Web-site post-Quiz 6

The Web page for www.dixienet.org, was the homepage of the League of the South. The LS group is a group of people who are Contemporary Southern Nationalists. A quote on the main page by Thomas Nelson Page says this “"I give my loyal and enthusiastic adherence to the present; with all its fresh and glorious possibilities; but I shall never forget that it is to the Old South that the New South owes all that is best and noblest in its being." This group has defined themselves, as a group whose ultimate goal is “a free and independent Southern republic. To reach this goal, we intend to create the climate for a free South among our people by 1) de-legitimating the American Empire at every opportunity; 2) by proving our willingness to be servant-leaders to the Southern people; and 3) by making The League of the South a strong, viable organization that will lead us to Southern independence.” The claim that the groups of people are all Anglo Saxon because they were the true creators of the American land, and they don’t want to ruin the image of the United States by introducing “aliens” to the country. They want to preserve the land as it once was.
However, the view of Blacks in the south is not as excluding as people would think. When people think of the south they think of Jena 6, and other events that have created tension between the whites and the blacks in the south. The President of this organization was asked the question “What are your views of blacks in the south?” and this is how he responded; “The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.”
I found this website to be interesting. I don’t quite know what I was expecting before I went to it, but this wasn’t exactly it. I think I had the image of white supremacists that wanted an all white south and to bring back the old south and bring back the mistreatment of colored people. However, that was not the case. They simply want to pursue an Independent and Self-government. No where on the web page did I find hate against other people, or anything of that nature, I simply found a group of people who set a goal to change their government, and who are actively setting out to meet that goal. On the page I found nothing offensive, cruel, or racists against other people, which I have to admit I was shocked about.

Why I hate A&F--McBride

In the article “Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch” by Dwight McBride, he argues that the A&F brand is targeting a specific age, race, and social economic class. This brand is corrupting the way kids and young adults look at the brand and the look is that is known as preppy. He claims the brand is targeting young middle and upper class people. McBride argues that A&F is selling a lifestyle, not clothing. He argues that this is worse because people will compare themselves to that particular brand, and will ultimately be unaccepted in society, or be labeled as a “prep”, or rich, etc. He states on page 71 “A&F codes for race and class without actually having to name it.” On the Abercrombie website, you see pictures of young adults of many different ethnic backgrounds. As I recall there is an Asian female, a Hispanic male, African American Male, and a few white males and females. Based on just the ads, anyone could say they are marketing towards everyone. However, when you walk into a store nearly 100% of the employees are white, and the ones that aren’t are working in the stock room or working overnight stocking, rarely are they out on the floor. The ads in the catalog or on the website, do not represent the employees in the store. I think McBride talks about the song Tomorrow Belongs to Me because it resembles a time when minorities weren’t accepted in the world and when discrimination was at an all time high. One could argue that A&F discriminates against other ethnicities.
Don’t other stores have specific targets as well? Why would Abercrombie and Fitch be any different? One could argue that A&F have a broad range in people who are INTERESTED in the line of clothing, but either can’t afford it or aren’t accepted by the company. Other stores such as Hot Topic who tends to focus more on the Gothic look don’t have a wide range of people who are interested. That is the difference. Many young men and women of different racial backgrounds have a huge interest in the store, and want to be accepted but aren’t because they don’t fit the middle to upper class white image. If A&F opened up to diversity in and out of the stores, they would have more success, and less law suits.
I would have to agree with McBride. Every time I have been in a Abercrombie and Fitch store (which has been awhile) I have rarely seen a male or female of color in there, and if there is one they are always in the back of the store fixing clothing, stocking clothing, or running the fitting rooms. I personally haven’t shopped there recently because I can’t bring myself to spend the money on those clothes. Growing up we (my family) weren’t really able to afford shopping there, even if I could, I can’t say I’d waste the money. Part of me doesn’t shop there because of the discrimination they haven’t against other people, and a part of me doesn’t shop there because I don’t want to have that image or stereotypes that go along with that brand. I personally can find the same look, and quality of clothes somewhere else, somewhere much more affordable, and somewhere that doesn’t label, and somewhere that doesn’t discriminate against other people.

