Monday, October 29, 2007
Everyone gives him a stereo type when they look at him. For example everyone thinks that he may know karate or that he talks like sing sang song. everyone could think that he is good at math. I have experienced something like this. After 9/11 everyone looked at me a different way. I use to be white to them but now they consider me arabic and everyone when they find that out assumes that i can speak the language and that i am a muslim even though i can not speak the language and i am in fact catholic.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
comic
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Blog post
October 28, 2007
Comic Post
When I looked at these comics, they all had a similar theme, which was that the Americans were the good guys and the Japanese were the villains. The comic I looked at was called the Fighting Yank. In this comic the theme was the same thing.
First of all you can tell its America versus Japan because in the title, the word Yank is short for Yankee. Yankee is a name for Americans. Also, the bad guys in the comic had the Japanese flag on their arms to symbolize that they were Japanese. This comic shows the Japanese as villains because it has them taking a women hostage and all trying to kill the “Yank”. The comic shows the stereotype for Japanese it gives them squinty eyes, big teeth, small bodies, and dark skin. The cover shows the American as invincible. He is big and strong and has bullets bounce off of him. He also is able to fight off a group of the bad guys by himself. He doesn’t even need weapons to beat the Japanese where they had to use guns and knives. The comic shows the Japanese as bad and have them act like savages and it portrays the American as a hero who saves the day.
In my opinion this comic is racist. It puts negative images in readers’ heads about Japanese. It is kind of like during the cold war how they always made the Russians bad guys in movies. An example of this would be Rocky.
Ethics
Blog post
October 28, 2007
Comic Post
When I looked at these comics, they all had a similar theme, which was that the Americans were the good guys and the Japanese were the villains. The comic I looked at was called the Fighting Yank. In this comic the theme was the same thing.
First of all you can tell its America versus Japan because in the title, the word Yank is short for Yankee. Yankee is a name for Americans. Also, the bad guys in the comic had the Japanese flag on their arms to symbolize that they were Japanese. This comic shows the Japanese as villains because it has them taking a women hostage and all trying to kill the “Yank”. The comic shows the stereotype for Japanese it gives them squinty eyes, big teeth, small bodies, and dark skin. The cover shows the American as invincible. He is big and strong and has bullets bounce off of him. He also is able to fight off a group of the bad guys by himself. He doesn’t even need weapons to beat the Japanese where they had to use guns and knives. The comic shows the Japanese as bad and have them act like savages and it portrays the American as a hero who saves the day.
In my opinion this comic is racist. It puts negative images in readers’ heads about Japanese. It is kind of like during the cold war how they always made the Russians bad guys in movies. An example of this would be Rocky.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Brodkin post
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Brodkin post
22 October 2007
Post
In the article “How Jews Became White” Brodkin’s thesis is that Jews and other races are viewed inferior until American “whitened” them. The article says that America was racist to a lot of races, but after Word War II that changed and a majority of them were viewed as middle class citizens. He says that Word War II brought about the biggest affirmative action program. He then goes on to talk about how inferior and superior groups form Europe, began with the Irish. They said that real whites came from Northwest Europe. This brought about the closing of immigration door to other races. In schools Jews according to Brodkin, had the best education, so this led to them facing racism. He talks about how his father wanted to become a teacher, and almost could not teach because he did not speak proper English. He said speech tests were given to keep ethnics out of teaching. The author then goes on to talk about the GI Bill, saying it was affirmative action because it mostly helped certain Europeans, but didn’t help Blacks or women. Blacks could not get employed as much or could not get into white schools. Neighborhoods were racially segregated as well.
The question here is, are only certain Europeans classed as white? The author uses evidence to back this up, but he also seems to use a lot of opinions that do not really prove his case. For instance he says that Jews are the smartest hardworking people. This could be true, but that is not a fact. He does use some facts when he talks about the percents of Jews with college education and when he mentions the GI bill.
In my opinion, I do agree with the author that only some races from Europe were classed as whites, and that other races, such as the Jews and the blacks were treated unfairly. It is said that people are viewed differently, when were are all the same, but the past put us in this situation, and will are still trying to fix it today.
Ethics
Brodkin post
22 October 2007
Post
In the article “How Jews Became White” Brodkin’s thesis is that Jews and other races are viewed inferior until American “whitened” them. The article says that America was racist to a lot of races, but after Word War II that changed and a majority of them were viewed as middle class citizens. He says that Word War II brought about the biggest affirmative action program. He then goes on to talk about how inferior and superior groups form Europe, began with the Irish. They said that real whites came from Northwest Europe. This brought about the closing of immigration door to other races. In schools Jews according to Brodkin, had the best education, so this led to them facing racism. He talks about how his father wanted to become a teacher, and almost could not teach because he did not speak proper English. He said speech tests were given to keep ethnics out of teaching. The author then goes on to talk about the GI Bill, saying it was affirmative action because it mostly helped certain Europeans, but didn’t help Blacks or women. Blacks could not get employed as much or could not get into white schools. Neighborhoods were racially segregated as well.
