Monday, October 29, 2007
In-class Post: Wu
I have in the past felt both singled out and completely ignored at the same time. As anyone who was ever socially awkward may have experienced in high school, I felt as though people were purposefully avoiding starting relationships/friendships with me because of my social ineptness, however I also felt that people were not even aware of my existence at times. I'm sure that I in no way understand what it's like to be a minority based upon your race. I have felt different.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Johnson Chapter 6 Blog
Johnson goes on to explain how we are socially trained to follow the “path of least resistance” so as not to upset any of the other individuals around us. Even though we may often feel that we are doing what we want, more often than not that very opinion is influenced by what we know to be the most acceptable behavior. Johnson uses a very relatable example of standing in an elevator. He says that you never realize that facing the doors is the “path of least resistance” until you try standing at the back of the elevator, facing the wall. This behavior will make the people around you so uncomfortable that they may confront you and have you turn around because you just aren’t acting “normal” (the way they expect you to behave) (80). He also uses the example of playing a game of Monopoly to tie his points together. He explains how he is not generally a greedy person (even though it is a behavior ingrained in humans), however when he plays Monopoly he will do whatever it takes to win, and won’t feel bad about it. He uses this to explain that it is neither individuals nor social situations that cause privilege or oppression (or in this case greed) it’s the interaction between the two that creates the oppressive social system. To finish out the chapter, Johnson points out how we are all involved in the privilege/oppression cycle even if we aren’t the oppressors or the oppressed. By standing back and letting the system continuously work, we are just as to blame for its perpetuation as anyone else is.
Johnson brings up many good points in this chapter about social “norms” and how people around us become very uncomfortable when they view something as being odd or different. This reminds me of America’s recent fear (maybe distrust is a better word) of Middle-eastern people. It is because of our set standards of normality that makes us feel uneasy when someone walks around on a hot day completely covered from head to toe. In the Middle-east, this would be considered normal and we would probably get a couple looks for wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I thought about something else as I read this though. The way we view social norms depends on our experiences and environment, meaning that they often change, because before 9/11, Muslim people may have gotten stared at for their different style of dress but not as much as today. Society and the way we work as a whole is wildly complex.
I liked this piece more than the other Johnson chapter’s that we’ve read so far probably because I liked the use of everyday examples he gave us. This chapter just seemed more real to me and got me thinking more. Although, I may just have been in a different mind-set while reading it.
Johnson brings up many good points in this chapter about social “norms” and how people around us become very uncomfortable when they view something as being odd or different. This reminds me of America’s recent fear (maybe distrust is a better word) of Middle-eastern people. It is because of our set standards of normality that makes us feel uneasy when someone walks around on a hot day completely covered from head to toe. In the Middle-east, this would be considered normal and we would probably get a couple looks for wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I thought about something else as I read this though. The way we view social norms depends on our experiences and environment, meaning that they often change, because before 9/11, Muslim people may have gotten stared at for their different style of dress but not as much as today. Society and the way we work as a whole is wildly complex.
I liked this piece more than the other Johnson chapter’s that we’ve read so far probably because I liked the use of everyday examples he gave us. This chapter just seemed more real to me and got me thinking more. Although, I may just have been in a different mind-set while reading it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Johnson Chapter 3 Blog
The thesis of Johnson’s third chapter is that capitalism created and perpetuates the tension that occurs between races, genders, classes, and sexual orientations. This is because it is the drive of corporations to earn money by paying workers as little as possible, which has been done by pitting groups against each other in competition for the same positions.
At the beginning, Johnson explains how the expansion of capitalism actually brought about racism because it was such an cheap (being free) source of labor. The goal of capitalism is to make as much of a profit as possible, which early capitalists did by relying on slave labor so that they didn’t have to lose any of their profit on paying for labor. Next he goes into how capitalism splits groups up even further into social classes. How the quality and type of work is paid more or less comparatively and therefore the people who work those careers are able to enjoy different styles of life. This is then related back to race, sex, sexual preference, and ability and the privilege value attached to them. For example white, heterosexual, non-disabilities men have the greatest privilege and are therefore more likely to get hired into a high paying job, putting them into an upper class. On the other side of things, a white, non-disabled, lesbian has her gender and sexual preference working against her and it is harder for them to reach high social classes. Johnson wraps up this chapter by explaining how being part of one privileged group doesn’t necessarily guarantee that you’ll feel privileged since you may fall into other oppressed groups that may outweigh or trump your privilege group.
