http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7un2SZBT6A
I chose the above youtube song because it is absolutely outrageous! It has everything to do with what we have been studying thus far. It is outright racist and full of bigotry!
From Zinn to Takaki to Johnson, we have been reading about the history of racism from the beginning of time and how it still exists today. Yet, today we not only have people just saying derogatory racist things, but making music about it as well!
I find the video and song to be absolutely repulsive and unnecessary. What reason or rationale would one have to justify such a thing and why doesn't youtube regulate some of this stuff? I have a coworker whose son's best friend was beaten in a park and it was because he is a self proclaimed bisexual. He is only twelve years old. They put the beating on youtube and it was allowed. I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech but some of it is just blatantly wrong and/or illegal. It makes me shake my head and want to ask, "What? Really?"
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7un2SZBT6A
Sunday, August 3, 2008
"Desegregation is the True Rebellion"
http://www.swimport.com/flags/rebel.JPEG
The above website should take you to a photo of the confederate flag. I chose this image because we have been discussing a great deal about racism this semester and it relates to the Civil rights movement and how its impact on the North an the South. There has been a bit of confusion or misrepresentation of what the flag actually is supposed to mean. Wikipedia does a great job breaking it down as follows, which also includes a photo of the Confederate Flag:
"The Confederate Flag
th century combination of the Battle Flag's colors with the Second Navy Jack's design. Actual historical flags of the CSA have become more obscure." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Confederate_Navy_Jack.svg/250px-Confederate_Navy_Jack.svg.png" class="thumbimage" border="0" height="159" width="250"> What is now often called "The Confederate Flag" or "The Confederate Battle Flag" (actually a combination of the Battle Flag's colors with the Second Navy Jack's design), despite its never having historically represented the CSA as a nation, has become a widely recognized symbol of the South. It is also called the "rebel" or "Dixie" flag, and is often incorrectly referred to as the "Stars and Bars" (the actual "Stars and Bars" is the First National Flag, which used an entirely different design).
In the early- to mid-20th century the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a soldier from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 5th Marine Regiment). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate General Simon Buckner), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the flag of the United States.[15]
The use of the flag by soldiers came under investigation after some African-American soldiers filed complaints. By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare.[16] However, the Confederate flag continues to be flown in an unofficial manner by many soldiers. It was seen many times in Korea, Vietnam, and in the Middle East.[citation needed]
[edit] Controversy
[edit] Displaying the flag
 | This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. |
The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over the nature of its symbolism. Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism, both for the history of racial slavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws by Southern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcing racial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement. Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States, as many past and present enemies of the United States such as the Vietcong during the Vietnam War and the Iraqi Republican Guard of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's regime sometimes used the flag[who?]. Some hate groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including racist groups such as the Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.[17] The flag is also sometimes used by separatist organizations such as the Aryan Nation.
White southerners often see the flag as merely a symbol of southern culture, a "country music flag" without any political or racial connotation. An example of this would be the Bocephus Rebel Flag often sold at concerts performed by country music star Hank Williams, Jr., and southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd For some, the flag represents only a past era of southern sovereignty.[18] Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. The flag has also been used as a symbol of generalized working-class masculinity, suggesting rowdy rebelliousness, and detached from any intended historical, Southern regional, or racial significance, although almost always in a white context, such as construction workers in Montreal [2].
As a result of these varying perceptions, there have been a number of political controversies surrounding the use of the Confederate flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events, at Southern universities, and on public buildings. According to Civil War historian and native Southerner Shelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the South's resistance to Northern political dominance; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement, when fighting against desegregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.
Symbols of the Confederacy remain a contentious issue across the United States and have been debated vigorously in many Southern state legislatures over their civic placement since the 1990s.
[edit] Display at the South Carolina capitol
On April 12, 2000, the South Carolina State Senate passed a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the State House dome by a majority vote of 36 to 7. Originally placed there in 1962,[19] "the new bill specified that a more traditional version of the battle flag would be flown in front of the Capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers." The bill also passed the state's House of Representatives, but not without some difficulty. On May 18, 2000, after the bill was modified to ensure that the height of the flag's new pole would be 30 feet (9 m), it was passed by a majority of 66 to 43. Governor Jim Hodges signed the bill into law five days later after it passed the state Senate. On July 1, 2000 the flag was removed from atop the State House and placed on a monument on the front lawn of the capitol. Current state law prohibits the flag's removal from the State House grounds without additional legislation.
