Norviel's Analysis of Cleveland, Home of the...

1. The artist's main idea for this piece of art is to show the offensiveness of the Cleveland Indian's logo, and how it is racially stereotypical. By using the same face and simply changing minor details to it such as facial hair, clothing, skin color and hair the artist is trying to give people a taste of what it would be like if their stereotypical image was used as a mascot or sports symbol.

2. There are many different images that the artist uses, so he is directing his work towards people of many different cultures and races, wanting to put them in the Native Americans shoes. His image of the Gangsta shows a very dark skinned male, with a grill on his teeth, a bandanna and hat on his head, along with very large lips. The Chinese image of the man with a hat, facial hair, and a large smile on his face is supposed to represent the Chinese people as being pushovers and non aggressive, much like how they are described in Wu's writing "Yellow". The stereotype for Germans is shown as a guy that resembles Hitler, and is wearing a swastika around his neck, making the German people look like they are all Nazi's and heartless people. The Irish is shown as a drunken man wearing a hat with a shamrock on it and missing teeth, making the Irish appear to be ones who do a lot of fighting and drinking. In all of these examples the images that are used to represent each group of people are very negative images, and ones that when people would see them without the label written under them people would still know what group it is supposed to represent. The reason for the Indian as the emblem for the Cleveland baseball team is because Native Americans are thought to be strong people and fighters. They are looked at as people who take no prisoners and can act savagely. This image is used to make the team itself look strong, unlike how they would look if their mascot were something like a squirrel.

3. Why did the Indians change from the spiders? Who picked out the mascot/image of the Indian to represent the Cleveland team? Are there any other offensive sports logos that people have somewhat overlooked like this one?

4. It's not right for people to use stereotypical images of a specific group of people to represent all people. In many cases the representation is really only a justified representation of for a handful of these group members. I never saw the Indians symbol as being potentially offensive to Native Americans, and have never even heard anyone mention it. It would be weird to see a different mascot and to hear a different name for the Cleveland Indians team. I do not think that it is chosen to be offensive, but rather in respect to the Indians for being a strong group of people, a group that the team owners may even admire for their fight and drive without giving up.

Norviel's Scientific Racism Review

1. The author states at the end of the chapter that "This chapter has focused on the various ways in which late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century scientific discourses on race provided a logic through which sexologists and other medical 'experts' articulated emerging models of homosexuality in the United States." In other words, it is about the different reasons and theories as to how homosexuality came about, and also the impact race may have on it according to past writers.

2. This piece starts out with explaining how sexology even came about. Since there were people who were acting out of their gender norms, and having relations with same sex partners, people were interested in why this was happening and started conducting studies and tests to try and find the reason being homosexuality. Throughout this reading the author explains many different views that different sexologists have on the development of homosexuals in our society. One reason given was based on race. He discussed the terms monogeny and polygeny. Monogeny is the theory that all races originated from the same species and descended from common ancestors, while polygeny means that different races came from different species and are biologically different from one another. There were said to be visible differences in black and white people's genitalia. African American males were found to have larger genitals that white males. Males were not the main focus of study though, women were. The sexologist said that white women's genitalia was "normal" and that black, and homosexual womens were not because they were much larger and had different shape. They described the abnormal genitalia as being a smaller version of a males, and that could be the reason for homosexuals, having somewhat bisexual body parts. The author describes a piece of writing from "Cult of True Womanhood" saying that "racial ideologies of the nineteenth century explicitly privileged white women's sexual purity while implicitly suggesting African American women's sexual accessibility; basically saying that black women were "loose" (for lack of a better term), or more willing to have sexual relations. Somerville also explains the idea of "butch-femme" which he describes to be "as a particular construction of lesbian desire", talking about a lesbians desire for another woman, rather than for a man.

3. Are there more black homosexuals or white homosexuals in the U.S. today? Could homosexuals be classified as being "another species" or from another species, like they say that people of different race are?

4. I thought the topic was an interesting one; however I did not fully understand this reading and was lost at times. Some of the terms and language I am not familiar with so it was hard to follow sometimes. It had convincing evidence for it's points, and many references. All of the references made it somewhat hard to tell if that is the author's belief or someone else's. In many lesbian couples there is still a "man" and a "woman" role in the relationship, where one may act like a guy while the other acts much like any other girl; this confuses me. If this were going to be the case in a relationship, then why does the lesbian that plays the 'female' part not just date a man?

Norviel's Challenge to Democracy

1. In this video the main idea is to show the lives that were set up by the U.S. Government for the Japanese in America. It shows what they did, and what the living conditions were like for them.

