"Welcome to Cleveland, Home of the..."

When I initially saw the photos I was really impressed with the artist and his rendering of Chief Wahoo. Then it was more of a suprised reaction because I thought about it in a sense that I never had before, from the point of view of one of the people being portrayed and categorized just as the Indian is today, at Progressive Field. I always wondered why people had such a problem with the mascot of the Cleveland Indians, I mean to think about it in terms of like a tradition of good baseball and child hood memories was what came to mind when I thought about it. But after really looking at the images on the web site I can see why people could become offended by the image itself. I personally am more than half Italian and although the portrayl of the Italian with the chef hat and mustache was in my opinion one of the lighter drawings on the page, I still kind of cringed at it. That is not how I want to be thought of when people hear that I am Italian because me and my family look nothing like the guy in the picture and dont walk around with chefs hats on ever. I can compare these illustrations to Wu's "Yellow" because he is on the subway and even a little child thought of the portrayl of other people with the same ethnicity as Wu and struck a martial arts pose. I think that this artist does a great job of relaying his point and I think I like the way he relays it because it is not in words but yet there are so many that could have been said, especially pertaining to some of those illustrations. I can understand why the mascot is offensive to those people from Indian decent. I also think though that If I saw someone of Indian decent today I probably wouldnt know it unless they told me and that is because people tend to look different than how they are portrayed and two because in many cases today no one in the US is of one decent anymore. I can see both points of view on the issue, the offensive side and the side where it is believed the mascot and what he stands for is alright. I really liked this assignement though because it wasnt technical and the point across that I think the author was trying to, so in both aspect this piece was a great way to end our blog assignment.

Somerville Chapter 1: Scientific Racism

I think that Somerville's main point in the article was to show readers how past writers and researches have thought of sexuality and how they went about studying it. I think that knowing how it was studied in the past is important because it gives readers a first hand on how the subject was thought of differently at the time. The author talked a lot about how it was thought that people that were homosexual or even a different race than the white race (which defined "normal" at the time) were studied to try and distinguish what was different about their bodies that could be causing a medical or criminal difference. Criminal approach was refferred to as a disease whereas the medical apporach was an abnormality. The article cites many famous researches at the time that had diffrent opinions and approaches on how to research the subject at hand. I found the word "mulatto" to be interesting because I have never heard it before. That is interesting to me because a "mulatto" according to the article is a person of mixed race, that has a different apperance than that of someone who is pure blooded and if you think about it we have a lot of "mulatto's" today and it seems normal. I also found other parts of the article to be informative and interest me mainly because today all of the behaviors and observations being made in this article that are "abnormal" or are considered to be makings of the devil are so common and dont seem to be on the top of the list to be researched. What would those researches think today? If it was wrong to sit next to another girl and give them a certain gaze now I dont even want to imagine what the past researchers would say about how the world is today. I thought that the article was full of information so at times it was hard to read because it was technical and a lot to think about. I also felt that the article, being so informative was good and got the point across that I thought the author was trying to make. Somerville says in the title of the book "Invention of the Homosexual body" I think by this he means that just because someone has different feelings doesnt necessarily mean that they are any different or have a mental illness or bone structure than someone who doesnt have those thoughts. In my opinion we try to find an answer to everything that doesnt follow the norm of our society and in doing such we come up with false accusations pertaining to a certain race, gender or class all based on ones beliefs.

A Challenge to Democracy

I thought that the video clip we watched in class today was very weird actually. First off the title makes it sound like citizens are challenging the government and being too needy, whereas in actuality those people just needed to be somewhere safe. The movie was produced by the war relocation authority which probably means that some of the stories or ideas are botched a little bit because the government wants to make it sound like they were good to these people and yet made them work for their keep. The camps were supervised by the war relocation authority and basically these people were living in small dull quarters and only were allowed fourty five cents of food a day. The camps were divided into compartments and the whole place was bounded by a wire fence. So was the war relocation authority trying to keep these people safe, or keep them in? To me it looked scary like they were caged in. Each family had a 20X25 space and did a lot of work around the camps because previously they were good at cultivating desert land. The wages were so low, it was ridiculous, it is so obvious to see that those people werent happy. Half of the people there were previously farmers or as the movie called it "farm folks" and they worked for twelve dollars a month. The children were allowed to attend school and their classes met the education standards. I thought it was very ironic that they were learning about "American History" because they were Japanese and even now in school we learn about more than just America. Some of the men and women worked in the hospitals but always had to be supervised by a white male. When everyone wasnt working or at school they played games such as baseball and some of the residents were artists the residents were also able to celebrate the harvest festival with parade. The movie talked about how there was no restriction on religion which I dont really understand because is there a restriction now that I just dont know about? At the very end of the movie the narrarator says "Relocation centers are not normal, they are not American" "Volunteer workers were the first to leave" "Their labor can help win hte war and pay taxes" and to me none of that seems right. Yes, the relocation camps would be unheard of now (could you imagine what that would be like) and no one should be forced to stay somewhere like that. But what I dont understand is why we used those people. It is what happened, we used them to try and fix our problems and they could not even get the satisfaction of being "American", thats terrible. The Japanese went to war for the country and should have earned more than twelve dollars an hour. I just dont understand why people wanted to come to America when all they were was tested, used and abused for their skills. I think that all the residents of the relocation camps were forced to work, I dont believe at all that the government was honestly going to let them do anything for free. And also I think that some of the men joined the military to get away from the relocation camps because they looked mighty prison like, and I am sure that is what they really were.

