Where Do You Want To Go Today?

In “Where Do You Want To Go Today?” Lisa Nakamura chronicles attempts by advertisers to extinguish or moderate racial issues through the use of the internet.

Nakamura starts out describing a commercial that claims that on the internet there are no infirmities, no gender, no age – only minds. It concludes by saying that (the internet) is uninfluenced by the rest of it (pg 4). Nakamura takes issue with the “rest of it” portion of the commercial. She states that the “rest of it” is racial and ethnic difference. The commercial seeks to bolster the claim that the internet will break down the wall of racial and social oppression. She goes on to quote many other similar commercials that make her point.

This article was written in the late 1990’s. It is very important to note that this was the time when the internet was coming of age. The advertising campaigns illustrated what the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve at the time referred to as “”irrational exuberance”. People were just starting to see the power the internet had, but were still unable to put things into perspective. Why else were internet companies with no hope of ever turning a profit trading with the like of General Electric, Phillip Morris, and Alcoa. We really didn’t have a grasp on things and were not able to make insinuations about “the rest of it”. The article has many of the trappings of McPherson’s article. Present in both are the ideas of the cyber-self being something other than your true being.

Nakamura draws an interesting connection between colonialism and tourism. The allusions made me put down the paper and think about what she meant, but she did not really clear up the issue. Since she didn’t elaborate I will. I see tourism as a powerful tool for understanding, tolerating, and celebrating other races, religions, and ethnicities. Colonialism was also a force for progress but it came at the expense of race, religion, and ethnicities.

I may have been successful at getting my arms around what Nakamura is talking about if I was able to actually see the commercials she refers to. At times it was hard to really understand what she meant and she made things more confusing by referring to other obscure commercials that I have never seen. I lived through this period of time, and I have to say that the sentiment held by the people on the cutting edge of internet technology was quite different from the average person. We didn’t understand the internet and they had wild eye notions (like what Nakamura details) that were ridiculous. I postulate that it is silly to think that the internet will deliver us into some post-ethnic utopia. It is another clear example of hopeful people irresponsibly looking for a magic bullet to solve the challenges of race and racism.

I’ll Take My Stand in Dixie-Net

In “I’ll Take My Stand in Dixie-Net” Tara McPherson details a new form of group identity over the internet. The main idea behind McPherson's article is that cyberspace often blurs the role race plays in identity formation
McPherson introduces us to neo-Confederates. Neo-Confederates are individuals and groups who seek to reconstruct the Confederacy in cyberspace. McPherson uses the example to illustrate how an individual in cyberspace can transcend race, gender, income, geography, and most other characteristics that determine what Johnson referred to as privilege. On page 123 McPherson makes a point that groups like the neo-Confederates do not use specific descriptions of race and tend to stay away from discussions of racism. She states on the bottom of the page that groups like the neo-Confederates are covertly racists rather than overtly racist. The group is not represented in any one given website but rather in a group of websites that each has a different focus. They all have some of the same iconography such as Confederate flags and music steams of Dixie. Some also have geographical maps delineating the 11 states of the Confederacy. McPherson gets away from specifics and asks what our online identity is. In her summary conclusions McPherson calls peoples participation in cyberspace as “non-traumatic multiplicity.”

By avoiding debate over issues of race those in cyberspace can avoid the negative connotations associated with groups like the Klu Klux Klan. In fact many less than tolerant groups like the neo-Confederates masquerade as benign organizations and even put anti-Klan icons on their websites. Essentially these sites attempt to white-wash history and only dwell in the elements of the “proper southerner” that they deem to be important, and overlooking the part about racism. They take the opposite side of the issue and defend against the degradation of white masculinity, as opposed to blackness. In the context of cyberspace the evasiveness detailed is quite effective when the source’s gender and race are not as readily apparent.

I found McPherson’s article interesting as I had never heard of neo-Confederates. I always thought that sinister groups could exist on the net, but I never paid any real attention to them. I think that they are sinister because they don’t come right out and say who they are and what they are all about, and they are definitely trying to advance an agenda. I also found the concepts of transcending or uprooting (pg 127) race to be quite interesting. I look forward to trying it some time in the future. I wish McPherson would have created a piece that was easy to understand. I thought that she was overly wordy and she spent way too much time quoting others and referencing what she assumed was commonly disseminated popular culture. It seems difficult to gage what shapes racism and tolerance will take on the internet, but I am now looking out for it more after reading this article.

