Johnson’s thesis in chapter six states, “Contrary to the individualistic model, social life happens only as people participate in social systems—families, schools, workplaces. religious organizations, and so on. If we want to understand what happens in the world, including patterns of privilege and oppression, we have to understand the dynamic relation between people and social systems.”
The author is saying that as people take part in social systems, we learn that how we are related to the ideas of the world and the people who are in the world. We learn the concept of value and how some things and some people are more important than others. We learn to determine what normal behavior is and what is not. The author uses an example about how he watched television growing up and the message that the TV portrayed was, “straight white men are the most important people on the planet because they’re the ones who supposedly do the most important things. They’re the strong ones who build; the heroes who fight the good fight; the geniuses, writers, and artists who create.” He also goes on to describe how the world puts out messages that men are dominant, and all of the subordinate groups should do what the men say. It goes on to say “men, for example, are encouraged to expect women to tend and take care of them, to defer to and support men not matter how badly men behave. He goes on to use the television show Everybody Loves Raymond as an example.
Is the argument the author is making completely accurate? I believe that the argument that the author has come up with is accurate. He gives multiple examples of how we are to act in social situations and if what is considered normal behavior is altered to something someone is not used to what will happen. He uses an example of standing backwards on an elevator and look at the wall instead of facing forward at the door. See what people do, see how many awkward looks someone will receive.
I felt that this was one of my favorite chapters thus far. He gives examples that I could relate to and have seen before, so that I know what my reaction was compared to the reactions that he received. The example about things people don’t do in movie theaters was a good example, because it was 100% true. Nobody does that and if they did it there would be uproar about it. This was a fun chapter to read.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Johnson Chapter 2
The author has a long thesis in this chapter it says “what makes socially constructed reality so powerful is that we rarely if ever experience it as that. We think the way our culture defines something like race or gender is simply the way things are in some objective sense. We think there really is such a thing as “race” and that the words we use simply name an objective reality that is “out there.” The truth is, however, that once human beings give something a name—whether it be skin color or disability –that thing acquires a significance it otherwise would not have. More important, the name quickly takes on a life of its own as we forget the social process that created it and start treating it as “real” in and of itself.
The author is arguing that in our world there is no such thing as race. It is just a word that we use to define the differences of people in our culture. There is a no set meaning of what race and gender are. There is just what we set the definition of these words as. The author talks about how Native American tribes are aloud to pick their own gender, he says “in some Native American plains tribes, people were allowed to choose their gender regardless of their physical characteristics.” He is explaining how Native Americans don’t judge people based on their physical characteristics they accept everyone for who they are no matter the circumstances. In another quote the author poses a question to the readers about seeing a person whom which we can not directly identify which gender they are. He says, “Pass someone on the street whom you can’t identify as clearly male or female, for example, and it can jolt your attention and nag you until you think you’ve figured it out.” Personally I know that I have done this before so I can relate to what he is saying. People judge others based on their looks and in most cases judge people to quickly. Johnson talks to novelist James Baldwin, Baldwin speaks about how we live in a society that recognizes the differences between people. He explains the story of a black woman from Africa, who has never experienced white racism before, so she doesn’t see herself as a black woman. He says she sees herself as a woman, and she sees herself as black, but she doesn’t think of herself as a black woman.
How do Johnson’s arguments affect the way the world is portrayed currently? I believe that Johnson proposes an interesting argument and he has good evidence to back it up. He shows the whole picture of race and gender in the world today. He is explaining how much different cultures are from each other. Going back to the black woman from Africa, he goes on in saying that she comes to the United States, and she is treated differently and is placed in a social category even though she has done nothing to deserve it.
I think that the author does a good job with this point. He paints an accurate picture of what goes on in the world today, and gives real life examples of how people treat each other and how they affect one another.
The author is arguing that in our world there is no such thing as race. It is just a word that we use to define the differences of people in our culture. There is a no set meaning of what race and gender are. There is just what we set the definition of these words as. The author talks about how Native American tribes are aloud to pick their own gender, he says “in some Native American plains tribes, people were allowed to choose their gender regardless of their physical characteristics.” He is explaining how Native Americans don’t judge people based on their physical characteristics they accept everyone for who they are no matter the circumstances. In another quote the author poses a question to the readers about seeing a person whom which we can not directly identify which gender they are. He says, “Pass someone on the street whom you can’t identify as clearly male or female, for example, and it can jolt your attention and nag you until you think you’ve figured it out.” Personally I know that I have done this before so I can relate to what he is saying. People judge others based on their looks and in most cases judge people to quickly. Johnson talks to novelist James Baldwin, Baldwin speaks about how we live in a society that recognizes the differences between people. He explains the story of a black woman from Africa, who has never experienced white racism before, so she doesn’t see herself as a black woman. He says she sees herself as a woman, and she sees herself as black, but she doesn’t think of herself as a black woman.
How do Johnson’s arguments affect the way the world is portrayed currently? I believe that Johnson proposes an interesting argument and he has good evidence to back it up. He shows the whole picture of race and gender in the world today. He is explaining how much different cultures are from each other. Going back to the black woman from Africa, he goes on in saying that she comes to the United States, and she is treated differently and is placed in a social category even though she has done nothing to deserve it.
