Facebook

I chose to write on a page to promote a DJ in the Bowling Green area. The name of the group that is “Rich C $ (Doin it for the Honey's).” This group is classified under “Entertainment & Arts - Radio” and following is the description of the page: “Two Hours of the finest Hip Hop n R&B, every Friday night from 8-10 pm on the hottest college radio station in the nation, 88.1 FM-WBGU!!!!!” There are 110 members to this group. As I look thought them there happens to be a wide range of ethnicity, however, there seems to be a slightly larger number of white members.

After reading the description of the DJ, many would assume that the person that the group focuses on is from an African American descent. However after a closer look you come to find that he is Caucasian. This is proof how society has come to stereotype a group of people and only relate them with certain characteristics. This is an example of how someone would interpret his form of speech as urban or black and immediately assume he is African American, when in fact he is a privileged white American male. His name is actually Richard, he is from Bowling Green, attends BGSU and is majoring in Telecommunication and Marketing.

I believe that this page displays how races are uniting and being constructed on Facebook. I believe that this page goes against stereotyping certain characteristics with on culture or one color of people. The content of this page combines multiple cultures in America and in a sense eliminates the color line. I base this off of the fact that everyone who is a member to Rich’s page supports him and his show, no matter their color or beliefs on race. It also shows how those members of different races have accepted a white privileged male as being urbanized as if a part of the black community.

Cybertypes, “Where do you want to go today?”

“It is part of the business of advertising to depict utopias: ideal depictions of being that correctively reenvision the world and prescribe a solution to its ills in the form of a commodity of some sort.” (98) This statement depicts Lisa Nakamura’s beliefs on how corporate America is altering beliefs of its customers for selfish gains.

The corporate slogans which depict multicultural awareness and a strive towards globalization through all cultures, are actually limited to the privileged and middle class America. The advertisements of new technologies claim to make individuals more aware and sympathetic of other cultures and eventually lead to one utopian culture where race, age and gender have no meaning. The content of one advertisement states, “the idea that getting online and becoming part of a global network will liberate the user from the body with its inconvenient and limiting attributes such as race, gender, disability, and age.” (88) These advertisements promise to deliver a world where abilities are limitless involving travel, networking and any expansion of the mind. However the commodity which these industries provide, such as travel and tourism, coherently define the privileged industrialized “first world” person. The images in which they invoke create a belief that these people of other cultures are not as adaptive to this commercialized way of thinking, when in fact they are just as literate as we are. “…IBM speak, the language of American corporate technology. The foreignness of the other is exploited here to remind the viewer who may fear that IBM-speak will make the world smaller in undesirable ways (for example, that they might compete for our jobs, move into our neighborhoods, go to our schools) that the other is still picturesque.” (95)

Nakamura argues that “the other” is portrayed this way to encourage us as Americans to preserve our privileged position in the world. She argues on the stance that corporations are defining race and personal identity along with shaping our way of thinking for the means of advertising and profits. She argues against “Anthems” slogan “Where do you want to go today?,” due to their focus on making the world a smaller place by limiting identity and location. She states, “…then where is there left to go? What is there left to see? What is the use of being asked where you want to go today if every place is just like here?” (92)

This article reinforces the viewpoint on the impact of corporate America on impressionable minds. The corporations know who and how to market certain areas. The fact that the corporations needs images of other races to sell a product and promote a utopian society, will never be able to fully create an awareness of other cultures without depicting images of “the other.”

Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch

Dwight McBride’s article on “Why I hate Abercrombie and Fitch,” retold the creation of world wide brand and how it came to characterize race in modern society. He argues to his readers that A&F has created an ability through commercialization to define race and class gender throughout America’s youth. He states, “People but Abercrombie to purchase membership into a lifestyle.” (86) He believes that it is the lifestyle of the white and privileged and that Abercrombie has enforced its privileged stature in society. Both in the market place and throughout its retail stores he portrays evidence on how the discriminate based on color and class.

The article began by describing the corporation’s creation and that its movement to commercialization was sparked by an idea in its earliest stages. Co owner Fitch was ready to expand the business and sell its ideas to the general public all across the country. “In retrospect, this might have been one of the very earliest cases of big businesses ideology winning out over small.” (63) Throughout the early 1900’s Abercrombie was known to be an outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful. From its creation Abercrombie was linked with white men and women.
“So A&F’s legacy of an unabashed consumer celebration of whiteness, and of an elite class of whiteness at that, in the face of a nation who’s past and present is riddled with racist ideas, politics, and ideology, is not entirely new.” (64) In a sense the author is stating that A&F is capitalizing off of race to boost its company’s profits by marketing towards the whit majority with who also contain the money and power. The author believes that the company celebrates whiteness. “The danger of such a marketing scheme is that it depends upon the racist thinking of its consumer population in order to thrive.”

