Welcome to Cleveland, Home of the...

A lot of ideas came to my mind after seeing the artwork Welcome to Cleveland, Home of the… that was created by Oscar Arredondo. The piece starts with a picture of the Cleveland Indians baseball team mascot, Chief Wahoo. Following it are an additional 16 images, all of which are faces of different people. However, each face is showing a common stereotype that goes along with a race and/or culture with the name of the group written underneath the face. For example, the face with Latino written under it showed a face that had a sombrero, and a thick mustache. Both of these things are usually associated with Latinos. They are stereotypes that were created due to the fact that historically a few Latino may or may not have worn sombreros and/or had thick mustaches. There were also pictures of other races and/or cultures including: Japanese, French, Negros, Irish, Italians, Africans, Germans, Polish, Chinese, Spanish, white folks, Jews, skinheads, gangsters, and Catholics. Each of these faces also had their common stereotypes shown through their facial expressions, physical features, clothing, and accessories. Two completely different messages came to me after studying the images. The first one being that Chief Wahoo should be seen as a racist image because it depicts negative stereotypes that are often related to being Native American like being savages, illiterate, wild, untamable, etc. However, the picture of the white folks really stood out to me. All of the faces showed negative stereotypes. So in order to give negative things to the white fold, they made them out to be seen as a KKK member. IT made me think of what other stereotypes are associated with the Caucasian race. I think that a face of a powerful white businessman would be a common stereotype, but then that wouldn’t be showing anything that negative. I don’t know what that could mean exactly, maybe something dealing with the fact that white people have created their own “good” stereotypes, and have hidden their past like the KKK. I think I could also be overanalyzing it as well. I might see it that way since I am white, and I don’t see the stereotype of the white race all being KKK members. That made me then realize that maybe other races or groups don’t see the negative stereotypes that are given to them. I guess that after seeing it made me question what message was the artist trying to show the audience. Was it just the obvious idea of negative stereotypes? Or could it be something deeper?

I thought that this piece of artwork spoke a lot about the common stereotypes that different groups are assumed to have. It was a good way to bring to light the idea that the indidan mascot figure is showing negative stereotypes of the Native American ethnic group. If I had seen this piece of art before taking this class, I wouldn't have thought much of it. It would have been just a bunch of faces showing different ethnicities/groups. I wouldn't have taken offense to it, but would have thought that it was dumb. But now after taking this class, I can see how it relates to the large problem in America of racial/ethnic stereotypes. I liked how the artist could show such a message with pretty much no words.

Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body

The main idea of the chapter Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body of the book Queering the Color Line by Siobhan B. Somerville showed that people believed that there was a connection between sex and race. Sexologists tried to connect race with the new concept of homosexuality that was brought to attention in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. During those times, people were always trying to classify and locate intellectual and physical differences between difference races, black and white. There was a large part of it that talked about how a white child had the equivalent intelligence level compared to that of an adult black male. From there sexologist took what those scientists said and tried to apply the sexuality to them. A major part that stood out to me was how both African American women and lesbians were found to both have large clitorises. Scientists were trying to find a something that could physically distinguish them as being “abnormal” or “inferior”. Finally, there was a mention of the concept of sexuality being a choice and not biological. I was confused as to whether or not I understood the main idea of the passage correctly. Also, throughout the reading, I was confused as to where they were going with the facts presented and how did they relate to the thesis. Was the main idea that people were unable to find any connection between race and sexuality? Overall, I thought this reading was rather confusing and hard to follow. I felt that there were too many scientists and authors quoted in the chapter that lacked explanation as to what the quotes really meant. I thought it was hard to understand the main thesis of the chapter because it seemed that the topics brought up did not flow together and interconnected to the same idea. I also wish there had been more examples presented like the school girls of different races who sexually experimented with each other. With that example especially, the idea that they were trying to get across became more clear. It was interesting to see how the researcher thought that the girls experienced race as equivalent to gender since they lacked the interaction with males

.

