Erasing @race

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

Johnson Chapter 8 (ex.)

Chapter 8: Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance

Thesis: Everyone is part of the problem of privilege, and no one can avoid being part of it. However, many people try to escape being part of the problem through different means and leave the problem for others to attempt to resolve.

Argument/Support:
“No one likes to see themselves as connected to someone else’s misery,” (108). Most people immediately find a way to get themselves off the hook. However, everyone is on the hook because we cannot avoid being part of the problem of privilege. Dominant groups are more likely to not know they are on the hook and privilege usually allows them to get away with it (108). Everyone needs to wake up and be part of the solution though. One way people get off the hook is by denial. The isms do not exist today…oh but the do, so this is just denying the facts. Denying the reality of oppression means that one is also denying privilege. Another way in which people get off the hook is to blame the victim such as, “if blacks were all white then there would not be a problem,” (110). A third way people get off the hook is to call the problem something else. “A way of denying oppression and privilege is to call them something else, so they do not have to do something about it,” (111). Another way people get off the hook is by considering talking about privilege the problem and not privilege itself. “Racism is not a problem unless you talk about it,” (113). Not true. People may not recognize the problem as much if no one talks about it, but it does not just disappear. We are all in the problem, so we must come together in order to talk about it and make changes to fix the problem. People also use the “It doesn’t count if you don’t mean it” technique to get off the hook (114). If intentions are not meant to do harm, then no harm can be done. Intentions do not matter once something has been done or said. The consequences will remain the same after the action even if intentions were good. Yet another way people get off the hook is to convince everyone that they are a good person, and only bad people create bad things. The problem of privilege and oppression leaves no one out though, everyone is involved. People in privileged groups also say they are sick and tired of hearing about oppression and privilege and they seem annoyed by it. They say that it is talked about “all the time” and “they have troubles of their own,” (122). A final way people get off the hook is to get on the hook, or be committed and a part of the problem.

Personal Response/Question:
How can people in privileged groups say that the oppressed are at fault for “their own problem?” Blacks did not choose to be black, or rather nonwhite. I am almost positive there are some people with black skin that at times wish they were white. Being white means being privileged by race. Even though race is made up, society has also made it so white people were privileged. Some oppressed people may not be doing all they can to solve the problem of privilege, but the privileged individuals must also help to solve it.Think before you speak and before you take offense to something said. Do not say something that seconds later you know you should not have said, or “you did not mean it.” Also, people may word what they say a little weird or it may just slip out wrong. Before taking offense to something ask if what you heard is what was said, and if so then possibly ask for a small explanation of what the speaker meant. Accept the fact that everyone is a part of this problem of privilege and try to solve it with everyone.

Johnson Chapter 7 (ex.)

Chapter 7: How Systems of Privilege Work

Thesis: “Privilege and oppression exist only through social systems and people’s participation in them,” (90). Systems of privilege are dominated by, identified with, and centered on privileged groups.

Argument/Support:
An idea exists that “members of privileged groups are superior,” (90). This is supported in our society. Positions of power are usually held by people in a privileged group, meaning that our system of privilege is dominated by a privileged group. Power held by privileged group members is “assumed,” while other cases are “exceptions,” (91). One group’s privilege is always at the expense of another group. “Male privilege at women’s expense,” (94). “Those who don’t look like people in power will feel invisible and this allows inequality and privilege to repeat itself,” (95). Our system of privilege is identified with privileged groups, as they are used as the group to compare to because they are considered “the best.” America is identified as white, despite the many different ethnicities that live in America. As white as the standard, all other groups may be placed in one large group of nonwhites, or “other,” (96). Our system of privilege also centers on the privileged groups. Those not in the privileged groups might feel invisible, and they in a sense are. “Actions do not have to be conscious in order to center attention on dominant groups at the expense of everyone else. It simply flows along down a path of least resistance,” (103). “Isms” are often used to describe how people feel and behave (104). Silence and not doing anything can be a part of “isms” because not standing up against them only allows them to exist further. People can make it possible for oppression to happen “simply by doing nothing to stop it,” (106). People in privileged groups often do nothing and feel that isms have nothing to do with them, but all whites are in a privileged group and they all have to deal with these isms.

Personal Response/Question:
Why did Johnson include this chapter in his book? Of course systems of PRIVILEGE are going to be dominated, identified with, and centered on PRIVILEGED groups. I think Johnson’s purpose for including this chapter was to show how difficult life is for the oppressed groups and that the privileged groups need to do something about it. “Subordinate groups are in a double bind. If they do nothing, they are invisible. If they try to do something, they are accused of seeking special treatment,” (104). I believe that subordinate groups or oppressed groups cannot really change their status. Therefore, the privileged groups are held responsible for the entire future of our system of privilege, and changing the problem. Of course, oppressed groups must come together with the privileged groups, but the privileged groups must initiate the beginning of solving the problem of privilege.

Johnson Chapter 6 (ex.)

Chapter 6: What It All Has to Do with Us

Thesis: Everyone is involved in our system of privilege and oppression, and we all need to talk about the trouble in our system in order to change it.

Argument/Support:
“The problem begins with how people think about things and who they are in relation to them,” (76). Johnson also states that people are less likely to cross diversity lines in order to help the less privileged, but will more likely help someone of more equal privilege. People feel that it is too risky to talk about privilege and the trouble that exists because of privilege. Especially people that receive the privilege do not want to risk losing any of their privilege. Individualism is a factor that aids our system of privilege because it is centered on the individual, but our system of privilege is actually centered around groups in which individuals are categorized in to (77). People need to see that they are part of certain groups, and these groups are all involved in our system of privilege, so therefore need to be a part of the solution to the problem. “Social life happens only as people participate in social systems,” (78). Through this, we are positioned in “ranks” compared to other people especially on a power and privilege standpoint. As individuals, we usually take a “path of least resistance” and do not violent norms. We base our actions on society, and the groups in society, and we tend to act “normally.” Not following a path of least resistance might result in drawing attention to us and we fear what else could happen. “Social life produces a variety of consequences, including privilege and oppression,” (84). “We all participate in systems of privilege and oppression and we make them happen,” (85). We are then part of the problem and we can be part of the solution. All individuals can do their small part and in a huge group effort a solution may be found. Our society can be described as a game of Monopoly: as long as people play, then the game exists like our system of privilege; everyone tries to win just like all people want privilege and want to keep any privilege they have; and the game changes how people act like our system of privilege and our society changes the way we act.

Personal Response/Question:
What does this mean in terms of today? Well, we still have the same system of privilege and we are all a part of it. Everyone has socially been categorized into groups. Some of these groups are privileged while others are oppressed. We cannot escape this system, so we must come together as a universal group and work together to obtain a goal, solution.I agree with Johnson 100%! We are all a part of this system of privilege that exists in our society, and we must not exclude ourselves. We have to see ourselves as part of the problem in order to be part of the solution. An obligation should be felt to do something about our system of privilege and the trouble that exists in it.

