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.