Takaki, Chapter 12

Chapter 12 of “A Different Mirror” by Ronald Takaki discusses the great migration of Mexicans or Chicanos as they are referred to in this chapter. Takaki gives an account of the social, political and economic facts that were the push and pull factors of the Mexican migration to the United States. During the early 1900s in Mexico the conditions for Mexican peasants were very similar to that of the Irish around this same time period. Peasants lived in shacks or hut. They had no running water or electricity. Those who were fortunate enough to be employee in factory and other industrial jobs were paid low wages and worked in extremely bad conditions. Because of the major struggles that faced the Mexican people the Mexican Revolution took place in 1910. This revolution overthrew the government. There was much opposition and rivalry when political strife erupted between the new political leaders of the overthrown Mexican government. Mexico finally erupted in a civil war that lasted for years. The civil war in Mexico created even more hardships on the people. Many became refugees and sought safety across the boarder in the United States. The land provided opportunity and work at higher wages than what they had been paid in Mexico. Although there was safety and work in the U.S. most refugees planned on returning to Mexico once the civil war had ended. The war lasted for longer than most citizens thought and residing in America had become their only option. Takaki mentions another pull factor that resulted in so many Chicanos fleeing to the United States. He mentions the “Supreme Law of Necessity” which basically says that people will flee their homeland in order to find jobs that pay higher wages. Takaki has shown this factor to be true not only for the Mexican immigrants but also for the Chinese, Japanese, and the Irish. The combination of poor conditions in their country of origin and the prospect of work in America has throughout history led people to the U.S.
Another huge factor that helped bring Mexicans across the boarder was transportation. The Mexican International Railroad ran from the Mexican boarder to Texas. During this time of great Mexican migration an estimated one tenth of Mexico’s population migrated to the United States. The agricultural and text tile industry of the U.S. was in need for labors. Although not said to be as strong as the African American, labors preferred Mexican workers because of their obedience and willingness to work for such low wages. Things were not perfect for Mexicans once arriving upon American soil. Like other immigrants from different countries they too suffered discrimination, low wages, and other forms of human cruelty. They were often tricked into contracts that would keep them around working longer because of debt that they would have to pay off to their employer. It seems to me that during this time people believed in the American Dream. Yet were things really that much better when they arrived here in America and were treated so badly. It seems to me that throughout history the poor and suffering have always remained the poor and suffering, with the exception of only a few.

McBride, "Why I Hate Abercrombie"

In the reading “Why I Hate Abercrombie” by Dwight McBride, he explains his discuss for a popular clothing label that has throughout its history be sold and advertised towards white males and more recently white females. The brand itself was started back in 1892 by David T. Abercrombie. The store sold products that were geared towards “hunters, fisherman, campers, and explorers” (62). Later in 1900 Abercrombie entered into a business deal with Ezra Fitch and thus “Abercrombie & Fitch” was born. This store which began in New York City had a very high end list of clientele. This is where McBride makes the notion that this is where the condition of promoting to white, elite men began. McBride states that, “celebration of whiteness, and of an elite class of whiteness at that, in the face of a nation whose past and present are riddled with racist ideas, politics, and ideology, is not entirely new” (64). The company went through several stages when the owners retired and the company changed hands. “Abercrombie & Fitch” had its major return to the United States clothing market in 1992. The newly refurbished company kept with the same advertising strategies as in its previous years, advertising to the whites. Due to the high price of the merchandise usually only middle class or above could afford these overpriced pieces of clothing. McBride throughout his piece reiterates how Abercrombie is associated with whiteness and its power in our American society. He explains how, “Abercrombie & Fitch has devised a very clear marketing and advertising strategy that celebrates whiteness – a particularly privileged and leisure-class whiteness – and makes use of it as a ‘lifestyle’ that it commodifies to sell otherwise extremely dull, uninspiring, and ordinary clothes” (66). U may ask how is it that Abercrombie became so associated with whiteness. Perhaps this can somewhat be explain simply by those that they hire as “Brand Reps”, who are the initial sales people located in the stores. McBride explains how in the employee handbook also known as the “Look Book” it tells the employees what their appearance must be. Now this is common for most employers, however Abercrombie & Fitch take it to a higher level that had resulted in law suit against their highering practices. For example the book tells which hair styles are appropriate. All the hair styles listed are classic “White America”, however such hair styles such as dread locks which are typically associated with African American culture are forbidden. Also it states that men can not wear gold chains. This goes against the ethnic culture of black males. It is clear from lawsuits that have been placed against the company that there is clear cut discrimination in terms of who they will hire to represent their product. Usually in pictures, advertisements, and their sales staff a certain whiteness is always presented. This is not to say that the company does not higher Blacks or other racial groups; however they are usually hired to stock and work in the back of the store where they are less visible. If a person of color does work out on the sales floor they are not allowed to show anything that may represent their ethnic culture. They must dress and act white.
As someone who is familiar with this brand of clothes I completely agree with McBride’s evaluation of the company. I have only ever seen mostly white, attractive people working at an Abercrombie & Fitch store. I remember a pretty girl that I went to high school with got a job there. Although she was pretty and skinny she was not very smart and had a poor work ethic. I am positive that there were many people who may not have been as pretty but would have been much more qualified for the job. It is no wonder that so many lawsuits have been brought upon the company. There is something about McBride’s article that does confuse me and he brings it up right at the very beginning. This is the association that he makes between the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing line and gay males. He made it seem that the label was almost a way of determining whether someone was gay. For example he made it seem like if he say a man out in a bar and he was wearing the brand then he could automatically be labeled as gay. This really did not make sense to me when he continued his argument about whiteness and the power that it held. Johnson probably explained it best when he talked about privileged and power. So it confuses me as to why McBride would use homosexuality and the power of whiteness is what seems like the same context. I believe from what I have learned about power and oppression that they two issues are not on the same level. After reading McBride’s article it has been made clear to me that whiteness and the political and ideological ideas about race and power are present throughout our society, even in the clothes on our backs.