Challege of Democracy

The video “Challenge to Democracy” revolved around the time in the 1940s when the Japanese were taken from their homes and moved to relocation camps. It explained how the camps were split up into blocks, similar to the looks of a motel, with each one housing up to 300 people. Each family was placed in a 20x25 foot one room apartment that had only a stove, cots, blankets, and mattresses. The bathroom and laundry rooms were shared by everyone in a block. The video then described working conditions for the Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans on the relocation camps. It talked about how agriculture was a large part of their work, as well as their source of food. Beginning workers started out earning 12 dollars per month with the skilled workers like doctors earning only 19 dollars. This was not enough money to buy other things that the government did not provide, which left most having to withdraw money from their savings accounts. Education was provided from the Japanese children. At the high school level, students usually were provided with vocational training for labor jobs such as farming, mechanics, welding, etc. Other things like health-care, church, voting, and the army were also mentioned as being allowed/provided. All of this information lead to the conclusion that the United States government didn’t provide a good life for the Japanese immigrants/Japanese American at the relocation camps, but that it was acceptable that they did it because it was for the security of the country.

The movie did not mention any resistance of the Japanese about being placed in relocation camps. What kind of resistance took place? Were many killed in the process or at the camps for not obeying the government? The narrator seemed unbiased most of the time in regards to whether or not the treatment was fair or unfair. Sometime, however, it seemed that the relocation camps were seen as not adequate living situations, but he never mentioned the idea that the government was wrong. All of the Japanese shown in the video appeared either happy playing baseball, working hard, or unemotional. No one was shown angry or sad. I felt that it was mostly just an informative video on the basics of the relocation camps but that downplayed how the Japanese were treated and how they reacted emotionally and physically. I could see why people would volunteer to work on sugar cane farms or join the army. To work on the farms meant that they may have earned more money, be away from the restricting laws and supervision, or even maybe attempt to run-away. As for joining the army, only the Japanese that pledged loyalty to the United States were able to leave the camps. Joining the army is one of the biggest ways to show your dedication to your country, which would then give freedom from the relocation camps.

Yellow by Frank Wu

The thesis for the article Yellow: Writing Race by Frank Wu is the idea that race needs to stop being thought of as being either white or black, because then there is not place for people of Asian descent fit in since the are “yellow”. He starts out by talking about how people at work will tell them of things Asian related since they remind them of him. They stereotype his as a race and not as an individual. An Asian American that headed a major research university described going onto a bus during the civil rights movement. Since he was neither black nor white, he didn’t know where he fit in. Finally, the article ended with the description of the headline “American beats out Kwan”. Kwan and the “American” who beat her were actually both Americans. Wu states that this shows that Asians Americans are often not considered American.

Usually, Asian Americans are stereotyped as being intelligent, knowing things like karate, etc. What effects do these stereotypes have Asian American lives? Are they similar to the effects that blacks face by their stereotypes? Or is what Asian Americans experience by stereotypes more similar to that of white stereotypes?

I thought the the idea that people need to be looked at as individuals and not as a race could be applied to everyone and not just Asian Americans. I liked the examples that Wu gave, because it made more clear the message that he was trying to get across. I thought it was a quick, enlightening read that brought Asian Americans in as also being a group that needs attention when talking about race.

Quiz #5

The book Kindred by Octavia E. Butler centered around two time periods in the United States, the 1970s and the early 1800s. It was interesting to see the difference as to how the main characters Dana who was black and her white husband Keith were treated in the different times. When going back to the 1800s, Dana was seen as a slave and her husband her owner. In the 1970s however, they were more accepted as a couple, but still faced discrimination for trying to mix ethnic groups.

During the time when Dana was involved in the slave life and worked on a white plantation, it was easy to see Johnson’s idea from the chapter Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination. Throughout the book, slaves were scared that if they did not work well enough and produce enough profit for their white owner that they would be sold. Tom Weylin, owner of the plantation and Rufus’s father, only looked out for what was most profitable for him. He would sell slaves and not even consider the fact that he was splitting up families.

