In Chapter 7 of Takaki, he discusses the control that the Mexicans had over California. The Mexicans were the first to find California, where they were able to build up their own sort of lifestyle there. Very few Americans lived in California at this time. “Initially, Mexicans in California… welcomed foreigners from the United States (170). Eventually, problems soon developed. Americans were coming to California for the wealth and land ownership. They weren’t trying to “fit in;” instead they wanted to transform the territory into their own image” (171). “The Bear Flag Republic” was established when Americans tried to gain control over California from the Mexicans. The Mexican-American war took place in Texas and began due to the American “invasion” of the Mexicans in California. The immigration of Americans into Texas became an illegal act, yet it still happened. Many of them were slaveholders. In 1830, the Mexican government outlawed the institution of slavery and prohibited further immigration into Texas (173). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo states that the United States handed Mexico $15 million for nearly one half of Mexico’s territory (at that time). This treaty gave the Mexicans the option to either stay or move to Mexico. During this time, many of the Mexicans that stayed felt alienated. They felt that the Americans hated them. “They had become foreigners in their own land” (178). Even though the constitution stated that if the Mexicans stayed, they would be “guaranteed the employment of all the rights of citizens of the United States,” (177) they were still treated unfairly. No division was made between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. The people of Mexican-American decent were plainly considered to be Mexican. Work conditions were different as well. “Anglo workers operated the machines while the Mexican minors did the manual and dangerous work” (186). The same amount of work was done, but the pay was significantly different.
While reading this chapter, I felt bad for the Mexicans because of the treatment they received. It was obvious that they were in California first, but the Americans didn’t take that into consideration. They made the land their own without any understanding of what the Mexicans would have to go through. Their work was unfair, as well as their pay. This chapter relates to a lot of the course material we’ve discussed through out the semester. It shows the unfair treatment the Americans give to other races, which makes Americans look bad.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Facebook Analysis - King Arthur Burt
Looking at Facebook, I came across the page of ‘King Arthur Burt.’ By looking at his profile picture, I could see that he is an African American male. In his picture, he is bending down low in front of a black SUV, holding an intimidating look on his face. His profile shows him to be heterosexual. He has numerous “favorite quotes” listed on his profile page which are song lyrics by artist such as Jay Z and P. Diddy. Both of these artists are African American as well and rap in the music industry. He seems to be strongly involved with his fraternity which looks as if mostly African Americans are involved in it. On his “wall” where people post comments for him, it was filled with comments from only African American men and women. One person wrote, “CALL ME SO WE CAN KICK IT IN THE D!!!” From personal knowledge and by looking at where King Arthur Burt is from, I can conclude that “The D” means Detroit. Another person (who was also African American) used the ‘N’ word on his wall.
Most of the pieces of King Arthur Burt’s profile are commonly stereotyped with African Americans. If I would have covered up his profile picture, it would have been easy for me to judge that he is of African American decent. His most recent wall posts are all by African Americans, which shows the race of some of his friends, especially because one person actually called him the ‘N’ word. I know that this word is not an okay word to use unless it is said by and African American to an African American.
Most of the pieces of King Arthur Burt’s profile are commonly stereotyped with African Americans. If I would have covered up his profile picture, it would have been easy for me to judge that he is of African American decent. His most recent wall posts are all by African Americans, which shows the race of some of his friends, especially because one person actually called him the ‘N’ word. I know that this word is not an okay word to use unless it is said by and African American to an African American.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Rothenberg: CH. 4 How Jews Became White Folks – Karen Brodkin
In this reading from Rothenberg, Karen Brodkin suggests that Jewish success was not a product of hard work or education. At this time, the segregation of blacks really affected the Jews’ place in society. Being “white” ended up as an advantage point for them. They used it to their advantage to become less oppressed in society. This was a big deal because blacks were still discriminated against while the Jews were using their whiteness to rise above.
“Part of my ethnic heritage was the belief that Jews ere smart and that our success was due to our own efforts and abilities, reinforced by a culture that valued sticking together, hard work, education, and deferred gratification (38). Brodkin continued to say, “I affirm all of those abilities and ideals and their contribution to Jews’ upward mobility, but I also argue that they were still far from sufficient to account for Jewish success (38-39). Blacks, Jews and immigrants were all oppressed groups. In this reading it confirms that Jews were the first of the Euro-immigrants to enter into colleges in significant numbers. Although it was a good thing they were able to even get into colleges, they were still discriminated against. Many Jews believed that their success was due to their hard work and the fact that they highly valued education. Brodkin said that they didn’t see race.
“In time and with hard work, every ethnic group would get a piece of the pie, and the United States would be a nation with equal opportunity for all its people to become part of a prosperous middle-class majority” (43). This was a huge step for race during this time. After the war, affirmative action stepped as a tool to make things equal. Earning a degree was very important; it pretty much meant you were upper-class in society. Soldiers coming home had nothing so a bill was created to help them out. Job training, employment, housing and education were all included in the GI bill. By using their whiteness to their advantage, Jews were included in this, but blacks were not. After the war, blacks were highly discriminated against when it came to the well-paid jobs and housing. Blacks were always the first to be fired, as well as white women. Redlining occurred, but the maps were kept in secret. How does the idea of redlining look in today’s society as opposed to years ago when it first began?
This selection by Brodkin really shows a connection from the past to the present. Although this supposedly isn’t an affirmative action piece, it shows that it’s always been an issue in society.
“Part of my ethnic heritage was the belief that Jews ere smart and that our success was due to our own efforts and abilities, reinforced by a culture that valued sticking together, hard work, education, and deferred gratification (38). Brodkin continued to say, “I affirm all of those abilities and ideals and their contribution to Jews’ upward mobility, but I also argue that they were still far from sufficient to account for Jewish success (38-39). Blacks, Jews and immigrants were all oppressed groups. In this reading it confirms that Jews were the first of the Euro-immigrants to enter into colleges in significant numbers. Although it was a good thing they were able to even get into colleges, they were still discriminated against. Many Jews believed that their success was due to their hard work and the fact that they highly valued education. Brodkin said that they didn’t see race.
