Kolko concludes in “Erasing @race” that race is left out of cyberspace and is not one of the categorizations used in cyberspace.
Technology allows us to communicate without ever needing direct contact (213). Therefore, people never need to see people face to face. Skin color is not represented in cyberspace, so it is not regarded. People construct identities through cyberspace, and can even create a false age, gender, and history of themselves in order to show people what is desired to show them. “The crafting of a virtual identity is important because your representation in cyberspace will guide others’ interactions with you.” If you falsify any information about yourself, then that is the person that others are going to communicate with and think you are. Race is not a classification used in cyberspace. A default race is just taken to be “white,” (216). Since there is no race defined in cyberspace, then all people are taken to be white, regardless of their actual race. To include race in cyberspace, it might be useful for communicating and knowing a true person. But, including race may result in more problems than there already are.
“Too frequently, people must adapt to technology rather than adapting it to their needs,” (220). Why are people adapting to technology? Technology seems necessary for people these days. Young adults and others cannot live without their cell phones, and computers and the internet are probably relied upon too much. What if all computers one day would crash? We would not know what to do. Believe it or not, people did not always have computers and cell phones. I know it is hard to imagine, but it’s true. If people wanted to display race on the internet they could. However, technology allows us to exclude certain personal details, which means race can be left out.
I do not think it would be a good idea to incorporate race into the internet. Because race exists as a problem already, there would not be good results that came from putting race into the internet. If the problem of race were somehow solved, then it would be appropriate to incorporate race into the internet. The problem would most likely escalate if race were to be incorporated in the internet though. I think it is also a major issue on the internet of true selves. Technology allows people to lie and create false selves. When communicating online we never know for sure whether we are talking to the person described, or someone else.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Facebook Page
Facebook page: http://bgsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2222690628
On the above linked page, I see the following: a purple McArthur gallon of grape drink, the group name of “WHAT THE F*CK IS JUICE?!?!,” a young black man saying “Oh snap! I want that purple stuff!,” a Blockbuster Online advertisement with a white man in a delivery outfit standing with DVD’s to give to you and he is smiling to try to make people feel that joining Blockbuster Online is such a good thing, four out of the six people displayed that are part of this group are black and the other two white, seven out of the ten displayed wall posts are easily seen as being by black individuals, all the people are said to be from around the Midwest or East Coast, none from the West or really South, by one black contributor it was stated, “wat da fuk iz juice” and by another black contributor, “Nigga what the fuck is juice? i want some grape drink baby!!” and by a third black contributor, “I dont want all those vitamins and minerals.....I just want drink baby.” and by a final black contributor, “Forget Sunny Delight....I want the purple stuff” and all of the pictures of people in the group are mostly head shots with only one being more with a young black man gesturing a west side type sign.
From this facebook page, race is constructed as “blacks” liking drink, as opposed to the “more white” juice. “Whites” drink grape juice, orange juice, apple juice, and cranberry juice, while “blacks” drink grape or purple drink, orange drink, etc. Also, “blacks” are seen as the gangster type with the one picture of a west side sign. “Blacks are also seen as using certain language such as “Oh snap!” and “nigga” and “drink baby.” This group directly relates to a comedians act where he used the average Sunny Delight commercial with all the white kids running inside to drink some Sunny Delight, while there is that one black kid in the background that points to “that purple stuff” in the back of the fridge and does not want the Sunny Delight. Of course this commercial used has the black kid in the background, and wanting “that purple stuff” which is grape or purple drink.
On the above linked page, I see the following: a purple McArthur gallon of grape drink, the group name of “WHAT THE F*CK IS JUICE?!?!,” a young black man saying “Oh snap! I want that purple stuff!,” a Blockbuster Online advertisement with a white man in a delivery outfit standing with DVD’s to give to you and he is smiling to try to make people feel that joining Blockbuster Online is such a good thing, four out of the six people displayed that are part of this group are black and the other two white, seven out of the ten displayed wall posts are easily seen as being by black individuals, all the people are said to be from around the Midwest or East Coast, none from the West or really South, by one black contributor it was stated, “wat da fuk iz juice” and by another black contributor, “Nigga what the fuck is juice? i want some grape drink baby!!” and by a third black contributor, “I dont want all those vitamins and minerals.....I just want drink baby.” and by a final black contributor, “Forget Sunny Delight....I want the purple stuff” and all of the pictures of people in the group are mostly head shots with only one being more with a young black man gesturing a west side type sign.