The idea of a “mammy” figure from the movie Race I was also present in the novel. Sarah was a larger set black woman who was able to give out tasks to the other black slaves, and in return they would respect her and listen to her. She was seen as a mother and authority figure toward the slaves. There were a couple of times in the book were Dana referred to the term mammy when talking about Sarah, and she could see the similarities.

The clip that was watched in class regarding the Jena 6 could also be applied. It is known that throughout history African Americans have been killed/murder by being hung on a noose. After slavery ended, blacks were still often tortured and hung by angry Southern whites that still thought that blacks were inferior to them. In Jena, Louisiana, three white boys hung nooses on a tree that was located in a school courtyard. Since the noose is directly related to the murders of African Americans, the black students took it as a form of racism. In the book, the slaves were always afraid of making white people mad, which would result in being whipped and possibly even hung. In the end of the book, the noose was used as a sign of freedom for the girl Alice who had been made a slave and who thought her children were sold. By hanging herself, she was no longer able to be tortured and she probably thought her soul would be set free.

Some of the more recent articles and films that we have seen in class can also be linked to Kindred. The movie Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings 1954-1956 focused more on the events that African Americans faced after being legally freed. It could definitely be seen when Dana was telling the story of how her and her Keith met and got engaged. When both of them told their families, never Dana’s or Keith’s family like the idea of an interracial marriage. So even though they were free to make their own choices, they were not always socially accepted. So like Rosa Parks who tried to sit in the front of a public bus and the students who participated in the sit-ins in the diners, Dana and Keith were trying to get a new idea of equality into the public eye and accepted.

Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings 1954-1956

The focus that the film Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings 1954-1956 was how African Americans were segregated from the white population. Also, it showed how blacks responded to such treatment though nonviolent acts. First the movie talked about a boy by the name of Emmett Till who was beaten and brutally murdered by white men. It went on to talk about how the trail went and how the men were found innocent due largely to the fact that they were white. Next, desegregation of the Little Rock, Arkansas school was mentioned. At first, the state police would not let the nine black children into a white school, but finally, the president sent in federal soldiers to escort them into the school. From there it went on to talk about the well known Rosa Parks and community buses. Blacks boycotted riding public buses until they were allowed to sit anywhere on the bus. Sit-ins were also staged in various stores. The movie talked about the first sit-in and how as soon as the black people who were sitting at the diner were arrested another group came in and took their seats. Finally, the part that we watched in class ended with talking about how African American homes were bombed. The movie gave an in depth view of many major events that dealt with racism and segregation of people my age. In class we were asked how we or how our parents would react if we were directly faced with the events mentioned. I would like to think that I would have stood up for African American rights. However, I was raised in a predominately all white community and am not exactly sure how my grandparents and aunts and uncles reacted to it. I would like to believe that they would have supported the desegregation of races since they have a very strong pacifistic Christian faith. As for my mother, I could see her being soo worried about everyone’s safety. Being black or white, she would not want me involved anyway for fear for my safety. But I am not for sure, which makes me curious as to how my family and I would have truly acted during those times.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow by Wright

The main focus of the article The Ethics of Living Jim Crow: An Autobiographical Sketch by Richard Wright was to show how black citizen were treated in day-to-day situations when racial discrimination was severe in the United States. It started out by Wright first giving his experience of how he learned to be subordinate to white people. He had gotten in a fight with white children and him mother said that he deserved to be beat by them because they had power over them though jobs, food, shelter, etc. From there is talked about his experience as a young adult and the various types of jobs he held. He started out by thinking that he could advance and learn knew things, but after being fired and abused he realized that he must live two different personalities in order to hold a job and survive. He also learned that he couldn’t trust a white man to help him, for example when someone popped his bike tire. The white boys threw a bottle at him simple because he did not call them ‘sir’. Throughout the article, the author was trying to show that many blacks accepted the treatment that they received by the white population and always seemed glad that they didn’t get treated worse. I didn’t really have any questions about the article, but I found it very interesting. I truly liked how there was quick short personal stories that kept my attention. When the author ended the article by talking about him being able to read books, I thought that was uplifting and showed hope for their future.