“In time and with hard work, every ethnic group would get a piece of the pie, and the United States would be a nation with equal opportunity for all its people to become part of a prosperous middle-class majority” (43). This was a huge step for race during this time. After the war, affirmative action stepped as a tool to make things equal. Earning a degree was very important; it pretty much meant you were upper-class in society. Soldiers coming home had nothing so a bill was created to help them out. Job training, employment, housing and education were all included in the GI bill. By using their whiteness to their advantage, Jews were included in this, but blacks were not. After the war, blacks were highly discriminated against when it came to the well-paid jobs and housing. Blacks were always the first to be fired, as well as white women. Redlining occurred, but the maps were kept in secret. How does the idea of redlining look in today’s society as opposed to years ago when it first began?
This selection by Brodkin really shows a connection from the past to the present. Although this supposedly isn’t an affirmative action piece, it shows that it’s always been an issue in society.
Takaki CH. 6 Emigrants from Erin
In Chapter 6 of Takaki, we read about much more than just differences between races. Differences within race become an issue of discussion. The Irish’s migration was described as a “massive infux” (139). This was ironic because many of these immigrants didn’t want to even leave their homeland; Ireland. The Irish were oppressed.
Takaki states that between 1815 and 1920, five and a half million Irish came to America. The Irish didn’t treat their migration as something they wanted. It was more like a necessity. They felt like they were being driven from their homeland by the British and they weren’t wanting to leave. To make more profit, the British wanted to transform the Irish economy into a “cattle civilization” (141). The British were trying to add Ireland into their market. Takaki describes the Irish living conditions. “The typical single-room cabin of an Irish family consisted of four walls of dried mud with a straw roof and a hold cut in the roof for the chimney” (142). It was described as a “wretched hovel,” which seems unlivable. They opted to migrate to “the Land of Promise” rather than feel like slaves in their on land. Upon arrivial, they began work, with very little earnings. Potatoes were a main source of food for them because they worked where they were grown. These crops soon became infected and lead to the threat of hunger. It was a deadly disease spreading everywhere and lead people to die from both sickness and hunger. Many were unable to pay rent and were then evicted. “For many landlords, the famine offered an opportunity to convert more land into fields for grazing” (143). These landlords definitely saw opportunity. For the Irish, times were hard in America. They weren’t treated well by the colonists because the colonists considered them more of savages, not white. Although this was an issue, the Irish weren’t completely looked down upon because the African Americans were even lower than the Irish.
In what ways were the Irish looked at as “different” than the whites upon first viewing of them? I feel that what was done to the Irish was wrong. I don’t believe that there should have been such harsh feelings and actions put toward them. It was hard to see that they didn’t even want to come to America in the first place because they loved Ireland so much. In other cases, immigrants don’t feel as much love for their homelands as the Irish so it was hard to put this whole thing into perspective.
Takaki states that between 1815 and 1920, five and a half million Irish came to America. The Irish didn’t treat their migration as something they wanted. It was more like a necessity. They felt like they were being driven from their homeland by the British and they weren’t wanting to leave. To make more profit, the British wanted to transform the Irish economy into a “cattle civilization” (141). The British were trying to add Ireland into their market. Takaki describes the Irish living conditions. “The typical single-room cabin of an Irish family consisted of four walls of dried mud with a straw roof and a hold cut in the roof for the chimney” (142). It was described as a “wretched hovel,” which seems unlivable. They opted to migrate to “the Land of Promise” rather than feel like slaves in their on land. Upon arrivial, they began work, with very little earnings. Potatoes were a main source of food for them because they worked where they were grown. These crops soon became infected and lead to the threat of hunger. It was a deadly disease spreading everywhere and lead people to die from both sickness and hunger. Many were unable to pay rent and were then evicted. “For many landlords, the famine offered an opportunity to convert more land into fields for grazing” (143). These landlords definitely saw opportunity. For the Irish, times were hard in America. They weren’t treated well by the colonists because the colonists considered them more of savages, not white. Although this was an issue, the Irish weren’t completely looked down upon because the African Americans were even lower than the Irish.
In what ways were the Irish looked at as “different” than the whites upon first viewing of them? I feel that what was done to the Irish was wrong. I don’t believe that there should have been such harsh feelings and actions put toward them. It was hard to see that they didn’t even want to come to America in the first place because they loved Ireland so much. In other cases, immigrants don’t feel as much love for their homelands as the Irish so it was hard to put this whole thing into perspective.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
“A Challenge to Democracy” clip
In the clip called, “A Challenge to Democracy,” the Japanese-Americans in America were basically told what to do without exception. The idea was to “Americanize” them by shipping the off to centers around the United States to form their own communities. This was during the time of the war. The living conditions of these Japanese-Americans were described as having community bathrooms, kitchens and small bedrooms. These were situations that these people were forced to adjust to. Farming was pretty much their only choice of jobs and it didn’t pay well either. These were the circumstances unless professional skills had previously been developed. In this case, under supervision, they were allowed to hold other jobs. Classes could be taken to enable them to get better jobs within the American economy. This was all done in hopes of benefiting the country.
How did this sudden change in these Japanese-Americans’ lives ultimately alter their perception of the U.S. as well as their own lives? This clip was very hard to watch because I felt as though all of this happened to these people solely because of the way they looked; Japanese. Nevermind the American part, but what was looked at was the Japanese part.
How did this sudden change in these Japanese-Americans’ lives ultimately alter their perception of the U.S. as well as their own lives? This clip was very hard to watch because I felt as though all of this happened to these people solely because of the way they looked; Japanese. Nevermind the American part, but what was looked at was the Japanese part.
