Monday 26 December 2011

Malcom X

Journaling: Was Malcom X a "human rights activist" or a "terrorist"? What are your thoughts about Malcolm X and his methods to address inequalities and oppression during the Civil Rights Movement? 


In my opinion, Malcom X was a human rights activist. I think his methods were somewhat radical however his motives were very clear and although they were direct, I think they were necessary and appropriate for the time he lived in. I think that the directness of his speeches and his addresses were what gained him so much support but also they were what gained him criticism. In times as momentous as the Civil Rights era, a combination of peaceful protesting like Martin Luther King Jnr. and radical protesting like Malcom X were what pushed the movement forward.  

Wednesday 7 December 2011

Important Legislation in the Civil Rights Era in 200 Words

What was the major breakthrough legislation from the Civil Rights Era?


The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts signed into action by President Lyndon B. Johnson were the major breakthrough legislation that was passed in the Civil Rights Era. These acts ended racial segregation in different areas, including schools, voting registration, and in workplaces and with public facilities. Controversial from the beginning, President Johnson was aware that supporting these bills would cause the South to revoke their support for the US Democratic party. Socially, it was controversial as well; this legislation tore apart societies, especially in the South, and often the backlash and conditions resulting from the bills' passing were more severe than they had been prior to it's establishment. The United States endured murder, protests, conflict, and social disruptions for years after the legislation was passed. Events such as the bloody march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama on March 7th 1965, raised mass awareness of the horrors that were taking place in America when footage was released and broadcasted on national news. For years the country was divided and although the legislation passed did make the first steps toward civil rights for all, it is still an issue even today.



Monday 28 November 2011

Libertarianism

Libertarianism: The Freedom Principle
I think that there are aspects of libertarianism that I agree with however I think that having a libertarian society would have a negative affect because people need regulation to a certain extent. I agree with the libertarian ideas of moral legislation such as the marriage age and right to chose abortion, but I think that without specific government regulation society would crumble under its own power.

Scenario 1: Kidney Market
I think that people should have the choice to sell only one of their kidneys. Selling two ends your life and that is essentially suicide if you are aware of this. I think that if someone wants to go through the process of removing one of their organs in order to either make money off of it or to help someone, the most important thing is that someone who needs a kidney can now receive one and their life may be saved. The libertarianist would say that the person donating the kidneys has the right to chose to sell one or both and therefore this should be legal despite the fact that it will kill them if they donate two.

Scenario 2: Same Sex Marriage
I think that I would take the utilitarianist route on the same sex marriage scenario. I think that everyone should be able to chose who they marry and it should not matter what sex you are. It almost feels as if banning same sex marriage is like banning a person's right to marry someone from another nation or of a different race. It is based off of traditional values that men should marry women and start families that way but who decided this was the correct way to live? I think that in free countries the option of who you marry should not be limited to the other sex, you should be able to marry whomever you want.

Scenario 3: Assisted Suicide
I think that people should have the right to go through assisted suicide but only under incredibly strict regulations and they should need to be counseled and questioned before they finalize their decisions. It should only be made allowed to people who are terminally ill and have been proved to be terminally ill and I don't think their family members should have a say in it. If, after going through all the regulations and processes necessary for assisted suicide, a person still wants to go through with it then they have their own reasons and who is anyone else to judge their decision. We are not experiencing a terminal illness and are therefore not in the position to judge anyone and say that it is morally wrong, because perhaps to them staying alive and enduring their illness seems morally wrong.

Monday 21 November 2011

Happiness

Utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number. 

I studied this principle in Philosophy class last year. When I was learning about it, I thought it seemed to be more wrong than right for the majority of the time. We were given situations where we had to determine if choosing the utilitarian route was really the best way to ensure happiness among everyone, and about 70% of the time the situation led to a mutual agreement that utilitarianism is not necessarily realistic happiness. I do think that generally it is a nice principle is you are on the receiving end.

Scenario 1: City of Happiness
I understand that locking up and having one person suffering would be weighed out by the fact that hundreds of other people would remain happy and the city would remain thriving and positive, but I hate seeing or knowing that people are suffering. I think that it is wrong for anyone to suffer, because that would mean that the entire city is not necessarily realistically happy.

