1. The Heritage Preservation Association (HPA) is an international, non-profit, membership organization dedicated to preserving the heritage, history, culture and symbols of the Old South and Colonial United States.
HPA was formed in 1993 to combat then Georgia Governor Zell Miller's attempts to censor the Georgia state flag. We then spread to other states to fight what has become a movement of cultural genocide on our American heritage and symbols. HPA has members in all 50 states and 6 different countries through-out the world. Our common bond is the love for the American South and its rich culture and history.
This website talked about how they want to preserve the culture of others.
2. In one part of the site they say that they do not want to foster hatred and they do not let others. They want to be open for all and so far there are a number of states involved with this group.
3. It sounds like a good thing that they are doing, to promote awareness about these groups. Mostly because they say all are welcome.
4. It seems like this is a good site, and they say "We welcome people of all races, countries, religions and political affiliations who share our love for the heritage of the American South and encourage them to join us in the fight against cultural censorship.
HPA has no political goals or agendas, other than defending the culture, heritage and symbols of Old South and its colonial roots." A place that says that they welcome all people no matter what sounds like a good thing to me.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Why I hate A&F
1. This article talks about the history of A & F.
2. This article starts off talking about how A&F was made to gear their clothes towards Gay, white men. Then later on in the article it talks about how the store come to be. The man name Abercrombie had a store of his own. But one day he decide to expand that store, so it became A&F. After his friend Fitch decided to go into business with him.
3.Why does he not like A&F? He said in there that he did not like A&F because the only people who could afford it was rich people and he also did not like it because he says that "a version of it is what is at work in the politics of race in the us. So he does not like it because he feels that it is keeping the stereotypes and race discrimination alive.
4. This was a very long article and i was hoping that it would say I hate A&F for the following reasons. However I found it interesting that he does not like it because it deals a lot with stereotypes, and only certain people can buy their stuff. I would think in order to be in a good business you would want to sell more stuff at a lower price than very few at a high price.
2. This article starts off talking about how A&F was made to gear their clothes towards Gay, white men. Then later on in the article it talks about how the store come to be. The man name Abercrombie had a store of his own. But one day he decide to expand that store, so it became A&F. After his friend Fitch decided to go into business with him.
3.Why does he not like A&F? He said in there that he did not like A&F because the only people who could afford it was rich people and he also did not like it because he says that "a version of it is what is at work in the politics of race in the us. So he does not like it because he feels that it is keeping the stereotypes and race discrimination alive.
4. This was a very long article and i was hoping that it would say I hate A&F for the following reasons. However I found it interesting that he does not like it because it deals a lot with stereotypes, and only certain people can buy their stuff. I would think in order to be in a good business you would want to sell more stuff at a lower price than very few at a high price.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Takaki ch. 10 Answers to the handout form class 11-5-07
1. During the war against Mexico, the Irish was pushed from their homeland by British colonialism. They ended up participating in the conquest of the Southwest.
2. Foreigners in their native land: manifest Destiny in the south west. The Irish were sent to America and they worked on the manifest destiny. They were kicked out of their homeland and had to make America their homeland.
3. English, of "Pure Spanish blood were the upper class, and the laboring class, the laborers went down by regular shades, growing more dark with "pure" Indians at the bottom.
4. The rebels said they were defending the interests of American settlers against unfair and arbitrary Mexican rule.
The center of rebellion for independence was in San Antonio.
5. Race is the Irish, Ethnicity is the Indians. The Irish had money and were white, the Indians didn't have money and the darker they were the more ethnic they were.
2. Foreigners in their native land: manifest Destiny in the south west. The Irish were sent to America and they worked on the manifest destiny. They were kicked out of their homeland and had to make America their homeland.
3. English, of "Pure Spanish blood were the upper class, and the laboring class, the laborers went down by regular shades, growing more dark with "pure" Indians at the bottom.
4. The rebels said they were defending the interests of American settlers against unfair and arbitrary Mexican rule.
The center of rebellion for independence was in San Antonio.
5. Race is the Irish, Ethnicity is the Indians. The Irish had money and were white, the Indians didn't have money and the darker they were the more ethnic they were.
Monday, October 29, 2007
wu's article
What the first quote is saying is being Asain American Wu feels that he is eather stared at as through he is being watched to see if he causes any troble. He is also looked through, meaning people do not even acknowledge that he is in the room.
If people are watching him they will not beleve anything that he says, so he has no control on being able to defend himselfs, and the same goes with the people who iqunare him, if they do not even seeing him they will not listen to what he has to say because to them he is an inadamant object, in the room for decoration.
I some times feel as throught I am just watching what is going on around me and feeling as throught no one can see me. This happens when I am in a room with people having a convosation, and I am not able to contribute anything, or the people i am with do not listen to ewhat i am saying.
If people are watching him they will not beleve anything that he says, so he has no control on being able to defend himselfs, and the same goes with the people who iqunare him, if they do not even seeing him they will not listen to what he has to say because to them he is an inadamant object, in the room for decoration.
I some times feel as throught I am just watching what is going on around me and feeling as throught no one can see me. This happens when I am in a room with people having a convosation, and I am not able to contribute anything, or the people i am with do not listen to ewhat i am saying.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Comic Book Cover
The Comic that I chose was Captain Marvel Adventures The cover shows a huge Captain Marvel making a fist in the air like he is getting ready to hit the mob of Japanese people, running away from him. Right under this arm that is in the air making a fist, there is a caption that reads "Capt. Marvel Swats the Japs!" This suggests that Captain Marvel does not like the Japanese people.