Wu- (incomplete)

In this quote I think Wu is talking about how he is looked at like a stereotypical Asian American. In the next sentece he talks about how people perceive him as someone different than he perceives himself. He talks about how people of color live differently than white people live, which might be true.
Growing up in a prodominatly white town, i have not really had to experience being a minority. However, coming to college, and taking classes such as ethnic studies and social problems, i have come to think of myself as a well rounded person culturally and ethnically.

Comic Post

When looking at this comic cover, i noticed that it was clearly an angry Japanese villain who appears to be a scientist, overpowering Americans. Some of the obvious things that i noticed right off the bat were the physical characteristics of the main image. Some of these characteristics are the shape of the eyes, they are slim and slanted, also the color of the skin, and the large smile on the mans face. Japanese are people who are stereotypically known to be always smiling and have large teeth, which this man has in the picture. Japanese are also known to be extremely intelligent people. The microscope of the man gives the impression of intelligence. There are also American people in this image, however they are small and seem to be afraid of the Japanese. This could possibly symbolize the Americans fear of what the Japanese were capable of doing back during this time period. This intelligence was enough to scare the Americans, and this image is portraying this accurately.
I believe this image is controversial. I can't say is "racist" but maybe "iffy". I think if anything the physical stereotypes and the aggressive behavior could be argued as racist. I however feel that this image could possibly represent the hostility the Japanese could of had against the Americans during the WWII time period. Overall i think that this image could represent the feelings the Japanese had back then, however because i as not around, and physically witnessed the activity that took place back then, i can not accurately claim this image as "racist" only controversial.

Takaki chapter 10

Historically, Japanese immigrants were mostly men, but by the year 1920 there was a significant increase in women making the journey to America. However, the women were more or less forced to go over there. They were practicing arranged marriages, which was common in the Japanese culture. The women would go over to American because that is where their future husband would be. In this chapter of the book A different Mirror:A History or Multicultural America by Ronald Takaki, he talks about the Immigration of different Asian ethnicity's to the United States. He talks about how the Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Puerto Rican, and other Asian/Hispanic descents, were treated unfairly while working on plantations. These plantations drastically different from the plantations the black slaves worked on just a few year prior. These plantations paid the workers (although it was very little) they advised having families work all together, and they were not punished as severely, however the one major difference between them were the workers. The workers on the plantations in Hawaii fought for their rights as human beings. As Takaki states, "Portuguese laborers were paid $22.50 per month, while the Japanese laborers received only $18.00 for the same work." (258) The unfairness lead to many different strikes on many different occasions. Approximately seven thousand Japanese laborers put a sudden stop on their work on the island of Oahu. While they were not working (thus not getting paid) many of their compatriots on different islands were lending a hand by sending money and food over to the island. The Japanese organizations like Honolulu Retail Merchants Association contributed to the strike fun, and the Japanese Physicians Association gave free medical assistance to the strikers and the families of the strikers. (258) Takaki states that "the goal of the strike was to create a thriving and contented middle class-- the realization of the high ideal of Americanism." (258)Shortly after being forced to return work, the planters eliminated the wage system and paid the Japanese workers the same they paid the other workers. As the time went on, the Japanese were being educated, and trying to close the gap between the Eastern and Western societies. But even the one who were born in the United States, and technically a citizen, had to endure in the discrimination of being a Japanese. Japanese children were often taunted, and beat up by the white kids, they would do things like throw stones at them. There was also discrimination among the adults. By law they were allowed to own a home and land because they were born in the country. However, he was told, "You cannot live here. Your money is not good enough. The deed has a racially restrictive covenant, and only members of the Caucasian race may reside here." (274)
Was it the right thing for the workers to strike against the plantations? It is evident that it was.Although the camps were unsanitary, they increased the pay by about 50%.
I think this is a well written chapter in this book. I was always aware of the slavery era, but was never taught about the Asian plantation era. I find it hard to believe that the "Americans" still had their egotistical views and they felt they were better than everyone else. Like the girl who talked about going to college and not being able to get a job afterward because of her ethnicity was outrageous.(275) The only job that was available was a bookkeeper in a Japanese convenient store or working for a Japanese lawyer. No white person in their right mind would higher her, and that seems unacceptable to me. I found myself reading on in this chapter more so than others, i think this was solely based on the fact that i had not yet learned about this particular time period and was curious about it. I also wanted to compare it to the time of the black slavery and how it was different and how it was the same from it.