How Jews Became White Folks

In “How Jews Became White Folks” Brodkin concludes that Jews, along with other people of white skin color, were able to move upward in America while blacks still faced discrimination and segregation.

“America once regarded its immigrant European workers as something other than white, as biologically different,” (38). As Jews began coming to America, some were just viewed as whites. Jewish ethnic heritage included the belief that they were smart and successful because of their efforts, abilities, and hard work (38). However, these were not the only factors that allowed Jews to become successful. Jews were viewed as inferior just like several other “races” or “groups.” Jews eventually would become “whitened” and in a sense change races. The whole idea of races may trace back to Europe, where Irish were viewed as an inferior race. In Europe, Jews were just part of the white population. In America, however, Jews became one of the lowest classes and also one of the lowest races because race and class were interwoven (40). Jews lived in the worst neighborhoods, in the filthiest buildings, and were viewed as unwashed, unrefined, loud, and pushy (41). The Jewish were secluded in society, but soon things changed. The postwar boom that followed World War II allowed formerly working class Jews to enter the middle class (45). A large middle class formed, which include the old whites and the new whites (Jews and other immigrants with white skin formerly labeled inferior). The transition to middle class and economic prosperity aided in the “whitening” process of the Euro-ethnics (43). Following World War II there was an increase in colleges and education, and the GI Bill was supposed to aid war veterans in getting jobs, housing, and an education (44). It did just this…for white males. However, women and blacks did not receive the full benefits of the GI Bill. Racial violence increased after the war and gains were lost. Suburbs became upper class, white neighborhoods, and blacks were forced to remain living in the cities which was the lowest place to live. Segregation and redlining kept blacks out of the suburbs because loans were nearly impossible for blacks to get (being in the redlined neighborhoods), and they could not sell their homes with no one wanting to buy them. “To blacks, the government offered the cement boots of segregation, redlining, urban renewal, and discrimination,” (50). Therefore, Jews were able to move upward and become white due to a huge “affirmative action program,” and blacks were excluded from this program because racial inequality seems to maintain itself naturally, (50).

Why could Jews, Irish, and other groups move upward in society while African Americans or blacks could not? Skin color. Jews and Irish and other groups from Europe were white. They could become “white” based on society, and above people of color. Of course, class was still divided, and the upper class was mainly just the “original whites” and the middle class had more Jews and Irish than did the upper class. People with white skin were also seen as being able to assimilate quickly, as compared to people of color who could not. However, if I remember correctly blacks were prevented from any form of education when they came to America, not getting a chance to assimilate.

I am grateful that Jews (and Irish, etc.) were able to become “white,” but if only people of color would have been allowed to enjoy the benefits of the GI Bill as well, then things would be a lot better today. Equality would still be far away, but things could be a lot better. “Instead of seizing the opportunity to end institutionalized racism, the federal government did its level best to shut and double-seal the postwar window of opportunity in African Americans’ faces,” (49).

Race: The Power of An Illusion (Episode 3)

In episode 3 of, Race: The Power of An Illusion titled “The House We Live In,” race is identified as being an illusion, but it is also “profoundly real” because it is the first thing we notice about a person.

Skin color and other physical characteristics are the first things that we notice about a person. Often times, whether we mean to or not, these physical characteristics create judgments of who these people are. Stereotypes and assumptions are made from outward appearance. People also think they can “know” a person just by how they look and their skin color. Race means nothing without the social meaning placed with certain races. This means that we cannot really “see” race, not only because it is made up, but also because it is defined by social meaning. Chances, opportunities, and identities are all affected by race. If certain races are oppressed, then they want to “fit in” somehow and feel more accepted and less oppressed. Immigrants were oppressed when they came over to America. They originally hoped for a better life and many opportunities. However, immigrants became oppressed and placed below all whites that were already in America. However, immigrants that had white skin would eventually be able to use their “whiteness” to oppress blacks and other “races.” American citizens used to be defined as white. Immigrants started out as not being included as citizens, but those that were white became included later because they were white. Possibly the most oppressed racial group would be considered the blacks. In the past, race was defined as what percent ancestry you were, and this was defined differently in different states. Therefore, one could cross a state line and change races, agreeing with the fact that race is a made up and socially constructed idea. Also, this shows that those in power, “whites,” determined races. “Whiteness” was what the common white said it was, and this resulted in white privilege. Those that had ancestry that were not white were considered foreigners, and from this they could not receive white privilege even if they were white. The FHA and the GI Bill racialized neighborhoods and constructed even more “whiteness.” This also increased racial inequality due to wealth.

The GI Bill was intended to aid all war veterans. Why did this bill not do what it was supposed to do? Fear? Power? Privilege? Difference? All of these played its part in the GI Bill not producing the right results. Whites saw blacks as different because of their skin color and felt that blacks were less human or “not as good” because of that. Whites were also in power and had white privilege. They did not want to give this power or privilege away, and they feared they may lose some of it if blacks were aided by the GI Bill just like whites were.

Race is made up and socially constructed. Therefore, race does not say anything about a person and race should not matter at all. What should matter is what is on the inside. What a person thinks and feels and believes should matter. If anything should classify people into groups, I would have to say religion would be the difference that it is based on. And this difference would be real, not created as race is. Also, there would not be so many problems because one’s religion cannot be seen by just looking at someone.

Chris Rock Affirmative Action

Affirmative action?

Chris Rock makes a good point that if he does not get a better grade on a test then he should not get in to a school or get a job ahead of anyone that gets a better grade than him. However, if there is a tie, then he should get the job over a white person. “They [whites] have had a full hundred year head start.” This humor is quite true in a sense though. White people did have a head start. They prevented many blacks from an education and the opportunity to read and write. I know it cannot be made up to blacks now, but it would seem “more fair” to give ties to the black people. Chris also says that it is suspected that the smartest and the brightest run the country. This is not true though. Our nation is a “nation in the middle” with mostly B or C students. The problem of our nation is that a black C student cannot be manager of a Burger King as Chris said, and yet a white C student can be president of the United States.

Whites are privileged in our society and that would be extremely difficult to end. If everyone works together though, we can make a difference and reduce the white privilege. We should make a goal to strive for more equality among people of any color or ethnicity.

C.A.R.E.- Still Confronting Race: From Dialogues to Action (ex. cred.)

Does Bowling Green State University have unity, diversity, or neither?