2. "A Challenge to Democracy" was about the Japanese people, whether American born or their ancestors that migrated to America, and how the U.S. government set up relocation centers for them to live in during the time of the war. Most of the evacuees were American born. They lived with their families in blocks; there were about 300 people per block. They had food provided for them in mess halls, which had both American and Japanese dishes to please those who were either American born or born in Japan. The government set up land for the people in the centers to farm. The crops that they grew were used in the center, or sent to other centers who were out of season for a specific crop; but their crops were not put out on the market. Different centers needed different tasks done, such as logging and road work. Jobs were provided for people in the centers doing these types of jobs and were paid to do the work. The centers were made very "homey" for the evacuees. There were even schools and barber shops set up for them. In the high schools, the students were taught different jobs such as welding and farming, so when getting out of the center they would have an easier time finding jobs. Church services were available to the people in the centers also. Many of the aliens were booted out, but most of the native born Japanese had a type of religion. There was also voting that they could participate in, they had their own democracy within their centers. There was a need for workers in sugar beet fields, so many people in the center volunteered to work in the fields, so they were the first people to get to leave the center; although it was usually a temporary leave then they would return to the center. Loyal Americans were free to leave whenever, while some people were not eligible to leave. Those where weren't eligible were placed in one center for the remainder of the war. After being released from the center many of the Japanese people went out and got regular jobs all over the country. Many of the Japanese who were were not evacuated joined the U.S. Army, fighting against militarism and repression of Japan and Germany. They were fighting for American ideas and ways, which was their upbringing.

3. Were the Japanese evacuated because the Americans did not fully trust the Japanese, so they put them in centers so that the government could keep their eyes on them? Were the Japanese people fine with being put in these centers?

4. I found the video interesting. I had know idea that there were relocation centers set up during the war for Japanese people. I also thought it was a good thing the government did by having so many things for them to do in the centers to make their lives feel as normal as possible; also preparing them for when the war was over and they were allowed to leave the centers. I did not catch on to why exactly the Japanese were evacuated from their homes, or why only ones in certain areas were evacuated.

Norviel's Pacific Crossings

1. The author is talking about the want and eagerness the Japanese people had to be a part of the New World, America. Even though they were not treated the best they still wanted the chance to be a part of something great, something up-and-coming.

2. Takaki writes about the experiences the Japanese people had when leaving their home country to come to America. They were excited to see this new way of life, a way to make money and live more prosperously. The Japanese migrants were leaving their homes and families, to which they would probably never see again. He talked about the "picture brides", which were women who were sent from their home country to America to be with an arranged husband whom they have never even met. The young girls were usually very excited about their journey to the "new world", not because they necessarily wanted to be with their husband, but because they were eager to see this new and better way of life. Many of these new workers had similar jobs in America, that they had back home. They worked hard, long hours out in the fields. Under the sun, with no breeze, Takaki described the undesirable conditions that these people worked under. Much like the blacks, these foreigners were discriminated against as well. They were enslaved and made to do hard manual labor as well. Unlike the blacks, at least this group of people were normally kept with their families, because the owners thought that men with families were more valuable workers so their living conditions were somewhat better than what the blacks had to live in. Later on, even though the Japanese were free and were allowed to own land and property, in many cases they were discriminated against and were denied certain homes in certain neighborhoods.

3. Why would these people continue to come to America if their lives really were not made as easy as they thought? Were these people thankful for their new opportunities that they were given; since they could have been denied or turned away from this new world and way of life?

4. I didn't really like this reading that much. It is really long and drawn out, as well as somewhat boring, making you lose interest in the reading. It was somewhat confusing also because one minute he would talk about how the Japanese were so excited to go and make money and have new and better opportunities, and then the next minute he made it seem like their lives were not so great, and they were treated as slaves. Then it would go back to them being free and being able to purchase land and work. I did like the fact that it was about a different minority group rather than just African Americans, because that can get kind of redundant.

Norviel's A&F Analysis

1. The author's main idea of this piece of writing is to make people aware of the hidden meaning and discrimination that Abercrombie and Fitch is based on. He is saying that A&F is a racially discriminating clothing line, and only directs its advertising to a very specific group of people. For the reasons that I will explain later, is the reasons as to why McBride claims to hate A&F.

2. McBride starts off by talking about how the company of Abercrombie and Fitch was started. He explains that from the beginning A&F was where the wealthier group of people would go for their clothing. Because of this early trend, Abercrombie and Fitch clothing still is used to represent people who come from money, based solely on the name that is displayed on their shirts. McBride says later that people are not buying clothes, but are buying a membership into a lifestyle; an expensive lifestyle. McBride talks about the Abercrombie "look" that people who work for and model for this company must have. There are many rules that must be followed to be an Abercrombie and Fitch employee, that seem to be very unnecessary. A&F is thought to be solely for white, straight, wealthy, good-looking people. He states examples of different instances when black, and/or gay people were not hired or were treated worse than those employees who were not gay or black.

3. If A&F were represented more by only blacks, or gays would it be as big of a deal and analyzed as much? If McBride were really wealthy would he wear this clothing brand also? Or its equivalents such as Hollister or Banana Republic? When A&F was first established, was the criteria that managers looked for in potential employees as strict as now? Was Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Fitch racists?