My problem whit the author is that he continually bashes the consumer of the product such as in the case of describing them racist. How can he defend the beliefs of the consumer when he is not a consumer himself and has no data that represents the consumer in his article?
Yes I agree with the author that the consumer has segregated cultures within its products and hiring processes, but I believe that their intentions are to be a successful company based on profits not the desire to define race and to sustain white privilege. Their target market is the middle to upper class, mainly white, youths. So I believe that it would be in their best interest to market and portray this image for profits sake.

The author of the article is entirely too biased on the stance and beliefs of the company and his desire to bring it down. It is especially displayed on pages 78-79 where he posts the complaints of against the defendant A&F, and he fails to posts A&F’s response to the complaints.

Race: The Power of Illusion, III

In part three of Race: The Power of Illusion, it illustrates historical data that represent how blacks became racialized in modern society. A person described race as being an assumption of historical meaning, and that even though it is not a biological truth it is always present and prevalent in society. The biggest problem with race in the early to mid 1900’s is that privileged white scientist who were part of the majority, believed false characteristics based on stereo types were hereditary with the black community. Because whiteness was a key to citizenship the whites were able to define hierarchy and social construction. The problem with the US being a highly racialized country was that it farced outsiders to fit in with the privileged whites, yet the whites worked to prevent this from happening.
The largest occurrences in which minorities tried to fit in with white culture, was in the housing market. Since the whites held most political positions they were able to make the laws. This is a big reason why physical differences didn’t make race in the 1900s it was based on laws which created a new explanation for it. White was a privilege by law and science, and along with it came power and opportunity. Citizens were denied citizenship based on color not beliefs, whiteness was what whites said it was. Governments created redlining in neighborhoods to keep the blacks from entering into self proclaimed “good-white” neighborhoods. These laws forced all the blacks into a concentrated neighborhood which created little motivation for improvement both for the landowner and for the renters. More than 90% of the housing developments involved in the urban renewal projects were not replaced. Yet once the fair housing contract came to pass in the 1950s, it spread panic in the white neighborhoods. As blacks moved in and tried to “fit in” with white society, they were still cast with negative stereotypes based on color. As the blacks moved in the whites moved out in fear of loosing property value and net worth. Because of the laws and beliefs of the realtors during this time a colored neighborhood was a cheap neighborhood. This denied next generation opportunity for the black families. Their net worth could not increase due to housing restrictions.
What made it possible for the housing market to decrease value just because someone with a different skin color moved next door? These people were able to fit in and provide for their families better in many cases than the whites were. Yet with in only a few years the value of their house went below what it used to be worth when they purchased it. Even with a fair housing act how it was possible for the real estate agency to decide value.
This video helps you realize that race will always be an issue. Even when the white privileged found a way to say it was ok to be black and that you can be equal, they found a way to work around it and create a new form of racial segregation based on color but with a more subtle way of discriminating.

Takaki, Ch.7 Foreigners in their Native Land

In chapter 7, Takaki is able to accurately portray Americans disregard for other cultures brought on by capitalistic ideas and the Market Resolution. “Indeed, the Market Revolution had set in motion forces that were propelling American expansion toward the Pacific.” (166) The Native Mexicans predicted the expansion the Anglos expansion would be usntopable and knew they would have to either adapt or be conquered.

It is stated that the first Americans who migrated into the Mexican owned territory which is now California were generally accepted. They were offered land grants if the proved to adapt to their culture. Even for a while the American rebels who ventured west accepted these conditions and were willing to participate in local customs and ways of life. Yet as they began to migrate west by the thousands the whites began to develop their own idea for western civilization in America. The Mexicans distinguished the Yankees from “- their industry, frugality, sobriety, and enterprise. They found the whites to be impressed with California’s natural resources, its forest, grazing land, and harbors.” (171) It seemed unimaginable for any white traveler to pass up, it was the land of opportunity for the new immigrants. “By the 1840’s, more Yankees were entering Vallejo’s world, driven by dreams of wealth and land ownership generated by pamphlets and books about California. At this time America was also expanding through Texas. The Mexicans now began to realize that there was no stopping this white culture. America took Mexico over with force and money. They made deceived the Mexican natives into believing that it was for the better and for their own good. At the time the newly conquered Mexican believed the white people and began to dream of fortune and power. The Mexicans quickly recognized that this new government which promised them opportunity would concurrently prevent privilege and equality. Like many other non-white citizens the Mexicans were forced to manual labor with lower wage.

