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.
Monday, October 29, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance
“You barely just got off the hook!” Does this sound familiar? Some may hear it quite often some only occasionally. The theme of this chapter suggests that even though you may or may not have heard this sometime in your life you have done something that led to this conclusion.
This chapter primarily connects “getting off the hook” in a privileged way. You can get off the hook because you are more privileged than someone else or you merely can get off the hook by a comment or illusion that makes you seem innocent in a situation where you might not be. Denial is a key trait in a person who has done this. “There are no people with disabilities where I work, so that isn’t an issue here.” This quote along with others suggests that people are in denial with their surroundings to try to fit in with the norm. Of course someone is not going to say disability is an issue if they are confronted by it on a daily basis, this may not be the truth but this is the denial we are trying to prove. There are many acts of denial that people do intern to explain situations. Like in this quote a parent says to their kid, “Now, now, stop crying, it doesn’t hurt that much,” when in fact the adult doesn’t know just how much it hurts. Or like in this situation people but the blame on other people, “If blacks were smarter or worked harder or got an education, they’d be okay.” Both of these situations show how privileged people deny other people because of their incapability do something just so they could get off the hook and look better.
Why? Why all this resistance to the truth? You can’t ask everyone their opinion; you would have to interview everyone in the world, because everyone tries to get off the hook. If you did record most people in the act they might say the words, “I didn’t mean it.” This statement helps anyone get out of a sticky situation. Even if you mean it or not you’re already off the hook because the opposing person doesn’t question you any further, they just assume you’re telling the truth and are completely innocent.
I can’t lie I’ve found myself using this statement numerous times. Whether I meant it or not no one will ever actually know and that’s the beauty of it. No one likes to take the blame for a bad situation. No one likes to be out of the “social norm”. Everyone wants to fit in somehow in life. That’s why I think there will never be an end to “getting off the hook,” so just go with it and accept it!
This chapter primarily connects “getting off the hook” in a privileged way. You can get off the hook because you are more privileged than someone else or you merely can get off the hook by a comment or illusion that makes you seem innocent in a situation where you might not be. Denial is a key trait in a person who has done this. “There are no people with disabilities where I work, so that isn’t an issue here.” This quote along with others suggests that people are in denial with their surroundings to try to fit in with the norm. Of course someone is not going to say disability is an issue if they are confronted by it on a daily basis, this may not be the truth but this is the denial we are trying to prove. There are many acts of denial that people do intern to explain situations. Like in this quote a parent says to their kid, “Now, now, stop crying, it doesn’t hurt that much,” when in fact the adult doesn’t know just how much it hurts. Or like in this situation people but the blame on other people, “If blacks were smarter or worked harder or got an education, they’d be okay.” Both of these situations show how privileged people deny other people because of their incapability do something just so they could get off the hook and look better.
Why? Why all this resistance to the truth? You can’t ask everyone their opinion; you would have to interview everyone in the world, because everyone tries to get off the hook. If you did record most people in the act they might say the words, “I didn’t mean it.” This statement helps anyone get out of a sticky situation. Even if you mean it or not you’re already off the hook because the opposing person doesn’t question you any further, they just assume you’re telling the truth and are completely innocent.
I can’t lie I’ve found myself using this statement numerous times. Whether I meant it or not no one will ever actually know and that’s the beauty of it. No one likes to take the blame for a bad situation. No one likes to be out of the “social norm”. Everyone wants to fit in somehow in life. That’s why I think there will never be an end to “getting off the hook,” so just go with it and accept it!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
What It All Has To Do With Us
What it all has to do with us is a great title to this next chapter. The author discusses the “trouble” surrounding privilege, power, and difference for individuals. People fell awkward and discomforted to talk about these topics because they commonly mistake individuals as to having set privileges. They don’t want to offend others and put others down because they feel more privileged in a certain topic. That is where this all goes wrong.
People aren’t individually privileged or better than others. Groups are viewed as having privileges and groups contain the vast of the population. “Individualistic thinking, however, assumes that everything has only to do with individuals and nothing to do with social categories, leaving no room to see, much less consider, the role of privilege.” Everyone is on an individual judging basis. They don’t realize these social categories are way larger. The actual name for this is a social system. An example of a social system would be a university and the author states, “the people aren’t the university, and the university isn’t the people.”
This quote sums up what this all has to do with us. A university is nothing without faculty and students. And the students and teachers will get no where without a university. They both need each other and that’s how it has to be. The university can’t function with just and individual teacher or an individual student. Universities need groups and groups need universities. If only individuals can understand this. If they could realize this concept that privilege and power is assigned to groups than the world would be a better place. But they don’t they take the “path of least resistance” as Allan states. This is the option to judge people or act in a certain way that is accepted by most. When all males are talking about women in a sexist fashion an individual male in that group is not going to speak up for women because he would get too much “resistance” from the other guys. This all sums up the hardship people have talking about privileges amongst individuals or groups.
This chapter helped me to realize what everyone does. We judge people as if they have the upper-hand in things or the lower-hand. No one person has these individualistic powers or privileges or lack there of. People try to get by, by taking the “path of least resistance.” I am personally guilty of this charge. The path of least resistance gets us out of awkward situations and helps us to fit in the “norm”. Who knows if one day this will change and society will be less judgmental towards particular individuals.
People aren’t individually privileged or better than others. Groups are viewed as having privileges and groups contain the vast of the population. “Individualistic thinking, however, assumes that everything has only to do with individuals and nothing to do with social categories, leaving no room to see, much less consider, the role of privilege.” Everyone is on an individual judging basis. They don’t realize these social categories are way larger. The actual name for this is a social system. An example of a social system would be a university and the author states, “the people aren’t the university, and the university isn’t the people.”
This quote sums up what this all has to do with us. A university is nothing without faculty and students. And the students and teachers will get no where without a university. They both need each other and that’s how it has to be. The university can’t function with just and individual teacher or an individual student. Universities need groups and groups need universities. If only individuals can understand this. If they could realize this concept that privilege and power is assigned to groups than the world would be a better place. But they don’t they take the “path of least resistance” as Allan states. This is the option to judge people or act in a certain way that is accepted by most. When all males are talking about women in a sexist fashion an individual male in that group is not going to speak up for women because he would get too much “resistance” from the other guys. This all sums up the hardship people have talking about privileges amongst individuals or groups.
This chapter helped me to realize what everyone does. We judge people as if they have the upper-hand in things or the lower-hand. No one person has these individualistic powers or privileges or lack there of. People try to get by, by taking the “path of least resistance.” I am personally guilty of this charge. The path of least resistance gets us out of awkward situations and helps us to fit in the “norm”. Who knows if one day this will change and society will be less judgmental towards particular individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)