From this facebook page, race is constructed as “blacks” liking drink, as opposed to the “more white” juice. “Whites” drink grape juice, orange juice, apple juice, and cranberry juice, while “blacks” drink grape or purple drink, orange drink, etc. Also, “blacks” are seen as the gangster type with the one picture of a west side sign. “Blacks are also seen as using certain language such as “Oh snap!” and “nigga” and “drink baby.” This group directly relates to a comedians act where he used the average Sunny Delight commercial with all the white kids running inside to drink some Sunny Delight, while there is that one black kid in the background that points to “that purple stuff” in the back of the fridge and does not want the Sunny Delight. Of course this commercial used has the black kid in the background, and wanting “that purple stuff” which is grape or purple drink.
Monday, April 2, 2007
I'll Take My Stand in Dixie-Net
In Chapter 7: “I’ll Take My Stand in Dixie-Net” McPherson concludes that Neo-Confederates are attempting to change their identity through the internet and avoid the direct racism that used to be attached to them.
“Prolonged exposure to cyberspace irrevocably produces multiple selves,” (118). Race in relation to these selves has not been emphasized though. A life on the computer or internet allows a virtual reality where origins do not exist. “The internet has the ability to overcome geographical boundaries, and is seen as a yellow brick road leading to a global village,” (118). The neo-Confederate’s work in cyberspace begins with an attempt to make a “self” and their presence. The cybercommunity created by the neo-Confederates avoids race, similar to nearly all others of the like. However, “the neo-Dixie of cyberspace is nothing if not white,” (119). Also, through their sites, race is not forgotten; it is just avoided, which allows an alternate reality that does not have race. The neo-Confederates have their own idea of what would be best for the South. The main ideas of the websites they have are to “preserve the Southern heritage” and offer several links to similar websites (121). The main group that visits these sites is white males. One idea presented of what would be best for the South would be for the South to become its own nation, separate from the rest of the United States and be “Its Own Nation,” (122). Also, the neo-Confederates have visualized a fantasy in which the South would separate from the United States at the same time as black movement to the South is greater than black movement away from the South. What a weird coincidence. It can be discovered that any information showing this imagined South do not offer any insight on the makeup of the South to “avoid” being racist of course (123). The websites avoid being overtly racist and express dismay over the perceptions that protecting the South means that one must be racist (124). “These sites understand that successful publicity now requires an evasion of questions of race and racial representation,” (125). But, these sites are trying to defend a Southern heritage that is undeniably white, and there is a struggle to find new ways of securing the meaning of whiteness (126). The neo-Confederates are not openly and exclusively white, even though they are technically mostly white males. Also, they are not openly racist, even though racism does exist in many of them, it is just being avoided.
“The neo-Confederates own statistics indicate the South’s economic growth and stability during the past few decades,” (126). Why then is this grouping complaining, or wanting changes? Racism? The economy is good, so it must be a social matter. Blacks are increasingly coming to the South, so are they considered the “problem?” Race is a major issue in this question and answer, and for some reason a little difference in skin color can make some people feel so strongly against difference and threatened or something.
I noticed that “white trash” was used in parentheses in this chapter. The author is pretty much attacking a portion of whites, from the South and is most likely racist. I can understand that, but was the white trash phrase placed in there to degrade whites? Hopefully not, however, I do not think it was needed to make a strong argument in the chapter. I know this is a very minute thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning, raising another question.
