Somerville - Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body

1) Somerville is arguing that people have tried to identify homosexuality with the identity of races.
2) Somerville begins the argument by talking about how people first believed that sexuality was a medical issue and that people were originally born to be homosexual rather than choosing to be homosexual. The author described this medical reasoning as being “the model of a female soul in a male body” (pg 18). The writing then goes on to explain how tests were done in order to try to find a connection between different races and homosexuality. Somerville then talks about how the different races evolved differently which lead to the differences in sexuality. Somerville mentions that the anatomy of different races shows how each race evolved differently than the other races. The author talks about how African American women and Caucasian American women were compared to see if there was a difference in their sexuality based on their organs. This scientific test showed how their was a difference in the organs which ended up leading to the white Americans being the better species of human because their organs less noticeable and accessible compared to the black Americas. The author also talks about how scientific tests were run in order to figure out the differences between the races, and between the sexuality of people.
3) If we all evolved from the same people, Adam and Eve, then what makes us differently from each other? Why are white females viewed as not being more evolved than black males?
4) I believe that people try to find a reason behind everything that is occurring in a person’s life. People want to know why someone is a certain way compared to them. The easiest way for people to discover differences is to run tests of subjects. The scientific tests that were run occurred because people wanted to be able to explain the unexplainable. No one knew why people became homosexual, but people wanted to know so that they would better know if they would possibly end up being homosexual. I believe that because races are anatomically different does not make one race better than another. Each race may be better at certain activities because of their anatomy, but that does not mean that they are better than all other races. I think that the races were always compared to the European “white” races because they were the ones running the tests, and that people always believed that the white males were the superior race.

Challenge to Democracy

1) This video is showing the audience the lifestyles of the Japanese during WWII, and what it was like living in the relocation communities.

2) The video showed the Japanese moving into these communities that provided housing that was only 20 by 25 feet. Since these rooms were so small the families could not have a kitchen and at cafeteria halls. These communities were also built on land that had never been used before, which the Japanese ended up making into farm land. While living in these communities, the Japanese were given some goods by the government, but what was not given they had to pay for. In order to be able to pay for these extra goods, the Japanese had to find work, but most of their jobs were not well paying jobs. The professional were paid $19 and the beginners were paid $12. Since they were paid so little the families had to dig into their savings to be able to pay for things. The video also tried to make these communities look good and like any other community in America. The video also showed how the Japanese Americans tried to fight in the war because they felt like they were fighting for their home country of American, not Japan.

3) Since the Japanese were relocated during WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, why were Arab Americans not relocated after September 11?
If their crime rates were so low, then why were people afraid of them doing something wrong?

4) I think it took a lot of strength for the Japanese to try to make these communities as normal as the communities they came from. They were forced to move, but never seemed to protest, and tried to make their lives as normal as possible. They even let go of some of their Japanese traditions, like their religion by switching to an "American" religion of Christianity. The people in the communities even played baseball and football, two typical American sports. If they did so many things like other Americans then why were they punished for the actions of a country that some of them have never seen? While living at these communities they worked hard for little pay to try to make a small living. They worked in sugar beet fields which required tons of bending, arm swinging, and lifting. This type of work can really take a toll on a person's body, but it didn't matter to the Japanese because it was job which let them have some extra items that the government didn't provide. If they didn't work the Japanese would lose so much of their savings that after the war they wouldn't be able to support themselves and have any extra money for emergencies.

Takaki Chapter 10

1) Takaki is talking about the Japanese immigrating to the United States, and their struggles in America.

2) Takaki starts by talking about how unlike the Chinese the Japanese had many women going to America. He mentions how the Japanese government let the women go to America and how it actually encouraged women to move their. These women were often married to Japanese men already in America. When they entered America they entered the work force, mainly the industries. Takaki states, "By 1900, 60 percent of Japan's industrial laborers were women" (249). While working on farms in Hawaii the Japanese workers wanted higher wages, but the Hawaiians did not want to pay those high wages. Those farm owners decided to bring in Filipinos because they were cheaper labor, and did not demand for higher prices. After that the farm owners talked about how they needed to bring in more people of different races in order to prevent labor strikes. Even though other nationalities were in Hawaii the Japanese did not stand down and still protested against the unfair conditions.

3) How were the Japanese able to defy their Anglo-American plantation owners so easily, yet any African Americans were able to do that so easily?
Why were so many women allowed to enter into the work forces of the industries, while women of America were not allowed to do that much?