Zinn Chapter 9

In the book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, chapter 9 Slavery Without Submission . Emancipation Without Freedom talked mostly of the history of how African Americans were treated as slaves, as well as after they were freed. It talked about how the slaves were torn apart and sold to different white owners. There were many revolts/riots mentioned that were started by slaves and white abolitionists. After these types of events, the chapter talked about how the blacks were more severely punished that the white people. Eventually, Abraham Lincoln was elected as president and the Civil War took place. The war started to keep five slave states apart of the country and not by the fact of abolishing slavery. Once the African Americans were freed, they were still dependent on the Southern white man for food, housing, etc. I couldn’t quite figure out the main thesis that the author was trying to get across. It just seemed like he was stating a bunch of historical facts, which was more like a history lesson to me. At the very end, Zinn make reference to Du Bois by saying that the idea of capitalism was enslaving both whites and blacks. I took this to mean that every single person back then was only looking out for what would benefit them the most and at anyone else’s expense. I was wondering exactly whether Lincoln wanted slavery ended or not because of the two of his letters in the chapter supported opposite positions. Was Lincoln just trying to get everyone to like him by taking both sides of the issue of blacks being inferior? Also, I didn’t realize that the Northern whites were looking out mostly for themselves. They wanted change in the economic system that would benefit them and not free slaves necessarily. Was the basis of the Civil War purely on the idea of money and profit between the Southern whites and the Northern whites? Overall, the chapter was interesting, but it seemed to drag out. Also, I didn’t see a clear point to the chapter other than a history lesson. I think that the chapter could have been broken down and have had more of a clear focus.

Rothenberg - How Jews Became White Folks

Paula Rothenberg in chapter two How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America starts out by explaining the history of how the Europeans were split up into different categories of superiority and inferiority. In America, race was seen as a scary thing in the early 1900s, which resulted in some people trying to stop immigration. Jews in America were seen as the inferior white race. The author elaborated on how education was very important to the Jewish culture at that time being that they made up a large percentage of the students who attended college. It wasn’t until after World War II that the Jews experienced a social change in regards to their ethnicity. The Jews started being treated like the superior white group. The cause of this was the GI Bill of Rights that was created in 1944, which gave military veterans certain privileges. The United States, however, did not want to let the African American veterans receive the same benefits. So it was easier to make the racial discrimination happen between white and black races only verses superior whites, inferior whites, and blacks. For the white race, this bill lead to a huge rise in the lower class attending college, as well as the increase of homeownership. The Africans Americans on the other hand were even more discriminated against. The overall thesis that Rothenberg was trying to get across was the idea that as Jews were accepted into the white category and received the status privileges associated with being white, the African Americans were treated in the opposite way by experiencing more segregation and racial injustices. I didn’t quite understand what the GI Bill all entailed. It made me wonder how the black people were denied their veteran benefits other that the fact that some were dishonorably discharged. Also, when suburbanization was talked about, I wondered if federally subsidized housing laws were state mandated or federally? I found this reading somewhat confusing since I did not know a lot about the GI Bill and Federal Housing Administration. I felt that the author got slightly off topic of how Jews became integrated into the “white” race. It seems that at times she became more focused on what was being done to the African Americans, but I understand why she needed to bring that into light.

Anaylsis Paper #2

For my analysis paper, I have chose to take the position to support the idea that racism originated from the white ethnicity and their need/want of the American dream the easiest way possible. I will be using chapter three, Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination by Johnson and chapter three The Giddy Multitude to help aid my position that the authors also makes.

Capitalism verses the American dream – I want to start out by explaining the idea of the American dream and then related it to how a capitalistic economy runs. I want to start how the American dream can be achieved through this kind of system.

White immigrants and need for labor to accomplish dream – Here I will state the actual amount of labor needed to run a plantation verses the amount of money needed to support the laborers. I want to give historic facts as to how much cheaper it was to have free slaves compared to paid white indentured servants.