“Prolonged exposure to cyberspace irrevocably produces multiple selves,” (118). Race in relation to these selves has not been emphasized though. A life on the computer or internet allows a virtual reality where origins do not exist. “The internet has the ability to overcome geographical boundaries, and is seen as a yellow brick road leading to a global village,” (118). The neo-Confederate’s work in cyberspace begins with an attempt to make a “self” and their presence. The cybercommunity created by the neo-Confederates avoids race, similar to nearly all others of the like. However, “the neo-Dixie of cyberspace is nothing if not white,” (119). Also, through their sites, race is not forgotten; it is just avoided, which allows an alternate reality that does not have race. The neo-Confederates have their own idea of what would be best for the South. The main ideas of the websites they have are to “preserve the Southern heritage” and offer several links to similar websites (121). The main group that visits these sites is white males. One idea presented of what would be best for the South would be for the South to become its own nation, separate from the rest of the United States and be “Its Own Nation,” (122). Also, the neo-Confederates have visualized a fantasy in which the South would separate from the United States at the same time as black movement to the South is greater than black movement away from the South. What a weird coincidence. It can be discovered that any information showing this imagined South do not offer any insight on the makeup of the South to “avoid” being racist of course (123). The websites avoid being overtly racist and express dismay over the perceptions that protecting the South means that one must be racist (124). “These sites understand that successful publicity now requires an evasion of questions of race and racial representation,” (125). But, these sites are trying to defend a Southern heritage that is undeniably white, and there is a struggle to find new ways of securing the meaning of whiteness (126). The neo-Confederates are not openly and exclusively white, even though they are technically mostly white males. Also, they are not openly racist, even though racism does exist in many of them, it is just being avoided.
“The neo-Confederates own statistics indicate the South’s economic growth and stability during the past few decades,” (126). Why then is this grouping complaining, or wanting changes? Racism? The economy is good, so it must be a social matter. Blacks are increasingly coming to the South, so are they considered the “problem?” Race is a major issue in this question and answer, and for some reason a little difference in skin color can make some people feel so strongly against difference and threatened or something.
I noticed that “white trash” was used in parentheses in this chapter. The author is pretty much attacking a portion of whites, from the South and is most likely racist. I can understand that, but was the white trash phrase placed in there to degrade whites? Hopefully not, however, I do not think it was needed to make a strong argument in the chapter. I know this is a very minute thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning, raising another question.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Where Do You Want to Go Today?
In Chapter 4: “Where Do You Want to Go Today?” Nakamura concludes that the internet provides an alternate reality in a sense, where divisions are not taken into consideration as in the real world.
“There is no race. There is no gender. There is no age. There are no infirmities. There are only minds. Utopia? No. The Internet,” (87). Human interaction is not influenced by “the rest of it” on the internet (87). Images and photos can appear on the internet, but the option to leave any visuals out of the picture is available. Without these visuals, a person becomes just the words they type on the computer. Diversity is somewhat erased, but it has to be displayed in order to be erased. An analogy to this is that the word race has to be written on a chalk board in order to be crossed out (88). Some view technology as a way to eliminate race. Race does not mean anything…does not count for anything through technology. There would be no boundaries then, and there would be no limits. An idealized mobility could be achieved through technology, where anyone can visit any place and still be privileged no matter where he/she goes (90). “Images of Nature are as good as or better than the reality,” and these images allow people to escape reality and go wherever they want (92). Technology offers people with visually appealing images, which offer a glimpse of better living. Everyone can feel better and have a better “second life” through technology. “We believe that writing machines is the job, but connecting people the art. Understanding how people think and communicate and the wisdom to respect the knowledge and cultures of others are both needed. From here, common goals can be achieved by all,” (97). Technology has connected several groups together, and has made a “utopia of difference,” or almost.
Can telecommunications change the nature of identity (88)? No. Not unless everything was done without ever meeting face to face with the outside world, or reality. A “utopia of difference” can be used to explain what I mean. The internet and technology have provided ways to communicate through typed words or just spoken words, which is a utopia in the sense that the “rest of it” is not included. However, this utopia is based upon difference, and in the real world this utopia does not exist because difference causes racism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Identity can be seen differently through technology, but as long as the real world is part of the picture, then identity will still be based on appearance.