Takaki Chapter 12

In chapter 12 El Norte: The Borderland of Chicano America, Takaki outlines the origins Chicano Americans. Takaki suggests that Chicano Americans were treated unfairly and discriminated against.

The challenges facing the Chicanos were unique to their group. They made their way north to the United States first to escape civil war and then to find work or trabajo. The circumstances are similar to the Japanese Americans that were immigrating around the same time. The work they engaged in was mainly unskilled agrarian jobs. They mainly received wages inferior to their Anglo counterparts, and were generally not represented in the supervision and management of the companies they worked for. Furthermore management used them as a fulcrum against ever more powerful indigenous labor unions. Chicanos were a unique minority group in America in that they shared an actual boarder with the United States, and crossed and re-crossed the boarder with regular frequency.

Did the Chicanos of the early century pose a real threat to the racial identity of the United States? The point can be made that they did not show lower rates of assimilation of other similar groups. Some (especially those who were refugees of the civil war) had no desire to assimilate, and were Mexicans living in America (pg 314-315). It is suggested that Chicano resistance to assimilation threatened to roll back the gains made in the Mexican American War. I have heard this suggestion made by modern protectionists such as Pat Buchannan. I do not think that non-assimilation poses the kind of threat to American culture that some would lead us to believe. The American culture unique and strong and the Chicano heritage only enriches that culture.

In this case I feel that Takaki is stretching to make his point that the Chicanos were oppressed. They came to America by their own free will. I understand that they were often motivated by the backward and primitive systems that Mexico’s government and society is founded on, but cannot this argument be made regarding most European immigrants. The difference I see is that those European immigrants essentially made a bigger commitment and from that commitment came a greater buy-in. Most gave up everything they have ever known in order to get on a boat and maybe find a better life in America. The Chicanos in comparison had to make a medium to long walk north to a part of America that wasn’t dissimilar from the land they vacated, and when they got there they lived in Barrio’s or communities that were nearly identical to those in their native country.

Wu

When I was a freshman in High School I felt very out of place. I had had a relativly sheltered school life, with 8 years in a small Catholic school. When it came time to go to High School I choose to go to the public school because it offered soccer as a varsity sport. In one particular class (graphic arts it think) I was in the minority. Most people in the class were black. They defined me as soccer karati dude. Soccer because I wore my jersey to school on game days, Karati - I have no idea why, and Dude because I was different then they were. I have never felt so misrepresented since.

Takaki Chapter 10

In chapter 10 of “A Different Mirror” Ronald Takaki takes up the America’s history of oppression and discrimination surrounding the Asian race and the Japanese in particular. It is scathing incitement of those in power’s manipulation of the Japanese in the unending quest for profit.

The first section of chapter 10 discusses the differences in the Chinese and Japanese cultures that affected immigrants to the US and specifically Hawaii. Chinese immigrants were typically male and relatively younger. The Chinese immigrants took on something of a bachelor culture. This would lead the proud Japanese government to have more stringent standards for potential immigrants. Due to cultural institutions such as arranged marriages, Japanese immigrants were much more prone to relocate with wives and families. After arrival Chinese and Japanese found agricultural work in Hawaii. Takaki outlines strategies by wealthy landowners to keep the ethnic groups at odds with each other, and specifically to disrupt attempts by Japanese laborers to organize. Other ethnic groups such as Koreans, Philippians, Portuguese and Puerto Ricans were put into the mix to further complicate the organization and striking process. The landowners finally relented and improved conditions for the Japanese. They provided housing as well as other amenities to pacify the Japanese laborers. Takaki points out that Japanese immigrants in Hawaii were relatively successful compared to their counterparts in California. Due to racially motivated exclusion from the labor market, Japanese immigrants turned to agriculture and private ansulary enterprises for subsistence. The self-imposed racial seclusion proved to be a big hindrance to assimilation. Meanwhile a generation of native Japanese Americans were born, and educated. They faced most of the same discrimination their parents did. The chapter ends shortly before the start of World War II with Japanese Americans not seeing much progress in rolling back the specter of discrimination.

The second section of Chapter 10 makes no real mention of the Great Depression as a factor for the racial intolerance of the Japanese Americans. The conditions faced by Japanese Americans of the time period must have been very similar to those faced by Blacks in Reconstruction Era America. Takaki makes no attempt to connect the tight economic market and increased competition for scarce funds as a contributing factor for Congressional enactment of immigration restrictions. He even goes so far as to say that the success the Japanese enjoyed was due to an expanding economy, and downplays the entrepreneurial genius they clearly had.

