choice. I've seen a lot of people purposefully act a different way to the one known as different to show they rest of the public that their interactions aren't truly genuine and related. A lot of us want to be friends with the "outcast" but not associated with them or their group I believe, and this is even noticeable in the most loving communities. It makes me feel uncomfortable, but I can also relate to those insecurities. It is human nature to want to flip in, and this is where the necessity for countering culture comes in.

what does this mean?

Just writing this as a note, I want to highlight the three impacts to later see how microaggressions could lead to large or even global predicaments: structural: interpersonal: intrapersonal: -- whats the difference between these three?

From the first grounding question in the beginning of the chapter, the basic definition of micro aggressions was sort of how I predicted to to be, but this example I found to be a surprise. I didn't think that this is what microagressions would look like but more so derogatory comments in school or exclusion, so I need to learn more about the specific of what microaggression could look like to truly notice it. For questions 2 and 3, at first I didn't believe that I've seen microaggressions often in my life, but now I'm rethinking that. In addition, I thought I would be the person to stand up for others in situations of microaggressions, but in examples similar to this one about the siblings, I would probably be uncomfortable saying anything.

Seeing all of these bases make power feel so much more dangerous then just the singular word. When I think of power, I immediately think of diplomatic events/conflict, striving for power in the workplace, or the government. If I had to guess these different categories I would've first thought of the "reward", "coercive" and "informational" branch, but I didn't initially reflect on how common people not in higher positions can hold a lot of power as well. The "expert" and "referent" categories are the ones that I see majority of the general community use to increase their status because those are the two besides legitimate that can be displayed more outwardly. Things like bribery, violence, force or secrecy have to be more hidden. I wonder how each of these bases are shown or micro manners as well to where they wouldn't necessarily be frowned upon.

Now this could relate to authoritative and parental figures, but how does this specific branch differ between cultures? What do each of these branches teach a person about another's culture? Are there certain people that bleed into multiple bases of power?

I feel like I have seen this very prominently growing up, but I am wondering what this looks like practically? Where can this be seen differently between parent relationships, friendships and relationships between authoritative figures like parents?

I think we often dont think about how we can evolve in these contexts, yet it's incredibly important to do so. I want to be able to learn and understand others' experiences, even though I might not fully retain what they went to. I want to continue to grow an empathy for these people so that evolving is a daily desire and fighting for change for other people is a desire as well.

is it better to have people in your community that for the majority relates to your group level similarities, or is it better to strive for mixed group levels even while differences and conflicts might occur?

In the context of intersectionality, when acknowledging the differences in social identities, how do we find the balance between celebrating our differences, and celebrating the similarities between humans?

do people feel discarded when not acknowledging their discriminating experiences when the have mainly privileged experiences, or do people that mainly have discriminating experiences feel discarded when you do acknowledge the first hypothetical?

I believe that communication in my analysis of a leader is the core skill that sticks out to me the most, but this only comes with humility. I had always learned that the best tactic for an argument is to put your effort into trying to lose that argument. Communication is important to have, but doesn't just encompass you talking. This means to ask questions and listen to the other person so that you may see where they are coming from. Humilty is the key solution to this, because humility is defined as thinking less about yourself and more about others.

This is such a helpful visualization to see that justice is the minimization of the key problem that would be creating unequal oppurtunites, but what does this look like practically? Would these features of injustice be mainly abstract, or are there concrete things that we can fight to change in order to create this removal of the systemic barrier?

In very good leader there's open mindedness. This doesn't mean that a good leader is easily torn from their opinions or values, but it means that they take in other rational perspectives to analyze. There are always faults to our minds, our opinions and our backgrounds, so it's important to see the intention behind where other people would be coming from. Above all, a leader needs to be aware of their core values that won't part from them. A leader needs to know themselves to that they know the key aspects that should never part from them. These would be qualities such as honesty, resilience, loyalty, and authenticity.