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.