Welcome to Cleveland, Home of the.......

This webpage shows the Cleveland Indians masocot, and then 16 other illustrations that use the same face but wearing different things. Every illustration portrays a different stereotype that a race could be labled as. The aurthor's main point is that the if it wasn't the Cleveland Indians, then could could probably be one of these other illustrations. We have been so used to Chief Wahoo and became so a customed to the way he looks, that we haven't even thought of what a different races stereotype would look like with the same face. The author is trying to show his audience that it is very easy to just through a hat on the face or color it black, and then the whole image and stereotype would change. It shows that stereotypes are just made up by what other people think that race wears or looks like. It also shows how racial the Cleveland Indians mascot really is because that isn't what every Indian looks like at all. So if it was the Cleveland Gansta's then it would have a stereotypical black man with chains on and a ball cap, because that is the stereotype of them.

There is a stereotypical illustration of Indains, Japanese, French, Negroes, Latinos, Irsih, Italians, Africans, Germans, Polish, Jews, Chinese, Skinheads, Spanish, Gansta's, White Folks, Catholics. They are all very racial and stereotypical; for example the white folks have a hood on hinting that he is part of the KKK. The Polish person has a dunce cap on, and the Africans have a tribal bone through there nose. The Germans have a Nazi symbol around the neck and a Hitler mustache. Every head though has the same smile, nose, and almost the same eyes. The Japanese and Chinese faces have smaller eyes, hinting the stereotype that they havee slanted eyes. The Gansta's are the only one that it doens't show there eyes, it is just solid black.

What would the Middle East face look like now since 9/11 as occurred?

Do you think any of these illustrations depict the race wrong(not just the fact that they are all stereotypes and awful depictions)?

I feel that the middle east person would have a turbon on his head and some sort of beard on his face. I always see illustrations that depict people from that region that way. I also think some of these racial stereotypes are wrong. The Germans one kinda gets to me because it represents someone like Adolf Hitler, but when he was doing his big thing around WWII. HIs big thing was to have the average german be blonde with blues eyes, but this illutration is ironic because it is the exact opposite of what he wanted. I just think that these illustrations are atleast the old stereotypes of the races that they are portraying, becasue i don't see people of that heritage or region like that at all. I did like how the author portrayed them all on the same face though because it really shows how similar people really are. I thought this was an interesting subject and liked discussing it in class.

Somerville Ch. 1 "Queering the Color Line"

This chapter goes into detail about how people in the early 18th century and beyond started to racialize sex. It shows the simularities of how race became what it is today and how being homosexual is following the same progression. The authors main purpose for this chapter is to show how old scientist tried to show how people where inferior or disabled if they liked the same sex. The author tells his readers that "My focus here is on how these writers and thinkers conceptualized sexuality through a reliance on, and deployment of, racial ideologies, that is, the cultural assumptions and systems of representation about race through which individuals understood their relationships within the world" (17). So he just tells his readers that he is using all of the believed methods that were once thought true, to show how people then thought of homosexuals.
The chapter begins with Siobhan explaining some of the early thoughts of sexuality and the people that created them. Havelock Ellis played a vital role studying sex and hinted that the studyn of race is closely related to the study of sex. It was thought that problems in a persons sexuality created the thoughts of homosexuals and were shaped be race as well. Sexology in the US began in the 1880's and then, homosexuality, was considered very abnormal. People like Ellis wrought many book on the study of sexuality and how it was natural, which made many people question there sex. Homosexuals began to be called a discrete group of people, thus just like black people did. But it was medicine that would decide what would be done with these people and not government or anything else. In the Nineteenth Century race was decribe was based on "geography, religion, class, or color" (21). There were two basic ways to understand how race became to be, Monogeny and polygeny. But it was polygeny that thought "blacks were permanently inferior to whites and that racial mixture would have dangerous. . .consequences" (22-23). So the body then became the main focus on determining the difference in race and sexuality. "scientific assertions about racial differences were often articulated through gender"(25). Early scientist tried to make points that the female black woman had a bigger buttocks than a white women (26). That a normal person would be considered a white person. This goes the same for people being homosexual, they were not considered normal and they had physical differences that proved it. It was said that they would be a threat to white people and purity (30). Many people think Homosexual is a bad word to call people. It was said that they were a third sex and hald breeds of what other people were. Then the thought that they were pervesed came along. It was connected that black men were perversed to white women. That lesbians were perversed to have feelings for other women being of the same race or being even worse if it was a different race.

Do you see the simularities of Race and Sex, and do you think they are both very important?

Do you think that race is connected to sex and sex is connected to race, inadvertinatly?

I thought this was an interesting chapter to read. I personally found it to be dry and boring though at the same time. I felt that it was very deep and almost hard to understand in some points but the ones i could see, i thought they were interesting. I do think that race and sexuality are very important in today's society. I feel that being homosexual is a choice in many ways but that is a whole different and long subject. I also can see that race and sex are related but i don't think that they are closely related enough to affect one when the other is affected. I find it a good subject for this class and can't wait to really understand it better after our discussion.

A Challenge to Democracy

This video was about how the United States made every Japanese family and every family that even looked Japanese evaculated out of their homes. The video shows how the UNited States moved them out there and how they did in their new homes. It is an older film and shows more of the happy side of the relocation centers than what was really happening.

They were taken mostly from the west coast and put into "relocation centers" across the mid-United States. The government called them a deslocated people, so the word prisoner wasn't used. Even though that is what they were. Each relocation center carried anywhere from 7,000-18,000 people. Inside the camps, people were split into blocks, around 300 people lived in them. The whole place was bounded by barb wired fence and guarded by army officals. The Japanese people were provided very little in their new homes, and many of the people had to leave all their belongings behind. They ate at in large places called mess halls, where it costed them money. Most of the camps were located in the desert so japanese people had to irrigate the land to grow food. It was said that they grew vegitables where it was thought to be unproductive. They built that civiliation from the ground up, building roads, sewage, farms, and many other things. Many Japanese people had to draw from their saving to live decently in the camps. The relocation centers were used to train many young men and women to do variuos professional jobs. They even had voting and a governmental system. They did say living was tough there and it was said that the main goal was to get them all back out into the UNted States and to their homes.