Takaki CH. 10: Pacific Crossings
Chapter 10 of Takaki discusses the migration of the Japanese to America. “The distress among the agricultureal class has reached a point never before attained” (the Japan Weekly Mail, Takaki pg. 246). Many couldn’t afford to pay their taxed and ended up having to sell their land. Migrating to the United States seemed like the way to go for many Japanese citizens. The were seeking better jobs with better pay as well as land. At first, the majority of the immigrants were men, but this eventually was altered due to the large number of women that came to the United States. The Japanese believed that “money grew on trees” in America. This was their outlook on the situation.
To the Japanese, marriage was not just an individual concern, it was a family matter. “Picture brides” was a kind of system which consisted of arranged marriages. This was very common. Takaki talks a lot about the differences between Japanese women and Chinese women. The Japanese women were more receptive to traveling overseas. Also, the picture brides were more eager to see the new world over seeing their husbands. The way it worked was, the number of women that migrated partially depended on the countries they were migrating to. If these countries were not in need to these women, then they weren’t able to come. “Planters viewed Japanese women as workers and assigned 72 percent of them to field labor (250). If planters needed workers, their main source was Japan. Korean migrants also came and wanted work, but there needed to be equality between the nationalities. There were many feuds and eventually the Koreans labor supply was cut off. “To strengthen their authority over their ethnically diverse work force, planters stratified occupations according to race: whites occupied the skilled and supervisory positions, while Asian immigrants were the unskilled field laborers” (253). This really separated races in the work force.
Because the Japanese strived so hard to come to the United States and become successful, it highlights the fact that other nationalities did not. Why is there such a dividing line between these nationalities? Why is there such a large difference between countries? This article really put the Japanese into perspective for me. I never really acknowledged them for what they accomplished here in America before. They really took pride in where they came from, but on top of that, they knew that to survive, they needed to migrate and that’s what they did.
To the Japanese, marriage was not just an individual concern, it was a family matter. “Picture brides” was a kind of system which consisted of arranged marriages. This was very common. Takaki talks a lot about the differences between Japanese women and Chinese women. The Japanese women were more receptive to traveling overseas. Also, the picture brides were more eager to see the new world over seeing their husbands. The way it worked was, the number of women that migrated partially depended on the countries they were migrating to. If these countries were not in need to these women, then they weren’t able to come. “Planters viewed Japanese women as workers and assigned 72 percent of them to field labor (250). If planters needed workers, their main source was Japan. Korean migrants also came and wanted work, but there needed to be equality between the nationalities. There were many feuds and eventually the Koreans labor supply was cut off. “To strengthen their authority over their ethnically diverse work force, planters stratified occupations according to race: whites occupied the skilled and supervisory positions, while Asian immigrants were the unskilled field laborers” (253). This really separated races in the work force.
Because the Japanese strived so hard to come to the United States and become successful, it highlights the fact that other nationalities did not. Why is there such a dividing line between these nationalities? Why is there such a large difference between countries? This article really put the Japanese into perspective for me. I never really acknowledged them for what they accomplished here in America before. They really took pride in where they came from, but on top of that, they knew that to survive, they needed to migrate and that’s what they did.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Ethnic Notions
Historic images age just like humans, but they never disappear. We read of slavery and war in textbooks, but none of us truly know the extent of these events. In the movie Ethnic Notions, produced and directed by Marlon Riggs, I witnessed a lot of ignorance as well as racism. It was a movie showing the way blacks were portrayed in history. The movie opened showing cartoon images of blacks eating watermelon while singing and dancing, along with a distorted view of what they look like. Many cartoons and movies showed the idea that blacks were actually happy being slaves; sort of “friends” with their masters, part of the family, playing with the master’s children and having fun. During this time, whites would even imitate blacks for comedy as well as play the part of blacks in movies.
“Mamie” is a term used to describe black women who were slaves; they were portrayed as larger women, wearing bandannas over their hair. They were always seen as happy women, singing and loving slavery. These women were very protective of the household they’re a part of and they’re said to be strong, happy and ugly. This is due to the fact that if she were to be pretty, this would be a threat to the wife of the household. Views of black children were also distorted. They were made out to be animal like and savage like. These images of blacks are still with us today. On bottles of syrup, Aunt Jemima is black and wearing a bandanna, just like “Mamie.” Even though these images are false perceptions, why do they continue to be a part of today’s society?
While watching this movie, I felt very uncomfortable and uneasy. I was looking around and noticed others who seemed to feel the same. We were told we may laugh at some of the things in the video, but I just felt nervous. It worries me that these false, hurtful images of blacks are still around. This is probably the case with many other races, but it something that shouldn’t be an issue after all these years. If this is the case, why do we still see and hear all of this hatred and negativity?
“Mamie” is a term used to describe black women who were slaves; they were portrayed as larger women, wearing bandannas over their hair. They were always seen as happy women, singing and loving slavery. These women were very protective of the household they’re a part of and they’re said to be strong, happy and ugly. This is due to the fact that if she were to be pretty, this would be a threat to the wife of the household. Views of black children were also distorted. They were made out to be animal like and savage like. These images of blacks are still with us today. On bottles of syrup, Aunt Jemima is black and wearing a bandanna, just like “Mamie.” Even though these images are false perceptions, why do they continue to be a part of today’s society?
While watching this movie, I felt very uncomfortable and uneasy. I was looking around and noticed others who seemed to feel the same. We were told we may laugh at some of the things in the video, but I just felt nervous. It worries me that these false, hurtful images of blacks are still around. This is probably the case with many other races, but it something that shouldn’t be an issue after all these years. If this is the case, why do we still see and hear all of this hatred and negativity?
Takaki CH. 3: Question
Why is it that both whites and blacks were slaves, yet white slaves still held a higher status in society than blacks? Shouldn’t being a slave or a servant be grounds for receiving the same treatment?