Takaki Chapter 10

The title of the article is "Pacific Crossings: Seeking the land of money trees" which interested me right from the start. Takaki writes this article about the Japanese wanting to come to America because of the great opprotunities and the fact that they could make one dollar an hour which in Japan would be like making as much as the governor. So as Japanese were coming to America their families back home were getting more excited to make the journey themselves. "Picture Brides in America" was something I didnt know much about until reading this article. Was the main point of this arragened marriage so that people of different races wouldnt have children or get married? Also it said that picture brides were so important because a family man was less likely to leave the plantation so it was a form of control. When I think about Japanese in Hawaii I really didnt think of slavery because I thought by that time the country was better than that. So I was suprised to read in chapter 10 all the struggles that the Japanese had gone through and how comparable the Japanese were to the blacks. They had revolts but the fear of another one came about the plantation owners integrated other ethnicities in so that they wouldnt ban together to overthrow the plantation owner. In some of our other readings we read how black and white slaves would ban together and they were immediatly seperated. The Japanese would also strike, like we do now, to get things that we want from our jobs. And like the black slaves the Japanese were not to be educated, it was frowned upon. There are also stories from this chapter about men who rode on horses with whips and this reminded me specifically of Kindred when Dana was in the fields. I thought it was very sad, the section on "tears in a canefield" because the Japanese came over here and left everything they knew and loved for better opprotunity and they became essentially slaves. More towards the end of the chapter on page 266 Takaki tells us of how successful Japanese farmers became years later and I have always believed that if we accepted other peoples ideas we would become stronger as a society and I think that the Japanese were very strong when it came to farming, because of their past experiences in Japan. Takaki gives an example of one man who when he died his possessions were valued at 15 million dollars, which is so much money now I cant imagine what that was like in the early 1900s. Also like African Americans, the Japanese could not be citizens and that they could not own land. I think it is sad the stuggles that people had to go through to gain the acceptance of whites. In my opinion it should have never been that way, we all should have started out as what we are, equal. I also found it rude that the barber had the audacity to ask a man what his ethnicity was and then shoo him out like a cat or dog. I really did like this chapter in Takaki though because again it is something that we havent had the opprotunity to learn a lot about and yet it is interesting and part of Americas history.

"Why I hate Abercrombie and Fitch" Dwight McBride

I think that the author is trying to bring to light the discrimination of Abercrombie and Fitch to those who might not be aware of it. Personally I found it really hard to read this article because the whole time all he is doing is complaining and making the reader feel stupid by using a big word and than using the more common form of it in quotes. Basically the author gives a summary of the A&F history after he introduces us to the topic and how his hate all started. McBride was at a gay bar and saw almost all the men wearing A&F shirts and wondered what the big deal was with them. My solution dont go to the gay bar if you dont want to see those shirts then. Not that A&F isnt worn by many people straight, gay, men, women etc but he just seems to have a problem steming from that bar. So anyway, he goes on to talk about their hiring process, and how there is a standard image that the store wants to convey to the buyers making the store seem like a more enjoyable place to shop. Is this true? No, I dont care what the cashiers in the store look like, if I like the shirt I am going to get it. He then continues to talk about the African American status at the store and McBride considers it a racist establishment. Personally I am not racist, and yet I probably wouldnt want to get a job at RocaWear or a store where on the website it shows all African Americans. This article is so ironic to me because I know African Americans who wear A&F and have no problem with it or the idea. So I wonder when McBride talks about A&Fs look why he puts quotes around the words "American" and "classic"? So if you are African American you cannot be American? Except that you are. If you are born in America or even are an immigrant once you live here, you are American. And to say that American is only white is so frustrating to hear. How about we take everything that we come in contact with and see if we can turn it into a racial issue? Where "white" includes everyone and then everyone is racist. To me it is crap and is what made this article so hard to read. Should African Americans only be able to work in the stock room? Hell no. They should be able to work in the actual store also, but if an African American can get turned down at A&F and can walk across the mall to Banana Republic (in my opinion a better store anyway) and can get a job, better than what he would have ever gotten at A&F, isnt he better off? I understand that it is wrong to discriminate race and ethnicity for a job but there are so many more and better opprotunities in the world and if not getting hired at A&F ruins your life, that sucks. I worked at a Dairy Queen for a long time I still work there in fact when I go home for breaks and I am a manager and when someone brings in an application I am usually up front to get it. But there have been times where I have heard of employees throwing away applications for people whom they just didnt like. If I would have known that would I have pulled the application out of the trash? Yes but sometimes you just cant help what happens being one person responsible for 6 to 10. The only thing I agree with McBride on is that the discrimination is wrong. Otherwise I cant go and take up a lawsuit with Abercrombie and Fitch because their clothes are too expensive and I am a college student on a budget. Can I say that Abercrombie and Fitch are discriminating against me as a college student with little money to spend and because I want to wear their clothes I should be able to? I think that one thing that made this article so frustrating to read was when I felt like McBride was talking down to me, or any other reader. To me if he wants to make this article more powerful and more meaningful he should change some of his wording otherwise he can go and take his obviously bored self to McDonalds and write about how eating there makes people fat and thats not fair, lets sue McDonalds.

Yellow

I liked this article a lot, not just because it was short but it got to the point and I was suprised at what Asian Americans went through and I never realized it. The author of this article says at the bottom of the first paragraph that "in the abiding American spirit we all prefer to believe that our individualism is most important". We all believe this is true, in one form or another. Even if you have never thought about it before, we all like to be thought of as individuals, not stereotyped into a certain group because of our race. The author also talks about the bus ride and how on the bus blacks sat in the back and whites sat in the front and Wu says that his friend avoided the bus for this reason. Where was he to sit? He says he was certainly not African American but also not white and he didnt want them to make a distinction for him. The author also hits on another topic that is very common, the comment "it remided me of you" normally that can be either a good or bad thing usually situation related but Wu was being compared because of his ethnicity. Wu says it didnt matter if they were Korean, Asian, Chinese, Japanese etc the consensus was the same he was being stereotyped into a group, he even said when people would see him they would strike a karate pose automatically making a distinction about him. After reading this article I can honestly say that I never thought about Asian Americans as having to be put into a certain race. I never acknowledged or even knew their struggles as a race because I always assumed that "race" in the United States was based primarily on black and white and it is not that I didnt understand so much as I sadly didnt think it was a big issue but that we all just fit together.