I found Takaki to be not very thorough in this chapter. He clearly overlooks the economic factors of the day and conveniently ends with the start of World War II. He usually covers most if not all the contributing factors with great attention to detail. This chapter left me with an incomplete feeling. He should have covered the internment of the Japanese Americans in this chapter. However I did find the first half of the chapter very informative. His explanation of labor practices in Hawaii was fascinating and I felt totally plausible. He could have explored the cross-racial discrimination the Japanese had for the Chinese and the Koreans a little, but I guess the book is indeed about race and culture in the United States.

How Jews Became White Folks

In “How Jews Became White Folks” Karen Brodkin outlines the progression of Jewish Americans through the strata of American society. Brodkin relates personal experiences growing up to the overall struggle of Jews to throw off the chains of religous and cultural bigotry.

One of the first important points Brodkin makes is that there was discrimination between the races of Europe. The Nordic races were considered to be the pure races of Europe, and the Alpine and Mediterranean races were considered inferior. Jews even though found among most of the sub sects were automatically considered inferior. Bodkin details her own experiences of living in a semi closed ethnic community as well as similar closed ethnic communities such as Irish and Italian communities. On page 44 Bodkin explains that public high schools and colleges were not welcoming Jews into their ranks for both structural and racist reasons. The cessation of hostilities and the GI Bill would change all that for the Jews. In post war America Jews were swept up into the rapidly expanding job force and were able to break out of their closed ethnic communities. They were able follow the waves of suburban migration, and take full advantage of government low cost housing loans. Bodkin explains the title of the piece by comparing the prosperity enjoyed by the Jews as well as other ethic groups was not being shared by the Blacks. Through what Bodkin claims that the government and in particular the Veterans Administration and the US Employment Services were actively excluding Blacks from enjoying the rights promised to them by the GI Bill (Bodkin 46).

I really enjoyed this article. It highlights a positive outcome for a minority group. The issue of affirmative action is one of real conflict for me. It is righteous to want to help the oppressed and propel them to their rightful place in society, but to do so by taking away opportunities of those who were not taking part in the oppression is not fair. Two wrongs never turn out to make a right, and affirmative action is just that. Also I ask the question that once affirmative action programs are started when does it become clear that they have achieved its goal. I put forth that government is not capable of making that judgment.

Extra Credit

Although slavery had been abolished, a new and sinister mechanism of oppression took hold of the post-civil war era. The African American community struggled to participate in society in the face of Jim Crow.

Richard Wright describes childhood through the eyes of a young black man. As he is growing up he is faced with different challenges that require leave him with a good understanding of how African American’s were being harassed, intimidated, brutalized, and even murdered. Wright’s asserts that white racism in the South was widespread and commonplace.

A variety of situations are presented in the text. The first is an encounter with local white boys. The main character engages in a mock battle with neighborhood boys. The throw harmless cinders from the nearby railroad tracks and the white boys return with salvos of glass bottles. A second encounter is when the main character goes to work for an optical company. His coworkers refuse to train him for any meaningful work, and later confront him with unfounded accusations. Under threat of a bludgeoning and with no recourse the main character is forced to leave the jobsite never to return. Additional experiences are provided to further the notion that southern whites engaged in truly abominable behavior in a concerted effort to physically and mentally intimidate African Americans.

Wright implies that the methods and instances of intimidation and brutality were commonplace. Wright also assumes that the experiences detailed by the main character are both true and not exaggerated. The excerpt is from a book called Uncle Tom’s Children first published in 1937, and we can assume that the unethical treatment was in fact still going on or those who the book was based on were no more than a generation removed.

Evidence that leads to different conclusion: The evidence presented seems to run in step with some of the other works by Takaki and Johnson. The physical brutality described is consistent with Takaki as well as Zinn. The psychological oppression described is similar to the chapters in Johnson’s book. The article describes the aftermath of the abolition of slavery. The slaves were freed from the oppressive hands of the wealthy whites only to enter into a more hostile environment dominated by the poor whites of the time.

It is hard to put into words the distain I have for the perpetrators of violence and intimidation described in the text. The callousness with which they treated the African Americans was astounding, and it is a lesson of which I gladly will not repeat.

Zinn Chapter 9

In chapter 9 Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom, A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn highlights on how blacks, throughout the history of the United States, were given freedoms, only to have those very same freedoms denied in order to maintain a system of white elitism.