In 2005, two Western Carolina University researchers found that 74% of African-Americans polled favored removing the flag from the South Carolina State House altogether.[20] The NAACP and other civil rights groups have attacked the flag's continued presence at the state capitol. The NAACP maintains an official boycott of South Carolina, citing its continued display of the battle flag on its State House grounds, despite an initial agreement to call off the boycott after it was removed from the State House dome" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America).
I have to say that, in my experience, that many people still display the "rebel" flag and it has nothing to do with country music. Typically, those I have met who display them are the most racist people I have ever met. So, as we know, the North was more liberal than the South as far as racism goes, thus, I think that the people I have met are displaying the flag because they do not agree with the North's policies of the time. Either way, I don't think the flag does or ever did mean anything good. When we segregate, it only allows us to complicate!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
"Discriminate or Stimulate"
http://www.acclaimimages.com/cgi-bin/photobase/comps.pl?do=get_comp&image_number=0018-0405-1708-5008The above website leads to a photo of the "Jewish" flag. I chose this image because we read an article this week about how Jewish individuals came to America and were eventually, post WWII, considered equal to Caucasian people, despite African Americans still fighting for equality.
The photo does not directly relate to course material, per Se. It merely is symbolic of the Jewish community. We read Rothenberg's article this week and it was quite interesting. It is class, basically, that made "Jews" equal to whites, according to our reading. "Jews were the first of the Euro-immigrant groups to enter college in significant numbers, so it was not surprising that they faced the brunt of discrimination there" (Rothenberg, 41). "Compared with other immigrants, Jews were upwardly mobile" (Rothenberg, 42). "Jewish mobility became a new Horatio Alger story. The economic mobility of Jews and other Euro-ethnics derived ultimately from America's postwar economic prosperity and its enormously expanded need for professional, technical, and managerial labor, as well as on government assistance in providing it. (Rothenberg, 43).
It's apparent that Jewish individuals played it smart and became educated even though they were met by resistance and discrimination. However, when it came down to stimulating the economy, a college degree was very desirable s/p WWII and Jewish people had them. Pretty much, it seems to me that they were being used to help stimulate the U.S. economy and the discrimination was never addressed. That could be why there are comments, yet today, that I hear about how Jewish people have all of the money. I hear people say things like, "Don't be a Jew", and it refers to being stingy or keeping things all to yourself. People don't realize how much of a struggle those of other religions or races had to endure just to be a part of this civilization. We really need this material to be a part of junior high/high school education. It's never been more evident to me, prior to this course, that our education system should be revamped! Let the truth be known.
Sources:
http://www.acclaimimages.com/cgi-bin/photobase/comps.pl?do=get_comp&image_number=0018-0405-1708-5008
Rothenberg. Paula S.Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study.William Paterson University of New Jersey.2003.pgs.38-53.
"The Amazing Jackass"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RoNemjcjGE
The above is a link that will lead to a youtube video of a gentleman who calls himself the "Amazing Racist". He is quite proud of what he does also. I chose this video because we are reading about the Japanese and other ethnicity's of Asian descent that came over to America.
The video relates to class material in the way of racism. We have been studying racism and oppression all semester. "The Amazing Racist" has many other videos but I chose this one because of this weeks reading of Takaki's chapter 10. It is all about the Japanese and their emigration to America. The chapter than goes beyond their emigration to only Hawaii and talks about their beginnings on the mainland. It was all but pleasant. They were subjected to racial exclusionism and discrimination. "Through the Nisei, the parents hoped, the Japanese would someday find tolerance in America. English speaking and educated in American schools, the second-generation Japanese would be the 'ambassadors' for the first: they would teach white Americans about the cultured of Japan and the hopes of the immigrant generation. As 'intermediaries', they would 'interpret' the East to the West and the West to the East,. The Nisei would be the 'bridge' to the larger society. But citizenship and education, the second generation soon discovered, did not immunize them from racial discrimination. Even they, American citizens by birth, were told to 'go back' to Japan and were called 'Japs.' Walking home from school, Japanese children were often perceived as foreigners. They winced when they were asked: "You speak English well; how long have you been in this country?" As citizens, they were legally allowed to own land and homes, but they experienced widespread housing discrimination" (Takaki, 274).
