Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Dixie-Net

Tara McPherson the author of, “I’ll Take My Stand in Dixie-Net” has discovered a different form of racism. Upon the search of her name Tara she came across a few web-sites that advocate Southern separatism, nationalism, and sometimes via secession. McPherson is trying to enlighten us on the details about these websites that the untrained eye might miss such as: covert and overt racism.

“Certainly race is one of the nodal points around which public discourse on the South has turned throughout the twentieth century, but in the post-Civil Rights era representations of race and racism proceeded via different logics….” McPherson pg. 119. McPherson explains the different logics in more detail. She discusses overt racism as sketching the contours of whiteness in contrast to blackness as a racial difference. She also goes on to explain the other form of racism; the kind of racism that is unspoken of but can be derived from the pictures and the contents of these websites such as: www.dixienet.org, or www.conferderate.net as covert racism. These websites are designed and updated weekly by mainly White men between the ages of 18-50. The main purpose is to show the “reconstruction” that the South is undergoing. These men talk about maintaining their past and Southern ways, but something interesting they show is the “anti-Klan logo”. These men aren’t being racist in an overt way but in a cover way. The pages of the website also express dismay the perceptions that protecting Southern heritage means one must be racist.

These pages display one must be racist, but they also display “anti-Klan logos”? This is a complete contradiction in itself. Or is it? This is where Tara comes into play explaining to the reader the use of the covert racism. She goes on to explain it beautifully saying,
“If overt racial representation brings together black and white in order to privilege whiteness, and covert strategies repress difference to the same end, what seems necessary is an overt representation or racial difference without privileging either term. We cannot understand or learn from the South’s racial history by representing it any more than we can champion the identity-shifting potential of cyberspace without studying its racial contours.”

I have read this article with some new found knowledge but not much surprise. U can never fathom all the strange occurrences going on all over the world especially on the internet, but u can expect anything and everything is happening. People are still living the past even today and they are trying to speak out and get themselves heard in every way possible. The new form is through cyberspace as McPherson points out. I think it is kind of funny the things people try to do to get noticed without trying to bring in racial tension; this article is a prime example of what I’m talking about.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

El Norte

Takaki’s chapter 12 El Norte is basically the Mexican version of chapter 10. Chapter 10 showed how Japanese men and woman came to Hawaii and the United States in hopes for a new and improved life. In chapter 12 Takaki enlightens us on the hardships and struggles of the Chicano people.

2.) The significance of this chapter can be summed up in one quote of Takaki. He says, “To the Jewish exiles, America was the Promised Land, and to the immigrants from Mexico, it was El Norte. A land across the river, this country became the stuff of boundless dreams for Mexican migrants.”

1.) Mexicans came to this land on foot, but once the Mexican Railroad was built they came in car loads to the states. Much of this was not by choice, most Mexicans wanted to go to America to wait for their civil war to end and others went because of the poverty and horror of war aka an economic depression. Many relatives that were in the States and came back to Mexico told their families of the money, shoes, and good clothes they could possibly obtain. For some Mexicans this was a sense of motive to find work in the States.

3.) “Like Caliban, they were isolated by the borders of racial segregation.” Many Mexicans were thought to know their place. They were not aloud in public buildings and could not eat amongst the Anglo Americans. In one instance they were told to go eat with the colored people and this was a major demeaning remark to their race. Social construction also came into affect when their kids tried to advance beyond their so-called required education level.

4.) The Mexicans tried many tactics to resist this discrimination. They held a Mexican Revolution. They also tried moving eastward to other jobs were they could find better accommodations. They also held strikes in 1933 and the women set up picket lines. The last but not most affective resistance was the Barrio. A small town set up by the many Mexicans already in the U.S.A. to get away from the American torture and still maintain their homeland culturist views.

5.) Race- “Clearly, race was being used as a weapon by the American Federation of Labor: Mexicans not only constituted “cheap labor” but were regarded as incapable of becoming fully American.” Takaki pg. 331

Ethnicity- “The religion of the Chicanos was a uniquely Mexican version of Catholicism, a blending of a faith brought from the Old World and beliefs that had been in the New World for thousands of years before Columbus.” Takaki pg 335

I believe that the Mexicans endured nearly the same of amount of discrimination as the Japanese people. There was on advantage to being Mexican though, the fact that their homeland bordered the United States and they could easily go back to their birth homes. At one time there were actually too many Mexican workers in the United States and they were encouraged to take the Railroad back to their homes in Mexico with a little persuasion and punishment if they didn’t.