Zinn covers the period of about ten years before the civil war to the early 1900’s. As always he provides ample evidence to support his thesis. His first subject is the pre-Civil War legal environment which leads to a number of organized slave rebellions. His intention is to illustrate the point that certain rights were afforded to blacks in law but were not being exercised. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (pg 135) is an example of a “deal with the devil” made in order to pacify the southern states. It enabled slave owners to recapture escaped slaves and return them to bondage. Unlikely support of the legislation was found in J. W. Loguen who was the son of a slave mother. Zinn characterizes the North as tacitly supporting slavery by not making a meaningful stand against it. Zinn later turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln as another case of a northerner who refuses to make a significant stand against slavery and the institutions that propped it up. On page 140 he illuminates Lincoln’s inaction on the issues surrounding the Fugitive Slave laws. Zinn later expounds on the rights of the freed slaves in post-Civil War America. He makes the point that blacks under the protection of the Union army were able to participate in society and many were elected to office (pg 148). After the withdrawal of occupation forces the whites of the South were able to engage in oppressive tactics to roll back the freedoms blacks enjoyed. The period gave rise to organized terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. The era was capped with the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessey vs. Ferguson (pg 151). The ruling paved the way for the doctrine of “separate but equal”, which for all intensive purposes leads to inferior treatment for blacks.

A key point Zinn makes is that the North initially was not fighting the civil war for the abolition of slavery, but for reasons of economics, and the South could have neutralized the North’s ideological riotousness by letting blacks fight for the South or abolish slavery altogether. The Southern leadership was just too embroiled in hatred and loathing making this option feasible, but it is interesting to hypothesize what changes this would have made to history.

Zinn as always provides ample evidence to support his arguments, however he stubbles onto what I can only consider an inadvertent point which is the clear presentation of the limitation of our government to deal with issues of morality. It seems clear to me that the politicians of the North were idealistic enough to oppose the institutions of slavery, but were impotent to funneling it into a cohesive political agenda. The politicians fumbled and botched seemingly every opportunity to make a stand to limit or roll back slavery. The process of compromise seems to break down when one side (the South) is completely wrong. Any deals struck would naturally favor the pro-slavery crowd. The issue of slavery would only be decided through armed conflict and only when the North needs the ideological righteousness to overcome their military’s leadership inadequacies. As a nation we are lucky that the post war treatment of southern blacks did not require a second war to end discrimination, but the blacks of the time paid a heavy price for the inactions of the political leadership of the day.

Kindred

Kindred by Octavia Butler is a story of a African American woman from modern times named Dana, who inexplicably travels back and forth in time to the era of southern slavery. It provides a first hand accounting of the brutality necessary to keep an entire race of people enslaved.

Dana is propelled back in time when a young boy named Rufus is in dire trouble. Initially her time junkets are short, but she and her husband are eventually stuck in the past for long tracts of time. Dana is actually a direct but distant descendant of Rufus and a free-born black woman named Alice. Rufus morphs from a relatively decent yet intolerant and bigoted young boy, into a tyrannical and brutal man reminiscent of his father Tom Weylan. Dana’s role is to save Rufus from harm, care for her illiterate grandmother-to-be, and generally survive in a time when a black woman had no rights.

Is it an injustice for Dana to encourage Alice to let Rufus rape her with the intention of getting her pregnant and thus insuring her own birth? Yes it is an injustice. Even in the murky world of time travel the ends do not justify the means. Dana’s behavior in this matter is selfish and inexcusable. She was unable explain why she was able to time travel, but she was sure if the two didn’t copulate then she would never be born. I could not understand how Dana could do this, and I never really got past this paradox. By encouraging Alice to let Rufus rape her, Dana is party to rape, and thus participating in the very oppression she knew from her perspective to be wrong. Was it ok for Dana to do this in the past because it was socially acceptable for a white slave owner to rape a black slave? If it is, she is no better then the example of Thomas Jefferson we used in class and from the Takaki reading. If Dana would have done this in her own time she would have been found guilty of being an accomplice to rape in a court of law. Just because she did it in a time when it was socially acceptable, she is just as culpable or possible more culpable then anyone doing it in modern times.

The aspect I liked most about this novel was the interpersonal relationships. History texts are full of facts and figures, but they cannot capture the specter of slavery in the intimate terms like this book does. The history of slavery, as I have learned it, does highlight the physical brutality of African Americans, but it fails to capture psychological brutality like this book does. It is clear from the reading that the slaves could have organized and rose up against their oppressors at any given time, but the psychological punishment prevented them from doing anything more than just thinking about it. This fact is all too often understated.

