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.