The question here is, are only certain Europeans classed as white? The author uses evidence to back this up, but he also seems to use a lot of opinions that do not really prove his case. For instance he says that Jews are the smartest hardworking people. This could be true, but that is not a fact. He does use some facts when he talks about the percents of Jews with college education and when he mentions the GI bill.
In my opinion, I do agree with the author that only some races from Europe were classed as whites, and that other races, such as the Jews and the blacks were treated unfairly. It is said that people are viewed differently, when were are all the same, but the past put us in this situation, and will are still trying to fix it today.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Chapter 9 Zinn
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Chapter 9
14 October 2007
Zinn Chapter 9
Zinn argues in chapter 9 that blacks really weren’t free after slavery was abolished. The chapter starts out talking about how slavery produced millions of tons cottons and other things produced, and that the slave numbers kept increasing. As more slaves came in more rebellions took place but they were still rare. Those who rebelled were normally shot and hung and to stop these rebellions the South made a militia to control slaves and usually hired poor whites to be slave overseers. It talks about how when slave families were broken apart, that all slaves took care of each other and adults would look over any child as if they were their own. It talks about more rebellions like one on a ship where the slaves killed the crew and sailed to the West Indies. It talks about how the north was racist as well and the blacks had to insist on their own independent. It eventually talks about Abraham Lincoln and how he wanted to abolish slavery and it eventually led to the civil war. It mentions how he felt the whites were superior to the blacks. When he was assassinated it mentions how Andrew Johnson became president and didn’t treat blacks equally, and didn’t give those equal rights. It later talks about civil rights and how blacks were given equal rights, but were still held down by white privileges.
The question here is were blacks really free after slavery was abolished? The answer is no and the Zinn mentions how blacks were not given lands after and even still worked on plantations. They were not aloud to vote at first and the government did nothing to stop white violence against them. He mentions how there were the black codes, which made the free slaves like serfs. When they could eventually vote and hold office, their votes could have been bought or taken away by threat of force. The average wage of the south was only 50cents for Negro farm laborers.
In my opinion I agree with Zinn. They were free on paper, but blacks did not get equal rights as whites and were oppressed greatly to the point where they could not better themselves. Just because the North was free, it didn’t mean that it was not racist. Whites would threaten and kill blacks in the north as well.
Ethics
Chapter 9
14 October 2007
Zinn Chapter 9
Zinn argues in chapter 9 that blacks really weren’t free after slavery was abolished. The chapter starts out talking about how slavery produced millions of tons cottons and other things produced, and that the slave numbers kept increasing. As more slaves came in more rebellions took place but they were still rare. Those who rebelled were normally shot and hung and to stop these rebellions the South made a militia to control slaves and usually hired poor whites to be slave overseers. It talks about how when slave families were broken apart, that all slaves took care of each other and adults would look over any child as if they were their own. It talks about more rebellions like one on a ship where the slaves killed the crew and sailed to the West Indies. It talks about how the north was racist as well and the blacks had to insist on their own independent. It eventually talks about Abraham Lincoln and how he wanted to abolish slavery and it eventually led to the civil war. It mentions how he felt the whites were superior to the blacks. When he was assassinated it mentions how Andrew Johnson became president and didn’t treat blacks equally, and didn’t give those equal rights. It later talks about civil rights and how blacks were given equal rights, but were still held down by white privileges.
The question here is were blacks really free after slavery was abolished? The answer is no and the Zinn mentions how blacks were not given lands after and even still worked on plantations. They were not aloud to vote at first and the government did nothing to stop white violence against them. He mentions how there were the black codes, which made the free slaves like serfs. When they could eventually vote and hold office, their votes could have been bought or taken away by threat of force. The average wage of the south was only 50cents for Negro farm laborers.