In the Takaki chapter 10, Takaki talks about how the Japanese came to America to make more money, to have a better life and have children. When they came here the men had to work in the Field and were treated less that human.
When the men went further inland they were treated in the same manner. The children that were born in America grew up and tried to find a place to live, they were told that they could not live in a certain neighborhood and that they should go back to their country. The people who were told this did not understand what the white Americans were talking about, because these people had lived in the United States all their lives. The immigrants, who did want to go back to their home country, ended up staying in the United States because their children did not want to go to a foreign country. The parents stayed in the United States with their children because they did not want to leave their children and their grand children.
This comic book cover shows how after Pearl Harbor and even a while before Pearl Harbor occurred the Japanese Americans were not treated equal. This shows how the white people living in the United States wanted to run the Japanese Americans out of the country. After Pearl Harbor the white people in the United States believed all Japanese people living in the United States were spies, sending information to their fellow terriers. We can see this today with Iraqis and the Iranians, due to the attacks on 9/11 and because if the war, in Iraq.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Yellow
1. "As a member of a minority group everywhere in my country expect among family or thought the self- conscious effort to find other Asian Americans, I alternate between being conspicuous and vanishing, being stared at or looked through."
2.The article Yellow, is about a man who is of Asian American decent. He feels like he is stuck in the middle of the race discrimination. Meaning he knows that he is not black but he is also not white. He said that he stopped riding the bus, the day he got on and saw the other minorities sitting in the back, he did not know where he should sit because he was not black, but if he sat with the whites, they would get mad because he was not white but somewhere in the middle.
3. I wounder what would have happened if he sat some where in the middle of the bus? Would the blacks get mad, would the whites get mad, or both? Wu did not know the answer to this so he did not ride the bus, so that neither race would get upset by him.
4. I thought it was interesting that he could have sat where ever he wanted to being stuck in the middle, but I Wonder if the bus driver would have known? If I would have been put in that situation I would have sat in the middle of the bus one time and than I think I would have stopped riding the bus too, because it would make me uncomfortable not knowing where to sit on the bus and risking making someone mad.
2.The article Yellow, is about a man who is of Asian American decent. He feels like he is stuck in the middle of the race discrimination. Meaning he knows that he is not black but he is also not white. He said that he stopped riding the bus, the day he got on and saw the other minorities sitting in the back, he did not know where he should sit because he was not black, but if he sat with the whites, they would get mad because he was not white but somewhere in the middle.
3. I wounder what would have happened if he sat some where in the middle of the bus? Would the blacks get mad, would the whites get mad, or both? Wu did not know the answer to this so he did not ride the bus, so that neither race would get upset by him.
4. I thought it was interesting that he could have sat where ever he wanted to being stuck in the middle, but I Wonder if the bus driver would have known? If I would have been put in that situation I would have sat in the middle of the bus one time and than I think I would have stopped riding the bus too, because it would make me uncomfortable not knowing where to sit on the bus and risking making someone mad.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Pacific Crossings
1. The chapter Pacific Crossings by Takaki talks about Japanese immigrants coming to America to make money, and how that dream changed over the years.
2. The Pacific Crossings talk about mailed order brides, who are women who parents pick their husbands living in America. The families want the women to be able to go to America and make money so they will have a better life. The women end up working on plantations with their husbands. The men are in charge of Field work, and the women are in charge of Field work in the early morning, house work at 6am and then back to the Field, and late at night they do more house work. The women tend to start their day at 4:30am and don't end the day until around midnight- 1am. The immigrants do this for 55 cents a day if they are women and men were paid 78 cents per day. Also the immigrants were treated as animals; one person said that they were given a number, instead of their name. So one day they went on strike to get a higher wage, eight hour days, insurance and paid maternity leave and better treatment. Later the planters claimed a victory and discreetly increased wages by 50 percent. It seemed like things were working well for the immigrants, however the article says that the living conditions for the workers were very unsanitary. The workers who had children and soon made enough money to own their own land told their children to go to school so they would learn about freedom and equality, the declaration of independence. But the immigrants were still treated unfairly when it came to getting a home, and soon everything would change for the Japanese immigrants living in the US in 1941.
3. Why did the immigrants who left their homes not go back? Some of them did go back but most of them did not want to go back because they had children living the the US. The children did not want to go back to Japan because they were born in the US and felt that Japan was a foreign land because the US was their home. So if the kids did not want to go back to their homeland, the parents tended to stay because they wanted to be with their children and grand children.
4. At first I thought the immigrants were treated badly and in the middle of the article it seemed like things were changing and they were being treated fairly. I thought they were being treated badly because of Pearl Harbor. But then they were getting a higher wage, and land so I thought everything was okay. Until the Americans started to tell the immigrants who were born in the US to go back to their homeland, I was thinking okay how did they go from being treated badly to fairly, back to bad again. Then I thought maybe Pearl Harbor had occurred, but at the end it said that they were going to school and being taught about their culture, and their country. Teaching them about their Japanese American heritage. "However their hope to be both Japanese and American would be violently shattered on a December morning in 1941" After this historic event anyone living the US who was Japanese, was thought as being a spy and not to be trusted, so they were put into interment camps.