Monday, February 12, 2007
Takaki CH. 3: The "Giddy Multitude"
As humans, we associate different words and images with different aspects in our lives. To the English, the color black became intertwined with images such as, “deeply stained with dirt,” “foul,” “malignant,” “sinister,” as well as “wicked.” These images were imbedded in the minds of the English during the 1500s and the 1600s. The image portrayed of the color white was that it “signified purity, innocence, and goodness.” Color was of great importance to many people during this time period and this affected thoughts dealing with white and black laborers. “Coming from different shores, white and black laborers in Virginia had very limited understanding as well as negative notions of each other, and mutual feelings of fear and hostility undoubtedly existed” (55). This shows that both whites and blacks had things in common and nothing in common at the same time. Whites and blacks experienced day-to-day exhaustion from the work they were forced to do. Sometimes, blacks and whites would run away together. This was looked at as negative because whites were still looked at as superior to blacks, even if they were doing the same labor. Also, blacks and whites were caught forming other kinds of partnerships. Sexual relations between blacks and whites held grounds for harsh punishment. This happened on numerous occasions and pregnancy often followed these relations. Blacks would be punished more harshly that whites if caught with each other.
African laborers became “more valuable” than English indentured servants. “What was happening was evident: Africans, unlike whites, were being degraded into a condition of servitude for life and even the status of property” (57). African laborers were able to be shipped over in large groups, which was cheaper and they were able to serve their masters for longer periods of time. The “giddy multitude” allowed white slaves to be pardoned. Religion and race showed the division between savagery and civilization. People felt that “if the gates fell, the colonists feared, so would civilization.” Takaki asks a good question, “Why was there such a dramatic turn away from white indentured servants and toward enslaved blacks?” Having these Africans “bound for life” is an advantage. Laws were passed which institutionalized slavery of blacks because it was the cheapest.
Learning about this history of slavery really opened my eyes to what it was like. White and black laborers were, at one time, treated equally. They had the same punishments and the same labors. Why is it that we always tend to hear about the slavery of blacks in history, instead of the story behind both blacks and whites? It was interesting to learn the similarities and differences between the labors enforced on blacks and whites, as well as their punishments and laws passed favored whites. I learned a lot of new facts while reading this chapter.
African laborers became “more valuable” than English indentured servants. “What was happening was evident: Africans, unlike whites, were being degraded into a condition of servitude for life and even the status of property” (57). African laborers were able to be shipped over in large groups, which was cheaper and they were able to serve their masters for longer periods of time. The “giddy multitude” allowed white slaves to be pardoned. Religion and race showed the division between savagery and civilization. People felt that “if the gates fell, the colonists feared, so would civilization.” Takaki asks a good question, “Why was there such a dramatic turn away from white indentured servants and toward enslaved blacks?” Having these Africans “bound for life” is an advantage. Laws were passed which institutionalized slavery of blacks because it was the cheapest.
Learning about this history of slavery really opened my eyes to what it was like. White and black laborers were, at one time, treated equally. They had the same punishments and the same labors. Why is it that we always tend to hear about the slavery of blacks in history, instead of the story behind both blacks and whites? It was interesting to learn the similarities and differences between the labors enforced on blacks and whites, as well as their punishments and laws passed favored whites. I learned a lot of new facts while reading this chapter.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Zinn CH. 2: Drawing the Color Line
The United States have a long history of racism, which makes this a very important topic of discussion. There is no other country in the world that has experienced more racism than the U.S. In chapter 2, Zinn asks a few essential questions: How did it start? How might it end? Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred? Most of these questions have never been fully answered, but in this chapter, Zinn helps us to grasp a better understanding of racisms’ history. In 1619, people of Virginia needed people for labor. It was too much work for them to grow enough to survive. Although turning to the Indians (like Columbus) for this kind of help might have seemed like a good idea, the Virginians were outnumbered, canceling out this option. They came to the realization that the use of black slaves would work. It was illegal at the time, but it had gone on for hundreds of years; black slavery. A reason for this enslavement was due to their helplessness from being ripped from their land and culture. Their culture wasn’t inferior to others, it was even “more admirable” in some ways. Slavery was also used in Africa, as well as Europeans. It’s stated that the slaves which were in Africa were more like the majority of Europe’s population. “African slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture, the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave” (25-26). The conditions the pre-traded slaves had to go through were unbearable for many. Marching for thousands of miles and being packed on a ship so tightly that they are practically suffocating are just a few of these awful conditions. Although this sounds terrible, the slave traders found it all to be “worthwhile.”
The Dutch were the first to dominate the slave trade, followed by the English. Americans over in New England even began to trade slaves. “By 1800, ten to fifteen million blacks had been transported as slaves to the Americas, representing perhaps one-third of those originally seized in Africa (26). Unequal treatment became an issue, which is part of what racism means. Zinn states that there is even evidence showing both whites and blacks seeming more equal than we may think. Common problem, work and enemy (their master) make blacks and whites somewhat similar. In 1763, about half of the population became enslaved. Punishments were harsh for running away and other things. “From time to time, whites were involved in the slave resistance” (30). I feel that this is a very important aspect in this chapter. This seemed to be what people feared most; whites and blacks rebelling together to overthrow power.
To go back to one of Zinn’s questions, Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred among each other? I believe that it is. I feel that no matter what, we will have certain people of different races who have issues and are racist, but I don’t feel it’s fair that being called racist should be thrown around. There are so many people who don’t see race as an issue, and each decade improves with less feelings of hate. Although there is still so much racism in our society, I believe that one day people will look past that and learn to understand each other for who we are.