Takaki Chapter 3

In chapter 3 of his book A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Ronald Takaki introduces "The Giddy Multitude." His thesis of the chapter is that the definition and practices of slavery changed to suit the increased needs of the upper class for agricultural labor in early America.

Takaki starts off explaining that agriculture was the primary driver for the upper class (or the Capitalists as explained buy Johnson) to expand their wealth in America. The desire of the upper class, and specifically those in Virginia was to increase profits by bringing in and utilizing slaves. Initially a large percentage of slaves were indentured servants from Ireland. Eventually more Africans slaves were brought over and, relations between the black slaves and the indentured white servants threatened the stability of landowners as stated on p.55. The upper class landowners who had representation in the Virginia Legislature would have laws passed that drove a wedge between the common ground found by African slaves and Irish indentured servants. Eventually slavery reached critical status to the profitability of agriculture and the wealth of the upper class. White indentured servants fell out of favor and were no longer necessary or desirable for agricultural work. Takaki goes into depth about the injustices the slaves suffered at the hands of their exploiters. Over time the general view of black slaves by the upper and lower classes changed from one of modest tolerance to a view that blacks were mentally inferior to whites. Thomas Jefferson’s views on the issue are documented in this chapter. In summary he did not care for the institution of slavery; however he supported and engaged in it regardless of his views.

Did Jefferson truly care about slavery? I think that Jefferson saw slavery as an economic issue first and foremost. His heart seemed to be telling him that slavery was wrong and his mind was clearly trying to find an equitable solution. History would seem to suggest that he recognized this at the time he was drafting the Declaration of Independence. As most in the upper class of the day he is willing to engage in the practice of slavery because it was legal, and as a farmer it was certainly the profitable thing to do. But sadly I agree with Takaki that he was really contributing to the problem by not making a real concerted effort to roll back the institution. This dilemma makes men like Jefferson seem to be ordinary mortal men.

Every generation seems to leave at least one big unresolved issue for the next. The Founding Fathers left slavery, and later generations as well the nation as a whole would pay a heavy price for their missteps. It is easy to cast judgments on the Founding Fathers from the present that they made possible, and criticize them for not doing more about the institution of slavery. It is clear to me that what they were doing (specifically building a nation based on unproven principals of liberty and justice) was unfathomably difficult, and the issue of slavery had morphed over time into another unfathomably difficult issue to resolve. The text doesn’t really change my perceptions of the Founding Fathers but it does put the events of our countries history in perspective. Takaki does have a clear and valid argument that more could indeed have been done, but conspicuously minimizes these ancillary facts.

Johnson Chapter 8

In chapter 6 of Privilege, Power, and Difference, Allan Johnson explains some of the mechanisms of how oppression is perpetuated. His thesis is that dominant groups can often have trouble perceiving the injustice they inflict, but when they do they can use a variety of tactics to absolve themselves of blame for the injustice.

The chapter outlines strategies for minimizing privilege and maximizing oppression. I think it would be easier to combine both summary and analysis of the concepts into one section, and comment on the whole of the argument in the following section.

Deny And Minimize – The dominant group refuses to acknowledge that oppression occurs. A good example is on page 108 “Racism and Sexism used to be problems, but they aren’t anymore.”

Blame The Victim – The dominant group puts the responsibility for the injustice on the oppressed group, and uses details of the situation to justify the oppression. I think that the Duke Lacrosse rape case is a shining example; however the victims turned out to be the accused.

Call It Something Else – This strategy is pretty straight forward. I think the “internment” of the Japanese Americans during World War II would fall under this category.

It’s Better This Way – Johnson says that this is a result of denial and calling it something else (pg 112). I think this was in play when American settles pushed the Native Americans further and further west in the period of Manifest Destiny.

It Doesn’t Count If You Don’t Mean It – This is rooted in the misconception that good intentions only have good consequences. Clearly this is the most juvenile of the all the strategies. I have heard people make sweeping generalizations of certain parts of the country, only to inevitably have another say something like “my mother comes from there.” The initiator ends up saying something like “well I wasn’t talking about her.” If you don’t mean what you say don’t say it.

I’m One Of The Good Ones – Like the previous example, this strategies relies on the oversimplification of right and wrong or good and bad. I think that people who have to say “I support the troops” don’t really support the military. I know this does not connect to race, but it does connect the concept of rival groups.