4. I have always found it odd that in the catalog for this CLOTHING company, none of the models are even wearing the clothes that they are attempting to sell. This obviously shows that they are basically just selling the image of sex and attractiveness, somehow persuading people to buy their clothes. Even though it seems a little silly that there is such a critique that must be followed when working for A&F, if that is what the owners of the company want then why should it be changed? I have seen plenty of black people wearing A&F clothing, so I have never even given the issue of racial discrimination as a part of this clothing style a thought.

Norviel's Kindred Association

I really enjoyed reading the novel Kindred. I was an easy read and was an interesting story and way of explaining slavery. This book related to many other readings/videos that we did in class. In the Richard Wright reading "Race, Class, and Gender in the United States" it relates to Kindred because the boy in Wright's writing learned how he was to act towards and around whites, much like Dana in Kindred. Dana had to learn the Jim Crow laws, much like the young boy. They were expected to address whites as master, Mrs., Mr, etc. They were neither one allowed to stand up for themselves against whites. When Dana tried to stand up for herself she got whipped, while the young boy was threatened and ended up quitting his job instead of telling the boss about his white co-workers' behavior.
In The Race Part II, it talks about how blacks were used to do work, replacing indentured servants. They decided to use blacks because if they were to run away they would be easier to identify. This goes along with the Kindred reading because there were patrol men who would ride around and look for blacks, slaves. The patrol men would assume that any black person they saw unattended was a potential runaway slave.
In the video "Eyes on the Prize" it relates to Kindred in the aspect of learning. In the movie 19 black kids were enrolled in high school. The white people did not like this and would riot outside of the schools, and threaten the blacks. Much like the movie, in Kindred, the slave owners did not want the blacks learning either. In both cases, if the blacks were to learn like the whites then the white people would not longer be as superior; the white people feared this.
Kindred also relates to the reading "Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance". Much like my previous example about the learning. In Johnson's writing he has a section called Blame the Victim, in this section he talks about how maybe if the slaves were capable of learning then their lives would be better; basically saying that the whites are doing the blacks a favor by enslaving them, because without the whites help in this way then the blacks would not be able to survive. As I said before, this relates to Kindred in the way that the slave owners would not let the blacks learn.

Norviel's Asian Attitude

1. The main thesis to the writing "Yellow" by Frank Wu is that he is saying that when it comes to race people only think of blacks and whites. There is no talk about Asians (those with yellow skin) and they are pretty much over-looked by society. Although a person's skin color should not matter, it still somewhat plays a part in our world today. Wu is saying that being classified as a minority, like those who are African American, is better than having no class or social standing at all.
2. Wu starts off his writing by saying that people want to believe that each individual is just as important as the next, no matter what their skin color is; but Wu is not fooled by this and says that even though people want to think this is so, it really is not how things are. He talks about how "Americans believe in a heroic myth from the nineteenth century, whereby moving to the frontier gives a person a new identity", meaning that at that time things had changed and that everyone was considered equal, even though they were not all treated the same. He talks about some of his person experiences of not knowing his place in society being an Asian and not a black or white person. One of his experiences was when he was going to ride the bus and did now know where he should sit. The front was filled with whites, while the back was occupied by the blacks. Knowing that he did not really belong to either group he was confused as to what he should do. He says that people who are not like them are not acknowledged, and are oblivious to them. Meaning that Whites acknowledge Whites, Blacks acknowledge Blacks, and Asians acknowledge Asians. Although race is thought to be only Black and White, there is a gray area there too that people do not think of, those with yellow skin.
3. Where would Asians like to be classified? Maybe by not being put into a black or white group is better, since they still get minority benefits but are not thought to be over-privileged.
4. I like the examples that Wu used in his writing, such as the one about the motorcyclists in his oblivious example. His writing was simple but still made you think, and got his point across. He almost seems to be complaining too much and in a way makes him seem like he thinks he wants to be classified in a group, after saying that race shouldn't be the reason of how people are treated but rather by their individual characteristics. Overall the reading was not too bad, and with being short it was much easier to pay attention, but I believe I was still able to understand the issue he was addressing.