This chapter, like many others, provides us with the insight of how money and greed creates privilege and power. The fast paced and industrious white culture was able to prevail and conquer over any race of people that stood in their way because of those characteristics. It seems that American was found on written rules and beliefs which they preached yet never followed. Were they written to deceive those without wealth and power for the advantage of those in power? It certainly seems to be a recurring trend throughout the last few centuries.

Rothenberg, Ch.4 How Jews Became White Folks

“Jews and other white ethnics’ upward mobility was due to programs that allowed us to float on a rising economic tied. To African Americans, the government offered the cement boots of segregation, redlining, urban renewal, and discrimination.” (50)

“Conventional wisdom has it that the United States has always been an affluent land of opportunity. But the truth is that affluence has been the exception and that real upward mobility has required massive affirmative action programs…” (50) The author’s argument here is to point out that the social and economic rise of the Jews was hardly brought on by hard work and education but rather that of the segregation of black and the ability for them to capitalize on their whiteness. This closely relates to Takakis reading on Irish immigrants who were also able to assimilate into America easier due to the color of their skin. Like many immigrants from the 19th century the Jews had to fight the anti-Semitism of daily life. Yet as the next generation of Jews came to pass, society focused more on segregation of blacks and the Jews took full advantage of this opportunity like many other white Europeans. The next two quotes describe how the privileged majority moved from Semitism to racial inequality based on color. “By the 1920s, scientific racism sanctified the notion that real Americans were white and that real whites came from Northwest Europe.” (41) Then post WWII “With the federal government behind them, virtually all developers refused to sell to African Americans.” (47) The author explains this transaction during the 1940s is largely due to theories of nature and biology were being replaced by nurture and culture. (43)

This documentation largely relates to the affirmative action we see apparent in today’s society. It is no longer action against a race but to compensate for denial of social structure in the past. Even though this is a large step for an entire country to transform from segregation to equality it will take much more to balance the wrongdoings in America over the last few centuries. Rothenberg states, “But think what you might have been without the racism and with some affirmative action!” (42)

It is evident in the past few readings that there has always been anti-Semitism across many cultures of white Europeans. But due to racism based on the color of skin it has enable those to adapt much easier into the privileged society. “African Americans were totally shut out of the suburban boom.” “The myth that Jews pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps ignores the fact that it took federal programs to create the conditions whereby the abilities of Jews and other European immigrants could be recognized and rewarded rather than denigrated and denied.” Only now that we realize our privilege can we begin to construct and develop equality.

Takaki, Ch.6 Emigrants from Erin

Takaki states, “Though they (Irish settlers) had planted new roots in America, many Irish found their minds wandering across the Atlantic to the hills of Ireland. Lying in bed at night, they could here “a little voice” calling them back to their “far, far counthrie.” (164) For them, the ocean was a psychological border, protecting them from hidden injuries and bitter memories.

Irish immigrants mostly felt that it was a necessity to travel to America. However they viewed the trip as being ironic, because the poverty in Ireland was created by English policies. Yet between 1815 and 1920, five and a half million Irish emigrated to America (140.) They were being forced out of their own land by the English and pushed to America where there was room for everyone. New settlers sent letters back to the main land describing of a boundlessness country free of tyranny and oppression. There was a demand for labor in America and the Irish intended to fill it. Even though they were provided with back breaking and non stop labor, they still found America to be better than the homeland. It was the same labor they’ve always done, yet they were surrounded with social suffering. They Irish workers were being pitted against workers of other races in the work force. They were trying to fight for their social class while at the same time being compared to blacks on the level of intelligence and personality. So the Irish attempted to assimilate into America through each generation. When they first settled they were forced into blue color jobs and along with that came degradation. But as each generation came, they began to adapt and veer away from negative stereotypes. They came to be educated and learned to erase the bad memories of the homeland.

