In the essay “Why I Hate Abercrombie” the author, McBride shows us how Abercrombie and Fitch have and still uses company policies to their advantage. Abercrombie has a “look” that must be maintained and by using “company policy” as an excuse Abercrombie is able to be very discriminatory in the employment process.
Abercrombie uses certain company policies to hire employees based on the AF “look” which inadvertently is white and upper middle class. The store tries to sell the idea of a certain lifestyle that goes along with their clothing, because really the clothing is the same stuff you could buy at JcPenneys. The label of A & F seems to give the clothes some kind of power, a feeling of belonging to whoever wears it. Abercrombie can’t flat out say no blacks or gays allowed that would be discrimination. What they have done is make company policies that denote the A & F “look.” These physical criteria include such things like banning certain styles that are prominent among different racial groups and the gay community. By doing this, they were able to discriminate when hiring without seeming like they were. Recently, it has been noted that there are a lack of people of color working in Abercrombie stores and some have actually filed lawsuits against the company for their unfair hiring policies and for having to conform to the “look.”
the article mentions briefly about other stores engaging in the same activities as Abercrombie, but I have to think that its actually done a lot more than we know. There are so many store brands that seem to be more about the label and what it supposedly represents than the clothing itself. Most brand name things are more expensive; just think Kroger brand vs. Kraft or General Mills. Since these stores sell their clothing for, way more than its worth, an extraordinarily high price, you have to have good finances to afford it. When an outrageous price is marked only people of middle to upper class are the only ones likely to afford it, and statistically that means white people. However, McBride does make mention of Ralph Lauren and says that they are different because their clothing is offered in department stores, not just Ralph Lauren stores. In department stores, like Dillard’s, the Ralph Lauren Company cannot control the employees who sell the product, it is the stores right to hire whom ever they see is the most qualified. If you have ever seen a Ralph Lauren advertisement though, you will probably still see the all-American look: young adults spending their free time at a country club or on a yacht. Another store, although completely opposite of what A & F stands for, is Hot Topic. Unlike Abercrombie Hot Topic does sell other brands besides their own, but they are all the same style. Hot Topic is geared toward the “Goth” crowd; most of their clothing is black or has chains on it. At the Hot Topic inside Westfield Franklin Park Mall, even the manager is what most people would classify as “Goth.” (She is very nice though) What I am saying is that its not just the “all- American look” that is being sold and marketed as exclusive. I shop at Hot Topic myself and I find their prices to be within reason but if I wore an Abercrombie shirt (which I would never do) into the store, I know that all eyes would be on me. They would all be thinking, “what’s the prep doing in here? She doesn’t belong here.” Hot Topic wants their employees and customers to have the Hot Topic “look”, just like A & F does, but it has never been so bad to were people want to file lawsuits against them.
Overall I thought this article was really interesting, although kind of difficult to read. McBride uses some very intense vocabulary and some of his sentences were very wordy. However, I was very interested in the information he was sharing. I have never taken a marketing class, but now I may reconsider because the information had a really powerful effect on me. I would have never noticed any of the things he mentioned on my own and neither would most people, so its definitely time for a change.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
takaki chap 12 question and answer
Takaki Ch. 12 “El Norte: The Borderland of Chicano America.”
1. How did this group come to be in the U.S.? How much of this was “by choice” and how much as a result of pressure or force? Identify drivers or motivations for coming to be in the U.S.
The Mexicans came to the U.S because of the revolution in Mexico there were no jobs anymore. More or less, the Mexicans were forced to come to America if they wanted to make a living and be able to survive. The U.S. had jobs available, mainly railroad and agricultural work.
2. What is the significance of the title of the chapter?
El Norte (the north) is what the Mexicans called the U.S. “The Borderland of Chicano America” basically says that America became the place that Mexicans immigrated to and because Texas is right on the border, it was very easy for them to “jump the border”. So the significance is that it describes how both the Mexicans and the Americans felt about the situation. It was good for both: Mexicans were able to get a job and Americans were able to get cheap labor. But the Americans soon wanted the Mexicans to go back to Mexico because they were “infecting” their land.
3. What mechanisms of social construction are discussed in the chapter?
Social construction is used here by limiting the amount of money that the Mexicans can make and by limiting them to very few jobs.
4. How did these groups resist discrimination and racialization?
The Mexicans resisted discrimination and racialization by demanding better wages for the jobs no one else would do. The whites that did work with the Mexicans received about $1 more. By demanding their wages the Mexicans went against what was “known” about them; that they were docile, patient and cheap.
5. Give one example in the chapter of “race” and one example of “ethnicity.” What is the difference between the two as they are discussed here?
An example of race would be calling people Mexican; this is a broad term that identifies anyone from Mexico. Ethnicity is used when Takaki calls them Chicanos; he says they are rural people. Think of in terms of a person’s race is Middle Eastern but their ethnicity is Lebanese.
1. How did this group come to be in the U.S.? How much of this was “by choice” and how much as a result of pressure or force? Identify drivers or motivations for coming to be in the U.S.
The Mexicans came to the U.S because of the revolution in Mexico there were no jobs anymore. More or less, the Mexicans were forced to come to America if they wanted to make a living and be able to survive. The U.S. had jobs available, mainly railroad and agricultural work.
2. What is the significance of the title of the chapter?
El Norte (the north) is what the Mexicans called the U.S. “The Borderland of Chicano America” basically says that America became the place that Mexicans immigrated to and because Texas is right on the border, it was very easy for them to “jump the border”. So the significance is that it describes how both the Mexicans and the Americans felt about the situation. It was good for both: Mexicans were able to get a job and Americans were able to get cheap labor. But the Americans soon wanted the Mexicans to go back to Mexico because they were “infecting” their land.
3. What mechanisms of social construction are discussed in the chapter?
Social construction is used here by limiting the amount of money that the Mexicans can make and by limiting them to very few jobs.
4. How did these groups resist discrimination and racialization?
The Mexicans resisted discrimination and racialization by demanding better wages for the jobs no one else would do. The whites that did work with the Mexicans received about $1 more. By demanding their wages the Mexicans went against what was “known” about them; that they were docile, patient and cheap.
5. Give one example in the chapter of “race” and one example of “ethnicity.” What is the difference between the two as they are discussed here?
An example of race would be calling people Mexican; this is a broad term that identifies anyone from Mexico. Ethnicity is used when Takaki calls them Chicanos; he says they are rural people. Think of in terms of a person’s race is Middle Eastern but their ethnicity is Lebanese.
Monday, October 29, 2007
in class assignment- Wu reflect
this quote means that the only place he felt safe and accepted was with his family. eveywhere else he tried to blend in so he wouldn't stand out.
i have felt something like this in one of my classes, our group even though we raise our hand and shout out answers we seem to be completly ignore or "looked through". in my life away from school i cant say that i have ever felt this way in refrence to my race, i think its probably because im white and whites generally arent ignored. however i am female so some discrimination is till geared toward me.
i have felt something like this in one of my classes, our group even though we raise our hand and shout out answers we seem to be completly ignore or "looked through". in my life away from school i cant say that i have ever felt this way in refrence to my race, i think its probably because im white and whites generally arent ignored. however i am female so some discrimination is till geared toward me.
Richard Wright- extra credit
Richard Wright’s “The Ethics if living Jim Crow” is about how the author learned all the different aspects of living as a black person through different experiences in his childhood.
He starts off by talking about his first house, it was over the tracks from the white neighborhood and paved with cinder. All the boys in the black neighborhood had cinder wars; they threw clumps of cinder at each other hiding behind their homes. Then the white boys challenged the black boys to a war only the white boys used broken bottles, which can leave cuts, all cinder does is leave bruises. From that he learned his first lesson in Jim Crow Ethics from his mom. These lessons continued as he tried to get a job in the only place he could, the white neighborhood. At his job there were two men who were supposed to help him learn about the job, but when he confronted them he was rejected in the utmost way. Then one of the men accused him of not saying Mr. in front of the others name and put Richard between a rock and a hard place. By denying he was calling the one a liar, by admitting he shows that he doesn’t have respect. It was this that caused him to leave the factory for good, right at that moment. In his next job he got caught staring at his bosses victim that he just beat, because she didn’t pay her bills on time. Walking home he was offered a drink and forgot to say “sir” after saying “no” and was pushed to the ground entangling himself in his bike, that had a flat. He was told he was lucky that it wasn’t someone else he offended because he would be dead. Then he got a job as a bell boy which he had managed to keep until he moved to Memphis, all with the help and teachings of his Jim Crow lessons. In Memphis he learned how to lie, cheat and steal and live the necessary double life of a black man. It has always been a “norm” to take your hat off when entering an elevator, especially if you were a black man. One day Richard had an armful of packages and stepped into an elevator that two white men happened to be in. he was unable to remove his hat and was visually scolded for it, and then one of the white men took his hat off and placed it on his packages. To avoid saying anything and admitting he was wrong and avoiding a possible beating he pretended to have some balancing issues with the boxes.