Sick And Tired – The privileged group refuses to acknowledge oppression on the grounds of their own comfort level with the subject. This strategy is a close second for most juvenile. It is ridicules for people to think that oppression doesn’t exist just because they are tired of hearing about it.

The different ways of getting off the hook sounds to me like a political debate I watched a few days ago. The Republicans would say things like we need to lower taxes because it affects the highest number of people, and the Democrats would say that tax cuts are for the rich, because they make more money and the percent change affects them more. I am taken by how closely this is to the strategy of “Call It Something Else” and I really love the way they cherry pick the facts that make them feel righteous. So do politicians use these strategies? I would have to give a resounding yes, but isn’t politics in its very essence a struggle of classes or groups. I think Carl Marx said something to that end in a book he wrote around the turn of the century.

As with all the other chapters I thoroughly enjoyed reading chapter 8. Johnson puts into words some things that we all live with, but do not quite perceive. The parts where Johnson states that the dominant group often doesn’t even perceive the oppression they are dishing out really made an impression on me. The example of the ABC News story True Colors seemed to support his points very well and made me think about the next time I go to the shoe store, among other establishments.

Johnson Chapter 6

In chapter 6 of Privilege, Power, and Difference, Allan Johnson presents the concept of social systems and our participation in them. He sums up his argument by stating that people are generally inclined to follow a path of least resistance, and not make the difficult effort to reach out and try to understand others who are generally not like us.

Johnson starts the chapter stating that we use the concept of individualism as a driver of comfort or the lack of comfort that keeps us from talking out our differences. He goes so far as to say at the bottom of page 77 that individualism blinds us to the presence of privilege, because privilege is exclusive to groups and not to the individual. He provides a nice graph on page 79 that illustrates how individuals participating in the social system are shaped by the social system and the individual makes the social system happen. This dynamic centers around the issue of privilege. People inadvertently are drawn to people who remind them of themselves, and do not always realize they are inadvertently excluding those who are not like them. Johnson states that this is the path of least resistance. People in general will choose the path of least resistance instead of reaching out to those who are not like them and thus breaking the circle. Johnson likens the whole cycle to a big game of Monopoly.

The Monopoly example is really effective in making his point about people behaving in a manner that benefits them first. Who hasn’t played Monopoly? Who hasn’t gotten caught up in the game and treated everyone else poorly simply because that is how the game is played? Johnson hits the nail on the head; we sometimes do not even know we are perpetuating privilege and its ugly cousin oppression. The game continues on and if we take the path of least resistance it will not stop. The connection can be made to the Oscar Arredondo “Welcome to Cleveland” piece. I can say that I have seen the Indians logo so many times, but I was caught up in the cycle and was unable to see it for what it is to Native Americans. The logo to me was just a smiling cartoon character that represents a baseball team but it was something very different to Arredondo. I took the path of least resistance and didn’t stop to ask the tough questions. I watched the Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game this weekend and I asked myself why people have not gotten upset about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. The name as well as the logo perpetuates racial stereotypes. I think I will cover this item more in a Media Portfolio item.

I really thought the chapter was insightful and fascinating. Johnson appeals to my analytical side and gives me plenty to chew on. The circular nature of individuals and groups is very effective and must have been difficult for him to quantify. I was particularly drawn to the section that entreated us to stop taking the path of least resistance and reach out to those who are different. I like the positive connotations in his sentiment, because I feel that people in general are positive and good at heart.

Johnson Chapter 3

In chapter 3 of Privilege, Power, and Difference Allan Johnson puts forth that privilege stems from economic factors and more specifically Capitalism.

Johnson starts out defining how Capitalism works. The most important point made in the section is that workers will work for a lower wage then what they are entitled to because they do not have a choice in the matter. Capitalists profit off the difference between entitled wage and wages paid. At such time as workers become organized the Capitalists will move operations to other places where labor is not organized (pg 43). Johnson then moves on to how Capitalism determines class. He is quick to note that richest 10% of the population controls two-thirds of all wealth. Johnson departs from the hard statistics and starts giving some examples of how the tenants of Capitalism has affected privilege by pitting races against each other. The Capitalist used the racial tensions to keep wages artificially low. On page 49 we are introduced to the concept of a matrix of domination. One can gage ones own privilege by measuring where they stand against the archetype of the white, male, non-disabled, heterosexual. You can subtract 1 from 4 for every trait you are not. Johnson also notes that you can be privileged and without privilege at the same time.