Why were the Irish able to adapt so quickly into the new world. I suppose the color of their skin played a great role in this advancement into social class. I thought that Takaki jumped around a little too much while writing this chapter. Although their ware a lot of relevant information and a great deal of research, he failed to distinctly define why the Irish were able to assimilate into the American Culture.

A Challenge to Democracy

A Challenge to Democracy was a documentary on the evacuation of hundreds of thousand of Japanese-American citizens in the US in the pacific coast region. Produced by The War Relocation Authority, it was evident that the documentary was written from their viewpoint and intended for the American viewers.
The author attempts to convey the thoughts and beliefs of the Japanese-American citizen during this time of war. Without seemingly knowing it, they defined who these citizens were and what they were to become in the future. They described these camps as a reinforcement to reduce military hazards, calling the citizens in the camps dislocated casualties of war. They overlooked the fact that these camps were bound by wire fences and guards. Even though they explained that they weren’t the most suitable living arrangements, the video constantly reinforced that it was comparable to the rest of America’s standard of living at that time. These camps by no means constituted a symbol of freedom. The camps were on barren desserts and unoccupied land. There were many regulations that the evacuees had to follow such as, only being able to spend .45 cents a day on food, small one room houses, low wages (avg. $12-16 a month). Even with the less than adequate standard if living in the camps, the video managed to portray the contentment of the citizens, showing happy families and workers, laborers learning skilled trades and students in standard curriculums. However the producers were impervious to the fact of the class and race separation they were also displaying. In many scenes a white male is overseeing operations as guards, supervisors, or in the case where the white man in the business suit is handing out wages.
I question the producers’ beliefs when they stated that the citizens were loosing a sense of Americanism in the confines of relocation centers. They attempted to portray the beliefs and views of the Japanese-American citizen at the time of war. However they contradicted themselves in many instances. At the end of the movie the narrator states that many of the Japanese-American soldiers were fighting against the militarism and oppression of Japan and Germany, while fighting for their “American upbringing, freedom, democracy, and equality of opportunity regardless of race, creed or ancestry.” Yet the movie struggled to actually display visuals of these qualities.
It would have been more interesting to here the viewpoints of the Japanese-American citizens who were part of the self-supported relocation centers. While the birth of equality was upon our country at the time the movie it is a good display of how we are blinded by our actions involving ethnicity and class separation. I thought it was interesting to see how the documentary continues to relate to the struggle of inequality today. Like explained from Johnson, the dominate culture did not realize their privilege and therefore unknowingly promoted inequality while attempting to portray freedom.

Takaki Ch.10, Pacific Crossings

The story of “Pacific Crossing” develops from the Japanese immigration to America in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Much like the African Americans the Japanese came to America by being pushed by external forces. They came here for the promise of higher wages through agriculture and the ability to develop a family farm in the new prosperous nation. Yet as they soon learned it was merely that, instead it was comparable to slave labor. It was difficult for them to combine the two cultures and remain equal to the dominate whit culture in America.
Takaki questioned the treatment of the new Japanese laborers. Stating that it was no different than another form of slavery, barley legal yet widely accepted; especially in the islands of Hawaii. In the 1800’ thousands of Japanese laborers, most with a farming background, flocked to America because of the higher wages that were offered. The came to realize the extent of their labor and began fighting for equality. Other races joined the immigration hunt for higher wages. When the Philippine people came across the pacific they began working harder and receiving higher wage as a result. The dominant work force of the Japanese then began to revolt and strike. The efforts of the strikes created a spark in the movement against the fight for equality. They began to receive higher wage rates and a greater standard of living. After several years of settlement the Japanese came to realize that they developed new lives on the land and nearly half decided to stay and pursue their life in America.
I argue against Takakis belief of being related to slavery. These people came to America expecting the conditions of the farming life. They new it was competitive and it was no choice to them than to take the increased pay for harsher working environment. These views are still apparent in today’s economy and business world. It was a matter of business and the all mighty dollar which forced the dominate white culture to have less than adequate working conditions for their employees. The Japanese began to understand these concepts and worked continue to pioneer the revolution of inequality. Yet it is visible of these same practices today especially, in capitalistic societies.
It was interesting to see a culture take a stand against the dominate culture on their homeland. By overpowering the dominate culture by shear numbers they were able to set standards on their own standard of living. They continued to persistent through constant struggle of inequality and little by little they were able to overcome their past.

Takaki Ch.3 Question

What sort of consequences if any did the leaders of our country foresee in creating slaves and defining their livelihood; specifically the segregation of the black slaves.