In my opinion I agree with Zinn. They were free on paper, but blacks did not get equal rights as whites and were oppressed greatly to the point where they could not better themselves. Just because the North was free, it didn’t mean that it was not racist. Whites would threaten and kill blacks in the north as well.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
kindred post
Ricky Woodie
Ehtics
Kindred
6 October 2007
Kindred
In Kindred blacks were not only discriminated against, but so were women. One section of the book displayed both taking place. In the middle of the book When Dana comes back Rufus is older now around 19 or 20 and he is seen fighting Issac, who is Alice’s husband. The fight takes place because Rufus, who is in love with Alice, raped her because he wanted her. Rufus gets knocked out and Issac and Alice run away. Later they were found and Alice was brought back. She was in really bad shape. She had flesh missing from dogs attacking here, she was black and blue, and she was beaten and whipped. This was her punishment for running away. She was hurt badly, but Rufus’s father did not want to pay for a doctor and waste his money to help her. Rufus said his dad says they will either get better or die. Later Rufus told Dana how the judge had Issac’s ears cut off and he was then sent to Mississippi. If they would have known that he beat Rufus he would have been killed.
Butler through out the chapter the fight and the book shows first hand how slaves were treated as well as women. He even shows how Margaret, Rufus mother was beat and treated like an Object by Rufus’s dad. Even the slaves were seen asking Dana if Kevin ever beat her like it was a normal thing back then. He also shows through out the book shows how the slaves were treated like pieces of meat. Issac was Alice’s husband and they didn’t even hesitate to give him away like the slaves feelings didn’t matter. One of the slaves children, maybe Sara’s were given away so Margaret could have more money to buy more furniture. The slaves were beat nearly to death for even talking back.
They then were left for dead, if they got better, they got better. If not, then who cares? They slept on the ground and at table scraps as if they were pigs.
In my opinion the book did do a good job on showing how graphic slavery really was back in the day. It also does a good job showing that women were not considered equal to men in that time period. It even shows that it didn’t matter how much she helped Rufus Dana was still a slave he was still a slave owner. And in the end she had to take his life. That shows no matter how much she educated him or cared for him when he was hurt of sick. It didn’t matter she was still nothing more then a slave and was treated less then a human being.
Ehtics
Kindred
6 October 2007
Kindred
In Kindred blacks were not only discriminated against, but so were women. One section of the book displayed both taking place. In the middle of the book When Dana comes back Rufus is older now around 19 or 20 and he is seen fighting Issac, who is Alice’s husband. The fight takes place because Rufus, who is in love with Alice, raped her because he wanted her. Rufus gets knocked out and Issac and Alice run away. Later they were found and Alice was brought back. She was in really bad shape. She had flesh missing from dogs attacking here, she was black and blue, and she was beaten and whipped. This was her punishment for running away. She was hurt badly, but Rufus’s father did not want to pay for a doctor and waste his money to help her. Rufus said his dad says they will either get better or die. Later Rufus told Dana how the judge had Issac’s ears cut off and he was then sent to Mississippi. If they would have known that he beat Rufus he would have been killed.
Butler through out the chapter the fight and the book shows first hand how slaves were treated as well as women. He even shows how Margaret, Rufus mother was beat and treated like an Object by Rufus’s dad. Even the slaves were seen asking Dana if Kevin ever beat her like it was a normal thing back then. He also shows through out the book shows how the slaves were treated like pieces of meat. Issac was Alice’s husband and they didn’t even hesitate to give him away like the slaves feelings didn’t matter. One of the slaves children, maybe Sara’s were given away so Margaret could have more money to buy more furniture. The slaves were beat nearly to death for even talking back.
They then were left for dead, if they got better, they got better. If not, then who cares? They slept on the ground and at table scraps as if they were pigs.
In my opinion the book did do a good job on showing how graphic slavery really was back in the day. It also does a good job showing that women were not considered equal to men in that time period. It even shows that it didn’t matter how much she helped Rufus Dana was still a slave he was still a slave owner. And in the end she had to take his life. That shows no matter how much she educated him or cared for him when he was hurt of sick. It didn’t matter she was still nothing more then a slave and was treated less then a human being.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Takaki chapter 3
Takaki’s thesis in chapter 3 is that because of slavery society has changed their views and opinions about diversity, making it the multicultural America we now know. Takaki mentions that the slaves were monster like, and how they compared to apes. He mentions that the Indians were able to escape the enslavement by the whites, and were also able to fight back against the whites. This deterred the English from exploiting them as slaves (52). Even though the Africans were continually being shipped over to Virginia, they were still a minority, and counted for very little of the population. He explains that in the early 17th century, most of the “workers” were white, to be exact about 75% of them were white. They were the “out casts” of society coming from England, Ireland, and Germany. These “out casts” consisted of whores, a bonds, and cheats (54). However, all of these people were forced to come to America; they were kidnapped of some sorts. Takaki mentioned that with time, it became sin like to associate with the black slaves, and that if a white servant was caught associating with a black slave, they would be lashed out. He states “Africans, unlike whites, were being degraded into a condition of servitude for life and even the status of property.” (57) Takaki thought that Africans would eventually threaten the “purity” of white people, and that eventually a war of races would happen.