Kindred

I really liked the book kindred. I liked the fact that the book dealt with past and present times and I think that, that added to the readers understanding of what was happening. Dana the main character seems really strong. She puts up with a lot and even inflicts pain on herself to return to present time America. I thought it was interesting that the time was very different, she would be gone for seconds in 1976 and months in the 1800's. I would have liked to have gotten a better picture of Rufus though. In the book it gives a little description about how he has red hair but mostly his personality and reckless ways are on display. I found it interesting when Dana was on the plantation how the slaves were divided, some worked in the fields and others worked in the kitchen and throughout the house, it makes sense but I just never really thought about it. How did they distinguish which slaves worked on the crops and which had to work closer to the house? Also I was suprised to know that slaves slept in the attic in the house, I thought that slaves slept in the yard in small shacks that could very well be sheds. The description that the author gives while she is being whipped made me feel pain. Also I thought it was sad how the slave trades were, when they would just chain them up and take them away. In the book (and I am assuming in real life) free blacks could easily become slaves, for example Alices mom was free but she was very scared when the whites would come by on their horses, and made sure Alice was inside. Issac and Alice tried to runaway once Issac beat up Rufus and Dana found him face down in a puddle. When they found Issac they beat the crap out of him and as I remember he died or was sold. Alice becameRufus's slave pretty much, but I never understood how he could love her and hurt her with a whipping. Kevin saved Dana when he was there, she got to work in the house and he protected her from getting a beating from Tom. As terrible as Rufus and Tom were some of the things they did after they were done beating the crap out of the help makes me think that they are bad people, but they have a tiny bit of sympathy. Kevin is portrayed as being the perfect husband and I was suprised to know that he was white and in fact didnt until they were talking about how his family didnt approve of Dana at first and how they were not allowed to refer to each other as husband and wife in the 1800's I thought that because it was obvious that some owners were having relationships with their slaves that it would be no suprise to Rufus that Dana and Kevin were together. Rufus in my opinion was crazy, I dont think anyone in their lifetime sees as much accident as he does. At the end when Dana kills him, I think that in a way it had to be done. And I thought it was admirable for Nigel to burn down the house to make it look like an accident. I think that if anyones life was on the line, they would say "sorry, but I come before you", it was just a method of defense, it is not like she could have just laid there and let herself get rapped, or even worse. I felt terrible when Alice hung herself but Rufus should not have sold those kids, they were his too. Overall I was very pleased with this book and would read it again, it sent across strong messages with great detail and opened my eyes to the terrible things slaves had to endure in the past. In comparison to what we have been doing in class "The Ethics of Living Jim Crow" comes to mind right off. Dana had to adjust the "rules" of slaves, the way she addressed people, her attitude, and having to do household work. I also think about the movies we have watched recently such as "Eyes on the Prize", I think that it is very sad that African Americans were not free to begin with and that whites took their freedom for granted. Personally, most of our readings can be compared in some way to this book but specifically I think about "Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom" because although the African Americans in Kindred were not all free, the ones who were and had "papers" could easily get their freedom taken away from them if they came across a white man who was having a bad day. I feel like this time in our history was a sad one and another reason I liked the book Kindred is because it puts a picture in the readers head that we arent necessarily given in our more academic readings.

Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings 1954-1956

The Film we screened in class on Monday called Eyes on the prize: Awakenings 1954-1956 was a very good film in my opinion. It provides more than enough evidence to support the fact that even after laws were passed and times were suppose to be changing, African Americans were still being discriminated against. I was interested in the Emmett Till story and thought it was very disturbing that people would actually do something like that to a child, regardless of what he said. I also found it interesting that the men on trial for his murder were not convicted although they admit to being with him and “dropping him off” somewhere that night. I noticed that the jury in the trial was all white, as the people in the court, except the one section that African Americans were allowed to sit in. I also didn’t previously know a lot about the little rock nine until this film, and was surprised at the size of the mobs and that no one was called into protect them at first. I think that white southerners were not happy about the idea of blacks becoming integrated into their society because it meant less power for them. Also, I think that some whites were afraid of breaking the norm when it came to segregation, for most it is all they have known and to think differently might bring about harsh comments from their peers, they were taking the path of least resistance. African Americans used various strategies such as “sit ins” in diners which got the media attention and put heat on the government officials who were neglecting to enforce the laws.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow

The main idea of this article is to illustrate to the readers "rules" of which the African Americans were to abide by when in the presence or talking to whites. The author talks in detail about each experience he had dealing with lessons he was taught in everyday life. He starts with being a child and recalling how his friends and him would throw cinder back and fourth at eachother while hiding behind brick pillars and one day white children came along and threw broken bottles and milk cartons, causing injury to the author. When he told his mom about the incident, he got beat and was told never to play "war" again. Another big topic addressed in this article was how to respond to a white man by using Mr. before thier names and in general the way of which white males were being spoken to. He describes how he wanted a job to learn new things and when he asked, he was verbally repremanded and next was threatened and told never to return to work. While at his other jobs he witnessed an older African American women being beaten for not paying her bills and than being picked up by the police for acting drunk. The author also observed white males disrespecting African American women (by smacking their butts etc) and truly being helpless to do anything in the matter. Wright also saw fellow African American workers being fired, chased away and told never to return, and also an African American women who gave birth to a very light skinned child (which implies she had sex with a white man, whether it was rape or consensual wasnt specified) and the white males making jokes about how a white man must have scared her during pregnancy and that is why the child is lighter skinned. Later in his life he moved to Memphis which he portrayed as being a more acceptable place. A fellow employee let him use his library card to check out books, and instead of juggling boxes and trying to take his hat off on the elevator, a white man did it for him. I really liked this article because it was a story that implied in it what we are learning in class. Even years after Lincoln "slave" was still very much used. Maybe not so much as a word, but it was like having slavery without the term. Blacks still were being beaten, killed, and abused. They had to obey whites and speak to them as if they (blacks) were inferior. Also African Americans it seems were not allowed to learn new things, and were never to speak up if a white person did something unethical, like throw broken glass bottles. The authors job at the hotel was just to wait on the prostitutes, which is funny if you think about it because today being a prostitute is in my opinion very inferior as oppose to an African American working in a hotel. At the end of the article Wright talks about how his friend told him once that if it wasnt for the police and hate crimes specifically geared towards African Americans, there would be "nothing but uproar here". I interpret that like saying if African Americans werent killed or beaten for standing up for themselves or speaking back to a white person, there would be a lot that African Americans would say about their treatment and environment of which they pretend to be so happy in as to avoid beatings.