Scenario 2: "Hampsterdam"
The utilitarianist would say that it is a good idea to transport crime so that it is not affecting the general public, however I don't agree with this idea because I don't think it fixes anything. Hiding or moving something is not necessarily a long term solution; the crime rate will eventually ascend to the level it was at before and perhaps even surpass that level. The police need to be more diligent with this matter instead of simply giving the impression that they are simply giving up.

Scenario 3: Putting a Price on Humans
I think that placing a value on a life of a human being is an exceptionally difficult thing to to. I don't think that anyone is in liberty to actually evaluate and decide on a number for someone else's life, although this happens all the time with law injury settlements and life insurance. I would never be able to decide what another person's life is worth because I don't think it's fair.

Has your opinion changed?
No, because I knew how I felt about this before. This class has definitely solidified my opinions though. I think that it is unrealistic to live life with a utilitarian outlook.

Thursday 17 November 2011

Justice

What does justice mean to me?
Justice is being treated fairly. Justice is treating others fairly. Justice is one of the most important qualities a nation can have. Righteousness in the law, treatment of humans, and all areas of life. Equality is important and just. America values justice in all areas of life and Americans will fight for what they believe is right. 


Scenario 1: Price Gouging
The government has an obligation to protect its people, however the United States is a free country, people have a right to charge what they want for items to a certain extent. The government cannot attempt to control this, unless it affects the nation as a whole. Charging $12 for a gallon of gas in all of the US is different to charging $10 for a bag of ice in one area of one state. The economy in the affected area will eventually return itself to normal after the supply v demand settles to a sustainable rate. 


Scenario 2: Bank Bail-Outs
The US unemployment rate is currently at 12%. Huge corporations employ hundreds of thousands of jobs; the government is somewhat responsible for maintaining justice in this area and following through with their responsibilities by taking care of their nation. Saving companies like GMC from going bust also saves jobs. There is a line that has to be drawn however. Using taxpayer's money to save other companies can only go so far. 


Scenario 3: Runaway Trolly Driver
Saying that saving 5 peoples' lives is worth more than 1 person's life is incorrect, each persons life is just as important as anyone else's. The difference here is that saving 5 people's lives saves 5 families grieving compared to 1 person's family grieving. If the driver makes the decision that 5 is greater than 1 and switches the tracks to kill that one person, then the case will be traced back to the driver and he may be accused of murder. I still think that saving 5 people would be the way to go though. 


Scenario 4: Runaway Trolly Observer
I don't think that we have the right to play God in this situation, however if one was to weigh out the options the samaritan decision would due to save the 5 workers lives and sacrifice the man on the bridge to stop the train. I think that no matter what, you would feel bad with either outcome but the difference is how much force would you feel if there were 5 people dead when you could have saved them compared to 1 person. 


Scenario 5: Afghan Goat Herders, 2006
I think that the US Special Forces Unit should be more careful and not let the 2 goat herders see them in the first place, however if they run into them and cannot avoid the situation, the best thing to do would be to let them go. Killing them could backfire, they are innocent men unassociated with the Afghan military or government and the US has principles. Killing innocent human beings out of fear they will rat them out will give the US a bad image and is morally wrong. 
In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same. - Albert Einstein 

Monday 7 November 2011

Multiculturalism in the Lower School

1. What will you remember most about your visit to the Lower School? 


The kid's reactions and how they were so engaged in what we read will stay in my mind. They were very perceptive for 1st graders and they picked up on the negative and positive aspects of the story immediately. These children realized that it does not matter how we all look because being different makes the world interesting. 


2. How did your view about what "The Sneetches" was about (i.e. the messages) change after hearing from the children?


I didn't think they would pick up in the money abuse issue in the story but they did and it shocked me. I also didn't think they would be able to comprehend the message of The Sneetches so well, but they were successful in that too. I think that before I heard what the kids said about the story, I believed that it was simply about what is wrong and what is right but they made comments like it's okay if some of the sneetches are different because that's what prevents the world from being, as they said, "boring". 