Basically Richard, who is the author and the subject, made it through his life by utilizing the Ethics of Living Jim Crow. These lessons started with his mom and he learned more and more in his work life. The lessons helped him make it through life with out to many problems.
These “lessons” really aren’t used any more in today’s society. We have evolved enough from the civil rights movements, that we have gotten past the idea that blacks, are inferior. Well most of us have there are a few people in the world who still believe in white power. Wright being a black man himself had an entirely different perspective of the story than if a white person wrote it from observation. Even though he is biased to people of his own race, he still gave a fair look at the situation.
I thought this was an interesting article; it reminded me of “Kindred.” This article reinforced all the stories from Kindred, a fictional sci-fi novel, and let me know that, that it was really like that back then.
He starts off by talking about his first house, it was over the tracks from the white neighborhood and paved with cinder. All the boys in the black neighborhood had cinder wars; they threw clumps of cinder at each other hiding behind their homes. Then the white boys challenged the black boys to a war only the white boys used broken bottles, which can leave cuts, all cinder does is leave bruises. From that he learned his first lesson in Jim Crow Ethics from his mom. These lessons continued as he tried to get a job in the only place he could, the white neighborhood. At his job there were two men who were supposed to help him learn about the job, but when he confronted them he was rejected in the utmost way. Then one of the men accused him of not saying Mr. in front of the others name and put Richard between a rock and a hard place. By denying he was calling the one a liar, by admitting he shows that he doesn’t have respect. It was this that caused him to leave the factory for good, right at that moment. In his next job he got caught staring at his bosses victim that he just beat, because she didn’t pay her bills on time. Walking home he was offered a drink and forgot to say “sir” after saying “no” and was pushed to the ground entangling himself in his bike, that had a flat. He was told he was lucky that it wasn’t someone else he offended because he would be dead. Then he got a job as a bell boy which he had managed to keep until he moved to Memphis, all with the help and teachings of his Jim Crow lessons. In Memphis he learned how to lie, cheat and steal and live the necessary double life of a black man. It has always been a “norm” to take your hat off when entering an elevator, especially if you were a black man. One day Richard had an armful of packages and stepped into an elevator that two white men happened to be in. he was unable to remove his hat and was visually scolded for it, and then one of the white men took his hat off and placed it on his packages. To avoid saying anything and admitting he was wrong and avoiding a possible beating he pretended to have some balancing issues with the boxes.
Basically Richard, who is the author and the subject, made it through his life by utilizing the Ethics of Living Jim Crow. These lessons started with his mom and he learned more and more in his work life. The lessons helped him make it through life with out to many problems.
These “lessons” really aren’t used any more in today’s society. We have evolved enough from the civil rights movements, that we have gotten past the idea that blacks, are inferior. Well most of us have there are a few people in the world who still believe in white power. Wright being a black man himself had an entirely different perspective of the story than if a white person wrote it from observation. Even though he is biased to people of his own race, he still gave a fair look at the situation.
I thought this was an interesting article; it reminded me of “Kindred.” This article reinforced all the stories from Kindred, a fictional sci-fi novel, and let me know that, that it was really like that back then.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
comic book cover reading blog
This is a comic book cover from a very long time ago and that is obvious by the illustration. What we are looking at is comic from around the time of WW II and there us a mad scientist on the cover with a microscope and little people running around, they look like test subjects. The mad scientist is portrayed in the stereotypical manner that Japanese people are thought to look like. He is wearing glasses and has exaggerated large teeth and has eerie long fingernails. He has angry eyebrows, red eyes and a stereotypical evil mustache. The glasses and the microscope further the stereotype that all Japanese are smart. The scary smile with the exposed teeth, the fingernails, even the furrowed brow and red eyes give us the idea that he is mad (crazy). But the fact that he is a mad scientist contradicts the fact that people of Asian descent are the “model minority”. However we must take into account that this is an American comic and this was made around the time of WW II, then the fact that the scientist is mad and possibly killing the other people on the cover makes more sense then it would today.
Then we have the people running around, possible test subjects of the scientist. There is a man in a red and white striped shirt and what looks to be a berret, a hat commonly seen on French people. Again the French character on the cover is portrayed in a stereotypical manner, using the stripes and the berret. This cover shows that the scientist is even attacking a country that wasn’t even involved. There is also a person dressed like a farmer as well as what looks to be just two out of the ordinary Americans.
As the caption says, as long as there are superheroes there are going to be villains. Obviously the thesis of the whole comic book is that the Japanese are bad people who want to kill or destroy everyone. All this can be seen just on the cover of the comic. There is an old saying that goes “ don’t judge a book by its cover,” however I think in this case it is safe to say that the cover really does describe the whole story that lies behind it.
Of all the choices we had, I chose this comic book cover because it is obvious that the scientist is Japanese, because of the stereotypical portrait that is given. I thought this was a good cover to write about because in today’s standards it would not go over very smoothly. Especially now, because Asian are the “model minority” because they are supposedly quiet and smart and don’t want to cause trouble. And this cover contradicts that whole line of thinking.
I am kind of appalled by this cover, it is wrong to portray anyone this way. But in a way I can understand it, because it was done during the WW II era and the Japanese were thought to be evil. I’m sure that if I were alive during that period I would have thought of them as evil too. Still the things that people could get away with back in the day surprises me, not just about Japanese but also how Blacks, especially, were portrayed.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
how jews became white
In the reading “How Jews became white” the author, Karen Brodkin, tells us that she is in fact Jewish and she talks about all the different government assistances that helped the Jews to become as affluent as the stereotypes say they are.
Brodkin starts out talking about the Jewish people and goes on to say that they were not the only race who were victims of Anti- Semitism, Mexicans, Blacks and even Asians were victimized in the 19th century. But after WW II anyone who was of “Euro-origin” became a regular white, middle-class citizen. Brodkin says it was the “biggest and best affirmative action program, for Euro-males” that made the outcaste Europeans “white”.
Anti- Semitism was extremely prevalent in higher education institutions and since Jews were the first of the Euro-immigrants to go to school, they received the brunt of the racist attitudes. There was even a speech test given to immigrant teachers to see if they could speak well enough English, which Brodkin accounts her parents for saying “it was a way to keep all ethnics, not just Jews from teaching”. Ethnic groups had very little economic mobility but Jews, compared to the rest had the most, but were still limited to very few occupational opportunities. Of course Anti-Semitism didn’t disappear after the war but it became much less popular. The Jews and other Euro- immigrants were able to become “white” with their money, basically. The money came from all the jobs that were now available as well as government assistance. Post WW II , the U.S was the strongest economy around. Wages, buying power and jobs were all increasing. Then came the GI Bill of Rights as it was called. This was used to help the soldiers get jobs and be able to buy houses, but it only really helped the veterans that were of European origin. Blacks were denied their GI benefits, like education opportunities, white privilege took away any benefit a black soldier might receive. Black soldiers were even discriminated against during the war, they had almost twice the dishonorable discharges than the white soldiers. The urbanization, building of expressways, of the 60’s made those cities a “bad place to live”. The Federal Housing Administration who was supposed to help Blacks find a residence practiced segregation and prevented them from being able to move in the ever so white populated, suburbs. They redlined property making it so no bank would give a loan for that property, making sure that Blacks couldn’t afford to live there. Thus keeping Blacks out of the suburbs. All these denials to help Blacks actually helped the Jews and other Euros to become more economically mobile and “white”. When one is denied another thrives.
Being Jewish herself you would think she was biased but her article is very non-biased, in my opinion. Brodkin tells us that it was a part of her heritage’s beliefs that Jews were smart but it was the removal of social barriers as well as their abilities that allowed them to be more successful than other immigrants, comparatively. That statement (on page 38 and 39) is just what a reader would need to see that Brodkin is not biased by any means to one race or another, in this article.