Monday, October 29, 2007

He is saying how throughout his life his being of "yellow" color has influenced the way he has been percieved as. He is not being noticed as a man or a woman, white or black, but as nothing or in his words vanishing. People, mainly whites, have seen him as transparent or as i would say don't even see him at all. There is no place in history for him to fit in. He give the example of the bus. consisting of whites in the front and blacks in the back. Where does yellow fit in? no where in he believes.

There are many cases that you could use this in. They don't all necessarily have to do with race, maybe they deal with popularity/social outlook. Maybe a kid in class gets made fun of or has no "group" to fit hisself into because he/she is out of the social norm. Kids can be discriminated against because of how they dress or what music they listen to. Discrimination doesn't always deal with race.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

How Jews Became White Folks

Karen Brodkin is the author of How Jews Became White Folks. She writes from a different point of view which is very confusing. She tries to portray that Jews “became” white through a series of events.

Karen says how anti-Semitism was at the peak when her parents were growing up and that they got through this tough struggle by “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.” Karen goes on later to describe that there were many Europeans already in America but the ones who came after 1880 came in too big of a group and drew a focus to themselves in a negative way. The real Americans started to close the immigrations doors on anyone who was not of Northern European decent. Since Karen’s parents came to America after this time they had to struggle for work, jobs, education, and for the “right” to be an American/white. Since, they made it through this hardship of discrimination not in a black racist way, but a less harsh down-graded white version than they were successful. She states that Whites discriminated against the Jews in a less demeaning fashion, but still it happened for reasons she described that were ended by affirmative actions programs. These programs brought about a new view to American society. A view that all European decent people whether they were Jewish, Italian, or whatever were more “white” and helpful middle-class workers, than African Americans, Native Americans, or Asians.

Was there an extreme segregation of Whites versus Jews? When people think of segregations they think of black and white; they don’t think about whites and Jews. Maybe some Americans said some hateful things or fought occasionally with Jewish people. Those small instances compare nothing to the pure hatred the Whites had towards blacks. There are many more instances where blacks were beaten and treated unfairly because of their skin color than Jews. Jews don’t really have a skin tone difference.

What I got through the reading she says that the Jews were seen as White before they were discriminated against. So, the riots that occurred because a Jew went were he wasn’t supposed to or sat where he wasn’t suppose to almost has no relevance when we are talking about segregation in history. Jews can’t become “White” if they already were seen as that. They can be viewed as different maybe because of their heritage or accent, but not because of their skin color. That’s why I think this article is coming at this situation all wrong.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow- Extra Credit

In this chapter Richard Wright discusses the many lessons young Negro boys learned as they grow up in the times of slavery and racism.

This chapter hints towards the fact that young Negro boys and/or girls need to respect white people and their privileges. In the first example the boy gets in a fight with a white gang because he fought back instead of running and hiding his moms attitude him is much harsher. Her attitude is much like a white person. She is angered to the point where she beats and punishes him for his actions, but she has different reasons for beating her soon. She is fearful of losing her job working at the white people’s house because of her son’s actions. If it was a white woman beating this Negro boy the reason she would have would be lack of respect towards the superior white people. She would also beat the boy more because she has the privilege to and she wants to teach him a harsh lesson. There are many more examples throughout this chapter of a black boy either disobeying the white mans law or being punished for not even doing anything. Another example would be when the boy’s tire popped and some white youngsters try to give a ride back to town. The boys ask the Negro if he wants a drink of alcohol and he simply says, “Oh, no!” This one mistake, this one slip without adding the word sir to the end of the quote, gives the Negro boy a very harsh time. The boy gets the empty bottle thrown at his face and as he falls scraps his legs and elbows all up. The young boys decide this is enough punishment, but they do say that the Negro boy is lucky they didn’t kill him for his mistake.

All-in-all these examples prove the harsh life a Negro man had to endure from youth to death. Any slight slip proves to be a life threatening and unaffordable to the Negro man. Can these slips be avoided? The answer to this is absolutely not. Even if a Negro boy or girl learns from family members and watching others getting beat they could never get away without being punished sometime. As the example stated in the book the boy never said, “Pease” without saying Mr. in front of it but this did not matter. The white men used this as an excuse to beat the Negro people they did not like. If the boy would’ve said that he always said Mr. Pease than he would be calling one white man a liar. If he admitted to this “crime” he would be punished for not respecting the white man. This situation proves that no matter how hard the black people tried to stay away from danger they could not avoid these situations of punishment.

