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.

Obsevation Journal #3

The event described in this entry dates back quite a while, the frist semester of last year, actually. Nonetheless, it shocked me and made me observe the world around me, and Burlington especially, in a different light. I've noticed that many people hold stereotypes about this community, that it is so peaceful, that it's a hippie commune, that there is much room for growth, expression, and creativity. These factors are all true but it is also a place riddled with drugs, poverty, and discrimination, as most cities in the United States are. The point is Burlington is not the magical fantasy land that college students in particular preconceive it ito be. Case example: I walked into the Mobil on South Winooski Street with my friend, my body in desparate need of one of those 99 cent Arizona's that come in a tall can. We make our way to the register, where there are two people in front of us. From the catacombs of the store, a decrepit, haggard man cuts my friend and I in line. I didn't pay much mind to this because the guy looked like his life was had been going in a bad direction for many years. In any case, he gets to the cashier and speaks in a voice that is comparable to a drunk Cookie Monster. The cashier, who is Asian, asks him to repeat himself, a reasonable request because I had no idea what he was saying. Though she had a thick accent, I could clearly tell what the cashier was saying; I had no trouble understanding her. The man, on the other hand, repeats himself in his beastly voice and it is still unclear what he was saying. After about another thrity seconds of mumbling and grunting what he wants but not getting his message across, the bum (I will call him a bum because if you saw him, you would draw the same conclusion) the man says something that thunderously resonated throughtout the store: "Why don't you learn to speak English?" "The people who speak the best English are born in this country." "You need to go back to your country." I was utterly mystified by this display of racial aggression but one customer threatened to knock the dude out, prompting the bum's exodus from Mobil, his prized cigarettes finally in hand. The other coustomers and I looked at each other, horrified and muttering our anger at the scene which unfolded before our eyes. I look back now, a year later, and I wonder why I didn't say something. Obviously the guy was homeless, probably frustrated with his life, and decided to take his anger out on an easy target. While trying to figure out what the guy wanted, I could see the cashier getting increasingly nervous, attempting to avoid an unavoidable conflict. Though I made a conscious effort to speak up next time I witnessed such an atrocious outburst, I have yet to see the level of racial hatred I saw that day. I don't beleive the man hated Asian people in particular, but it could be that he was xenophobe and was mad at the fact that this lady, who is not white, acquired a job and he was left to wander the streets in his moderate insanity. The event made me relaize two things. Burlington is not the quaint, loving community that most expct it is. I also realized that poverty can perpetuate other situations of injustice, in the case, gas station racism.

Reading Journal #5

"Whatever hunger's cause...it can comfortably be addressed with benefit cocnerts and high-profile charity events."

This quote struck a major chord with me because this seems to be a very real circumstance in the United States. We have such an abundance of food and resources that supply nutrients, it verges on disgust. At the same time, the level of hunger in this country also reaches a level of outrage. Being the wealthiest and most "powerful" nation in the world, we should be able to feed all of our citizens, right? This is not the case. The stratification between the upper class and the lower class is such that the rich have too much to eat and the poor are reserved to scraps. Just last night, my Human Behavior class did an experiment, in which we were given a budgt of $265 to feed three people for a month. This utterly shocked me because my mother used to spend $200 a week at the grocery store. I asked myself, "How can anyone live off only $265 a month?" And then I thought, well, how is it possible that my family would need to live off a small amount less than that per week? Are we overeating? Are we indulging in the pleasures of food too much? Is it truly necessary to need that much food? The answer to that question is an unequivocable yes. We had so much food lying around the house, food that was ignored and gathered dust because it wasn't snacks and sugary goodies and things that clog arteries and benefit us in no healthy way. Not to speak bad of my family, but we seem to fall into the trap of overconsumption.