So, we can see how the material relates to the video. Racism is still very much prevalent today as it was when the Japanese first came to America. I don't understand how anyone could do such things and actually put it out for the public to view but I suppose youtube is not regulated. It disgusts me and that guy should be forced to live in harsh conditions and work for virtually pennies. He obviously has his history wrong as well. However, that's probably because he never went beyond a high school education, if he even went that far. Based on his outright ignorance, I cannot imagine he did. That guy is not an "Amazing Racist". Rather, he is an "Amazing Jackass"!
Source:
Takaki, Ronald.A Different Mirror:A History of Multicultural America.Boston, New York, Toronto, London.Little, Brown And Company.Chapter 10.pg.274.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RoNemjcjGE.
c
The above is a link that will lead to a youtube video of a gentleman who calls himself the "Amazing Racist". He is quite proud of what he does also. I chose this video because we are reading about the Japanese and other ethnicity's of Asian descent that came over to America.
The video relates to class material in the way of racism. We have been studying racism and oppression all semester. "The Amazing Racist" has many other videos but I chose this one because of this weeks reading of Takaki's chapter 10. It is all about the Japanese and their emigration to America. The chapter than goes beyond their emigration to only Hawaii and talks about their beginnings on the mainland. It was all but pleasant. They were subjected to racial exclusionism and discrimination. "Through the Nisei, the parents hoped, the Japanese would someday find tolerance in America. English speaking and educated in American schools, the second-generation Japanese would be the 'ambassadors' for the first: they would teach white Americans about the cultured of Japan and the hopes of the immigrant generation. As 'intermediaries', they would 'interpret' the East to the West and the West to the East,. The Nisei would be the 'bridge' to the larger society. But citizenship and education, the second generation soon discovered, did not immunize them from racial discrimination. Even they, American citizens by birth, were told to 'go back' to Japan and were called 'Japs.' Walking home from school, Japanese children were often perceived as foreigners. They winced when they were asked: "You speak English well; how long have you been in this country?" As citizens, they were legally allowed to own land and homes, but they experienced widespread housing discrimination" (Takaki, 274).
So, we can see how the material relates to the video. Racism is still very much prevalent today as it was when the Japanese first came to America. I don't understand how anyone could do such things and actually put it out for the public to view but I suppose youtube is not regulated. It disgusts me and that guy should be forced to live in harsh conditions and work for virtually pennies. He obviously has his history wrong as well. However, that's probably because he never went beyond a high school education, if he even went that far. Based on his outright ignorance, I cannot imagine he did. That guy is not an "Amazing Racist". Rather, he is an "Amazing Jackass"!
Source:
Takaki, Ronald.A Different Mirror:A History of Multicultural America.Boston, New York, Toronto, London.Little, Brown And Company.Chapter 10.pg.274.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RoNemjcjGE.
c
Sunday, July 20, 2008
"Emancipation Damnation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igAUy1RKg8
I acquired the above media from you tube. It is Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation". It is narrated by a gentleman named Chuck Sage. I chose this because we have been reading about slavery and the, shall I say, trivial attempts to abolish slavery.
I had never, before today heard or read the "Emancipation Proclamation". What disturbed me the most, is that Lincoln actually designates particular areas in which slavery would no longer be permissible. "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom... Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued"(http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html). To me, this suggests that Lincoln does not necessarily deem slavery as wrong, if there are only designated areas where slavery is abolished. It is similar to what Jackson did when he said that all should be treated equally but yet, had over 200 slaves of his own. "Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writer's Project: Lincoln got the praise for freeing us, but did he do it? He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to ourselve and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery"(Zinn, 146).
Personally, I think that the "Emancipation Proclamation" was a step but what provoked it, honestly, and why doesn't it include every state? It should have happened much sooner. Actually, slavery should have never existed in the first place. I still cannot understand how any human being would think that it is normal to force someone to do things against his/her will. I think all of the Amendments implemented and the "Emancipation Proclamation" are pretty much fallacies. If slavery were truly abolished than there would not have been segregation and there would have actually been equal opportunity for African Americans. Things would and should have been different. In fact, there is room for improvement even still today!
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igAUy1RKg8
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
Zinn, Howard.Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom.Chapter 9:pg.146.