Wednesday 26 October 2011

Myself in 60 Seconds

I am a girl. I'm Irish. I'm American. I'm 1/4 Australian. There are some Swedish genes in there too apparently. I was born in Dublin. My favorite seasons are winter and fall. I love Environmental Science. I hate Math more than anything. My favorite ice cream flavor is mint chocolate chip. I love puppies. I love babies. I bake for fun. I love skiing. I love birthdays. I want to live in South Africa at some point in my life. If I could travel for the rest of the year I would. I used to play field hockey. I go to yoga whenever I can. Green is my favorite color but I also like blue. I am allergic to bees. I love ASL. I love watching rugby. I love watching ASL rugby. I'm a huge Pittsburgh Steelers fan. I can't wait for college.

Friday 21 October 2011

Arranged Marriage

Arranged marriages are common in Hindu culture, however in the West, this is something we're not used to. I have never met anyone who has had an arranged marriage, but I know how valuable of a practice it is to cultures. To say that an arranged marriage is wrong would be naive and based on personal bias and not a full understanding of the meaning of arranged marriages. As westerners, we all are used to the romanticized perception of marriage but to many other cultures, getting married isn not for love but rather for sense. We're used to fairy tale love that always ends in marriage. This is what we are told is important, loving the person you are going to spend the rest of your life with. When I read the article on arranged marriages from the perspective of a girl who is a part of a culture that supports and engages in arranged matrimony. She stated in the article that she didn't trust herself enough to make the decision on who she should marry because she had no experience in the area of marriage. Letting her parents take responsibility for arranging her marriage was normal and ideal, she didn't worry that she didn't know the man she was going to marry because she had the rest of her life to get to know him and love him. People in these cultures are generally okay with arranged marriages; they do not feel as if they are vein robbed of romance or their emotional independence. I think that this is something many westerners overload when they jump straight to the conclusion that arranged marriages are wrong. Just because we consider marriage to be romantic and based on two-way love does not mean that everyone else believes this. 

Tuesday 4 October 2011

Literacy Test

Some questions that serve no use:

  1. WHAT SPECIAL GROUP ADVISES THE PRESIDENT?
  2. WHO WROTE "THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER"?
  3. WHAT IS THE HEAD EXECUTIVE OF A CITY GOVERNMENT CALLED?
  4. WHAT IS THE HEAD EXECUTIVE OF A STATE GOVERNMENT CALLED?
  5. WHO SELECTS THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
  6. HOW MANY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE THERE?
  7. CAN YOU NAME THE TWO SENATORS FROM YOUR STATE?
  8. NAME ONE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
  9. WHERE DOES CONGRESS MEET?
  10. WHAT IS THE INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION CALLED?
  11. HOW MANY TIMES MAY A SENATOR BE RE-ELECTED?
  12. HOW MANY TIMES MAY A CONGRESSMAN BE RE-ELECTED?


How could these questions be viewed as racist or racially insensitive?
Some of these questions have answers that only American citizens could answer. One in particular is "Who wrote 'The Star-Spangled Banner'?". Why anyone who did not grow up in America or go to elementary school in the United States would be expected to know the answer to that question is beyond me. These questions all serve no purpose and there is no real reason for them to belong on a US Literacy test. Not everyone is fully educated on the makeup of the government of the United States, nor is everyone educated in US History which is why I think some of these questions should be removed. General 21st century knowledge of the United States would belong on a test like this but questions as specific as this are not necessarily fair and can be considered racially insensitive. 



Monday 3 October 2011

Voting Simulation 1965

I attempted to vote, as a black citizen in 1965 in Selma, Alabama. I was asked questions I am sure the sherif couldn't even answer herself; when I could not answer these I was turned away at the registration table. "And you call yourself an American when you can't even answer these questions?"

Peter attempted to vote, as a black citizen in 1965 in Selma, Alabama. The sherif ignored his question, two, three times when he kept asking. Then she turned to the other sherif and engaged in a conversation. When Peter tried to ask again, he was threatened by the sherif for "interrupting" and kicked out of the voting hall. "You can wait outside."

Ethan attempted to vote, as a black citizen in 1965 in Selma, Alabama.  He approached the sherif and asked politely if he could register. She asked about his family, specifically his younger brother who had been doing well in school. "It would be a shame if something happened to him. Wouldn't that be a shame, to see something happen to your younger brother, Ethan?". He left, without questioning the sherif.