The book Kindred written by Octavia Butler, is an inspiring
novel about the slave period in 1819. The main character in the
book is Dana, a 26 year old black women living in 1976.
Suddenly something about her feels strange, she gets extremely
dizzy and suddenly disappears from her home in California, and
is somehow transported back to the Antebellum South to a
plantation owned by a man she later finds out is an ancestor of
hers. It seems that she is drawn back to that time period to
help save a young boy Rufus (the plantation owners son), and is
not transported back to her time until her life is in danger.
Her trips seems to come and go, and as they come they get
longer, and more dangerous. She soon takes on the life of a
slave, and looses any freedom she once had taken advantage of.
She also however befriends Rufus, they both acknowledge the
fact that they need each other in order to survive. Dana experiences the life of a slave, the beatings and the betrayal. Rufus drives her to attempt at running away north to gain her freedom. Without succeeding, she pays the price, by being whipped with a leather whip across the back. Even though he days, months and even years pass by on the plantation, only minutes and hours pass by in 1976. Kevin, Dana's husband is able to experience a trip with her when he is holding on to her while she leaves to go to the other world, taking him with her. Kevin, being a white male has more freedom, creating more freedom for Dana. Attempting to save her as much as he can, he keeps her from getting hurt more than she should, and keeps her comfortable while staying on the plantation. Its when Dana leaves without Kevin, that problems start happening. When only 8 days had passed for Dana, five years passed for Kevin. He travelled up to the north when he realized she wasn't coming back anytime soon. He wrote letters to the Weylin Plantation, giving his location for when Dana came back. After finally finding Kevin, and having him adjust to life back in 20th century, things are back to normal for 15 days, until Dana is called back to Rufus' side, little did she know this would be her last, and most painful trip to the plantation. After one of her friends (and Rufus' lover) on the plantation committed suicide Rufus becomes an abusive and demanding owner. He had become aggressive after his father died, and now that his mother was ill. He has quickly adjusted to role of being the owner. After his mistress died, he demanded the same attention from Dana, and she simply was not going to have it. She pulled the knife on him and stabbed him a number of times. Until she felt a jolt of pain, suddenly she was transported back to 1976, without a left arm. That was Dana's last real trip to the plantation, the only other trip she made was to Baltimore to visit the historical museums
But why is Dana chosen to travel back in time? Maybe to learn and experience first hand her history and to learn more about her Ancestors. After taking advantage of her freedom for 26 years, maybe she needed to experience her past, and even change her past. She needed to save the boy who would soon become the father to her great great great grandfather, if he died, there would be no family for her.
I thought that Octavia Butler wrote an excellent novel. It made me understand more about the slavery part of the 19th century and not just the "white dominant" part of that era. In school we were never taught the graphic part of the past, and just the basics. I found it to be an easy read and a book that held my attention. Overall i thought it was a fantastic book, maybe not one that i would pick myself, but one that i certainly enjoyed.