So if capitalism is the perpetuator of the privilege system, would a communistic system of economy be better for the world? Could a system based on equality cure all the social dysfunction of different groups? The major problems of communistic systems of the past have been that everyone has been held at a relatively low class without the opportunity for advancement. This means that people who truly did work hard and deserve to move up in the world couldn’t. Also, “equal” never means equal because there always has to be a group that rules over all of the others, to oversee the system. I’d say that communism probably still isn’t the way to go.
I thought this piece was rather thought-provoking, especially the parts about how belonging to certain oppressed groups can trump out and take away privileges that you would otherwise have. This is something that truly can be seen in everyday life, but I don’t usually think of it in association with privilege. I guess being part of the highest privileged group, means that I never have the need to see privilege, which makes you feel bad when you think about it.
At the beginning, Johnson explains how the expansion of capitalism actually brought about racism because it was such an cheap (being free) source of labor. The goal of capitalism is to make as much of a profit as possible, which early capitalists did by relying on slave labor so that they didn’t have to lose any of their profit on paying for labor. Next he goes into how capitalism splits groups up even further into social classes. How the quality and type of work is paid more or less comparatively and therefore the people who work those careers are able to enjoy different styles of life. This is then related back to race, sex, sexual preference, and ability and the privilege value attached to them. For example white, heterosexual, non-disabilities men have the greatest privilege and are therefore more likely to get hired into a high paying job, putting them into an upper class. On the other side of things, a white, non-disabled, lesbian has her gender and sexual preference working against her and it is harder for them to reach high social classes. Johnson wraps up this chapter by explaining how being part of one privileged group doesn’t necessarily guarantee that you’ll feel privileged since you may fall into other oppressed groups that may outweigh or trump your privilege group.
So if capitalism is the perpetuator of the privilege system, would a communistic system of economy be better for the world? Could a system based on equality cure all the social dysfunction of different groups? The major problems of communistic systems of the past have been that everyone has been held at a relatively low class without the opportunity for advancement. This means that people who truly did work hard and deserve to move up in the world couldn’t. Also, “equal” never means equal because there always has to be a group that rules over all of the others, to oversee the system. I’d say that communism probably still isn’t the way to go.
I thought this piece was rather thought-provoking, especially the parts about how belonging to certain oppressed groups can trump out and take away privileges that you would otherwise have. This is something that truly can be seen in everyday life, but I don’t usually think of it in association with privilege. I guess being part of the highest privileged group, means that I never have the need to see privilege, which makes you feel bad when you think about it.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Privilege, Oppression, and Difference Blog
The main idea of this chapter of Allan Johnson’s novel is to explain the relationships among privilege, oppression, and difference. More specifically, that it’s the power and privilege that perpetuate the cycle and that people who really are given privilege usually don’t see their situation as such.
First Johnson explains that it is the fear of making other groups uncomfortable, especially the dominant group, that keeps the less privileged from looking at the world with a serious degree of reality. However, as we’ve been discussing in class, the mere fact that humans have distinct physical differences is not the reason a divide in privilege exists; it is because, as humans, we don’t really understand each other. And in an attempt to place everyone into perfectly divided categories, we have formed generalizations about groups. These generalizations are often times negative and that causes us to fear or avoid people of those groups, if for no other reason than that they may exhibit those negative behaviors. Next, Johnson challenges us to define ourselves in specific groups, which is often difficult to do, but we define others using the same categories. Then he defines privilege and explains McIntosh’s two types of privilege; the first based on “unearned entitlements” which are things people should have and “unearned advantage” which are awarded to individuals who have done nothing to deserve it (22-23); the second is called “conferred dominance” which gives a dominant group allotted power over another (23). In order to make privilege seem more real to people who don’t experience the oppressive side of it, Johnson gives us many examples of privilege that people receive. To wrap up his chapter Johnson explores how members of privileged groups rarely see themselves as privileged. This is due to the fact that those members rarely compare their achievements to those of different groups (white men compare themselves to the other white men around them) and that privilege doesn’t necessarily make a person feel “privileged” or happy.
So, what if racial, gender, sexual, and capability privilege didn’t exist? How would the world operate? In that utopia, would people feel that they were equal to everyone else? A world of perfect equality will never exist, but a world without privilege based on specific, unchangeable characteristics may. Privilege based on choices we make will always exist. For example, isn’t a multi-millionaire treated to certain privileges that no common man OR woman is. We’ve all seen on TV the free gifts that the rich are given just because they are rich. Gifts that they could easily afford with their vast affluence and yet they are simply rewarded it. It may not seem fair or just to you and I, but do those people deserve those things for their “hard work”. What did Paris Hilton ever do to deserve her fame?