Did you think we trained the Japanese people in the camps on purpose, so we had people to replace the one we lost in the war?

Do you think we placed the Japanese people back over the United States on purpose in certain places, like we were worried?

I think this video is very biased. It shows all the positive things the Japanese people did in their relocation center. Which equal containment camps in my mind and many other peoples. I couldn't get how they showed so many people doing things and making them out to be positive. They farm, built roads, and sewage because if they didn't, it'd be like living in the olden age. The government provided so very little hat it is shocking. I agree with both my questions and think we did this all because there was a background meaning behind it all. I think it was a very sad thing we did to and can compare almost to slavery.

Takaki Ch.10

Takaki's chapeter ten is mainly discussing how the Japanese came back into the free world and out of isolation. They came to Hawaii which then led to the United States for the same reasons most immagrants do, to start a new life: "But they, too, were pushed here by external influences"(246). Since taxes were so high for Japanese farmers, they had to sell there land and most moved easterly in search of money and prosperity.
Many Japanese farmers had to sell there land because they couldn't afford taxes anymore, so they moved easterly (246-247). "In one year a worker could save about eight hundred yen- an amount equal to the income of a governor in Japan," and that is why so many people wanted to make there way over to Hawaii (247). In most peoples mainds in Japan "Money grew on trees in America" (247). The United States wanted more women imigrants because it would keep the male ones in line, and both the States and Japan didn't want what happened to China happen to they as well. The term "picture bride" was said now becasue marriage in Japan was based on families, so they sent pictures of the bride and groom before they met overseas (248). Japanese women had more rights then chinese women. Family is everything in Japan, it was said to have three children "one to sell, one to follow, one in reserve" (249-250). The one to sell was a girl and she would be soon wed and in another family, the one to follow was the oldest male and he got married first, and the one in reserve was if something happened to the first son (250). People working in the canefields were soon discriminated against when Hawaii became a state. There supplies and most everyting else were lowered. Since many men left for the UNited States for more jobs the women were stuck back in Hawaii in the fields and were whipped if didn't work hard enough. There whole people were exploited to work on fields and they stereotyped they greatly. "Blood Unions " were formed to strike and stop work in the fields of Hawaii, but Filipinos were just imported to Hawaii and it then broke the strike. Then soon they went on strike too (2858-259). Other forieng people were then imported like Koreans as strikebreakers. But for everyone, the conditions were horrible for both living and working. "Over the years, a plantation dialect devoloped called pidgin English" (264). It was a mix of all the languages of imigrants. In the United States the Japanese were the racial minority by only having 2 percent of the population. They worked on railroads byt many became farmers. The only land that they could farm was desert because they were dicriminated against. So many Japanese people had to turn the desert into a prosperous farm land. And everything went somewhat fine for both the Japanese people excluding some hardships and Americans, untill the day of december 7, 1941.

Do you think the Japanese people could have done anything different in their oppresion?

How would you feel if you were a Japanese person and one of the first to be over in the UNited States? Do you think you'd be able to live like they did?

I personally liked this chapter of Takaki. I always like to read his work and find it very interesting and hard to put down. I find some of the other readings we do boring and repitious and i never seem to feel that way about Takaki. I couldn't imagine how it was to be a Janpanese man in this time of hardship and dirscrimination. I think i would have probably worked on the rail road because i don't think i would have gotten into the farming business. I feel bad for all the discrimination and sorry that i couldn't do anything for them, but happy that they are prospering in the United States now like they set out ot do in the first place.

Dwight McBride: Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch

The aurthor's thesis in this article is pretty clear. McBride tell his readers why he strongly dislikes the compnay Abercrombie and Fitch, because it is build upon racist views and beliefs; "[. . .] A&F's legacy of an unabshed consumer celebration of whiteness, and of an elitet class of whiteness at that, in the face of a nation whose past present are riddled with racist ideas, politics, and ideology, is not entirely new" (64). Dwight McBride gives detail in his article on how A&F's started, and how it turned into the company it is today, that targets young white males and guy males.
McBride first tells his readers that "in the mid-1980s [. . .] succeful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products" (59). We then find out how he came about to notice A&F in certain guy bars and places wherever he went. It was A&F target market that he notcied was guy white men and how he never saw advertising with people of color in them. He starts explaination with the history of Abercrombie and Fitch. There first store open in 1892 by David T. Abercrombie and it was originally a outdoors store to supply the outdoors men. Ezra Fitch later became a partner and the store turned into Abercrombie & Fitch (62-63). After Fitch ran Abercrombie out and made the store into a huge outdoor supply store where some very famous named shopped at such as, Teddy Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, and Winston Churchill. McBride then points how even back then the store was for white people; "It is not surprising that the cothier we know today developed from a company with early roots in exploration, adventure, and cultural tourism catered to the white upper classes" (64). They then filed for bankruptcy in 1977 and wasn't started back up untill 1988. But it wasn't untill 1992 when Abercrombie hired Micheal Jefferies and Bruce Weber when the company became popular. They started advertising to "glamorize the hedonistic collegiate lifestyle" (65). McBride then tell's his readers "the danger of [Abercrombie's] marketing scheme is that it depends upon the racist thinking of its consumer population in order to thrive" (66). McBride goes on to point out more racist things about A&F like few minority workers, models, and store policy guidelines. People have filed major complaints about A&F and even some white employees feel uncomfortable working there.