Takaki, “The Giddy Multitude”

Takaki writes, “Driven by immediate economic interests and blindled by a short time horizon, the planters had not carefully thought what they were doing to black people as well as to American Society and future generation.” In short he is saying that the founders of this country created a social disorder which has lasted ever since it’s new found existence. These images of the black stereotype were created even before slavery, and continued to create multicultural wars long after its conception.
Takaki argued on how negative association with black culture has spurred racial inequality in the founding of America. That these stereotypes were based on color rather than character. This was evident within the legal system and the exchange of white slaves and black slaves. Black slaves were almost always given a longer sentence to their servants than whites. Along with that the blacks were traded treated along with animals and materials, not even being treated as humans. This was a result of business, the blacks were considered to be cheaper and easier to maintain than whites because it was how the system set the standard based on color. It was easier to distinguish workers by color than work ethic. Financial advantages dominated over everything it set standards and wrote the laws of equality. The standard was that it was easier to separate someone on the basis of race and not class. There came to be less inequalities within the white culture involving class and a larger inequality between black and white.
The problem at the time was that those founders never considered the consequences of creating black slave labors. It was a quick fix for the current problem which created a crisis for centuries to come in American Culture. I believe that there must have been other alternatives discussed to abolish slavery in the 1700’s. Takaki doesn’t go into much detail on discussions of those in office and what their views were at the time. Even though we’re unable to rewrite history it would be possible that the leaders showed a compassion and realization for the problem they were causing.

Ethnic Notions

Ethnic Notions was based around how images from mass media have permeated the American culture from generation to generation. It described how these images have come to define inequality, specifically race, in society. Some of the biggest flaws in shaping America came from race was created in a nation found on inequality.
The movie argued that the majority of citizens in the last two centuries were susceptible to believing unseen images and stereotypes of certain cultures. Through the mass media, people were compelled to believe the characters that were portrayed without having personal contact with those of the same race; especially those in the black culture. This culture was repeatedly being portrayed in negative ways. There was no intention for the media to represent truths. Exaggerated black stereotypes were portrayed for the amusement of the majority, or the whites. Some examples were the happy Sambo of the happy Nanny. These images were of course false and led people to believe that blacks actually preferred being segregated and were content with it. These images were thought to have justified racial imbalance yet created a bigger struggle for the black community to become equal. Yet when blacks pursued to be equal they were then viewed as a threat, animalistic, and savage.
My concern is that there is too much focus on what is right and wrong through media portrayal. Even though whites mostly controlled the media during these era’s, I believe that we tend to believe the unseen truths for entertainment. These images and beliefs of inequality are brought upon us because it sells and it is good for business. People rarely weigh the consequences of their actions and when it comes in the form of disgracing entire cultures through mass media then it creates a cultural pandemic.
This highly offensive yet truthful video created an awakening of how media has and business has influenced the American culture. It portrays that most of us tend to believe things in which we have not seen or have no experience with, which in turn creates a struggle for us all.

PPD Ch.5

Johnson states that privilege must be as much of an issue for the dominant groups as it is for those who bear the brunt of the oppression it causes in everyday life. The key is to engage members of the dominant groups with issues of privilege as an ongoing, permanent part of their lives. There needs to be a way to remove the barriers that keep well-intentioned members of dominant groups stuck in a place where they don’t see themselves as part of the solution. The best way to accomplish this is to have serious conversations across differences and to act across the same differences toward ending the suffering of indifference.
Johnson argues his viewpoint on the basis of others experiences and thoughts on why dominant groups don’t engage in the issues at hand. Here are the viewpoints of why dominant groups don’t see privilege as a problem: Because they don’t know that it exists, they don’t have to acknowledge it, they think it’s just a personal problem, they want to keep their privileges, they may be prejudiced-racists-sexists-heterosexist-ableist-and classist, and finally because they are afraid.
Johnson doesn’t provide much insight for future solutions in this chapter. However I agree on his viewpoint that short-run competitive thinking is making nearly impossible to achieve a world without privilege and oppression, and that we need to develop a commitment to change. The commitment to change must come from both the oppressed and privileged groups. I believe that we are on our way to achieve this goal considering the awareness of the issue that surrounds our everyday life. Since the mid 1900’s and the civil rights movements we have developed social consciousness of matters pertaining to privilege and oppression.
This reading helped me realize the strides we have made since the civil rights movements, yet it displays the struggle we still face today concerning inequalities and statuses in todays society. Most of us have seemingly developed an understanding of privlege vs. oppressed, it is now time to stand up to the inequalties to fix the problem.