2. The Pacific Crossings talk about mailed order brides, who are women who parents pick their husbands living in America. The families want the women to be able to go to America and make money so they will have a better life. The women end up working on plantations with their husbands. The men are in charge of Field work, and the women are in charge of Field work in the early morning, house work at 6am and then back to the Field, and late at night they do more house work. The women tend to start their day at 4:30am and don't end the day until around midnight- 1am. The immigrants do this for 55 cents a day if they are women and men were paid 78 cents per day. Also the immigrants were treated as animals; one person said that they were given a number, instead of their name. So one day they went on strike to get a higher wage, eight hour days, insurance and paid maternity leave and better treatment. Later the planters claimed a victory and discreetly increased wages by 50 percent. It seemed like things were working well for the immigrants, however the article says that the living conditions for the workers were very unsanitary. The workers who had children and soon made enough money to own their own land told their children to go to school so they would learn about freedom and equality, the declaration of independence. But the immigrants were still treated unfairly when it came to getting a home, and soon everything would change for the Japanese immigrants living in the US in 1941.
3. Why did the immigrants who left their homes not go back? Some of them did go back but most of them did not want to go back because they had children living the the US. The children did not want to go back to Japan because they were born in the US and felt that Japan was a foreign land because the US was their home. So if the kids did not want to go back to their homeland, the parents tended to stay because they wanted to be with their children and grand children.
4. At first I thought the immigrants were treated badly and in the middle of the article it seemed like things were changing and they were being treated fairly. I thought they were being treated badly because of Pearl Harbor. But then they were getting a higher wage, and land so I thought everything was okay. Until the Americans started to tell the immigrants who were born in the US to go back to their homeland, I was thinking okay how did they go from being treated badly to fairly, back to bad again. Then I thought maybe Pearl Harbor had occurred, but at the end it said that they were going to school and being taught about their culture, and their country. Teaching them about their Japanese American heritage. "However their hope to be both Japanese and American would be violently shattered on a December morning in 1941" After this historic event anyone living the US who was Japanese, was thought as being a spy and not to be trusted, so they were put into interment camps.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
How Jews became white folks
1. The article How Jews Became White Folks and what that says about race in America is about how after world war 2 the veterans who served in the war was suppose to receive money and get preferential hiring. However this was not free from discrimination.
2. In this article Brodkin talks about how the money and help that the veterans were getting from their GI bill did not give their fair share to all the veterans. The people who benefited most were the white males. The women and American Americans received little or no money for serving in the armed forces. Therefore, the only people who really got anything for serving their country disproportionately male, Euro origin GIs (p44).
3. If Affirmative action only helped white males, then why do people have such hard feeling about it today? People do not like that people of different ethnicity gets the advantage in being hired before them for the same job and having the same skills because they feel it is discrimination. However if we look back to the article we see that the white people were the ones who got all of the advantages back around the end of world war 2, so the government is tiring to turn the tables and give the people of another ethnicity a chance to get the things that were promised to them back then that they never received.
4. This was an article that was able to explain affirmative action to me a way that was easy to understand. Before reading this I just thought it had something to do with giving a group of people a fair chance at something and no one else. I knew that it was a way to pay people back but for what reason I did not know. After reading this I have learned that Affirmative action is a way to level the playing Field for the people who served in the arm forces and were not compensated for their time.
2. In this article Brodkin talks about how the money and help that the veterans were getting from their GI bill did not give their fair share to all the veterans. The people who benefited most were the white males. The women and American Americans received little or no money for serving in the armed forces. Therefore, the only people who really got anything for serving their country disproportionately male, Euro origin GIs (p44).
3. If Affirmative action only helped white males, then why do people have such hard feeling about it today? People do not like that people of different ethnicity gets the advantage in being hired before them for the same job and having the same skills because they feel it is discrimination. However if we look back to the article we see that the white people were the ones who got all of the advantages back around the end of world war 2, so the government is tiring to turn the tables and give the people of another ethnicity a chance to get the things that were promised to them back then that they never received.
4. This was an article that was able to explain affirmative action to me a way that was easy to understand. Before reading this I just thought it had something to do with giving a group of people a fair chance at something and no one else. I knew that it was a way to pay people back but for what reason I did not know. After reading this I have learned that Affirmative action is a way to level the playing Field for the people who served in the arm forces and were not compensated for their time.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Slavery without submision
1. The article talks about how the slaves rebeled and runaway. The article mentions Harriet Tubman the women who was a runaway slave who helped other slaves go to Canada to be free.
2.The article had part of slaves journals that talked about how they were treated and why they acted the way they did. For example, one passage says " they say slaves are happy, because they laugh, and are merry. I have received two hundred lashes in a day, and had my feet in fetters, yet I would sing and dance and make others laugh to stay out of trouble."
3. How can you account for Harriet Tubman's success? In the article it tells how Tubman had escaped to the north and chose to help others escape. She did this by going back to the south and showing others the path to take to go north. Tubman also had others to help her do this, she would travel to the south carring a gun and told the slaves to go with her and be free or die, the slaves chose to go with her and her helpers in order to be free in the north.
4. As I was reading this I was thinking about how I learned about tubman in grade school and how she ran the runaway railroad. I thought it was just a path that she and others used to go north, to freedom. But as I read this it sounded like Tubman was driving a real train on a railroad, to transport slaves to the free land, also called the north. I like that I am learning more about what seemed like a good story in grade school, that now I can put detail into them, and have an idea of what occurred up to this big event. I was also glad to learn that slavery was abolished by the order of the government. I was under the impression that slavery existed because the government thought it was a good idea. I am glad to hear that the government was the one responsible for ending it.