Zinn chapter 9: "Slavery without submission, emancipation without freedom"

In this article I think Zinn is trying to tell his readers that although the ending of slavery caused a lot of other reconstruction in America, it really became the only choice. Zinn also mentions that this decision is a "safe one" and in fact a "profitable one". As African Americans learned to come together and revolt against their owners and the country, whites became scared of what could happen. The article asks many different questions, all of which being good and succeed in sparking thoughts of readers. He asks one though which we have talked about a little bit in class, on page 130 Zinn asks "How can slavery be described?" and he continues to say that to some people who have never experienced it, being slavery, that it might be diffucult to describe but in 1932 historians saw slavery as "perhaps the Negro's necessary transition to civilization". I also found interesting in this article how a former slave described his "happiness" as an act to "keep down the trouble", in class we also talked about this, how whites thought the African Americans were alright with being slaves because in t.v. shows and such African Americans were always smiling and such. The article summarizes how the African Americans had to fight, sneak and die for freedom. Zinn also discusses the fact that even after the slaves were "free" they still had to depend on whites for jobs, food and shelter, because to be "free" African Americans had to own at least 250 acres of land. And even after they were fighting in the war, the blacks were payed three dollars less while they did the dirtiest and hardest jobs and whites would attack them when they were off duty in Northern cities. On page 144 Zinn quotes historian James McPhearson "without their help, the North could not have won the war as soon as it did, and perhaps it could not have won at all", later Judah Benjamin stated that "if slaves will make good soliders, our whole theory of slavery is wrong". In my opinion as African Amerians became more intrigrated into the American society whites started to realize, they were just as competent and able to do what the whites had. But why after blacks had fought in the war and proved they were capable of holding their own didnt they earn respect from whites? Could some whites have wanted to respect the blacks but instead took the path of least resistance? Soon amendments were passed finally stating that African Americans were citizens of the United States. Of course there was still discrimination and unfair treatment of African Americans, on page 148 of Zinns article, he talks about how seventy thousand African Americna children were going to school in 1876 whereas none had before. That was a big step, long time overdue but unfortunatly with every step forward we were still many back. Segregation became widely known. I liked this article because it gave a quick yet detailed description of all that the African Americans had to go through to be accepted by whites. I still think it is sad that people who worked harder than any plantation owner could be treated so poorly in a country who advertised the idea of dreams and freedom.

Brodkin: "How Jews Became White Folks"

In this article I think that the author is really trying to say we have come a long way since the beginning of the 1900's but are still a long way from acknowledging the success of those who are a different race or culture besides "white". Throughout the article the author provided many examples of what she was trying to say. In one paragraph on page 40 Brodkin talks about Madison Grant and how Grants book hits on the idea that he is most afraid of race-mixing among Europeans. He thought that a cross between a European and a Jewish person made that individual all Jewish. Also Brodkin on page 41 says that "By the 1920's, scientific racism sanctified the notion that real Americans were white and that real whites came from northwest Europe." The article continues and talks about how Jews were confined to a small number of occupations and excluded from the mainstream corporate world. Then on page 43, the author asks a really interesting question, "did money whiten?" that is a great question because even today we can look at the rich and even famous with more respect than we would someone of the same race who was poor. But, she uses the past tense did, and I wonder DOES money whiten? Later in the article it talks about affirmative action which was suppost to promote access to education or employment for the minority. In this particular article though, Brodkin describes affirmative action as helping the men of Euro-origin. And although this policy was suppost to help the underdog in reality it was not. Should this be a suprise? If this is was a time where African Americans are still being discriminated against, how can a policy fix all the problems that people ignore everyday? If a developer can publically announce that he will not be selling any units to African Americans how can this policy be taken seriously?! In the last section of this reading the author says "Instead of seizing the opprotunity to end institutionalized racism, the federal government did its level best to shut and double-seal the postwar window of opprotunity in African American's faces." In my opinion she sounds angry. Which she should be, not only is the supposibly "land of the free" discriminating a race that just fought in a war next to whites she herself knew what it was like to be discriminated against really for a reason that she had no control over. At the same time, it angers me too. It just shows ignorance, back then and today, because we wonder why things are the way they are and in actuality it is because we created it.

exercise 2 analysis paper

My position for this paper is that the English created the difference in America. Because they were exposed to difference other than white men with guns, they did not know how to handle change so instead the idea of "less than white" was created. This lead the Indians and African Americans to be classified into groups and discriminated against. I will also be comparing and contrasting how the Indians and African Americans were treated. For this analysis paper I plan to reference and tie in and use quotes and ideas from Zinn chapters 1 and 2 and also Johnsons chapter 6 and 8. I am going to use the authors ideas and concepts in their articles to back up my position on the issue. From Zinn I plan to incorporate his information about Columbus and his first encounter with the Indians to Jeffersons encounters with both the African Americans and Indians into my paper and from chapter 2 his idea that racism is not natural but a product of human choice. From Johnson chapter 8 I plan to incorporate his concepts such as "Deny and Minimize" in the paper. Also from chapter 6 of Johnson I wanted to bring up the idea that we are shaped by family, schools, religion, and teachers and that from all of these institutions we learn to distinguish.

