Reading Journal #10

"The trouble is rooted in a legacy we all inherited, and while we're here, it belongs to us. It isn't our fault, but now that it's ours, it's up to us to decide how we're going to deal with it before we pass it along to generations to come."

I foudn this quote endearing an insightrful because it seems to accurately describe the situation of privilege in the United States. In modern white society (the domiannt group with the greatest amount of privilege), we did not bestow it upon oursleves. It came to us through hundreds of years and dozens of generations of subjugation and comparing one group to another. I say subjugation in terms that whites have oppressed others, and that is how they became the majority group. However, this facet of skin color is not the only way a certain group became dominant. In the case of sexual orientation, heterosexuals are dominant; in physical ability, those without handicaps are dominant; and, perhaps the greatest discrepancy, men flood their authority over women. In the text, the author brings up a significant point: Privilege is as much a part of the problem as difference. We cannot say that simply because one group is separate from another that problems will arise. Problems arise because one group views themselves as better, greater, more worthy of certain benefits than another. That group acts upon those incliantions, granting itself power over the other, and that is where inequality becomes a social reality. The dominant group decides what is "normal" or "adequate" and all subsequent groups not part of that stratification must conform or become pariahs.

That said, it is no wonder that the domiant group acts somewhat as an exclusive club, granting privilege to those it perceives to be of adequate quality. This, perhaps, is the greatest problem when it coems to granting privilege and equality. It does not matter what individual attributes the person possesses that make he or she a worthy person. For example, a black man may have the same or greater intelligence than a white man but simply because he is black, he will not be accepted as a white man would. And the funniest part is that those of a privileged group complain about the privileges they "don't have". For instance, a white man who claims he doesn't have all the things that others of his stainding have feels that he is not privileged. The mere fact that he is white is enough to grant him higher standing in society than someone of color or even a woman. It is a pathetic fact of society but reference groups are exploited every day. The dominating group uses them to compare themselves, almost to shower their overwhelming power over those who have no way to get out of their situation. If things are to change for the better and if equality and privilege is to be distributed in an adequate manner, the privileged must truly see how broad the dividing line is and how they can modify its width, how others can feel a part of a powerful society in which, currently, power is allocated to one specific division.

Observation Journal #5

This is not a new development, but I have taken into greater consideration the names that my friends and I call each other when we are involved in the endless pursuit of a victory in beruit or some other activity in which we are somewhat outside our normal mindset. However, this observation is not strictly limited to playing beer pong or being drunk at a party; we call each other names when we are playing video games, basketball, or in some way competing gainst one another. For instance, when someone misses a shot in beruit, the opponent will usually laugh and call the other a "fag" or a "pussy", names that have no actual relevance when it comes to playing these games. Does missing a shot in a game call for such an insult? Does smoking a cigarette slower than the person you are smoking with require the term "pussy" to be brought into play? I think not. However, when noticing that my friends are the ones using such terms, I find myself using them on a basis that is more than from time to time. I relaize how much I use these words themselves; I find myself "insulting" my friends with such words more than is necessary (and there is no actual necessity in this case). They are used so much that no one is offended any longer; we are numb to the insult of derogatory terms. At the same time, I also relaize how useless and irrelevant they are in the context and that has prompted me to use them much less frequently than I have in the past. Words that subjugate people don't have any place with people who aren't part of those subjugated groups (they don't have any palce in society, for that matter, but far less in a group of drunks who aren't members of the groups those words are mindlessly assigned to). Words such as these have very little meaning to my friends because they have never been used in a way that is meant to make them actually feel less human. They are simply a way to convey that we are displeased with someone sinking the skill shot or beatign someone in a race. But if insulting words are used in such situations, how are they supposed to be eliminated from the larger society?

Reading Reflection #10

"Nobody should have to turn to the police or the Legislature to get the same protections that most everyone else takes for granted."

"...hate crime legislation divides Americans into special classes and goes against the prinicple of equal justice under the law."

These two quotes seem to reflect the opposing arguments being established in deciding if this bill will actually pass. The first goes without saying. People should not have to be afraid of harassment, discrimiation, and, at the very least, hatred. People may be allowed to think what they will, but why extend those uninvited thoughts to the general public? To cause an uprising of some sort? To draw scrutiny? I understand why hate crime exists, but I don't know why people feel it is necessary to brink generally unaccepted thoughts to the surface. The second quote, however, is equally compelling. By acknowledging hate crime protection, we are, in essence, dividing people into special categories, thereby diminishing equal justice. Diminishing, perhaps, but not aleviating. True, to divide people under laws is to undermine that prinicple of equality. However, if people are going to act like assholes and cause a ruckus in the community, what can be done to ensure their safety? I understand what the person is saying in response to this editorial and it seems to make sense. I feel that if the offense is an actual physical, bodily harmful crime against another human being, justice will be delivered swiftly, perhaps without the assistance of a hate crime law. However, people do not need to be subjected to others' negative opinions of a certain aspect of themselves on a daily basis. No one need fear or endure a racial or prejudiced slur spray painted on their car. No one need even endure a crude comment shouted in their direction from a passerby, though that will likely never happen. If anything, however, it is better to be the victim of verbal harassment than a physical assault. I don't believe someon can be incarcirated for yelling an obscenity at another person, but in terms of something that is a bit more permanent, hate crime legislation seems to be an effective method at discouraging people from acting on their hate. There is definitely an uncomfortable division between protection of free speech and hate crime laws, but free speech is not free "act" so to speak. Words hurt, that is undeniable, but they don't hurt as bad a bodily harm. I feel that this law has leaps and bounds to go before it is fully accepted, but it cannot be ignored that equality is reaching a potential for full realization.