2.The article had part of slaves journals that talked about how they were treated and why they acted the way they did. For example, one passage says " they say slaves are happy, because they laugh, and are merry. I have received two hundred lashes in a day, and had my feet in fetters, yet I would sing and dance and make others laugh to stay out of trouble."
3. How can you account for Harriet Tubman's success? In the article it tells how Tubman had escaped to the north and chose to help others escape. She did this by going back to the south and showing others the path to take to go north. Tubman also had others to help her do this, she would travel to the south carring a gun and told the slaves to go with her and be free or die, the slaves chose to go with her and her helpers in order to be free in the north.
4. As I was reading this I was thinking about how I learned about tubman in grade school and how she ran the runaway railroad. I thought it was just a path that she and others used to go north, to freedom. But as I read this it sounded like Tubman was driving a real train on a railroad, to transport slaves to the free land, also called the north. I like that I am learning more about what seemed like a good story in grade school, that now I can put detail into them, and have an idea of what occurred up to this big event. I was also glad to learn that slavery was abolished by the order of the government. I was under the impression that slavery existed because the government thought it was a good idea. I am glad to hear that the government was the one responsible for ending it.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Kindred revised
1. The book Kindred by: Octavia Butler is a book about a woman sent back in time to save one of her distant relatives.
2. In kindred Dana the main character starts to have these panic attacks that send her unconcessis in modern times, but while she is unconcuess in her time she is sent to 1976. In this time people believe her to be a runaway slave. In which she feels that she has spent hours, days, and sometimes even weeks in 1976. As the book goes on we learn that she only is sent to 1976 when a little boy named Rufus, a son of a plantation owner is in trouble. Dana is sent here to save him from being beat from his father, and from being killed. Dana has to save this little boy and make sure nothing happens to him because she believes he is one of her distance ancestor.
3. How does the prologue set up the story? Why does Butler use such a device? What tone does the first sentence of the Prologue set for your reading of the novel? The prologue lets the reader know that something big is going to happen sometime later in the story. Butler uses this to draw the reader into the story so they will want to read on. The first sentence of the prologue makes the reader wonder what trip they went on. What happened to them?
4. When I first read the first sentence of the prologue I thought this was about a boy who may have lost his arm in a war. I was all of a sudden drawn into the book, wanting to know what happened to this person, what kind of trip they went in that they lost their arm. I feel that Butler did a very nice job of getting the readers attention and wanted them to read on to find out what happened.
2. In kindred Dana the main character starts to have these panic attacks that send her unconcessis in modern times, but while she is unconcuess in her time she is sent to 1976. In this time people believe her to be a runaway slave. In which she feels that she has spent hours, days, and sometimes even weeks in 1976. As the book goes on we learn that she only is sent to 1976 when a little boy named Rufus, a son of a plantation owner is in trouble. Dana is sent here to save him from being beat from his father, and from being killed. Dana has to save this little boy and make sure nothing happens to him because she believes he is one of her distance ancestor.
3. How does the prologue set up the story? Why does Butler use such a device? What tone does the first sentence of the Prologue set for your reading of the novel? The prologue lets the reader know that something big is going to happen sometime later in the story. Butler uses this to draw the reader into the story so they will want to read on. The first sentence of the prologue makes the reader wonder what trip they went on. What happened to them?
4. When I first read the first sentence of the prologue I thought this was about a boy who may have lost his arm in a war. I was all of a sudden drawn into the book, wanting to know what happened to this person, what kind of trip they went in that they lost their arm. I feel that Butler did a very nice job of getting the readers attention and wanted them to read on to find out what happened.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Kindred post one
From what I have read in Kindred, it is about a bout who got his arm stuck in the wall of his house. The police think that he was hurt by his friend Kevin, but the police do not believe that it was an accident.
the character who was hurt is now talking to their friend Kevin about how they had to convince the police that everything is okay and no one was trying to hurt anyone else.
I have not figured out the name of the main character who is telling the story, but it sounds like they there will be a thematic event later on in the book between Kevin and this other person. I would like to know what the police think happened between there two characters. After reading a few chapters of the book and also reading the back of the book it sounds like the person telling the story is a woman, and maybe this Kevin abused her and she is just covering for him so he will not hurt her again.
I do not know if I like this book yet. However it has gotten me a little hooked on what the story is between these two characters.
the character who was hurt is now talking to their friend Kevin about how they had to convince the police that everything is okay and no one was trying to hurt anyone else.
I have not figured out the name of the main character who is telling the story, but it sounds like they there will be a thematic event later on in the book between Kevin and this other person. I would like to know what the police think happened between there two characters. After reading a few chapters of the book and also reading the back of the book it sounds like the person telling the story is a woman, and maybe this Kevin abused her and she is just covering for him so he will not hurt her again.
I do not know if I like this book yet. However it has gotten me a little hooked on what the story is between these two characters.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Giddy Multitude
I did not understand what this article was about. It seemed like they were comparing black slaves to white slaves, and how the slaves rebeled.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Getting off the hook; Denial and Resistance
1. The thesis of Getting off the hook; Denial and Resistance is about people who are on the hook and they are always trying to get off the hook. There are a lot of ways to getting yourself off the hook and this article shows you a number of ways to get off the hook.
2. There are eight different ways of getting of the hook that this article talks about but I chose to summarize five of them.