I thought that this article was quite interesting. I have many Jewish friends and even they make fun of the fact that their family fits the stereotypes. But now, after reading this I learned that many Jewish children grew up believing that they were smart and that their successes were due to the own hard work. So, in a way I guess the fact that Jews are smart and are all lawyers or doctors shouldn’t really be a stereotype, because it is partly true.
Brodkin starts out talking about the Jewish people and goes on to say that they were not the only race who were victims of Anti- Semitism, Mexicans, Blacks and even Asians were victimized in the 19th century. But after WW II anyone who was of “Euro-origin” became a regular white, middle-class citizen. Brodkin says it was the “biggest and best affirmative action program, for Euro-males” that made the outcaste Europeans “white”.
Anti- Semitism was extremely prevalent in higher education institutions and since Jews were the first of the Euro-immigrants to go to school, they received the brunt of the racist attitudes. There was even a speech test given to immigrant teachers to see if they could speak well enough English, which Brodkin accounts her parents for saying “it was a way to keep all ethnics, not just Jews from teaching”. Ethnic groups had very little economic mobility but Jews, compared to the rest had the most, but were still limited to very few occupational opportunities. Of course Anti-Semitism didn’t disappear after the war but it became much less popular. The Jews and other Euro- immigrants were able to become “white” with their money, basically. The money came from all the jobs that were now available as well as government assistance. Post WW II , the U.S was the strongest economy around. Wages, buying power and jobs were all increasing. Then came the GI Bill of Rights as it was called. This was used to help the soldiers get jobs and be able to buy houses, but it only really helped the veterans that were of European origin. Blacks were denied their GI benefits, like education opportunities, white privilege took away any benefit a black soldier might receive. Black soldiers were even discriminated against during the war, they had almost twice the dishonorable discharges than the white soldiers. The urbanization, building of expressways, of the 60’s made those cities a “bad place to live”. The Federal Housing Administration who was supposed to help Blacks find a residence practiced segregation and prevented them from being able to move in the ever so white populated, suburbs. They redlined property making it so no bank would give a loan for that property, making sure that Blacks couldn’t afford to live there. Thus keeping Blacks out of the suburbs. All these denials to help Blacks actually helped the Jews and other Euros to become more economically mobile and “white”. When one is denied another thrives.
Being Jewish herself you would think she was biased but her article is very non-biased, in my opinion. Brodkin tells us that it was a part of her heritage’s beliefs that Jews were smart but it was the removal of social barriers as well as their abilities that allowed them to be more successful than other immigrants, comparatively. That statement (on page 38 and 39) is just what a reader would need to see that Brodkin is not biased by any means to one race or another, in this article.
I thought that this article was quite interesting. I have many Jewish friends and even they make fun of the fact that their family fits the stereotypes. But now, after reading this I learned that many Jewish children grew up believing that they were smart and that their successes were due to the own hard work. So, in a way I guess the fact that Jews are smart and are all lawyers or doctors shouldn’t really be a stereotype, because it is partly true.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
zinn chapter 9
In Chapter 9, “Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom,” Zinn talks about accounts of former slaves and the emancipation proclamation from Abraham Lincoln.
Zinn starts on John Brown who was hanged for attempting the very thing Lincoln did in the upcoming years. Zinn goes on and tells us that the end of slavery actually was profitable, the plantations were able to expand from tobacco to cotton. However importing slaves became illegal in 1808, the law was never enforced. To one persons account about 250,000 slaves were imported before the Civil War. There are many statistics, and records kept from plantations but that’s all they are, not an actual account of anything. After Nat Turner’s revolt a militia was ensued, following Turner’s rebellion many slaves began to runaway. These mass runaways turned into the Underground Railroad, ran by Harriet Tubman. Whites and blacks were working together and the only way to stop that was to pay the whites to be overseers on plantations. Contrary to popular belief slavery did not destroy the black family; in fact it brought them closer together. Their culture was so rich in fact that they even had songs, to help along with their rebellion. Slaves in the south were making do but the blacks in the north really itched for, the soon to come, emancipation. President Fillmore had it coming when he signed the Fugitive Slave Act; the northern slaves denounced him and organized a resistance. Loguen, one person who was part of the resistance helped to free slaves with Tubman and Brown with the Underground Railroad. Zinn goes on to tell us about Frederick Douglass, the man who realized that slavery was the whole nations problem and not just the souths. Our government, even then, would never accept freedom for slaves by act of a rebellion; it had to be an official government act, President Lincoln put this act together. Slaves opposed all that Lincoln stood for and felt that he was making their lives just as hard. When Lincoln tried to repossess the seceded states, the Civil War began. Originally the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves who were fighting the Union, but after copious signatures the thirteenth amendment came to place. Now that they were free, blacks could join the army, and they did. Afterwards though, the only way they could have any status, is to have land.
I want to know how anyone thought that birth and death records from plantations proved any accounts of how life was for the slaves. Yes, you could probably tell from the early deaths that the living conditions were awful. But, how on earth could anyone know how the slaves felt when their family was shipped halfway across the state. Birth and death records are just that and nothing more.
This reading was really boring for me, it was just facts and wasn’t intresting. After reading Kindred, this type of reading is just plain mind numbing. Most of this stuff I already knew, so it was really just a refresher.
Zinn starts on John Brown who was hanged for attempting the very thing Lincoln did in the upcoming years. Zinn goes on and tells us that the end of slavery actually was profitable, the plantations were able to expand from tobacco to cotton. However importing slaves became illegal in 1808, the law was never enforced. To one persons account about 250,000 slaves were imported before the Civil War. There are many statistics, and records kept from plantations but that’s all they are, not an actual account of anything. After Nat Turner’s revolt a militia was ensued, following Turner’s rebellion many slaves began to runaway. These mass runaways turned into the Underground Railroad, ran by Harriet Tubman. Whites and blacks were working together and the only way to stop that was to pay the whites to be overseers on plantations. Contrary to popular belief slavery did not destroy the black family; in fact it brought them closer together. Their culture was so rich in fact that they even had songs, to help along with their rebellion. Slaves in the south were making do but the blacks in the north really itched for, the soon to come, emancipation. President Fillmore had it coming when he signed the Fugitive Slave Act; the northern slaves denounced him and organized a resistance. Loguen, one person who was part of the resistance helped to free slaves with Tubman and Brown with the Underground Railroad. Zinn goes on to tell us about Frederick Douglass, the man who realized that slavery was the whole nations problem and not just the souths. Our government, even then, would never accept freedom for slaves by act of a rebellion; it had to be an official government act, President Lincoln put this act together. Slaves opposed all that Lincoln stood for and felt that he was making their lives just as hard. When Lincoln tried to repossess the seceded states, the Civil War began. Originally the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves who were fighting the Union, but after copious signatures the thirteenth amendment came to place. Now that they were free, blacks could join the army, and they did. Afterwards though, the only way they could have any status, is to have land.
I want to know how anyone thought that birth and death records from plantations proved any accounts of how life was for the slaves. Yes, you could probably tell from the early deaths that the living conditions were awful. But, how on earth could anyone know how the slaves felt when their family was shipped halfway across the state. Birth and death records are just that and nothing more.
This reading was really boring for me, it was just facts and wasn’t intresting. After reading Kindred, this type of reading is just plain mind numbing. Most of this stuff I already knew, so it was really just a refresher.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Kindred
The book Kindred, written by Octavia Butler is about a black woman who ends up traveling through time to the slave driven south. This proved to be very difficult but she had to survive it to save Rufus, the man who would one day father her ancestor, thus saving her future existence. Dana travels through time at undetermined moments for undetermined amounts of time, this happens three times throughout the story, each time longer than the last. On her first trip she makes it back to her own time in a few minutes, staring down the barrel of a shotgun. But when she gets back to her time, her white husband Kevin said it had been only a few seconds. A few hours later she is taken back again when the Rufus is playing with fire. Again Dana is taken back to her own time, but only when she is about to die. This continues to happen as Rufus comes close to death himself and Dana is always there to save him. When in the south Dana has to be a slave on the plantation were Rufus is just so she can make sure he is safe. Dana learns and endures everything that her black ancestors went through. Dana does hard manual labor, sleeps in the attic, and gets whipped.