Do you feel like Abercrombie and Fitch is the only store that does this?

Have you ever bought anything because it was a brand name product, even though it was more expensive? why did you feel you needed that one instead of the other?

I personally didn't like this article very much at all. I can undrstand where Dwight McBride is coming from and i agree with most of his points. I agree that Abercrombie and Fitch goes after young white males and guy people as a target market. They have some boarderline policies that could be considered racist and controversial too. But i don't feel like they should be sued over those views. And i'm not backing up A&F because i wear there clothing or becasue i like their clothes. I back them up because i'm a business person and i give them credit for finding a niche in todays market and are making a lot of money off of it. They are using the United States free-market system to their advantage. They aren't the only company that does this either, McBride mentions Ralph Lauren and Banana Republic, but what about brands like FUBU, Sean Jean, and Rockawear. Those company are based for the African American people and McBride never even talked about any companies like that. They have their niche towards African Americans but it isn't uncommon to see a white person wearing those clothes; just like it isn't uncommon to see a minority wearing A&F. I give A&F for finding a niche and keeping it up over the past year since they came back in 1988. I just think McBride isn't happy to see a company make money off of his aparent sexuality and him not liking the clothes.

Frank Wu "Yellow"

I believe what Frank Wu is tryin to tell his readers is best portrayed in one of his opening sentences; "The lives of people of color are materially different that the lives of whites, but in the abiding American spirit we all prefer to beleive that our individualism is most important" (415). He is trying to say that people in the United States live different lives even though they tell themselves that they don't.
Wu explains to his readers that he is an Asain American, but is treated very poorly; "I am who other portray me to be rather than how I percieve myself to be" (415). He believes and I agree that "the inalbity to define one's self is the greatest loss of liberty possible" (415). He also tells his readers that people "cannot overcome the stereotype of group identity" (415). He points out in America, when whites are mistreated poorly by other whites, they shake it off. But when a minority is mistreated they bring it upoin them being of that race, because they have no clue if it is really because that or not (416). Wu has had several cases were he is judge by the color of his skin being yellow, and he thinks it is in many cases, hard to fit in in America. He tell his readers that "race is moe than black and white, literally and figurativly" (416). He is trying to prove the act that Asians don't really have a part. He goes on to tell that American means white minority and that withour the rest of the non-white minorites, the equasion is imcomplete (417).
When you see an Asian on the street, do you see an immigrant/tourist or do you automatically see an American?
Do you think that Asain's are mistreated more or less than African Americans in todays socitity?
I personally didn't like some of the things frank Wu was talking about. I felt it more of a paper giving off steem that was build up, more than the fact that Asian Americans are mistreated. I can see where he is coming from though, saying that race isn't just and can't be just black and white. But i also don't like or just didn't understand it properly how he degrated what an American is. We have always called ourselves a melting pot of cultures and races, so that includes Asians. He is saying that American doesn't include everyone. I can see and feel how he felt about the newspaper article but that just doesn't mean we think or them intirearly a different people. I think of Americans as a person who is a citizen of the United States and that is what he should know that most people do too, and not just the thought that they are in the middle of a black and white affair.

Kindred

Kindred was personally a very good book to read. It really did a good job at potrying the thoughts and feelings an African-American women of present day would do back in the days of slavery. Dana was an African-American in her late twenties to early thirties that worked for an agency that employed her to do odd jobs for people. He worked there and wrought books in her free time trying to get them published and make a great profit. She had a husband (Kevin) that work the same agency job just for extra cash really, becuase the book he made sold. Dana realizes that when she gets dizzy and passes out, she wakes up in the 1800's and a boy by the name of Rufus Weylin needs her help. Dana realizes that Rufus is an ancestor even though white, and must save his life everytime she is transported back to his era of time.
There are many situations and events that occured in this book that are related to the things we have read in class. Dana learned very quickly about the Jim Crow laws that every black person must follow. They weren't directly called the Jim Crow laws in the book, but that is the name i learned them by. She learned that she had to either call a white man "sir" or "master" when talking to them directly. And the fact that you could get beaten at anytime when talking to a white person; if they thought you were talking back to the harshly or unproperly. Dana began to fear all white people and knew they were all dangerous, even little Rufus becasue he grew up to be almost as worse as his farther. Dana stood her ground though when comfronted by a white person, that too was a Jim Crow law. Just like we read in class, Dana found out how easy it is for a black person to be sold away from there families and be beaten. Another Jim Crow law was to stay inside at night when you are black because you look suspicuos otherwise. Dana knew that already but really had to boey it in the South. Free blacks could easily turn into slaves when whites tore up there papers and sold them back into slavery. It was the fact the slaves had no freedoms and couldn't even look at some white people without getting beat up or hanged in some cases. Dana also learned that black people weren't allowed to read books or know how to write, they were considered dangerous and whites didn't like it when blacks were smarter than they were.
This book also is related to the short time we talked about in class about nuses. Alice, a relative of Dana's, hung herself after she found her whole family was sold away. It just proves the fact that when people think of hangins and nuses, they also think of African Americans. It is a sad thing to think about actually because we related a group of people to a public display of horror.
But all in all, the book was very good and was very much worth the time it took to read it. It didn't even take that long because it was pretty easy to read. I love the whole thing and i'm so glad that we had to read it for this class. I have enjoyed most all of the readings but this one was the one that had my attention the most.