Deny and minimize: This is when people deny that the problem exists in the first place or they make it sound like it could be worse. For example the article tells about a parent who tells their child who is in pain, that it does one hurt that bad, so they should stop crying. The parent does not know what the pain feels like to the child so they should not tell them that it does not hurt that bad.
Blame the victim is the next way of getting off the hook. In this approach we can see that bad things happen to people and they still get off the hook by blaming the victim. The example used most is when men and sometimes other women blame the women that were sexually assaulted. They do this by saying that the women was too sensitive or sent mixed signals or my favorite she asked for it because she was too nice or friendly to men. In this case oppression is blamed on people who suffer more and privilege is placed on the ones who remain invisible and untouched.
Call it something else is a subtle way of denying oppression and privilege, such as gender inequalities is called battle of the sexes.
Its better this way is a combination of denial and calling privilege and oppression something else to say people prefer things to be the way they are. They give the example of blacks wanting to live next to one another and not having a problem with it. Which is a lie, the article says that the people who like to live among themselves are white people.
The last way that I talked about was it doesn’t count if you don’t mean it. In this section people think they will get off the hook if they did not mean to have what they said come out in a negative way.
3. Do these really work to get people off the hook? Yes, think of the case of calling it something else. People get away with being dominated over another group of people because they call it battle of the sexes and they think of it as a game that people like to play, instead of saying it is a way to show men have power over women in one way or another.
4. I thought this was an interesting article because it showed me that my brother has a bit of male dominance. This is because ever since we were kids, I would be telling my dad a story about something that happened earlier that week and right in the middle of my story, my brother would start telling my dad something completely off topic. I later on after putting up with this for so many years called my brother out on this and would tell him to shut up and I would go on with my story.
2. There are eight different ways of getting of the hook that this article talks about but I chose to summarize five of them.
Deny and minimize: This is when people deny that the problem exists in the first place or they make it sound like it could be worse. For example the article tells about a parent who tells their child who is in pain, that it does one hurt that bad, so they should stop crying. The parent does not know what the pain feels like to the child so they should not tell them that it does not hurt that bad.
Blame the victim is the next way of getting off the hook. In this approach we can see that bad things happen to people and they still get off the hook by blaming the victim. The example used most is when men and sometimes other women blame the women that were sexually assaulted. They do this by saying that the women was too sensitive or sent mixed signals or my favorite she asked for it because she was too nice or friendly to men. In this case oppression is blamed on people who suffer more and privilege is placed on the ones who remain invisible and untouched.
Call it something else is a subtle way of denying oppression and privilege, such as gender inequalities is called battle of the sexes.
Its better this way is a combination of denial and calling privilege and oppression something else to say people prefer things to be the way they are. They give the example of blacks wanting to live next to one another and not having a problem with it. Which is a lie, the article says that the people who like to live among themselves are white people.
The last way that I talked about was it doesn’t count if you don’t mean it. In this section people think they will get off the hook if they did not mean to have what they said come out in a negative way.
3. Do these really work to get people off the hook? Yes, think of the case of calling it something else. People get away with being dominated over another group of people because they call it battle of the sexes and they think of it as a game that people like to play, instead of saying it is a way to show men have power over women in one way or another.
4. I thought this was an interesting article because it showed me that my brother has a bit of male dominance. This is because ever since we were kids, I would be telling my dad a story about something that happened earlier that week and right in the middle of my story, my brother would start telling my dad something completely off topic. I later on after putting up with this for so many years called my brother out on this and would tell him to shut up and I would go on with my story.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
What it all has to do with us
The article "What it all has to do with us" is about privilege and how people may not respond the way they really feel about something. In which case is known as the path of least resistance.
2. An example of this was used in the article to show this was a group of people get in an elevator and eventually turn around to face the doors. If you were to walk into the elevator and stay facing the back wall, you would not be following the path of least resistance. However if you were to turn around and face the doors you would be following the path of least resistance, because no one would say anything to you, because you are doing the same thing as everyone else. But if you go against the norms then you might get a strange look or someone will say something to you. Also if you hear a sexist joke and feel uncompelled to object in someway. But the path of least resistance is to go along and smile or laugh or not say anything. So people don't know that you did not like what you just heard. Making you feel less uncomfortable then you would had you said something to your friend about the joke being sexist.
3. If someone doesn't like what is going on, then why don't they speak up and say that, that joke wasn't funny. Chapter six says people could take another path, however they stick to the path of least resistance because they are afraid of what will happen if they do not chose the path of least resistance (p.81)
4. I feel this is true. If we do not want to explain ourselves we will go along with what people say and take the path of least resistance. If I do not like a joke that was being told, instead of saying I find that to be offense, I would just smile and do a little fake laugh, so my coworkers do not know that I really did not like what they just said and so I would not have to explain which part of the joke I felt was offense. This helps the person who's offended feel less uncomfortable and keeps the person telling the joke from feeling like a jerk.
2. An example of this was used in the article to show this was a group of people get in an elevator and eventually turn around to face the doors. If you were to walk into the elevator and stay facing the back wall, you would not be following the path of least resistance. However if you were to turn around and face the doors you would be following the path of least resistance, because no one would say anything to you, because you are doing the same thing as everyone else. But if you go against the norms then you might get a strange look or someone will say something to you. Also if you hear a sexist joke and feel uncompelled to object in someway. But the path of least resistance is to go along and smile or laugh or not say anything. So people don't know that you did not like what you just heard. Making you feel less uncomfortable then you would had you said something to your friend about the joke being sexist.