First off, the moderator in this presentation was white and the four guest speakers appeared to be of different ethnicities, or “races.” I thought it was a little weird, or ironic that this was the situation. Anyway, one of the first major points that I got was that racism could be a conscious or an unconscious act. Also, racism is based partly on institutions such as Bowling Green State University. The first speaker, Dr. Anderson, spoke about how he views the Confederate flag as a racist symbol and that we may be placing too much emphasis on culture or habits. The second speaker, student Laura Saavedra, mentioned how race is not just black and white, and we all have a responsibility and need to raise awareness of the problems with race. She also said that in the Bowling Green State University mission statement diversity was encouraged, but due to the lack of, we need to work together to make changes. The third speaker, Dr. Chen, brought statistics showing that there is more white faculty based on percent than there should be compared to Ohio’s population census. Minorities are underrepresented at Bowling Green State University. She also said how guilt put on people dealing with race can lead to them withdrawing themselves. The final speaker, Dr. Adams, mentioned how race is structural and capitalism prevents equality. He also said that people need to be vulnerable in order for changes to be made. Whites need to be allowed to make mistakes, and people of color need to be allowed to be angry. Based on all of the speakers, Bowling Green State University has neither unity nor diversity. Maybe there is a little of both. It was pointed out that staff and faculty are just as much related to the issue of race as students are, and they should attend such presentations as this just like students do. Dr. Adams also pointed out that the U.S. flag, the stars and stripes, is just as much a symbol of racism as the Confederate flag because “the stars and stripes committed genocide on the Indians, and the stars and stripes took the land away from the Mexicans.” To sum up the presentation, we need to take action and come together in order to do something about the problems and troubles we face with such issues as race.

Could equality exist in a capitalist society? I believe equality could exist in a capitalist society. What Dr. Adams did not mention was greed. Greed and ambition make people strive for more money and power which is allowed in a capitalist system. Therefore, it is not capitalism that prevents equality, but the people and their human flaws that prevent equality. Greed and ambition lead people to do whatever it takes to get to the top and stay on top even at the price of another group of people.

I agree with most of what was said during the presentation. We have to realize that white people do make mistakes and people of color do have some anger. Also, we do need to come together in order to make changes and do something about the problems with race. Also, a student from the audience pointed out that the other isms must also be considered when talking about racism. The speakers agreed, and just as Johnson stated I also agree. I do not completely agree with the Confederate flag being a racist symbol though. I think that the ideas and actions of the past from a certain area, the South, have made this flag become to some a symbol of racism. However, the flag itself symbolizes the area of the old South, and then the old South, through harsh treatment of blacks, represents slavery and idea of racism.

Johnson Chapter 5

Chapter 5: The Trouble with the Trouble

Thesis: The problem of difference and our system of privilege is a result of a lack of universality. By this, I mean that privilege is not a key issue/concern to EVERYONE. Dominant groups usually do not deal with the issue of privilege and oppression, and if they do they do not put much effort into it.

Argument/Support:
As Johnson puts it best, “Privilege has to be as much an issue for the dominant groups as it is for those who bear the brunt of the oppression it causes in everyday life,” (69). “Dominant groups don’t see privilege as a problem for various reasons,” (69). One reason is the mere fact that the dominant groups do not notice the problem. They are unaware of such a problem especially because they do not have the oppression to face daily. Another reason why they do not see privilege as a problem is that they do not need to unless a serious event alters the flow of things. Dominant groups also may see privilege as a personal problem. They think, “If other people get less, it’s up to them to do something about it,” (70). Dominant groups do not want to lose their privilege either. When someone has something good why let it go? A final reason why dominant groups do not see privilege as a problem is because they fear being blamed for the problem and experiencing a guilty conscience. Johnson mentions and explains two strategies for communicating to the dominant groups. The first strategy is the “tin cup” approach, which depends on an impulse of generosity toward others (72). However, most people are not very willing to help those that need help. The second strategy is the “business case” approach, which emphasizes doing something about privilege and oppression because it makes organizations work better (73). This strategy depends on the results-if organizations really do work better or not. Privileged groups must view the problem as their own so that they feel the need to do something to change it. They need that “reason to feel committed to change,” (75). Barriers need to be removed across difference and we all have to realize that we are all a part of privilege in order to change the trouble with privilege.

Personal Response/Question:
As I asked before, “When someone has something good why let it go?” Privileged groups should be willing to give up their privilege for society and the future of society. Their children may one day be part of an oppressed group if the system of privilege continues. To not be willing to give it up would be natural, but also selfish and greedy. Sometimes players have to make sacrifices for the team. We are all involved in this system of privilege and we are all in this together, so we need to change.
We need to convince everyone to work together somehow. During any natural disasters or similar event there seems to be more of a sense of unity in the country as a whole. However, soon after that unity disappears again. Everyone is in this together. Dominant groups have to see that if the oppressed groups go down, then they go down too. Not recognizing the trouble in privilege is a serious issue and may lead to long term disaster. We need to find a great persuasive speaker and have him/her convince everyone to join together in order to be able to save our society from the trouble of privilege.

Johnson Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Making Privilege Happen

Thesis: People, or individuals, create the privilege that is attached to certain groups.

Argument/Support:
Johnson states that people make privilege by what they do or don’t do in relation to others, and discrimination is often a factor in this process (54). People view and treat others based on the social categories that they appear to be associated with. “Privilege happens through what people think and feel and do because discrimination is connected to these directly,” (55). People want and feel the need to be seen and accepted by others. “Inclusion and acceptance are key aspects of privilege,” (55). Many small actions show whether we welcome someone or not. If I were to look at a person while I spoke to them, then I am welcoming him. If I were to not do this for another person, then I displayed privilege to the first person and not to the second. Even if one’s intentions were not bad, others may feel and experience a sense of oppression. Therefore, one may create his/her own privilege or oppression. Individuals have created racism in America. One’s skin color is defined to determine one’s race, and blacks are the social category that is most oppressed due to racism. Johnson says that blacks may feel vulnerable to judgment daily because of their race and racism causes many to “see the worst” in blacks instead of the best (57). “Racism requires hypocrisy toward deeply held cultural values of fairness, decency, and justice,” (62). Even though cultural history has shown fairness to all, people still do not deal with difference well by discriminating against those of a different skin color. However, the trouble of privilege is not just on the blacks. The trouble is with everyone because everyone is part of one group or another, whether it be a privileged group or oppressed group. This means that everyone can do something about this trouble of privilege also. Individuals are all associated with certain groups and these groups therefore have the burden of the trouble placed on them as a whole too. “Much of the trouble is embedded in structures of power and inequality that shape almost every aspect of life in this society,” (66). Everyone has to come together and face this trouble as a society in order to change it.

Personal Response/Question:
Is privilege created more by the privileged as opposed to by the oppressed? Are privilege groups at fault for the trouble that exists? I believe that privilege can be created by any individual or group disregarding whether privileged or oppressed. Privileged people may be seen as “at fault” or “the bad guys” but some may have good intentions that are taken the wrong way. Yes, several privileged individuals want all the power, control, and superiority at whatever cost, but some do care about those that are oppressed. In order to change the problem of privilege though, everyone is needed because everyone is involved.
Everyone makes privilege happen in one way or another. Sometimes it may be unintentional, but that does not take the trouble away. I do not think it is very likely that the trouble of privilege will ever be fixed. I do hope for a better tomorrow though, one in which our children do not judge based on color and every person is given somewhat equal opportunity. Just this would be a huge step to take, but it is very possible if everyone comes together and wants the trouble to change. Some people, mostly the privileged, may not want any changes because they do not have to deal with oppression daily. Everyone needs to want to change the trouble in order to try to change it.