4) I believe that whenever a minority groups comes to America they will face challenges because they are different. Their challenges though end up making them a strong race. The Japanese wanted higher wages for their work, and did what they believed they needed to do to get them. The farm owners tried their hardest to prevent giving them higher wages because they knew that they could not afford to have that expensive of labor. I think that their tactics about bringing in other races was not a good idea because even if they are not like the Japanese, they still relate to them because all of those races were minorities in America and in a way most of them were oppressed. I believe that the Japanese did the right thing by fighting for their rights, and for higher wages. They left Japan to earn more money and save more money. They did not have enough money for a good life, and knew that America would provide them with a better life.

McBride - Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch

1) The author is arguing that Abercrombie & Fitch practice racial discrimination without actually saying that they are.
2) The author starts his argument by mentioning how Abercrombie “has worked hard to produce a brand strongly associated with a young, white, upper-class, and leisure lifestyle” (66). McBride talks about how the company devised a marketing and advertising strategy that celebrates whiteness (66). This marketing strategy worked because the company made sure to use the models that fit the “A&F look”. Not only did they have models that fit that look, they also made sure to hire employees that looked that way. McBride talked about how people of color or people that did not fit the look were not even considered for employment because they did not look “Abercrombie”. The people who were not considered to be “Abercrombie” were sent to work in the stockroom, or the overnight shifts. McBride states, “As one former assistant manager of one of Abercrombie’s larger stores in the Midwest informed me, all the brand reps in his stores were white, and all of the people who worked in the stockroom were black.” (72). The author talks about how the models were selected, and the rules that they were given, in which most of them included not allowing the looks that were considered in fashion in the African American communities.
3) If Abercrombie & Fitch can get away with unabashed discrimination, then can a store that would be opposite, as in promote only black fashion, not only exist, but exist as strongly? Why did it take so long for a lawsuit to be filed against Abercrombie & Fitch if they have been practicing that advertising strategy for many years?
4) I believe that it is wrong that Abercrombie & Fitch were able to get away with this type of discrimination for many years, especially in this day and age. The reason they got away with this was because no one bother to speak up against the company. The employees were even afraid to mention anything to their managers, or when they did finally decide to mention something they were told to just forget about it and to not care. People followed a “path of least resistance” by not filing a lawsuit sooner, or doing more arguing with their employers. The higher ranked managers thought that they were right in discriminating people, and most of the employees just turned their heads the other way. I think that the people that decided to leave because of the stores practices were smart for leaving, and not participating in that system of white dominance.

Wu

1) The author is arguing that people have a tendency to view race only between black and white americans.

2) Wu states how Asian Americans were usually excluded from the race argument because "americans" were viewed to be white and "minorities" were viewed as blacks. Wu stated, "Asian Americans, neither black nor white, consequently are neither American nor Minority. This shows that people have a narrowed view about what race all really includes. Wu also argues how people of different races are usually stereotyped to be a certain way. Wu mentions how people make sure to mention something that they saw if it had a vaguely Asian theme because it reminded them of Wu. Wu said that Asians were usually stereotyped to know karate, and all of the different types of Asians were the same.

3) Since Asians are not white americans, wouldn't that atomatically make them to be considered to be a minority?
Can society's view of Asian Americans change in time, or will they always be considered the other race?

4) I think that it is easy to forget about Asian Americans, and not consider them to be minorities because they have not had as much trouble with the White Americans unlike the Black Americans. The only time where Asian Americans were treated extremely badly was during World War II when the Japanese Americans had to go to special camps after Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This ordeal only lasted a few years. The African Americans had to deal with slavery for more than 200 years, and then had to deal with segregation after they were free for roughly a hundred years. The Asian Americans have not had to deal with the same problems as the African Americans and for less time. Since they do look different than White Americans they are not considered to be white. I can understand how it is hard for them to realize their place in America.