Sunday 2 October 2011

Personal Opinions on the N Word

1. Do you have a word that hurts deep? (if not, why do you think that is?)

      Something that hurts me and has hurt me since I was little is the word 'brat'. It's nothing too serious, and it's not necessarily an incredibly insulting word nor is it a racial slur, but for some reason, whenever I hear it it makes me really upset. Hearing it from my parents when they would get mad at me is probably the root of this feeling. Something I always tried my hardest to do when I was growing up was to be the opposite of a brat because the word brat comes off as selfish to me. I've always found greater pleasure in doing things for other people than taking things for myself, and because of all the effort I put in doing this, it hurts the most when someone uses that word to describe me. 
 
2. How will you treat the word ‘n*****’ (or other racial epithets) going forward?

      The word will continue to disgust me; I don't think that I can simply forget about that feeling. I think the best way I could handle it is to stay neutral and not pick sides. I have never actually met someone who has used the word freely in conversation, but that's not to say I won't in the future of course. 
 
3. Do you think you have the word in you (there is no right or wrong answer to this)?

      No, I honestly believe that I don't have the word in me. I even changed the wording in question 2 by starring out the word. I have never said it and I refuse to ever use it. 

Thursday 29 September 2011

The 'N' Word

When I read Randall L. Kennedy's article "Who Can Say N*****" the first thing that struck me was the almost casual usage of the n word, especially in the title of the article. When Kennedy writes, he raises the question of who can say this word and get away with it. I personally think the word is abhorrent, but I have heard others, especially in America, using it in friendly, non-insulting ways. I have been brought up to know that using that word is exceptionally rude; especially since I am a white American girl. I have never used the word and hearing others use it even if they don't use it in a derogatory way makes me wince, and I have found myself feeling embarrassed being in the company of people using that word. Is the n word really that bad though, if people are able to use it freely with one another and not have others question it? What Kennedy gets at in his article is that it's different for everyone, meaning it depends on who you are and who you're talking to that determines whether or not it will be offensive. He also states that no one really understands why the word became so controversial, because the literal meaning of the word is not necessarily bad, it's only bad if you want it to be. On the question of who can say it in modern day society, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to use if it will mean different things to different people. The n word is associated with cussing for many people, and if cussing is frowned upon then I think the use of the n word should be too. Too much controversy surrounds this word for exceptions to be made for certain groups of people who use it.

Sunday 25 September 2011

Race and Universities

Is it wrong to have an all-Black student dormitory at University? What about an all-White dormitory? 
Yes, it is wrong. To pair students together who are generally all at the same level of intelligence (ie. all were smart enough to get in to the university) and are of the same age with those of similar race does not seem necessary or fair. Why does the color of one's skin matter? The mix of different people from cultures and backgrounds is one of the great things about university, people get to know other people that are unlike anyone they have ever met before. Having an all white or an all black dormitory is ridiculous; people are just people and college students are just college students, the color of their skin should not matter and everyone's differences should be celebrated rather than judged and grouped together.

The integration of Ole Miss University, Mississippi. James Meredith, October 1st, 1962

Friday 23 September 2011

The Racial Issue of Adoption

I think that the hardest issue we discussed today for me to take a stand on was the adoption statement:
"In cases of adoption, agencies should try to match the ethnicity/race of children and parents, instead of doing adoptions in a race-blind manner."
The principle of adoption is an amazing one, to give a child parents he or she never had is one of the best things I can think of our society ever doing. Giving parents a child they may not be able to have is another wonderful thing. This made me think about whether or not the adoption agencies should be race-blind when choosing children for adoptive parents. I think that they should be, simply based on the fact that adoption is to better the lives of the children and the parents, and if a parent cannot love their child despite their race or cultural background then maybe they should not adopt from a race-blind agency. I agree that it may be better to place children of definitive cultures with parents who want to continue traditions when they are raising their child but if there is no good reasoning for choosing a specific race of a child then I don't think it is fair for parents to make racial preference requests.