Johnson Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination

Thesis: Capitalism and economic systems are major reasons for the problems that our society has to face with differences, especially concerning race.

Argument/Support:
“Economic systems are the source of wealth, they are also the basis for every social institution, since social institutions cannot survive without an economic basis,” (42). Race is socially constructed, from these social institutions. Therefore, economic systems created and continue the idea of race. It is all a “matter of economics,” (42). Capitalism is based on profit or making more money regardless of whether it is obtained with good morals or not. There is no way to tell from “good” money and “bad” money (42). In a system of capitalism the upper class basically controls the lower class because they own the places of employment where the lower class has to work. The upper class has allowed greed to cover morals as seen in the past with extremely cheap labor in order to maximize personal profit. “The dynamics of capitalism produce high and increasing levels of inequality,” (43). The richest people hold more and more of the wealth, and gaps are only increasing between income, wealth, and power. The lower class of people have to suffer because of capitalism and compete against one another in order to survive. Our society is a “zero-sum society” because “one person’s gain is always someone else’s loss,” (45). Just a couple centuries ago the white men of the “New America” advanced economically in society only through the enslavement of blacks. Similarly, Chinese and Japanese immigrants went through harsh labor conditions to try to make ends meet in America. “Whites used a combination of conquest, genocide, and insincere treaties to get what they wanted and justified their actions by an idea of whiteness defining a privileged social category,” (46). Capitalism thus creates differences in class and privileges the upper class. Also, capitalism has allowed whites, males, and heterosexuals to be privileged as well. To change the trouble in our capitalist system of privilege we must do something about all types of privilege because they are all related and cannot be separated as described by the “matrix of domination,” (52).

Personal Response/Question:
How did the phrase “Manifest Destiny” and the actions that resulted from it justify and support capitalism? The phrase “Manifest Destiny” was used to show that the U.S. was destined to expand westward to the Pacific Ocean. This turned into the expansion of the whites, and all other people of different skin colors were just “used” by the white people for their own benefit. “Destiny” in a sense justified capitalism and supported it by making any actions okay as long as they involved westward expansion.
I feel that certain negative effects of capitalism may far outweigh the positive effects. Capitalism increases inequality and puts too much power in the hands of the upper class. Difference in class and class privilege is related to all forms of privilege, therefore making the trouble harder to overcome. Capitalism can produce good profit and a seemingly good economy, but should it give more privilege to the already privileged groups?

Johnson Chapter 2

Chapter 2: Privilege, Oppression, and Difference

Thesis: We are in trouble, and we need to find the best way to deal with the present problem of difference before passing it on to future generations. Power and privilege are the real problems. People fear talking about or acknowledging privilege and power because of the chance that it might make them, associated with a certain group, uncomfortable.

Argument/Support:
“The trouble that surrounds difference is really about privilege and power (12).” Dominant groups in society rarely talk about power and privilege because it may cause an uncomfortable state for them. “The fear keeps us from looking at what’s going on and makes it impossible to do anything about the reality that lies deeper down (12).” We learn how to associate people with groups and we learn to view people certain ways. Therefore, “The problem is our ideas about what we don’t know (13).” Diversity is present and always will be, but the differences in social characteristics means nothing. Okay, it means something, but it tells us nothing about the actual person it is “supposed to” represent. Perception is key in this world because how people perceive you determines how they treat you, what group(s) you will be placed in, and what opportunities and rewards you may get. “The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass (16).” People assume too much and are quick to judge, or form impressions based on what they see, and then they use their impressions to compare people to themselves or others. Any difference, even a small one, might place one group of people lower and another group higher and in the dominant position. Social construction affects the way people think and form conclusions. “most of what we experience as ‘real’ is a cultural creation…it’s made up (17).” What people learn through their life creates an image and idea of what “normal” is even though there is no definition for “normal.” The dominant group takes on the “responsibility” of defining in their own way what is or should be normal. Language can define people as part of a group and can create a sense of inferiority. We often think that our culture is right, or what our culture defines as normal is normal no matter what others have to say. In terms of privilege some created groups are privileged while other groups are the opposite, oppressed. As long as the privileged groups are still privileged then they see no need for change. “The most visible consequences of privilege is the uneven distribution of jobs, wealth, and income and all that goes with it (32).” Those that are privileged have choices, when those that are oppressed do not have choices. Privilege is, however, created by people and only represents those perceived as being part of a certain group, and the only thing that matters is what people think of you and not who you actually are. Therefore, individuals of a privileged or oppressed group are not all the same and cannot be classified with similar characteristics because the groups they belong to are created by society and not on any factual information from the individuals.

Key Concepts:

Difference- not the problem, but contains the trouble. People view difference as a means of separation and grouping. Differences in social characteristics place people in different groups. However, differences do not really say anything except for that single trait about an individual.

Privilege- “when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (21).” Privilege is present daily, where the privileged groups are more likely to end up with something good. Unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the result of privilege. “Privilege increases the odds of having things your own way (33),” and it also results in having more choice. “To have privilege is to be allowed to move through your life without being marked in ways that identify you as an outsider (33).”

Two Types of Privilege (22-23) –
1. “unearned entitlements” or the “things of value that all people should have.” Examples are feeling safe in public and working in a place where you feel you belong.
2. “conferred dominance” or when one group has power over another group. Examples are when a boy is called “mama’s boy” or when a man is labeled “whipped.” These titles come from cultural assumptions though.

Oppression- the opposite of privilege. Groups are considered oppressed only if there is a group that is privileged, in order for there to be a counter.

Social Construction- a fake reality created by the society. Based on human assumptions and perceptions, there are created groups of privilege and oppression. People are placed into groups based on comparison and what others “think” they are, but not even necessarily who they really are.

Privilege as Paradox (34-35) – “Granting of privilege has nothing to do with who those individuals are as people.” Individuals get privileges based on the way others perceive them, and by being placed in a privileged group. Just because one is part of a privileged group does not mean that happiness will come to this person. Life choices allow for the privileged to squander what they have and end up below the oppressed. However, a white, heterosexual male is still just that even if he wasted his life savings away. He is still part of three privileged groups just listed.

Johnson Chapter 1

Chapter 1: Rodney King’s Question

Thesis: “Can’t we all just get along (1)?” No.