Johnson once again makes some rock solid arguments as to how privilege exists in Capitalism and how it is determined. The matrix of domination is right on, however he covers himself by stating that it is not all encompassing. He makes a definable matrix that anyone can use to judge what potential privilege they are akin to. I do agree with him that the traits are not mutually exclusive and one negative blemish can have an overriding negative effect on the other potentially positive traits. Why does Johnson put so much emphasis on Capitalism as a driver of oppression? I am willing to seed the point that Capitalism is at times oppressive to the lower class, but by not comparing a different system such as Communism, he seems to suggest that oppression is present only in Capitalism. Just ask a farmer in post-revolution Russia if oppression was present under the Communist system. I would like to hear what Zinn has to say on this subject.

Johnson makes the same tired old arguments made by the anti-capitalists for years. He completely downplays the ability of an individual living in the US to work himself into a better life. He also fails to provide any alternative systems that would be better. I can only assume that he thinks that Communism or Fascism would be better for the general populous, and we all know how well they fared in comparison to Capitalism. The one truly great aspect present in our system of Capitalism that is absent in other systems is the potential for the individual to move up the class ladder. Capitalism is the force that has propelled humanity to the heights that it now enjoys. I will not dispute that it does take advantage of some, but in its current configuration it allows the individual to subsist on what they are generally capable of.

Johnson Chapter 2

In chapter 2 of Privilege, Power, and Difference Allen Johnson states that privilege exists and sometimes those who have it may not know it. Johnson’s main point is that a system of privilege does exist and the backbone of the system is rooted in economics.

Johnson outlines in chapter 2 how our differences lead to privilege. It is a misconception to think that people are naturally afraid of what we do not understand (pg 13). Our diversity is determined by 6 core traits and 11 periphery traits. Johnson eloquently puts these traits into a diagram on page 15. On the inner ring of the diagram are the big factors like age, race and gender. The outer ring is composed of less physical factors such as religion, education, and income. The diversity wheel will play a more important role in determining who has privilege and who does not. Privilege exists 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 (Pg 21). Johnson provides a variety of examples before getting to the two different types of privilege. Unearned advantage and conferred dominance are the two subdivisions of privilege. In most cases dominant groups are reluctant to give up any unearned advantages like workplace favoring of white males over blacks and females. Conferred dominance is rooted in cultural tendencies such as male dominance over women. Johnson presents a paradox to privilege. A privileged person is not privileged by the individual they are but the privilege is conferred onto them by society they are a part of. Johnson closes the chapter by introducing the concepts that privilege may not make you happy and that oppression is the opposite if privilege.

In this chapter Johnson yields up concise and easy to understand information. He doesn’t really leave much room for separate or alternative analysis. The conclusions that privilege may not necessarily making you happy are spot on, and the paradox of privilege situation is also sound. Johnson does not seem to want to tackle the issue of family privilege, or being born into a family of means. This scenario can be indirectly tied into the individual’s assessment of privilege and specifically the case of unearned advantage. Examples of such families like the Kennedy’s abound and Johnson could have made a direct mention to them in this chapter. Maybe Johnson considers being born into a family of means the ideal, and all others are considered to have a strike against them from birth.

I enjoyed this chapter very much. It was nice that Johnson put together a concise framework of our differences and privilege. His section about the paradox of privilege really made an impression on me. Also the diversity wheel was also a clear and easy to understand illustration of what makes us different from each other. As a white male I had know idea that certain privileges were given to me without any individual want or need for them. It is something that makes real sense on an otherwise unclear subject. Johnson could have spent a lot less time talking about the shortcomings of capitalism. This is a tired argument and the facts can be easily bent to favor which ever side of the argument you are in agreement with.

Race: The Diffrences Between Us

The primary thesis of Race: The Power of an Illusion, Part 1, The Differences between Us is that on a genetic level our racial differences are insignificant. As the title suggests racial differences are an illusion as well as a human construct and not a biological fact.

The video details a classroom biology experiment, which has the class analyzing a portion of their DNA. In advance of the findings the students are asked to identify who they thought they would be most like genetically. As expected they picked classmates with a perceived racial classification. The students were surprised to learn that some of its members were genetically closer to some seemingly distant racial students than those they perceived to be of the same race. The video goes into much greater depth about the history of biological classification of races, but the basic summary is that on a genetic level we are all very similar, even more so than other species.