Norviel's Eyes on the Prize Opinion

1. In the movie Eyes on the Prize, the creator of this video wanted to show what the blacks went through in order to get some of the privileges and rights that whites had that the African Americans didn’t. Even though they were said to be “free”, without the same treatment and luxuries as the whites, they felt as though they were still nothing more than slaves.
2. The movie began with the story of a 14 year old boy named Emmett Till. The boy was not from around Mississippi, and while he was there he was told to say something to a white woman in a store. After telling the woman “bye” he was threatened by a man. Later the boy’s body was found mangled and shot in a river, all of this just for talking to a white woman. The husband of the woman and her brother-in-law were accused of the murder, but were found not guilty. The inequalities of the blacks were then focused on and demonstrated when showing the separate water fountains for blacks and whites, as well as the segregation of buses. Whites were to sit in the front while blacks were allowed to sit in the back, unless there were more whites then the blacks were required to give up their seat to the white person. Later in the movie it talked about what happened in Little Rock. The Little Rock high school was to integrate and allow a few black students into the school. The whites rioted outside of the school, and the police didn’t allow the blacks into the school. The U.S. president took matters into his own hands and assigned the National Guard to escort the black students into the school, while each black student was assigned a personal guard who walked them to each class. After accomplishing some integration within high schools, the African Americans then started attending colleges. There were special seating for blacks and whites so the black students decided to sit in the seats that were set for whites and had a sit in to prove their point.
3. What would have been the result if the blacks hadn’t decided not to use violence in order to get their rights, and started killing and rioting? Weren’t the white parents afraid to send their kids to school too with the rioting?
4. I enjoyed the movie for the most part. It was nice to see the different views of people that actually experienced what the movie was talking about. It gave us a better understanding and personal feel to what the blacks did to accomplish their equality goals. I couldn’t imagine living during that time, and sending my kids to a school where there were people outside with guns and wanting to kill potential students. Even if they were not after my child, accidents still happen, and you never know what people will do when they get fired up. School now is scary enough with all of the random shootings that no one anticipates, let alone knowing everyday that when you try to go to school you may be shot or killed in another way.

Norviel's Ethics of Living

1. In the writing The Ethics of Living Jim Crow, the author is describes the rules and ways of living that African Americans were expected to follow. If they wanted to live and make a living among whites then they had to obey the unwritten rules that the white men created for them. Those African Americans who stepped out of line were often punished for supposedly disrespecting the whites.
2. This piece of writing followed a short time period of a young black boy’s life. It describes the lessons that the boy had to experience throughout part of his life of how to act, speak to, and work for whites. In the beginning he finds that after being cut by a broken glass bottle, that was thrown at him by a white boy while having a war, that his mother was non-sympathetic like he expected she would be. Rather she punished the boy, she wanted him to learn the right way to behave if he were ever going to survive in a world that he was an inferior part of. She knew what she was talking about because she has learned throughout her life how to get along with whites in order to provide food and other necessities for her family. Later when the boy had his first job and was accused of not addressing a white man properly, he learned to keep his mouth shut and to become submissive to what the whites wanted from him; he left his job without saying a word to the boss, even though the white men were ordered to teach him things. He knew better than to talk back. With each new job and as his life went on he learned the tricks that would keep him out of trouble and keep him alive as well. When he was unsure of the proper response to make toward a white person he found ways out of having to make any gesture at all, like when he was unable to remove his hat while in the elevator and the white man took it off for him. He knew he wasn’t really supposed to thank him, so rather than having to say or do anything he pretended to lose his sturdy hold on his packages so that the white man would understand that he was preoccupied with other matters.
3. Why did the group of white men in the car that offered him a ride say that he was lucky that he talked to them that way instead of someone else, why didn’t they treat him the same way that they thought other people would? Why didn’t the whites who had a soft spot for the blacks try harder to help them out?
4. Overall I liked the reading. I liked that it was more of a story rather than simply just facts. It gave it a more personal feel and made it more interesting to read and held the readers attention better.

No Real Freedom According to Norviel

1. The main point that Zinn is trying to get across in “Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom” is that even though after a lot of struggling to be free, the African Americans were not given the same rights and privileges that the white’s had.
2. In the beginning of the reading Zinn talks about the hardships and abuse that the slaves were put through. They were separated from their families at all ages, not know if they were ever going to see each other ever again. They were then forced to work in fields and in homes for their white owners, with only whippings and little food given to them in return for their hard labor. In the reading Zinn quotes another, saying that by the blacks raising their children to be slaves is only adding to their situation, and that they too are responsible for what they are put through by bringing their children in the world to go through the same things that they are. Later on in the reading the author talks about Lincoln working to grant the slaves their freedom. Although they were said to be “free men” and did not have to work for the white men anymore, they were not granted the same rights as the whites were. They were still not allowed to bear arms, own land, and were paid less for doing the same work that a white man is doing. At the end of the writing Zinn questions the motive of Was Du Bois. He asks if the growth of capitalism is in a way making not only blacks but whites slaves of their own country. Since capitalism is such a major focus point in America, people are forced to work and produce profit in order to ensure their survival, much like slavery.
3. Does Zinn not think that we have made any progress, that slavery has just been masked but not really completely abolished? If the focus on capitalism was not made into a main focus what would our country be like today? Would people live more equally, and would we be as advanced as we are not?
4. I personally was not all that overly fond of the reading. It was rather boring and had too many quotes in it, that at times seemed to be quite pointless.