On one of her trips Kevin grabs hold of her and is taken back to the south with her. But they are separated and when Dana goes home, Kevin is nowhere to be found. What is 5 years for Kevin is just 8 days for Dana, but she returns to save him. While in the south the daughter who is to be an ancestor to Dana is born. Now she knows that she will live and on her last time in the south she kills Rufus when he attempts to take advantage of her. Dana is back in her own time, in her own place, with an incredible experience that if she told would leave her in a mental institution
As stated, in the story, Dana is taken to the south whenever Rufus is in trouble. Kevin stays in their time until he grabs Dana as she is transporting. Which inevitably shows that being white and male, he has a choice in what he does but Dana, a black woman has absolutely no choice when she comes or goes. During slavery, blacks couldn’t do anything and whites had all the power, which is shown quite obviously in this story. Dana can’t do the things she has come to take advantage of as simple freedoms in her time, without horrible repercussions from her white master, Rufus’s father. However, Kevin doesn’t have nearly the trouble Dana does, because he is white in a white driven time. Both in the slavery past and their own time Kevin has the upper hand, he can make choices, has power and freedom. But Dana has none of those, at least not in the past.
I liked Kindred it was very interesting, probably not something I would choose on my own free will though. Even so, I am glad I read it; I learned so much from it. Just like everyone else I knew the facts of slavery before, but reading it like this gave me a completely different perspective. When I read I put myself in the story and by doing so, I, in a way, got to experience what it was like to be a slave. The story was so vivid and descriptive it was very easy to do so.
On one of her trips Kevin grabs hold of her and is taken back to the south with her. But they are separated and when Dana goes home, Kevin is nowhere to be found. What is 5 years for Kevin is just 8 days for Dana, but she returns to save him. While in the south the daughter who is to be an ancestor to Dana is born. Now she knows that she will live and on her last time in the south she kills Rufus when he attempts to take advantage of her. Dana is back in her own time, in her own place, with an incredible experience that if she told would leave her in a mental institution
As stated, in the story, Dana is taken to the south whenever Rufus is in trouble. Kevin stays in their time until he grabs Dana as she is transporting. Which inevitably shows that being white and male, he has a choice in what he does but Dana, a black woman has absolutely no choice when she comes or goes. During slavery, blacks couldn’t do anything and whites had all the power, which is shown quite obviously in this story. Dana can’t do the things she has come to take advantage of as simple freedoms in her time, without horrible repercussions from her white master, Rufus’s father. However, Kevin doesn’t have nearly the trouble Dana does, because he is white in a white driven time. Both in the slavery past and their own time Kevin has the upper hand, he can make choices, has power and freedom. But Dana has none of those, at least not in the past.
I liked Kindred it was very interesting, probably not something I would choose on my own free will though. Even so, I am glad I read it; I learned so much from it. Just like everyone else I knew the facts of slavery before, but reading it like this gave me a completely different perspective. When I read I put myself in the story and by doing so, I, in a way, got to experience what it was like to be a slave. The story was so vivid and descriptive it was very easy to do so.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Johnson chapter 8-
Every one has been in trouble at some point or another and we all try to find a way to get “off the hook” Being “on” or “off the hook” is what determined if we got in trouble or not; this same concept takes place in Johnson’s Chapter 8. Johnson’s thesis is that one way or another weather your “on” or off the hook” that everyone is involved in privilege and oppression and there is no way to avoid it.
Denial is a beautiful thing. If we deny something then we are automatically, or so we think, “off the hook.” This is what most people of privileged groups do, when the topic of privilege and oppression is brought up. If they deny it, then it doesn’t really exist. If the privileged aren’t denying the fact that they are privileged, then they are blaming the oppressed for not being privileged enough. A white man can say something extremely racist about his black equal and know that no other whites will say anything about it. This is because whites are dominant and have privilege and the rest of the population just wants to follow “the path of least resistance.” Thus perpetuating the problem of white privilege not being seen as a problem, but making the suffering that the oppressed groups endure no fault but their own. Another way the privileged can deny being privileged is by calling it something completely different. Using the example that Johnson does, in the world of privilege the issue of “gender inequality is often seen as a game of battle of the sexes.” Calling the issue of gender inequality a game allows the privileged men to feel that there is no such thing. If these two forms of denial are combined then the assumption that everyone is happy with the way things are, is made. Weather or not this is the truth, it still doesn’t matter, society doesn’t want the truth, it just wants the world to keep on going as is.
So, if a white man says something racist or sexist, even if it was unconsciously, and just says “Oh, I didn’t mean anything by it,” he is “off the hook.” There was no ill will or bad intentions he was just making a joke that incidentally offended someone. When he says “Oh, I didn’t mean anything by it” he is actually admitting that he did indeed say it but I just didn’t think about it. Privilege, however, makes it easy for him to not be aware of what he said and this is the norm for our society. The privileged or, the white heterosexual male, can get away with just about anything. But let’s say that a white man had an epiphany and is now acknowledging that there is a problem with privilege and oppression, all he has to say is I am a good person so the problems aren’t my fault. Not doing anything about it, however, and staying silent makes him part of the problem. It is his problem because the oppression that many groups feel are because he is privileged, and he is privileged because they are oppressed. But because he is a good person he becomes blind to the fact that this is true.
The fact that Johnson is part of the privileged group, white heterosexual male, makes it kind of odd that he is talking about these issues. Johnson is breaking a norm; he is supposed to be blind to things like this. His privilege, no matter how unbiased he is trying to be affects what he writes, even if he doesn’t realize it. Everyone has thoughts buried in their head that unconsciously affect how they talk and act. It will take years for someone to learn to ignore those thoughts in the back of their head. Now I assume that Johnson has done his best to silence those racist thoughts, but no matter what those thoughts are still going to be there, the same goes for the rest of the world. So, Johnson’s position of privilege in society affects how he writes, even if he is trying not to let it.
Through out all the Johnson readings I kept thinking about the fact the he is part of the privileged group. I felt as if he was, in a way, mocking the whole idea of privilege and oppression; like he knows its there but doesn’t really care. I know his writings say otherwise but the thoughts are still there.
Denial is a beautiful thing. If we deny something then we are automatically, or so we think, “off the hook.” This is what most people of privileged groups do, when the topic of privilege and oppression is brought up. If they deny it, then it doesn’t really exist. If the privileged aren’t denying the fact that they are privileged, then they are blaming the oppressed for not being privileged enough. A white man can say something extremely racist about his black equal and know that no other whites will say anything about it. This is because whites are dominant and have privilege and the rest of the population just wants to follow “the path of least resistance.” Thus perpetuating the problem of white privilege not being seen as a problem, but making the suffering that the oppressed groups endure no fault but their own. Another way the privileged can deny being privileged is by calling it something completely different. Using the example that Johnson does, in the world of privilege the issue of “gender inequality is often seen as a game of battle of the sexes.” Calling the issue of gender inequality a game allows the privileged men to feel that there is no such thing. If these two forms of denial are combined then the assumption that everyone is happy with the way things are, is made. Weather or not this is the truth, it still doesn’t matter, society doesn’t want the truth, it just wants the world to keep on going as is.
So, if a white man says something racist or sexist, even if it was unconsciously, and just says “Oh, I didn’t mean anything by it,” he is “off the hook.” There was no ill will or bad intentions he was just making a joke that incidentally offended someone. When he says “Oh, I didn’t mean anything by it” he is actually admitting that he did indeed say it but I just didn’t think about it. Privilege, however, makes it easy for him to not be aware of what he said and this is the norm for our society. The privileged or, the white heterosexual male, can get away with just about anything. But let’s say that a white man had an epiphany and is now acknowledging that there is a problem with privilege and oppression, all he has to say is I am a good person so the problems aren’t my fault. Not doing anything about it, however, and staying silent makes him part of the problem. It is his problem because the oppression that many groups feel are because he is privileged, and he is privileged because they are oppressed. But because he is a good person he becomes blind to the fact that this is true.
The fact that Johnson is part of the privileged group, white heterosexual male, makes it kind of odd that he is talking about these issues. Johnson is breaking a norm; he is supposed to be blind to things like this. His privilege, no matter how unbiased he is trying to be affects what he writes, even if he doesn’t realize it. Everyone has thoughts buried in their head that unconsciously affect how they talk and act. It will take years for someone to learn to ignore those thoughts in the back of their head. Now I assume that Johnson has done his best to silence those racist thoughts, but no matter what those thoughts are still going to be there, the same goes for the rest of the world. So, Johnson’s position of privilege in society affects how he writes, even if he is trying not to let it.