Karen Bodkins, "How Jews Became White"

I recently read an interesting article, “How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America” by Karen Brodkin. This article portrays the experience of many Jewish immigrants that came to this country during the time of great migration into the United States. The author herself is of Jewish decent and grew up with parents who went through the experience of “Jews becoming white in America”. Brodkin explains how when the major migration took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s that the Euro-American immigrants that came to this country where looked down upon by the predominant white middle and upper class elite. During this time political figures and scientist began to develop the theories of eugenics, the superior race. Brodkin describes this as “scientific racism. Racism and anti-Semitism were high in the United States during this time period. Bodkins explains how Jews and other Euro-American immigrants such as the Irish, Polish and Italians were able to assimilate into that of the white middle class culture that was expectable in the United States.
America is know for the myth of the American dream, that with hard work an dedication one can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This terminology is expressly used with those of Jewish decent. However is that really all there is to it? According to Bodkins there are other social and racial factors that have to be considered. It is true that during the early 1900s Jew people began to strive for better education, which meant better jobs and housing conditions. The movement towards the suburbs was an increasing trend. So how was it that Jews and other immigrants were able to assimilate and not others such as African Americans? The Euro-American advantage was their ability to assimilate due to their separation from African Americas. The government provided for this advantage. Although labor was increasingly needed during the war effort, blacks were still discriminated against. Therefore the better and higher paying jobs went to the “white” immigrants such as the Jews. The Euro-America immigrants were able to distance themselves further from blacks due to the housing regulations that were present during this time. Blockbusting and Redlining were common practice made by realtors and banks. These tools made it so that Blacks and Whites lived in segregated neighborhoods. With the difference in jobs and housing the Jews, Irish, Polish, Italian, and other “white” immigrants were able to assimilate into the white middle class because the government allowed for the Blacks to continue the tradition of segregation and racism. It is not true that racism against other immigrants disappeared all together because that simple wasn’t true. It seems that because of the difference in skin color and the history of the slave in America, Blacks made an easy target for discrimination and persecution.
By reading this article it is easy to see that Jews and other Euro-American immigrants suffered racism when they first arrived in this country. That is evident through the scientist who tried to prove that they were all inferior races. Yet what changed to allow them to gradually move away from that type of thinking and enter the middle class? Was it simple that they worked hard and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps? After reading this article it is easy for me to see that the government played a huge role in the assimilation of the Jews and other immigrant groups and the continued discrimination of the Black population. To me it is somewhat of a hard concept to follow. Why did things go one way for a certain group of people and a different way for another? I think that this can only be supported and discussed by taking a look back at the roots of our history and discovering the balance that it was formed on. Our history shows that of a superior way of thinking towards Blacks and other minorities. Although strides have been made I still feel that looking back we have some unfortunate parts of history that should really be studied and observed for the greater future of our county.