I acquired the above media from you tube. It is Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation". It is narrated by a gentleman named Chuck Sage. I chose this because we have been reading about slavery and the, shall I say, trivial attempts to abolish slavery.
I had never, before today heard or read the "Emancipation Proclamation". What disturbed me the most, is that Lincoln actually designates particular areas in which slavery would no longer be permissible. "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom... Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued"(http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html). To me, this suggests that Lincoln does not necessarily deem slavery as wrong, if there are only designated areas where slavery is abolished. It is similar to what Jackson did when he said that all should be treated equally but yet, had over 200 slaves of his own. "Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writer's Project: Lincoln got the praise for freeing us, but did he do it? He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to ourselve and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery"(Zinn, 146).
Personally, I think that the "Emancipation Proclamation" was a step but what provoked it, honestly, and why doesn't it include every state? It should have happened much sooner. Actually, slavery should have never existed in the first place. I still cannot understand how any human being would think that it is normal to force someone to do things against his/her will. I think all of the Amendments implemented and the "Emancipation Proclamation" are pretty much fallacies. If slavery were truly abolished than there would not have been segregation and there would have actually been equal opportunity for African Americans. Things would and should have been different. In fact, there is room for improvement even still today!
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igAUy1RKg8
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
Zinn, Howard.Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom.Chapter 9:pg.146.
"Tacky Tobacky"
http://www.tobaccofreeadirondacks.org/tobacco-image/redman.jpgThe above link will take you to a photo of the popular chewing tobacco labeled "Redman". It relates to course material that we have been covering thus far. We have been discussing oppression, racism, and things that are symbolic of racism, such as mascots and team names.
American Indians, African Americans, and other ethnicity's have endured racism for many years and still are expected to tolerate it today due to the items and teams in existence that are symbolic of racism. "Redman" chewing tobacco, in this instance, is a blatant stereotype toward Native Americans. Exactly what does chewing tobacco have to do with Native Americans specifically and why are Native Americans referred to as "Red" men?
"Those who support the use of Native American names, images, and logos in sports and advertising defend their actions with any of a number of statements. Many of the more frequently used are worthy of consideration as they give insight into the perspectives and perceptions of those who make them. For example, some supporters contend "Native Americans should not take offense when none is intended." Others express the opinion that "Native Americans are just too sensitive," while others comment "We are only honoring Native Americans." In each instance, it is apparent that the intention is not to be offensive. Other statements, such as "I know many Native Americans, including tribal chiefs, who do not object to the use of these terms," point out that Native Americans, and even Native American leaders, are not unanimous in their claims that such acts constitute stereotyping. Statements like "Native Americans do not appreciate or understand the tradition that has been established in using 'Redskins,' (the name of the Washington professional football team) or 'Chief Illiniwek' (the mascot of the University of Illinois 'Fighting Illini')," suggest a lack of understanding as to why Native Americans have taken so long to object and raise the question as to whether Native Americans should now be taken seriously"(http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/racsen.htm).
It is my opinion that Native Americans have every right to be upset about being stereotyped on objects such as "Redman" chewing tobacco. I think that many may see it as innocent or paying tribute but I can see why it is demeaning. The label itself "Redman" is outright racist. To me, that is like calling an African American the "N" word. It is derogatory and unnecessary. American Indians were assimilated, ran off of their land, and subject to genocide and now we want to use them as a symbol or sales tactic on a product label. It is not right and it reinforces stereotypes that will continue unless it is stopped. As to those who wonder why Native Americans took so long to object to any of it, don't you think they would have objected sooner if they had a leg to stand on in America? They have not ever been taken seriously so don't you think it is about time?
Sources:
http://www.tobaccofreeadirondacks.org/tobacco-image/redman.jpg
http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/racsen.htm
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Are You Rad?