Chapter 8

In this chapter i think that Johnson's thesis is that people of "dominant" groups will go out of their way to not be connected with someone Else's problems, and make sure they save themselves from potential embarrassment. This concept he calls "getting off the hook". One of the concepts related to getting off the hook is denial. In order to walk away from a problem with out feeling remorse is to pretend like there is no problem to begin with. Some of the examples Johnson gives is the American dream is available to everyone now, and that "racism and sexism used to be a problem, but they aren't anymore." People deny that these things like sexism and racism exist, because they don't want to deal with the consequences. Another one of the examples of this Johnson talked about was how a white female felt "jealous" or felt that a female of color was "better off" than she was. It is known that privilege and envy often go hand and hand with eachother. Johnson says "as she defends herself against seeing what she'd rather not see." (110) Racial stereotypes is also another thing Johnson talks about, he relates this with blaming the victim. One example he uses is that "if blacks were smarter or worked harder or got an education, they'd be okay." You can call it what you want, stick a different name on it, deny it, or blame someone other than yourself, but instead of getting yourself off the hook, why don't people get ON the hook, and help solve the problem and make it better instead of just pretending it's not there.

So how do people, especially women, live in such close quarters without confronting the reality of a male dominated society? Men can find ways to lighten up a situation, and make it seem like what it's not. They make jokes, and excuses for why they intrupt a female during a conversation, they make excuses for why a female did not get the job and a male did. Johnson says, "Instead, it is because gender inequality runs so deep in our lives and has such serious consequences that we must go to great lengths to make it appear normal and so avoid seeing it for what it is." (112)

This article was okay to read. Johnson gave more real-life situations, instead of comparing it to a board game or to something unrelated like in the last chapter. A lot of the things he mentioned about the male dominated society I knew before, but i didn't recognize how I do it myself. Being in a relationship for 4 years, and watching my parents talk, you recognize the little things like when a guy intrupts a female in a conversation. It really makes you think about how much things have NOT changes in society, and that people literally just ignore them or just put them aside so they don't have to deal with it. I find that a bit interesting. Overall this article made me open up my eyes, and recognize the things that i do in my everyday life that Johnson tries to say in his articles. It almost scary, how "natural" it is, or how much it is engrained in us to just make excuses. Overall it amazed me.

Chapter 6- PPD

In this chapter, the author's thesis is that people rarely openly discuss differences or problems because it is uncomfortable, or it fallows the path of least resistance. The author, Allen Johnson, discusses the difference between Individualism and systems in a society. Johnson talks about how the individualistic model in his opinion is wrong, and that society consist of more than just individuals. He mentions social systems, which is something larger than the individual people. The example Johnson gives is a University, a University is not the people, and the people are not the University. However, you have to look at the individual people, and how they participate in it. When Johnson talks about the path of least resistance, he is talking about the choices people make that will cause the least amount of reaction. For example, if someone tells an offensive joke, and everyone is laughing but one person, that person will not say anything for the sole purpose of not hurting his friends' feelings. This is the path of least resistance. As people grow up, and become socialized, you notice one thing, that straight white men are the most important and successful people on the planet. (79) The example Johnson uses (which is an excellent one) is the on about the show "Everybody Loves Raymond". In the show Ray Barone constantly behaves sexists, rude, and insensitive towards his wife. However at the end of each episode you find out why she puts up with his antics, because she loves him. Johnson says "this sends the message that it's reasonable for a heterosexual man to expect to "have" an intelligent and beautiful women who will love him and stay with him in spite of his behaving badly toward her a great deal of the time." (79) In the end, people adopt the dominant version of reality and act as if it were the only one that exists. (80) The path of least resistance, is shaped by individuals. In any given social situation there are millions of ways a person could act, or things they could do. The example Johnson gives is sitting in a movie theater, a person could laugh or talk really loud, they could sing, they could jump up in down, they could sleep or dribble a basketball. However people would react strongly about that, and make it a very uncomfortable feeling. So when sitting in a movie theater people just sit there and enjoy the movie, maybe laughing when other people laugh. This relates to how people do not openly discuss problems, or racial differences, or other issues along those lines. Following societal norms is taking the path of least resistance, because they fear for what will happen if they deviate from those norms. The one other thing Johnson talks about is the fact that individuals make up the social systems, and make them happen. Along the lines of the University example, is does not exist without the students and faculty performing their roles in relation to one another. (82) Johnson admits to participating in the systems that trouble comes out of, thus involving him in the trouble itself. An example of the way he participates in this is by the clothes he purchases. If a person looks at the label of a piece of clothing, they will most likely see a foreign country next to the words "Made In...". Workers making those items chances are they are women, and they are getting treated similar to how the slaves were treated, and get paid only pennies a day.