Rosenblum and Travis: "The Meaning of Difference"

In the article “The Meaning of Difference” by Rosenblum and Travis they address important issues. In the second paragraph they say “Nonetheless, similar processes are at work when we ‘see’ differences of color, gender, class and sexual orientation”. Basically they are saying that the only difference between me and the next person is what we see. They continue to break it down throughout the article and I think that is their main point, we can only be considered different because of what people observe, not because of what we actually are, human. On page 17 of the article Rosenblum and Travis state that American means white and anyone who is not white are presumed as immigrants “recent arrivals” and told to go back where ever they may have come from. It is really sad to say that we do, do that. When I was in grade school we would have foreign exchange students come to our school for a year and instead of welcoming him or her I would witness some peoples disgust whenever they walked by them. This isn’t welcoming someone, it is prejudice. To their skin color, their accent, their heritage and background and how they may look. Also in the article Rosenblum and Travis talk about what constructs our society, things like race, sex, gender, social class and sexual orientation and how it is important because it binds people together and puts them into groups. Rosenblum and Travis continue talking about different types of people and the way they are portrayed. There are Essentialist and Constructionist orientations which essentialists are people that believe we are what we are and so we are observed as the way we are. And the Constructionists who believe in master status and that we chose to be what we are. Also talked about in the article is how the Census creates categories of people. I found this to be interesting because I didn’t know that the Census did that, I thought that we were added as a whole. We also dichotomize, which is splitting something into two parts and than classifying them. When Rosenblum and Travis say that dichotomizing is splitting things into two groups, couldn’t it be more than two? There are defiantly more than two religions or countries we all could have come from. I was interested to read closer to the end of the article how we can dichotomize ability and disability. Farther down in the paragraph the authors talk about how disability can be treated not as a defect within the individual but that disability is created by environments that lack physical design and social support that make life worth living. I don’t know about that. So pretty much what is being said is that disability is different than what we think it to be? Disabilities in any case are sad and misfortunate but that doesn’t mean that life is not worth living, or the person feels that life is not worth living. I like Rosenblum and Travis because although I had to read the article twice, it is detailed and breaks down American society. I also liked that we got a worksheet to do if we needed help or to help us understand better. Some of their ideas I find to be very logical and make good sense, while others I had a little bit of a hard time understanding.

Analysis Paper Topic

For my analysis paper I chose a topic pertaining to Johnson chapters 6 and 8. I like this topic idea because it deals with the fact that we will always have problems in our society until we start owning up to our own ideas and beliefs and taking responsibility instead of putting it off on other people just because they are willing to state their opinion. I am not really set on a specific title yet but I really liked chapters 6 and 8 because they were easy for me to understand and literally represent true problems to our idea of ending discrimination and control in our society. There are also other texts from our reading that I could tie into my paper but the majority of reference will come from Johnson chap 6 and 8. I am completely open for ideas or suggestions.

Quiz 3

The author in this article concludes that if we (as Americans) have a problem with the way things go in this country as far as equality in race, beliefs etc and we chose not to do anything to better that, than we can simply leave the United States because we have the right to. Overall the author is making the argument that we should not dwell upon the unfair hand our great ancestors were dealt years ago, and that women should open their eyes to all the advantages that just like men, we have. She also makes an argument against homosexuals stating that she doesn’t know why they feel that they have to announce it to everyone all the time, and instead they (like straight people) should just keep it to themselves if they want to be treated fairly. I think that she is also trying to make the point that we are all equal, and instead of singling out one group of people for appreciation, we should all be appreciated for who we are. Closer to the end the author talks about how we should stop being so sensitive to what other people may say or do against a certain race or group. This article connects with Johnson’s concept of sick and tired from chapter 8. Johnson’s first sentence in this paragraph pretty much describes the author of the column, he states, “It’s not unusual for whites to comment on how sick and tired they are of hearing about race. ‘It’s always in your face’, they say. I ask how often is ‘always’ and what does ‘it’ consist of?” In the case of the article that the class was given to read it was not only race the author was complaining about but also gender, sexuality, and politics. I think that Sarah Barnes can defiantly be put into the category of “sick and tired” mainly I get the idea that she is indeed “sick and tired” when she says “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 their own situations.” Can I get an “I’m sick and tired?” Personally sometimes I do feel like some issues may be over exaggerated in the sense of how they are public ally displayed but never upset me enough to write a column about it. I think that is because just acknowledging people when they are rallying and trying to understand maybe where they are coming from is a way of accepting who they are and maybe understanding what they are trying to put out there. I don’t think that people who rally intend to make people mad, I think that a lot of people are just narrow minded, and being exposed to many different issues concerning race, gender, politics, sexuality etc may be overwhelming for someone who came from a small town or something. Pretty much if I don’t want to hear it, I don’t listen that’s all there is to it, most of the time those people aren’t out there to cause chaos on campus, but to show others that may be gay, for example, and haven’t come out yet that there are people and support for them available. The author makes good points, but at the same time I don’t think she has any sympathy for other people.