Norviel's Analysis Paper Exercise

I am going to use Johnson chapter 3 and Takaki chapter 3. My position according to these writings is that I agree that race and gender do in deed play a factor in privilege in the sake of capitalism.

Johnson

• After the war, white capitalists would use the Chinese immigrants’ need to work to their advantage, using them for cheap labor.
• Created “whiteness” to employ less privileged whites for low wages
• Mexican immigrants hired over whites because they could pay them less
• People who are disabled were placed under those who weren’t disabled, which gave them little opportunity for challenge or advancement
• Women were thought of as inferior, and that the work they do isn’t really work

Takaki

• The English, rather than employ other whites to do their work, they enslaved the blacks to do the work for free.
• The new settlers took over the Indian’s land because they felt the Indians were inferior to them.

Norviel's view of Differences

1. The author’s main idea in this reading is describing the numerous different classes in which people are placed or associated with. He talks about the way these classes came about, and how they are not “real” classes, but rather something that people have made up in order to make themselves look better than others, as well as distinguish them from others whom they do not want to be associated with.
2. The authors start off their piece by describing how people are associated with multiple social statuses. An example the author used for this is that “a person can be an office manager, a college graduate, and a cousin simultaneously”. Rosenblum and Travis then go on to talk about how there are master statuses that are used to “really” identify people, such as being male/female, gay/straight, white/black; these are said to be a person’s “personal identity” even though they are not the only ones who classify themselves under this identity. They describe the differences of essentialists (observers of something that is) and constructionists (creator of what something is). The authors then talk about naming, and how when a person claims a specific identity, they are also rejecting the possibility of others identifying them differently. When classifying ones’ self in a particular group, not all members of that group will use the same name to describe themselves, that is because most categories have multiple names so people chose the one that they want to be identified as. And just because a person uses one name to identify themselves does not mean that everyone will cooperate with this and use that name as well.

Individuals and groups are not the only ones who have created categories in which people are places, the government creates categories as well. Combining people into a group is called aggregating, while disaggregation involves the process of fragmenting its constituents according to their nation-origin.

Later the authors bring about the concept of dichotomizing, which is dividing something into only two different groups. People often think that there are two groups, which each person can belong to either one or the other, never both. An example of this in association to race is classifying people as either white or non-white. People who are of mixed race (ex. White and Black), are automatically identified as being African American rather than simply American. Dichotomizing is also used in sexual orientation (gay/straight), and sex (male/female). In this way, the authors describe how these different social classifications are brought about in a very similar way.

3. If people do not like being “classified” then why do they self classify themselves into different categories? Do homosexuals, females, and people of different ethnicity actually like being in a separate class of their opposites? How many people actually classify people who are different?
4. The writing was overall very informative but I felt that it was too long and drawn out. By the last quarter or more of the writing I was losing interest and caught myself zoning out. I did like the examples the authors used to show what they were talking about more effectively though.

Analysis Paper #1 Idea

For my Analysis paper #1 I am thinking about using the different writings about the Indians, and the African Americans and comparing their experiences with the Whites. I will show the differences and similarities of how they were each treated and how they were both viewed by the whites. I plan to use Zinn's writings of A People's History of the United States chapters one and two.

I Liked Johnson's writing better than any of the others that we have used, so I would actually like to try to do my paper on his chapters instead of Zinn ; but I'm having a problem coming up with a good topic for my paper using his writings. So if you have any suggestions I'd appreciate it!!

Norviel's Comparison

The author is stating how she feels that all of these different minority groups claim that they want to be treated equally, like everyone else, and continually bring it up. She doesn't see why they keep digging up issues, such as slavery, and using it as excuses as to why they may have a bad life. Barnes does not feel sorry for them. One reason she doesn't feel sorry for them is because she believes that everyone does have a choice in their path through life. Another reason she does not sympathize minorities with this excuse is also because in most cases people have the same chances and opportunities as everyone else so their color and ethnicity does not play a factor in their bad luck like they play it off to be. It is not only race that the author addresses, she even comments on a major gender issue. This issue is the complaining of women, saying that they are not treated equally. To the author, this is not an argument that is valid these days, and seems to think that men are actually treated worse than women these days. She thinks this because of the negative roles men always seem to play in Lifetime movies and other television shows. Another opinion that she comments on is the fact that different groups do not want different treatment, but yet they feel the need to announce their differences to others.
Barnes' article relates to Johnson in the Sick and Tired perspective. Both are talking about how some things are just brought up to often and go on for too long, which makes people sick of hearing about it. Sarah has had enough of hearing about how whites, heterosexuals, and males get treated better than everyone else. It's an issue that has been around for a long time and as far as she is concerned it has been resolved so there is no reason to continually bring it up.