Did racism already exist? Or did the English who decided to establish the American land socially create it? Takaki seems to think that because the whites thought they were of a higher power, they created tension. Because the white population already saw the blacks as “monsters” thus giving them a negative image of them, they ended up with less rights and privileges (the blacks). Eventually the laws of slavery were established and the tension between the whites and the blacks grew stronger. It was evident that nothing positive could come from this situation, only with time would the gap begin to shrink.
I thought this chapter was moving, I was never really taught the different aspects of slavery in school, and was almost intrigued by how unbelievably ridiculous the whole thing even was. On the other hand, I am a white female growing up in a mainly white town my entire life, I never dealt with segregation or difficulties that came with having those situations. It made me feel a bit guilty when reading this, because of the fact that I was so naive to the concept of slavery. I was really uneducated, thus not really paying attention to the negative consequences we currently face as a society and as a country. This chapter opened up my eyes to a different side of the word “racism” and “slavery”.
Did racism already exist? Or did the English who decided to establish the American land socially create it? Takaki seems to think that because the whites thought they were of a higher power, they created tension. Because the white population already saw the blacks as “monsters” thus giving them a negative image of them, they ended up with less rights and privileges (the blacks). Eventually the laws of slavery were established and the tension between the whites and the blacks grew stronger. It was evident that nothing positive could come from this situation, only with time would the gap begin to shrink.
I thought this chapter was moving, I was never really taught the different aspects of slavery in school, and was almost intrigued by how unbelievably ridiculous the whole thing even was. On the other hand, I am a white female growing up in a mainly white town my entire life, I never dealt with segregation or difficulties that came with having those situations. It made me feel a bit guilty when reading this, because of the fact that I was so naive to the concept of slavery. I was really uneducated, thus not really paying attention to the negative consequences we currently face as a society and as a country. This chapter opened up my eyes to a different side of the word “racism” and “slavery”.
Takaki chp 3
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Chp 3
September 25, 2007
Chapter 3
In chapter 3 of Takaki, his thesis is that the arrival of servants here in America in the early 1600s, is what brought about slavery and ultimately racism towards blacks. It starts out talking about how the blacks were viewed as vile to the English and how they got their skin color from the devil. The Africans were compared to apes and were considered savages. In the begging it says how Africans and whites came here together as servants. Both would receive similar punishments and both would run away together. Since they were integrated owners separated them more and more and made it illegal for them to fornicate. They began to be separated more and more and blacks started to be treated harsher than whites. Blacks began to be come slaves in the 1660s when they were begging to become servants for life. Once they became servants for life, owners began to turn away from white servants and got more black ones because it was more profitable to have them for life. So that blacks would not over throw the government, every white man was required to bear arms. At the end of the 17th century nearly half the work force was African American. In 1680 slaves were denied any freedom. Blacks were demoted to a lower class then any white worker and all were considered slaves. It then finishes by mentioning that Jefferson too was a slave owner and after awhile began to feel guilty and tried to get slavery abolished. He said once that happened we would have to ship slaves back because blacks and whites could not get along. He claimed that blacks were not as intelligent as whites and were an inferior race. He thought that’s blacks would threaten the purity of whites and that a race war would eventually happen.
The question here is did the servants here start racism in America? The answer Takaki claims is yes. He shows how English already looked down on blacks and once here they were given less rights then white servants and ultimately became the only servants once they were forced to work for like. He gives examples of the laws that were passed that developed slavery and showed how the gap betweens whites and blacks grew over time.
In my opinion slavery was definitely one of the causes for racism. It put us in a huge of that we still are trying to did out of. Slavery brought upon white privilege and it is a key factor to why there is still racism today even where all people are now considered equal with the same rights.
Ethics
Chp 3
September 25, 2007
Chapter 3
In chapter 3 of Takaki, his thesis is that the arrival of servants here in America in the early 1600s, is what brought about slavery and ultimately racism towards blacks. It starts out talking about how the blacks were viewed as vile to the English and how they got their skin color from the devil. The Africans were compared to apes and were considered savages. In the begging it says how Africans and whites came here together as servants. Both would receive similar punishments and both would run away together. Since they were integrated owners separated them more and more and made it illegal for them to fornicate. They began to be separated more and more and blacks started to be treated harsher than whites. Blacks began to be come slaves in the 1660s when they were begging to become servants for life. Once they became servants for life, owners began to turn away from white servants and got more black ones because it was more profitable to have them for life. So that blacks would not over throw the government, every white man was required to bear arms. At the end of the 17th century nearly half the work force was African American. In 1680 slaves were denied any freedom. Blacks were demoted to a lower class then any white worker and all were considered slaves. It then finishes by mentioning that Jefferson too was a slave owner and after awhile began to feel guilty and tried to get slavery abolished. He said once that happened we would have to ship slaves back because blacks and whites could not get along. He claimed that blacks were not as intelligent as whites and were an inferior race. He thought that’s blacks would threaten the purity of whites and that a race war would eventually happen.