3. If someone doesn't like what is going on, then why don't they speak up and say that, that joke wasn't funny. Chapter six says people could take another path, however they stick to the path of least resistance because they are afraid of what will happen if they do not chose the path of least resistance (p.81)
4. I feel this is true. If we do not want to explain ourselves we will go along with what people say and take the path of least resistance. If I do not like a joke that was being told, instead of saying I find that to be offense, I would just smile and do a little fake laugh, so my coworkers do not know that I really did not like what they just said and so I would not have to explain which part of the joke I felt was offense. This helps the person who's offended feel less uncomfortable and keeps the person telling the joke from feeling like a jerk.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination
1. Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination is about race being socially constructed and made up along with people being privileged without knowing it. The section about Capitalism, difference and privilege: race and gender tells us that capitalist used racism to control their workers. If the white workers complained about wages or the working conditions the capitalist kept the workers worried that they were going to lose their jobs. So in order to keep their jobs the white workers just kept their unhappiness to themselves.
2. On page 47 it says “other capitalist connections to racism have been less direct, capitalist, often used racism as a strategy to control white workers and thereby keep low wages and productivity high.” I think this is saying white workers did not want to be considered to be on the same class level as African Americans, so the white workers did what ever they were told to do because it made them more superior to African Americans and raised their class status. This article shows that capitalism does not just target African Americans, it also says that “capitalism exploits people with disabilities…the 1938 minimum wage law allowed managers to hire people with disabilities at less then minimum wage.” Even If people with disabilities, may do a task at a little slower rate then others, and does not give someone the rights to pay someone a less wage do to the fact that they have a disability. If someone did that in this day an age, that manager would be taken to court for discriminate. This article shows that African Americans are not the only group being oppressed.
3. Is everyone privileged and oppressed? It sounds like if you working class, white male, as it says in the text that you are 2/3 privileged, because white males have some kind of advantage when it comes to claiming the corporate latter. If you are a white male you can be promoted and promoted and keep going higher up. Where if you are a white woman and have the same skills as the white male, you will be promoted but at a certain point there becomes this glass ceiling. Where the male will keep going up the latter the women stops dead in her tracks. For this reason I agree that everyone is privileged and oppressed in one way or another.
4. When I started to read this I thought it was going to talk about race and how one race was superior to other. As I was reading this however I found that it was talking about how privilege and oppression did not just deal with race it also involved gender, class and sexually orientation, and ability. What I mean by this is, someone can be oppressed because they are male, or female, low, middle or high class. As well as being homosexual or header sexual, or have a disability or not have a disability. I knew that all of these people are discriminate against in one way or another, but it did not occur to me that they're oppressed. I thought being oppressed means that a group of people are treated so badly that they do not feel like they deserve any respect. I do not see how this is different to discrimination.
2. On page 47 it says “other capitalist connections to racism have been less direct, capitalist, often used racism as a strategy to control white workers and thereby keep low wages and productivity high.” I think this is saying white workers did not want to be considered to be on the same class level as African Americans, so the white workers did what ever they were told to do because it made them more superior to African Americans and raised their class status. This article shows that capitalism does not just target African Americans, it also says that “capitalism exploits people with disabilities…the 1938 minimum wage law allowed managers to hire people with disabilities at less then minimum wage.” Even If people with disabilities, may do a task at a little slower rate then others, and does not give someone the rights to pay someone a less wage do to the fact that they have a disability. If someone did that in this day an age, that manager would be taken to court for discriminate. This article shows that African Americans are not the only group being oppressed.
3. Is everyone privileged and oppressed? It sounds like if you working class, white male, as it says in the text that you are 2/3 privileged, because white males have some kind of advantage when it comes to claiming the corporate latter. If you are a white male you can be promoted and promoted and keep going higher up. Where if you are a white woman and have the same skills as the white male, you will be promoted but at a certain point there becomes this glass ceiling. Where the male will keep going up the latter the women stops dead in her tracks. For this reason I agree that everyone is privileged and oppressed in one way or another.
4. When I started to read this I thought it was going to talk about race and how one race was superior to other. As I was reading this however I found that it was talking about how privilege and oppression did not just deal with race it also involved gender, class and sexually orientation, and ability. What I mean by this is, someone can be oppressed because they are male, or female, low, middle or high class. As well as being homosexual or header sexual, or have a disability or not have a disability. I knew that all of these people are discriminate against in one way or another, but it did not occur to me that they're oppressed. I thought being oppressed means that a group of people are treated so badly that they do not feel like they deserve any respect. I do not see how this is different to discrimination.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Privilege, Oppression, and Difference
Privilege, Oppression, and Difference
1. An article about privilege. By privilege I mean the dominate group in society gets this special treatment that they are not even aware of. For example the article talks about people who have a disability being considered not normal, because they do not think the same way people with out a disability think. In this instance the Dominate group (people without disabilities) has the power to define what is considered normal. The article also gives examples of one race being dominated over another race, or males being dominate over women.
2. This article says that one group of people are dominate over another group of people. However this did not happen over night. “It took generation and a vast amount of coercion, before this becomes a white country.” In other words the article says that what we see as real is just made up, and we take it to mean something. Take race for example, the way you look does not change you, but if you look differently from someone else, we autumnally pass judgments onto that person, wither those judgments are true or not.