Concerning world hunger, and world health in general, I looked at my family in comaprison to those countries that are starving. We have a veritable world food bank comapred to what some countries are used to. But then I looked at the larger system, the United States itself. For example, one section in the text illsutrates the costs of assisting the victims of the Tsunami in Southeast Asia. Comparitively speaking, the US governemnt contributed very little to this effort, about $950 million. That is but a fraction of what it costs to, say, support the war in Iraq. Citizens of the world, however, especially celebrities, raised billions and billions of dollars. Obviously not all the money came straight out of people's pockets, but it shows that perhaps there is a greater level of caring from people not directly invovled with government. I then looked at a situation that has hit much closer to home: Hurricane Katrina. People are still suffering in terms of health and home living from that natural disaster, and the "releif" that the US governemnt has provided is close to none. Understandably, there are a variety of factors as to why people are still suffering, but I strongly feel that the federal government itself could have done much more to alleviate the misfortunes facing millions of Americans. To further the damage, it is most unfortunate that the Hurricane had to strike in an area where more people are on the low end of the socio-econimic scale than not. In such an area, it is extremely difficult for people to get health insurance, go to the doctor, and repair their ailments. This may be due to "health care suspicions", such as the Tuskeegee experiemnt. African Americans in the New Orleans area may be very wary when looking for health coverage. This mistrust may not lead to anything actaully getting done, but it provides a very different perspective on how sickness is dealt with in this country. It seems that welfare (and I use the term to describe the well-being of citizens) is nto distributed equally, like so many other things in this county.

Reading Journal #4

"The Personal Experience of Prejudice and Discrimination"

This chapter shed new light on the concept of stereotypes, prejudice, and bigotry. We have already discussed how we have internalized racism, but what about internalized stereotypes? If race is culturally and societally established, then so are the thoughts that go along with the ideas, both negative and positive. The one facet I pulled away from the reading was that stereotyping is employed so that people may organize information from the world around them. In other words, stereotyping makes things easy to understand. We separate people into these different groups and think certain aspects apply to all members of that group; instead of looking at the individual, people look at the mass group and think one feature is a characteristic of all members. For instance, I enjoyed reading the materical on "model minorities." Asian people are a perfect example of this thinking by the dominant culture. They are viewed in a postive light on the bases of respect and intelligence, for example, but these views can often turn negative. The text states that these stereotypes are quite resstant to change, that society tends to hold the same views and thoughts for many years. They are difficult to shake and solidify prejudices.

One feature of the chapter that I found intiguing/frustrating/strange was the actual development of racism, prejudice and bigotry. Newman claims that calling someone a racist or a bigot individualizes them and takes the cruelty away from the larger social systems that create it. Without question, this is true. Society is defintiely the root of all racism and prejudice which is why we think the way we do; our thoughts are culturally bound. But, then, is that not prejudice? Is not calling a group racist because a large number of members, but not all, stereotyping them and degrading their status? I believe that individuals can be racist, and that society sometimes has little to no effect on how we think about or view others. I feel as though calling an individual a racist or bigot is, in many instances, better than claiming a group to be so. Though groups hold far more sway and power than individuals, we cannot say that all members of a group are placed in a negative light. If most are, then we can see how they would be stereotyped against because it is easy to place them in one group. However, we cannot call an entire group racist if some are not and then expect things to chnage in this country.

Observation Journal #2

I attended my first Sound Tribe Sector 9 (STS9) concert last Tuesday. Defintiely a show worth seeing. As I looked around the crowd, my eyes dilated from the flashing lighs that beamed unrestrained into the crowd. A crowd which was composed entirely of white kids. I didn't think much of this fact, as I was totally immersed in the music, until after the concert. Drving back from Higher Ground, I contemplated on why the fan base for this band, at least in Burlington, was completely white. It could very well be that I did not look properly in the crowd or that I was just being ignorant and not noticing differences among the screaming fans. However, I kept thinking and realized that every show I have attended at Higher Ground has been either predominantly white or devoid of minority. This may be the result of having a music venue in a primarily white community, but it struck me as strange that at a concert there would be so little diversity. I find music to be a medium through which people gather, interact, and connect much as sports do. Though these instances may have been mere exceptions, and I have no doubt they were, they brought to my mind certain questions. Why on earth are there only white people at this concert? Is this considered white music? Does Sound Tribe disgust, say, a black man or an Asian woman? I know this is not true because I have a black friend who is on the verge of obsession with Sound Tribe. As I drove home, I asked myself, "Are we so separated now that we cannot even enjoy the same muisc?" Music? Music is a universal puveryor of love, expression, and camaraderi. Here, I saw uniformity and a blanched crowd. I am not suggesting that there was a sign posted that said "No Minorities". I simply found it very odd that a band who takes on a variety of cultural music perspectives would host an all white crowd.