The question here is did the servants here start racism in America? The answer Takaki claims is yes. He shows how English already looked down on blacks and once here they were given less rights then white servants and ultimately became the only servants once they were forced to work for like. He gives examples of the laws that were passed that developed slavery and showed how the gap betweens whites and blacks grew over time.
In my opinion slavery was definitely one of the causes for racism. It put us in a huge of that we still are trying to did out of. Slavery brought upon white privilege and it is a key factor to why there is still racism today even where all people are now considered equal with the same rights.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
pdd cht 3
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Chapter 3
12 september
Blog post
The thesis of this article is that economics and capitalism seemed to bring about racism in the United States. This article talks about how capitalism and how capitalists make the most profit with the cheapest labor. Then it goes on to talk about how the United States used slavery for cheap labor on cotton and tobbaco. It then mentions how the Civil war was caused because slavery was unfair for competition. It mentions how the United States used chinese to build rail road. It talks about how rasicm was used to make employees work harder. Low class whites fell no longer superior to blacks when slaves got their freedom. This brought about the KKK. Employeers would tell white workers they would higher blacks for less if they didn’t work harder. It mentions affirmative action and talks about privilages. It finishes by saying we won’t get rid of racism since we have sexism and classism.
The questioin here is was racism started in the United States because of slavery? The author seems to be saying that slavery started racism through economics here in the U.S. He supports this by saying how the slaves were brought here to increase profits. Once made free, slaves would still work for low wages and this was posed a threat to low class white workers. The author through the middle of the reading seemed to go off topic, when goin into depth about explaining what capitalism is. It is important to explain capitalism but not as much as he did.
In my opinion I do think slavery brought over racism in the United states towards blacks. I feel we were already racist towards the Native Americans. Slavery I feel put African Americans at a disadvantage once free because they were not well educated and developed slower here in the United States. This being from the lack of education from slavery, as well as not having as much privlages as whites after slavery.
Ethics
Chapter 3
12 september
Blog post
The thesis of this article is that economics and capitalism seemed to bring about racism in the United States. This article talks about how capitalism and how capitalists make the most profit with the cheapest labor. Then it goes on to talk about how the United States used slavery for cheap labor on cotton and tobbaco. It then mentions how the Civil war was caused because slavery was unfair for competition. It mentions how the United States used chinese to build rail road. It talks about how rasicm was used to make employees work harder. Low class whites fell no longer superior to blacks when slaves got their freedom. This brought about the KKK. Employeers would tell white workers they would higher blacks for less if they didn’t work harder. It mentions affirmative action and talks about privilages. It finishes by saying we won’t get rid of racism since we have sexism and classism.
The questioin here is was racism started in the United States because of slavery? The author seems to be saying that slavery started racism through economics here in the U.S. He supports this by saying how the slaves were brought here to increase profits. Once made free, slaves would still work for low wages and this was posed a threat to low class white workers. The author through the middle of the reading seemed to go off topic, when goin into depth about explaining what capitalism is. It is important to explain capitalism but not as much as he did.
In my opinion I do think slavery brought over racism in the United states towards blacks. I feel we were already racist towards the Native Americans. Slavery I feel put African Americans at a disadvantage once free because they were not well educated and developed slower here in the United States. This being from the lack of education from slavery, as well as not having as much privlages as whites after slavery.
Monday, September 10, 2007
PDD chpter 2
Ricky Woodie
Ethnics 101
Chaper 2
10 September 10, 2007
blog
IN the reading Power Privilege and difference chapter 2, the author’s thesis is fear or difference is not inherited, but people fear others because it is what we learned. He is saying that we all are the same, but people make up race in there cultures.
In this chapter the author talks about how we fear other races because it is what we were taught. He mentions how as children, without the knowledge of race, we do not fear any one for their, race, sex, disabled, or gay or straight. But as we slowly grow up and learn about race we start to view others differently. In chapter two the author says, “the world encourages people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit, or discredit, elevate, or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass”. He is saying how race is determined by culture, tells us how we should treat others. He also says how race has changed over time and an example of this would be how Irish were once white but now are in there own class. He then finishes by talking about privileges. At one point he says how If your white you are arrested less then blacks. He says that whites make up more than 85 percents of drug users, but only less than half of those arrested for drug use are white.