This reading was very engaging and forced me to look at myself in ways that I had not before. I admit that I’ve been guilty of feeling rather “unprivileged” due to privileges that I’m supposed to have been born with. Yet, if you just admit that those privileges exist, you can see that you wouldn’t be where you are today without having taken advantage of them. It’s quite the moral dilemma, but what makes it all even harder is that it’s hard to tell when something is given to you through privilege and what you have actually earned on your own.
First Johnson explains that it is the fear of making other groups uncomfortable, especially the dominant group, that keeps the less privileged from looking at the world with a serious degree of reality. However, as we’ve been discussing in class, the mere fact that humans have distinct physical differences is not the reason a divide in privilege exists; it is because, as humans, we don’t really understand each other. And in an attempt to place everyone into perfectly divided categories, we have formed generalizations about groups. These generalizations are often times negative and that causes us to fear or avoid people of those groups, if for no other reason than that they may exhibit those negative behaviors. Next, Johnson challenges us to define ourselves in specific groups, which is often difficult to do, but we define others using the same categories. Then he defines privilege and explains McIntosh’s two types of privilege; the first based on “unearned entitlements” which are things people should have and “unearned advantage” which are awarded to individuals who have done nothing to deserve it (22-23); the second is called “conferred dominance” which gives a dominant group allotted power over another (23). In order to make privilege seem more real to people who don’t experience the oppressive side of it, Johnson gives us many examples of privilege that people receive. To wrap up his chapter Johnson explores how members of privileged groups rarely see themselves as privileged. This is due to the fact that those members rarely compare their achievements to those of different groups (white men compare themselves to the other white men around them) and that privilege doesn’t necessarily make a person feel “privileged” or happy.
So, what if racial, gender, sexual, and capability privilege didn’t exist? How would the world operate? In that utopia, would people feel that they were equal to everyone else? A world of perfect equality will never exist, but a world without privilege based on specific, unchangeable characteristics may. Privilege based on choices we make will always exist. For example, isn’t a multi-millionaire treated to certain privileges that no common man OR woman is. We’ve all seen on TV the free gifts that the rich are given just because they are rich. Gifts that they could easily afford with their vast affluence and yet they are simply rewarded it. It may not seem fair or just to you and I, but do those people deserve those things for their “hard work”. What did Paris Hilton ever do to deserve her fame?
This reading was very engaging and forced me to look at myself in ways that I had not before. I admit that I’ve been guilty of feeling rather “unprivileged” due to privileges that I’m supposed to have been born with. Yet, if you just admit that those privileges exist, you can see that you wouldn’t be where you are today without having taken advantage of them. It’s quite the moral dilemma, but what makes it all even harder is that it’s hard to tell when something is given to you through privilege and what you have actually earned on your own.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Race: Difference Between Us Blog
The thesis of the video, Race: The Power of Illusion: Difference Between Us, is that race is not a biological difference among humans, but is more or less a regional difference which over time affected the peoples of that area’s skin color, hair type, and other physical characteristics that we have learned to attribute to “race.”
The creators of this video use relatively newly developed genetic techniques involving DNA to show that generally there are more genetic differences among people of the same “race” than there are in people from different corners of the world. Also, they show a perfect example of the misconceptions that most Americans have by introducing a group of students that are participating in a genetic workshop. These students automatically assume that they will be close genetic matches to other students that seem to have similar “racial” backgrounds, but by the end of the experiment they find (and in turn, we find) that this is just completely untrue. In fact, in a couple of instances the students found that they were more genetically similar to the students with whom they figured that they’d have major differences.
Although America as a whole is striving for racial equality, I have a feeling that there are millions of Americans that still truly believe that “race” is biological and genetic. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if my parents were still under such an impression. Racism, as we’ve been discussing these first few weeks of this course, has been ingrained in America’s society and therefore any advantages, be it physical or mental, are often attributed to racial differences. However, as this video explains, any differences that occur among races are actually due to the separation of people in the regions were they developped. Traits that appear to show up more in individual groups of people are more often than not due to the conditions of the areas that their ancestors lived. This even applies to skin color. Peoples who developped in areas of high concentrations of UV-rays, developped darker melanin producing skin so to aid in the adequet production of vitamin D.
