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.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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…
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.
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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Friday, February 2, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