Reading Journal #9

(Note: This is, in fact, the ninth reading journal-- it just addresses chapter 8, which was due last week. The order is screwed up because I am absent minded.)

"Many people haven't had raises in years but haven seen the cost of living...rise steadily."

"The average American corporate chief executive now makes more in a single day than the average American worker makes in a typical year."

These two quotes sum up, to me, what are two of the greatest discrepancies in US economics and the workplace. These two inequalities pervade even the gender and race line, though those two facets play a huge part in determining how much one makes over the course of his or her career. The fact that a boss of a business could make more money in one day than someone who works five days a week for that boss could make in a year is more than wrong or immoral or injust--it is disturbing. Though it doesn't make it right, I could understand this happening in a less developed country where people often have to survive on a dollar a day. But in the United States, where wealth and prosperity and opportunity are so abundant, it just doens't make sense that there is such a huge pay difference. If this statisic is correct (and I shudder to think it is), then the average corporate executive probably only works a total of one month for the enitre year and still reaps hundreds of millions of dollars. The statistic itself didn't particularly resoate with me; it seems a bit exaggereated, but it illustrates the ocean of difference between those who work and those who have people work for them.

It is such a statistic that elaborates on the huge gap and issue of poverty. In a country where there is plenty for everyone, it seems almost a crime that so many live at or below the poverty line or are sleeping in the streets. I found the example on page 277, in which one insidious circumstance of poverty insinuates another, particularly striking. If one need is not met, then, in all likelihood, others will not be met and this proves a problem for those already in trouble. Though poverty and homelessness are an issue for anyone who is forced in such a situation, it become excruciatingly difficult to climb out of the hole when children are involved, and this seems to be the greatest demographic of people who are winding up on the streets. There is no reason whatsoever that justifies a child living in a cardboard box in an alley. Though there is only a short segment in the text that illustrates the issue, it strikes a blow right at the heart. Who can bear to see their children picking through the garbage in order to survive? The saddest part is that this trend only seems to be growing, as emergency shelter services increased 13% in 2000. In addition, the problem may only reach terrible proprotions if the cost in living continues to increase and if jobs keep handing out their minimal wages to those who are most in need. Also adding to this discrepancy of poverty and employment is the fact that jobs are becoming scarcer and scarcer. Jut as it it disturbs me that bosses make more in one day than their employees do in one year, it disturbs me that eight million citizens are without jobs. Why all these incredible differences in the quality of life between people in the United States? The wealthiest nation on the planet should not have such an issue in providing services to its people. I do not know what the solution to such an issue might be, but I feel that those in power, particularly those who make vast quantities more than others, should discuss a way to better the situation for those who work for them. If there were no workers, these executives and bosses and presidents of prestigious companies probably would not rake in millions a year.

Observation Journal #4

The inetresting thing about living in Burlington is that it puts on many disguises. There are aspects of the town that make people believe it is the peaceful, communal area that many preconceive it to be before that actaully arrive. At the same time, many people find it to be a haven for sketchiness, a drug ridden commuinty in which people get too sucked into the scene and find it extremely difficult to pull themselves out. Still others fidn it to be a just another Vermont town, a great gathering of rurals and rednecks. Not to knock Burlington in any way, but I find it to be a community combining all three of those aspects, but it is not just limited to such facets. It is a confluence of past, modern, and post-modern influences, all of which influence the social climate and environment of this settlement of vastly different cultures. That said, my own experience in living off campus has greatly affected the way I look at Burlington. For instance, I live on what I consider to be the very border of the Burlington that many college students are familair with, and the area that often gets a bad rap, the North End. I live right at North Street and I consider that to be the dividing line between Church Street, Big Daddy's, City Market, etc., and and area where the socioeconomic status is significantly lower than in the southern region of the town. I often take walks at night in that area (not alone, of course), and it is a far different environment from Champlain and UVM campuses. You meet some interesting people in such an area, some you were glad you met, some you'd rather you didn't. Just the other night I was returning from a friend's house in the North End, alon on this particular night, when I ran into a dude who seemed to be of Hispanic origin. He was incredibly friendly, saprking a conversation with me about school, what we were studying, where we were from--the usual characteristics of talk that peopel who don't know each other engage in. When I first saw him, my immediate cognition was, "Alright, I'm in kind of a weird area, but don't look like your gonna bug out." I always have a slight feeling of apprehension whenever I walk in the North End alone, but I kept it cool. I enjoyed the guy's company and we had a good conversation. The fact of the matter was I was not phased by his ethnicity, his race, his accent, or any other aspect that made up his personal identity. I attribute my initial feelings of nervousness with the area itself. For an instant, a thought crossed my mind that this guy would actually cause me harm, which was not the case at all. I relate that fear to the fact that I was in a strange area and, like I said, the North End often gets the bad rap. Soem of the coolest people come out of the North End, yet, unfortunately, it will always have a stigma of weariness attached to it. I feel I can speak a little more about the matter because I was actually roobed a few weeks ago, and people will probably get to talking about how I live in a sketchy area. However, this does not mean that someone who lives in that area committed the crime. Either way, this particular area of Burlington transcends the Burlington most are used to, transcending in a manner that is not exactly positive. Regardless, my living in such an area has filled me with new feelings and I get more and more accustomed to the region each day.