Takaki Chapter 6

In Chapter 6 of “A Different Mirror” by Ronald Takaki, the account of the Irish migration to the United States is discussed. The beginning of the chapter tells of the horrid conditions that the people of Ireland faced when it became colonized by the British. Before Ireland was an agricultural state. It grew crops for the people to live off of. When the British came to Ireland they changed the entire economy for those who lived on the land. The British began to use the land for raising and selling cattle. This provided less work for the already poor Irish peasants. Takaki describes how the people of Ireland were so poor that they lived in mud huts that were one room and wore rags for clothing. These hardships were the cause for many Irish to look for new opportunities in America. However there was more to the Irish migration than just being poor. In 1845 the Great Potato Famine hit Ireland hard. A disease killed the majority of the potato crops, which made up a significant amount of the Irish’s diet. People all over the country began to die of hunger and disease. Although the Irish did not want to leave their homeland they were forced by the “push factors” to relocate to the United States were the opportunity for work was greater.
Although America has always been thought of as the land of opportunity many Irish found this not to be the case when they arrived. During the late 1800s and early 1900s life was hard. As the poor Irish immigrants came to America they found jobs in factories and made up a great part of the labor force. When they entered the country they would work side by side with the black slaves and earn poor wages. The Irish and the blacks were in constant conflict for jobs. In order for the Irish to be successful in the United States they had to assimilate to that of the dominant white culture. In order to do this the Irish had to promote their “whiteness” saying that they were not the same as the black labors. Eventually because of their commonalities with the white the Irish were able to move into more domestic jobs and become prominent members of society.
It is easy to see that the Irish could eventually assimilate to American culture because of the fairness of their skin color. What if the Irish had come to this country with some other identity mark that made them easily distinguishable from that of white society? The African Americans had dark skin that made them different and therefore it was easy to enslave them and use them as means. Would it have been the same for the Irish had they not been considered finally as “white”? Personally I think that the Irish were able to become successful in the United States because of their hard work and diligence. The people of Ireland suffered for many years and were able to make a new life in America because of their hard work and dedication to themselves and their families. After ass isn’t that the American Dream?

Film Screening, "A Challenge to Democracy"

Our country has always been one to pride it’s self on our way of governing. The United States is known for the success of democracy. Yet throughout our short history there have been times where the freedoms of democracy have been trumped. This was the case with the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II. The film “A Challenge to Democracy” gives a documentation of the life styles that Japanese-Americans experienced during their internment. The United States military constructed barracks for these families to live in for the duration of the war. They were forced to move from their homes and businesses because they were seen as a possible threat to national security during the war. The government feared that those with ties to people in Japan may become spies and tend messages about the U.S. and it’s plans for war. These internment camps that the Japanese-Americans were forced to live in were small and cramped. A family was forced to live in a one-room facility with minimal living accommodations. Anyone that was of Japanese decent was forced to live in these camps. The government tried to make this transition less offensive by calling those who lived there, evacuees instead of prisoners. The people that were forced to live in these camps went about their daily lives as best as they could. Those who knew a craft or trade would work, however it was usually for low wages. The members of these new-formed communities would participate in agriculture as part of providing food for the community. Although the government tried to make things comfortable for the members of the internment camps, their way of life was much different from the free life that they had had before. The film that shows how the Japanese lived tries to show the camps in a positive light. In reality the government took away their rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. They were only released from the camps when they had convinced the government that they were no threat.
The obvious question that comes to my mind, is what the government did to the Japanese-Americans constitutional? It seems that many of the rights granted to American citizens by the constitutions were taken away from these people during the war effort. So it makes me wonder, what is more important, the security of a nation or the freedoms of the people that make up that nation? I personally don’t know how to think about the whole situation. I have never dealt with the kind of oppression that the Japanese-Americans were forced to suffer. I feel that it was an unfortunate black mark on our countries history and hopefully this kind of injustice will never be repeated again on American soil.