Ethnic Notions Restated by Norviel

1. The main idea of Ethnic Notions is that the way people of other ethnicities, mostly blacks in this case, are portrayed by whites in a negative and exaggerated way. Although this is an old film it's views are somewhat still with us today.

2. In the film it shows caricatures of blacks having excessively dark black skin and exaggerated facial features such as lips and bulging eyes. These views are said to be how the white people see the African Americans, and how they are "ugly". In commercials of black slaves it shows the slaves smiling and singing, as if they were happy to be doing what they were doing, when in fact these images were not true. There were many different views of blacks such as the Mammy for example. The mammy was shown as a large, unattractive black woman who would tend after the master's children and home. The Sambo was a laughing black man who was supposed to represent the immaturity and childlike contempt of the African Americans, making them look as if their lack of education made them simple minded and easily entertained. Coon was another of the many labels put on blacks, which once again was a negative image. Once the slaves were free in the northern states, people said that the slaves missed their labor and missed being slaves. Without the white control they were said to have went back to their savagely ways of life in which they were said to have descended from.

3. Did blacks have a negative image of whites that they made up/designed? How many of these images are still in the media and around us today?

4. This movie actually showed images that I remember seeing similar ones from cartoons from when I was a lot younger. Overall the video was impressionable and brought about many topics. I liked how they showed all of the many different labels that blacks had throughout history. I love Aunt Jemima pancakes, and never thought about the logo on the front as being racial until this video, it helped me to realize and notice things around me more and to start to think about these things in a more curious way.

Norviel's Positive View on What It All Has to Do with Us

1. Johnson's main idea for the piece What It All Has to Do with Us is that even though if we do not realize it or purposely allow the fact that racism, sexism, and homophobia happen around us, we are in fact a part of it. Just because we are not the ones who are intentionally inflicting these bias opinions and actions upon others does not mean that we are not at all part of this ongoing problem.

2. This writing is about how everyone, even the silent person plays a major role in how others are treated. Just because we do not negatively about other groups like other people do, by not doing anything about it at all in fact does do a lot. As in Johnson's example of not purposely buying shirts from other countries that are paying the workers very little for their labor of the shirts, by not ceasing to buy these items is in a way saying that you support the people who believe it is o.k. to pay these overworked women and children little for what they do. People are afraid to stand out from other people, and feel most comfortable just blending in with the rest of the world, Johnson calls this "the path of least resistance". He exemplifies this path when talking about his experience of riding on an elevator facing backwards, which he could tell was causing people to feel uncomfortable and weird being in this situation. People act differently depending on the situation they are in. While playing Monopoly the author describes his total change in personality going from someone who in his normal everyday life as someone who is nice and not greedy, to someone who wants to control the board and take everything from everyone else. He says this is because that is what the game is meant for, so in other words people act in a way that they are supposed to based on the situation they are presented in.

3. Why do people feel so forced to blend in? What is wrong with being different and standing out? How is it decided on what is socially acceptable and what is not?

4. I enjoyed this reading. I felt that Johnson used very good examples that people could understand and relate to. He made his points clear with these examples making the reading continue to hold my attention. I found the topic and his views both to be interesting, because this writing is on something that I have not really ever given much thought about before, even though it is something that everyone encounters on a daily basis. The reading was short but yet still held a lot of information that was easy to understand and enjoyable to read.

Norviel's View on A People's History of the United States

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

1. I personally could not quite figure out a clear view or thought that the author was attempting to convince the reader of. For the most part I thought the writer mostly just stated how things were, which I guess is what he is trying to convince us of. Zinn is mainly just wanting us to see that just because the American's were superior to their slaves and servants, there was still a fear of them they felt.

2. Howard Zinn's writing was done so in a way as to make us see what they American's thought as they were establishing themselves, along with the harsh conditions that they imposed upon their slaves. He showed us the inhumanly ways in which we bestowed upon the African slaves such as treating them as if they were no more than livestock, buying and selling them for our own profit and labor. Along with that, the slaves were put in such terrible conditions that only 1/3rd of the African Americans taken from their home to be sold as slaves actually made it there! They were packed tightly together in small spaces where they were forced to reside with their own feces and with corpses of other slaves. Once again, we are shown how we are the ones who acted savagely, when we accused people of other cultures who did far less savage things as being savages.
Zinn also talked about at the beginning, how we were not all powerful as we tried to be. The Indians knew more about the land and how to survive that what the Americans did, and they were not overpowered by the American's weapons or confidence. In the reading when it talks about how the Americans would just kill the Indians I think it was out of frustration, that they were embarrassed that they were unable to live as successfully as the Indians could, who they thought so poorly of. In order to try and get their dignity back they would murder the Indians to try to show their dominance over them.

3. This reading made me wonder what would have happened if the slaves and the white servants would have been successful with their attempts to overpower and overthrow their "owners"? I also have wondered if the blacks were in the position that the whites were in, if they were the ones who were thought to be superior and more powerful, would they have done the same thing? Would they have enslaved the whites for their own good?