I think that the author does a good job with this point. He paints an accurate picture of what goes on in the world today, and gives real life examples of how people treat each other and how they affect one another.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Race Video
The movie Race: the power of illusion, the difference between us was a very exciting and informational film to watch. It was a story of 12 kids from different races who through testing proved that their genetics are similar and therefore they are not that much different from each other. The video told of how their should not be racial inequality based on the fact that these different races have genes that are not very different. In this video I think it told a lot about the world and how we treat each other, and that if everyone stopped and realized the facts that are portrayed in this video that there are no tremendous differences between the different races of the world and we should act as if there are no differences.
The most appealing part of the video I found was the part about athletes. Especially the part about African American athletes and the Asian American boy who plays the violin, and when they compare DNA they find out that the differences are minimal. I find that very interesting because most people would think that there are two very different skills required between the two kids, but their really isn’t they both have a close genetic make-up and could be considered close to the same race.
I found this video very interesting. I never in a million years would have thought that the different races could be so closely similar. It puts a completely new look on the way people look at each other and how I look at others. It was an excellent video to watch and I think it should be shown in schools around the world.
The most appealing part of the video I found was the part about athletes. Especially the part about African American athletes and the Asian American boy who plays the violin, and when they compare DNA they find out that the differences are minimal. I find that very interesting because most people would think that there are two very different skills required between the two kids, but their really isn’t they both have a close genetic make-up and could be considered close to the same race.
I found this video very interesting. I never in a million years would have thought that the different races could be so closely similar. It puts a completely new look on the way people look at each other and how I look at others. It was an excellent video to watch and I think it should be shown in schools around the world.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Zinn chapter 2
In Zinn’s chapter about the color line his thesis reads, “In the English colonies, slavery developed quickly into a regular institution, into the normal labor relation of blacks and whites. With it developed that special racial feeling—whether hatred, or contempt, or pity, or patronization—that accompanied the inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years: that combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism.” What he is saying is that in England during these times slavery turned into a common theme, a lot of people had slaves and it was not out of the ordinary to see them. And that they are the ones who developed racism because of the slave associations between blacks and whites.
The author truly has no argument in this chapter. He is just stating facts about how slavery began and why it began. He tells about how the blacks were the Englishmen’s second option as slaves, because the Indians were too dangerous to them. The Indians had the English out numbered and with the English having to come to the forests to try and find Indians, the Native Americans were better equipped and more experienced in fighting in the forests. So, the Englishmen knew all of this and did not mess with the Indians, instead they went to plan B which was the blacks. Shortly thereafter began slave trade. Countries shipped blacks who were shackled and chained to one another in a dark boat deck, many of the slaves who were being transported like this often died. Some died of suffocation, some killed others to try and stay alive, and some jumped off the boat and drown. In the later years of slavery the slaves became smarter. They began to team up against the slave owners and run away. The planters were intimidated by the slaves who rebelled against them and rarely would personally chase after them. Plantation owners tried to figure out a way to stop the slaves from happening mainly by sending each other letters warning them. If the slaves were caught they were either burnt, hanged, or executed.
The author says that in some cases white indentured servants were treated just as poorly as the black slaves were. Well, for some reason that is hard to believe. Mainly it is hard to believe because the planters saw black and white, not everyone is a slave. They would not treat a person of the same color as them the same way they did a person of different skin color. They knew they were different from the black slaves and the planters would treat them like they were.
I felt that this reading was nothing new to me. It was nothing that I haven’t heard before; I knew before that the slaves were badly mistreated and that they became slaves just because of the color of their skin. Slavery was a horrible thing and unfortunately it is the reason that racism still exists today. And in answering the question the author posed which was will racism ever end? I see the answer as being no because people treat others who don’t look like them differently.
The author truly has no argument in this chapter. He is just stating facts about how slavery began and why it began. He tells about how the blacks were the Englishmen’s second option as slaves, because the Indians were too dangerous to them. The Indians had the English out numbered and with the English having to come to the forests to try and find Indians, the Native Americans were better equipped and more experienced in fighting in the forests. So, the Englishmen knew all of this and did not mess with the Indians, instead they went to plan B which was the blacks. Shortly thereafter began slave trade. Countries shipped blacks who were shackled and chained to one another in a dark boat deck, many of the slaves who were being transported like this often died. Some died of suffocation, some killed others to try and stay alive, and some jumped off the boat and drown. In the later years of slavery the slaves became smarter. They began to team up against the slave owners and run away. The planters were intimidated by the slaves who rebelled against them and rarely would personally chase after them. Plantation owners tried to figure out a way to stop the slaves from happening mainly by sending each other letters warning them. If the slaves were caught they were either burnt, hanged, or executed.
The author says that in some cases white indentured servants were treated just as poorly as the black slaves were. Well, for some reason that is hard to believe. Mainly it is hard to believe because the planters saw black and white, not everyone is a slave. They would not treat a person of the same color as them the same way they did a person of different skin color. They knew they were different from the black slaves and the planters would treat them like they were.