PPD Ch.2

Johnson links the problems of privilege, oppression, and difference to a legacy that we all inherited. Even though it didn’t start as our problem we all take part in it and should work on fixing it. He believes that most of us are uncomfortable in dealing with these situations and that’s becoming a major downfall. In this chapter Johnson describes the two biggest problems as being power and privilege.

Privilege is described by Johnson as being something a group has of value that is denied by other groups. It is an unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Oppression is the opposite of privilege, groups are considered to be oppressed only if there is a privileged group and vise-versa. Most people become offended with these issues but Johnson argues that they we must become aware of them to create a solution.

I believe that Johnson argues some interesting points and defines the terms very well but his idea of creating a solution by becoming comfortable with the topic at hand isn’t enough. Johnson is merely stating his opinion on the beliefs of the oppressed. He seems to be looking for simple solution without searching for other factors in certain situations. By linking oppression with dominance, Johnson is disregarding the characteristics of the individual, each of us has a personality trait which can be similar or different among separate races and genders. Without taking these factors into account I find it difficult for Johnson to support his evidence in some situations.

Many of the situations in this chapter are prevalent in today’s society and it is easily noticeable. Yet without the proper justification of each situation it becomes increasingly hard to define the oppressed or dominant group.

PPD, Ch.8 (Group)

The author states that people leave it to someone else to take care of the problem, yet there is no way to avoid being part of the problem. He refers to this as being off the hook because there is no way to avoid being part of the problem, which occurs from denial and resistance of these problems. He states that subordinate groups are on the hook everyday and dominate groups are too but may not realize it because their privilege allows them to deny the fact. However being aware of the privileges that many of us are given will provide a window for each of us to create a solution.
Evidence of denial and resistance surrounds our lives daily, some problems have become culturally accepted and some cause civil rights movements. Johnson states that the easiest way to get off the hook is to deny that it exists in the first place. This seems to be the most prevalent problem is today’s society concerning inequality… Some examples from the book include:
“Racism and sexism used to be problems but they aren’t anymore.”
“The American Dream is alive and well and available to everyone.”
“Affirmative action has actually turned the tables-if anyone’s in trouble now, it’s whites and men.”
When we deny the reality of oppression you also deny the reality of privilege that underlies it. Privilege gives people the opportunity to define other people’s experience for them which minimizes the situation and problem at hand.
Other methods to get off the hook involve blaming the victim and call it something else. People often draw on negative cultural stereotypes of each other. The result of this is that oppression is blamed on the people who suffer most from it. Some more culturally accepted viewpoints come from people who call the privilege something else. This creates the appearance that the person is in touch with reality but believes he/she has nothing to do with the problem. The problem here is that we would not be able to create a solution without first recognizing our privileges, which is no better than causing the problem.

Mirror, Ch.2

William Shakespeare’s “Tempest” was a play depicting the Europeans colonization of America. Written from the conquerors point of view, the play views the English expansion as a form of human progress. The author, Ronald Takaki, describes the expansion as “a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity based on race.” The author uses the play as a metaphor which helps us recognize the beliefs and feelings of Europeans during this time in history. Takaki questions the significance of progress and savagery in the European sense of the word.

Takaki argues against Shakespeare’s and the Europeans knowledge of the native people, and the choices they were making by characterizing these people. They saw the Indians as savages, but were they realizing their own racial savagery in the process. Questioning if the play was a prologue for America?

I don’t believe that the evidence here could support a different conclusion. I believe his assumptions are none biased. He is not arguing for the existence of the native people, he is merely questioning the Europeans thoughts and actions during this period. I believe that the majority of us today (even those of European descent) would consider the actions of the European settlers towards the Indians to be savage. The play seems to depict the account quite literally, and at the time it was produced the Europeans seemed to view it with a sense of normalcy and acceptance. However this was not the beliefs of the natives at the time. The challenge here was that both societies viewed the other as being savage and uncivilized, which brings us to the question of who was right? In today’s society we can easily recognize the savage people as the European Settlers. As depicted in the play, the Indians accepted the new civilians onto their land; even when they viewed them as being both God like and war like. The settlers on the other hand refused the offer, seeing the land and the Indians as an opportunity for improvement instead of acceptance and peace. The Indians offered a peace treaty, and the Europeans reluctantly declined due to the simplicity of their society. They began taking over the land as their own and attempting to civilize the Indians in their own sense. The result is that the European settlers unknowingly became the savage and uncivilized people they once despised.

