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.