Takaki Ch.10

In Chapter 10 of “A Different Mirror”, Ronald Takaki tells of the great Japanese migration to the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Takaki explains the differences between the Japanese migrations verses that of the Chinese migration in subsequent years. The Japanese migration occurred due to the prospect of labor and high wages offered in the Americas including Hawaii. However, their migration was different in several ways from that of the Chinese. One of the main differences was the amount of women that were able to leave Japan for the United States. Unlike the Chinese women were sent most in the form of “picture brides”. The concept of the picture bride was an arranged marriage between Japanese families. This allowed Japanese men to settle in America and start families. Japanese women were important for other reason, especially labor. Japanese women were of the frontier of women in the work force. They worked in the textile industry and along side their husbands on the sugarcane plantations. The Japanese migration came about in the United States because of the drastic need for labor. The demand for goods was increasing and so the supply went up through the increased amount of labor provided not only by the Japanese but also by the Chinese, Portuguese, Koreans, and Filipinos. The diversity was an important aspect to the America bosses. With such diversity present it was difficult for the workers to come together and strike. Ethnicity and language barriers prevented the workers to rise up together. The “white” leaders were thus able to keep control over all the labors and force them to work under poor conditions. Takaki expresses the importance of the Japanese workers throughout America history. Those Japanese who traveled to the mainland led a very different life than those who worked on the plantations in Hawaii. The Japanese in California in the 1920’s made up only about 2% of the population. They were not able to get labor jobs, as they were able to in Hawaii, so instead many became shopkeepers and farmers. The Japanese always played a great role in the construction of the railroad systems. The Japanese believed that farming in America was living the dream that they had dreamt when first coming to America. However the work was exhausting and never ending. Men and women would both wake before dawn and labor until late at night. Women had it especially tough. As in traditional Japan women would work beside their husbands yet also be responsible for the household work and rearing the children.
Takaki shows the impact that the Japanese labor force had on American during the early 19th century. The question that comes to my mind is, if the Japanese had not been so quick to come and labor in America then what would have happened to the need for labor in America. It is true that the Japanese were not the only immigrants to labor in America, however they did make up a significant portion of the labor force. America at this point had a history of forcing others who were not white to labor for the white man. Could this have been the case with the Japanese? Looking back at history I think that it is important to take into account the circumstances of the time. Labor was needed in America and the Japanese were seeking out work. It seems like it would be a perfect system. I wonder then why the Japanese were treated so poorly. The thing that comes to mind is the simple fact that they were so different from Americas. They were considered the “yellow race” with small eyes and a different language. It just goes to show how the differences among people helped to shape our country.

EXTRA CREDIT "The Ethics of Living Jim Crow"

Richard Wright tells a compelling story in “The Ethics of Living Jim Crow”. It is a story of his life and how he had to learn how to behave as a young Black growing up in a torn society. As a child he learned very quickly that his behaviors towards whites where essential for his survival. Richard worked several jobs growing up, all under white bosses. At his first job he was treated poorly by his white coworkers who felt threatened by his mere existence. They beat him and told him “this is a white man’s work around here” (24). He learned quickly that if he wanted to work then he would have to know his place beneath the whites that ran society. It is a truly heart breaking story to hear how Richard was treated. He had to change his way of living and act a certain way just to keep from being beaten. If Richard made even the smallest mistake, like forgetting to call a white man sir, then he was punished. When punishment was giving out to blacks at this time it wasn’t a harsh word or some kind of fine they would have to pay. They paid for their mistakes through beatings and harassment. It literally was a life of survival and adapting in order keep out of trouble. I guess the question that comes to mind is why didn’t the blacks come together and fight back. If a white woman was assaulted in front of a white man he would defend her. Richard however, was unable to defend the black woman in his story. I guess at this time white supremacy was too strong to fight against. The thing that really upset me was how after the white men would beat up Richard or some other black who was out of line, they would say something about how they were lucky that was all that they got. To me this seemed like they were threatening death. It is hard for me to imagine a white man killing a black man simple because he did not call him sir. This thought is terrifying to me. The more important thing is that people actually committed these offenses without punishment. It all goes back to public lynching of black and the cruelty that they lived with. In our society today it is hard to imagine that these things actually did exist. Being someone who is white I can not believe that I very possible had ancestors who practiced these behaviors and believed that they were doing the bidding of God. I know that different justifications were used for whites violence against black however by today standards nothing seems to justify the cruelty that our society placed upon another human race.

In Class Video "Ethnic Notions

In class we were presented with a documentary called Ethnic Notions. This film portrayed the ethnic characters that were present in the media beginning in the 1940’s. The significance of the racial images in the film is undeniable. Our country has throughout history presented different images of Blacks in our society. These images seem to always suit the political and racial views that support white supremacy over blacks. The film showed characters such as Jim Crow, Sam bo, Zip Coon, and the Mammy as ugly, dumb, happy blacks. These images served to show that the unintelligent Negro was happy to serve his master. This helped the white society to justify the enslavement of Blacks, saying that they were happy and willing to be put in such a position. As history changed so did the media. When slaves were freed after the civil war the images that represented them changed. They were now thought to be brute animals who were violent and savage. The argument was made that slavery kept these people disciplined and prevented them from living uncivilized lives. Black children were portrayed as animals with their naked bodies and nappy hair. The media took a psychological control over how people viewed Blacks. Whatever light they were shown in is the view that the American society took. The question that comes to my mind is, does the media and the images it presents still affect our society in the same way today? I believe that the media still acts as a political agent just as it did in the days of promoting slavery. Although I believe our country has come a long way since the days of segregation I believe the media still plays a great part in influencing the American public. For example if someone sees a man wearing a robe and a turban on his head they might not think of him as an American. They might even consider him a threat. After September 11th the media and the government has served to portray the Arabic and Muslim communities as evil and un-American. Just as the media placed stereotypes on Blacks they have placed them now on another race and culture. The media plays such a huge role in all societies even dating back to the Nazi propaganda of WWII. Although a simple cartoon of a smiling, gap toothed black slave like Jim Crow may seem harmless the imagery and message that it conveys has great significance to our country and its history of the abuse of the media on society.