The video smartly contrasted the concept of genetic diversity and society imposed ethnicity. The conclusion was that genetically some seemingly different ethnic groups were really closer than what society would have you think. Also on a genetic level people who are of the same race can be genetically very different. The one real good example was of a black person in the US being genetically completely different from a black person in Brazil or South Africa. The observation strongly reinforced the thesis. The video fell a little short of providing a solid explanation of how exactly race is defined by society, but I expect that we will learn more in the following videos.

I thought the video was very thought provoking. It did a very good job of dispelling the popular myths that certain racial groups are genetically better than other groups. I think that most people have at one point or another made this seemingly logical yet factually inaccurate observation. I thought that the video overstepped its premise by drawing a moral equivalence between American Eugenicists from the turn of the century and the Nazis. I felt that they did not make enough distinction between the theory of racial purity and the Nazi policies of actively pressing racial reverse diversity. Overall I thought this point was minor and the video was a good learning experience.

Zinn Chapter #1

In chapter 1 of “A Peoples History of the United States” Howard Zinn details the early part of the era of exploration, specifically the events surrounding Christopher Columbus. Zinn puts forth that contemporary history is a revised history, and provides details to support his thesis.

Chapter 1 starts out with Columbus soliciting Spanish royalty for an expedition that would yield gold and spices. The first case of a revision to true history is noted when Columbus takes credit for sighting land when a member of his crew named Rodrigo was in fact first to lay eyes on the new world. Upon landing in what is now known as Hispaniola, Columbus encounters a race of natives called the Arawaks. Columbus takes advantage of the native custom of unadulterated sharing of possessions and pillages the countryside of gold and valuable items. Zinn states that Columbus feels obligated to bring back valuables back to Spain in order to satisfy the investors in the expedition. A sort time later Columbus returns to Hispaniola with a much larger expedition after claiming he would deliver much more than he possibly could. He began to round up Arawaks and ship them back to Spain as slaves. He also embarks on a campaign of unspeakable brutality toward the natives. In time the Europeans had totally corrupted the native culture and by 1650 none of the original natives were left on the island (pg 7). Zinn goes on to note more examples of historical brutality being passed off as something else, but the story of Columbus and the Arawaks the real core of the chapter.

Zinn states on page 9 that “One can lie outright about the past, or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusions.” This is the real theme that permeates the entire chapter. Zinn feels much more comfortable describing history in terms of the oppressed. He mentions a wide variety of downtrodden groups on page 11. He also makes an integral point that he is also interested in how the oppresses groups treat each other. This point did not come though the first time I read the material. Zinn points out what should be obvious to contemporary history that Columbus called the Arawaks Indians because he thought he was in India, but contemporary history never corrected the mistake. Zinn shows some real integrity when he states outright that he is interested in the other side of history.

At first I was quite turned off by Zinn’s chapter 1, but after some time to think about the chapter I can see clearly now what Zinn was trying to get across. I originally thought Zinn was just another capitalist hating Michael Moore type, but I can see that he is really just interested in getting history right. I think he went a little overboard in his bashing of capitalism. He also made no real attempt to put into perspective how other systems stack up against capitalism’s track record of oppression. I am quite sure communism has a real history of brutality. Zinn’s vision for a balanced approached or unbiased take on history is admirable and something we need more of. It is a real shame we do not get to learn more about Native American culture, and I strongly feel it is imperative for the average person to know the brutality and genocide committed by European settlers. Our civilization is impressive from a historical perspective and we have made great steps toward racial and ethnic tolerance, but it is very important not to forget what we have come from. I look forward to reading more of Zinn’s work.

Introduction

My name is Adam Myers. I am a senior in the college of Business Administration. I reside in Sandusky, Ohio in a modest condominium I bought last year. I have extensive experience in the Hospitality industry and have a specialized knowledge of how to design, build, and operate indoor waterparks. I have worked for some of the best names in the industry such as Cedar Fair, Great Wolf, Kalahari, and Jeff Ellis & Associates. Some of my professional certifications include EMT Basic, Volunteer Firefighter, and Certified Pool Operator, as well as being a Lifegurad instructors for various disciplines.

I spent the short 2 weeks between summer and fall semesters relaxing on my friends boat. In the little free time I have, I like to dabble in home improvement projects and play in the stock market. I recently bought an aquarium, and I spend as much time as I can enjoying my fish.

I will graduate in December with a BSBA with a General Business specialization. I look forward to lively discussions and broadening my horizons in this class.