Through out all the Johnson readings I kept thinking about the fact the he is part of the privileged group. I felt as if he was, in a way, mocking the whole idea of privilege and oppression; like he knows its there but doesn’t really care. I know his writings say otherwise but the thoughts are still there.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Johnson chapter 6
The thesis of Johnson’s chapter six, “What It All Has to Do with Us” is that individualism is part of privilege and oppression, but it’s not anyone fault that it is so.
Everyone thinks that they are an individual, which is partly true, but in reality we are only individuals inside of a system. And the system dictates what is right or “normal” reality, but we can’t have a system (of any kind) with out people/individuals. People, as children, learn what their identity is by these systems; their race, gender, disability status and religion are just some of the things that we learn in a system. This is done by “socialization” and “the path of least resistance” We learn who we are and how to act by our surroundings, a growing influence of which is television and movies. All of this is what Johnson calls “socialization.” A lot of the time, however, what we learn during the socialization process is wrong but we never acknowledge it as such.
Another way that people are shaped by the systems that they are in is by what Johnson calls “the path of least resistance.” Otherwise known as following the social norms that are set up by the systems. When a person does something that is not “normally” done, for instance (using the same example Johnson does) standing in the back of the elevator facing the wall instead of the door, that person is violating a social norm. “The path of least resistance” is doing what your told, going with the flow and a way of systems keeping people/individuals in line and doing what they want them to. Johnson uses the example of the game of Monopoly as a system to show that individuals and their social systems make the patterns of social life. The only way Monopoly can start is if people start to play and if you are following “the path of least resistance” you are going to play. Johnson uses his example of his greedy behavior during Monopoly and not greedy at all behavior outside of the game to show that for every different situation there are different behaviors.
These patterns become privilege and oppression, which we previously have read by Johnson, and they become part of “the path of least resistance” practically, forcing us to be involved with privilege and oppression. And the good guys are inadvertently causing oppression to the “minorities,” just by following the “path,” even when they have no intentions of doing so. The good guys follow this “path” because they don’t know of any others and in sticking with “the path of least resistance” they are involuntarily supporting the privilege and oppression that comes with such a system.
The consequences of Johnson’s argument in our world today would be dire. As he said in the chapter we don’t talk about such things because it violates social norms. If anyone in the dominant group (heterosexual, white and male) would read this, Johnson would be ridiculed (just as the man who objected to the sexist comment about a women, in his chapter, was). Johnson makes us think about things that our social systems don’t want us to and that’s why this chapter, and probably the whole book and Johnson himself will/would be ridiculed and mocked.
I liked that Johnson used the example of Monopoly, it really helped the whole idea of systems and individuals and their relation to one another, stick in my head. I’m a pretty open-minded person so this article and all the previous that we have read make me think about our society. People/individuals are just the hamsters making the wheel turn; society cares about the systems not the individuals who run it.
Everyone thinks that they are an individual, which is partly true, but in reality we are only individuals inside of a system. And the system dictates what is right or “normal” reality, but we can’t have a system (of any kind) with out people/individuals. People, as children, learn what their identity is by these systems; their race, gender, disability status and religion are just some of the things that we learn in a system. This is done by “socialization” and “the path of least resistance” We learn who we are and how to act by our surroundings, a growing influence of which is television and movies. All of this is what Johnson calls “socialization.” A lot of the time, however, what we learn during the socialization process is wrong but we never acknowledge it as such.
Another way that people are shaped by the systems that they are in is by what Johnson calls “the path of least resistance.” Otherwise known as following the social norms that are set up by the systems. When a person does something that is not “normally” done, for instance (using the same example Johnson does) standing in the back of the elevator facing the wall instead of the door, that person is violating a social norm. “The path of least resistance” is doing what your told, going with the flow and a way of systems keeping people/individuals in line and doing what they want them to. Johnson uses the example of the game of Monopoly as a system to show that individuals and their social systems make the patterns of social life. The only way Monopoly can start is if people start to play and if you are following “the path of least resistance” you are going to play. Johnson uses his example of his greedy behavior during Monopoly and not greedy at all behavior outside of the game to show that for every different situation there are different behaviors.
These patterns become privilege and oppression, which we previously have read by Johnson, and they become part of “the path of least resistance” practically, forcing us to be involved with privilege and oppression. And the good guys are inadvertently causing oppression to the “minorities,” just by following the “path,” even when they have no intentions of doing so. The good guys follow this “path” because they don’t know of any others and in sticking with “the path of least resistance” they are involuntarily supporting the privilege and oppression that comes with such a system.
The consequences of Johnson’s argument in our world today would be dire. As he said in the chapter we don’t talk about such things because it violates social norms. If anyone in the dominant group (heterosexual, white and male) would read this, Johnson would be ridiculed (just as the man who objected to the sexist comment about a women, in his chapter, was). Johnson makes us think about things that our social systems don’t want us to and that’s why this chapter, and probably the whole book and Johnson himself will/would be ridiculed and mocked.
I liked that Johnson used the example of Monopoly, it really helped the whole idea of systems and individuals and their relation to one another, stick in my head. I’m a pretty open-minded person so this article and all the previous that we have read make me think about our society. People/individuals are just the hamsters making the wheel turn; society cares about the systems not the individuals who run it.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Johnson Chapter 3
The thesis of Chapter 3, “Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination” is that capitalism brought white privilege to us and it isn’t going away for quiet a while.
Throughout Chapter 3, Johnson talks about how and why capitalism plays such a large role in white privilege. Starting off with what capitalism is Johnson tells us that, in a nutshell, all capitalists want is to make money and they do that by using the cheapest ways possible to make the most amount of money possible. The most popular way of getting cheap labor and continuing to make a good profit is by taking the jobs to those who will work for less than Americans do. This “outsourcing” of jobs and the oppression of the freed slaves fuels racism. And this racism that “whites” had over the “blacks” after the Civil War led the “whites” to create a system that said, to be human was to be “white,” otherwise known as Manifest Destiny.
The capitalists use this racism to keep their white workers pay low and have the same production rates, if not more and threaten them with the possibility of job loss if more compensation is requested. So, to make it easier on themselves the capitalist use “migrant workers,” who will work for less, just so they can work. Then this angers the white workers who then take it out on the migrant workers proving that capitalism fuels racism.
Capitalists are even racist against those with disabilities and women. And women are the ones who raise the workers that fuel the capitalism, and they are still discriminated against.
Privilege is confusing in and of itself, then add capitalism to the mix, its even more confusing. After reading chapter 2, we know what privilege is and how it works. Here we just clarify that the social class that you are privileged or unprivileged as, is made by capitalism. You are put into a social class by how much your income is and income is controlled by the capitalists who are controlling the jobs and what people earn at that job. However, privilege is by more than just your social class, it is also effected by your sexual orientation, gender and race. Also as we learned before you can be privileged in one area and not in another. In this chapter we learn that one privilege can reinforce another, having access to one privilege, effects access to other forms, and one form of privilege can serve as compensation for not having another. The most important connection of race and privilege is that when the minorities are competing with each other over jobs, it distracts them form the more pertinent issue of privilege. And as Johnson put it “we cant get rid of racism without doing something about classism and sexism because the system that produces one also produces the other, therefore connecting them.” The moral of the story here is that capitalism fuels all of these “isms”
racism, classism and sexism. Until the capitalist system vanishes our society will continue to have all of the above.
From seeing all that I have in today’s world all of Johnson’s findings are correct. All of Johnson’s findings support the sexism that females receive, the racism that “minorities” receive and so on. I know that his findings support this because it is very well documented of the struggles that minorities and women endured, and still are. It is documented in movies, books and from leaders in the past, like, Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B Anthony.
I felt that his article was very informative. Most of the parts about sexism I knew but that is only because I am a female. I was very surprised to learn that capitalism fuels all of this racism and sexism though. I guess it makes sense, but I never really thought about it until I read this article.
Throughout Chapter 3, Johnson talks about how and why capitalism plays such a large role in white privilege. Starting off with what capitalism is Johnson tells us that, in a nutshell, all capitalists want is to make money and they do that by using the cheapest ways possible to make the most amount of money possible. The most popular way of getting cheap labor and continuing to make a good profit is by taking the jobs to those who will work for less than Americans do. This “outsourcing” of jobs and the oppression of the freed slaves fuels racism. And this racism that “whites” had over the “blacks” after the Civil War led the “whites” to create a system that said, to be human was to be “white,” otherwise known as Manifest Destiny.