Eyes on the Prize:Awakening 1954-1956

The film Eyes of the Prize was a very informational film about how African Americans strugaled to gain freedom in the 1950's. Its main purpose was to inform people about history in the south and how it affected the rest of the country. The film also said that it was made and the events that happened because it was ordinary people doing extrodinary things back then.
Emmit Till was the boy who's situation most famously started the movements. Emmit Till was a fourteen year old boy that went down to Mississippi to pick cotton with his friends. It happened August 1, 1955; Emmit Till was walking out of a store in the deep south when he turned to a white girl and said "bye baby." He was told afterward it was a stupid thing to say and to leave now. Mose Wright was Emmit's uncle and witnessed two white men come and take Emmit away with them. Emmit's body was found a couple days later in the Talahassee River beaten horribly and had a bullet in his forhead. His open casket funeral created an uproar throughout the south and caused many people to stand up in non-violent protest. There were serveral protest such as Rosa Parks standing here ground and staying seated in a white persons place on a bus. There was also a lot of protests that sat down at white cafe counters and refused to leave and waited to be served. Those black people were beaten and verbally assulted for there doings and were thrown in jail for 30 days. The Mongomery Improvement Association made it right for blacks to be served and for them to go to the same school as whites. But what plade the most important role in all of this was the music at the time and students, because without out both of them, nothing would have been done and Emmit Till's generation did a great job fixing the problem that he was killed from.
What would have happened if the revolts happened in todays time and the easy abilitiy for fire arms would have been around?
What if Emmit Till Would have left the south and lived, how long would it have taken for the revolts to occur then?
This film was very informational and opened my eyes alittle more to the horrors that African Americans had to deal with. I really like the movie and found it very interesting. It makes me wonder what my parents or grandparents role was in all of this. I can only hope that it was to help the needy and display their best interest to help who they could. I know that if i was around back then, i would help everyone i know and wouldn't let anyone pursuade me. It makes me happy to know that a group of people stood up and pushed for what they believed in because it doesn't happen to often like that.

The Ethnics of Living Jim Crow

I believe the authors main point he is trying to get across is that there were several rules for black to know of in the old South. They were the unspoken Jim Crow rules of wisdom that an African American must know “if he wants to eat and live” (29). The authors thesis is hard to find and pick out of the story he is telling but I feel it is when he talks about all the white folks things as symbols; “through the years they grew into an overreaching symbol of fear” (23).

The chapter starts off on how he is loved what he had, which was a run down house and a front yard full of warm cinders. He learned his first Jim Crow rules at an early age when he was in a “war” with the white boys across the railroad tracks. (22) One of the boys threw a broken piece of a milk carton that slashed his neck and caused him to get stitches and a spanking from his mother. As his mother spanked him, she “impart[ed] to [him] gems of Jim Crow wisdom. I was never to throw cinders any more. I was never to fight any more wars. I was never, never, under any conditions, to fight white folks again. And they were absolutely right clouting me with the broken milk bottle” (23). He learned more unspoken rules of wisdom throughout his later years as well. First, to speak carefully to whit people because it makes sure the white man knows he was the superior. He learned that a black person can be tricked into sticky situations in which every answer he would give would be wrong. (25) And as a black person he was told to” stay in your place if you want to keep working” with the white man (25). He learned that if a black person didn’t pay there bills, they’re punishment was, death, severe beating, and rape in some cases. And white people got away with this because the police were white at the time. He also learned that black people had to be careful after dark in white neighborhoods. They were looked at to be suspects and could possibly be beaten for it (27-28). He couldn’t look at certain white folks and had to laugh at white jokes when they expected you to. Some black people were even forced into marriage (28). If caught causing trouble or thought to e causing trouble, a black person could be killed out of hate and even in some cases, self defense (29). He finally learned that a black person must lie and steal sometimes just to live. There was a long list of things that a black person couldn’t talk about with a white person; and there were only two real things they could talk about together without starting an argument, sex and religion.

There were so many little rules that black people must know, do you think that there were any just off the wall ones?
Who do you think came up with most of these Jim Crow rules of wisdom?

Richard Wright did a good job portraying to his the readers the ways he learned the unspoken Jim Crow rules. I knew must of the things already but I think it is different to here actual stories of it happening. I can’t believe people got away with so much brutal things. Richard Wright had a rough life growing up in the Deep South, and is lucky to be wise and alive today to tell his story. I really like this chapter and I found it easy to read.

Zinn Ch.9

I believe the author’s main theory in this chapter is that even though slavery is suppose to be over, black people in the United States still didn’t have the same independence. Howard Zinn best argues his point when he explains to his readers, “the American government had set out to fight the slaves states in 1861, not to end slavery, but to retain the enormous national territory and market and resources. Yet, victory required a crusade, and the momentum of that crusade brought new forces into national politics: more blacks determined to make their freedom mean something; more whites-[. . .] concerned with racial equality” (146) It just show that the United States didn’t mean to have slavery ended but it was a result from winning the Civil War. So when it came to enforcing most of the laws made post-Civil War, they were ignored in many cases.
Throughout the history of the United States having slavery in existence, white plantation owners always feared rebellions. Even though the transportation of slaves was illegal, plantation owners still bought them into the country through “the long, unprotected coast” (130). Throughout history people thought slaves to be happy and expressing joy through their song and dance, but this was just the slaves’ way of trying not to be completely broken hearted (130). Revolts did occur in the south, but a slave would rather run away than revolt (131). Their were many black people that help each other escape; Harriet Tubman made 19 trips back and forth through the Underground Railroad and help over 300 slaves escape (132). To make things worse for runaway slaves at the time, poor white people were paid to catch runaways and bring them back; thus creating another hatred for black people for a group that didn’t really hate black people to begin with (133). This was supported by the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 that let slave owners go pretty much anywhere to re-capture a slave that in some cases not even a runaway. John Brown a black person executed in Virginia showed people that, “it was the national government that, while weakly enforcing the law ending the slave trade, sternly enforced the laws providing for the return of fugitives to slavery [. . .]” (139). But when the Civil War started, its main goal was to unite the two sides, and ended up abolishing slavery. It was not Lincoln’s original plan but without the help of the free slaves, the north would probably never have won the war (144). Even though the blacks were free, their lives almost felt the same and were considered serfs and caught in a system of debt to the plantation owners. So the slaves felt almost no difference than before slavery was abolished. Many laws were passed and groups formed against and fore these ideas. But when thought deeply, it was the capitalistic view that enslaved both sides into going through all of this and the events that occurred (154).
I was always taught that the Civil Wars main goal was to abolish slavery, what do you think of Lincoln and the United States after this chapter?
Do you think if the African Americans could have had a huge successful rebellion, that they could have changed things, or could it really have only come from a white American?
In my opinion, I loved reading this chapter. I find Zinn the most interesting of all the authors we read from in class. His work is somewhat tough to read at points but very interesting at the same time. I found it very interesting that Lincoln never thought of blacks as equal but really just wanted them out of the United States. That just blew my mind because in school, we were taught that he is one of America’s famous hero’s. the whole chapter had me fixated.