Argument/Support:
Not everyone can manage to get along with everyone else. Racism and its effects are everywhere, and create “the problem of the color line.” Words such as “racism” must be used because “if we dispense with the words, we make it impossible to talk about what’s really going on and what it has to do with us,” (2). Color is not the only issue that makes it hard for people to get along. “Differences in gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and numerous lesser divides,” all lead to people not getting along (2). Male domination, daily used stereotypes, discrimination, and inferior classification of certain groups does not display a peaceful and friendly society. “Human nature” is used by many as the reason for us not getting along, because people fear the unfamiliar and think that there is only one acceptable group such as white, heterosexual, “able” people (3). We, as a part of society, are in trouble. We cannot get along as a society… as a whole. People accept some into their group, yet deny others the chance. “You’d think we could treat one another with decency and respect,” and in this sense “get along” (5). Something prevents everyone from getting along though…difference, power, and privilege. An example of this would be the difference between a male and a female. Males are privileged in our society and therefore have more power. Females must suffer from this male privilege and power though. “A female’s misfortune is connected to a male’s good fortune,” (7). Females have to deal with sexism, whereas males do not. Males must recognize sexism and know that it exists even though they may think it does not exist just because they do not have to deal with it. “The trouble we’re in privileges some groups at the expense of others…It sets people against one another,” (7). This means that everyone is involved in this “trouble” or “problem,” and everyone can then be part of the solution. People in the privileged groups cannot leave it up to the others to fix this problem because it is a system of privilege that our society has adapted and defined through history and the effort of those privileged is needed also. It may be quite easy to not think much about privilege when one is part of the dominant group, but people of dominant groups are part of the solution.

Personal Response/Question:
“Someone, after all, has to be on top,” (3). Is this what our society is based on? Greed, wealth, and power are three of the most popular nouns describing what most people wish for and strive for. Our society is too selfish and we need to start being unselfish. We do not need someone on top. We could do fine with everyone being on the same level. The only problem is that we have had someone on top for so long that we do not know how to successfully lower them and heighten the bottom people to reach an equilibrium.
I agree with Johnson when he says that we cannot all just get along. I think that the people that are most privileged and have most of the power and wealth will not be willing to reach any sort of compromise to “level the playing field.” If you are on top why would you want anything to change? As Johnson mentioned, our future starts now and generations to come will learn to adapt our system of privilege and if anything make it worse if we do not take action to change it. Everyone is part of the problem and solution, so act now to change the future.

Emigrants from Erin

In Chapter 6: “Emigrants from Erin” Takaki concludes that some Irish were forced to move to America and compared to the blacks, but they were able to advance in society.

“In the Age of Jackson blacks suddenly were competing with Irish workers,” (139). The Irish had white skin though, which was thought to “privilege” them and place them above the blacks. At first the Irish did not want to leave their homeland. “The Irish viewed themselves as a people driven from their beloved homeland by ‘English tyranny,’ and they were merely British slaves. The poverty of Ireland was also caused by English colonial policies,” (140). The English were once to the Irish as the whites were to the blacks. The Irish and the blacks were slaves, forced away from their homeland, and were used for the improvement of another group of people. At one time in Ireland, “the British colonialism and its emphasis on exports had reduced the Irish people to extremely harsh living conditions,” (141). “However, progress for landlords meant pauperization for the peasants,” (142). Irish began wanting to move to America, or the “Land of Promise.” Instead of living in horrible conditions and as slaves they wanted to have a better life… possibly in America? They wanted to escape the tyranny, oppression, and poorness. Some poor Irish that stayed in their homeland survived on potatoes, but when the Great Famine came conditions only got worse. More Irish emigrated to America in order to avoid death. Coming to America, the Irish experienced traumatic conditions like black slaves had experienced on slave ships and about 20% died on the journey or right after (145). The Irish soon became like blacks and were slaves to the other whites because of the hard labor they did every day for the whites. “The Irish had high accident rates, for they were frequently assigned to the hazardous jobs that other whites did not want to do,” (147). “Irish laborers were thought nothing of more than dogs,” (147). They were placed below the blacks because black slaves had a certain value, but an Irish person did not have any value to the landowners. However, the Irish and blacks were both viewed as outcasts and savages and of very low intelligence (149). Soon the Irish began getting more opportunities. Irish children began to be educated to avoid “falling back to a savage life” and the Irish used their whiteness against the blacks. “They sought to become insiders, or Americans, by claiming their membership as whites,” (151). Also, the Irish were seen to assimilate rapidly, were already Christians, had white skin, and spoke English, making it easier for them to become citizens. So, the Irish first experienced a nightmare in America, but soon went from “rags to riches,” (163).

Were the English really the bad guys or the good guys? Of course, perspective plays a major role in this decision. To the English, they were probably just making things great for themselves, and their people. However, I feel the English were bad guys…bullies. They took land from the Irish and left many laborers jobless. When the British put emphasis on exports, about 90% of laborers were then not needed. The Irish saw the English as “savage tyrants,” (140). They appear to be just as savage as Irish or blacks.

I thought that it was quite interesting how similar early America and Ireland were. The Irish were like the Indians and blacks of America. I also noticed too cases of true irony: 1. The Irish were treated like dogs, below everyone, but advanced to being only below the other whites. 2. The Irish were oppressed in Ireland and then oppressed the blacks in America. That’s what we should not do-bring others down because we were once down.

A Challenge to Democracy

In the video, “A Challenge to Democracy” Japanese people living in the United States were treated as an exclusive group, in a bad way. The ideas of liberty, personal rights and freedoms, and the pursuit of happiness were strictly being denied to the Japanese.

The people of Japanese decent were being evacuated and relocated by the military and government. These were war relocations based on fear on distrust of the Japanese race and ethnicity. All of the Japanese were placed in a large community similar to a prison. This community was of course secluded and often made on previously unoccupied land. “There were wire fences around the community” and men were on watch 24-7. Just as the Japanese had already done, they began farming the previously unoccupied land, and they were successful. Many Japanese were farmers, so much food was produced inside the community. Basic education was provided to the children, but at older ages they began to learn a certain trade. Living conditions and housing was not very good, but they could have been worse. “Facilities were barely adequate”, but sports, arts, and religious times were provided. Families were given shelter and food, so necessities were provided. The Japanese were constantly supervised by whites and even Japanese doctors that worked inside the community had to be supervised, and not “in charge” of anything. If Japanese Americans were soldiers they were not placed in the community though. As long as they are fighting for the country, and helping the country then they are not “disturbed” as much. When relocating the Japanese from the community to other locations, the whites were very careful and cautious. Japanese only became “eligible” to leave when they were seen as loyal Americans.

Why exactly were Japanese American soldiers “trusted” enough to not be placed in the community? As long as they were fighting for the U.S. and helping the U.S. then it was not necessary for them to be secluded in a community doing nothing for the U.S. Also, the Japanese American soldiers were most likely not as valued as the American soldiers, so if a soldier might be put in a dangerous situation it would more likely be a Japanese American soldier. A lost life of a Japanese American soldier would not have been very important, as compared to a lost life of an American soldier.

I think this community was a prison. The Japanese were treated as prisoners. Actually, they were treated worse than prisoners because there was no reason for their imprisonment. A fear of possibility led to their imprisonment. If today we would put possible criminals in prison then there would not be enough room for everyone. The name of the video, “A Challenge to Democracy” is a fitting one. Placing Japanese in this community was truly a “challenge to democracy.” These people who have possibly been living in the United States for decades were having their freedom, liberty, and rights taken away from them. They were not being given equal rights, treatment, or opportunity, which are all characteristics of a democracy.