Johnson mentions that just because a person participates in something that is creating a problem in society, couldn't that person also participate in the solution to that problem? The answer is yes. A person might think that they can't make a difference in the problem, they are just one person. However Johnson argues differently. If one person joins a group of a bunch of people coming together, than that one person has helped make a difference in the problem. Allen Johnson gives a perfect example of this in his article, he uses the floods of 1993 along the Mississippi and Missouri River, in a community hundreds of people came together and put sandbags down to barricade the water, to keep if from doing further damage to the town. Each sandbag a person placed down was just a fraction of the total number of sandbags, however they did not have to make a huge difference to feel like they helped. He states "It works that way with good things that come out of people pulling together in all the systems that make up social life." (88)

I did not enjoy reading this chapter as i did the first two we read. I did not feel like i got as much out of it as i did the other articles. There were only a few points made that sparked my attention, one was the clothing example, and the other was the "Everybody Loves Raymond" example. I felt the article did not go into explaining, different subjects, he only came up with what seemed like a thousand examples. It is nice to have a few examples here and there to help the reader understand a topic, but to have 3 examples for one topic gets a little repetitive. Overall i just did not enjoy reading this particular chapter.

Johnson Chapter 3

In this chapter the main idea Johnson is trying to get at, is that racism is caused by capitalism. Capitalism is the one thing that keeps races seperated such as the whites and the african-americans.

The way capitalism works in society is that a product is made at a lower cost than what it is sold for. Low cost of a product means low pay for the employees. Johnson states that when workers fight for higher pay, that is when they bring in the foreign workers or people of a different race, ethnic group. They will find someone who will work the job, for the price they are willing to pay. However, Johnson says that this is not the reason white Americans are afraid of other ethnic groups, or people of a different race. Different laws are enforced in modern work places that do not allow employeers to pay a minority a lower wage than say a white employee.

Johnson states, "most people have relatively little power to improve their class position. Most of the household wealth, for example, has been based on a growing mountain of credit card debt, people working two or more jobs, and families relying on two wage earners..." (44) Society today, is far more expensive, and "high class" people want what they can't afford, yet they still go out and buy it (hense the credit card debt) A lot of families like to think they can live a high life one one persons income, that is true if you're a well established doctor, lawyer, or business man, but those rare compared to middle class.

Why do people feel the need to criticize the employeers for paying minorities a lower wage? If they are willing to work for the money, then what is the problem? Johnson states that it has been happening for centuries, since they hired Africans as a source of cheap labor (45).

I think Johnson brings up many good points in this chapter, however i do feel that society is changing, more women are now entering the work force, and more women are gaining more powerful positions and becoming leaders. This changes the view of Gender in the privilege category. Men are no longer the dominating gender, and that is becoming evident. When it comes to Race, i think its whatever the employeer and the employee decide, if it works for the economy and the employee than it shouldn't be a problem. However i do not have enough experience and education in this field to be able to say that is right or wrong, and have a soild argument.

