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.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)