Pacific Crossings

In Takaki Chapter 10: “Pacific Crossings,” it is concluded that immigrants crossed the Pacific to come to America and were identified and discriminated against differently in Hawaii than on mainland United States.

The Japanese “were pushed here by external influences” just like blacks were (246). Japanese envisioned a wonderful life in America, hearing great stories about the wages there. “To prospective Japanese migrants, ‘money grew on trees’ in America,” (247). More women emigrated from Japan than from China because they emigrated as family members or “picture brides,” brides to be in an arranged marriage, and they were not as afraid of the outside world because they were exposed to it through education. Some Japanese traveled to Hawaii but not mainland America. The discrimination there was based on working class and not so much skin color. Plantation owners sent for “men with families” in order for better work and to improve the economy (251). Sugar planters in Hawaii stated, “Get labor first and capital will follow” (251). Laborers were first seen as mere supplies, but were recognized by where they came from. “Employers were systematically developing an ethnically diverse labor force in order to create divisions among their workers and reinforce management control,” (252). This created competition between ethnicities and promoted tensions between them. Whites were given almost all of the supervisory positions which frustrated others because they could not improve their position or status. Japanese in short were, “reduced to supplies…pitted against workers of other nationalities, and excluded from skilled employment,” (254). A gender gap existed in Hawaii as women had similar jobs as men but were paid less. Some Japanese protested and formed unions that went on strike. Strikes displayed a transformation from “Japanese to Japanese Americans,” and “Japanese were framing their demands in ‘American’ terms…saying conditions were ‘undemocratic and un-American’” (258). As the labor force became more diverse groups began to realize that a labor movement would need unity among different ethnicities, as one working class. Soon 77% of plantation workers were on strike, the “Hawaiian version of the ‘giddy multitude,’” (260). Different groups were all fighting for the same goal, and they began interethnic sharing. A common language even came about, “pidgin English.” On mainland United States the Japanese were viewed as “of the yellow race” and were scorned for that (266). Many Japanese laborers became farmers and were successful. “Wealth did not immunize people from racism though,” (270). Japanese became “aliens ineligible to citizenship,” and even later “citizenship and education (second generation) did not immunize them from racial discrimination,” (274).

Does not recognizing a certain culture eliminate any possibility for a positive group identity as mentioned on page 261? I feel everything is based on the views of others. I disagree with Takaki just by the mere fact that the “real self” may be different from the “public self” and may be worse. A group may not be viewed by their culture, but they can “put on a show” in order to be accepted and identified positively.

I find it quite interesting how on mainland United States racial discrimination based on skin color was so huge, and yet in Hawaii the distance was based on class. In Hawaii laborers were known by numbers instead of names, which is like college (our P00 #). Meiji men were a great example of a “lazy ass.” To not help your wife at all seems ridiculous. Another interesting note that I took was that Japanese only planned on being in America temporarily, not thinking much of the harsh conditions at the time, but…

Race: The Power of An Illusion (Episode 2) Ex. Credit

In episode 2 of, Race: The Power of An Illusion titled “The Story We Tell,” Americans are said to have created a story of race based on skin color.

It all started when Europeans came to America and forced Indians off their own land, and took Indians as prisoners. From then on America has created a story of race based on skin color. Meanings are assigned to individuals just on how they look, or what is on the outside. Race is actually an idea that is socially constructed, but it is an enduring idea. The third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, wrote that “all men are created equal.” This same man also viewed blacks as inferior. Are blacks not men? Are they not human? Religion and wealth previously identified people and placed them into groups. However, race based on skin color soon changed that. Blacks and whites were laborers together, but fear led to the creation and institution of permanent slavery for blacks. Lower class whites were also given higher positions in order to be content and create a unified “white” group that was “against” the black group. The Indians were identified as being similar to the whites, just being exposed more to the sun, and they could be civilized. Blacks were considered different and they could not be civilized and assimilated. Indians were put in the racial spotlight just due to land issues. One such incident was with the Cherokee in the “Trail of Tears.” This group was forced to move west and several died before reaching their destination. Mexicans were viewed as inferior too. The whites acquired western lands at the expense of others because they believed in Manifest Destiny and their “racial superiority.” A citizen of the United States was once defined as any white male, not including blacks or women. In the Dred Scott Case, blacks were declared as not citizens and therefore did not enjoy the rights of the whites. Whites were persuaded by media productions and through social construction race based on skin color has endured.

Did Thomas Jefferson contradict himself? Yes he did, but I am not certain if he knew he did. If, at that time, blacks were identified as not human but scientifically placed in another group, then technically blacks are not included in “all men.” Jefferson also says that God made blacks to be slaves. By this thinking Jefferson may have even believed that blacks were created equal, just for a different role in society. Blacks may have been inferior to him just based on job or position they hold. He may have truly felt they deserve equal rights and treatment, but we will never know what he truly felt.

Racism is a horrible thing isn’t it? If everyone would be the same color everything would be different? Not necessarily. As the video shows, race is an idea and it is socially constructed. People were identified based on their physical appearance, or skin color. Skin color in itself says nothing about a person. Our society has defined what certain colors of skin represent, which are really false assumptions. Even if everyone had the exact same skin color, then there would probably be another external feature to categorize and define people by.

Drawing the Color Line

In Zinn Chapter 2: Drawing the Color Line, he concludes that racism is most important in our country, the United States, and the problem of the “color line is still with us” (23).

With the beginning of slavery a development of special racial feelings came about which went with the inferior position of blacks. “The combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism” (23). Because Indians could not be forced into labor blacks became the alternate solution. The slave trade did exist at least fifty years prior to Columbus’ arrival to America, and slavery several centuries before that. Slavery was in Africa and this fact provided Europeans with a “justification” for their own slave trade. However, slaves in Africa had rights in which the slaves brought to America did not receive. Blacks were torn from their land and forced into labor. In America slaves were used for profit and treated as less than humans. Blacks in Africa were often the source of producing slaves from their home countries. Many slaves died before they made it to America. Harsh conditions existed daily for blacks coming to be slaves. “Preconceptions about blackness” were made from first encountering blacks, which were all negative and led to unequal treatment and mistreatment of blacks. Blacks did resist their enslavement. Africans were not an inferior culture, for there was privilege and a kind of feudalism like Europe, one based on agriculture (25). Slavery of blacks was viewed as “right” or “not wrong” and any slave that was caught running away could be punished in “any way seen as fit,” by law. Slave owners had a unique system of control to keep the power and wealth with them. “The system was psychological and physical at the same time” (29). Slaves were taught to “know their place” and they were also punished and taken away from their families. A constant fear due to slave rebellion led to even more harsh conditions for slaves. “Only one fear was greater than the fear of black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order” (30). Therefore all white men were declared superior to any black man and the former discontented whites were given land and privileges in order to feel satisfied and content. All of these events were “historical, not ‘natural’” (30).