The question that I got from this chapter is that of is race really real? And I think the authors gives good reasons for why is not but culture and what we have been taught make it that way. He does a good job of using facts to support this. The best example was how when we are babies we do not see race until we are taught it. He also shows how we give people privileges based on race.
In my opinion, I agree with the author. I don’t think that anyone is different, but that we will believe we are and view and judge other people because we are taught that way. People will trust some people over others based on race. People we baby disabled people because they have been taught that way. I think that because of are history we will always base each other off of race.
Ethnics 101
Chaper 2
10 September 10, 2007
blog
IN the reading Power Privilege and difference chapter 2, the author’s thesis is fear or difference is not inherited, but people fear others because it is what we learned. He is saying that we all are the same, but people make up race in there cultures.
In this chapter the author talks about how we fear other races because it is what we were taught. He mentions how as children, without the knowledge of race, we do not fear any one for their, race, sex, disabled, or gay or straight. But as we slowly grow up and learn about race we start to view others differently. In chapter two the author says, “the world encourages people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit, or discredit, elevate, or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass”. He is saying how race is determined by culture, tells us how we should treat others. He also says how race has changed over time and an example of this would be how Irish were once white but now are in there own class. He then finishes by talking about privileges. At one point he says how If your white you are arrested less then blacks. He says that whites make up more than 85 percents of drug users, but only less than half of those arrested for drug use are white.
The question that I got from this chapter is that of is race really real? And I think the authors gives good reasons for why is not but culture and what we have been taught make it that way. He does a good job of using facts to support this. The best example was how when we are babies we do not see race until we are taught it. He also shows how we give people privileges based on race.
In my opinion, I agree with the author. I don’t think that anyone is different, but that we will believe we are and view and judge other people because we are taught that way. People will trust some people over others based on race. People we baby disabled people because they have been taught that way. I think that because of are history we will always base each other off of race.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
race video post
Ricky woodie
Ethics 101
Video blog
4 September 2007
blog
In this video the author’s thesis is that because of racism in the past, whites and other races remain segregated today. The video first focuses on American citizenship, stating that you are not considered a citizen of the United States unless you were white ( white skin, hair color, stature, religion etc.). They developed scientific theories to justify who was white. An Asian man Ozawa tried to fight for his citizenship by stating that he was American because he raised himself and his family like whites. And another man had scientific proof, proving he was white. Both were denied because the gov’t stated that whiteness is what the common white person says it is. In white peoples eyes Jewish people were not white until compared to African Americans. The second part of the movie dealt with housing. After World War II many soldiers came back looking for homes to raise their family. These soldiers were both white and black. The government developed suburbs that were cheaper and were places for soldiers to live. The government decided that they didn’t want minorities moving in because it wouldn’t work socially and economically. The minorities were put into “vertical ghettos” (developments in cities) which conditions were not as good as in the suburbs. In 1968 LBJ decided this was not fair and allowed the minorities to move into the suburbs. This didn’t work out because real estate agents would pay off the whites if they would move out once the blacks and others moved in. This caused the white flight and once again we had segregation. Since whites began to move out of neighborhoods where minorities moved in, the value of the homes would go down. Thus, causing the net worth to go down for minorities and the net worth for whites to go up. This means that since the value to be white was now higher it has passed down in generations and the lower value of minorities has passed down as well.
The question for this argument is can we really end this segregation and cause equality among races? I think we can but it will take a lot of time. We have to not ignore race but except it first. Then slowly integrate races and let them realize race will not affect the economy economically. We need to slowly build up the big hole that we dug.
Once again in this video I felt disgusted. Its hard for me to see how people can be this ignorant and I was amazed by some of the things done in the past. Before this video I was not aware of the “white by law”, or how the New Deal was set up to only benefit whites. The part about how the Jews were not white until compared to blacks was funny to me because I find myself in a similar situation today. I have many friends black and white. I have friends that are on the extremes of both ends. I have white friends that are segregated for the most part and black friends that are as well. Then I also have white and black friends that get along amongst each other. My white friends on the far extreme view me as white when talking about other races and my black friends tell me I am not white when they talk down on white races, they say I am Arabic. I agree with this video that what we did in the past still causes race issues today that most of America is not aware of.