I like the internet, for school use and information and news. I agree that technology can create a “utopia of difference,” but I think this may be bad. Should people be falsely led to a life that they simply cannot have? I know that may sound harsh, but our world is far from perfect, and differences do not seem to be disappearing any time soon. And these differences cause problems and social divisions. Wow, that is the perfect house, in the perfect location. Dreaming is good, I will admit to that. However, dreaming should have its limits though. Reality does have to play a role and cannot be ignored. No matter how good technology can make someone feel, reality is always waiting right outside.
“There is no race. There is no gender. There is no age. There are no infirmities. There are only minds. Utopia? No. The Internet,” (87). Human interaction is not influenced by “the rest of it” on the internet (87). Images and photos can appear on the internet, but the option to leave any visuals out of the picture is available. Without these visuals, a person becomes just the words they type on the computer. Diversity is somewhat erased, but it has to be displayed in order to be erased. An analogy to this is that the word race has to be written on a chalk board in order to be crossed out (88). Some view technology as a way to eliminate race. Race does not mean anything…does not count for anything through technology. There would be no boundaries then, and there would be no limits. An idealized mobility could be achieved through technology, where anyone can visit any place and still be privileged no matter where he/she goes (90). “Images of Nature are as good as or better than the reality,” and these images allow people to escape reality and go wherever they want (92). Technology offers people with visually appealing images, which offer a glimpse of better living. Everyone can feel better and have a better “second life” through technology. “We believe that writing machines is the job, but connecting people the art. Understanding how people think and communicate and the wisdom to respect the knowledge and cultures of others are both needed. From here, common goals can be achieved by all,” (97). Technology has connected several groups together, and has made a “utopia of difference,” or almost.
Can telecommunications change the nature of identity (88)? No. Not unless everything was done without ever meeting face to face with the outside world, or reality. A “utopia of difference” can be used to explain what I mean. The internet and technology have provided ways to communicate through typed words or just spoken words, which is a utopia in the sense that the “rest of it” is not included. However, this utopia is based upon difference, and in the real world this utopia does not exist because difference causes racism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Identity can be seen differently through technology, but as long as the real world is part of the picture, then identity will still be based on appearance.
I like the internet, for school use and information and news. I agree that technology can create a “utopia of difference,” but I think this may be bad. Should people be falsely led to a life that they simply cannot have? I know that may sound harsh, but our world is far from perfect, and differences do not seem to be disappearing any time soon. And these differences cause problems and social divisions. Wow, that is the perfect house, in the perfect location. Dreaming is good, I will admit to that. However, dreaming should have its limits though. Reality does have to play a role and cannot be ignored. No matter how good technology can make someone feel, reality is always waiting right outside.
Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch
In Chapter 2: “Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch” McBride concludes that A & F “successfully crystallizes a racism that is only rumbling beneath the surface of other stores’ advertising,” (72).
“Successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products,” (59). People need to want the brand and feel that they will fit it or belong if they have and wear this certain brand. A & F started out as an outdoorsmen store, and was soon known as the “outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful,” (63). Also, this brand was closely tied with white men, of the higher classes. Even furthering this tie with the upper class white men, A& F related its label to a collegiate lifestyle. “The racist thinking of its consumer population was depended upon in order to thrive,” (66). And racist thinking was quite popular, or rather not unusual for the times. A & F used pictures of young white models, all smiling, to create “The A & F Look.” Also, their brand was said to be “natural, classic, current, and American,” (67). An A & F dress code stated what was supposed to be acceptable or unacceptable, and unacceptable appearances were mainly what nonwhites would wear or do, favoring whiteness as acceptable. So how is A & F different from other stores? “Ralph Lauren ‘diversified’ its ad campaigns in the 1990s,” and “Neither Banana Republic nor Ralph Lauren participate in the kind of social engineering in terms of their store employees that A & F does,” (72). Still today, A & F does not really diversify ad campaigns very well, if at all. Most models are still white, and most store employees are white. A good working African American employee was fired because the district manager said he “did not fit the look,” and “He’s not Abercrombie,” (81). Not having the “A & F Look” is important enough to fire or not hire someone, and race was a consideration. Good looks also played an important role in being able to work for A & F. Employees were supposed to have an “all-American” look, meaning to be in good shape, and a big deal in being white (82). “African Americans and Asian Americans ‘can be A & F if they act white, have white friends, and are very assimilated,’” (82). Being in the A & F “group” has privileges, and people want these privileges, and to be able to live the good life. A & F discriminates through ads, employment, and by producing this image of the good life, in which whites are portrayed.
