This article is written by Dwight McBride, it is an article that gives his opinion and more or less his feelings of what Abercrombie and Fitch really is. Now do I believe that McBride is 100% accurate in his statement? No, not at all. He does however have some views that I do agree with, but for the most part, I don’t think that McBride is right with his sayings. First off, Abercrombie has been criticized for unique and reveling form of advertising. I do believe that it is an inappropriate way for a store to advertise. Also, they barely show the product in the advertisement. Their main theme is that sex sells. Now whether or not I like it does not make it right or wrong. I wouldn’t think that an advertisement that didn’t show the product would actually sell, however, this method seems to be working for them, so more power to them. It is an new way of advertising and if it is working for them to not have the product in the advertisement, then let them do as they wish. If they go out of business for failing to advertise then it is their risk that they are willing to take. On the aspect that their advertising is too revealing then I do believe that possibly some changes need to be made, but if they are succeeding with this advertising then it is not likely that they will change and also not their fault for not changing their advertising. I place this blame on society. If society promotes this type of behavior and continues to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch, there is no reason why they should be forced to change something that people will flock after. There main goal in the world is to get business, if that way gets them business, then they should not be forced to change their ways as long as they are not harming anyone or breaking any laws.
McBride also stated that Abercrombie and Fitch’s main consumer line is towards white middle to upper class. I don’t believe that this is always the case. I believe that they are trying to sell up scale clothing to rich people, but I don’t believe that it is only directed towards white people. I am a white male of mostly middle to upper class and I don’t shop at Abercrombie and Fitch because I think the clothes are outrageously priced and I can get the same type of clothes somewhere else for much cheaper. McBride argues that by Abercrombie and Fitch saying that their clothing is the, “Real American Look” that they are saying that all people that live in America should look like this and this is how all white Americans dress. This is a stereotype by both A&F and McBride. Abercrombie and Fitch have a rich history in America, beginning in 1907 by selling outdoor clothing, they have evolved into an up scale clothing industry. By saying that they are “Real American”, they are only using their history to their advantage, by saying that people in America have bought their clothing for a long time. McBride I feel tries to change this around into A&F is saying that all people in America look like this. This is a misinterpretation of how I feel A&F really intended their slogan to be used. Also, I feel this is a case where McBride is actually the one that is stereotyping people that wear Abercrombie and Fitch clothing to be white, middle to upper class Americans. I don’t believe that it is only white, middle to upper class Americans that buy their clothing either, it is a style of clothing that all types of people from many different backgrounds buy, not just white middle to upper class people.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Reign of Facebook
Facebook, the new internet phase that is being used by high school and college students nationwide. This new online friends frenzy is a way to keep in touch with various friends and an interesting way to also meet new friends. This new site has sparked much interest and is a wonderful new phenomenon. It is a great way to keep in touch with old friends, as well as make new friends. People post pictures and can tag pictures of other friends that are also in the picture. There are places to update your status and tell what are your plans are, so that friends may know what in fact that you are doing for the weekend. However, this is not seen the same way by all. Some feel that this website classifies people into racial groups. Everyone that is a member of Facebook, each has their own home page, it is known as their profile. On everyone’s profile there is a picture of the person and information about them, from what they like to do, to their favorite music and television shows. From these events, classifications and stereotypes can be drawn from looking at someone’s profile page. From the types of music they listen to and the way in which they speak with their typing can be used to derive this person into a certain stereotype. For instance, someone that listens to country might be stereotyped as someone that is white that lives in the suburbs or country. As opposed to someone that enjoys listening to rap, they might be stereotyped as someone that lives in the inner-city and is African American. Facebook, does not provide a specific location where someone can exactly identify what race they in fact are, but by using these stereotypes, one can come to the conclusion. More on the fact of stereotyping comes when the assumptions of someone’s race are verified by looking at their pictures to have a visual representation of who this person really is. Race is just a visual representation that we give to someone, and through the idea of sharing pictures, comes the negative of classifying people into race, even through the means of the internet. Facebook is a consumer product, and was not intended to be a negative way to classify people into stereotypes and into races. However, people will always find a way to do that either on Facebook, or somewhere else. Between this and Facebook, stereotypes will occur everywhere and anywhere.