Kindred

Kindred is like the article written by Richard Wright “The Ethics of Living Jim Crow: An Autobiographical Sketch”. In the article written by Wright, he mentions how all of the Black Americans had to act in a certain way toward their white counterparts. The Black Americans needed to speak properly to them, by calling them sir and ma’am. If the Black Americans failed to do this they were beaten or killed. In the book Kindred the slaves were beaten with whips if they failed to call Mr. Weylin master, or Rufus either mister or master. They were also beaten if they failed to show respect to their masters in their voices or by the way they acted around their white masters. In the book, along with being whipped sometimes the slaves were also sold if they chose to do something or say something that Mr. Weylin did not approve of. Rufus often either yelled, or warned Dana to not call him just Rufus, and how she needs to watch what she says or else his father will beat her for not being proper.
Kindred also relates to Wright’s article because it showed how quickly blacks were to be beaten or yelled at for even the smallest acts or words. Wright mentioned how he was yelled at for even looking at a white person the wrong way, and how he was beaten for not calling a group of men, who were most likely younger than him, sir. In the book Kindred, Sam, one of the field slaves, was sold because he looked at Dana the wrong way and talked to her, which made Rufus jealous. It seemed like no matter what a black person did in either the book or the article, they were getting whipped or yelled at. Unless a black person did exactly what was expected of them by the white people they were yelled at. Even if they did exactly what was expected they never received any praise, respect, or even a simple comment like “job well done”.
The book Kindred relates to Zinn’s article “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”. These two relate because in Zinn’s article, he talks about how Columbus treated the Indians slaves poorly. Along with that he mentioned how if the Indians did not dig up the right amount of gold they were supposed to, they were tortured, beaten, or most of the time killed. In Kindred, when Dana was sent to work in the fields she was whipped often by the overseer because in her first try she could not cut down a cornstalk and later because she was not going as fast as the other slaves. It was also mentioned in the book how the slaves in the fields were used to getting whipped by the overseer for just about everything they did. This shows that the White Americans wanted other people of different races to do all of their hard work, and never appreciated those people who were forced to do the work. The slaves were whipped no matter how good of a job they did. They were hit so that they would work faster for a little while, and hit again if they slowed down.

Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings 1954-1956

1) The author of the video is showing the viewer how African Americans were treated unfairly, and what they did in response in order to change the future.

2) The author showed racial inequality by starting out with the story of Emmett Till. Emmett Till was killed by two southern men after saying hello to a white girl, while visiting the south. Society decided to keep the court case in the news to show how the south was full of racism. The video showed how society conformed to segregation and chose to not try to change the situation because that was what they were used to in the south. The video showed that the blacks were treated badly by whites of southern society, and this was shown through having everything separate, and by the way that the blacks were treated in society. The video showed that since society had conformed to segregation, the white southerners did not like how the blacks were trying to gain their rights in society. The video showed what happened to blacks that fought for civil rights, by showing how police arrested anyone who participated in the dinner sit-ins, yet did not arrest the whites who tried to hurt the sit-in members. The video showed some of the different strategies used by Black Americans. These included sit-ins, marches, and boycotting either stores or the bus systems. Most of these strategies were non-violent. The video showed that even though the acts of the Black Americans was non-violent, they became violent because of how the whites reacted. The video also showed how quickly certain situations would escalate into violence and would somehow consume the entire nation.

3) The government had a tendency to step in and try to take control of certain situations. What would have happened if the government decided to not step in at certain times?

Would the Black Americans have been better off if the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the students who participated in the sit-ins joined forces and worked together to fight for civil rights?

4)I believe that the Black Americans chose the correct strategies in order to fight for their civil rights. They chose peaceful options, and chose the correct options to make their voices heard when no one was choosing to listen. Even though their peaceful protests sometimes ended up in violence, it was not caused by them; it was caused by the White Americans that were against them, or the police in the cities. Even when they were being knocked down the Black Americans still decided to stand their ground, and stand strong. They never decided to give up and that civil rights wasn't worth it. They also showed little fear in the face of the White Americans, like how Mose Wright accused the two white men that killed his grandson in court. Even though he was threatened he still decided to fight for his grandson.

Wright - The Ethics of Living Jim Crow

1) The author is arguing that African Americans needed to follow the Jim Crow laws while living in the south.