How Jews Became White Folks

I believe the authors' thesis is that the jews just like most every other minority group has faced racism and anti-semitism. The aurthor states in her second paragraph about her families heritage was how other people looked at them, "Part of my ethnic heritage was the belief that Jews were smart and that our success was due to our own efforts and abilities, reinforced by a culture that valued sticking together, hard work, education, and deferred gratification" (38). She is trying to get across the fact that the country gave herself ideas at what she should be how to live her life.
The author first gives background about how some European's were given the term being white and how others weren't. She gives credit to "the biggest and best affirmative action program in the history of our nation, and it was Euromales" (39). It was not a bill or anything but the way things worked out and how Europeans became known as white in the U.S. Karen then tells about how there were inferior and superior races and it started with the Irish (39). Throughout the history of the United States people used science to explain lots of things and there was many rumors on the inferior races of Europe. The aurthor states that "racism in general, and anti-semitism in particular, flourished in higher education" (41). The different ethnicities were looked at as being just as white as the next person and this made America look at it as "American Democracy's victory over racism"(43). Were the United States thought they had done away with all racism. But when it came to work, a college degree was considered a note of a higher class, so those two elements were dependent on each other. The military also gave a lot of people jobs and money through GI bills which boosted employment. But they denied blacks and there was still some racism around; such as the Ku Klux Klan spreadind throughout the country and educational discrimination. So minorites even though trying to make a living were stuck in the middle-class becuase of all the discrimination. Suburbanization also played a big role in this. This is the process of moving people from the cities to the suburbs. This was a problem because it started racial segregation, and moved people that looked alike towards eachother in a closer porximity.

Do you believe that any of these factors could have been avoided, or were they sooner or later going to happen?
Think hard and wonder if your family could have been racially segregated? Or could have been deported for being different, how does that make you feel?

I personally did not like reading this. It was to much of a story and a person's life than an interesting reading. I find most of the stuff we read in this class interesting but this didn't catch my interest really. I could relate and somewhat understand the reading in most parts, but it was very wordy and confusing in others. Overall it was a hard read and not a fun one, and i did not like it and vote to talk about it in class because of my and probaly many other students confusion.

exercise #2 for Analysis #1

The claim I am going to make in my analysis paper is Howard Zinn and Allan Johnson’s theories on the creation of racism. I will be using chapter two of Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States, and chapter three of Allan Johnson’s book, Power, Privilege and Difference. In my analysis paper, I’m going to show the relation Zinn makes about racism and its creation not being a natural process, to Johnson’s theory on how capitalism played the biggest part in creating capitalism.
Both men state that the United States was desperate for labor and used African Americans as the source to fix it. This is an important issue because without it, the United States wouldn’t have been the country they grew to be without slavery. The influx of black people grew astronomically in a short period; this influx was greatly due to the plantation owners needing an endless supply of slaves. Zinn states that plantation owners wanted greater numbers for a greater profit, and that is the simplest form of capitalism and what Johnson is trying to get across. Zinn also states that “if racism can’t be shown to be natural, then it is the result of certain conditions, and we are impelled to eliminate those conditions.” Johnson gives a name to those conditions in his book, and the main one is called capitalism. So Johnson simply agrees with Zinn theory even though he doesn’t say it literally, but really he just supplies the condition Zinn was looking and that is capitalism. In my analysis paper, I’m going to go into more detail on to how these two men are giving us the same point, but one just gives a name to the problem and the other tries to let us figure it out ourselves.
Thesis: Howard Zinn and Allan Johnson both enlighten their readers on the beginning of racism, how the United States played a big role, and the same general theory that it created by people and not naturally.

Rosenblum&Travis "The Meaning of Difference"

I believe the authors thesis and main points that they are trying to get across is that there are many statuses in America and in all of them, there are problems. Rosenblum and Travis give support to this by writing, "Race, sex, class, and sexual orintation may be described as master statuses[. . . and] the term status conveys prestige." In the United States, prestige is defined to a limited people. The authors are going to examine how the master statuses are affected through different proccesses.
There are two types of ways to decribe a person, constructionist and essentailist (2). A constructionist "operates from the belief that conceptions [. . .] have no meaning except that given them by the observer." And an essentailist "presumes that items in a category all share some essential quality" (3). Giving a group or person a name can cause great disturbance and it can also cause "redefintion of self" (6). The government has created categories of people that is biased. The census does a great deal of this when it says to fill out an ethnicitcity. There are two processes called aggregating and disaggregating that either "lump together" people to a race or pull them away from eachother or deny another person (12). The proccess of Dichotomizing means to divide things down into seperate parts and look at them indepently (15). People have been known to dichotomize many things such as race. Which means the difference between white and nonwhite really. They do it to sexual orientation, when talking about staright and gay. The socail classes are also affected by this when saying poor, middle, and upper class. Sex can even be dichotomized even though there is usually only two set sex's but in those, situations have been known to happen. Disabilities aren't dichotomized but on the other hand they are socially constructed and looked at differently. Stigma is also used when talking about something not normal, it means "Bodily sign designed to expose something unusual and bad about the moral status of and individual" (28).
Do you ever find yourself dichotomizing a class, race, sexual orientation, or sex?
Think about all the things you have ever done or written that could be Dichotomizing, is there a lot?