With this book published in 2005, and a discrimination case against A & F’ s hiring practices, how is A & F still appear to be so racially discriminating? Good question. When I have gone into A & F stores in the past two years, which has not been very much, but still…I remember most, if not all employees being white, and fitting the “A & F Look.” Also, ads and their website portray almost all whites that do have the so-called “A & F Look.” Are there politics involved...probably. Are there any non-white district managers, or A & F workers higher than just store employees?
I think A & F is dumb! Selling a brand is dumb. I want good clothes, not a brand. If I find a two dollar no brand hooded sweatshirt that appears to be made well, then I am going to buy it. Brands cost so much more than clothes too. “The A & F Look,” and what is acceptable or unacceptable… yeah right. They cannot say what hairstyles, etc. are unacceptable. Also, “All-American”…no. All-American should be a representation of all of America. Last time I looked not everyone was white. Maybe I truly am colorblind? Once again, just like skin color, it should not matter what the cover looks like. It is all about what is inside the book!
“Successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products,” (59). People need to want the brand and feel that they will fit it or belong if they have and wear this certain brand. A & F started out as an outdoorsmen store, and was soon known as the “outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful,” (63). Also, this brand was closely tied with white men, of the higher classes. Even furthering this tie with the upper class white men, A& F related its label to a collegiate lifestyle. “The racist thinking of its consumer population was depended upon in order to thrive,” (66). And racist thinking was quite popular, or rather not unusual for the times. A & F used pictures of young white models, all smiling, to create “The A & F Look.” Also, their brand was said to be “natural, classic, current, and American,” (67). An A & F dress code stated what was supposed to be acceptable or unacceptable, and unacceptable appearances were mainly what nonwhites would wear or do, favoring whiteness as acceptable. So how is A & F different from other stores? “Ralph Lauren ‘diversified’ its ad campaigns in the 1990s,” and “Neither Banana Republic nor Ralph Lauren participate in the kind of social engineering in terms of their store employees that A & F does,” (72). Still today, A & F does not really diversify ad campaigns very well, if at all. Most models are still white, and most store employees are white. A good working African American employee was fired because the district manager said he “did not fit the look,” and “He’s not Abercrombie,” (81). Not having the “A & F Look” is important enough to fire or not hire someone, and race was a consideration. Good looks also played an important role in being able to work for A & F. Employees were supposed to have an “all-American” look, meaning to be in good shape, and a big deal in being white (82). “African Americans and Asian Americans ‘can be A & F if they act white, have white friends, and are very assimilated,’” (82). Being in the A & F “group” has privileges, and people want these privileges, and to be able to live the good life. A & F discriminates through ads, employment, and by producing this image of the good life, in which whites are portrayed.
With this book published in 2005, and a discrimination case against A & F’ s hiring practices, how is A & F still appear to be so racially discriminating? Good question. When I have gone into A & F stores in the past two years, which has not been very much, but still…I remember most, if not all employees being white, and fitting the “A & F Look.” Also, ads and their website portray almost all whites that do have the so-called “A & F Look.” Are there politics involved...probably. Are there any non-white district managers, or A & F workers higher than just store employees?