Ethnic Notions

This movie really dealt with the unfair black portrayl before and after slavery was abolished. Blacks were portrayed as maids, servents and percieved to have big lips, talk in a slang language, to be fat, and lazy. The first show clip we saw on the movie was called "Uncle Toms Cabin" it too portrayed blacks as lazy and ignorant. Uncle Tom had no teeth, a monkey laugh, and was a farmer. Next the movie presented the idea of a "Sambo" which was a black man that was loud, carefree, and irresponsible. Personally I had never seen blacks portrayed this way ever. It is probably because I dont look at old photos or shows, but I think that it was good to be exposed to because otherwise I would have never known. People like T.D. Rice would make fun of crippled black people dancing (of course he exaggerated it), and Jim Crow who was known for Jim Crows Jumblee. It was sad because blacks were getting portrayed in these terrible ways and as some people tried to abolish slavery, others would portray blacks as inferior to hold their own. In the movie black slaves were also shown as being "happy slaves", seeing pictures of happy slaves and nice owners made people think that slavery was a good thing. In later movies blacks would be portrayed as missing slavery. One of the most distrubing things about the movie was the way children were portrayed as black furry animals. Children are so innocent and their only fault is not understanding that you are suppost to be born with a suit of armor. I also found it disturbing that in WWI blacks tried to prove themselves (which they should not have in the first place) and they were given roles as if they were slaves again, serving food and having to entertain the whites. Also there is no excuse for hurting someone, and as the blacks were unfairly getting murdered the only good reason was that their animalistic brute were making them act crazily. I think that the way blacks were portrayed would have had an extremely negative effect on their self esteem and self worth. I know that I could not imagine what that would be like and in the movie the narrarator said that kids thought the sterotypes were acceptable. As the movie continued so did the years and the portrayl of blacks in movies, pictures and even in just normal speaking dwindled to almost normal (which is should have been normal to begin with). I liked this movie, it kept me interested and subjected me to ideas and facts that I had never known before, it is just too bad whites were so desperate for entertainment that they had to make their slaves put on makeup and dance for them. I cant imagine how it would be funny to watch a black person in makeup, they obviously did not look like that in real life.

Johnson Chap 6: "What It All Has to Do with Us"

I think that the point Johnson is trying to get across in this article is that to change the way we look and interpret difference, privelage and power we would have to address the problem. He says that often people feel it is too "risky" to openly speak about these issues making them virtually unchangable. As the article goes onto the next page Johnson starts to talk about individuals. He is completely right when he talks about how our society encourages us to think of number one (ourselves), and that we are looking down a narrow hallway and see a distorted view of our reality. Because of this distortion we see everything bad in the world as someone elses fault, making people feel personally attacked by issues or the victim which is why we stray away from talking about the problems. Again Johnson says that we see everything bad that happens in the world as someone elses fault, does that mean that good can only come from us? And that instead of a whole, we are blamed individually for what might be a group decision? Personally I dont think we should be so hard on ourselves, think of it like jury duty at the end there can only be one decision from the whole group, but what if it turns out to be the wrong one? then who is to blame? People who are outspoken and say what they feel when they feel it are looked at as loud and just that outspoken, but if more people were like that we might get to even a conclusion about issues surrounding our country. Johnson continues in the article talking about the path of least resistance. It is pretty self explanitory, for example, if all your friends want McDonalds and you want Burger King, chances are you are going to eat McDonalds in the end, but for speaking up and saying "hey I want Burger King" you put yourself out there for criticism and might not even speak up to the fact you want Burger King not McDonalds because of that. This part of the article makes so much sense to me, I see it everyday, and I am sure anyone who looks would too. Of course, Johnson address bigger issues such as homosexuals, different races, classes and any sort of difference we dont find a social norm in our society, as possibilities for being put under the microscope of criticism. No one that I know wants to wake up and besides their school work, jobs and other stressors in their lives wants to be criticized for being themselves, who they are and what they know to be right. The last section of this article pretty much describes what it is like to be involved in our society today. Johnson compares it to the game Monopoly which I like because buisnesses are trying to do just what the game does. The last person wins, they have all the money, properties and rights to brag about their accomplishments. Isnt that suppost to be a part of the "American Dream"? money, properties, bragging rights, which leads to privelage and other perks. On page 85 Johnson says "thats how the game is set up to work as a system" think about it in non Monopoly terms, he is right, our society is a game and in this game the nice are usually the first to go and the ruthless are left standing, with everything. Pretty much we have some people who do all the talking and then others who listen and agree despite what they really think, this is why our society is not going to change because who is willing to speak up and be the one ridiculed against? Overall I liked this article, it was easy to understand and read. It also seemed more casual it did not bombard me with big words or sentences I had to wait to understand until the next line. I also like the idea of this article and its content, it makes a lot of sense.

Zinn Chapter 2: "Drawing the Color Line"

I think in this article Zinn is really trying to get the point across that we created this black and white difference in our society. He talks about how racism is not natural but a product of human choice, meaning that we did this, slavery was not suppost to be the fate for many African Americans. I also think that just by the title the reader can get a feel of the article. "Drawing the Color Line", we have been learning about white slaves in comparison to black slaves and the unfair treatment and different types of punnishment the two endured. White slaves were given less harsh punnishments whereas the black slaves would have a punnishment twice as harsh. I believe this was done purposly. I think that the slave owners noticed that it was possible for the white and black servents to get along and they probably thought that together they would conspire. The article also mentions that newly freed white slaves recieved 50 acres of land, in my opinion also a set up. Throughout the article it describes the African history of slavery. I was not aware that African Americans were slaves in other countries besides Europe and America. When the African Americans were taken from Africa and put onto the boats Zinn talks about the conditions on the ships. Why would the slaves be kept in such poor conditions when they were to be sold to work? Some of them died others became very ill, what kind of work would they be able to accomplish in that state? On page 25 Zinn describes how in Africa they also had tribal life like the Indians did in America and it was also peaceful and less punnishable there is even a quote that a Congolese leader said of the Portugese legal codes "What is the penalty in Portugal for anyone who puts his feel on the ground?". African slaves were also thought to have lacked two things which made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history, "the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with the relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave and the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture". In my opinion this is what made the African Americans more vulnerable to slavery, they did not know the American land (the Indians did and that is why they would have been so much harder to enslave) and fear was instilled in them indefinatly. African Americans felt inferior, on page 29 it throws out there the idea that it was both a psychological and physical system. Sadly, they thought they "knew their place" and blackness was a sign of subordiation, in the article Zinn also writes that the African Americans were vulnerable to slavery because they were helpless. These things combined would be more than enough to make someone think they were meant to be a slave. Overall I liked this article, it gave a little bit of all of it. Some history, the main points and conclusion. I am a fan of how Zinn writes because I can understand it better and therefore get more out of the article compared to other readings in which I dont quite understand. I also liked the questions at the end of the article, I am not sure if that was a mistake but it helped me, by searching though the article and answering those questions I got my ideas together better and furthered my understanding of the concepts.