Takaki Ch. 3

In Ronald Takaki’s Chapter 3 of “ A Different Mirror” he focuses on the beginnings of slavery in the early colonies of the United States. Virginia was one of the first colonies where slavery took hold. Takaki makes several points about the beginning of slavery that most people never take into account. Although there were Africans in the U.S. during its start much of the labor was actually done by white indentured servants. During this time White and Black servants worked side by side. Takaki even mentions the fact that they would sometimes attempt to escape together. Here is where the differences began between the “White” servant and the “Black” slave. No matter which you were, if you were caught after running away you were punished. Usually this meant a whipping or beating. For white indentured servants extra time would have to be served towards their master in addition to the length that had previously be agreed upon. Black Africans would also receive some kind of beating or whipping but then they would be sentenced to serve their master for the rest of their lives. The way that slavery came about is that when the people of African decent were punished they were not just sentenced for the rest of their lives, but forever. This meant that their children would be born into slavery and the owners could pass the slaves on to their heirs. And thus slavery was born. Another common practice was to punish anyone who had relations with another race. For example they would whip white women when they found out that they were with child of a black man. Takaki makes the point that there were several conditions in place that made slavery occur in the United States colonies back in the 1600 and 1700’s. Another issue that arose during this time was religion. Previously Africans were thought to be heathens with no religion. Once they began to convert to Christianity laws had to be passed to separate race from religion. Takaki explains how whites would blame the Africans in order to keep the white race pure. He concludes that class was one of the major issues facing the new settlers of America. When indentured servants had served their time they had a hard time acquiring land. Blacks seemed to be a great solution for the class problem because they reinforced the superiority of the whites. The question that comes to mind is what would it have been like if the table had been turned. What is it was the Africans who belittled and enslaved the whites? Would history have continued along the same pattern? No one will ever know for sure but one can imagine it possible for one race to over power another and with the right conditions history could have played out with a different race as the superior. This is a thought that I constantly have. After reading this chapter is seems that the conditions were fit for slavery but had this varied at all the outcomes could have been much different.

Johnson Chapter 8

Johnson makes several important points in Chapter 8 of “Privilege, Power, and Difference”. The chapter is titled “Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance”. Johnson states that those in privilege use many different techniques to avoid the discomfort and the problem of privilege and oppression. Those in power, those who are white, male, heterosexual, or non-disabled have a difficult time when dealing with the reality of what goes on in our society. Johnson gives several ways that those who experience privilege avoid the concept of the oppression that is cause by privilege. The first example that Johnson gives is “Deny and Minimize”. It is easy to deal with a problem when you deny that it even exists. People do this all the time with both racism and sexism, along with other forms of oppression. Saying that something used to be a problem is the same as saying that it doesn’t matter in today’s society at all when in fact that is just not the case. People also try and minimize situations to make them less uncomfortable to talk about. This happens in everyday life. An example that Johnson gives is when a child falls and scrapes their knee the parent usually says something like “awww…stop crying, it really doesn’t hurt that bad.” This statement may not seem like such a big deal because it is so common. Yet honestly does the parent actually know how much pain the child is in? It works the same way with trying to minimize a social situation. How can you place judgment on something you yourself have never experienced? This is a simple way of how people of privilege try and get “off the hook”. Another method that Johnson describes is “Blame the Victim”. This section of the chapter made a lot of sense to me because I feel like I have seen it in action in my every day life. A person of privilege might say something like “well if they just got an education, or learned to speak proper English…” when talking about a person of color. Women can be affected by the blame the victim statement. When sexual harassment occurs you might hear a male saying something like “Oh, well look at how she dresses. She was asking for it.” This is a clear example of how people “get off the hook” so that they don’t feel bad in problematic situations. The next section of the chapter is entitled “Call it Something Else”. Here is another clear example of how people avoid situations that might be difficult of uncomfortable. Johnson goes on in the following section called “It’s Better this Way”. In this section Johnson describes how people tend to think about issues such as racism and sexism. He uses the example that Blacks would rather live in segregated communities because they want to live with their own kind. In the patriarchal system that we live in today a man might say something like, “women like to clean house and raise children. So what’s wrong with that?” These are common ways of how people us the phrase it’s better this way to make themselves and other feel better about the problems at hand. Johnson follows with a few more examples of the techniques that people use to get themselves “off the hook”. For the most part I can agree with Johnson’s views of how people deal with these problems. It is easy for me to understand this chapter because I see examples of it in my everyday life. In fact I’m sure that I am guilty of using some of these techniques myself. Personally I think that a lot of what people do, they do without knowing, or without knowing the consequences that might arise from what they do or say. I am hopeful in my thinking that if people were more aware of the issues and weren’t afraid to discuss them more openly and without fear then more progress could be made. However as long as people are making excuses and refuse to see the problem then there really can be no solution.