3. If most of what we experience as real, is there a way not to teach our children about who we perceive to be the dominate group, or is it in our nature to view each other as being dominant or inferior? Children are always asking questions and wanting to know why something is the way it is. So we have to explain to them why someone is sitting in a wheel chair and why someone is not. We have this unstoppable reaction to ask why something is the way it is and we don’t stop asking until we know. Most things are learned but teaching children about privilege and being the domoite group is something that is ingrained in all of us.
4. As I was reading this article I did not feel I was affected by what they were saying about privilege. However when I got to the section where they talk about people with disabilities being labeled different. I suddenly realized that this article did speak to me. I am a person who has a learning disability. I do not tell a lot of people about this because I have found that they start to look at me differently, esp. when they are a friend of mine who realizes that I have a hard time comprening something that I read. They are not sure how to act around me and what is ok to say or ask me. But later on they find out that they d not need to ask a certain way, I just want them to be their self’s, and they can ask me what ever they want. As I was reading this part of the article I noticed that they person who wrote this might not of known what first person language is, they kept saying the disabled person, which made me a litter upset because the disability does not define a person. The person is in fact a person first and the disability comes second. Meaning the person with a disability. This makes me a little uncomfortable when people are referred as the disabled person, because your disability does not make you who you are, you are John with a learning disability, Person first, Disability second.
1. An article about privilege. By privilege I mean the dominate group in society gets this special treatment that they are not even aware of. For example the article talks about people who have a disability being considered not normal, because they do not think the same way people with out a disability think. In this instance the Dominate group (people without disabilities) has the power to define what is considered normal. The article also gives examples of one race being dominated over another race, or males being dominate over women.
2. This article says that one group of people are dominate over another group of people. However this did not happen over night. “It took generation and a vast amount of coercion, before this becomes a white country.” In other words the article says that what we see as real is just made up, and we take it to mean something. Take race for example, the way you look does not change you, but if you look differently from someone else, we autumnally pass judgments onto that person, wither those judgments are true or not.
3. If most of what we experience as real, is there a way not to teach our children about who we perceive to be the dominate group, or is it in our nature to view each other as being dominant or inferior? Children are always asking questions and wanting to know why something is the way it is. So we have to explain to them why someone is sitting in a wheel chair and why someone is not. We have this unstoppable reaction to ask why something is the way it is and we don’t stop asking until we know. Most things are learned but teaching children about privilege and being the domoite group is something that is ingrained in all of us.
4. As I was reading this article I did not feel I was affected by what they were saying about privilege. However when I got to the section where they talk about people with disabilities being labeled different. I suddenly realized that this article did speak to me. I am a person who has a learning disability. I do not tell a lot of people about this because I have found that they start to look at me differently, esp. when they are a friend of mine who realizes that I have a hard time comprening something that I read. They are not sure how to act around me and what is ok to say or ask me. But later on they find out that they d not need to ask a certain way, I just want them to be their self’s, and they can ask me what ever they want. As I was reading this part of the article I noticed that they person who wrote this might not of known what first person language is, they kept saying the disabled person, which made me a litter upset because the disability does not define a person. The person is in fact a person first and the disability comes second. Meaning the person with a disability. This makes me a little uncomfortable when people are referred as the disabled person, because your disability does not make you who you are, you are John with a learning disability, Person first, Disability second.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Race:the power of an illusion: Differences between us
Race the power of an illusion: Differences between us is a movie about the biological factors of race. In the movie we see a group of students that are participating in an experiment to find out what makes one person like another person, genetically, in the different races. When the movie said the students were going to make predictions about who they felt they were going to be the most like, they all said that they were going to be the most like with someone who was of the same skin color as they were. I found this to be a little strange, but when the narrator said, lets see if this is true, I knew that they were going to find out that it did not matter what color your skin was, that did not have any effect on being genetically like someone else. Why is it that the students believe that they would be the same as someone who is the same races they are? I know that this is not true, but it makes me wonder if I thought this way when I was a little kid. i also thought it was interesting that years ago people would measure other's facial features and the size of their skulls to determine who was the same as someone else. I thought it was funny when the students were trying to find out what skin color they were based on the skin test. This was particularly funny because some of the colors were far from a lot of people's skin color. There was one that looked some what orange, I do not know of anyone who is orange, unless if they were to put the wrong shade of make up on. I also did not believe anyone was exactly one color on this skin test. I feel that the students skin were only close to one shade or another. Overall I thought this was a good movie because it shows how we believe just because we look similar to someone does not mean that we are like them, and the color of our skin does not have anything to do with how fast we run or what job we have, all it means is that we do not all look the same.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Drawing the Color Line
"Drawing the Color line" by Zinn was about people England coming to America and bringing African Americans over to the states from Africa. They were brought over in boats, where the African Americans were kept below the deck in these small cages. The African Americans that were being transported were chained together and smashed together like sardines. The article tells how, many of the African Americans died because of suffocation, some killed others in an attempt to breathe.(p.26) The conditions were so bad that one out of three African Americans transported overseas died. Which made the English happy because this doubled the investment for one trip. The article also talked about the treatment of the African Americans once they were brought over to America and sold. They were treated as though they were not human. At one point the article talks about what happens to the African Americans if they were caught trying to run away. If they were caught running away, their punishment was up to the person who caught them.
How is it that one person can feel good or all right hurting another person just because of the color of their skin? I would like to think that if someone saw another person being hurt, they would be like hey, what are you doing and hopefully stand up and say this is not right, these are people. I think in the text where it says an African American was beat after lying next to a white man. This man was given a harsher punishment, when it sounded like it was not his idea to sleep with a white man in the first place. So I feel that the white man ordered the African American to sleep next to him, so he could get the African American in trouble.