"Black Civil Rights, Feminism and Power
Abstract (Summary)
Radical feminist strategies often addressed sexism as the source of, therefore the key to, ending all other oppressions. In contrast, black power strategies recognized a dynamic between two oppressions, race and economic class, "Black Americans have two problems; they are poor and they are black" (Carmichael 1968:62). Although the radical feminist movement grew out of the liberal feminist movement, it also grew away from it. Radical feminist strategies to gain liberation for women as a class, by abolishing institutional/psychological controls, contrasted with liberal feminist strategies to gain rights within the existing public structure. Radical feminist strategy dealt with `the annihilation of female and male roles'. The strategies employed were frequently ad hoc and symbolic actions. For example, radical feminists conducted the `Burial of Traditional Womanhood' during an anti-war demonstration at Arlington Cemetery. Small groups, such as consciousness raising groups, engaged in picketing marriage bureaus, guerilla theater and demonstrations, such as WITCH groups, which hexed Wall Street, and the insurance industry. Radical feminist were also concerned with throwing off the marks of their female oppression. The Freedom Trash can is a vivid symbol of radical feminist strategies. Women threw into the can objects of female oppression such as bras, girdles, and, make-up. Women would publicly engage in hair-cutting ceremonies during larger scale events, symbolically removing an emblem of their oppression. Women learned about these ideas in consciousness raising groups. Consciousness raising groups were intentionally small, and leaderless, so women could examine who they were as individuals and as women. They could look at the things they did and said which reflected their oppression and internalized patriarchal values.
The vision of liberal feminism generalized the experience of heterosexual white middle class women (and men) to all women (and men). It did not take race, class or sexual identity into account except to assume that all perspectives were the same. Critiquing the liberal feminist analysis found in the liberal feminist classic, "The Feminist Mystique", Zillah Elsenstein says, "[Betty Friedan] misses the point in that idealogy about feminity applies differently to women of different economic classes and races, and that the way one relates to it is not a matter of individual choice" (Eisenstein 1981:184). For example, while Friedan wrote about the problems of bored housewives, 60% of black women worked, 40% of those as domestics (Langston 1989). At first, lesbians were not part of the vision -- their presence in NOW was deemed a "lavender menace".
These strategies reflect the different philosophy which radical feminist/black power groups operated under. Their vision of `what ails society' was different from the vision held by liberal feminist black civil fights groups. For radical feminists the biggest philosophical difference was the shift from the public sphere to the private sphere. The slogan `the personal is political' reflects this ideological change. Radical feminists recognized that there were biological gender differences between women and men. Their focus was on the ways in which these gender differences were exploited by men, particularly in the private sphere. In fact, radical feminists saw male supremacy as the root of all oppression. Female oppression continued because men benefitted, not merely economically but also psychologically from women' oppression. Radical feminist visions of the future was one in which male institutions such as the family and romantic love, were destroyed. The vision held that such change could only occur when women as a group were self-defined, without traces of this male oppression"(http://0-proquest.umi.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/pqdweb?RQT=575&?TS=1182666198&clientId=3340&14398&LASTSRCHMODE=1).
I chose the above article from the source in which we are required to find an article. I liked this article in particular because it talks of oppression within the feminist ranks.
This pertains to what we have studied thus far because it's all about oppression, but particularly radical feminist oppression. We haven't really touched base on feminism yet but most definitely oppression. We already know that there have been many oppressed races and even oppressed women.
As I read this and about radical feminism, which I have studied in the past, it is discernible that there can be oppressive groups who are supposed to be the oppressed, and those groups who are oppressed who are the oppressors. Johnson has told us all about this. It just depends on the person. Thus, based on the article, we see that radical feminists are pretty much man haters. They see males as the supremacy and the root of all oppression.
I think they are being a bit harsh. Women should fight for equal rights and not try to fight against men. That defeats the purpose. Radical Feminism just does not make sense to me. If anything, if one believes it's all the man's fault where the woman is today, kill them with kindness. If we go about things the wrong way, it's only going to cause negative retaliation. I'm a self proclaimed feminist but I don't hate men!
Sources:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/pqdweb?index=3&did=494619211&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1216012961&clientId=3340"YOU CAN DO IT!"
http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/m2/2367376398The above link should lead to the image of Rosie the Riveter. For some reason, the image
would not paste exactly as is to this blog.
I chose the image of Rosie the Riveter because sherepresents women entering the work force during WWII. This is very much pertinent to what
we have studied thus far, relating to oppression.
"Domestic. Shop Girl. Waitress. Cook ... Those were the jobs for women in the 1930's when
they could get work. Suddenly the U.S. entry into World War II created an unprecedented
demand for new workers. Notions of what was proper work for women changed overnight.
Thousands of posters and billboards appeared calling on women to "Do the Job He Left Behind."