Reading Journal #4

The Lessons We Learn In Our Families and Those We Learn In School

I found this chapter in the book to be interesting as well as somewhat frsutrating. The chapter implies that all the stereotypes, all the negative connotations, indeed, the very interactions we invovle ourselves in daily, are all based on learning. We are influenced from a very young age to think certain thoughts about people, to perceive them in a particular fashion. This seems to be the underlying theme of the book itself; our perceptions are based on the perceptions of society and, thus, we are constantly driven by how society views a group, class, race, etc. This is not a false statement; going beyond the boundaries of politcal correctness and equality, we are influenced to buy certain things, wear particular clothes, fix our hair in some popular manner, among other facets of the media. If these blatant advertisements are driven into our heads, then it seems more than likely that we will absorb a certain perception of people in our society if subtle information is passed onto us from a very young age from our parents and relatives. This is much more concrete than what we see on TV.

The first section of the chapter, "Socialization in Families", illustrates the most prevalent way in which we absorb our predispositions. It is with our intimates that our greatest trust is placed; they are the source of our comfort and we believe everything they say. Eventually, autonomy takes hold but views that are absorbed as children are defintiely difficult to shake. We will not easily be swayed from our positions. When we enter school, however, a new influence takes control: Peers. We see what is popular among friends and tend to take on their views of situations. Because we become integrated into schools, we see a wide varitey of perspectives, many of which are far different from our own. People come together and a collective opinion of certain stratifications (race, class, gender, etc.) is assessed. However, because the differences in opinion are so vast, hopefully students will open their eyes to a broader approach.

One aspect of the chapter that stuck out to me was Newman's quote on how it is less necessary for an advantaged individual to be integrated into society. I agree with this opinion; obviously if a kid is white upper class and grows up in an environment in which other kids are of the same standing, it will be easier for him to establish an identity than one who is outside the same social constructs. On the other hand, Newman includes in his text that certain schools are looking to make way for same-sex education. One view on this, in the case of females, is that if they go to all-girl schools, they will develop assertiveness, confidence, and ambition in the areas of science and mathematics, all of which are noted as male qualities. If schools are looking to give female students a sense of feminine identity, why would they emphasize male qualities? Is this so that they will become oriented to a male dominated society? I understand the underlying principle of developing such policies, but it confuses me why male qualities would be overtly expressed and taught in an all female setting. I personally feel that integration and raltionships between the sexes is most important in the rocky years of adolescence. Should this opportunity be taken away, it might damge relationships in the future.

Reading Reflection #3

"The words are so silly, so juvenile, so utterly pathetic..."

Tim Wise's article brings many valid points, especially when referring to slurs against white people in relation to the context of the quote above. And it's true; there is no way that word like "honky" and "cracker" possess the same degredation and power as the word "nigger". The word itself has a long history of oppression and bigotry that it will probably never be erased from memory (or American memory, at least). From my own perspective, if a black man were to come up to me and call me a "honky", I'd probably laugh and walk away. I'm not saying that these are not degrading terms to certain people, but they do suggest a certain amount of comedy. Honestly, who takes the word "honky" seriously?

I also agree with the idea that racial violence is not so much power as it is just and act to show how someone feels. Wise explains that "power is much more potent when it can be deployed without breaking the law to do it." White people hold such power in the forms of government, determining where people live, and choosing the mascots for certain sports teams, as is the case with labeling organizations such as the "Chicago Blackhawks." Though these might serve as endearing terms--warriors, braves--many people find these names as oppressive and racist. In a way they are, as Wise explains that whites have never viewed the Native American people as fully human. However, were Native Americans to label whites as something that might offend them, such as "whitey", the insult is not exactly reciprocated in terms of power. We look upon such "slurs" with disdain, proving that they don't hold the same sort of resonance that "nigger" does.