Reading Reflection #8

"We Are Getting Past Race the Way Humans Alway Have: Through Races Melding Together"

This quote highlights the general attitde and direction equality and inequality are heading in this country. On the one hand, we have ineaulity which has been rather prevalent throughout the history of the US. As people become more socially aware, though, and as society increases in diversity, it become increasingly difficult to ignore that everyone is, at least, a little different but not so different that we can't be accepting of one another. In this sense, we see a change in equality as well, that it is becoming more and more integrated into society, that we are becoming more tolerant of one another, that we are finally getting over such petty differences as skin color and ethnic background. If we are all Americans, we should not be subject to the hostility, resentment, and anger that such facets as skin color often perpetuate.

This is not to say that differences in the United States will ever disapper fully. Rather, there will always be those figures who believe that difference is an aspect that makes us all Americans. However, there is a fine line between difference and inequality. Difference is inevitable; we cannot avoid the fact that people will have different backgrounds and skin color, just as we cannot avoid the fact that people will have different bone structures and eye color. It is when we look at these differences in a negative light, that we attach debasing connotations to them, that inequality is brewed. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me that "the United States is already evolving into an even more complex tri-racial system"; how can group classification systems become any more complex than they already are? Can we really drive ourselves away from each further than we already have? This change in difference is not simply limited to race and ethnicity, however. As we become more socially conscious, we take into consideration how the "normal" culture looks at gay and bisexual relationsips, the poor and working class, and other disadvantaged populations. At the same time, it is inevitable that opposition will rise in response to this increase in awareness. Jut as there are those who wish for this country to become a beacon of equality in the world, there will always be those villains who wish to bring down a harmonic society. Thus, it is important for us to increase our efforts to integrate veeryoen into a fluid, tolerant, and helping society.

Reading Journal #6

"Equal protection and equal treatment are an illusion."

"The law is a political instrument used by specific groups to further their own instruments."

These two quotes brought some interesting aspects of social justice into light. The ironic thing is that more often than not, social justice is injust. The example of same-sex marriage, for example, where the privileges of the majority status are excluded from a minority population, was particularly striking. Though I am not gay, I personally have no problem with gay marriage. The book brings up an interesting point, however; "Older couples...see marriage as a heterosexual istitution that symbolizes an oppressive system they don't wnat to be part of". It seems that many couples of sam-sex orientation have found a way to live their lives around the law. Instead of being subjugated and compared to the norms of society, gay couples do not commit themsleves to the institution of marriage. The book further states that some older couples find marriage insulting, that their relationship has survived despite not being legally recognized. However, the absence of a legally binding relationship alleviates many of the privileges of recognized marriages. The benefits that heterosexual couples receive is extraordinary in comparison, a veritable social injustice. One facet of the text that stuck out in my mind was that the state we live in, Vermont, fewer couples than expected have taken up the "advantage" of civil unions. It truly does seem that many couples have decided to foresake the institution of marriage becuase it does not fit their needs, nor does it increase their social mobility any.

Another aspect of the text that struck me was the section on crime. It has always been apparent to me that people in positions of power tend to slip their way out of the social justice system, but the extent to which this is true was not revealed until I read the text. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example of this, and Simpson himself is somewhat of a contradiction of social injustices. On the one hand, he did indeed have some of the legal benefits that whites who stand trial usually benefit from, such as a jury of his race and the ability to buy a good defense. On the other hand, the evidence presented against Simpson cannot easily be denied. If blood from the victim was found in his car, prosecutors cannot take such facts lightly. His acquaittal shocked many Americans, mostly of the dominant white society. As the book explicitly states, "justice has never been blind". And racial profiling and death row sentences are a perfect instance of how minorities suffer from justice that. It did not surprise me when I read that more minorities were pulled over for suspicion of transporting drugs, yet more white people were actually in possession. Though it has been banned in many jurisdictions up to the federal level (excpet when a matter of national security), we shoudl not assume that it is not unpracticed. The death row is another instance in which minorites are vastly overrepresented in an aspect of lawful injustice. Why is it that 50% of those inmates in death row are African American or Latino?There is no question that racism is prevalent in the justice system but what cost do racial tendencies ask for? Someone's life? Simply because keepign someone alive in prison for the rest of their existence is cheaper than killing them makes the death penalty an impractical means of punishment. This furthers racial techinicalities and pushes us further from each other. In so serious a matter as justice, if it is to actually be taken seriosuly, bias an prejudice holds no place.