My feeling on Facebook is that there is no stereotyping by the product what so ever. Some users may stereotype people on their own, but my conclusion that this is because of the result of Facebook is incorrect. Facebook is a program that is very basic in its format. It is up to the user to place whatever information he or she wishes to share about themselves. From this it is the other user that is doing the stereotyping, not the program itself. This is the same idea as being stereotyped on the clothes that someone would wear. The clothes are not the reason why someone would be stereotyped, it is the person that ultimately makes the stereotype. For instance, just because someone would wear a basketball or football jersey doesn’t classify them into the stereotype of being a “jock”, it is the person that makes this classification that is the cause of the stereotype. For this reason, I believe that the cause for stereotyping on the website, Facebook, does not come from the actual website itself, but from the users that use it and stereotype fellow users into groups and classifications.
My feeling on Facebook is that there is no stereotyping by the product what so ever. Some users may stereotype people on their own, but my conclusion that this is because of the result of Facebook is incorrect. Facebook is a program that is very basic in its format. It is up to the user to place whatever information he or she wishes to share about themselves. From this it is the other user that is doing the stereotyping, not the program itself. This is the same idea as being stereotyped on the clothes that someone would wear. The clothes are not the reason why someone would be stereotyped, it is the person that ultimately makes the stereotype. For instance, just because someone would wear a basketball or football jersey doesn’t classify them into the stereotype of being a “jock”, it is the person that makes this classification that is the cause of the stereotype. For this reason, I believe that the cause for stereotyping on the website, Facebook, does not come from the actual website itself, but from the users that use it and stereotype fellow users into groups and classifications.
The JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT
From 1942 until 1946, the Japanese that lived in America were placed in internment camps designed to house them until the end of the war, World War II. These camps were set up for fear that the Japanese that lived in America had their allegiance pledged to Japan still and would fight for them instead of the United States. The thought was that they would try to sabotage structures in the United States.
The order came from the president himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt in executive order 9066. It stated that Japanese Americans were to be relocated to internment camps for the duration of the war. Two thirds of the relocated people were United States born citizens. The rest of the relocated people were their parents and grandparents. The executive order was backed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was, “pressing public necessity.” The Japanese Americans were then forced out of their homes away from their families and friends, their jobs and their lives, and placed into these internment camps that were designed almost as prisons to house them for the duration of the war. They were treated as enemies to the very country that they lived in. Each family was given a little apartment or dorm style house for their entire family. Portable walls were available for them to put up if they wished. The houses were grouped together with a common dinning and washing area. Recreation was supplied to them in a recreation center, but they were not allowed to leave the camp. Also, the entire camp was surrounded by barbed wire and fencing. This was the equivalent to a P.O.W. camp that captured enemy soldiers were captured and placed in. The Japanese Americans were not enemies of war, they were merely ethnically classified American citizens that were placed in custody for fear they might be loyal to their native land. The United States government, under the Reagan administration later apologized for the decision made during the war.
I believe that the internment camps were not the right way to deal with the possible threat of Japanese sabotages. We are a free country, free to choice how we want to live. By forcing people, based on their ethnic background, internment camps is a slap in the face and goes directly against what this country is founded on. It also goes directly against what our Constitution states. It just shreds the Constitution just a bit. This action was illegal to force someone into what could be said as a prison for doing no crime, only the potential of doing a crime. We all have the potential to commit acts of violence and other such crimes. That doesn’t give anyone the right to lock someone up for a potential cause to protect others. By the United States government locking up the Japanese living in America that is doing more damage then what the government was trying to do in the first place. They just helped out the Japanese. The government was trying to protect its people, but two thirds of the people they locked up were born American citizens. They were hurting their own people more then they were protecting them. It was a miscalculation to solve a problem. There are other methods in which the lands of the United States could have been protected from possible Japanese internal attacks. Other methods should have been exploited and this should have been a last resort, or not even an option to use. We are a land of innocent until proven guilty, this was a violation of this cause. These Japanese – American citizens were assumed guilty just on their race and not for who they really were, which was Americans.
The order came from the president himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt in executive order 9066. It stated that Japanese Americans were to be relocated to internment camps for the duration of the war. Two thirds of the relocated people were United States born citizens. The rest of the relocated people were their parents and grandparents. The executive order was backed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was, “pressing public necessity.” The Japanese Americans were then forced out of their homes away from their families and friends, their jobs and their lives, and placed into these internment camps that were designed almost as prisons to house them for the duration of the war. They were treated as enemies to the very country that they lived in. Each family was given a little apartment or dorm style house for their entire family. Portable walls were available for them to put up if they wished. The houses were grouped together with a common dinning and washing area. Recreation was supplied to them in a recreation center, but they were not allowed to leave the camp. Also, the entire camp was surrounded by barbed wire and fencing. This was the equivalent to a P.O.W. camp that captured enemy soldiers were captured and placed in. The Japanese Americans were not enemies of war, they were merely ethnically classified American citizens that were placed in custody for fear they might be loyal to their native land. The United States government, under the Reagan administration later apologized for the decision made during the war.
