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.