Frederick Douglass Questions

Thursday 22 September 2011

Mascot Discussion - "Indians"



How should we decide what is offensive?
For this issue, I think the best way to deal with it is to base the decision off of the reactions of the public to the mascot. If the mascot is causing a lot of controversy in an area, I think that the best thing and the most respectful thing is to change the mascot or get rid of it. If there is no controversy then I don't necessarily think the mascot is an issue, a mascot is something schools and universities are really proud of and honor a lot. Unless people feel negatively targeted as Native Americans because of the mascot, there is no reason to get rid of it. 

Tuesday 20 September 2011

Breaking Down Stereotypes

1. "All Muslims are terrorists or sympathizers."

2. The source of this stereotype in America and generally in the rest of the Western World:
"The religion of Islam is not a religion of hatred and violence, but a religion of respect for all humans and God. This is the true Islam, the religion of equality, morality, and faith. The two major branches in Islam are the Sunni branch and the Shi’a. The Sunni Muslims make up a total of 80% of the Muslim population and they do adhere to the rules and regulations that have been explained. The Shi’a Muslims are a minority and the more radical branch of Islam. Unlike Sunni’s, Shi’a Muslims put much priority on jihad (to struggle and fight through and for Islam). Their interpretation of jihad permits them to be violent and sometimes harmful towards non-Muslims and some Muslims. Martyrs are also very much honored by Shi’a Muslims, mostly because Shi’as have a strong support for Ali, who was a martyr and Muhammad’s son-in-law. This strong belief in fighting for religion promotes much of the radicalism among Shi’a Muslims. Though they are a minority, Shi'a Muslims change other people's understanding of Sunni Muslims. Muslim immigration into America began in the 1960’s with a small population and became more evident as more Muslims immigrated to the U.S. Many Muslims immigrated for economic opportunities, education, and to escape wars, civil wars, and revolutions in the Islamic world. Non-Muslims were very welcoming towards the new Muslims and accepted their culture and way of life. Muslims had also added more diversity and culture to the American society and lived successfully in their new lives. Mosques and Islamic schools were opened, and Islam began to be an integral part of American life. However events like Jimmy Carter’s failure with Iran in 1979 and September 11th, 2001 have portrayed Islam negatively. Many non-Muslims began to wonder if Islam was truly a religion of peace. ...These minor misunderstanding slowly turned into serious hate crimes towards Muslims. Mosques and Islamic centers had been attacked and even torn down by angry non-Muslims. Muslims in the western world were persecuted physically and mentally because of the portrayal of Islam as a corrupt and antagonistic belief. Muslims have been usually considered as top suspects for terrorism in the western world. An example of this would be the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995 (Encyclopedia Britannica). Before investigators discovered that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were responsible for the attack, it was initially believed that the attack was organized by a group of Muslim terrorists. This information was displayed on several national television networks. Eventually, it was proven that the terrorist group was not involved with the bombings. Islam teaches Muslims to not support any Islamic terrorist in any way.Islam does not permit the murder of innocent people." (Hossain, Religious Tolerance).
Also, it is stated in the Quran, 
"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors."

3. Science cannot prove this stereotype; there is no scientific proof that even remotely makes sense. Logically, if people were to look at the facts and actually attempt to understand Islam as a religion instead of basing it off of stereotypes, word of mouth etc. then this stereotype would probably not be as present as it currently is today in the United States and many other countries. The stereotype can be broken down into a component of a misunderstanding of culture and history; it is based off of a past of warfare and one more radical group of Islam, the Shi’a Muslims, have been generalized as "all of Islam". 

4. My direct experience proves to me the fictitiousness of this stereotype. To assume that all Muslims are terrorists or sympathizers is an uneducated, unfair thing to do, and I have countless personal experiences and I have met amazing people who are Muslims who have even further proved this to me.

5. All Muslims are not terrorists, nor are they all sympathizers. 


Citation
Hossain, Semonti. "Islam Behind the Stereotypes." Religious Tolerance. 25 July 2004.
"Oklahoma City Bombing." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2003 edition. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. 

Monday 19 September 2011

How to Tear Down a Stereotype

  1. State the stereotype clearly and accurately
  2. Where does the stereotype come from?
  3. Use data to disprove or enlighten "facts"
  4. What is my personal experience?
  5. Revise and restate the stereotype

Friday 16 September 2011

Implicit Attitude Test

What was your result on the Race IAT? Do you think it is accurate?
My first result was moderate. When I took it for the second time my result was strong.
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American. The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for European American' if you responded faster when European American faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when African American faces and Good words were classified with the same key.
I agree with this, because I am considering my conscious and subconscious attitudes. I am positive that my exposure to the media and my family and friends' influence on me throughout my childhood is responsible for my subconscious prejudices. I also believe that we assosciate positive things with what we find familiar; we are much more comfortable when we are in situations where we have control.