Johnson Chapter 2

In the reading by Allen Johnson, I feel that his thesis is that privilege and power is based on the construct of society, and that difference between race and ethnicity varies from country to country. It is clear that the United States has put "labels" on people based on physical appearance. Americans use colors to describe people, which in essence allows people to make assumptions about that person. Johnson talks about how human beings have been dealing with racial lines or divides for so many years it is now ingrained in us. He states in the beginning of his article " Ignoring privilege keeps us in a sate of unreality by promoting the illusion that difference by itself is the problem." (12) Basically he is saying that the illusion or physical appearance is the cause of all problems. Johnson also talks about the "diversity wheel" which is a way to "group" people by different aspects of society. Some of these "groups" consist of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, Education, Parental status, and Marital Status. He talks about how these categories determines your role in society, it also determines the privileges and powers you have. One of the things he talks about is how a persons life would change if they woke up one morning and were a different race, or woke up as a homosexual instead of heterosexual. How drastically one persons life would change if this happened. Johnson states in this chapter that "the trouble around diversity isn't just that people differ from one another. The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass." (16) This is stating again that people base opinions and how they treat someone by the physical apparence of another person. Johnson talks about how in different cultures they do not have just male and female genders, they have more than that based on how a person is born. One example is that in the Native American culture they have a nadle which is someone who is born with a mix of "male" and "female" biological make up. However these people do not get treated differently. One of the powerful statements Johnson says is that "race and all its categories have no significance outside systems of privileges and oppression in which they were created in the first place." (18) A women in Africa is not considered black until she arrives in the United States, where then she is limited to what she can and cannot do. In Johnson's article he defines privilege as, "when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they've done or failed to do." (21) One example he talked about, it how a straight or heterosexual female can talk about her life openly to anyways saying how she's married to a great guy. Talk to a gay or lesbian person and they have to be careful because revealing they are of a different sexual orientation can put them at risk. Johnson creates a list of privileges in everyday life, here are a few of the ones he mentions;
-Whites are less likely to be arrested, but once they are arrested they are less likely to be convicted.
-Whites are more likely to have loan applications approved than black people.
-Whites can assume that when they go shopping, they'll be treated as a serious customer and not as a potential shop lifter.
-Whites have greater access to quality health care and education.
-Men are charged lower prices for new and used cars.
-Heterosexuals can marry
These are just a few out of a list of about sixty. Johnson states that, "one of the most visible consequences of privilege is the uneven distribution of jobs, wealth, and income..." (32)

If we did not have the concept of privilege and power, how would this county and society be different? Would it be better or worse? According to Johnson, more people would be succeeding, more people would have jobs, and people wouldn't be afraid of talking out in public about themselves. If a person cannot talk in public about the gender of their significant other without fearing for their lives, that take away a huge freedom and sense of security. If society in the United States did not have that false sense of security more people would get along, and less people would be living in fear.

I think that a lot of what was said in this article was true, however i feel that the concepts are so "natural" and ingrained in the minds of Americans that it would be almost impossible to change it. I know a lot of people of different ethnic backgrounds, and sexual orientations, and religions, that it makes it so hard for me to look at them and realize that they will never have the oppotunity to do some of the things I will be able to do in my life. I never quit comprehended the struggles they have to go through everyday, until i became really good friends with them. There was one time where i was talking to one of my friends who happens to be a lesbian, and all of a sudden i found myself talking about getting married and having kids, then when i realized who i was talking to i felt guilty. These concepts of privilege really affect people in how they live their life. You only have certain freedoms, other things are just given to you based on how you look, and for the most part that is not fair.

Video

In this video i think the authors thesis is that race is something that is created by society, and not necessarly biological. It talks about many different situations where race has played a part in history, a couple are racism among african americans and white americans and Hitlers Arian race. In the video race is defined as "divisions among people that are deep that are essential that are somehow biological and unchanging." A person is able to identify another person by simply looking at their physical features including skin color, eye color, and hair color just to name a few. The video claims that scientists cannot find a gene that is in everybody of one particular race and no one of another. There was a experiment conducted in the video of a group of college kids all of a different ethnicity. What they discovered was a shock to them, they were most similar with someone completely different than themselves. For instance, an african american was most similar to a white student, and an Asian was most similar to an african american, males we most similar with females. In this video they also brought up stereotypes of athletes, speciffically African Americans in running track. The stereotype is that they are naturally faster than any other races, some people thought it to be an extra muscle in their legs, or something else biologically. However this is only a stereotype, and for the most part not true,
I thought this video was extremely well done. I enjoyed watching it and actually learned a lot about different ethnicities and how similar people really are even though they look completely different on the outside. I think everything is well researched. Overall i was really excited to watch the video and learned a great deal amount of information from stereotypes to biology.