My interpretation of the reading is that race cannot be defined by any particular people or person. It may never be possible to define words such as race, savage and civil. For when a culture defines it they later come to realize their mistakes as portrayed in Shakespeare’s “tempest.”

Rosenblum and Travis

Rosenblum and Travis conclude by describing how disheartening is to think of oneself as being a member of a stigmatized group. However, because characteristics of a stigmatized trait are similar across a great variety of master statuses, it is difficult to link individuals to a particular group. Also people who are stigmatized have often formed alliances with those who are not stigmatized to promote awareness and acceptance of indifferences.
Their argument is on the basis of master statuses and the impact they have on today’s society. Master status is described as, a status that has a profound effect on one’s life, which dominates other statuses one occupies; race, sex, sexual orientation, social class, and ability/disability are considered master statuses. The authors argue that a status such as race strongly affects occupation, income and health; which inadvertently creates consequences for an individual linked to a certain master status.
I believe the author’s position has a defining impact on the subject discussed here. The fact that the author is arguing the impact of master statuses from the standpoint of a self proclaimed acceptable status (being white, male, middle class), influences the question, “How can the author relate to the material and how sympathetic are they towards the subject?” Since their knowledge of the subject on opposite races, sexes, social class and ability is restricted to books and interviews, they lack the experience of growing up as an individual linked to a master status. We would get a greater understanding of the subject if alternate authors, who held certain statuses, provided us with their feeling and interpretation of the material.
It was a very interesting article. The authors stated that there would be many parts throughout the article that readers would disagree with and this held true. One thing I found true in which the author stated was that “we assume that statuses such as sexual orientation, skin color, social class and disabilities tell us something meaningful about a person.” After reading the article, I found myself becoming more sympathetic of opposite statuses from my own.

Zinn

Zinn concludes his article by questioning the effects of teaching history from the standpoint of the conquers and leaders of Western Civilization. He states the imperfection of myths is not an excuse for human progress in the annihilation of entire races. Why is it that we define human progress as a time of catastrophe and not peace?
Zinn argues that emphasizing the heroism of Columbus has come to our belief as a justification for what was done (the genocide of the Indians). He argues that we have been taught to bury the facts that cause the controversy. A person sees history from the standpoint of others which relate to their own personal struggle.
In order to save the innocent minds of our youth we teach them distorted myths of historical events. We cannot subject them to the truth of mass genocide during the era of Christopher Columbus. Yet I believe that we stretch the truth too much during these early stages. The youth learn to celebrate Columbus for his achievements which are ok for their developing minds. However I agree with the author in saying that we should not praise his achievements as adults.
I agree with the author in saying that we should not lie about the past nor omit the facts which lead to an unacceptable conclusion. The author however describes himself as being skeptical of government and their attempts to transform cultural beliefs, makes me in turn skeptical of his opinions on the subject.

PPD, CH.1

At the end of chapter one in PPD, Alan Johnson concludes on the meaning of words and the negative impact they can have on people. He says that we must learn to tolerate the discomfort that words such as racism, sexism and privilege evoke. He also states that words that describe himself, “white male and middle class”, are something he didn’t create but was passed down to him as a legacy in today’s society.
His argument of being able to become tolerant with one another is based on people’s ability to recognize their own problems and to do something about it. If each person doesn’t take the initiative by acknowledging their privileges, then we will not be able to break the barrier of what privilege and difference mean and in return not be able to respect, understand or appreciate one another.
Yet I believe that other steps are needed before we automatically recognize our problems and learn form them. Change is needed in earlier stages of the learning process. As we grow up under our parents and guardians they posses the ability to create and shape our way of thinking. We need to alter the meaning of negatives words such as racisms and sexism to a more neutral meaning. When I hear the word racism, I think of violence and hate, which in turn causes controversy. However, by relating these words to a more positive meaning this will in turn lower the need for controversy and negative reactions.
The intro of “were in trouble” made me question his attitude on the subject of race and ethnicity. As he continued with his story it drew me in and then I realized why he wrote the intro in that manner and I became more considerate of the material. I understand his point of view, we must use words that offend us and relate directly to the material; otherwise we will not be able to make sense of the truth.