After reading this chapter I have not learned much. I knew about these hard times already from history class. I wish this never happened, I wish that we could have all lived in peace from the beginning, but there is nothing I can do about the past. There is however something I can do about the future.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Kindred

Octavia butler has written a masterpiece. She has written a book that portrays black life through the early 1800s. The irony and ties that the boy, Rufus, and Dana, the black woman, had is ingenious. The woman keeps going back into history saving this boy she has no idea who is. Until one day she learns that he is related to her. She never knew that a white boy was her distant relative. This shock made me and her curious and determined to find out her history. As she tackled this task she endured the hardships of being black back in the days when owning slaves was an every day event.

Is this story an accurate representation of the past and the future? Or is this a special case where a young boy, soon to be plantation owner, who starts out being fond of black people turns out to be just another mean and bitter slave owner. Are all plantations this harsh to slaves? Or is this a case where slaves are treated pretty well compared to other plantations? No one will actually know for sure unless you lived back then or have relatives who lived in those times that are still alive to tell you stories. Or if you have Octavia Butler write a brilliant story with both those circumstances.

I’m going to start off saying Octavia Butler is an amazing young writer. I have never been able to sit down and read any book because I get bored or tired, but for once I enjoyed this reading experience. She kept me intrigued with the back and forth reality checks that Dana had with and without her husband. I began to understand the hardships and realize the everyday occurrences that went on, on the plantations, in the early 1800s. The way the slaves were: treated, forced, tortured, beaten, raped, and sold for the pure satisfaction of the white plantation owners is mind boggling. Even when the slave owner Rufus grew up his entire life cherishing and helping the black slaves he began to grow mean and bitter toward them. He was especially grim towards the ones he cared for the most, a.k.a Alice, his soon to be wife. One thing that came to my attention was that Butler continued to bring Dana back to modern times, which in her eyes meant freedom. She presented the idea that over the years things have become really great for black people, giving them endless amounts of freedom compared to the olden days. But is that the case? Around where I was born and raised it was semi true but in other parts of America this is not exactly the truth.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The Giddy Multitude

The author Takaki takes us on another adventure as we discover the basis of slavery and the many fears of “The Giddy Multitude.”

First, I’ll explain what Giddy Multitude is and then I will guide you to how it started through Takaki’s eyes. “GM is a discontented class of indentured servants, slaves, and landless freemen, both white and black, the Stehpanos and Trinculos as well as the Calibans of Virginia” (pg. 63). Basically all the white landowning men were scared of the growing population of the GM. So they classified them in a category that if spoken of would bring fear to other landowners.

As we all know Americans brought slaves over from Africa and other regions. Some blacks and some indentured servants captured in their sleep and brought against their will. At first, these black and white people didn’t know much about each other, therefore, led to minimal or no racism. But, soon that would all change. Black and White slaves sometimes escaped together. The landowners did not like this congregation. They eventually split up the workers so this wouldn’t happen again. They did this by separating their break times so they would have less contact. They also did so by punishing the black slaves more harshly than whites for the same crime. This led to some segregation. Black slaves would serve life time enslavement for the same crime whereas whites would only serve a few extra years of labor. This in-turn led to the desire to have mostly or all black slaves because they could stay on the plantation for a longer period of time. Whites saw this as an opportunity. They would come to America hoping to serve their few years of labor than they would start their own plantations. Unfortunately that’s not how things turned out. Whites already in America did not like this idea because that would bring down their sales, so they made a law to extend white punishment to serve a much longer sentence. To no surprise this angered the whites coming to America and they started a huge rebellion. Their motto, “either be free or die for it” (pg. 63). With Nathaniel Bacon as their leader the GM grew to a large number of 500 men as they raided threw the towns and streets. This rebellion not only struck fear to many social classes it brought racism more into the seen. The option society chose was to let the free, landless, white men have more powers. In-turn the segregation of blacks now was apparent that they were only here for one purpose, slavery.

This is a very logical explanation of how slavery began and spread in a very short amount of time. Spread to a number that was not wanted, a number that caused panic and fear in white landowner’s hearts. Was the use of slaves a wise decision? Was the segregation of whites and black indentured slaves good in the long-run? The answer seems obvious, NO! This not only caused more problems than to begin with, it started an endless battle of freedom, racism, and segregation.

I believe that the panicked white, landowning, men took action before thought. I’m sure other alternatives could have been provided or seen given time, but waiting for those answers was not an option as the overwhelming increase of the population of slaves was at hand.