On the other hand, I don't believe I agree with the passage in the Newman book that explains that words such as "black" and "white" have racist connotations or are meant in their individual form to oppress one culture of people. His explanation is interesting but it does not imply that we call black people "black because they are "soiled and dirty" or "hostile" or "disgraceful". If that is how the people who published Webster's Dictionary view black people, then racial problems are likely to never disappate in this country. Reverse racism may be a myth, but to attribute one word that has all negative definitions to one varitey of human being is almost ludicrous.

In any case, it is also ludicrous for white people to be subjected to the same sort of verbal hostility that minorities face. We can never feel the torment that words like "nigger" and "chink" express to black people and Asians. Because, at the end of the day, white people know they are on the thrones of this nation. We are (and I say we because I am white) the kings of the castle and the division of power will not be equal for some time, if ever. Minorities may try to insult us with their versions of derogatory terms but they don't hold the same sway as the words we have invented to dehumanize those who are different than us. We can never truly know what it is to be racially discriminated against.

Observation Journal #1

Do You Think You're Cool Saying That?

This is what I think everytime I hear friends of mine uttering some sort of racial slur, some word that would offend someone of a different cultural or ethnic or racial background. It is very difficult, especially in this country, to avoid insulting someone. The incredible diversity in the United States alone proves this fact. However, does that mean we should not make an effort to be aversive to such insults? Should we continue using such language because it is acceptable, because it is what we are used to? I feel that although we have been brought up in a racist society (and by we I mean white people, but this problem is not just limited to white people), we have the power to eliminate such thoughts and escpae this brutal mindset. An ideal is what I have. This ideal, however, has certainly not been reached as I am surrounded by people, many of whom are my friends, that express no concern when using racist terms. At one friend's house, for example, it is expected that the word nigger will be used at least once, if not throughout the night. It is not that my friends are racist; they have no hate for another race whatsoever, and if they did I would not hang around them. However, does that make it right that I stand by and listen to such words being spoken? Along with racist inclinations, American society has embedded apathy into our brains. We watch while those who are (and are not) racist fling coarse language around, degrading other peoples. While I do not consider myself racist, it does not change the fact that more often than not I listen to these comments and do nothing about them. At the same time, the more I am around these people, the more I see something inside of me changing. Such words do not necessarily offend me. Rather, I question why they are used at all. Why do you feel the need to say these things? If you are not looking to get your ass kicked, why even think about them? Are we trying to prove soemthing by saying nigger in an all white setting? Acceptance of these words courses through the veins of America, but we are afraid to use them out in the open. Perhaps that is the problem I reserve for myself; I fear speaking out against my friends. Does that make me racist too? Or just apathetic? Perhaps they are one in the same.

Reading Reflection #2

"I Know I did not get where I am by merit alone."

This is certainly a thought provoking quote. How did you get there, then? Surely Robert Jensen is not the only one who has thought about white privilege, but he is one of the few to bravely expose his opinion on the matter. Indeed, he does challenge a enduring point of view: That hard work is the measure of how far gets in life. In fact, he refers to it as the "mythology" of the culture, the deception, and the false belief. The idea that hard work produces results does hold true with many people; many white people do not have the privilege of being affluent or oriented to wealthy white society. On the other hand, can we truly argue that it is easier for a white person to get a job than, say, a black person? Will whites typically be tailed by a security guard when they walk into a department store? I think the answer is pretty apparent.

After reading the article, my view have not necessarily changed but, rather, modified. I was always aware that white people definitely held an advantage in American society, but I never paid close attention to that belief. I never looked at the world around me and said, "Gee, the color of my skin has certainly gotten me somewhere." The fact is, however, that yes, my "race" has entitled me advantages that perhaps should not be entitled. Why should I get a job if a Hispanic man has worked even harder than me to earn? I hope my recommendations by other people, appointments to certain positions, or simple respect is not determined by the fact that I am basically a WASP. On the other hand, in some point in my life I know I have encountered just that kind of thinking, though I may not have been aware of it. The sad thing is that it is not the microcosm that I live in that determines these things; it is the macrocosm, the enitre society of America. As David Newman says in his text, "As long as people continue to believe that race differences or gender differences are rooted in nature, however, they will continue to accept social inequalities as natural." Should American society be tricked into believing "the American dream"? Should we ignore that question of race is as much a problem today as it was 50, 100, 200 years ago? How are we expected to move on as a society if we cannot overcome that which has plagued since the inception of this country?