The Dutch were the first to dominate the slave trade, followed by the English. Americans over in New England even began to trade slaves. “By 1800, ten to fifteen million blacks had been transported as slaves to the Americas, representing perhaps one-third of those originally seized in Africa (26). Unequal treatment became an issue, which is part of what racism means. Zinn states that there is even evidence showing both whites and blacks seeming more equal than we may think. Common problem, work and enemy (their master) make blacks and whites somewhat similar. In 1763, about half of the population became enslaved. Punishments were harsh for running away and other things. “From time to time, whites were involved in the slave resistance” (30). I feel that this is a very important aspect in this chapter. This seemed to be what people feared most; whites and blacks rebelling together to overthrow power.
To go back to one of Zinn’s questions, Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred among each other? I believe that it is. I feel that no matter what, we will have certain people of different races who have issues and are racist, but I don’t feel it’s fair that being called racist should be thrown around. There are so many people who don’t see race as an issue, and each decade improves with less feelings of hate. Although there is still so much racism in our society, I believe that one day people will look past that and learn to understand each other for who we are.
Johnson CH. 7: How Systems of Privilege Work EXTRA CREDIT BLOG
In chapter 7, Johnson points out that people’s participation in social systems allow privilege and oppression to exist. Who people are and how they’re shaped comes from different paths of least resistance. The systems we make and their consequences happen through these paths. Three key characteristics are held by systems which are organized around privilege. “They are dominated by privileged groups, identified with privileged groups, and centered on privileged groups. All three characteristics support the idea that members of privileged groups are superior to those below them and, therefore, deserve their privilege” (90). Patriarchy is a concept acknowledged in this chapter. This is male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centered. Everything pretty much revolves around the male gender in a patriarchal society. Then there’s race privilege. This exists through systems which are white-dominated, white-identified, and white-centered.
Dominance is an important theme in this chapter. “When we say that a system is dominated by a privileged group, it means that positions of power tend to be occupied by members of that group” (91). This is typically the way our society works. Power is something else that becomes identified with people in ways in which it seems normal. Identifying a system as male-dominated doesn’t necessarily mean that all men are powerful. Johnson makes a very good point when he says, men are dominate, but if you ask a man if he is, he will usually answer saying no because he is not of class, race, or disability status. There is a difference between men and woman when it comes to dominance. Male dominance is the norm. If a man in an office setting is upper level management, it is considered normal. He will tell many people what to do, including women. On the other hand, if a woman is upper level management, she is considered to be more of a “bitch” because her actions are somewhat bossy for a woman. Another aspect of this chapter is being identified with privilege. A commonly used “saying” used by millions is, “It’s a man’s world.” Other possibilities are, “It’s a white world,” or “It’s a straight world.” These are all groups with privilege. One would not be likely to use an oppressed group in the same phrase. “Patterns of dominance and the paths of least resistance that sustain them show up in every system of privilege. The result of such patterns of dominance is that if you’re female, of color or in some other way on the outside of privilege, when you look upward in all kinds of power structures you don’t see people like you (94-95). If our participation within society’s social systems never happened, privilege and oppression wouldn’t exist.
Dominance is an important theme in this chapter. “When we say that a system is dominated by a privileged group, it means that positions of power tend to be occupied by members of that group” (91). This is typically the way our society works. Power is something else that becomes identified with people in ways in which it seems normal. Identifying a system as male-dominated doesn’t necessarily mean that all men are powerful. Johnson makes a very good point when he says, men are dominate, but if you ask a man if he is, he will usually answer saying no because he is not of class, race, or disability status. There is a difference between men and woman when it comes to dominance. Male dominance is the norm. If a man in an office setting is upper level management, it is considered normal. He will tell many people what to do, including women. On the other hand, if a woman is upper level management, she is considered to be more of a “bitch” because her actions are somewhat bossy for a woman. Another aspect of this chapter is being identified with privilege. A commonly used “saying” used by millions is, “It’s a man’s world.” Other possibilities are, “It’s a white world,” or “It’s a straight world.” These are all groups with privilege. One would not be likely to use an oppressed group in the same phrase. “Patterns of dominance and the paths of least resistance that sustain them show up in every system of privilege. The result of such patterns of dominance is that if you’re female, of color or in some other way on the outside of privilege, when you look upward in all kinds of power structures you don’t see people like you (94-95). If our participation within society’s social systems never happened, privilege and oppression wouldn’t exist.
Johnson CH. 6: What It All Has to Do with Us
This chapter deals with the concept of diversity, among other things. Johnson believes that people don’t talk about the problem of privilege because it feels too risky. He said that feelings of discomfort and fear hold us back long enough for us to find a way to deal with the problems of even talking about privilege. What people don’t know is that the risk isn’t as big as it may seem. There is a universal human fear, which happens to deal with strangeness and being unfamiliar with certain aspects. This whole problem stems from “the way people think about things and who they are in relation to them” (76). Privilege holds its own certain path with diversity. People are unlikely to cross diversity lines to offer opportunities or privilege to others, which means they’re more likely to do this with someone of equal privilege.
Sexism and individualism are brought together to help get a better understanding of what Johnson is talking about in this chapter. As individuals, we think that everything has to do with individuals and has nothing to do with social categories. “If we use individualism to explain sexism, for example, it’s hard to avoid the idea that sexism exists simply because men are sexist – men have sexist feeling, beliefs, needs, and motivations that lead them to behave in sexist ways” (77). Using this concept to talk about privilege doesn’t work because it’s what causes the circular motion of never solving the problem. This also uses the blame game because it allows everything bad in life to be seen as somebody’s fault. This individualistic way of thinking makes us unaware or blind to the fact the privilege even exists. Johnson states that “privilege, by definition, has nothing to do with individuals, only with the social categories we wind up in.”
The path of least resistance is another main concept discussed by Johnson. In society, we have institutions, socialization any many other aspects that individualize us. In most cases, it is likely that if given options, we will choose the path of least resistance. By this, Johnson means making our decisions based on what people “normally” do. He gives the example of being in an elevator. Once you walk in, people are likely to turn back around and face the door so when it opens, they are able to walk straight out. This is considered a path of least resistance because that is the norm in today’s society. People need to realize that there is a problem with privilege before we can take steps to change it. It is better to look at social categories in general, than blaming things on individuals. Our world is much too big it be placing blame on certain people day by day.
