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.