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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)