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.