2) The author argues this by providing different examples of his life where he had to follow the Jim Crow laws, and what would happen if he did not. He talks about how even though the Jim Crow laws existed, the blacks were treated worse than the whites, in everything that was done in the south. Wright mentions how in his first job he was supposed to be taught what the white workers were taught, but he never was. Instead his coworkers treated him worse than before, and even found excuses to beat him while at work. This showed that even though there were laws enacted to make things equal for blacks, things were not equal. He continues to talk about how these actions were also happening at the hands the police, the very authority figures that were supposed to uphold the law. He mentions two occurrences where in one case a police officer arrested a woman for being drunk, after she was beaten by two white males, and the police officer knew it. In another case Wright was illegally searched by the cops when he was delivering packages in a white neighborhood after dark. He also mentions how blacks needed to be proper around the whites while living in the south. He also mentions how even when he moved further north, the white people were not as mean but still did not treat the blacks as equal. The white people chose to only talk about certain subjects around their black co-workers.
3) If things were supposed to be equal between the blacks and whites, why did whites choose to not enter the black areas?

If whites did choose to enter into a black neighborhood, and chose to work in their area, would they still have been treated superior, or would the blacks have then been the superior ones?

4) I think it is hard for people to accept each other for who they are rather than what they are. This was especially hard during the time when the Jim Crow laws were enacted. It is a shame that even though those laws existed nothing was done to to make sure that they were enforced. These laws ended up creating a world where people needed to act a certain way. The author talks about how he needed to constantly act proper or else he would have been hurt by the white males in the community. People believe that if they are superior to other they can do as they please, and this was constantly happening. The black people never had an opportunity to be the superior ones.

Zinn Chapter 9

1) The author is arguing that slavery occurred because the white males forced blacks to be slaves. He also argues that even though after the Civil War the slaves were emancipated, they could not succeed because they had to live their lives based on the white males.
2) Zinn starts out by talking about how slavery was occurring in the south. He also mentioned how slaves tried to escape, and talked about some of the greater and larger escapes. Zinn talks about Harriet Tubman and her work with the Underground Railroad. Zinn wrote “she made 19 dangerous trips back and forth, often disguise, and escorting more than three hundred slaves to freedom.” Zinn then begins to talk about conditions in the North for blacks. Zinn talks about Abraham Lincoln and the civil war. Zinn stated “He [Lincoln] opposed slavery, but could not see blacks as equals, so a constant theme in his approach was to free the slaves and to send them back to Africa.” The Emancipation Proclamation was created by Lincoln, and spurred antislavery forcers, which ended up leading to the creation of the thirteenth amendment. Zinn then begins to argue how blacks could fight in the Union Army because of this amendment, which led to the Union Army growing. Zinn mentions “Two hundred thousand blacks joined the army and navy, and thirty-eight thousand were killed…. Without their help, the North could not have won the war as soon as it did, and perhaps it could not have won at all.” This helps to show how the blacks helped the Union to win so that they could end slavery for all. Even though there were many blacks in the army they were used for the worst jobs, instead of doing more of the fighting. Zinn then mentions how even after the war was over “The Negro remained dependent on privileged whites for work, for the necessities of life, his vote could be bought or taken away by threat to force. Even though blacks were free, they did not have the same rights as their white counterparts. People were violent against the blacks. He also talks about how “The New South” was like the old south, but the blacks were treated better, even though their jobs were like the ones they had as slaves. This happened because many blacks could not afford land and they were not given land.
3) Was the government looking out for itself when it created the Emancipation Proclamation, or was the government actually doing something for its people?
Why did the government not do more to help the ex-slaves? Like why did the government not give the blacks land, or create price breaks on the lands so that they could afford it?
4) Zinn makes an excellent point about how even though the Africans were free from slavery; they were not actually free because they could not afford to do anything with their lives. Even with their freedom they were still viewed to be less than the whites and were still put down and if they were below the whites. They still had the worst jobs, and did the hardest work for less than what the white males did. Their freedom did not come with the end of the war, if anything it gave them the realization that they could not be free from the white mans oppression because the whites still knew how to control the blacks. The whites knew how to control them through jobs and money.

Brodkin Chapter 4 "How Jew Became White Folks"

1) Karen Brodkin is showing the reader how the post world war II society bridged the gap between the different Euro-groups, but did not bridge the gap between the whites and blacks.