I think A & F is dumb! Selling a brand is dumb. I want good clothes, not a brand. If I find a two dollar no brand hooded sweatshirt that appears to be made well, then I am going to buy it. Brands cost so much more than clothes too. “The A & F Look,” and what is acceptable or unacceptable… yeah right. They cannot say what hairstyles, etc. are unacceptable. Also, “All-American”…no. All-American should be a representation of all of America. Last time I looked not everyone was white. Maybe I truly am colorblind? Once again, just like skin color, it should not matter what the cover looks like. It is all about what is inside the book!
El Norte
In Chapter 12: “El Norte” Takaki concludes that America was a country of dreams and great hopes for Mexican Americans, but it became a disappointment to many.
Mexicans saw relatives that had gone to America and returned successful and happy. They also were encouraged by others to come to America because it was good there. An advantage of Mexicans that other immigrants did not have was the capability to enter and leave America without passports whenever they wished (312). Dreams pulled Mexicans to the north, and starvation pushed them out of Mexico (312). Also, a civil war in Mexico led to tens of thousands of Mexicans to flee to the north for safety (314). These Mexicans intended to return, but war led to poverty in Mexico and the end of the war could not be predicted. More Mexicans were therefore pushed from Mexico because of poverty and a bad economy, and were pulled to America because of a better economy and available jobs. America encouraged Mexicans to cross the border because “their labor was needed,” (316). Most of these immigrants became laborers, and had the worst and lowest paying jobs. Some even became servants for the whites. Placed in the same group as the Chinese, “oriental and Mexican” were viewed as being “physically unable to adapt,” (321). They were excluded socially and were “isolated by the borders of racial segregation,” (326). Anglos or whites dominated over Mexicans. In schools Mexicans were taught how to be good workers, or laborers. As more and more Mexicans came to America, whites began viewing their immigration as problematic and a “race problem.” They only wanted Mexicans for their cheap labor, but not to be an actual part of America. Whites believed that the country should be all white, or homogeneous, based only on skin color though (“race”). Mexicans represented cheap labor and also were regarded as “incapable of becoming fully American,” (331). Once the Great Depression occurred in America, Mexicans were not needed as much and many were forced to go back to Mexico. After much disappointment, Mexicans stayed together and were bound by ethnicity and class because they were all poor (335). They were all going through similar situations and they had to help each other out. They did so in Mexican neighborhoods called barrios. Mexicans did not have a great experience in America and their dreams did not come true. A Mexican father said that his son was “American by nationality, but Mexicano by blood,” (338).
How could Americans encourage Mexicans to cross the border for labor and then force these Mexicans to go back to Mexico? Capitalism, money, greed, and laziness all could have contributed to these actions. Americans “imported Mexicans for labor, and just for that purpose,” (318). They wanted to provide Mexicans with the feeling of being in a community, but only the feeling. This feeling would then make Mexicans happier and like the Japanese they would work well and more profit would be made. With Mexicans, Americans could get “more for their money,” (321). They had to settle for cheap labor because that is all they could get. Once a Mexican finished their job such as harvesting a crop they were kicked out on the street.
“Much was different in El Norte,” (339). To say the least. It is all about politics and money. An example is “School policy was influenced by the needs of the local growers,” (327). Mexicans wanted what was good for them, and they wanted equality. However, Mexicans thought that sitting with blacks would humiliate them. This may have been based on the white views of the blacks, but Mexicans still also viewed blacks as inferior. Even though class divisions were increasing, the major division was still race. Some whites were poor and in the lowest class division, yet were still above all of other races.