4. I found Zinn's writing to be somewhat biased. He talks negatively about the American's the entire time. I'm sure there were some whites who did not treat their slaves as horrible as others, and I'm sure there were some who did not even believe in owning slaves but rather worked their own land. Overall the reading was easy to understand, but seems somewhat redundant to what we have been reading. For the most part Zinn did not add anything to his writing that we have not heard before.

I originally posted this in the wrong blog!!

Norviel's View on Capitalism, Class, and Domination

1. According to the author, his thesis is based upon the belief that racism as we know it today was brought about by economics and capitalism. Johnson uses the quote "This means that the central place of economics in social life gives individuals and systems powerful reasons to go along with the dominant economic system. Capitalism has been that system for the last sever hundred years, and since the demise of the Soviet Union, it's virtually the only game in town" (Johnson 42). By this quote he is saying that the only reason people have been classified into different groups such as race and class is largely due to the ever-growing importance of economy.

2. The author states that Capitalists goal is to take money and turn it into more money. In order to accomplish this you need plenty of people to help make more money, this is what brought about the different class issue. People of the "higher class", who were typically white males that owned land and already had money, were those who did not have to do the work but got the profit from it. They hired people who were thought to be lower class to produce the goods and were payed a small amount for their time and services. The workers were payed as little as possible so that the capitalists themselves would have more money to live on from the product profit. The workers were pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place because in order to make a living and be able to buy products for themselves and their families from one capitalist they had to work for another capitalist, so the rich keep getting richer. It was practically impossible to move up in class. In order to attempt moving up in class families were relying on 2 wage earners, and some of those people were working two or more low paying jobs.
Making a living and getting jobs was particularly difficult for minority groups such as women and people of color or different ethnicity. At first millions of African Americans were enslaved, so they were doing work with no pay but for food and housing in return. The invention of the cotton gin was not a positive step like you would assume it would be. With the ability to produce more cotton you would assume that the capitalists would want to help out their fellow man and provide jobs for them so that they could earn a living, but rather than doing that the capitalists just enslaved more people so they would be able to keep all of their profits without having to pay someone for the work. The capitalist used their power to inflict fear into their workers so that they would not demand higher wages, because if they did then they would lose their job.
Johnson describes the idea of privileges and those without privileges. Using different classifications such as gender, color, and sexual preference was used either for or against an individual. Those who were the most privileged were white, heterosexual males, the most underprivileged were colored lesbian women. They would give or take points away from a person based on these categories which would be used to classify that person, this was the "matrix of domination".

3. People today look down on this way of living in which we read, so how are we getting by with doing practically the same thing now? People are still put into classes, and people are still getting more privileges than others.
What would it be like now if we did not emphasize so much on economy?
Would the world be better today if "class" was never thought of?


4. The fact that people had no way of improving their personal standing did not seem fair. The thought that the rich got richer and the poor poorer seems like a vicious circle to me. I think that if class was never brought about then there would be less problems in the world. If everyone was paid the same for different jobs then people would be more likely to go into a career in which they truly love, rather than a job that they only like because it pays more. If people are able to do the jobs that they love, then those jobs would be done to a better quality.
I would have thought that the capitalists would want to take pride in themselves and offer workers the opportunity to earn more money and get jobs with the invention of the cotton gin. Instead they were more worried about their own wealth so they brought in more slaves, which made living harder on the white working class. I feel that now we take better care of people from other countries than we do our own people. For an example, here at Bowling Green they give discounts and scholarships based on ethnicity and race, this shows that "class" still plays a factor today just not in the same way as before. Shouldn't the scholarships be based solely on financial need, no matter what your ethnic background may be? I know people of different ethnicity who come from families that are considered to be "better off" than mine, but they are the ones who are having to pay less for school.
I felt that it was not right that the capitalists were so greedy and would pay as little as possible. This is still a problem today to an extent. People would rather hire someone whom they can get away with paying less just so they do not have to part with a few more dollars even when they can afford it. So today greed is still a major factor in our lives and way of living.
Overall I thought that this reading was effective, it was not that long but it brought up many good points that made you think. I had already learned the more general view of most of these topics, so this went into a little more depth to give us a better understanding. It is based on the past, but it's issues are still present today.

Norviel's Thoughts on Race

1. The main topic of this video is about how we classify different races, and if the methods or criteria we use for classification is legitimate. Throughout the entire streaming the narrators continually say that there are no biological or scientific difference between people of different skin color, therefore all humans are scientifically almost identical.