This article made me mad because the Dutch and the English did not care about what happened to the African Americans while being transported or even when they got to America. All they saw the African Americans as, was money, and the more that died the better because then the Dutch could charge more money because the value for a slave became higher as more of them died on the way over to America. I have found out, that, so far I have had a hard time reading these articles. It has been hard for me to read these because of the violent acts that the people committed, but also because I would have never believed that this happened. I knew from grade school that the African Americans were treated poorly, but I had no idea that they were being beat and killed for nothing. I feel that I will learn a lot that I did not know about the different groups that we read about.
How is it that one person can feel good or all right hurting another person just because of the color of their skin? I would like to think that if someone saw another person being hurt, they would be like hey, what are you doing and hopefully stand up and say this is not right, these are people. I think in the text where it says an African American was beat after lying next to a white man. This man was given a harsher punishment, when it sounded like it was not his idea to sleep with a white man in the first place. So I feel that the white man ordered the African American to sleep next to him, so he could get the African American in trouble.
This article made me mad because the Dutch and the English did not care about what happened to the African Americans while being transported or even when they got to America. All they saw the African Americans as, was money, and the more that died the better because then the Dutch could charge more money because the value for a slave became higher as more of them died on the way over to America. I have found out, that, so far I have had a hard time reading these articles. It has been hard for me to read these because of the violent acts that the people committed, but also because I would have never believed that this happened. I knew from grade school that the African Americans were treated poorly, but I had no idea that they were being beat and killed for nothing. I feel that I will learn a lot that I did not know about the different groups that we read about.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Tempest in the wilderness the Racialization of Savagery
The Tempest in the wilderness the Racialization of Savagery talks about how Shakespeare used the stories about people coming to settle the new world to write different plays. The article says that the play Tempest is about America and what occurred when the settlers came to live on this land. when the people of England saw these plays they knew that it was about America, because "the play provided clever clues that the story was indeed about America." (pg. 30) In this part of the article the author tells us that Shakespeare rearranged the letters in words, to make them seem made up, but the people knew that they were his way of telling them what was going on in America. For example Shakespeare rearranged the letters in Amleth, the name of the prince in the viking tale to become Hamlet. This shows that the story of Hamlet is really a story about the Vikings.I was wondering why Shakespeare decided to tell the people of England what was going on in America through these plays instead of just walking up to someone and saying, " did you know that this is whets happening with the settlers?" As I was reading I decided that maybe Shakespeare thought that no one would believe him if he went up to someone walking down the street and told them what was going on, or maybe the king did not want the people of England to know what was going on and he thought if he told the story about America in a "made up" story no one would know the difference.While I was reading this article I was having a hard time in the middle do to the descriptions of the violent acts that the settlers were performing onto the natives. I ended up having to take a few breaks because I did not like what I was reading, I could not believe anyone could do such things to people and not show the lets bit of what if this is wrong or these are people too we can't treat them this way. Something to show that they feel bad about what they are doing.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Zinn
"A people’s History of the United States", by Howard Zinn is about the violence and torture that Columbus conflicted onto the Native American. Columbus was on a mission to find gold to take back to the king. Columbus thought the new world was covered with gold and jewels and he thought the Native American were in passion of these jewels. Columbus thought the Native Americans knew were to find the gold, because when Columbus found out that the Native Americans did not know where to find gold and jewels he believed that they were lying because the Native Americans were wearing gold earrings and necklaces. So Columbus decided to torture the Native Americans until they told him were he could find the gold. The Native Americans began to die off because they did not tell Columbus what he wanted to know because the Native Americans did not know where to get the jewels and gold. All that the Native Americans could find were bits of dust, so Columbus killed the Native Americans because they did not give him what he was in search of. Columbus was in search of gold and jewels because he was told that he would receive 10 percents of the profit.
One argument could be weather or not Columbus was responsible for his men. While I was reading this article there was no place that said Columbus told his men what to do I feel that while reading it is just assumed that Columbus told his men what to do and even how to get the information out of the Native Americans.
I was shocked when I read this article because we are taught that Columbus discover the new world and how he helped the Native Americans. When really the Native Americans wanted to help Columbus, but Columbus just wanted gold and ended up killing the Native Americans when they were unable to find the gold that Columbus felt they knew where to find it. I was told one day how we celebrate Columbus day however we really should not be because he did not find new land and he did not help the native Americans, and I never understood why a class mate told me this until I read this article and now I understand why he felt we should not celebrate Columbus day. I guess I would have to say that this article opened my eyes to what really happened and how you can not believe everything that you are told or are taught during high school.
One argument could be weather or not Columbus was responsible for his men. While I was reading this article there was no place that said Columbus told his men what to do I feel that while reading it is just assumed that Columbus told his men what to do and even how to get the information out of the Native Americans.
I was shocked when I read this article because we are taught that Columbus discover the new world and how he helped the Native Americans. When really the Native Americans wanted to help Columbus, but Columbus just wanted gold and ended up killing the Native Americans when they were unable to find the gold that Columbus felt they knew where to find it. I was told one day how we celebrate Columbus day however we really should not be because he did not find new land and he did not help the native Americans, and I never understood why a class mate told me this until I read this article and now I understand why he felt we should not celebrate Columbus day. I guess I would have to say that this article opened my eyes to what really happened and how you can not believe everything that you are told or are taught during high school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)