I felt that this reading was nothing new to me. It was nothing that I haven’t heard before; I knew before that the slaves were badly mistreated and that they became slaves just because of the color of their skin. Slavery was a horrible thing and unfortunately it is the reason that racism still exists today. And in answering the question the author posed which was will racism ever end? I see the answer as being no because people treat others who don’t look like them differently.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Takaki Chapter 2
The author’s thesis is about how unfairly mistreated the Irish and the Native Americans were. They were treated poorly by the people of England. The English wanted to change how the Irish acted and were going to educate them on how to do so. His thesis about the Irish, “The English claimed that they had a God-given responsibility to inhabit and reform so barbarous a nation and to educate the Irish brutes. They would teach them to obey English laws and stop robbing and stealing and killing one another.” And the cruelty to the Indians continued. It gives graphic details about the cruel things that the English did to the Native Americans. It talks about how they poisoned there wine while trying to reach a peace treaty. And the part which states how a member of a tribe “ murdered his wife, ripped the child out of her womb and threw it into the river, and after chopped the mother in pieces and salted her for his food. The author is reiterating how badly these people were treated. They were not treated fairly and were murdered in huge numbers for no apparent reason. Is the author however, missing the bigger picture with this subject, is there a bigger problem than just with the Irish and the Native Americans? I think that the English were going to kill whoever however they wanted to get what they needed. They didn’t care if it was Irish, Native Americans, or anyone else. They were going to kill to get what they wanted. On a personal note, this is very disturbing to read about the things they did to these people. They never did anything wrong, yet the English treated them as if they did. I also was unaware of the number of people who died from diseases that the Europeans brought over. Hundreds and thousands died because of these diseases. This chapter really put into perspective how the English truly were.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Introduction
My name is Casey Frederick I am 19 years old. I go to Bowling Green State University, and I am a sophomore there. My major is Physical Education, so I hope to become a phys. ed teacher someday. I am from Strongsville, Ohio, a suburb about 20 minutes south of downtown Cleveland. My family is very important to me, I would not be the person that I am today without them. I am the youngest sibling in my family, so I have received a lot of help from my brother and my parents in my 19 years. I like to play basketball, golf, and softball. I also like to watch movies, and my favorite movie is Shooter with Mark Wahlberg.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
zinn reading
Casey Frederick
Ethnics 101
Melissa Altman
The author of this article has strong feelings about how historians recreate history. The thesis of this article is “My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress.” In his thesis he is saying that Columbus had to create a vicious act to get them gold and spices he was looking for. And the author does not want to say that Columbus was wrong or he was right he is simply saying that he did what he had to do to get his job done. He was trying to make progress by exploring the Americas and bring back gold to his country, and in doing so had to kill the Arawaks.
However in Columbus’ defense I believe that the author is not giving Columbus a fair shake. Back in the 1400’s the way of life was extremely different, and if the author was in Columbus’ shoes would he do the same thing that Columbus did? Would he go to the extremes that Columbus did to get the gold and spice for his country, and do as his ruler asked of him? I believe that if the author lived in the time that Columbus did he would do the same thing that Columbus did. He would do whatever it took to do what he was asked. Whether that was to kill innocent people, or sail around the world for no reason, whatever he was told to do I believe he would do it.
The way that I looked at Christopher Columbus before I read this article and how I look at him now after I have read the article is completely different, just as the author had said the schools now do not tell the whole story. They tell the good side of Columbus. They tell how he sailed to the Americas and discovered all of this land, and brought back all this stuff for his country. But they do no tell how, they do not tell how he went about his business in bringing back gold and spice. It is shocking to read about the things that he had to do to get where he did, and get the materials that he needed for his country.
Ethnics 101
Melissa Altman
The author of this article has strong feelings about how historians recreate history. The thesis of this article is “My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress.” In his thesis he is saying that Columbus had to create a vicious act to get them gold and spices he was looking for. And the author does not want to say that Columbus was wrong or he was right he is simply saying that he did what he had to do to get his job done. He was trying to make progress by exploring the Americas and bring back gold to his country, and in doing so had to kill the Arawaks.
However in Columbus’ defense I believe that the author is not giving Columbus a fair shake. Back in the 1400’s the way of life was extremely different, and if the author was in Columbus’ shoes would he do the same thing that Columbus did? Would he go to the extremes that Columbus did to get the gold and spice for his country, and do as his ruler asked of him? I believe that if the author lived in the time that Columbus did he would do the same thing that Columbus did. He would do whatever it took to do what he was asked. Whether that was to kill innocent people, or sail around the world for no reason, whatever he was told to do I believe he would do it.
The way that I looked at Christopher Columbus before I read this article and how I look at him now after I have read the article is completely different, just as the author had said the schools now do not tell the whole story. They tell the good side of Columbus. They tell how he sailed to the Americas and discovered all of this land, and brought back all this stuff for his country. But they do no tell how, they do not tell how he went about his business in bringing back gold and spice. It is shocking to read about the things that he had to do to get where he did, and get the materials that he needed for his country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)