Zinns Article #2-Drawing the Color Line

In the article “Drawing the Color Line” by Howard Zinn, he talks about the true beginning of slavery among English and the Blacks. He mentions how slavery became an “institution” when talking about labor. Zinn talks about in the year 1619, the Virginians were “desperate for labor, to grow enough food to stay alive.” (Pg 23) When talking about slavery, Zinn mentions how they could no longer use the Indians because there were more of them [Indians] then there were English, and if they massacred the Indians they would surely see one [massacre] against them. Zinn states that by the year 1619 there had already been a million blacks bought out to slavery. They [English] targeted the blacks because “they came from a settled culture, of tribal customs and family ties, of communal life and traditional ritual, that African blacks found themselves especially helpless when removed from this.” States Zinn. (pg 26) He mentions the brutality of the slaves when being transported overseas; they were forced to travel in small groups in coffin-sized areas, chained together. The odds of them surviving the trip overseas was about one and three, however the profits doubled in time so it made the trip worth it to the slave traders. Zinn talks about the historical “web” of events leading to the slavery this is what he says; “We see now a complex web of historical threads to ensnare blacks for slavery in America: the desperation of starving settlers, the special helplessness of the displaced African, the powerful incentive of profit for slave trader and planter, the temptation of superior status for poor whites, the elaborate controls against the escape and rebellion, the legal and social punishment of black and white collaboration.”(Pg 30).
I felt again, that Zinn wrote an article that was an easy read, and that it yet again went against everything I have learned in school. We all learned that slavery was there, and that it was brutal, however I never knew the extent of the brutality when shipping them over seas. I was also never aware of the one out of three odds of survival, which I found rather disturbing. I also could agree with Zinn’s argument that slavery and racism is not natural that it is more of a created human choice and past historical circumstances instead. I feel that slavery was created based on the human’s selfishness to survive and to make money, which carried over into creating racism. Once slavery was adapted it was the cause of the hatred between blacks and whites, it is because of historical events that created today’s racism, everything branches back to slavery.

Chapter two-Takaki

In chapter 2 of A Different Mirror written by Ronald Takaki I feel that he was trying to say that the English were being slightly hypocritical when calling the Native Indians "savages". In the first part of the chapter Takaki talks about how both the Irish and the Indians were savages,because they were not "civilized". However when reading further, it seems that the Indians were far more civilized than anyone else. They farmed extremely well, they noticed weather changes and established seasons which helped them determine when and how to grow their crops. Takaki mentions that when the white man because desperate for food they started turning on humans and eating them, and they called the Indians savages? It seems that the English was just trying to make excuses as to why they needed the Indians, they took them over to be slaves and just ended up killing them. For all of the English's' mistakes they would claim (or blame) God and say that it was his doing, or it was meant to be because God said it was.
When Thomas Jefferson was President he said that it their own fault (the Indians) that they were dying, but all he wanted to do was help them become civilized so he could then take their land.


The Chapter was an easy read, and i somewhat enjoyed it. These are not the same view points I've learned before. However, he ONLY mentions the savagery from the English, does this mean there was none from the Indians? I somehow doubt that. Takaki should compare the Indians and the English, they were both savages, however the Indians could have turned to savagery in self-defense.