Ethics 101
Video blog
4 September 2007
blog
In this video the author’s thesis is that because of racism in the past, whites and other races remain segregated today. The video first focuses on American citizenship, stating that you are not considered a citizen of the United States unless you were white ( white skin, hair color, stature, religion etc.). They developed scientific theories to justify who was white. An Asian man Ozawa tried to fight for his citizenship by stating that he was American because he raised himself and his family like whites. And another man had scientific proof, proving he was white. Both were denied because the gov’t stated that whiteness is what the common white person says it is. In white peoples eyes Jewish people were not white until compared to African Americans. The second part of the movie dealt with housing. After World War II many soldiers came back looking for homes to raise their family. These soldiers were both white and black. The government developed suburbs that were cheaper and were places for soldiers to live. The government decided that they didn’t want minorities moving in because it wouldn’t work socially and economically. The minorities were put into “vertical ghettos” (developments in cities) which conditions were not as good as in the suburbs. In 1968 LBJ decided this was not fair and allowed the minorities to move into the suburbs. This didn’t work out because real estate agents would pay off the whites if they would move out once the blacks and others moved in. This caused the white flight and once again we had segregation. Since whites began to move out of neighborhoods where minorities moved in, the value of the homes would go down. Thus, causing the net worth to go down for minorities and the net worth for whites to go up. This means that since the value to be white was now higher it has passed down in generations and the lower value of minorities has passed down as well.
The question for this argument is can we really end this segregation and cause equality among races? I think we can but it will take a lot of time. We have to not ignore race but except it first. Then slowly integrate races and let them realize race will not affect the economy economically. We need to slowly build up the big hole that we dug.
Once again in this video I felt disgusted. Its hard for me to see how people can be this ignorant and I was amazed by some of the things done in the past. Before this video I was not aware of the “white by law”, or how the New Deal was set up to only benefit whites. The part about how the Jews were not white until compared to blacks was funny to me because I find myself in a similar situation today. I have many friends black and white. I have friends that are on the extremes of both ends. I have white friends that are segregated for the most part and black friends that are as well. Then I also have white and black friends that get along amongst each other. My white friends on the far extreme view me as white when talking about other races and my black friends tell me I am not white when they talk down on white races, they say I am Arabic. I agree with this video that what we did in the past still causes race issues today that most of America is not aware of.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
about me
As you know I am Ricky Woodie. I am a sophmore here at Bgsu and transfered from wright state last year. I am from dayton Ohio wich is 2 hrs south. I am a social guy so so fill free to talk to me and get to know me
chapter 2 post
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Chapter 2
26 August 2007
Chapter 2
When reading this chapter I feel that the author Ronald Takaki thesis is that the English are hypocrites for calling the Indians savages, when they them selves acted far more like savages then the Native Americans. The chapter starts out comparing the Indians with the Irish , stating that both groups were savages. The English said they were savages because they were not civilized. They felt that the Native Americans represented the Devil in Gods eyes. Upon arrival it seemed clear that this was not true. Takaki talks about how The Indians were very civilized and structured. They farmed well by growing plenty of crops and established seasons, so they knew when to grow and what to grow. They also kept there soil very fertile. When the English came over they took back slaves to the queen and gruesomely tortured them by ripping them apart. They made excuses for why they needed the Indians land claiming they were not using the soil and that God wanted them to take the land. When the white men began to starve they showed signs of being savages by eating dogs, cats, and even corpses, to survive. One example of how savage they were was in the begging of the chapter where Takaki says that one man murdered his pregnant wife, ripped out the child then cut her up into a bunch of pieces and ate her. The white began attacking the Indians and stealing there food. They killed and poisoned the Indians. When the Europeans brought over diseases and killed off half the Indian population, they claimed that it was Gods work. The white man slowly took over the new land and forced the Indians out, stating that they would be executed if they did not give up their land. When Thomas Jefferson became president he told the Indians that it was there fault they were ding off and would have to become farmers instead of hunters to survive. He was saying this so he could take their land once they were civilized.
This is a good argument, but it just seems too bias. The author may want to include some savage activity from the Indians, then compare them too that of the white man and show how they were no where near as savage as the white man. The author also needs to cite where he got records of these incidents so the reader knows that they are actually facts and not fiction.
When reading this chapter I agree with the authors argument and feel that the Europeans were the savages not the Indians. How they murdered the Indians and killed their own and ate them when they had no food. They raped the Indian women and tricked the Indians. They would offer the Indians poisoned wine to kill them. They chopped them up in little pieces. I knew in the past they killed off the Indians, but I never knew the details before of how they did it.