I really learned something from Johnson’s final paragraph of chapter 6. “As long as we participate in social systems, we don’t get to choose whether to be involved in the consequences they produce. We’re involved simple through the fact that we’re here. As such, we can only choose how to be involved, whether to be just part of the problem or also to be part of the solution. That’s where our power lies, and also our responsibility” (89).
Sexism and individualism are brought together to help get a better understanding of what Johnson is talking about in this chapter. As individuals, we think that everything has to do with individuals and has nothing to do with social categories. “If we use individualism to explain sexism, for example, it’s hard to avoid the idea that sexism exists simply because men are sexist – men have sexist feeling, beliefs, needs, and motivations that lead them to behave in sexist ways” (77). Using this concept to talk about privilege doesn’t work because it’s what causes the circular motion of never solving the problem. This also uses the blame game because it allows everything bad in life to be seen as somebody’s fault. This individualistic way of thinking makes us unaware or blind to the fact the privilege even exists. Johnson states that “privilege, by definition, has nothing to do with individuals, only with the social categories we wind up in.”
The path of least resistance is another main concept discussed by Johnson. In society, we have institutions, socialization any many other aspects that individualize us. In most cases, it is likely that if given options, we will choose the path of least resistance. By this, Johnson means making our decisions based on what people “normally” do. He gives the example of being in an elevator. Once you walk in, people are likely to turn back around and face the door so when it opens, they are able to walk straight out. This is considered a path of least resistance because that is the norm in today’s society. People need to realize that there is a problem with privilege before we can take steps to change it. It is better to look at social categories in general, than blaming things on individuals. Our world is much too big it be placing blame on certain people day by day.
I really learned something from Johnson’s final paragraph of chapter 6. “As long as we participate in social systems, we don’t get to choose whether to be involved in the consequences they produce. We’re involved simple through the fact that we’re here. As such, we can only choose how to be involved, whether to be just part of the problem or also to be part of the solution. That’s where our power lies, and also our responsibility” (89).
Johnson CH. 5: The Trouble with the Trouble
In Chapter 5, Johnson states that dominant groups don’t look at privilege as a problem. It is crucial that members of privileged groups start to see both privilege and oppression as a problem instead of nonexistent. If this realization never comes to be, then privilege will never progress to be resolved in the future of society. One reason dominant groups don’t view privilege as a problem is because they don’t know it exists in the first place. “The reality of privilege doesn’t occur to them because they don’t go out of their way to see it or ask about it because no one dares bring it up for fear of making things worse” (68). Being ignorant of this reality allows people to go on with their lives without having to deal with the problem. Another reason is because they don’t have to. Paying attention to any kind of trouble doesn’t happen unless perhaps it’s pointed out. The next reason is because they think it’s just a personal problem. These dominant groups believe that people get what they deserve. Johnson uses an example, “This means that if whites or males get more than others, it’s because they have it coming – they work harder, they’re smarter, more capable. If other people get less, it’s up to them to do something about it” (69-70). Moving on, the next reason why dominant groups don’t look at privilege as a problem is because they want to hang on to their privilege. Prejudice also takes part in this ignorance, as well as being afraid. People are afraid of blame in general, but dominant groups are afraid of “being blamed if they acknowledge that it exists.”
Johnson mentions the tin cup approach, which is “an appeal made to privileged people’s sense of decency and fairness, their good will toward those less fortunate than themselves” (71). The do-a-good-deed approach is also brought up, as well as the business case approach. It is safe to say that there would be no future for privilege and oppression if the dominant groups actually saw these concepts as a problem. I think that this is a major issue in today’s society. The point is, if a person is privileged in one aspect of their life, they are most likely oppressed in another aspect. These dominant groups don’t have the right to use their privilege to ignore this problem all together. People should become more aware of their privileges in life, but they should be sure not to use that to make anyone feel worthless or low.
Johnson mentions the tin cup approach, which is “an appeal made to privileged people’s sense of decency and fairness, their good will toward those less fortunate than themselves” (71). The do-a-good-deed approach is also brought up, as well as the business case approach. It is safe to say that there would be no future for privilege and oppression if the dominant groups actually saw these concepts as a problem. I think that this is a major issue in today’s society. The point is, if a person is privileged in one aspect of their life, they are most likely oppressed in another aspect. These dominant groups don’t have the right to use their privilege to ignore this problem all together. People should become more aware of their privileges in life, but they should be sure not to use that to make anyone feel worthless or low.
Johnson CH. 4: Making Privilege Happen
In chapter 4, Johnson defines privilege in a clear precise way. He brings up the point that each individual makes privilege take place in today’s society. “Although privilege is attached to social categories and not to individuals, people are the ones that make it happen through what they do and don’t do in relation to others” (54). Privilege is “something” that happens through individual’s thoughts, feelings as well as actions. This term has many different ways of being expressed in society. The reality of privilege is that it’s, in some way, involved in everyone’s lives. Johnson uses many relevant examples to explain his concepts in this chapter. Giving admissions or scholarships to students from elite, upper class schools is an act of discrimination. This allows people to believe that they are better qualified than others from middle class schools, when in fact; the students might hold the exact same qualifications.
There are different ways people show privilege daily. First is the act of discrimination. This is when one person or group of people will treat someone else or another group of people unequally simply because they belong to a different social category. This takes place depending on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Avoidance is also influenced by privilege. Something as small as looking away when speaking to someone else can show privilege. Another is exclusion, which is when one group doesn’t allow someone in. This socially bans this person, which makes privilege more of an issue. Johnson states, “Of all human needs, few are as powerful as the need to be seen, included and accepted by other people. This is why being shunned or banished is among the most painful punishments to endure, a social death.” This quote describes life and the way it’s always been. No one wants to be excluded or discriminated against. Avoidance might even be less hurtful than the other two acts. Privilege is also represented in the work place as well as in the community. Sometimes the way we act is intentional and on purpose.