Rosie the Riveter was born the symbol of working women during World War II.
After whirlwind training, women found themselves doing "men's work" and they did it so well
that production levels rose despite the military callup of millions of male workers. They
discovered a new sense of pride and dignity in their work. Their earnings leapt upwards. Many
joined unions and found substantial new benefits from labor representation. And for the first time
in history, black women gained entry into major industrial plants"
(http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/video/hist172.html).
This relates to our class material in obvious ways. Although we have not talked much about
women's rights, this directly relates to oppression, women's oppression. Women have been and
are just as much at the forefront of oppression as any race. If we go by, what Johnson describes,
as the "Matrix of Domination" than no matter if a woman is able bodied, white, and heterosexual,
she is still not a 4. She is merely a 3 based on her sex!
I am proud of how symbolic Rosie the Riveter is. I see her photo in many Lesbian bars. Her
representation really has nothing to do with Lesbianism or homosexuality but more to do with a
woman's power. WWII was a milestone for women. Women no longer felt like they only
belonged in the kitchen but they were and are worth so much more!
Sources:
http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/video/hist172.html.
Johnson, Alan G."Chapter 6:"What it All Has to Do with Us.""Power, Privilege and Difference, 2nd edition.New York:McGraw Hill, 2006.76-84.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sparkling Wiggles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrFRbHMrurk
I chose this youtube video due to its graphic and inappropriate racist content. It makes my
skin crawl that any adult or parent would encourage a child to make such racial slurs without her
knowing what it is she is even saying.
This media relates to everything we have studied thus far in relation to racism. From Zinn to
Johnson, we have discussed the events in history that led up to racism and oppression that still,
obviously, is an issue today. The little girl is prompted by a man and a woman, presumably her
parents, to say "Sparkling Wiggles" which sounds nothing like that when she says it. Aside from
what "Sparkling Wiggles" sounds like when the little girl says it, the "parent's" tell her to say
"Get a job you Sparkling Wiggles!"
From he have read thus far, particularly Johnson's Chapter 3, we learn that the white man is
responsible for enslaving African Americans with the white man's capitalist dream. It made it
virtually impossible for anyone of any other race, other than white, to make any kind of income
that was substantial. This was even after slavery ended. White man had all ready established
himself as the elite and the most privileged with the most power. Thus, it's pretty much
condescending, in my opinion, to tell an African American to get a job when that's what they have
been trying to do all along. I just don't understand why people are so ignorant to this.
Lastly, the comments in response to the video are absolutely appalling as well. Not a single one
argued against the content of the video; at least not in any sort of educated way. That just goes
to show how ignorance regarding race is very much prevalent and a major issue, to this day. The
"parents" in the video are encouraging racism, even if inadvertently. That little girl will grow up
and more than likely, someday see that video. Hopefully, she does not pick up on her parents
racist antics and education guides her in the right direction. It doesn't seem that times are
changing as quickly as they should!
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrFRbHMrurk. "Sparkling Wiggles."
Johnson, Alan G. "Chapter 3: Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination."Power, Privilege and Difference, 2nd edition.New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.41-53.
Zinn, Howard. "Chapter1: Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress."A People's History of the United States:Teaching Edition. 3-22.
I chose this youtube video due to its graphic and inappropriate racist content. It makes my
skin crawl that any adult or parent would encourage a child to make such racial slurs without her
knowing what it is she is even saying.
This media relates to everything we have studied thus far in relation to racism. From Zinn to
Johnson, we have discussed the events in history that led up to racism and oppression that still,
obviously, is an issue today. The little girl is prompted by a man and a woman, presumably her
parents, to say "Sparkling Wiggles" which sounds nothing like that when she says it. Aside from
what "Sparkling Wiggles" sounds like when the little girl says it, the "parent's" tell her to say
"Get a job you Sparkling Wiggles!"
From he have read thus far, particularly Johnson's Chapter 3, we learn that the white man is
responsible for enslaving African Americans with the white man's capitalist dream. It made it
virtually impossible for anyone of any other race, other than white, to make any kind of income
that was substantial. This was even after slavery ended. White man had all ready established
himself as the elite and the most privileged with the most power. Thus, it's pretty much
condescending, in my opinion, to tell an African American to get a job when that's what they have
been trying to do all along. I just don't understand why people are so ignorant to this.