Johnson Chapter 3

In Johnson’s 3rd chapter of PPP he begins by explaining the fact that racism and white supremacy is something relatively new and has only occurred over the past few centuries. So the question becomes, why did racism and slavery begin in the first place? This question can be answered several different ways. Johnson begins by explaining the effect that capitalism has had on the world (especially in the United States). The Capitalist system is made up of three parts. First there are the people know as the “capitalists. These are the investors and owners of companies that produce goods and services for profit. They produce goods and services that are sold throughout the country and to the rest of the world on the global market. Of course someone has to make these products. These are the workers, or laborers (labor force). These people work for the capitalists to produce their product. They tend to be paid very poorly. For the capitalists (owners and investors) to make any money they have to sell their products for more than what they are paying their workers. This is how they turn a profit. So why would these laborers work for such low wages? To be perfectly honest they really don’t have a choice. The investors control the factories, tools, and every other aspect of the capitalist system. So the laborer can either work under their conditions or they could not work at all. Although it might not be clear at first, racism ties in directly with the growth of capitalism in the early days of our country. One of the major problems with capitalism is the division of wealth. There is a small percentage of the richest people in America but they share the majority of the wealth while there are many more poor people who share a much lesser degree of the overall wealth in our country. Looking back in history the white male was always the wealthy land or business owner. This was generally because whites used blacks as a “FREE” labor source. This made the whites even more wealth because it hardly cost them anything to produce their product. So why did the whites feel that they had the right to enslave African Americans? White men on this era created the term “Whiteness”. This term expressed those who were human and civilized. If you were found to not have “whiteness” then you were found to be inferior and therefore the white man could justify using colored and foreign people as means of production. It is important to remember that this was the thinking of men over 200 years ago. Yet aren’t we still experiencing the effects of this closed minded way of thinking today? Privilege of white men and the oppression of African American still exist today. I feel that capitalism was a major cause of the racism that was born into our country. However capitalism is still hard at work today. So what does that have to say to the future of the under privilege labor force that is still facing the oppression that blacks and other minorities faced over 200 years ago?

Johnson Chapter 2

In chapter 2 Johnson makes several points about the privilege that some people experience and the oppression that is placed on others. He argues the differences between the two and how these groups are formed through society and not individuals. Society as a whole is complex. It is made up of difference groups of people who experience different ways of live. Sometimes this is based solely on what group they were born apart of. For example a person could be white or some other racial group. That person could be a male or a female. They could identify as a heterosexual or a homosexual. This person could be disabled or in perfect health. This most important thing to realize is that most of these categories are what you are born into and cannot be changed. If you are born a white male then that is what you are. If you are born a colored female then that is what you are. Yet Johnson goes into deeper meaning when he describes how being placed in these separate groups that make up society effect the privilege that is inherited by certain groups. This privilege is assigned by society and no one individual can change it. White males are the prime example of those who are afforded privilege. Johnson gives several examples of privilege that is given to white males in our society such as the fact that white males are almost always charged lower prices on new cars. Also an example of male privilege would be the tendency of men to dominate a conversation over women. On of the most important points that Johnson makes is “Privilege as Paradox”. Basically he is saying that just because someone is born into a privileged group they might not necessarily feel privileged. This is due to the fact that privilege is not based on individuality. Privilege and oppression are based on how society perceives a certain group of people. This means that just because a man in white and male does not mean that he is going to have a great life because he was born into a privileged group. Individual actions and circumstance could be the result of a person’s unhappiness. I personally believe that Johnson makes a good argument about privilege and oppression. The question that I pose is whether or not it can be changed now that people are starting to realize that it exists? Since it is society that categories a group as either privileged or oppressed can society come together to make is so that everyone has the opportunity to be privileged. Although this would be the ideal situation it seems as though this is a very utopian way of thinking. For if it is a fact that if one group is privileged then another group is oppressed then how would it be possible for everyone to acquire privilege? It is a difficult subject, which is probably why it is really discussed out in the open. However for change to be made there must be action taken to reduce the gap between those who are privileged and those who are oppressed.