Johnson Chap 3: Capitalism, Class and the Matrix of Domination

The authors main idea is that we will never get rid of racism because we have other forms of discrimination such as sexism and classism and one produces another and then they all become connected. So in a bigger picture racism will never be elimated unless we work first on ending classism and sexism because with one there will always be another. Capitalism is the first issue that Johnson address concerning discrimination, he states on pg 42 "the system itself does not depend on such moral or ethical considerations, because profit is profit and there is no way to tell good money from bad.". He also brings to the attention of his readers that capitalism is what divides our social classes because those on top hold more than two thirds of all the wealth leaving the people at the bottom with enormous costs and poor living conditions. Johnson than goes on to talk about race and gender dealing with privelage. The section discussed how whites developed the idea of whiteness to define privelage in a social category. So because whitness defined what it meant to be "American" it became alright to oppress those who fell out of the defintion or category of whiteness. He also continues to say that capitalism exploits not only people of different races or religion but also people with disabilities because they can work in crap conditions with the lowest pay, and little opprotunity for growth or challenge. The idea of "Manifest Destiny" is also mentioned in this article. "Manifest Destiny" is the idea that the US was destined to expand. People who followed these ideas thought it not only obvious but also certain. "Manifest Destiny" had hard consequences for the Indians because usually when we expanded it was to their land, that they had already developed as their own. The idea of "Manifest Destiny" gave superiority to whites. The author than goes on to discuss privelage and the idea that people can be privelaged and at the same time not be, it is said on page 52 that each particular form of privelage is part of a much larger system of privelage. And a little bit farther down in the paragraph, the author says that we can belong to both privelaged and unprivelaged and oppresed categories all at the same time. Personally, I didnt really like this chapter or chapter 2. I really found it hard to understand and that might just be and is just my personal opinion about it. The article took an idea that could easily be common sense and made it really hard for me to understand at all. I do understand his main points and that he had good ideas, and yes each sub paragraph does have to do with the other, but I just think it could have been presented in a different less complicated manner.

Journal 5: Loewen Chap 7

In this article the author's main point is that in schools there is no textbook or teachings that describe to students the current or ongoing troubles in our economy that define which social class we belong to. Social class is defined as a broad group in society having common economic, cultural, or political status. Loewen also mentions that students or younger children maybe dont understand why they are where they are now, social class speaking. Why dont their parents drive as nice of a car as their friends mom? On the bottom of page 203 the author states that "social class is the single most important variable in society." I agree with him completely our social class not only affects our parents, but childrens social lives when they are in grade school. Sadly, it affects the friends you have, the way others think of you and even the way you feel about your self. I honestly cant remember learing about or reading anything about social classes in grade school and yet I witnessed every kind of discrimination against kids who were "different". It is really sad to look back on now, because although I wasnt rich I was never picked on, or looked at and made fun of, I never went hungry or was cold at night, and I also was never a child who questioned their social class (it was probably just too complex for me) but I cannot imagine being a child who was, thats rough. Loewen summarizes the article really in a way that blames our social class now on our long gone ancestors who established our families in America. Although I do not so much buy into the idea that you are where you are now because of bad luck and tough breaks in the past (because we all choose where we go in life and how we get there) I will however agree that children are helpless. Page 204 compares rich babies to poor ones, and their home environment when they leave the hospital. It is true that children are innocent, they cannot choose which situation to be born into, thus they continue on the path they were born into. Grade school starts and the poorer child has to attend a crowded public school where he or she is only a number, and the more rich children have the privelage of a private school or a public school in a better funded city. The trend continues with drop out rates, college enrollment rates and than to the job world and becomes as Loewen states on page 205 "replicated into the next generation". The article continues with lower class men being drafted to Vietnam. The rich living longer than the poor and being given more respect than the less fortunate. I feel that although this should be taught in schools because it is important for students to understand before they graduate grade school (I am not sure I understand the concept now), along the line somewhere was there not someone who worked really hard to become wealthy? I understand that their wealth contributes to their childrens or grandchildrens laziness now, but is it wrong to consider social class earned? And if social class can be earned through working hard and shooting for the stars who will be the first in the family of a lower social class to realize they can make the difference in their families lives. Not just right now, but for generations.

Journal 4: The "Giddy Multitude"

I think that the authors thesis here is that although there were white slaves, African American slaves were being forced into a lifetime of servitude and were even degrated to the status of property. Takaki summarizes pretty much what the English thought of blacks on the bottom of page 51 and continued to 52. This essentially is the problem, that African Americans were thought of as "deeply stained with dirt" and brought "negative images" to the English mind. Somehow though the color white came to signify "purity, innocence and goodness". How can "innocence" be a word to describe someone who owns other people and makes them do their work for them, while they feed them little food and making them feel that they are animals and don't belong in regular society? The "Giddy Multitude", which is described on page 63, is defined as "a discontented class of indentured servents, slaves and landless freemen, both white and black." To me the "Giddy Multitude" is a good example of unity, both white and blacks together, continuing on page 63 it is said that many times a group of servents would ban together in hopes of being heard and recieving rights as other nonservents did. Maybe if the whites who owned slaves or servents never were given that power and were forced into servitude themselves, would understand and be more willing to live amungst people of different backgrounds peacefully and more accepting to difference and less hungry for power. Even after so many years I think that today we have a type of "Giddy Multitude", think of the illegal immigrants that come to this country every day, yes they are illegal and should be sent back until they can legally naturalize, but company owners still take advantage of the fact they are unknowing. For example, think of the last time (maybe summer) when you saw a mexican doing labor work that really no one would want to do otherwise, like mowing someones lawn or picking the weeds from other peoples gardens when it is about 95 degress outside and cloudless. I know that you have seen someone like that and wondered what they are working for (wage wise), it is completely apparent they are being taken advantage of for not understanding the concept better. Today I think that we view people from other countries, who come to this one to make a better life for their family as Jefferson viewed different races (page 71), "He publically stated his 'opinion' that blacks were 'inferior' in the faculty of reason. I found three more things to be interesting points in the article, one, that The Naturalization Act excluded citizenship from the Indians, who really founded this country before we knew the world was round (page 80). Second being that by increasing the black population would ultimately mean creating a biracial society but for white servents decrease their need for servitude and eventually eliminate it (page 65). And lastly that religion served to identify racial groups where the whites were christians and the blacks heathens? (page 59). First off I am catholic not christian and my grandparents have only lived in this country for maybe 60 years, so am I a heathen? Naturally they have darker skin and dark eyes with dark hair, I do wonder what it was like for them to come to this country wanting better for themselves but most likely experiencing discrimination. Yet, we wonder why groups such as the mob were formed. Also, I have never heard of the religion heathen?, but I am pretty sure that just proves the ignorance of the English.