What did you find interesting about the test? What questions do you still have after taking this test?
I found my result to be very interesting the first time, however what I found was even more intruiging and not necessarily in a positive way was my result the second time I took the IAT. After receiving my "moderate automatic preference" result, I was slightly shocked because I was under the impression before I took the test that I was very neutral when it came to racial preferences. My second test results made me feel guilty and almost horrified over something of which I have no control. I received a "strong automatic preference" after taking the test, even though I was so confused by my first test and attempted to do better the second round hoping to receive a neutral result. I don't know if the second result means anything but I found in interesting that although I was trying to do well I ended up doing worse, probably due to finding out my first moderate preference to European Americans. Some questions I have are why this happened, and what is the psychological rationale for my results. I also would like to know exactly how this test is measured and what those measurements mean. I found this to be a very eye-opening experience.


To further this, I took another IAT test relating to race. These were my results from the Light Skinned Dark Skinned IAT:
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Light Skin compared to Dark Skin. The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for Light Skin' if you responded faster when Light Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when Dark Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key.
These results didn't do very much for the guilt I had been feeling from the last test's results. I also took an IAT test on a subject that I find very interesting, the connection with boys, girls, and science.
Your data suggest a strong association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts. The interpretation is described as 'automatic association between Male and Science' if you responded faster when Male names and Science words were classified with the same key than when Male names and Liberal Arts words were classified with the same key.
I'm really curious as to who is responsible for putting this prejudice in my mind.


On Another Note..

In the article “Sports Taboo” by Malcolm Gladwell, several examples of the issues of racial and social prejudice are mentioned. The notorious stereotype of the genetic advantage that black men have in sports is addressed along with the standard that men and women don’t match up intellectually in math skills.

Personal Prejudice

What prejudices might you have?
Consciously, I think that the main prejudice I have is relating to men and muggings. Being a teenage girl I generally don't feel very safe walking alone at night in St. John's Wood. I don't think it's fair to associate people of color with muggings and ignore the fact that white men steal just as much, especially in this area of London, so I wouldn't say that my prejudice is a racial one but rather a gender one based on personal experiences and stories I have heard. I have always been taught to stay cautious and aware of my surroundings, and I generally will become worried if I am by myself at night and there is a man on the street near me. I realize that this is a bad prejudice to have towards any group of people, but it is what I have grown up learning and I have confidence in the aspect of being safe rather than sorry. I am sorry to admit that I also have a prejudice towards girls and science. I have somehow convinced myself (perhaps due to influence or the society I am a part of) that boys are always going to be better at science. This is greatly represented at ASL; the students in the highest level math and science classes are almost all males. I think that this opinion I have may have effected my learning experiences in my math and science classes since I was in Middle School; I convinced myself that it was okay that I wasn't too good at math because I had strengths in other academic areas, primarily in humanities. I always wonder if the stereotype that boys are better at math and science didn't exist, would I enjoy math more and be better at it than I currently am. 


This article talks of the stereotypes surrounding this prejudice. 


How strong are your subconscious attitudes toward race?
“At a subconscious level, I would guess I have a neutral preference toward a group that shares my skin color.”
“At a subconscious level, I would guess I have a mild preference against a group that has different skin color than my own.”

Sunday 11 September 2011

Black Men and Public Space" by Brent Staples

Article Summary 
In the article "Black Men and Public Space" by Brent Staples, the author explains his first hand experiences walking through a fairly affluent neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois. He tells of an incident he was involved in regarding a white woman at night where she ran away from him when he was simply walking down the street behind her. Staples states that he feels the reason she was frightened was because he was a black man walking at night and the woman was alone. I know that whenever I am walking anywhere alone at night, I'm always a little frightened especially when I see a man walking alone. I wouldn't necessarily say that I get more scared if the man is a man of color but I do understand this. I think that a lot of people will jump to conclusions and stereotypes when they feel pressured or scared. Staples says he feels obligated to stay away from situations where he may potentially make people feel uncomfortable due to the color of his skin and the associations people make with his race. The part of this article that stood out the most to me was at the very end where Staples says in order to calm the fears of white people he would whistle the tunes of classical music. This made me think a lot about the other stereotypes surrounding people of color, and how just revealing knowledge of well known music can settle people's uneasiness.