The capitalists use this racism to keep their white workers pay low and have the same production rates, if not more and threaten them with the possibility of job loss if more compensation is requested. So, to make it easier on themselves the capitalist use “migrant workers,” who will work for less, just so they can work. Then this angers the white workers who then take it out on the migrant workers proving that capitalism fuels racism.
Capitalists are even racist against those with disabilities and women. And women are the ones who raise the workers that fuel the capitalism, and they are still discriminated against.
Privilege is confusing in and of itself, then add capitalism to the mix, its even more confusing. After reading chapter 2, we know what privilege is and how it works. Here we just clarify that the social class that you are privileged or unprivileged as, is made by capitalism. You are put into a social class by how much your income is and income is controlled by the capitalists who are controlling the jobs and what people earn at that job. However, privilege is by more than just your social class, it is also effected by your sexual orientation, gender and race. Also as we learned before you can be privileged in one area and not in another. In this chapter we learn that one privilege can reinforce another, having access to one privilege, effects access to other forms, and one form of privilege can serve as compensation for not having another. The most important connection of race and privilege is that when the minorities are competing with each other over jobs, it distracts them form the more pertinent issue of privilege. And as Johnson put it “we cant get rid of racism without doing something about classism and sexism because the system that produces one also produces the other, therefore connecting them.” The moral of the story here is that capitalism fuels all of these “isms”
racism, classism and sexism. Until the capitalist system vanishes our society will continue to have all of the above.
From seeing all that I have in today’s world all of Johnson’s findings are correct. All of Johnson’s findings support the sexism that females receive, the racism that “minorities” receive and so on. I know that his findings support this because it is very well documented of the struggles that minorities and women endured, and still are. It is documented in movies, books and from leaders in the past, like, Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B Anthony.
I felt that his article was very informative. Most of the parts about sexism I knew but that is only because I am a female. I was very surprised to learn that capitalism fuels all of this racism and sexism though. I guess it makes sense, but I never really thought about it until I read this article.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Johnson PPD chap 2
In chapter two, Privilege, Oppression and Difference, of Alan Johnson’s book “Power, Privilege and Difference” the thesis is that fear disallows us to see what is really going on with privilege and power distribution. This chapter focuses mainly on the fact that people are privileged and those who are, have power over those who don’t.
Everyone is different and culturally we are afraid of the different, but this fear is learned, not inherited. Johnson gives us the “diversity wheel” so we can “map” out we are as individuals, and asks us to think about; what if we are straight and woke up gay the next day? How would that change how other people see you? Diversity is a good thing, but the trouble with it is that our world uses peoples’ differences against them. And those differences we see, on the outside, automatically places that person into a category. For instance when you see a man in a wheelchair, we automatically place him into the disabled category and therefore he must be incompetent and need help with everything in his daily life. The man in the wheelchair is what he becomes; no matter if he has a Ph D. in medicine he is still that man in a wheelchair. Thoughts like this, about the man in the wheelchair, or any other person with any disability for that matter, are all constructed in society. Just as society told us to make the man in the wheelchair inferior to and able-bodied man, society created that word, disabled. The word “disabled” is now significant and when we look at the man in the wheelchair that is all we see.
Now what is even more significant is if the man in the chair is black or white. If the man in the wheelchair is white he has privilege over the comparable black man in the same situation. Obviously the white man doesn’t feel privileged over the black man but the white man is treated better in society. Society sees the disabled as incompetent but in the black vs. white situation, the white man is treated as less incompetent. The white man is taking part in the “luxury of obliviousness,” he doesn’t realize that he has privilege in the situation. Continuing with “race,” white people have many privileges over everyone else in the world and it boils down to economics. The author Alan Johnson has taken information from the US census and according to that “the average white household has more than 14 times the net wealth of the average black household.” This makes it easier for white people to get a good education, health care and even housing. The privilege that whites get over blacks, men over women, heterosexual over homosexuals and the non-disabled over the disabled is a social system. This system places people into a category depending on their race, sex, orientation, and their abilities; and depending on what category your in is how you get treated. Culturally because the white man is privileged he must be happy, but that isn’t always true. Just knowing that he is privileged may make him unhappy, because he knows that others are suffering because of his privilege. Of course with every privilege there is oppression.
Johnson does pose a very good and mostly true argument, however in today’s world “white” people are not as privileged as the reading says. Privilege is basically given to the majority, which used to be white males but now as America’s melting pot grows there are more and more people who were once considered minorities, becoming the majority. With new races becoming the majority it is going to be very hard to give the white majority privilege. You can see this happening just by watching television. We have a black man and a woman running for President of the United States. More and more of a variety of ethnicities are filling political roles and they are the most privileged people in the world.
I enjoyed the reading it was very interesting. Privilege is something we all know about but never think about and it was nice to get a small reality check on the matter.
Everyone is different and culturally we are afraid of the different, but this fear is learned, not inherited. Johnson gives us the “diversity wheel” so we can “map” out we are as individuals, and asks us to think about; what if we are straight and woke up gay the next day? How would that change how other people see you? Diversity is a good thing, but the trouble with it is that our world uses peoples’ differences against them. And those differences we see, on the outside, automatically places that person into a category. For instance when you see a man in a wheelchair, we automatically place him into the disabled category and therefore he must be incompetent and need help with everything in his daily life. The man in the wheelchair is what he becomes; no matter if he has a Ph D. in medicine he is still that man in a wheelchair. Thoughts like this, about the man in the wheelchair, or any other person with any disability for that matter, are all constructed in society. Just as society told us to make the man in the wheelchair inferior to and able-bodied man, society created that word, disabled. The word “disabled” is now significant and when we look at the man in the wheelchair that is all we see.
Now what is even more significant is if the man in the chair is black or white. If the man in the wheelchair is white he has privilege over the comparable black man in the same situation. Obviously the white man doesn’t feel privileged over the black man but the white man is treated better in society. Society sees the disabled as incompetent but in the black vs. white situation, the white man is treated as less incompetent. The white man is taking part in the “luxury of obliviousness,” he doesn’t realize that he has privilege in the situation. Continuing with “race,” white people have many privileges over everyone else in the world and it boils down to economics. The author Alan Johnson has taken information from the US census and according to that “the average white household has more than 14 times the net wealth of the average black household.” This makes it easier for white people to get a good education, health care and even housing. The privilege that whites get over blacks, men over women, heterosexual over homosexuals and the non-disabled over the disabled is a social system. This system places people into a category depending on their race, sex, orientation, and their abilities; and depending on what category your in is how you get treated. Culturally because the white man is privileged he must be happy, but that isn’t always true. Just knowing that he is privileged may make him unhappy, because he knows that others are suffering because of his privilege. Of course with every privilege there is oppression.
Johnson does pose a very good and mostly true argument, however in today’s world “white” people are not as privileged as the reading says. Privilege is basically given to the majority, which used to be white males but now as America’s melting pot grows there are more and more people who were once considered minorities, becoming the majority. With new races becoming the majority it is going to be very hard to give the white majority privilege. You can see this happening just by watching television. We have a black man and a woman running for President of the United States. More and more of a variety of ethnicities are filling political roles and they are the most privileged people in the world.
I enjoyed the reading it was very interesting. Privilege is something we all know about but never think about and it was nice to get a small reality check on the matter.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
zinn journal #2
The thesis of chapter two, “Drawing the Color Line” of Zinn’s book is that out of all the countries in the world ours, America, is the most obsessed with a persons race. If a person is not English or “white” they are not Americans and are/where subject to ridicule, racism and slavery.
Zinn’s main idea here is racism, even though it was never called racism back in the 17th century, it was just hatred towards people of a different background. The colonists in Virginia started the whole idea of slavery, when they started dieing off because they were unable to keep themselves alive during times of hardship. The Indians had taught the colonists how to grow tobacco, so they could make profit and export it, but because of their population the colonists could not enslave them as Columbus had done. For a hundred years the blacks in Africa had been labeled slaves so it was only natural to import them and use them as their own slaves. American slavery was the worst of all the other countries because of the Americans dire want of profit and the fact that they degraded a slave to not even feel human. The rule was that the whites are masters and the blacks are slaves. Being unable to take care of themselves with just the land at their hands the colonists were desperate for help. Well, the Indians were out of the question and the whites were to hard to control to even bother with it, what other choice did they have but blacks. There was a plethora of them in the Americas now and they were very easy to control, so again, it was only natural to enslave them. The colonists became very fearful that the slaves would rebel since the runaways in 1640. The thought they had to keep their labor where it was, was to exert everything they had in their power against the slaves. The colonists only other fear was that the disgruntled colonists would join forces with the black slaves and try to gain control.