Fear of social class revolt – The elite white class became scared that the lower working class of blacks and whites together would join forces and revolt. In order to justify slavery and prevent a revolt, the elite white put together the idea of white being superior, which caused a division in the working class community.

So first I will be explaining the end result wanted, I will then be going into how they went about getting it, which will end in how they tried to keep what they obtained. All of these three steps together resulted in the idea of race/racism.

Rosenblum and Travis

There was quite a lot covered in the Framework Essay: Constructing Categories of Difference written by Karen Rosenblum and Toni-Michelle Travis. The main thesis of this work dealt with how people are put into groups, which usually consist of opposing two sides like male verse female for example, and the ways that these groups are categorized and stereotyped. The article first started out by bringing in the term master status, a social structure that influences every other aspect of life. Next, the author defined the expressionist perspective and the constructionist perspective. “Naming”/creating different social groups was talked about, which include race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. The terms aggregating and disaggregating were defined and made applicable to the topic. An aggregate category of people is known to be the combination of several different groups, where as a disaggregate category of people is the aggregate category cut up into pieces due to certain common characteristics. Finally, the term dichotomizing is introduced with it being defined as diving something into two parts. From there, the topics of race, sexual orientation, sex, disability, and the “Other” were told how they were broken down into 2 groups. Race was broken down to black or white, sexual orientation by straight or gay, etc. In each category, the advantages as being stereotyped into one group verses the other one were stated, as well as the disadvantages. It was mentioned in the writing that a master status would usually have two opposing groups with sometimes three as in the example of sexual orientation. Were only the categories mentioned in the essay like race, sexual orientation, etc the only master statuses in our country. Also if there are others, could there be too many opposing views to make it a master like say if there were five or six opposing groups instead of two to three? Overall, I understood the essay, but it was hard to follow at times. Many new vocabulary terms were introduced, which made it hard to understand. I really enjoyed reading how the author compared the two sides of opposite groups and her explanation as to why they were stereotyped in that way. I also liked how this reading brought into light some new stereotyped groups that we have yet to talk about in class such as the disabled. I feel often that people with disabilities are often judged and/or overlooked in our society.

Analysis Paper Prewrite

I enjoyed Johnson’s chapter 6 What It All Has to Do With Us and how it showed that we need to take action for social stereotype changes that are going on throughout the world. My main goal of the analysis paper would be to show how I support the author’s argument by bringing in other examples that may be applied using his theory. Some of the examples, I hoping, will come from some historical events. I am not sure where I would take that topic. I don’t know how I would analyze that chapter. I think I would end up just restating the main ideas and agreeing with it.

Another idea would deal with what I feel is a major focus for the first few readings regarding the want of power and privilege and the effects that is has had on racial issues. I agree that wealth and power both played a large roll as how racism emerged for the Native Americans and the Africans Americans. If I choose this topic, I would focus on Zinn Chapter 2 Drawing the Color Line. This chapter would give me a reference regarding the origins of black racism and slaver and its correlation to money and power. With this topic, I could also bring in Johnson Chapter 3 Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination, which heavily focuses on capitalism as the source of racism.

Quiz #3

In the article Don’t Be a Hypocrite in the Fight for Equal Rights, Sarah Barnes was trying to get across the message that minority groups who vocally draw attention to themselves for want of appreciation and recognition is unnecessary, and ends up resulting in more inequality than equality. She states, “Just don’t go around complaining that you got dealt a bad hand in life, when it is the individual that can make or break the situation”. What I understand this to mean is that people solely make/choose their destiny and racial discrimination does not play a role in that at all since “everyone” is now equal. The ideas that Johnson talked about in chapter eight Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance can be directly related to Barnes’ article. Her article shows many examples as to how the privileged people deny that they have anything to do with racism. Barnes is denying that she plays apart in the effects of how other ethnic groups are treated. However, by her being silent and accepting the privileges that comes from being white results in other ethnicities receiving less. She writes that she does not go about telling everyone that she is a white heterosexual woman verses a friend of hers who does but is a homosexual male. She is not acknowledging the daily privileges that she receives. Johnson is trying to get across the message that the privileged must recognize the benefits to being privileged, and that others who are not from a privileged social group are not receiving the same treatment. There were many other things throughout Barnes article that was a great example of Johnson’s idea with the privileged people of society not recognizing their benefits, as well as denying their role in the negative effects that different social groups experience daily.