2) Brodkin begins her argument by stating the difference between the four major European races, and how the Jews were at the bottom. She shows how the American society favored the Noridics because most teachers had to be able to "speak 'standard,' i.e., nonimmigrant, nonaccented English." and "that most believed that the speech test was designed to keep all ethnics, not just Jews, out of teaching" (pg 41). This shows how before the war society tried to separate everyone from each other including all whites. As time went on the differences between the four groups of Euro Races slowly disappeared because members of the Jewish community worked hard to become part of the middle class and no longer be in the working class. Brodkin states, "Some of the changes set in motion during the war against fascism led to a more inclusive version of whiteness. Anti-Semitism and anti-European racism lost respectability" (pg 45). This shows how during the war to gap between the four Euro races grew shut. This gap grew smaller with the help of the GI Bill of Rights. This bill helped people find jobs after the war, small loans for starting up businesses, and educational benefits, which helped people, go to college after the war. The author then begins to talk about how the benefits caused a "postwar boom that transformed America's class structure-or at least its status structure - so that the middle class expanded to encompass most of the population." Even though the middle class expanded it did not include the African Americans. The bill did not help the African Americans as much as it did the Euro Americans. Along with this, as cities were urbanized the white people were better able to get housing compared to the African Americans, because "developers refused to sell to African Americans" (pg 47). This caused the gap between the African Americans and the Euro Americans to grow.

3) Since the money sent to GIs from the GI Bill of Rights gave people loans to open up businesses, why didn't any of the African Americans open up an architecture firm and build houses for the other African Americans?

Why were more colleges for African Americans opened after the war, when the demand for education increased?

4) I agree with the Brodkin about how even though anti-semitism declined after the war, it was still hard for society to adjust fully and become one united society. I believe that it is good though that the gaps between the four Euro races was able to decline because the middle-class grew. This shows that there is a possibility for different races to still be able to come together and be one society instead of different races. Even though this bridged gap occurred because of a war, it showed that congress was willing to do something to help out the other men, who they possibly viewed as being different. With society more advanced today, we could come together, with the help of congress. However I feel that that time was the time to bridge all gaps between all races. That time period was time of great growth in the country, whereas in today's society many people are advanced, and only a few are viewed to be not advanced. The gap between races may now be too big to overcome even if we follow the footsteps of the post WWII generation.

Analysis Paper exercise 2

1) I am writing about how people act differently in different situations. I believe that it is true that the situation a person is in can effect how they will act. The situation can include who a person is around, what is going on around the person, and where a person is. I am agreeing with Johnson, and what he wrote in chapter 6 “What It All Has To Do With Us”. I agree that people act differently based upon the situation that they are in.
I plan on using Johnson Chapter 6 “What It All Has To Do With Us”. Also I’m planning on using Takaki Chapter 3 “The Giddy Multitude”.

2) I will be using Johnson Chapter 6 “What It All Has To Do With Us”. From this article I will use how people follow the path of least resistance because of society. I will also use the example of the four African American students in Greensboro, North Carolina. I will use this example to show how because of them other African American students were willing to follow them, whereas if those four original students were not there the other students would not have done that. I can also use the example of how people act while playing the game Monopoly and how people act differently while playing the game compared to how they act in real life. Then I will talk about how this shows that people really do act differently depending on the situation.
I will also use Takaki Chapter 3 “The Giddy Multitude”. From this article I will use how Jefferson talked about how he felt bad for having slaves, yet did not try to let them free, and kept them while he was alive. I can relate this to how during that time period it was common for people to have slaves, so since many people in Virginia owned slaves, it was okay for people to keep slaves. It was viewed to be okay because that is the situation society made.

Analysis Paper #1

I am planning on writing about how people act based on the situations that they are in. I am writing this based on Johnson chapter 6 "What It All Has To Do With Us."

I am going to start by talking about how people choose to not stand up for something that they believe in because they know that they will be viewed negatively by the rest of society. I will talk about how based on the situation people act differently than how they usually act. I can talk about society is quick to judge each other based on their actions and how they look. I'll talk about how I agree that people do choose to follow the path of least resistance because of society's judgemental ways.

Quiz 3

1) Sarah Barnes is arguing that people have taken their freedom too far by constantly complaining about how equal rights do not exist between the different races, and social groups. She says, “All this country seems to be concerned about is making every person feel equal, but no one is treated that way.” She also argues about how quickly people get upset by saying, “People are so upset at any little comment or any little slip that any person with authority makes.”
2) Sick and Tired, discussed in Johnson chapter 8, talks about how people, talk about how they are sick and tired of listening to people constantly complain about how they are treated unfairly. Johnson talks about how people who do not feel someone else’s pain are tired of hearing those people complain about their pain. Johnson mentions, “Another reason for the ‘sick and tired’ complaint is that life is hard for everyone. Barnes’ statement, “Just don’t go around complaining that you got dealt a bad hand in life, when it is the individual that can make or break their own situations.” These statements connect to each other because Johnson is talking about how life is hard for everyone because of their situation. Whereas, Barnes is talking about how an individual can change their situation to make their life better, instead of complaining about how unfair and hard their life is. People cannot compare their lives to each other’s lives because each person suffers from a hard life, but mainly because they chose not to change their life.
Along with those quotes from both articles, Barnes sounds like she too is sick and tired of hearing people complain about the inequality of races. She complains about how some people who are not straight feel the need to announce it to everyone. She asks the question, “how necessary is it to single yourself out and have to announce each day that you are gay?” This makes it seem like she it tired of hearing people say that they are gay so that they will be treated the same as everyone else.