Johnson discusses all of the talk about “racial healing” and “healing gender wounds,” but he continues to state that these issues are far from over. For a lot of people, it’s hard to even fathom the idea of privilege and how it is also seen as negative. Everyone is privileged as well as oppressed and that is how the world works. Day to day, I don’t see myself as privileged or oppressed, but I’ve learned that I am both.
There are different ways people show privilege daily. First is the act of discrimination. This is when one person or group of people will treat someone else or another group of people unequally simply because they belong to a different social category. This takes place depending on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Avoidance is also influenced by privilege. Something as small as looking away when speaking to someone else can show privilege. Another is exclusion, which is when one group doesn’t allow someone in. This socially bans this person, which makes privilege more of an issue. Johnson states, “Of all human needs, few are as powerful as the need to be seen, included and accepted by other people. This is why being shunned or banished is among the most painful punishments to endure, a social death.” This quote describes life and the way it’s always been. No one wants to be excluded or discriminated against. Avoidance might even be less hurtful than the other two acts. Privilege is also represented in the work place as well as in the community. Sometimes the way we act is intentional and on purpose.
Johnson discusses all of the talk about “racial healing” and “healing gender wounds,” but he continues to state that these issues are far from over. For a lot of people, it’s hard to even fathom the idea of privilege and how it is also seen as negative. Everyone is privileged as well as oppressed and that is how the world works. Day to day, I don’t see myself as privileged or oppressed, but I’ve learned that I am both.
Takaki Essay: A Different Mirror
Shakespeare had a dream. He wanted to express an understanding of American history through his play, The Tempest. “Indeed, The Tempest can be approached as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. Seen in this light, the play invites us to view English expansion not only as imperialism, but also as a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity base on race” (25-26). During this time, the English were making discoveries, trying to distinguish a boundary between “civilization” and “savagery.” Because the English were colonizing in Ireland, they described the Irish as savages living outside of civilization. The colonists believed that the Irish didn’t have “knowledge of God or good manners.” They were also said to be lazy and unwilling to work. Violence became an issue between the English and the Irish because of fear held by the Irish. Although the English were beheading the Irish among other things, the English believed that they were teaching them their culture, rather than causing any harm. “In short, the difference between the Irish and the English was a matter of culture” (28).
In his essay, Takaki showed reason why Shakespeare’s Tempest was about America. A character in the play, who was a New World inhabitant, turned out to share his name in relation to the name of an Indian tribe, which came to mean “a savage of America.” In both the play as well as real life, “English explorers engaged in this practice of kidnapping Indians” (30). Takaki related Caliban (from Shakespeare’s play) with the native people of America. Both were viewed as the “other,” which holds meaning. These similarities show how Shakespeare was trying to give an understanding of American history. Later on, social construction of race is pointed out. Epidemic of deadly diseases swept among the Indians. Colonists took this to mean a new opportunity to take land. Thomas Jefferson, governor of Virginia at the time stated that, “In order to survive, Indians must adopt the culture of the white man” (47). He said this, although he was more worried about the white expansion.
I feel that there are so many aspects to this essay which all directly relate to Shakespeare’s Tempest. It is easy to see that this play was written to give the audience a better, clearer understanding of American history. We as individuals aren’t fully educated on American history and what did for society. The movement from “savagery” to “civilization” was seen through Shakespeare’s play, and described in Takaki’s essay.
In his essay, Takaki showed reason why Shakespeare’s Tempest was about America. A character in the play, who was a New World inhabitant, turned out to share his name in relation to the name of an Indian tribe, which came to mean “a savage of America.” In both the play as well as real life, “English explorers engaged in this practice of kidnapping Indians” (30). Takaki related Caliban (from Shakespeare’s play) with the native people of America. Both were viewed as the “other,” which holds meaning. These similarities show how Shakespeare was trying to give an understanding of American history. Later on, social construction of race is pointed out. Epidemic of deadly diseases swept among the Indians. Colonists took this to mean a new opportunity to take land. Thomas Jefferson, governor of Virginia at the time stated that, “In order to survive, Indians must adopt the culture of the white man” (47). He said this, although he was more worried about the white expansion.
I feel that there are so many aspects to this essay which all directly relate to Shakespeare’s Tempest. It is easy to see that this play was written to give the audience a better, clearer understanding of American history. We as individuals aren’t fully educated on American history and what did for society. The movement from “savagery” to “civilization” was seen through Shakespeare’s play, and described in Takaki’s essay.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Rosenblum & Travis - Framework Essay (Group 3)
Aggregating and Disaggregating; two terms rarely used, but concepts that surround our every day lives. The idea of “aggregating” goes hand in hand with the term categorizing. When filling out an application or a survey, many times a person’s race is questioned. If people from different countries who live within different cultures and individually don’t consider themselves to be under one category with each other, then why should this be an issue? Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Cubans and some others from Central and South America get lumped into one group titled “Hispanic,” but many of these people disagree.
“The terms Native American and African American are also aggregate classifications, but in this case they are the result of conquest and enslavement.” This quote is crucial to recognizing the term Aggregation. Looking back in history, we read about Christopher Columbus and his conquest. We learn that he came across “Indians” in many different areas that he found, but we don’t learn why they’re called Indians in the first place. This term comes from the fact that there were various different tribes with many different religions, cultures and languages; this made it easier to discuss “Indians” instead of learning who they really were. Basically the Europeans were just lazy by “lumping” the tribes together, especially since they were well aware of their cultural differences.