Johnson Chapter 6

In chapter 6, What It All Had to Do With Us, the main thesis that the author Johnson was trying to get across was the idea that individuals are influenced by social groups, but also individual are the ones who can make changes to them. The chapter began with stating the fact that people are uncomfortable with talking about topics dealing with privilege and power. From there, individualism was talked about. This was part of the reading that was most confusing for me. I believe that the main idea regarding individualism was that individuals do not make up the definition or power and privilege, but the individuals make up a social group, which defines them. The graph given in the reading helped to get across the message that individuals make social systems happen/develop and that in return the social systems developed shape us and give a choices to choose from. The idea that social groups produce “paths of least resistance”, which means there are multiple choices we can make daily and that by choosing something that would be more sociable acceptable would result in less negative consequences. Johnson admits “the path of least resistance is far more appealing, which is why it’s the one we’re most likely to choose.”. He gave an example of playing monopoly. He said that he became greedy while playing it. As it ended, the players make the game happen, but the game also produces choices for players to make, which showed how both individuals and social systems are related and interact. The chapter ended with a strong emphasis on the silent onlookers of social systems. Individuals are the ones that can change social systems, but by not saying anything, one is succumbing to the already established social ideas on things like racism, power, and privilege. So by not saying anything is “agreeing” with the other side. I liked the main idea of the chapter, but it was hard to keep my attention. I did like the graph, which made the idea a lot more understandable. I do wish that he would have given examples more related to race and gender issues that we as a society are currently dealing with instead of just talking about the game monopoly. I couldn’t really think of any questions during this reading because I agreed with what Johnson was saying and I understood it.

Zinn Ch. 2

I believe the main thesis that Zinn was trying to get across in chapter two, Drawing the Color Line, dealt with the idea that the racial hatred towards blacks stems from historical facts and not something that is natural. This chapter seemed to resemble similar ideas of the previous reading. There was a strong emphasis on the idea that whites enslaved and tortured blacks on the basis of their need for cheep labor for agriculture purposes. It was stated that Indians could not be enslaved since they were on their own territory and had resources available around them to fight back. Africans on the other hand, were taken from their homes and lifestyles and brought to a new land that was completely unfamiliar to them. There was also an elaborate description of how blacks slaves were treated and punished for trying to escape. The chapters also brought to my attention that slavery existed in Africa as well, which came as a surprise to me. This idea brought about some questions. It made me wonder if the black slaves in Africa were treated more like indentured servants? Would they get to keep their lifestyles and beliefs, as well as stay close to their families? It seemed that throughout the reading, blacks seemed to be more peaceful and laidback than other societies. Was it this idea that made it easier for them to be abducted as slaves or were they just not expecting it? I enjoyed this chapter. It was short and too the point. I could tell the reading was slightly biased. I feel that Zinn was siding with black slaves, and showing that all whites back in that time were bad. I tired to not let that affect the way I understood the whole chapter.