Johnson Ch6 "What It All Has to Do with Us"

1) Johnson's main argument in this chapter is that people act differently depending upon the situation that they are in.

2) The author illustrates this by giving an example of playing the game Monopoly. He talked about how while playing the game the players act greedy by taking each other's money in order to win. He then continues to talk about how when people are not playing Monopoly that they do not act like, because the situation is different and they do not need to act greedy. He talks about how people are individuals, yet they are not because they act in the ways of others, and follow the "path of least resistance". Johnson talks about "the path of least resistance" is usually always chosen because it is easier for people to choose that path because they are then accepted by society. He mentions how hard it is to change the paths, but it has happened. Johnson talks about four African American students in Greensboro, North Carolina. This group went into a lunch counter were they were not welcomed, and stayed there in hopes to change the future. They stayed there, on a different path, and eventually helped to change the future.

3) Why has society made a path of least resistance?
How can different situations affect a person's actions, or a group's actions?

4) I believe that there is a path of least resistance because our society has formed those paths based on what it knows, and has accepted life to be. I believe that it is hard for a person to stand up for something that they believe in if their belief is something that will not be accepted by the majority. There are times in everyone's life were they want to not follow that path of least resistance, but they cannot help to because it is easier. They go along with the flow because if they do not they are viewed to be different and are then rejected and questioned by society. People are afraid to stand up because they do not know what will happen. Either the future will change, or they will be ridiculed by society. The fear of being ridiculed can easily convince a person to not speak up for what they believe in or what they believe against. People refuse to stand up against they do not agree with because it is easier to keep quiet and because they will not be viewed as being stuck up for disagreeing.

Zinn Chapter 2

1) The author is trying to convince the reader that the black Africans were treated differently because of their culture and that the white males were better because of they were in a better class.

2) The author argues how that the blacks were better slaves because they were both taken from their home lands and from the culture that they knew. He also talked about how the white slaves were treated better than the black slaves because of their skin color. The author argued that "the white and black slaves found themselves with common problems, common work, a common enemy in their master, they behaved toward each other as equals." The author argued about how the slaves would often try to escape from the plantations and depending on their culture they would either run away in groups or by themselves. The author also mentioned how when the African slaves were taught about discipline their masters talked about their blackness making them subordinate to the whites. After that the author talked about how the white servants also helped the black slaves during slave revolts. This caused a fear in the upper class whites that the discontented whites and the black slaves would join to overthrow them.

3) If the upper class were afraid of a revolt from the combination of discontented whites and black slaves, then why did they not find ways to keep the two groups separated from eachother, or ways to have the whites think that they were better than the slaves?
Why did the English use such harsh transportation conditions for transporting the slaves? Why did they not use nicer conditions so that they could have had more black slaves?

4) I think that this article tried to show the difference between the classes instead of the difference in skin color. This showed up strongly when the author started to talk about how the white upperclassmen were afraid that the black slaves and the discontented whites would work together and overthrow the current system. It seemed like the upperclassmen knew the difference between different class levels was stronger than the difference in color yet they did not try much to stop the lower class white and the black slaves from working together. It also seemed like they only tried to stop the blacks from revolting, and they only worried about the white servants when they were working with the black slaves. If the whites did not work with the blacks they were not viewed as threats, so they could have more easily revolted against the white upper class.

Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination

1) The author is trying to convince the reader that society is based on the idea of the privilege for different races. These different categories of privilege were formed because of capitalism.