Perhaps the one problem with Jensen's article is that he is speaking from a point of view that addressed white people alone. But what do minorities have to say about such an issue? It would be interesting to know what people who are victims of white privilege have to say about the issue themselves. Undoubtedly, such people probably notice it more than the average white person, but I want to hear what they actually have to say. Do they feel wronged? Hurt? Angry? The answer is probably yes, but we cannot let the assumptions of article's author let us know how everyone feels about this topic.

Resisting the Weight of Socialization Requires Conscious Thought

Dear Mr. Wise,

Your article offers many valid points and I believe I follow what you are saying throughout the whole of the essay. Indeed, it must have been a shock to hear such a vile slur uttered from a woman who had great disdain for racism. The idea that she might say such things in her mental decrepitude truly does speak volumes about the country in which she was raised. Apart from the fact that her father was a former member of the Klan, apart from the fact that she attempted to halt the decay brought on by racism--it does not mean that she was invincible to such forces. They affected her just as deeply as they affected everyone around her. The word nigger, though she despised it, was spoken around her on a seemingly regular basis. And it is, even today. It is heard so often that how can anyone escape its almost enveloping presence?

Like you said, the problem lies more within the American system--thought not exclusively the American system--than with the individual. Your grandmother did all in her power to stop the destructive forces of racism from clenching society even more tightly in its grasp. But racism is a powerful enemy and not one that will be defeated easily. We see it in the movies, we read it in books, we are witnesses to it on the television, and we listen to it on the radio every day. The media is without question an omnipotent entity and racism and stereotypes hang from it like a banner. Your grandmother most likely did not abstain from the pleasures of movies and music, but with these joys came some pain. She was exposed to slanders and slurs that run through everyone's mind from time to time. Eventually, though she clearly had no evil thoughts of her own, the word nigger became engrained in her mind. Perhaps not the meaning of the word nor the stigma attached to it, but the word itself. It is so taboo and so unaccepted that we easily remember it. Most people are shocked when somone speaks in such a manner, though they themselves have probably used it on a number of occasions. Because this particular remark is so despicable and at the same time spoken so loudly by the masses, it seems that nigger is almost an easy word to remember, a word that even in our old age and deterioratio will continue to haunt us. Your grandmother referred to her African American caretakers in a derogatory manner not because she meant it, but because she had been in its presence so long that it had permanently attached itself to her mind.

If such a thing can happen to a social activist like your grandmother, Mr. Wise, it can most assuredly happen to anyone else. I agree with your idea that racist terms and stereotypes are deeply established in American society; however, I disagree with your claim that most individuals are racist. When emotions flare and tension is high between two people of opposite races, things are bound to be said that neither meant to say. This does not mean that the two opponents truly think in such a manner, that their claims apply to everyone in the opposite culture. In my opinion, if the two opponents immersed themselves in the culture of their "enemy", they would probably find what they had said is completely fictitious. Their words were nothing more than a garble of anger, confusion, and frustration that manifested itself in a vicious display of verbal diarreah. I truly belive that people are good, that no one is born with the oppression of racism plaguing one's mind. It is the system, the external structure, the all-encomapssing society that brands our brains with such gross thoughts. Mr. Wise, I hear your message about racism loud and clear. It is noble and forthright and one to which we should all aspire. Sadly, the world is not a perfect place and I don't think such ideals will ever be realized. Simply for the fact that there are people of different race, ethnicity, and culture, injustice, slander, and inequality will forever linger in all people's minds. Unless we can truly come to some profound understanding in our increasingly diverse world, it seems that we are doomed to be overshadowed by cruelty.

Signed In

Got the blog, I think this thing is working...