I really liked reading this article. It really made me think about things that i have done or seen lately. I can see where the author is coming from and they really opened my eyes to some new theorys. I instantly started asking my friends what they thought and they had no answer because they had never thought of things like that before. Overall I really like the chapter and can't wait to talk about it in class.

Analysis #1--topic and outline

I am really not sure what I want do my analysis paper on just quiet yet but one subject jumps out at me more than the rest. It is the comparison of Zinn’s chapter 2 and Johnson’s Chapter 3. In chapter two of Zinn, he explains that racism just didn’t pop up one day; racism had to be started somewhere and by somebody. He goes into details about how the English made them look superior to the Indians and African Americans. This is almost the same thing Johnson is telling his readers in Chapter three of his book. He blames that racism was created and affected by capitalism. And what the English did to the Indians and Blacks was so they could strive and become powerful in a capitalistic world. That new world was created by the English and colonies they had because the main goal of capitalism to make a profit through the process using labor and resources. Those two subjects really jump out to me and make a lot of sense to me. I agree with what both of them are saying and trying to get across to their readers. Is that a good topic to write on?

Quiz 3

Sarah Barnes explains in her article “Don’t be a hypocrite in the fight for equal rights,” that to many people are complaining about being mistreated. She writes about all the major races and points out in her own views that they whine and complain about being mistreated and not having equal rights. To the blacks, she states that slavery was horrible but not to dwell on it now. For women not to complain about not being equal because most are and just don’t know it. That Homosexuals flaunt their sexuality around to much; while you don’t see other people doing that everyday. Sarah thinks that people are taking their freedoms to far and not recognizing how good they already have it.

A good amount of Johnson’s arguments can be backed-up by what Sarah Barnes says in her article about equal rights. There are a couple arguments that Johnson has that would relate to Sarah’s article but the one I see most present is minimizing and being sick and tired. When comparing it to Johnson’s argument about being sick and tired, one can point out Barnes views through such quotes as “move one”, “no need to continue to dwell upon it”, and “So many of us gripe[…]”. Those are perfect examples of a young woman being sick and tired of hearing about racism and sexism. When talking about minimizing, Sarah states “ Granted, different races were not treated fairly[…]”, and it just send s a message to her readers that it isn’t a big deal. Rights are not equal in todays standards, and minimizing them only hurts trying to resolve them by saying their not a big deal.

Johnson Ch.6

I believe that Johnson's thesis is his whole second paragraph really. He tells his readers in that paragrapg that privilege is hard for some people to talk about and get angry when it comes up in conversations. "the risk isn't nearly as big as it seems, because, like the proverbial human fear of the strange and unfamiliar, the problem begins with how people think about things an dwho they are in relation to them." That sums up Johnson's argument.

Johnson brings up a good point that are society blames someone for everything. Somebody is always at fault for the wrongs that have happened. For example, he uses sexism and how women blame men for it. But then brings to point that some men agree and others don't. So sexism will never be solved because the ones that think it doesn't apply to them won't help to fix the problem, because it really applies to everyone and not just men. Johnson also explain thath there is two ways to learn things through socialization, one is through paticipating in social life and the other is the individual participating. The first has to do more with the people that are around you and you learning their thought and the other is clearly your views on events. He also talks about resistance and how there is an easy way out of events; which has low resistance or the harder resistance way that society might look down upon.

Do you see yourself doing things with low or high resistance more?
Have you ever wished you would have done something of low resistance instead of the normal?

This was a very interesting article. I enjoyed reading most but didn't agree with some of his views. I believe he is biased in some cases and i don't like that and lioke zinn and other aurthors more.

Zinn Ch. 2

I believe what Zinn is trying to tell his readers is "If racism can't be shown to be natural, then it is the result of certain conditions, and we are impelled to eliminate those conditions." In my words, he means racism didn't just happen one day and everyone knows this, but if it didn't, then where did it start and and how so we can make it straight again, before racism.

Zinn gives us great detail on how the African's became slaves in and around the world. The new settlers of America couldn't use Native Americans. There were to many Indians to overpower with their superior weapons, and that made the English mad. So they went on rampages to show Indians that they were better than them, but in the long run the Indians won because they had corn. So Americans started bringing over African servants not yet slaves like most of Europe had already. Since they weren't considered slaves yet, they pretty much had the same rights though, which were none. Whites fused it into the Africans heads that they were inferior to them, and after the horrible conditions the blacks took to get there, it was no wonder why they just said ok. But since there were so many slaves, whites were always afraid of a rebellion, so they always made examples out of blacks and punished them inhumanly at times.

Do you think slavery could ever have been avoided in the U.S. or was it needed to grow?
Do you think you would have acted the way black people did back then after that grueling trip, or not?

I love to read this book. Every time it is assigned i loose track of time reading it. I love how Zinn gives us great details and quotes. He does a great job at really giving the reader the thought of almost being there. I wasn't as shocked to read this chapter though, i already knew most of the information. I just had never thought how to tie it all back to were everyone went wrong with racism. He never gives us a solution and i think thats smart, but i still loved the chapter.