Takaki, Ch. 2

Ronald Takaki makes several important points about savagery verses civilization in Chapter 2 of “A Different Mirror”. It is first important to understand that he is making an account of the impact of William Shakespeare’s Tempest. Takaki explains how this work by Shakespeare in the early 1600’s shows a great representation for the English mentality on savagery in the New World. Shakespeare’s main characters were Caliban, the savage, and Prospero, the civilized man. The name “Caliban” was derived from the term cannibal or cannibalism. When the Europeans first settled in the New World they regarded the inhabitants as savage cannibals. Although we usually think of savages as the Indians who fought the new settlers, there is a vast history behind the settlers’ justification for destroying a whole group of people. Takaki concludes that the Indians of the New World were not the first to see the rather of the English. In Ireland during the same time that the Americas were being settled, the Irish tribes were being taken over by the English. The British believed that the Irish were lazy brutes who occupied the land. The English said that through the divinity of God it was their job get rid of these lazy savages and make use of the land. The Irish were killed and their heads placed on display at the English camps. However, this scene is not what was being portrayed in Shakespeare’s Tempest. When the settler’s first arrived on the shores of the Americas they were greeted by a new people, what we recognizes as the Indians or Native Americans. The English believed that the Indians lacked everything that they considered civilized. For example they did not identify themselves as Christians. They wore little amount of clothing. They did not have swords or other weapons. The Indians also lived in small huts and hunted like animals. The English thought about trying to civilize the Indians just as Prospero had taught Caliban the English language. Shakespeare made it clear that Caliban could not be civilized due to his inherent nature. This seemed true for the Indians in the New World. Because the Indians were so inferior and uncivilized the Europeans felt that they were perfect for enslavement. After all in their eyes it was justified through God. When reading Takaki’s account of the how the English treated the Indians I wonder, was it really the Indians who were the uncivilized ones. When I look at the lives of the Indians before the invaders came, I see a people who had their own religious beliefs, who raised families and provided food and shelter for those families. The Indians had no desire for personal possessions and had a great respect for the land on which they lived. If you take a look at the settlers when they first arrived most of them were not even able to survive their first year here. When John Smith traveled with a band of men to the Americas all but a few died within the first year. It is easy to assume that eventually they would have all died if it had not been for the Indians who brought them corn and other crops to feed their starving bodies. This brings up another point. The English settlers claimed that the Indians were savages because they thought them to be cannibals. Yet in Takaki’s account of the first few years of the settlers he tells how the settlers where dying from starvation so some went to the lengths of eating their fallen comrades. He tells a tale of a man who kills his pregnant wife, disposes of the baby and then eats here flesh. So I wonder to myself how these Indian, these savages would tell their side of the story if they were here today. The English would send word back to London of these disgusting, Devil like people who would kill at first glance. Where they really talking about the Indians?

"The Meaning of Difference"

“The Meaning of Difference” by Karen Rosenblum and Toni-Michelle Travis deals with how people are divided into categories of difference. There main points are that people are generally grouped into different master statuses. For example this could include but is not limited to race, sex, social class, sexual orientation, and ability/disability. (pg. 2) In the first section of the writing the authors conclude that differences in people can be looked at from two different perspectives, essentialism and constructionism. (pg. 2) The authors prove that there is more than one way to look at the categories that we place people into. They argue that most people use the essentialism perspective. This is a way of looking at differences and people and seeing that they are there for whatever reason and don’t develop for any particular reason. This is generally how most people think when looking at differences between people. However the authors of the book argue the other perspective, the constructionism perspective. The authors explain that the purpose of using the constructionism perspective is to discover why there are differences among people. The author informs the reader that by using the constructionist perspective they are able to “examine how we have arrived at our race, sex, sexual orientation, and social class categories”. The authors explain how difference can easily be shown through the naming of certain groups. For example we my call a dark skinned person Black, or we may call that same person an African American. Which is correct and how do we determine what places that person in that particular category. Is it based solely on their skin color or are their other attributes? The authors make the point that by naming this is another way of separating people into specific categories. In my mind the question becomes, are the authors trying to celebrate diversity or simple come up with an explanation for it? It seems to me that the authors are simply stating that there are different categories of people and they want to discover the science behind what makes people different. In my mind I believe that it is important to understand our differences and understand them. Yet it seems that in this day in age it is becoming more important to celebrate our differences rather than to study and try and understand them. I can be categorized as White, Female, Heterosexual, and Middle Class. I understand the fact that I am very different from an Asian male or a female Homosexual. I do not try and understand where these differences came from because I do not know. I believe that perhaps it is not as important to understand why we are different but how. It seems more important to me to see how we as categories of people are different from each other so that perhaps we can learn to experience differences in a positive light rather than a negative one. The authors, from the constructionist perspective make the point that they want to understand how we arrived at these differences that we categorize ourselves into. I believe that this important but personally I take the perspective of the essentialist. I believe that we are all different for whatever reason and should be considerate of that throughout our lives when dealing with all of the different people in the world around us.