2) The author argues that white racism began to form different levels of privilege classes. One of the classes "white male" is above all other classes. Even though members of the "white male" privilege class were considered to be better than the "males of different races" some of the white males were not better because they were part of the working class. The author talked about how when the civil war ended the white males that were in the working class did not feel anymore privileged that the black males because the black males were now free. This ended up causing white in the working classes to not demand pay raises because they knew that if they did the better white males would find the racial minorities to work for cheaper. The author also argued about how women are treated unfairly because they are viewed as needing to be protected by the white male. The author also stated how "the work that women do isn't work at all and therefore isn't worthy of anything more than emotional compensation." This meant that the white women were not viewed to be as privileged as white males, but at the same time they were more privileged than the other racial males. Other privilege classes include people with disabilities compared to those without.

3) Why was the idea of privilege people developed?
Is it possible to end the idea of privilege people?

4) I think that the author sounded extremely bias in this writing. He talked about how everyone but the white males pushed to the side because of the privilege class that they are in. I believe that it is a stupid idea to have different levels of privilege when everyone is so different from each other, including people in the same privilege classes. It is stupid how being in one different privilege category can make you seem like an unfit person that isn't good enough compared to others. With these different privilege classes different groups were formed to protect one another, yet some of the privilege groups cannot form groups. It seems like in today's society there are groups for every different race, yet if the "white males" formed a group of their own it would most likely be shut down because they are viewed as being superior to all the other groups because of their "privileged class".

The "Giddy Multitude"

1) The author is trying to convince the reader that the African laborers were treated worse than the white laborers.

2) The author argues that the white laborers were treated better than the African laborers because the African laborers were cheaper than white laborers. The white laborers planned on coming to America, working for a little while, and then becoming landowners. They did not intend to work for the rest of their lives as some one's labor. Whereas the African laborers were expected to work for their entire lives, and never be able to become landowners. The author stated on page 57, "white servants were to serve their 'full term of time' and Negroes 'forever'. African slaves as well as their future children could be inherited." This quote talks about how the Africans were expected to work for the rest of their lives and how that even if their masters die, they will not be let free, but taken over by a new master that was related to their old master. The white laborers were also treated better based on their punishments that they received. The African slaves were given worse punishments than their white counterparts. They would each receive roughly the same beating, but the African would be expected to work forever whereas the white would only be expected to work for an additional year. The author also tells the readers about how Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but did not like the fact that he did, and predicted that there would come a day where slavery would be abolished, "whether brought on by the generous energy of our own minds, or by the bloody process of St. Domingo (pg 75)."

3)Would Jefferson have really given up his slaves if he had the opportunity in his life?
If Jefferson could have given up his slaves would more people in Virginia follow his trend?
Were there more people in Viriginia that felt the same way about keeping slaves as Jefferson did?

4) I believe that since the white laborers actually came to America with the ideas of eventually becoming landowners than they had the right to those lands. They wanted to come to America and knew that if they were to eventually own land that they would have to work to make money. The African slaves on the other hand did not come to America by choice; they were taken from their homelands and brought to America to be used. I believe that the white male landowners exploited this fact, and that is why they took so many slaves. They were able to get more land because of the work the slaves did, then in turn they would need to buy more slaves to work the extra land. It was a vicious cycle that could not be broken because people are greedy by nature. The landowners knew what they had to do in order to make more money; they knew that they needed to exploit the lives of the African slaves. No one questioned if what they were doing was wrong because it was practically what they did to the Indians in the previous years. The English settlers would take Indians as slaves to Europe, just like how the Africans were being taken to America. Another reason no one questioned if what they were doing was wrong was because the English believed that they were the supior race, and that they should be allowed to dominate and conquer the Earth.

Video Race 1

1) The thesis of this video was to show the viewers that genetically people from different races are not that different.

2) The author showed us a classroom that was doing an experiment and testing their DNA and comparing it to one another. During the experiment the students had to pick a person who they thought they would be most genetically alike, and most of the students picked people of their same race. The results from the experiment showed that all the students were all almost alike from each other. The author talked about how skin color does not define the race of a person because skin color is based on the geographical location of a person. He also talked about how people's cultures are based on what their skin looked like, for example the video mentioned Colin Powell about how everyone thought he was African American because of his skin color, and how people failed to realize that he was also Irish. The author also talked about how many different tests were run on African Americans to see how they were different than the whites. These tests looked at both body parts, and the health of the African Americans. Some of the tests were flawed however because the experimenters failed to look at other factors. The author was showing the viewers that even though tests were run, those tests may be wrong and cannot prove that people are different based on their races.