Why is the content of this chapter so important to the present? Zinn raises the questions: “How did it start?” How might it end?” and “Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred?” He asks these in his introductory paragraph referring to the problem of “the color line.” Zinn explains how “the color line” began or was drawn. We need to recognize the existence and know where it came from in order to try to end it. We also must know that we cannot make up for all the harsh treatment blacks endured, but we can try to avoid mistreatment now and in the future.

I can tell white persons get their laziness from their ancestors. Indians were too hard to force to labor for the white men so they found an easier group of people, blacks. I cannot believe that blacks in Africa actually caught other blacks to be sold and taken to America as slaves. The greed and wealth of the slave trade basically erased any morals that people originally had. An interesting and harsh real fact is that 40% of blacks died before making it to the slave ships, and another 20% died that went on the slave ships. Not only were slaves treated harshly, but there were millions more that died in the process of being forced into slavery.

Discussion Question: Takaki Ch.3

European landowners feared that the “giddy multitude” might rebel and Bacon’s Rebellion raised question on whether this group could be “contained.” Personal interests and the ambition that white landowners had succeed were driven by personal greed. Can it be agreed upon that these fears and greed were two reasons and really the only two reasons why slavery and the shift to solely black slavery came about?

The "Giddy Multitude"

Chapter 3 of Takaki focuses on the “giddy multitude” or a discontented class of indentured servants, slaves, and landless freemen, both white and black. Once the presence of Africans in America became a reality they began experiencing troubles because of their difference in skin color. Blacks were easier to enslave compared to Indians and a fear and dislike of them paved the way for the establishment of their slavery throughout the new America. Thus began the identification of being black or being white.

“What struck the English most about Africans was their color” (51). The black skin color was almost seen as a disease, and being directly associated with negative images such as dirt, foul, dark, deadly, and wicked. “The color white, on the other hand, signified purity, innocence, and goodness” (52). African traits were seen as “brutish” and they were devils because of their color of skin. As Africans came to America, their chief purpose was to be the slaves of the European white men. They became a much easier group to make slaves and keep as slaves than the Indians were. At first, whites were also forced to come to America to be slaves. “White and black, …they were all unfree laborers. White and black, laborers experienced the day-to-day exhaustion and harshness of work” (55). Since experiences were similar for white servants and black slaves and they worked together, they then ran away together. This unification of whites and blacks for a “common cause” became a serious matter and legislatures complained that white servants ran away WITH black slaves, but not vice-versa. To ensure the future of slavery European landowners began to degrade black slaves “into a condition of servitude for life and even the status of property” (57). Slaves and their children began to be inheritable and laws were created making blacks property for life. Blacks were viewed as not Christian, and as heathens, but the distinction soon went farther to being black as opposed to being white. Blacks were termed savages and whites were civilized. Feelings and fear toward blacks kept their numbers small in America, but a dramatic increase occurred because of the possible advantage of obtaining laborers for life, compared to indentured white servants who served a limited time. To the white upper class it was soon “obvious which was the cheapest, most available, most exploitable labor supply” (60). Some hidden origins of the institution of black slavery were “rooted in class.” Low class whites, mostly indentured servants, were together with black slaves and they shared an “otherness” rooted in class. This became a discontented group that had the possibility to rebel, being named the “giddy multitude.” A rebellion took place called Bacon’s Rebellion which showed class tensions and elite landowners “were no longer confident they could control the ‘giddy multitude’” (65). Great measures were then taken to identify blacks as slaves and they were controlled because they could be denied rights based on their skin color. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves but he felt guilty about it. He felt class conflicts could be avoided with more opportunities to farm for whites. He depended on his slave labor to pay off his debts. Jefferson also thought slavery had to be abolished but in order to do that blacks would have to leave America. “Blacks and whites could never coexist in America because of “the real distinctions” which “nature” had made between the two races” (71). Whites did not think about what they were doing to blacks or society and generations to come. “They had created an enslaved ‘giddy multitude’ that constantly threatened social order” (76).

Could people of white and black skin color ever coexist in a peaceful and not negative society in America? In thought of course, but in reality most likely not. Skin color is a difference, and differences separate people into groups. People instinctively more often associate with those “more like them.” However, this is all based on appearance. People appear to be similar to each other, but a white man may be more similar to a black man than any other white man disregarding the external feature of skin color. I do agree with those that say we have made some progress though. Of course, slavery has been abolished and people of black skin color can vote, as well as other changes.

I could not believe that Jefferson had about 300 slaves at one time. That is like my whole graduating class in high school. It is amazing how just the fear of the possibility of something can lead to dramatic steps in a wrong direction. Labeling blacks as property and slaves for life just to maintain their own privilege and special interests shows an unfit amount of greed, which I feel is a root of evil. Personal interests led to the consequences and harsh realities that we realize today.

Ethnic Notions

The film, Ethnic Notions, portrays how cultural representation affects society. Images and ideas may surround a “race” or group and may identify with them, but these are pretend and usually do not actually represent the individuals of a group or the group as a whole.

The images meant to represent blacks that began decades ago seem to be the most enduring images of representation. Only blacks, an oppressed race are represented in these pretend images that are most often caricatures over-exaggerating certain physical features or other features. Once these caricatures are put in the minds of people, they start to affect how they view society, or more specifically blacks. If viewers of these image representations did not perceive blacks in a similar fashion before viewing, then they are more likely to perceive them in this way after viewing the images. In older films, black men were shown as childlike characters that could not compare to the male whites that were far more mature and grown up. Blacks and slaves were often seen as happy, singing, and dancing. Several different models were used to represent blacks through the ages. These included Happy Sambo, Zip Coon, and Mammy. Since so many people saw slaves as a happy group of people they were misguided in thinking that slavery as an institution was okay then. However, slavery was anything but okay and the “happy slaves” were not happy working under the harsh conditions that they had to work under. Images such as ones displaying happiness showed a defense against slavery, while many showed racial inequality as well. With the images used blacks were seen as a “menace,” as brutes or beasts. Not proper representation or perceiving a group as inferior would lead to racial violence. Blacks were even considered sub-human, animals, or savages. Any freedoms that blacks received led to whites being angered, resulting in the before mentioned racial violence. White supremacy or privilege is a key reason for the images that described their black counter parts in a negative way. Whites also defined blacks in ways such as: “Black is ugly,” Blacks are savage,” “Blacks are happy servants.” One black man described life as “terribly inconvenient being a black man.” He also said he had no shame in what color he was.

Should our society not use images that can be directly related to any social group that might lead to a cultural representation of that group? It would be very difficult or near impossible to completely avoid using such images. Sometimes we even unconsciously use such images, and with television, the internet, and technology still on the increase there are too many ways images can be shown to society.

I think that some of the older images used to describe blacks were rather ridiculous because of the drastic exaggerations that were made to over-emphasize certain aspects of blacks and their characters. Once again though, everything is based on perception and how others perceive everyone around them. Wrong images do affect people’s views so it would be best to reduce the wrongful imaging as much as possible.