Mexicans saw relatives that had gone to America and returned successful and happy. They also were encouraged by others to come to America because it was good there. An advantage of Mexicans that other immigrants did not have was the capability to enter and leave America without passports whenever they wished (312). Dreams pulled Mexicans to the north, and starvation pushed them out of Mexico (312). Also, a civil war in Mexico led to tens of thousands of Mexicans to flee to the north for safety (314). These Mexicans intended to return, but war led to poverty in Mexico and the end of the war could not be predicted. More Mexicans were therefore pushed from Mexico because of poverty and a bad economy, and were pulled to America because of a better economy and available jobs. America encouraged Mexicans to cross the border because “their labor was needed,” (316). Most of these immigrants became laborers, and had the worst and lowest paying jobs. Some even became servants for the whites. Placed in the same group as the Chinese, “oriental and Mexican” were viewed as being “physically unable to adapt,” (321). They were excluded socially and were “isolated by the borders of racial segregation,” (326). Anglos or whites dominated over Mexicans. In schools Mexicans were taught how to be good workers, or laborers. As more and more Mexicans came to America, whites began viewing their immigration as problematic and a “race problem.” They only wanted Mexicans for their cheap labor, but not to be an actual part of America. Whites believed that the country should be all white, or homogeneous, based only on skin color though (“race”). Mexicans represented cheap labor and also were regarded as “incapable of becoming fully American,” (331). Once the Great Depression occurred in America, Mexicans were not needed as much and many were forced to go back to Mexico. After much disappointment, Mexicans stayed together and were bound by ethnicity and class because they were all poor (335). They were all going through similar situations and they had to help each other out. They did so in Mexican neighborhoods called barrios. Mexicans did not have a great experience in America and their dreams did not come true. A Mexican father said that his son was “American by nationality, but Mexicano by blood,” (338).
How could Americans encourage Mexicans to cross the border for labor and then force these Mexicans to go back to Mexico? Capitalism, money, greed, and laziness all could have contributed to these actions. Americans “imported Mexicans for labor, and just for that purpose,” (318). They wanted to provide Mexicans with the feeling of being in a community, but only the feeling. This feeling would then make Mexicans happier and like the Japanese they would work well and more profit would be made. With Mexicans, Americans could get “more for their money,” (321). They had to settle for cheap labor because that is all they could get. Once a Mexican finished their job such as harvesting a crop they were kicked out on the street.
“Much was different in El Norte,” (339). To say the least. It is all about politics and money. An example is “School policy was influenced by the needs of the local growers,” (327). Mexicans wanted what was good for them, and they wanted equality. However, Mexicans thought that sitting with blacks would humiliate them. This may have been based on the white views of the blacks, but Mexicans still also viewed blacks as inferior. Even though class divisions were increasing, the major division was still race. Some whites were poor and in the lowest class division, yet were still above all of other races.
Foreigners in Their Native Land
In Chapter 7: “Foreigners in Their Native Land” Takaki concludes that similarly to Irish work, Mexican conquest and land was a necessity for American, or “white,” expansion.
Mexican land was the only thing between the United States border and the Pacific Ocean. Americans, whites, had gone into Mexican territory and were claiming it as theirs. Americans coming into this territory were at first accepted. But, they viewed Mexicans as idle, lazy, and inefficient in enterprise, and this would soon lead to conflicts. As Richard Henry Dana stated, “In the hands of an enterprising people [whites], what a country this might be!” (171). People began to come in groups to the western land, and they were coming to change the image from Mexican to American. “The idea these people [whites] formed is that God made the world and them, so what is in the world belongs to them as sons of God,” (172). They viewed themselves as conquerors, not to be confused with thieves or robbers of course. The Mexican-American War ensued. For white Americans, a goal was to obtain more land which equates to more money. Whites viewed the conflicts and war as attempting to redeem land from the “wilderness” and to civilize a “mongrel Spanish-Indian and negro race,” (174). The idea of Manifest Destiny “embraced a belief in American Anglo-Saxon superiority,” and gave them the right to western lands to the Pacific Ocean because they were destined to obtain that land (176). After the conquest of their land, Mexicans were guaranteed to have the rights of American citizens if they wished to stay. They were now “foreigners in their own land,” (178). They were not treated as citizens though. The creation of laws aimed at Mexicans made it even harder for Mexicans to be “Americans.” Mexicans soon lost much of their land and became poor. Mexicans had to settle for the worst jobs, and less pay than Anglos. A “West Coast version of the ‘giddy multitude’” thus formed with these discontent Mexicans (188). Once again, whites enter a foreign land and feel that they have a right to it because they are special, white. They take the land without consent and allow the native people of the land to stay there and experience all rights of citizenship. However, whites discriminate against this foreign group and in practice do not give them the promised rights of citizenship.