Personally I don’t feel that Zinns position in the chapter affects what he is trying to argue. Zinn is simply saying that America is governed by racism and he gives supporting evidence on that. What he says throughout the chapter is factual, taken from books and actual people. I feel that no matter what side Zinn was on he would argue the same way, maybe omitting or adding just a few things to the story, as so many of us do in our stories.
I feel like this chapter educated me on the fact why so many people are still racist, because I firmly believe that if our ancestors hadn’t been so racist back in the 17th century, we wouldn’t be today. And the majority of us say we are not racist, but everyone is a little bit prejudiced, at least, if not racist.
Zinn’s main idea here is racism, even though it was never called racism back in the 17th century, it was just hatred towards people of a different background. The colonists in Virginia started the whole idea of slavery, when they started dieing off because they were unable to keep themselves alive during times of hardship. The Indians had taught the colonists how to grow tobacco, so they could make profit and export it, but because of their population the colonists could not enslave them as Columbus had done. For a hundred years the blacks in Africa had been labeled slaves so it was only natural to import them and use them as their own slaves. American slavery was the worst of all the other countries because of the Americans dire want of profit and the fact that they degraded a slave to not even feel human. The rule was that the whites are masters and the blacks are slaves. Being unable to take care of themselves with just the land at their hands the colonists were desperate for help. Well, the Indians were out of the question and the whites were to hard to control to even bother with it, what other choice did they have but blacks. There was a plethora of them in the Americas now and they were very easy to control, so again, it was only natural to enslave them. The colonists became very fearful that the slaves would rebel since the runaways in 1640. The thought they had to keep their labor where it was, was to exert everything they had in their power against the slaves. The colonists only other fear was that the disgruntled colonists would join forces with the black slaves and try to gain control.
Personally I don’t feel that Zinns position in the chapter affects what he is trying to argue. Zinn is simply saying that America is governed by racism and he gives supporting evidence on that. What he says throughout the chapter is factual, taken from books and actual people. I feel that no matter what side Zinn was on he would argue the same way, maybe omitting or adding just a few things to the story, as so many of us do in our stories.
I feel like this chapter educated me on the fact why so many people are still racist, because I firmly believe that if our ancestors hadn’t been so racist back in the 17th century, we wouldn’t be today. And the majority of us say we are not racist, but everyone is a little bit prejudiced, at least, if not racist.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Takaki journal 1
In our reading, chapter two of Ronald Takaki’s A Different Mirror, Takaki is comparing a Shakespeare play, The Tempest, to what actually happened with the colonists and Indians/natives in Virginia and New England.
Similarly to our first reading by Howard Zinn, Takaki uses the word stranger to describe the Europeans form the Indians’ point of view. Starting off Takaki talks about when the Europeans reached Massachusetts Bay. The natives were repulsed by what came off of the “walking island,” white men with hair all over them but still thought them godly.
Then Takaki begins his comparison with The Tempest and the real story of what happened in New England and Virginia. All the more intelligent audience members knew that this wasn’t just a play; but a “metaphor for English expansion into America”. Never before has an Indian character been utilized until The Tempest. The play is to help us understand more of what happened as it was set in the New World, and as timing may have it, The Tempest was first performed just after the English had gone to Ireland. A character in the play, Caliban, reminded them greatly of the Irish; savages. The English thought the Irish were lazy, slovenly bums, to put in more modern words. The Irish could not own land or wear English apparel and most certainly could not wed any of the colonizers. It was to be the “English over the Irish.” With in four years there were almost no Irish left which meant that the land was free for the English to settle on. With all the violence and prejudices the English forced upon the Irish, they even beheaded them and used their heads to, in way, line the paths to their tents, as we would with lights to our homes in today’s world. But, for the English all this horror was their right, so they could teach the Irish the ways of the English. With all the feelings of savagery towards them, the English really did think that the Irish could be taught to be civil.
Following the invasion of Ireland was the invasion of Virginia. Here there were Indians and like the Irish were “savages” to the English colonizers. However the colonizers have had seen Indians before, Christopher Columbus had brought them to England and they were sold as slaves. The colonizers themselves were non-too-ashamed of kidnapping the Indians just as Columbus had. Just as Caliban in The Tempest had been seen as “other” so were the Indians. Although Caliban was thought to be what Europeans were like when there was little development, he, and same as the Indians, lived his life for his passions, specifically sexuality. But, to the colonizers to be civilized meant to deny all of the “natural” things about themselves, seeing themselves as Prospero, of The Tempest did, a mind not a body. The colonizers were to be just like Prospero and teach Caliban, the Powhatan Indians, to be civilized and speak their language. The unprepared colonizers started dieing off but the Powhatans came to rescue and feed the remaining few. When more colonizers arrived and they too became famished, they started to steal the Indian’s food and began destroying their villages in violent rampages. After the colonizers took over the majority of the Powhatan land, because it was unused and wasted the Powhatans brought it upon them to kill the colonizers. It was the deaths of the colonizers that actually gave them the right to the land. Again, like the Irish, the English thought the Indians could be taught civilization.
When the colonizers had made it to New England they had decided that the Indians could no longer be taught to be civil and that they were just born that way. The colonizers basically dehumanized the Indians as devils. When disease had struck the Indians and killed them off by the thousands, the colonizers saw it as God was allowing them to take the land.
Soon the colonizers began to realize that the savagery from Ireland, Virginia and New England were all different; one simply of consent, another of culture and one of racism. Finally a slight relief for the Indians, Thomas Jefferson had decided that both white people and Indians, if born on the land, were Americans. But, Jefferson was not opposed to removing, by any means necessary, Indians that continued to be hostile. They were to be civilized or they would be removed/ killed. In order to be civil the Indians were forced to become farmers. Jefferson was very contradictory in his words, he said that we all are Americans but it was the Indians own fault for all the hardships they encountered and their land was legally transferred to the English. The acceptance that Jefferson had started for the Indians was really a way to get them to surrender their land to the English, but still wanted to save the Indians.
Takakis telling of this story kind of ridicules Thomas Jefferson because he was so contradictory. He wanted to save them, but he also wanted their land and ultimately wanted the Indian’s out of his territory. I pretty much agree with what Takaki is saying, because you can’t want freedom for someone just so they will forgo their land to you in the end. That is not freedom; it is just as bad as killing and then taking the land.
Actually after reading this I feel slightly disgusted, I am just in awe that all of this violence was the only way, or thought to be the only way for America to evolve. I knew of some of the violence and the prejudices but I have never had it all laid out in front of me like that. I am Irish and I realize what kinds of hardships my ancestors had to endure but I have never really read it before and it gave me a new perspective on the racism that still exists today.
Similarly to our first reading by Howard Zinn, Takaki uses the word stranger to describe the Europeans form the Indians’ point of view. Starting off Takaki talks about when the Europeans reached Massachusetts Bay. The natives were repulsed by what came off of the “walking island,” white men with hair all over them but still thought them godly.
Then Takaki begins his comparison with The Tempest and the real story of what happened in New England and Virginia. All the more intelligent audience members knew that this wasn’t just a play; but a “metaphor for English expansion into America”. Never before has an Indian character been utilized until The Tempest. The play is to help us understand more of what happened as it was set in the New World, and as timing may have it, The Tempest was first performed just after the English had gone to Ireland. A character in the play, Caliban, reminded them greatly of the Irish; savages. The English thought the Irish were lazy, slovenly bums, to put in more modern words. The Irish could not own land or wear English apparel and most certainly could not wed any of the colonizers. It was to be the “English over the Irish.” With in four years there were almost no Irish left which meant that the land was free for the English to settle on. With all the violence and prejudices the English forced upon the Irish, they even beheaded them and used their heads to, in way, line the paths to their tents, as we would with lights to our homes in today’s world. But, for the English all this horror was their right, so they could teach the Irish the ways of the English. With all the feelings of savagery towards them, the English really did think that the Irish could be taught to be civil.