3) What types of tests could be run, with modern day technology, to see if there is a difference between the races?
Could it be possible that one race is actually better than the other, or is that always going to be based on the eye of the beholder?

4) I think that it is true that the different races are not different based on their skin color. The thing that causes the most difference in the different races is how they are raised compared to the other cultures. It is a matter of nurture versus nature. The races are different because of what they believe in and how they live compared. The color of a person's skin does not make them a certain type of person, their skin color makes them that color. Skin color cannot affect how a person acts, or how athletic a person may be. I believe that if genetics proves that we are not different from each other, then our assumption that we are different is based on what we see and what we think, and that as a society it is hard for us to believe that we can all be alike. Since we are a society that sees differences on the outside we will have trouble to get over the outside and see what is on the inside.

Chapter 2 "The 'Tempest' in the Wilderness: The Racialization of Savagery.

1) The author is trying to convince the reader that the English viewed many people as savages because their culture was not like the English culture.

2) The author talked about how William Shakespeare wrote a play “The Tempest” to show the people living in Europe what the savages were like. Shakespeare used his view of what they savages would do based on what the people who went to America said. The author also talked about how the Indians were the only ones not viewed to be savages. The English also viewed the Irish as being savages because the Irish were not seen as civilized as the English. The author stated on page 26 “The Irish were viewed as ‘savages,’ a people living outside of ‘civilization.’” The Indians were deemed uncivilized because they had nothing the English had. The author stated on page 31, “Indians seemed to lack everything the English identified as civilized – Christianity, cities, letters, clothing, and swords.” This caused the English settlers to think that they were better than the Indians. Even though the two different cultures tried to live in harmony, the English eventually would take everything because the English wanted to continue to expand (pg 48). The English also believed that they were favored by God because the Indians were killed by diseases.

3) Which group was considered to be less savage, the Irish or the Indians, in the eyes of the English?

Why were the Indians viewed as uncivilized when they tried to help the English in their time of need, and were also farmers working to provide for their own community?

4) I felt that this story made the English settlers seem stuck up and only thought about themselves. Throughout the article the author talked about how the English viewed themselves as better. I believe that the Indians were not savages. They helped each other out, and worked together to provide food for an entire village. They had tools and weapons that they could use to hunt, fish, harvest, and make the items that they needed to live. The Indians were able to plant, grow, harvest, and store corn that was used for the entire year. The Indians also helped the English settlers by giving the English settlers food while they were starving. As time passed the English took advantage of the Indians’ hospitality by taking their lands as their own. The Indians could have easily continued to survive if the English did not invade their lands, and tried to work with the Indians.

Ch 1 "Columbus, the Indians + Human Progress"

1)The author is trying to convince the reader to look at the history of America through the eyes of the Indians instead of the eyes of the conquerors.


2) The author is talking about how on history is viewed through the eyes of the conquerors. He states "The treatment of heroes and their victims - the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress - is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, and leaders." The author continues to argue about how it is inevitable to take sides when deciding what to emphasize in history. He starts out by talking about Christopher Columbus then he moves on to the settlement in Jamestown, Virginia. He also argues about how the Indians were killed because they were viewed as being barbaric in the eyes of the Europeans. He argued about how a group of people was killed so that another group would be able to survive and grow. The author stated "Was all this bloodshed and deceit.... a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?" The author talked about how even though the Indians were viewed as barbaric they really were not. He proved that they were agriculturally fit, they lived in settled communities, the men and women were equal, and the children were educated.

3) Would society be different if the Indians and the English settlers worked together instead of fighting in a war against each other?
Is it possible that the English settlers could have been the inferior civilization?

4) I agree with the author about how history is viewed in the eyes of the government, and not viewed in the eyes of the victims. From reading this I realized that the Indian tribes were not as barbaric and once believed to be. They were nice to the new English settlers which ended up being their downfall. Their niceness was never repaid. Instead of the English being nice in return, they chose to either kill or enslave the Indians. The Indian tribes could have taught the English settlers a lot about life, and how some of the things the Indians did were better than the English settlers. The two groups of people could have worked together to make a better society for all. The English had the technology while the Indians had the correct views about how a settlement should work together.

Introduction Post

I am Kara Guggenbiller. I am a sophomore. My major is accounting. I grew up in St. Henry, Ohio which is a small farming community. I grew up on a dairy farm. While in high school I was in the band, drama club, and german club.