Race: The Power of An Illusion (Episode 1) Ex. Credit

In Episode 1: “The Difference Between Us” the main argument/thesis is that the visual differences we as people see are the reasons for the existence of race. People place others in categories and identify them just by outward appearance or looks.

Race has become a biologically real difference that goes from the external appearance to an internal belief of people. We make too many assumptions based on race, or rather outward visual appearance. Therefore race is actually an idea which we created because of certain external characteristics. As seen in the experiments or projects done in the class, which was shown in the video, there is not as much difference between people of so-called “races.” From one individual of one race to one individual of another race there could be more similarities than if each were compared to an individual of their own race. Just the fact that their skin color is different is only one small external characteristic. We tend to try to associate performance behavior to race. We always look for answers and the truth in order to explain difference, but sometimes we just cannot explain it. Groups that have been oppressed (not privileged) in the past and present have had to live in harsh conditions such as reservations and poor ghettos. Biology is used as an excuse for social difference even though certain similar genes for a certain group simply do not exist. There is no way to explain race besides different colored skin and as a cultural difference and there is no way to measure it. The superior group, “whites,” sometimes leans away from being with the inferior groups, “non-whites.” Placing people in a certain race is solely based on skin color and that only. We place assumptions with certain skin colors that in a sense identify groups. Visual differences therefore fool us because they say nothing about the actual people. There exists inequality because of privilege v. oppression, or “whites” v. “non-whites.” As the video concluded, race can be truthfully classified as a human invention.

Will people ever stop “judging a book by its cover?” I think not simply because many people do not, and do not want to take the time to get to know someone. It is just so much easier to look at someone and make very general assumptions about them. I guess that would also be categorized as laziness too, which we do not lack. Judging is part of what we have learned to do. We do not even have to think before judging. Even if we do not realize when we are judging we so often do judge. Finally, people stay away from certain other people, and if this habit is not broken then people will not get to know other people.

I agree with the video that race is a human invention. I believe that through history people have defined what race is and assumptions have been placed on the certain groups or races. I do not think that making assumptions about others just by a single characteristic, skin color, is right or good to do because we are all part of a larger group. We are all Americans right? That at times has united everyone. Times of crises bring the nation together, but only briefly. I know that I do judge and assume even at times when I do not realize it. However, we all need to TRY! Try to get along, be nice, not assume, and not place people in certain groups based on a skin color alone.

The "Tempest" in The Wilderness

Takaki concludes in Chapter 2 that the “white” Europeans were creating a border between civilization and savagery based on their assumptions and views, and that their progress depended on the demise of the Indians.

Europeans came to the New World as a foreign peoples and were viewed by the Indians based on things familiar to them. Dreams of Indians anticipated the arrival of strangers, but the result of their coming could not be seen (25). Social constructions of civilization and savagery were developing in America and identity was becoming based on race. Before sailing to America, the English considered Irish savages and made them targets of violence. The English then thought it their “duty” to educate Irish “brutes,” who were considered different based on their different culture (28). Once the English encountered the Indians they then began thinking there might be an alternate type of savagery. However, Indians were incorporated in the definition of savagery, which was based on the Irish initially (29). The English noticed one distinctive physical characteristic of the Indians, their skin color (31). This characteristic began to identify Indians racially. The English thought that Indians were uncivilized, lacking “Christianity, cities, letters, clothing, and swords,” (31). They believed that it was their “duty” to bring the Indians to “civil and Christian” government (33). Also, they viewed several situations as signs from God, giving them the right to in a sense exterminate the Indians. Columbus had mislead Europeans about the greatness of the New World, resulting in an overpopulation and lack of resources. Indians were then forced to work for the “whites.” The Indians were also forced off of their lands and killed off in order for the progress of the Europeans.

Were the Indians actually savages? Absolutely not. Indians were highly agricultural and had plenty to live from before the Europeans came. They were simply different from the Europeans, and the Europeans did not know how to accept and adjust to this difference. Indians were not stupid either. The means by which they survived were advanced and intelligent even for today. A savage is untamed or brutal. The Indians cannot be classified under this definition. They only fought to keep what was theirs, and actually welcomed the strangers at first.

I feel that the Europeans were savages if anyone was. Their brutality and force toward the Irish and the Indians was inhumane and basically…wrong. I do not believe they had the “right” to take over the New World. I only feel their assumptions and beliefs, along with their fear and change misled them to the conclusions of which were wrong.

The Meaning of Difference

The conclusion that Rosenblum and Travis come to is that sex, race, sexual orientation, as well as gender and class can each be explained as a “socially created dichotomy.” American culture has also adopted interpretations for the differences in these subjects and what the differences mean.

Rosenblum and Travis state that there are several similarities in the construction of categories in race, sexual orientation, class, and gender (19). For each there are certain divisions, which are seen to be the ONLY possibilities: for race there is either black and white or white and nonwhite; for sexual orientation there is gay and straight; for class there is poor and middle class; and for gender there is femininity and masculinity. Sexual orientation and race are both described as “more straightforward than [they] really [are],” (19). Rosenblum and Travis emphasize how people choose to categorize sexual orientation and race into only two separate groups (20). Thus, everyone is asked to choose one race and one sexual orientation out of two choices for each. On the subject of sexual orientation, Rosenblum and Travis say “there is no necessary correspondence between identity and sexual behavior,” (20). Therefore, one’s behavior is not directly related to one’s actual identity. This means that “gay” is a title that can be given to a person no matter what he or she does. Also, the different groups of sexual orientation along with the groups of race struggle with the assignment of superior to one group and inferior to the other group. With one group being considered superior to the other, a sense of inequality arises. Just like we assume with color of skin, we assume with sexual orientation that it “tells us something meaningful about a person,” (21). Class is not seen as a major category of discussion with the American emphasis on race and sexual orientation (21). Even though the two groups created from social class are the poor and the middle class, there has been a recent increase in the rich-poor gap and wealth distribution has become more unequal. The more realistic division would then be between the rich and the poor. “Americans explain success and failure in terms of individual merit rather than economic or social forces,” (21). Poverty is being viewed by some as the “lack of effort.” Concerning sex, some people have conflicting physical and psychological attributes and feel compelled to achieve a consistency. The only ways available to achieve this consistency are through surgery or psychotherapy. It makes more sense to people to change who they are rather than accepting a difference, or inconsistency (23).

Are the negative effects of social dichotomy irreversible? In the world today, I would be tempted to say yes because it seems that social dichotomy in itself is irreversible. However, I do believe that it is possible to make things “not as bad.” Americans, as a nation need to put less emphasis on the divisions among themselves that they have created. Based on history, there have been positive steps taken in the subjects of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and class. However, there is always room to improve.

I think that it is wrong for divisions to be superior and inferior. I feel equality is one key to a better society. The gap between the rich and the poor has to be reduced somehow. The fact that it is increasing, and the rich are getting richer does not seem right at all. Perspective has a lot to do with the current situations. We all need to be able to put ourselves in other peoples’ shoes. If we can’t see a problem, then we can’t fix it.