Johnson PPD Ch. 3

I beleive the author thesis is paraphased best at; Capitalism is a huge reason why the United States and the world are affected by racism today. "...becasue capitalism played a major role in the development of white privelge and still plays a magor role in its perpetation." I believe he is trying to show his readers that there are privelges that people atoumatically get and some have to be earned. That brings up a huge problem that they are connected and one can't be cancelled out without the other too.

Capitalism is the process of using labor and resources to make a profit, that has the people working for for a living and others that run the company. The people that run the company are called capitalist. One main thing about capitalism is that one mans misfortune could be onther mans fortune. That is how the United States is ran, and it can be accomplished through technology, threatening workers, and moving productivity to another place. Capitalism makes up classes where the rich own the most and the working class (the majority) own less. In todays world though, the middle class is shrinking and its becoming a small rich class and big poor class. Racism was started early by capitalist from Great Britian colonizing other places and exploiting there labor. They thought it was moraly ok and made up reason for it, hence racism as it is today. They thought white was correct by god and everything else was impure. And through that Capitalistic view, people have committed genocide, had numerous conquests, and ignored signed treaties. Through those comes domination of race and prevelges for to some and not others. These prevelges are based race, sexuality, income, etc. People are thought better if they are in a better group which means privelged more. It comes down to a "point" scale, the more the better.

Do you think there is any way of getting rid of racism? Since it is so tide into the way we've ran our country for so long.
Have you ever thought of what someone looks like when talking to them on the phone, wondering race and age?

I thought this chapter was very interesting and a big eye opener. I made sense on how the country was brought up on racism and capitalism intertwined. I couldn't help starting to add up my points and see where i stand in the realm of things. I did feel somewhat at fault though being a white male because in my opinion the author is pointing blame. People can't change history and even though the author was revealing new facts to me, i felt it was in a hostile way at times. But in my opinion I don't see racism ever disapearing unless we change away from capitalsim and that won't be happening anytime soon.

Takaki Ch. 3

The author main thesis in this chapter is that their has been tons of slavery and servants that brought this country to what it is today. The best quote I could find that relates to this is:
Working in the textile mills of New England, Irish immigrant women manufactured fabric made from cotton grown on former Indian land and picked by enslaved blacks; meanwhile, Irish immigrant men labored in New England shoe factories, making shoes from hides shipped by Mexican workers in California. Chinese and Irish railroad workers laid the transportation tracks that closed the frontier and changed forever the lives of Indians in the West. America was becoming a nation of people from many different shores.
I think he was trying to say that the black population was mistreated throughout history, more than any other race, starting all the way back to the sixteen hundreds when the first blacks were used as translators for European traders.

The new world wasn't didn't always just have black people as slaves. In the very beginning, there were white and black indentured servants working off there ride to America. The white servants were mostly Irish people. They were sent over because they were thought to be the very lowest class in Ireland. Composed of mostly whores, peasants, and people who rather beg than work. So both white and black people worked in Virginia. Many problems arose with this mix of races working together though. They ran away together, they had sex and had mixed infants, and almost the majority of the population. This made the other class mad and afraid in Virginia, they didn't want them having sex, running away, and having the majority and creating a rebellion. A rebellion did occur though called Bacon's Rebellion. It was let by Nathaniel Bacon, and what turned into a mix race run at the Indians, led to a overthrow of Jamestown in the rebels favor. It was later taken back but fears of rebellion feared minds all the way up into the late seventeen hundreds. Where the Preventing Negroes Insurrection Act made it illegal for any black person to carry a weapon. Even are famous President Jefferson had 267 slaves and wasn'r afraid to punish them when time came during this time. But later he admitted he had done wrong and wanted freedom for the black slaves. There were only black slaves now because white servants only had to serve for a couple of years, whereas a black person was sentenced to life upon coming to America. The heirs to the black slaves then would be slaves too, so nothing really could ever be free with them. Thomas Jefferson had ideas though that would take all the blacks out of the United States, because he thought they could never live together without destroying the white population. He felt bad for all he did in the past and promised freedom once he was out of debt, but died in debt unfortunately. The United States eventually became free form England and had Market Revolution. This happened thanks to black slaves still and many other unfortunate minorities forming the country.

Would America ever be like it is today without the forced slavery we had over African Americans?
Do you think Thomas Jefferson's plan could have ever worked?

I didn't know that we had both white and black servants in the beginning years of this country. I still can't get over how shakespear's Tempest, keeps following to what happened in the new world. I feel sorry for the African Americans during the early days. They couldn't catch a break anywhere, even Thomas Jefferson thought they were inferior after he thought they should be free. I can't get over Jefferson though, he wasn't the man everyone makes him out to be, like Christopher Columbus. He was rich because he had so many slaves! I kinda saw the fall of white indentured slaves coming while i was reading and the rise of black slaves. It was interesting reading though about how quick the United States grew after they detached from England. Things were running smoothly but weren't running just right yet.

Race Part 1

Screen Race: the Power of Illusion Part one, had some very interesting facts that were proven in the film. There main thesis was that actual race was not biologically real. And that even though people are of different skin color, their genetics aren't that different, usually having one different strand in each person.

The film showed a class doing an experiment on samples of their DNA. First they had to guess who they thought their DNA would match up with the most, all of the kids chose fellow students of the same color and look. Second, they did blood test and found out their DNA results. Third, they matched up their DNA with everyone else's, and that showed that they didn't have any real common strands like the ones they thought they would. Then the film pointed out how black people have been put through the stereotype of having different muscles, body parts, and genes. There was also a belief that the African race would become extinct because their death rate and infant mortality rate was so high. This belief didn't take into the fact of poverty and and health factors. Black people and immigrants were looked down upon in the early part of the United States. It was very strong for the mix population living in the hills on Virginia,, nobody liked them. In DNA it is proven that race can't be identified. Skin color was originally thought to be derived by how close to the equator the ancestors lived. People closer would be darker and in case easier to block out harmful rays from the sun.