Johnson Chapter 3

The reading this time was chapter 2 Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination from the book Power, Privilege and Difference by Allan G Johnson. It started out by first defining the term capitalism. According to Johnson, the point of capitalism is to “turn money into more money”. From there, it talked about the growing financial gap between the wealthy class and the poor and its relationship with capitalism. The capitalists want more produced while paying a small amount to the workers, which means that the capitalists receive more money and the workers get less. Finally the author then talked about capitalism and its effects it has on different races, as well as gender. It said that plantation farmers, the capitalists, were looking only for a cheaper way to farm their crops. The cheapest way was to use free labor, which was in the form of slaves. By using white laborers, the farmers would have to pay them resulting in less money in their pockets. Gender was brought up also. White males were known to have more social dominance over white women, but white women were to have more than black males. However, social privilege is not that easy to figure out, but is comprised of a lot of factors making up a matrix of dominance. Johnson told of a system that would give points or take away point from a person that would show his/her position in relation to privilege. Unfortunately, he stated that it is not that easy and that other factors need to be put in to truly show a person’s individual relationship to the amount of privilege he/she may experience. The overall message that the author was trying to get across is the fact that race and privilege are correlated, which originally stemmed from the white wealthy people and their want to get more money. Some questions that came to my mind upon reading this chapter dealt with the issue of race and discrimination that takes place today. There have been laws that help to prohibit racial discrimination, but what are they exactly? I know that one of those laws helps minorities to pay for college, but is it wrong that I think that it is unfair? Does that make me a racist? I come from a poor white class family and am receiving federal financial aid to pay for college, but it does not cover a lot of it. My roommate who is black, on the other hand, comes from a family who had more money than mine, but has received a full paid-ride to BG just because of her race. Is it right to like feel like I am being discriminated against? Overall, I liked the chapter. It was short and to the point. It kept my attention and was very interesting. It told of a relationship between capitalism and racism that is often overlooked.

A Different Mirror - Chapter 3

Chapter 3, The “Giddy Multitude”: The Hidden Origins of Slavery, in the book A Different Mirror focused on the social as well as racial issues that occurred during the early colonial foundations of Virginia. The author Ronald Takaki started out by explaining that America started out with a large number of the colonists came over as indentured servant, which were people who were to work for someone else for a certain amount of time to pay off their travel expenses. Most indentured servants were the outcasts of society and were going to America to get a fresh start. However, once they got over to America, they found out that they were still being discriminated against by the wealthy white people already over there. Their dreams of land and wealth were not coming true, which lead to them taking arms. During this time, Africans were being shipped over like indentured servants, but were not given the same rights as white ones. Unfortunately, laws were made that made blacks slaves. The elite white citizens were scared of the lower-class white people because they were allowed to legally hold arms. So as a result, they brought over less white indentured servants and brought over more black slaves, since they could control them. Toward the end of the chapter, Thomas Jefferson and his opinion on the issue of slavery was mentioned. He was found to have wanted to abolish slavery, but he also owned a large number of them. His idea to end slavery was to ship all the slave children/infants to St. Domingo and let the current black slaves die naturally. Also, there were two differences he saw between white and black people. The first being color of skin and the second was the level of intelligence. Jefferson did not believe or refused to believe that blacks had/could have an equal level of intelligence as white citizens. Upon reading this, it made me wonder how such a man could have helped found this country. Also, how could he consider himself a Christian if he wanted to take away slave children from their mothers? He said he wanted to end slavery, but he did not show that view through his actions. It was interesting to read that another underlying start to slavery besides profit was the fact that the wealthy white people wanted less poor white people around because they were scared of them. That confirms that throughout history, the wealthy mainly look out for their own well-being and social status. I felt that Jefferson in the reading was all talk. It seemed that the only reason he said that he wanted to abolish slavery was to appear to be a “good and Christian man”. However if he truly supported that idea, he would have started out by at least freeing his own slaves.

Movie Race I

The focus of the movie Race I that was shown during class was how different races were not genetically different. The show started out by introducing several students of various racial backgrounds who were testing their DNA to check for similarities and differences. From there several topics were discussed such as athletics, intelligence, and musical ability. The history of segregation was also talked about. During that time, interracial marriages were thought bad since a superior race should not “mix” their genes with that of a inferior race. Regarding athletics, black people were thought to be better than whites in sports like track and basketball. Back then, people assumed that it was in a black person’s genes as to the reason that they were good at sports and commonly beat white people. Now however, scientist have come to the conclusion that race is not based on biology, but more on the environment. At the end of the show, the kids who were testing their DNA found that their DNA was often more similar to someone of a completely different race. Watching this made me think about all of the racial stereotypes that I subconsciously regard as true. One that came to my mind was the generalization that a majority of Asians are skinny. Scientists have proven that a person’s metabolism is partially heredity, so how can that factor not be biologically passed on by race or is it from passed just parents to child? Another question that came to me was about when they mentioned that all people originated from Africa. I just didn’t understand how people eventually produced things like blond hair since dark colors are dominating traits. Overall, I enjoyed the movie and thought that is was very informative. I believe that every person should be educated on such topics. There are many people that are racist and I would like to think that if this scientific information was made known to the general public, the number of racists would decrease. But that is an issue that cannot be solved by such information but I hope that it would help.