Ethics
Chapter 2
26 August 2007
Chapter 2
When reading this chapter I feel that the author Ronald Takaki thesis is that the English are hypocrites for calling the Indians savages, when they them selves acted far more like savages then the Native Americans. The chapter starts out comparing the Indians with the Irish , stating that both groups were savages. The English said they were savages because they were not civilized. They felt that the Native Americans represented the Devil in Gods eyes. Upon arrival it seemed clear that this was not true. Takaki talks about how The Indians were very civilized and structured. They farmed well by growing plenty of crops and established seasons, so they knew when to grow and what to grow. They also kept there soil very fertile. When the English came over they took back slaves to the queen and gruesomely tortured them by ripping them apart. They made excuses for why they needed the Indians land claiming they were not using the soil and that God wanted them to take the land. When the white men began to starve they showed signs of being savages by eating dogs, cats, and even corpses, to survive. One example of how savage they were was in the begging of the chapter where Takaki says that one man murdered his pregnant wife, ripped out the child then cut her up into a bunch of pieces and ate her. The white began attacking the Indians and stealing there food. They killed and poisoned the Indians. When the Europeans brought over diseases and killed off half the Indian population, they claimed that it was Gods work. The white man slowly took over the new land and forced the Indians out, stating that they would be executed if they did not give up their land. When Thomas Jefferson became president he told the Indians that it was there fault they were ding off and would have to become farmers instead of hunters to survive. He was saying this so he could take their land once they were civilized.
This is a good argument, but it just seems too bias. The author may want to include some savage activity from the Indians, then compare them too that of the white man and show how they were no where near as savage as the white man. The author also needs to cite where he got records of these incidents so the reader knows that they are actually facts and not fiction.
When reading this chapter I agree with the authors argument and feel that the Europeans were the savages not the Indians. How they murdered the Indians and killed their own and ate them when they had no food. They raped the Indian women and tricked the Indians. They would offer the Indians poisoned wine to kill them. They chopped them up in little pieces. I knew in the past they killed off the Indians, but I never knew the details before of how they did it.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
zinn
In my opinion, I felt that the authors thesis was, that
we should not just except history for the way the government
teaches us to, but for how it really was (tell history as those
executed would tell it, not the executioner). The author goes
back into time to tell how the history of Columbus really was.
He tells us how Columbus first reached the Caribbean islands
where he sought off for slaves and gold. How he would cut off
the slaves hands who tried to escape. Zinn then goes on to talk
about the arrival into America how the native Americans were
forced from their land. He asks the question if this was blood
shed was necessary for human progress. Could the Europeans have
survived with out killing of a race of people. And were other
events in our history necessary for human progress such as
slavery in the United States or the bombings in Japan in World
War II.
He then ends his argument letting us know that America had a
large population before Columbus came. He said that they were
very settled and customized before Europeans came and forced
them out.
Were actions in the past necessary to for progress? This seems
to be the argument the author is stating and to answer that
question, you would have to look at the future. The author
should state other alternatives to what we should have done
(Americans) to better ourselves in a non harmful way. And he
needs to state these alternatives to argue how we would have
bettered ourselves without harm to others.
In my opinion, I think it all comes down to survival of the
fittest. I do not agree with everything that us Americans have
done in the past. I don’t think we needed slavery at all or
segregation and think that was wicked on our part. I do not
agree with what we did to the native Americans but wonder how
over populated Europe would have been today if we did not. All
in all we must do what we have to in order to survive.
we should not just except history for the way the government
teaches us to, but for how it really was (tell history as those
executed would tell it, not the executioner). The author goes
back into time to tell how the history of Columbus really was.
He tells us how Columbus first reached the Caribbean islands
where he sought off for slaves and gold. How he would cut off
the slaves hands who tried to escape. Zinn then goes on to talk
about the arrival into America how the native Americans were
forced from their land. He asks the question if this was blood
shed was necessary for human progress. Could the Europeans have
survived with out killing of a race of people. And were other
events in our history necessary for human progress such as
slavery in the United States or the bombings in Japan in World
War II.
He then ends his argument letting us know that America had a
large population before Columbus came. He said that they were
very settled and customized before Europeans came and forced
them out.
Were actions in the past necessary to for progress? This seems
to be the argument the author is stating and to answer that
question, you would have to look at the future. The author
should state other alternatives to what we should have done
(Americans) to better ourselves in a non harmful way. And he
needs to state these alternatives to argue how we would have
bettered ourselves without harm to others.
In my opinion, I think it all comes down to survival of the
fittest. I do not agree with everything that us Americans have
done in the past. I don’t think we needed slavery at all or
segregation and think that was wicked on our part. I do not
agree with what we did to the native Americans but wonder how
over populated Europe would have been today if we did not. All
in all we must do what we have to in order to survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)