Intro and Zinn blog

Hi! I am Megan Baker (Meg) and a sophomore at Bowling Green State University. This is currently my first year at BG. I transferred from Dayton, Ohio where I am originally from. My major is education with a concentration in integrated Social Studies. I am a member of Partners in Community and Context (PCC) a learning community here on campus for those who are going into urban education. My goal is to one day to teach high school government class to at risk kids in inner city schools. Some people think that I am crazy for having this ambition. However I believe that because of the importance of education in our society that inner city schools need good teachers. In high school I participated in a lot of activities including being co-captain of my high school dance team and being a member of the honor choir. Some interesting facts about me include the fact that I am 4 feet 10 inches tall. For those who may be reading this and thinking that I am a “little person” or a “midget” I’m not. I just happen to be a small girl and that is something that I like about myself because it makes me unique. I have never had a blog before and feel a little strange about lots of people being able to read what I post, however I think that comments and feedback are a great learning tool. I am looking forward to this semester in Ethnic Studies and hope to learn a lot.

In Howard Zinn’s Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress the author makes several conclusions. Zinn offers a deeper analysis that just that of the voyages of Christopher Columbus. He goes on to make conclusions about history itself. First in regards to Christopher Columbus Zinn makes the conclusion that Columbus is not the hero that we as Americans think of on Columbus Day. In reality there is a much deeper history of greed, violence, and murder that occurred during his several expeditions to the Americas. In regards to history in general, Zinn concludes in his writing that the history taught in classrooms reflects that of people in power. For example the mass murder and enslavement of the Arawak Indians is rarely studied because it is a bad reflection on those in power. Instead we teach about the voyages of a hero who was responsible for discovering the new world. The author gives evidence throughout the piece to support his conclusion. His writing on Columbus and the Arawaks is an example in itself. In history lessons about the discovery of the new world the Arawaks are hardly mentioned. If they are mentioned it is only to acknowledge that they greeted Columbus and his crew to offer gifts upon their arrival. Not until reading the piece by Zinn did I realize that there was such a dark side to the voyages of Christopher Columbus. I don’t remember being taught how the Indians were enslaved and told to find gold or else their hands would be cut off so that they would bleed to death (pg. 6-8). Zinn gives another example when he tells how Las Casas wrote of two “Christian” men who behead two Indian boys for no particular reason. Zinn goes on to explain that Columbus and his crews did more than just enslave the Arawaks. Samuel Eliot Morison called it “genocide” in his book Christopher Columbus, Mariner. Zinn gives many other examples to support the fact that history is most often written to favor those in power. He states that we as Americans don’t learn history from any other perspective than our own. For example he explains how we don’t see things from the viewpoint of the Cubans in the Spanish American War or that of the socialists in the Second World War (pg. 11). The question that came to mind when reading Zinn’s conclusion about history is, why are some parts of history considered important while other parts are rarely looked at? I believe the answer is one that applies to those in power. After reading this article I have to agree with Zinn’s argument that history is generally only looked at from only one perspective. It is hard to apply this concept to all history yet it is easy to determine that some of Zinn’s assumptions about history are true. This is evident through the example that Zinn gives of Columbus and the Arawak Indians. Overall the passage by Zinn was extremely eye opening. From previous examples I have come to the realization that history is not always about facts but mainly about the interpretation of those facts. I did not realize the devastation that took place on Columbus’s voyages and it helped me to realize that history is not always as pretty or simple as what is written in the history books. I have concluded that there are two sides to every story and it is important to look at things with and open mind.