2. The video shows a classroom experiment that contains outcomes that are very different than what we would expect them to be. Most of us think that someone of African American decent has DNA most similar to someone else who is African American, but the student's experiment proved this to be wrong. The African American male in the experiment was more compatible with a Caucasian girl than he was with an African American girl. There is no genetic gene for skin color. Humans are genetically more similar than any other species, between one fruit fly to another there is a much greater genetic difference than there is between two humans. There are multiple ways in which people pick apart others in order to try and classify them into a race group. Some of those differences in which people use are eye shape, hair form, skull size, hand texture, brain color, and facial slants. According to Eugenics you do not want to mix race, because you do now want to lower the quality of civilization. There is no way to measure race and there is no way to isolate a gene for any complex traits such as athletic or musical ability, and you do not find these traits in one specific "race". It wa said that geography has a much greater impact on genes than skin color does. Eugenics posed restricted measures on races, due to the idea of hierarchy, in which these measures were carried out. An example of the carrying out of these was when the Nazi's took over and killed many Jews.

3. Who defines race? What is your opinion of race and how do you personally define it?

4. I found the movie to be interesting and surprising. Like the students in the film I thought that there would be more of a genetic difference between people of different skin color, and that people of similar skin color would be more alike than those of obviously different skin color. When classifying race I personally go by skin color and facial features such as the shape of the eyes and nose, as do most people. After watching this video I feel now that race is more of a made-up thought that people have developed in order to group individuals together to feel that they are more different than what they really are.

Who really acted savagely? Norviel

1. The author's main point in this piece is to help us better understand the differences between the ways of different cultures. The differences in the way each group viewed and utilized the land, and the different ways they treated one another. Takaki is trying to convince the reader that the English believed that they were more superior than any other group of people, not only people with a different skin color like the Indians, but also people of the same skin color with different views and beliefs than their own such as the Italians.

2. The English were very closed minded, they did not care to hear how the Indians wanted to share the land or how to go about using the land in a profitable way that would not destroy it. They pushed the Indians out of their own land and destroyed their homes, showing their greed and hunger for control. The new land of the America's was built on the foundation of hatred and death. When John Smith arrived the Indians were kind enough to try and help him and his men survive since they were unprepared in how to survive themselves. Smith did not return their kindness and generosity in the end by "tricking" them into giving up more and more of their land to the English to use. The English men were too concerned in ownership rather than sharing, thinking that sharing land and food was nonsense. When many of the Indians died from diseases that the English brought over to their land, the English thought that even God believed them to be superior by killing the Indians off to make more room for them. Their conceitedness is shown when they established the social structure not allowing the Irishmen to wear clothes like theirs or own weapons like theirs. They did not allow the Irish to own land or have any say in their government.

3. Would the world be different today if the English would have been happy sharing the land with the Indians rather than feeling the need to control all of it? Would we still be as advanced as we are now? What if the Indians would have had the upper hand and decided to fight back against the English?

4. I did not care for this reading, I felt that it skipped around from one story to the next, talking about Irish then Indians etc. I also found it confusing being set in a play, but the way it was written I don't understand why they had to talk about this topic in mention of the play. It had good points and I liked the fact that it explained the truth as to how the English acted towards the Indians, the side that we normally never hear of. It is sad to think about how destructive the English were as well as how many innocent lives were lost in the establishing of our country.

About Me!!

My name is Chelsey Norviel. I have one older sister, who also attends Bowling Green. I am a sophomore, and am a pre-nursing major. I have 4 dogs and 1 cat at home. My favorite television shows are Grey's Anatomy, Everybody Loves Raymond, and One Tree Hill! I love country music and always have. I really like elephants and collect stuffed animals and figurines of them. I have tons of earrings and purses! Virginia Beach is my favorite vacation place. I hope to work in a large hospital after I get my BSN, but I want to live out in the country, possibly in Iowa. Also, I am a quiet person at first but after a while I open up!!

History of the US-Norviel

1. The author’s thesis is his overall opinion of how the United States was established. There was much bloodshed and ugliness due to the settlers feeling of superiority over the Indians. Zinn is trying to convince us that there is more to the story of how America was discovered that we are neglected to be taught throughout school, mostly because it makes our history look bad and we are basically in denial of our ancestors horrible actions.

2. According to Zinn the new settlers treated the Indians poorly and unfair. They used their generosity and hospitality against them, and took them for granted. In return to the Indian's kindness the settlers enslaved them and/or killed them, as well as practically robbed them of their weapons and food. By taking over the Indian's land rather than sharing it with them like they were kindly willing to do, the Europeans used their power, weapons, and strength in a negative way, which is something that we somewhat do today. The United States was built on control and murder.

3. Are the ways of the United States really all that different from what they were when it was first established? Why did the settlers feel the need to treat the Indians so poorly after their treated them with such kindness?

4. The reading was somewhat disappointing. It was disappointing to find out how ugly the history was of the beginning of our nation. I was interested to hear the history of how America became from the other side. The story that we are told is sugarcoated and we are neglected to be told about the reality of what happened back then. Columbus impressed upon us as a wonderful guy and we are never told of how inhumane and barbaric he really acted.