“Similarly, the capture, purchase, and forced relocation of Africans, and their experience of forcibly being moved from place to place as personal property, created the category now called African American.” Although these people came from different origins and cultures, they were aggregated by their owners and this term stuck and continues on to present day. The question is, why do we continue to use the terms we use for the people categorized within these terms? Why don’t we change the wrongs created in history to how it should be today? Differences are why diversity is such a big part of our lives today. Looking deeper into history, we realize that the point of view taken from the boat, looking onto land at the “Indians” isn’t just looked at as the European’s perspective. Historically, maybe, but in our society today, that person from to boat is us. We’ve kept this idea of aggregation going and it should be our job to make it right for everyone. Ruth Frankenberg said, “whites are the non defined definers of other people.” Whites hold a great deal of power and that has become the “unspoken norm” of our world.
“The terms Native American and African American are also aggregate classifications, but in this case they are the result of conquest and enslavement.” This quote is crucial to recognizing the term Aggregation. Looking back in history, we read about Christopher Columbus and his conquest. We learn that he came across “Indians” in many different areas that he found, but we don’t learn why they’re called Indians in the first place. This term comes from the fact that there were various different tribes with many different religions, cultures and languages; this made it easier to discuss “Indians” instead of learning who they really were. Basically the Europeans were just lazy by “lumping” the tribes together, especially since they were well aware of their cultural differences.
“Similarly, the capture, purchase, and forced relocation of Africans, and their experience of forcibly being moved from place to place as personal property, created the category now called African American.” Although these people came from different origins and cultures, they were aggregated by their owners and this term stuck and continues on to present day. The question is, why do we continue to use the terms we use for the people categorized within these terms? Why don’t we change the wrongs created in history to how it should be today? Differences are why diversity is such a big part of our lives today. Looking deeper into history, we realize that the point of view taken from the boat, looking onto land at the “Indians” isn’t just looked at as the European’s perspective. Historically, maybe, but in our society today, that person from to boat is us. We’ve kept this idea of aggregation going and it should be our job to make it right for everyone. Ruth Frankenberg said, “whites are the non defined definers of other people.” Whites hold a great deal of power and that has become the “unspoken norm” of our world.
Zinn CH. 1: A People's History of the U.S.
Christopher Columbus was an all around good person, a hero even! He sailed around the world discovering new places including America. In fact, we even have a day named after him!
We learned many things while growing up through out elementary school up until high school. He was in every history book imagined, but do these books give us the whole story to Columbus’ voyages? In his essay, Zinn mentioned many facts that I wasn’t aware of. I believed that discovering new land was Columbus’ desire, but in reality, all he wanted was gold. Through out his voyages over seas, he came across many different Indian tribes. He made these people his slaves as well as kill them if they weren’t of use to him. He believed that many of them knew where the “gold fields” were so he imprisoned them until they told him. He would use “religious talk” in his entries, but turn around and kill people for no reason. He would promise gold to the people back home, but would come back with nothing but spices and silks. When he had finally realized that there was no gold left, he captured many Indians and brought them to his homeland to sell. After his voyages, little to no Indians were left.
Many writers “refuse to lie” about Christopher Columbus. They speak of his accomplishments, but definitely do not leave out the negative aspects. One writer even describes his killing of Indians as “Genocide.” Zinn argues that although emphasis was put on the heroism of Columbus, it was the “ideological” choice for history books. In his argument, he is not trying to be judgmental or shed harsh feelings toward one of our hero’s, but he feels that we should slowly resurface these negative facts so the truth will eventually come out. I feel that it would be wrong to teach children of the killings and torture Columbus brought upon the Indian people, but later on in school would be a good time to bring some of these facts to life. We need to see that he discovered America and many other places, but it is crucial that we acknowledge that he wasn’t this amazingly perfect person. He made tons of mistakes that I wish I would have known years ago. I’m upset that up until recently I learned that Christopher Columbus did many horrible things to people out of greed and power. In this essay it was stated that, “Total control led to total cruelty” and I believe we should be learning these wrong-doings before it’s too late and our minds are made up.
We learned many things while growing up through out elementary school up until high school. He was in every history book imagined, but do these books give us the whole story to Columbus’ voyages? In his essay, Zinn mentioned many facts that I wasn’t aware of. I believed that discovering new land was Columbus’ desire, but in reality, all he wanted was gold. Through out his voyages over seas, he came across many different Indian tribes. He made these people his slaves as well as kill them if they weren’t of use to him. He believed that many of them knew where the “gold fields” were so he imprisoned them until they told him. He would use “religious talk” in his entries, but turn around and kill people for no reason. He would promise gold to the people back home, but would come back with nothing but spices and silks. When he had finally realized that there was no gold left, he captured many Indians and brought them to his homeland to sell. After his voyages, little to no Indians were left.
Many writers “refuse to lie” about Christopher Columbus. They speak of his accomplishments, but definitely do not leave out the negative aspects. One writer even describes his killing of Indians as “Genocide.” Zinn argues that although emphasis was put on the heroism of Columbus, it was the “ideological” choice for history books. In his argument, he is not trying to be judgmental or shed harsh feelings toward one of our hero’s, but he feels that we should slowly resurface these negative facts so the truth will eventually come out. I feel that it would be wrong to teach children of the killings and torture Columbus brought upon the Indian people, but later on in school would be a good time to bring some of these facts to life. We need to see that he discovered America and many other places, but it is crucial that we acknowledge that he wasn’t this amazingly perfect person. He made tons of mistakes that I wish I would have known years ago. I’m upset that up until recently I learned that Christopher Columbus did many horrible things to people out of greed and power. In this essay it was stated that, “Total control led to total cruelty” and I believe we should be learning these wrong-doings before it’s too late and our minds are made up.
Introduction!
My name is Paula and I’m from a suburb of Detriot, Michigan. Although this class is a general education requirement, I thought it looked pretty interesting. I chose this course to get a different perspective on the various races and ethnicities within our country. When I first looked at the course title, I realized that I haven’t learned much on this topic at all, especially the historic aspects of ethnic studies. I'm excited to get things started!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