Realization
I used to think that we should all be color-blind.
I now have realized that it is important to respect and appreciate all the differences each person is blessed with from their heritage.

Thursday 8 September 2011

The Question of Race

If there is no biological explanation for race, how did it come about and why does it continue to be so important to this day?
Our country is built upon the belief that all men are created equal. If this is so, then one may ask why so much conflict, crime, stereotypes, criticism, and debate have arisen centered around the issue of race. Race is defined as "A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics" (see citation at end), however modern, unbiased, and what would be considered as "unracist" scientific research has proven that a person's race cannot in fact be defined by genetically transmitter physical characteristics. Are we not all considered equal? Why does it matter then, this perceived and futile term? I believe that one reason the aspect of what race you are is so present in our society today is that it has simply been around for long enough. Ingrained into our minds and often both consciously and subconsciously effecting our immediate impressions or characterizations of the people around us, race is something that has undeniably shaped our society, be it for the better or the worse. Why does race continue to be so important today? I believe it's because of fear. America is a big country, and the world is a vast, intelligent, and amazing place full of smart, innovative people. But all of these people are white. In history, the power has laid in the hands of the whites and in turn they have created the hierarchy that was present in society for hundreds of years; the concept of white supremacy over all others. Of course society has advanced and equality has become something that America can use in it's founding statement more honestly, but there is still the racial issue and there is still a very present advantage of being white. I hope that this is something our country and indeed the world will outgrow with time, but for now the world will still be affected by this concept of color.


Three Questions I Have...
1. How have whites retained the position at the top of the racial hierarchy in the western world for so long? 
2. How do people of other races characterize white people physically? We hear a lot about racial stereotypes coming from whites about others but what is it like the other way around?
3. For how much longer will the "advantage of being white" stay an advantage? Years? Decades? Centuries?

citation
http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1

Monday 5 September 2011

White Privilege

How did the privilege exercise make you feel?
           The white privilege exercise today was a very different and unique experience than any other exercise I have taken part in. It was very compelling and it made me think a lot about how I take the privileges I have in my life for granted the majority of the time. Placing me the furthest away from the base line where we all began as equals, the statements made and questions asked consequently made me feel lucky to have a life like my own, but also somewhat guilty for something I have no control over. One of the prompts that I felt was the most impacting to me was the question on whether or not your parents support you and tell you that you can be anything you want to be if you set your mind to it. The idea that parents of different races and social classes may feel that telling their children that they can succeed in whatever they choose to do is in fact deceiving never even crossed my mind before. In a country that stands on the belief that hard work and dedication will get anyone where they want to be, I had trouble comprehending this idea that it is not the same for everyone at first. The question of what can these parents say to their children truthfully and with meaning is one that I have been asking myself all afternoon. Is it kinder to be honest and admit that their children may not be able to do whatever they desire due to their race, gender, sexual orientation or social standing rather than simply comforting them with encouragement that is insubstantial? My parents have always been supportive of my dreams and ambitions and I have been lucky enough to never have even had to think about how my life would be if I were to have to motivate and support myself without the help of others. This exercise proved to me that there are things that privileges mask and that not everyone can get as far as they may want or deserve in our so called 'Meritocracy'.


Which of the four fears outlined by Robert Jensen do you have?
The fear that they can do to us what we have done to them is something that worries me. Time after time again it has been proved that humans are capable of doing terrible things to one another. Whites have had the upper hand but who's to say this won't change? Even though it was not us individuals who committed the terrible things to other races that our ancestors did in the past, we are still linked together as one, and can collectively be blamed.


Look at the “Daily Effects of White Privilege” list. 
(a) Pick the five effects that you feel you most take for granted. 
8, 15, 19, 20, 50

(b) Pick the five effects that you would be willing to give up.
31, 37, 10, 13, 5