Race: The power of illusion part 1

I think that the main idea of part one was to remind us (or for some inform) that we are all basically the same. We have the same bones, joints, and for the most part our DNA is identical. The only thing that really seperates us is our skin color, hair type, and eye size. In the video it also talked about how our skin color is really just an adaptation to where we come from. The more UV rays in the environment the darker the skin so that not as many UV rays are absorbed, The less light the lighter the skin is to absorb more of those rays. The video basically summarized all the thoughts, beliefs and ideas as to why we are different, it also brought to attention that we might be different enough as to perform at different levels. While watching the movie I really wondered in the first place how we all got to be so "different" from eachother? Did it have to do with power or location? Or maybe it had to do with being scared of difference and change in a developing world. In the video I liked the DNA experiment done with the kids, where they had to pick which person they were more likely to be like/different from. It is a great reminder that we are all the same, we just have different ancestors and pasts, that shaped who we are now. One thing that I did learn in the video was that sickle cell is carried by greeks and mediteranians, I thought it was mostly an african american illness, so I found that to be intersting. I also learned the definition of eugenics, how it was believed that one gene came from the father, the other from the mother and it shaped the cultural and behavioral ideas of their children. At the end the students doing the experiments discovered that we are all more alike than what was thought. I found it interesting when the teacher told the students that there is more diversity of the DNA of people in Africa than there is in the US. Overall I liked the video because it more than proved the idea that we are all the same and the visual differences are a part of who we are and where we come from, but in no way should they define or give us the right to treat others like they are not as good as us.

Introduction Post

My name is Mallory and I am from Garrettsville, Oh which is about 40 minutes south east of Cleveland. Something you wouldn't know about me is that I moved a lot when I was younger, I lived in Mayfield, Richmond Hts, Solon, two different homes in Aurora and now I live in Garrettsville. My major is Interior Design and when I am not in class or doing homework, I love to go swimming, ice skating, skiing, watching movies and talking to my friends.

Journal 2 "The 'Temptest' in the Wilderness"

I think that the author is trying to make his readers recognize that the Indians had a tough road when it came to being considered civilized in the eyes of the English. The first sentence in the reading describes how we related to eachother, thinking that the world was flat, etc. How is it that the Indians became to be treated so differently, and looked upon as savages, but yet had ideas of agriculture, and hunting and living that was clearly established before we knew the land existed? In reality they were just like the English, only in a more simple form, but in their own way smarter and more respectable. The reading relates to the last, in the sense that the Indians were clearly taken advantage of. This reader though goes farther than Columbus and to the late 1700's following the struggle the Indians faced daily. This reading is different from the last because it brings to attention the idea of race and discrimination. I personally feel the Indians were taken advantage of like they were because they are known for being peaceful people, who were probably scared and unsure of what actually was happening. On the bottom of page 34 it states "we are here to intreat and desire your friendship and to enjoy our houses and plant our fields, of whose fruits you shall participate", this was said to John Smith by an Indian, yet Smith did not trust them. Instead the English became greedy and noticed they could make money by exporting tobacco, and instead of compromising, the English made fake deals with the Indians and poisoned their drinks before a toast, killing many instantly. So who are the savages? The English or the Indians? Clearly the Indians were willing to live amongst eachother peacefully, and the English continued killing them off, whether it be in violence, or sickness for wealth and greed. I really feel like the English were so taken back on the idea that they didnt discover a new land, it had already been discovered! Maybe they felt if they could control the Indians, the habitants of the "new world", they could regain respect from England and have all the power in America, controlling exports, having their pick of the land, and control over the people.

Journal 1 "A People's History of the United States"

While reading the article I thought that the authors thesis was on the bottom of page 10 stating "...we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest between conquerors and conquered, masters and slave, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex." I interpret that as meaning we all have agendas for ourselves and dont neccesarily take into consideration who we hurt on our way to the top. Sometimes we are greedy and dont see the bigger picture, just what we want to. There are secrets and people have sufferend and been abused whether it be direct or indirectly for us, like family. To get or be where we are now, someone, somewhere, sometime sacraficed. The bigger question that the author brings to attention is on page 14 where he asks if all of the slavery and bloodshed is necessary for us to progress? Today, to get to the top in a company or industry it is no secret we usually have to fight someone for the position, for the big raise or both, sometimes it becomes more personal than professional, but is it always necessary? In summary this article tells of great explorers journeys, mainly Columbus, in which greed and fear of unaccomplishment breeds savage and distorted images leading to ignorant actions, in which other people became responsible for the failure of a leader. Parts of the article can be applied to today, for instance, the acts of Columbus being referred to as "genocide". We see that today, think of Iraq and even Darfur, where innocent people are being taken advantage of and killed, for us to have that pretty diamond necklace, which I am not saying diamonds are bad but should there be so much sacrafice in the making of that necklace (human lives) or other piece of jewlery? I am not really suprised at the contents of the reading and how terribly people known for being peaceful were treated, because we do things just like that now, and unfortunatly it had to start somewhere.