Following the invasion of Ireland was the invasion of Virginia. Here there were Indians and like the Irish were “savages” to the English colonizers. However the colonizers have had seen Indians before, Christopher Columbus had brought them to England and they were sold as slaves. The colonizers themselves were non-too-ashamed of kidnapping the Indians just as Columbus had. Just as Caliban in The Tempest had been seen as “other” so were the Indians. Although Caliban was thought to be what Europeans were like when there was little development, he, and same as the Indians, lived his life for his passions, specifically sexuality. But, to the colonizers to be civilized meant to deny all of the “natural” things about themselves, seeing themselves as Prospero, of The Tempest did, a mind not a body. The colonizers were to be just like Prospero and teach Caliban, the Powhatan Indians, to be civilized and speak their language. The unprepared colonizers started dieing off but the Powhatans came to rescue and feed the remaining few. When more colonizers arrived and they too became famished, they started to steal the Indian’s food and began destroying their villages in violent rampages. After the colonizers took over the majority of the Powhatan land, because it was unused and wasted the Powhatans brought it upon them to kill the colonizers. It was the deaths of the colonizers that actually gave them the right to the land. Again, like the Irish, the English thought the Indians could be taught civilization.
When the colonizers had made it to New England they had decided that the Indians could no longer be taught to be civil and that they were just born that way. The colonizers basically dehumanized the Indians as devils. When disease had struck the Indians and killed them off by the thousands, the colonizers saw it as God was allowing them to take the land.
Soon the colonizers began to realize that the savagery from Ireland, Virginia and New England were all different; one simply of consent, another of culture and one of racism. Finally a slight relief for the Indians, Thomas Jefferson had decided that both white people and Indians, if born on the land, were Americans. But, Jefferson was not opposed to removing, by any means necessary, Indians that continued to be hostile. They were to be civilized or they would be removed/ killed. In order to be civil the Indians were forced to become farmers. Jefferson was very contradictory in his words, he said that we all are Americans but it was the Indians own fault for all the hardships they encountered and their land was legally transferred to the English. The acceptance that Jefferson had started for the Indians was really a way to get them to surrender their land to the English, but still wanted to save the Indians.
Takakis telling of this story kind of ridicules Thomas Jefferson because he was so contradictory. He wanted to save them, but he also wanted their land and ultimately wanted the Indian’s out of his territory. I pretty much agree with what Takaki is saying, because you can’t want freedom for someone just so they will forgo their land to you in the end. That is not freedom; it is just as bad as killing and then taking the land.
Actually after reading this I feel slightly disgusted, I am just in awe that all of this violence was the only way, or thought to be the only way for America to evolve. I knew of some of the violence and the prejudices but I have never had it all laid out in front of me like that. I am Irish and I realize what kinds of hardships my ancestors had to endure but I have never really read it before and it gave me a new perspective on the racism that still exists today.
Zinn journal 1
Howard Zinn’s thesis in chapter one of “A People’s History of the United States” is that even though he was made out to be such a great explorer, Christopher Columbus was a malicious butcher. As we all learned in elementary school, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, it is not until later we learn that he is in fact one of the worlds first men to start genocide, later Hitler would be the more widely known genocidal maniac.
Through out the chapter Zinn talks about the history of the Arawak’s, the people Columbus killed. He teaches us all about them. Before Columbus discovered the Americas the Arawak people had gotten along just fine. They knew how to spin and weave and they had food, that was all they needed and if there was something they needed everyone shared their possessions. The whole thing that sparked Columbus to practically kill off the whole Arawak race or enslave them, small gold earrings that they wore. When Columbus didn’t like what he found he then forced anyone over the age of fourteen to hunt for gold, and if they didn’t find any their hands were cut off and then they bled to death. The Arawaks even started mass suicides to protect themselves from being killed for not finding any gold. All of this death occurred simply because Columbus wanted to please the King and Queen. Then only way to do this was by filling the ships with gold and since there was none; he opted for the next best thing, slaves that can be resold once back to Europe.
Continuing on, Zinn states that there is no way that we could ever punish Columbus for what he did and we shouldn’t try. Zinn just wants the acceptance for actions such as this not to be so easy, even if it is a necessary event for progress to occur. He also wants us to know that, the preceding views on such events are coming from the people that run our country. Zinn states that he, unlike the majority takes the side of the victim, in this case the Arawaks but does not grieve for them.
I feel that all of the author’s arguments are valid, and from what I have learned about Christopher Columbus everything Zinn has stated is true. With the given information, I don’t feel that any other conclusion can be made. Columbus was a malicious butcher; no matter what way you look at the information that stays true. I don’t think that Zinn’s position affected his argument; at least not to the point that he would lie to his readers. As stated earlier he tends to tell the story from the victims point of view, but he was still stating facts.
I really enjoyed this article, as weird as that may sound. I had known about the genocide that Columbus inflicted but have never had a chance to read it from the victims, Arawaks, point of view. Every story seems to justify what Columbus did and I liked the fact that Zinn, neither denounced or justified it. It was nice to see the story from the other side, not just what King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella wanted us to know.
Through out the chapter Zinn talks about the history of the Arawak’s, the people Columbus killed. He teaches us all about them. Before Columbus discovered the Americas the Arawak people had gotten along just fine. They knew how to spin and weave and they had food, that was all they needed and if there was something they needed everyone shared their possessions. The whole thing that sparked Columbus to practically kill off the whole Arawak race or enslave them, small gold earrings that they wore. When Columbus didn’t like what he found he then forced anyone over the age of fourteen to hunt for gold, and if they didn’t find any their hands were cut off and then they bled to death. The Arawaks even started mass suicides to protect themselves from being killed for not finding any gold. All of this death occurred simply because Columbus wanted to please the King and Queen. Then only way to do this was by filling the ships with gold and since there was none; he opted for the next best thing, slaves that can be resold once back to Europe.
Continuing on, Zinn states that there is no way that we could ever punish Columbus for what he did and we shouldn’t try. Zinn just wants the acceptance for actions such as this not to be so easy, even if it is a necessary event for progress to occur. He also wants us to know that, the preceding views on such events are coming from the people that run our country. Zinn states that he, unlike the majority takes the side of the victim, in this case the Arawaks but does not grieve for them.
I feel that all of the author’s arguments are valid, and from what I have learned about Christopher Columbus everything Zinn has stated is true. With the given information, I don’t feel that any other conclusion can be made. Columbus was a malicious butcher; no matter what way you look at the information that stays true. I don’t think that Zinn’s position affected his argument; at least not to the point that he would lie to his readers. As stated earlier he tends to tell the story from the victims point of view, but he was still stating facts.
I really enjoyed this article, as weird as that may sound. I had known about the genocide that Columbus inflicted but have never had a chance to read it from the victims, Arawaks, point of view. Every story seems to justify what Columbus did and I liked the fact that Zinn, neither denounced or justified it. It was nice to see the story from the other side, not just what King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella wanted us to know.
Introduction
Hi Im Gina Moulton. Im a junior interior design student. I am always busy working on some kind of project, so i never sleep lol.
I am from Toledo. I live with my boyfriend, here, and absolutly love it, but sometimes it's easier living on campus.
I have a kitty named Logan here with me, at my grandparents' I have two kitties. Missy, who loves everyone and always thinks your playing when all you want to do is pet her. And Pumpkin, who's afraid of her own shadow and only comes out around us.
I like to cook. I am very creative. I love the Food Network. I really miss cable, we dont watch enough t.v to buy it.
I like to watch football, hockey and yes Nascar. although I don't have any favorites really. Well except for Dale Jr.-nascar driver, for those of you that don't know.
I am obsessive-compulsive and am always cleaning or organizing. Which is why I think I want to be an interior designer.
Well if you think of anything else you want to know, just ask!!
o I tried posting a picture too, but it did not work
I am from Toledo. I live with my boyfriend, here, and absolutly love it, but sometimes it's easier living on campus.
I have a kitty named Logan here with me, at my grandparents' I have two kitties. Missy, who loves everyone and always thinks your playing when all you want to do is pet her. And Pumpkin, who's afraid of her own shadow and only comes out around us.
I like to cook. I am very creative. I love the Food Network. I really miss cable, we dont watch enough t.v to buy it.
I like to watch football, hockey and yes Nascar. although I don't have any favorites really. Well except for Dale Jr.-nascar driver, for those of you that don't know.
I am obsessive-compulsive and am always cleaning or organizing. Which is why I think I want to be an interior designer.
Well if you think of anything else you want to know, just ask!!
o I tried posting a picture too, but it did not work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)