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.