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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
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".
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".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)