Lastly, the comments in response to the video are absolutely appalling as well. Not a single one
argued against the content of the video; at least not in any sort of educated way. That just goes
to show how ignorance regarding race is very much prevalent and a major issue, to this day. The
"parents" in the video are encouraging racism, even if inadvertently. That little girl will grow up
and more than likely, someday see that video. Hopefully, she does not pick up on her parents
racist antics and education guides her in the right direction. It doesn't seem that times are
changing as quickly as they should!
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrFRbHMrurk. "Sparkling Wiggles."
Johnson, Alan G. "Chapter 3: Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination."Power, Privilege and Difference, 2nd edition.New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.41-53.
Zinn, Howard. "Chapter1: Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress."A People's History of the United States:Teaching Edition. 3-22.
You've Got Junk Mail-Proud to be Ignorant
"Someone Finally Said It!!!
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
...And then there are just -
Americans.
You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,'
...And that's OK.
But when I call you
Kike, Towel head,
Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink,
...You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day
...You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites
to 'advance' OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave
white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed
Black-only Colleges in the US ,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges'
...THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million-Man March,
you believed that you were
marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
...You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and red,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists.
You rob us,
carjack us,
and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only
whites
can be racists?
There is nothing improper about this e-mail.
Let's see which of you
are proud enough to send it on..."(Unknown Source).
The above is an email that was forwarded to me by a colleague of mine. It is
difficult to say exactly from where it originated but it has been circulated all over
the world I'm sure. I chose this email due to its outright blasphemous content.
It relates to the course because we have been reading and discussing racism,
oppression and privilege. In fact, Johnson, in chapter 3, gives a pretty decent
explanation of what it means to be privileged. Apparently, whomever began
circulating this junk mail doesn't seem to feel privileged enough as a white
person. He or she also feels as if white people are oppressed in today's society.
Johnson does say that one can be privileged yet unprivileged simultaneously. It
all just depends on the person and what is happening in his/her life.
All in all, this email has me shaking my head in disbelief. Ignorance is
widespread and emails like this is how children are or can be influenced. In
response to those who believe the email's content and continue to forward it, I
would have to tell them all to get an education. What these people seem to forget
or have never learned is what truly happened in our nation's history. All of the
groups mentioned are oppressed groups because the white man has always had
the upper hand and still are the utmost privileged. The email doesn't even make
mention to the fact that white women and women in general have "special"
scholarships and what not. They are also an oppressed group but that would just
debunkify the racist connotations suggested in the email. Maybe those groups do
have some of those things but white men have always and still do have a great deal
more power and privilege. Education is key and knowledge is power!
Sources:
Unknown source."Someone Finally Said It!."Forwarded email.2008.
Johnson, Alan G. "Chapter 3: Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination."Power, Privilege and Difference, 2nd edition.New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.41-53.
difficult to say exactly from where it originated but it has been circulated all over
the world I'm sure. I chose this email due to its outright blasphemous content.
It relates to the course because we have been reading and discussing racism,
oppression and privilege. In fact, Johnson, in chapter 3, gives a pretty decent
explanation of what it means to be privileged. Apparently, whomever began
circulating this junk mail doesn't seem to feel privileged enough as a white
person. He or she also feels as if white people are oppressed in today's society.
Johnson does say that one can be privileged yet unprivileged simultaneously. It
all just depends on the person and what is happening in his/her life.
All in all, this email has me shaking my head in disbelief. Ignorance is
widespread and emails like this is how children are or can be influenced. In
response to those who believe the email's content and continue to forward it, I
would have to tell them all to get an education. What these people seem to forget
or have never learned is what truly happened in our nation's history. All of the
groups mentioned are oppressed groups because the white man has always had
the upper hand and still are the utmost privileged. The email doesn't even make
mention to the fact that white women and women in general have "special"
scholarships and what not. They are also an oppressed group but that would just
debunkify the racist connotations suggested in the email. Maybe those groups do
have some of those things but white men have always and still do have a great deal
more power and privilege. Education is key and knowledge is power!
Sources:
Unknown source."Someone Finally Said It!."Forwarded email.2008.
Johnson, Alan G. "Chapter 3: Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination."Power, Privilege and Difference, 2nd edition.New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.41-53.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)