A Different Mirror - Chapter 2

In chapter 2 The “Tempest” in the Wilderness: The Racialization of Savagery of the book A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki, the start of the origins of cultural and race problems were talked about. The main message Takaki was trying to the audience to understood dealt with the how the term “savage” did not originally mean a person with a different colored complextion but by a person’s actions only. However, with more history came the eventual change of the word “savage”, which it is now commonly associated with racial ties and skin color issues. Takaki starts out this chapter by focusing on the English and their efforts to take over the “savage” people also known as the Irish in the 1600s. The Irish were known as savages by the English simply by their daily actions and level of intelligence. The chapter then followed with a large amount of detail about how the Indians of America were compared by the new English settlers to their well known rivals the Irish. The term savage actually originated from the Irish and not the Native Americans. Throughout the chapter the author kept comparing the actual history of the time to the play by William Shakespeare called the Tempest. The main idea of the play was told as the main idea of the chapter progressed. Not knowing the play before reading this made it somewhat hard to understand completely. I feel that the chapter seemed one-sided. It did not say anything positive at all about the English, which made me wonder what negative things were put upon them, if any, by the Irish originally. Were the English just trying to make everything like their culture and blind-sided by what their religion told them? Or was there a power issue that they had? Overall, I understood and agreed with the message that the author was trying to say, but I did not find the reading griping or something that could hold my attention very well. I believe that the author over-used quotes of people back in 1600s. At times, it almost felt that I was reading a book made back during that time. However, I did like the main idea of the chapter. What I mostly liked about it was the history of the English and the Irish, which is something that I had never heard about before.

Zinn Ch. 1

Howard Zinn’s main idea in the chapter entitled Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress in his book A People’s History of the United States focused on the Indians’ point-of-view of Columbus finding the Caribbean islands. However, he wanted to make sure that he was not trying to show remorse for the Indians, but he focused more on the idea of showing the other side of the story than what is normally taught to children. He tries to see how sometimes human pain and suffering may be essential for human progress/development to take place. He elaborated on the effects that Columbus had on the Arawak Indians, which included slavery, murder, torture, etc, and their eventual distinction. Through what Zinn said about Columbus, it may seem to the reader that Columbus’ sole motive was money and wealth, and that he would kill and enslave innocent people in order to get him what he wanted. Toward the end of the chapter, Zinn did mention the idea that such actions toward certain populations throughout history may have been necessary for people to get to where they are today. Also, he stated that the population being victimized might not be the only ones hurt. The group doing such negative actions may inevitably be the ones more hurt. So by saying this information it made me wonder such questions like what would the world be like if Columbus had not enslaved and killed the Arawak Indians? Was this necessary for the current human civilization to be as cultured and material-based as it currently is? Is the government unable to admit what was done to the original inhabitants of America? Overall, I have heard such information regarding Christopher Columbus and the start of America with the torture and killing of the Native Americans. Such information is not talked about nor taught to children. I believe that this story should be taught to children growing up. I feel sometimes that America has trouble admitting when it did something wrong to certain cultural groups. The Thanksgiving story for example is based on the idea that the Native Americans and Pilgrims were friends and could get along. But unfortunately this was not the case. Zinn what trying to get across the idea that history can be skewed by looking at only side population’s side of the happening. To be accurate with a historic event both sides of the story need to be examined.