Thomas Jefferson had a “vision of an American continent covered with ‘a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws,’” (166).
Jefferson did not say the same skin color, or race, but was that supposed to be another similarity in his vision? There are so many contradictions that could be brought up on this subject. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaved, yet wanted slavery to be abolished? Indians and Mexicans owned land that was taken from them by whites. They cooperated with these whites, yet still they became targets of discrimination and oppression. Are whites the only group of people that can speak and be governed the same?
I think a lot of irony was brought up in this chapter. The Irish had been pushed from Ireland by British colonialism, and were later in the United States armed forces, aiding in the conquest of another peoples, Mexicans (167). Today there is so much talk about Mexicans being illegal aliens in the United States. However, the land they cross into was first theirs and people from the United States previously came there as illegal immigrants before conquering the land from the Mexicans. Mexicans ended up working for strangers in their native land. President Polk said that war was trying to be avoided, yet American volunteers killed Mexicans for their own amusement? Also, if the white Anglos were so superior, why did they have to rely on others such as Indians and the Irish so much for success?
Mexican land was the only thing between the United States border and the Pacific Ocean. Americans, whites, had gone into Mexican territory and were claiming it as theirs. Americans coming into this territory were at first accepted. But, they viewed Mexicans as idle, lazy, and inefficient in enterprise, and this would soon lead to conflicts. As Richard Henry Dana stated, “In the hands of an enterprising people [whites], what a country this might be!” (171). People began to come in groups to the western land, and they were coming to change the image from Mexican to American. “The idea these people [whites] formed is that God made the world and them, so what is in the world belongs to them as sons of God,” (172). They viewed themselves as conquerors, not to be confused with thieves or robbers of course. The Mexican-American War ensued. For white Americans, a goal was to obtain more land which equates to more money. Whites viewed the conflicts and war as attempting to redeem land from the “wilderness” and to civilize a “mongrel Spanish-Indian and negro race,” (174). The idea of Manifest Destiny “embraced a belief in American Anglo-Saxon superiority,” and gave them the right to western lands to the Pacific Ocean because they were destined to obtain that land (176). After the conquest of their land, Mexicans were guaranteed to have the rights of American citizens if they wished to stay. They were now “foreigners in their own land,” (178). They were not treated as citizens though. The creation of laws aimed at Mexicans made it even harder for Mexicans to be “Americans.” Mexicans soon lost much of their land and became poor. Mexicans had to settle for the worst jobs, and less pay than Anglos. A “West Coast version of the ‘giddy multitude’” thus formed with these discontent Mexicans (188). Once again, whites enter a foreign land and feel that they have a right to it because they are special, white. They take the land without consent and allow the native people of the land to stay there and experience all rights of citizenship. However, whites discriminate against this foreign group and in practice do not give them the promised rights of citizenship.
Thomas Jefferson had a “vision of an American continent covered with ‘a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws,’” (166).
Jefferson did not say the same skin color, or race, but was that supposed to be another similarity in his vision? There are so many contradictions that could be brought up on this subject. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaved, yet wanted slavery to be abolished? Indians and Mexicans owned land that was taken from them by whites. They cooperated with these whites, yet still they became targets of discrimination and oppression. Are whites the only group of people that can speak and be governed the same?
I think a lot of irony was brought up in this chapter. The Irish had been pushed from Ireland by British colonialism, and were later in the United States armed forces, aiding in the conquest of another peoples, Mexicans (167). Today there is so much talk about Mexicans being illegal aliens in the United States. However, the land they cross into was first theirs and people from the United States previously came there as illegal immigrants before conquering the land from the Mexicans. Mexicans ended up working for strangers in their native land. President Polk said that war was trying to be avoided, yet American volunteers killed Mexicans for their own amusement? Also, if the white Anglos were so superior, why did they have to rely on others such as Indians and the Irish so much for success?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