Have you ever wished you were of a different race?
Do you stereotype races? Ex. Middle eastern after 9/11

I was interested by the video very much. I didn't have a clue that race couldn't be detected through DNA. I knew that the United States did thousands of test and made almost ten times more theories to degrade other races. There are so many racist people out there, and i know personally that it is sports. African Americans get blamed for stuff all the time while white people were ignored. I also couldn't believe that Nazi's created there views from the theories created by the United States. That shocks me and makes me not less proud to be an American because i am, but it only make me less proud that we ever could have thought of those in the first place.

Takaki Ch. 2

The authors thesis is that no matter what race of people lived in the Americas at the time of colonization, the English would have thought of them as savages. England has a small area to grow its crops for its population, so they go out and colonize places like Virginia, "English were not in Virgina to Trade but to invade and posses all the land." The new settlers did the same thing to the Ireland, and they aren't of Indian decent, they were just as white as the English. And how he related all of this history to the words of Shakespeare's play The Tempest. The play depicted everything that was happening in the New World on a stage for an audience in England.

The authors argument is that England came and forcefully took the natives land and drove their population almost to near extinction. New settlers came over in ship, and the natives thought they were gods at first but soon found out they were wrong. Settlers would come and take Indians as slaves and ship them back to England, while usually dieing on the way over and thrown overboard. The English settlers thought the Indians as a Savage people and cannibals. So they fought them off there land spilling their own blood in the process and thinking now that their blood has been spilt for the land, its divinely theirs then. After acquiring the Indians land, the English found out that land was more tough to farm then thought and many died. Settlers started becoming the savages and eating their own dead and doing anything for food. The Indians saw this and help teach the settlers to grow crops, this was a mistake because now the Indians were useless for the English and could be killed again. They were too, plagues and swords almost killed the whole Indian population. Settlers thought they were doing the right thing for God, and that it was God's plan to clear the way for them. Whoever 's plan it was, millions of Indians suffered and lost their homes forever, and the New World would never be the same.

Discussion Questions: Do you think Shakespeare knew that what he was writing would shape the views of the whole new world and racism as we know it? And was it started from that play?
Do you think if the Indians were immune to those knew diseases, they might have had a more likely chance of fighting off the new settlers?

I reacted the same to this reading just like I did about Zinn's. I was totally ignorant or oblivious that all this had happened for me to be sitting here typing right now. I am not surprised though, after reading Zinn's, I was ready to read about a massacre. I was really shocked about how all the Indians died though. The author graphically told how they pretty much flaked apart and went to dust from the small pox. The new settlers were pretty much given the land because the Indians died on their own and not by the sword of the English. The settlers got so lucky and it is wrong because throughtout histroy, I feel they always were lucky. A very interesting book though and I can't wait to read some more of it.

Personal

My full name is Kevin Conrad Cox, I am a freshman at Bowling Green State University. I am from the small town of Tipp City Ohio, right off I-75. I graduated from Tippecanoe High School in 2007. In high school, I played baseball for four years and ran cross country for three. I was a die heard fan for both the basketball and football teams as well. I painted my body to most every game my junior and senior year, and even walked 6 miles once to the town next to ours for a tournament game with some friends. I was in Muse Machine, news paper and year book, Homecoming court, and Prom King. I always knew though that i want to come here to BGSU. My father, uncle, and brother are all graduates from this fine university. While other kids had on there scarlet and gray OSU clothes on, i was out sporting my orange and brown. I love to run, listen to music, socialize with my friends, and read in my free time. I don't know a lot about ethnics, but i am sure willing to learn and find most of the readings already very intersesting. I try and always to participate in class too and looking forward to a great and interesting semester. GO FALCONS!!!

Zinn Chapter 1

The author's thesis is, that in this book, he want to portray the United States history differently. Not like its been taught to children and high school kids across the United States. He wants to hold nothing back in describing the events "My point is not to grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners," he just want to tell history throught the eyes of the misfortunate at that time.

Howard Zinn is argueing in this chapter that, was the genocide that happened to the indians worth it and could it have been avoided. He leans more to the point that it probaly couldn't have been avoided. He references other times in history where people have died; so others could come in a build the place up. This is exactly what Christopher Columbus did to the Indians in the Bahamas. A genocide occured under his power and the people he left in charge. He killed millions of people by the sword and knife, but he and the new settlers probaly killed just as many by all the new diseases too. It was so bad women would kill their babies, and Indians of all ages were committing suicide, just so they would fall under the knife or be raped. Howard Zinn then points out if the settlers really did make the place better and more prosperous. The Indians had so much already. They knew crops, hunting, fishing, climate patterns and so much more. They had equal rights for both men and women, and taught their children good through word of mouth. The only thing they didn't have that was the same from the new settlers was a written language and the greed for gold and other jewels.

What would have happened eventually if the Indians kept giving their land away peacefully, like they wanted to instead of it just being taken from them, would they have eventually gotten mad enough to fight back for it?
Did Christopher Columbus say all those things about God to get other people going and believing, or did he really think he was doing the right thing by killing all those Indians?

I was personally shocked by the whole reading. I had no clue Christopher Columbus did all those terrible things to the Indians. I was always taught that he was a hero and we celebrated him coming to the Americas on Columbus Day, and now realize that we are just celebrating him committing a genocide. I was clued to the pages as I read and couldn't read fast enought to see what happened next because I was so alarmed. I felt mislead for most of my life because I had the wrong idea for the man and his followers. Then I read what Zinn had to say and I agreed with him, history has been told from a one sided view a lot. I loved reading the other sides view and thinking about what they had to go through just so i could be hear now. I personally loved reading it and can't wait to read more of the chapters. I feel he does a great job at telling the whole story and having a very non-biased view towards either side.