When reading this chapter i agree with the majority of the facts Takaki was giving, however i would have liked to see some of the "finger" pointing on both sides. Everyone knows that both groups were savages, i just would have liked to see it from BOTH perspectives. When reading this i was Shocked at some of the things the English did when they got desperate for food, and how the killed off the Indians. I was familiar with some of the information, but not the details and i never realized how gruesome it really was.

Zinn Article

In this article Howard Zinn talks about how the acceptance of murder with a “hero” for the progress of one specific group of people (Columbus) . Zinn states that his viewpoint may be different than that of others, he states that “ the history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest…” When Zinn is telling the story of history he tells it from the viewpoint of the victims (Arawaks, slaves, etc.) He does not “grieve” for victims, he just chooses to view history from someone else’s’ point-of-view. Zinn does not “invent” victories for certain movements, but to simply reiterate failures of the past. In the coming years the Indians attempted to get rid of the English settlers, they were multiplying right in front of their eyes, and wanted to end it so they could save their families, communities, and tribe. They had a few massacres, until the English settlers retaliated and ultimately started a war. The English had decided that because they could not live with the Indians and could not take them as slaves they served no purpose and decided to exterminate them. According to the historian Edmund Morgan, “Within two or three years of the massacre the English had avenged the deaths of that day many times over.” The population of Indians before the English was just about 10 million, and after the extermination the population was just under a million. Not only did the English kill the Indians, some of them died from diseases (brought over by the English) and other “Natural” causes. Before the English invaded the new land, the Indians were “engaged in the great agricultural revolution…” according to Zinn. Technically Columbus did not find the “new land” he invaded a land that had a “culture that was considered complex, some of the places were populated equivalent to Europe, and where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe” Zinn states. Zinn states that “They were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe’s, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence, and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature.”

A few questions rise when reading this article. To me they were important to talk about. In telling the history and the story of Columbus’ voyage is it right to talk about his side and his side only? The story of him being a conqueror, and how the Indians were of no help? Would mentioning that the Indians were possibly more intelligent and organized, and more agriculturally advanced than Europe ruin our history as we know it? Could we (English) have learned from the Natives of the land we took over instead of eliminating them?
These are all questions that come to my mind when reading this article written by Howard Zinn. I would have to agree with the majority of Zinn’s arguments. I find it necessary to hear the story/history from the “victims” point of view and not necessarily the conquerors point of view. Zinn mentions on pages 15 and continuing onto 16 that the Indians, specifically the Iroquois tribe was far more developed and complex than perhaps the English were. Things seemed to be run far more smoothly and organized than that of England and all of Europe. Growing up in Columbus Ohio and visiting the replica of the Santa Maria on the river front many times, I was always taught that Columbus was a hero, he discovered the Americas, and that is how we became. A vague and partially accurate statement; however there is far more than just that. In school they never teach you the brutality and why there are hardly any Native Americans in the present United States.
I really enjoyed reading this article, it made me think about the other side of the development of the new world, and made me feel a little guilty about how we became this wonderful country. I made me ask questions to my self starting with “what if” it also made me compare the attitudes of today’s society and how today we resemble the same attitudes and the selfishness of our “hero’s” in our past. Zinn opened my eyes to a whole new perspective, and possibly a perspective I enjoy learning more about.

Introduction

My name is Andrea Smolak, i am from Powell Ohio (north of columbus) and i am a junior here at Bowling Green. I am a psychology/sociology major, attempting to become a researcher for child/adolesenct development, i would love to further my education and get my PsychD degree.

In my free time i enjoy spending time with my family and friends and also travelling. I have had the honor of travelling downunder to New Zealand and to Australia and enjoyed every second of it. (if interested i have stories and pictures) I am also well travelled around the US.

At home i have two siblings, two cats and one dog. (I LOVE animals) In the future i would love to own an English Mastiff (which require a bit more room than just an apartment).

I am also interested in working on cars, and racing them periodically (not that i am any good) but its a lot of fun.

That's me in a nutshell, i look forward to meeting and getting to know everyone in the class!