I feel that this video does a good job of explaining that no matter how different people may look, we really are the same at our most basic level. This is something that a high school teacher of mine made a point to tell us in his class. He wanted us to have the knowledge nessecary to avoid ignorance. He probably influenced me the most of any of my high school teachers. He try to teach his students not only the course material that was required in the class, but also life lessons and life experiences that he had had and witnessed so that we would not make the same mistakes that others in the past have. One thing that I did take from the video that I found very interesting was that two fruit flies are actually more genetically different than humans are from chimps. How crazy is that?
The creators of this video use relatively newly developed genetic techniques involving DNA to show that generally there are more genetic differences among people of the same “race” than there are in people from different corners of the world. Also, they show a perfect example of the misconceptions that most Americans have by introducing a group of students that are participating in a genetic workshop. These students automatically assume that they will be close genetic matches to other students that seem to have similar “racial” backgrounds, but by the end of the experiment they find (and in turn, we find) that this is just completely untrue. In fact, in a couple of instances the students found that they were more genetically similar to the students with whom they figured that they’d have major differences.
Although America as a whole is striving for racial equality, I have a feeling that there are millions of Americans that still truly believe that “race” is biological and genetic. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if my parents were still under such an impression. Racism, as we’ve been discussing these first few weeks of this course, has been ingrained in America’s society and therefore any advantages, be it physical or mental, are often attributed to racial differences. However, as this video explains, any differences that occur among races are actually due to the separation of people in the regions were they developped. Traits that appear to show up more in individual groups of people are more often than not due to the conditions of the areas that their ancestors lived. This even applies to skin color. Peoples who developped in areas of high concentrations of UV-rays, developped darker melanin producing skin so to aid in the adequet production of vitamin D.
I feel that this video does a good job of explaining that no matter how different people may look, we really are the same at our most basic level. This is something that a high school teacher of mine made a point to tell us in his class. He wanted us to have the knowledge nessecary to avoid ignorance. He probably influenced me the most of any of my high school teachers. He try to teach his students not only the course material that was required in the class, but also life lessons and life experiences that he had had and witnessed so that we would not make the same mistakes that others in the past have. One thing that I did take from the video that I found very interesting was that two fruit flies are actually more genetically different than humans are from chimps. How crazy is that?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Zinn Chapter 2
In this chapter, Zinn explains the enslavement of African blacks as a part of American development. He starts with the beginning and why the Puritans needed to look for sources of free labor, to the ways that they kept their slaves from rising up against them or running away.
Zinn explains that early America was plagued with starvation as the new settlers did not know how to use the land as well as the Natives did. However, the Native Americans were not a usable source of labor because they were at home and knew the land too well. Any Native that wished to escape could easily take off into the woods and disappear among the lands features that they grew up around. Then to explain the harsh laws that were passed in early-American, Zinn produces excerpts from the Virginia Assembly and Virginia House of Burgesses. Also, by using accounts of slaveholders he shows us these men’s’ true concern that the enslaved Africans were capable of terrible revolts.
At some points in this chapter of Zinn’s book he seems to take the side of the European settlers when making statements about how they needed slave labor to produce sufficient food supplies or how easily enslaved and controlled the Africans were. I wonder if Zinn did this as a way to continue his looking at history from the view of the not commonly supported. No one usually wants to support the malicious treatment of other human beings and therefore most historians chastise the actions of the early-Americans. However, Zinn seems to be a special case when it comes to recounting history. He doesn’t seem to mind being different or even being disagreed with or saying something controversial.
I didn’t enjoy this section of Zinn’s book as much as I liked the first chapter. Maybe that’s because I didn’t really learn anything new from this part. My senior year of high school I took an African-American History course and most of this information was covered. Regardless, I still enjoy Zinn’s alternative look at history and can’t wait to read further works by him in this course.
Zinn explains that early America was plagued with starvation as the new settlers did not know how to use the land as well as the Natives did. However, the Native Americans were not a usable source of labor because they were at home and knew the land too well. Any Native that wished to escape could easily take off into the woods and disappear among the lands features that they grew up around. Then to explain the harsh laws that were passed in early-American, Zinn produces excerpts from the Virginia Assembly and Virginia House of Burgesses. Also, by using accounts of slaveholders he shows us these men’s’ true concern that the enslaved Africans were capable of terrible revolts.
At some points in this chapter of Zinn’s book he seems to take the side of the European settlers when making statements about how they needed slave labor to produce sufficient food supplies or how easily enslaved and controlled the Africans were. I wonder if Zinn did this as a way to continue his looking at history from the view of the not commonly supported. No one usually wants to support the malicious treatment of other human beings and therefore most historians chastise the actions of the early-Americans. However, Zinn seems to be a special case when it comes to recounting history. He doesn’t seem to mind being different or even being disagreed with or saying something controversial.
I didn’t enjoy this section of Zinn’s book as much as I liked the first chapter. Maybe that’s because I didn’t really learn anything new from this part. My senior year of high school I took an African-American History course and most of this information was covered. Regardless, I still enjoy Zinn’s alternative look at history and can’t wait to read further works by him in this course.
Monday, August 27, 2007
About Me
Well, my name is Casey Gossett. I'm from Marietta, Ohio which is on the South-eastern side of the state right on the border of West Virginia. I play guitar avidly and am in the process of looking for other musicians that want to try to write. Some of my favorite bands include Taking Back Sunday, Senses Fail, etc. I'm a sophomore and I'm a Pre-Medicine, Biology major.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Zen Reading: Chapter One
In this chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s thesis is that historians typically, and historically, retell the tales of past events from the point of view of the conqueror. Only a handful of authors and biographers have told of the “great victories” of American history through the eyes of the repressed, the oppressed, or the murdered.
Zinn’s main source of evidence is the general knowledge that Americans today know of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the Americas. He questions the readers’ trust in what he may have learned in grade school history classes. While the Arawaks that met Columbus on the beaches of the Bahamas greeted him and his crew with gifts and hospitality, his greed and lust for gold led him to slay the gentle natives and force them into slavery. Zinn also mentions that few have sided with the downtrodden when telling of Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or any American war that has led us to this point in our nation’s development.
In reading a piece of literature such as this one must often be careful not to fall into the same propaganda that has led him to believe the point of view of history that he has already been taught as the truth. Could Zinn not easily fabricate or overdramatize some details of history that may not be recorded or may not be clear? Not to downplay any of the atrocities that went on between Columbus and the Arawaks, but writers tend to shape certain characters, or in this case groups, to relate more with the reader. If a reader begins to feel a strong connection to a specific party naturally he will feel that group’s injustice and change his views. Also even just in this first chapter I noticed that Zinn’s style of writing seems to cause the reader to almost feel that the point of view of the oppressed is complete truth, when it’s commonly said that there are always two sides to every story “and then there’s the truth.”
All in all, I enjoyed reading this piece. Honestly, I had never really been forced to think about how Columbus “convinced” the Native Americans to “share” their lands. It makes me really sad and angry to think that the greed that coursed through the veins of society at that time (and obviously still today – Ken Lay?) kept Columbus from accepting the Natives’ offer to share their possessions. Also, as I mentioned before reading pieces like this make me question all other historical facts that I’ve been forced to memorize since second grade. What other atrocities have been accepted as necessary steps of national development and subsequently erased from history or forgotten? Who decides what is history-worthy? To me it seems to be the most powerful people who have the final say. Oh, and who always seems to be at the forefront of atrocities?
Zinn’s main source of evidence is the general knowledge that Americans today know of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the Americas. He questions the readers’ trust in what he may have learned in grade school history classes. While the Arawaks that met Columbus on the beaches of the Bahamas greeted him and his crew with gifts and hospitality, his greed and lust for gold led him to slay the gentle natives and force them into slavery. Zinn also mentions that few have sided with the downtrodden when telling of Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or any American war that has led us to this point in our nation’s development.
In reading a piece of literature such as this one must often be careful not to fall into the same propaganda that has led him to believe the point of view of history that he has already been taught as the truth. Could Zinn not easily fabricate or overdramatize some details of history that may not be recorded or may not be clear? Not to downplay any of the atrocities that went on between Columbus and the Arawaks, but writers tend to shape certain characters, or in this case groups, to relate more with the reader. If a reader begins to feel a strong connection to a specific party naturally he will feel that group’s injustice and change his views. Also even just in this first chapter I noticed that Zinn’s style of writing seems to cause the reader to almost feel that the point of view of the oppressed is complete truth, when it’s commonly said that there are always two sides to every story “and then there’s the truth.”
All in all, I enjoyed reading this piece. Honestly, I had never really been forced to think about how Columbus “convinced” the Native Americans to “share” their lands. It makes me really sad and angry to think that the greed that coursed through the veins of society at that time (and obviously still today – Ken Lay?) kept Columbus from accepting the Natives’ offer to share their possessions. Also, as I mentioned before reading pieces like this make me question all other historical facts that I’ve been forced to memorize since second grade. What other atrocities have been accepted as necessary steps of national development and subsequently erased from history or forgotten? Who decides what is history-worthy? To me it seems to be the most powerful people who have the final say. Oh, and who always seems to be at the forefront of atrocities?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)