I believe that the internment camps were not the right way to deal with the possible threat of Japanese sabotages. We are a free country, free to choice how we want to live. By forcing people, based on their ethnic background, internment camps is a slap in the face and goes directly against what this country is founded on. It also goes directly against what our Constitution states. It just shreds the Constitution just a bit. This action was illegal to force someone into what could be said as a prison for doing no crime, only the potential of doing a crime. We all have the potential to commit acts of violence and other such crimes. That doesn’t give anyone the right to lock someone up for a potential cause to protect others. By the United States government locking up the Japanese living in America that is doing more damage then what the government was trying to do in the first place. They just helped out the Japanese. The government was trying to protect its people, but two thirds of the people they locked up were born American citizens. They were hurting their own people more then they were protecting them. It was a miscalculation to solve a problem. There are other methods in which the lands of the United States could have been protected from possible Japanese internal attacks. Other methods should have been exploited and this should have been a last resort, or not even an option to use. We are a land of innocent until proven guilty, this was a violation of this cause. These Japanese – American citizens were assumed guilty just on their race and not for who they really were, which was Americans.
Ethnic Notions
The movie that we watched in class mainly focused on the evolution of African Americans in America. The time frame started to back when America was first founded as a nation and how African Americans were viewed as inferior to white, Europeans who were settling the land. The African Americans were used as slaves to do work under harsh conditions. Then it moved on to the pre Civil War era and how African Americans were viewed during that time. They continued this trend of how African Americans are viewed up until modern day.
Another aspect of the movie was how culturally, we as Americans (black and white) have viewed African Americans in different popular culture aspects, such as in music and cartoons, and even in advertising on food products, such as Aunt Jamiema maple syrup. Specific examples that the movie talked about were in the 1940’s ethnic cartoons gave African Americans big lips and a representation that they were all the same. During the time of slavery, an image that represented African Americans was the “Happy Sans Bo”, an image of a slave that was always well happy. He wore torn up clothes and did hard work, but he never seemed to dislike what he did. He was always singing and smiling as he worked. This image was shown throughout the north before the Civil War and gave the image that African Americans liked slavery and were very content with how things were. The idea was passed around that to change slavery would hinder African Americans and would actually put them into a worse spot then they were in. The reasoning behind that idea was that without slavery that African Americans would not be able to support themselves let alone their families. The movie led on that all these ideas of the Happy Sans Bo and later the minstrels and Zip Coon gave whites in the north the misconception that slaves were happy with slavery.
The real ideals of slavery must have been kept secrete to most of the northerners, for how could they possible believe that the African Americans were happy with slavery. Also, how could they believe that they would not be able to support their families and themselves. The only idea that I could think of in why they wouldn’t be able to support themselves is that at the time, racist was so strong that for a white employer to hire a black employee might not be done. However, I don’t really see how this view was thought of back then before slavery was abolished. For me to see any glimpse of reasoning for that is really a long shot.
Looking back to some of the old cartoons I used to watch when I was a child, I do remember seeing the Jim Crow Character, Happy Sans Bo, and the minstrels. At the time I never really thought anything of it and in fact I never did like those cartoons anyways, I saw them as too make believe in the fact that no one ever really acted the way that they did in the cartoon. I never saw them as racist when I was younger however. I just saw them as a cartoonist conception of how someone looked. Also, I didn’t just think it was the African Americans in the cartoons that looked make believe, I felt it was really the whole set of characters that were draw out too far fetched to be any type of realistic entertainment.
The rest of the movie classified the specific time periods and what happened in detail during those time periods. Also there were specific examples of different African American entertainers at the time, such as Bert Williams. Bert Williams learned how to speak non proper English so that he could play the part of an African American to amuse white crowds. He also had to darken his face to make it appear even blacker then it already was. The finally makeup effect that he had to do was to whiten his mouth to make it appear bigger then it was. He had to do all these things just to follow the conception of African Americans at the time.
Another aspect of the movie was how culturally, we as Americans (black and white) have viewed African Americans in different popular culture aspects, such as in music and cartoons, and even in advertising on food products, such as Aunt Jamiema maple syrup. Specific examples that the movie talked about were in the 1940’s ethnic cartoons gave African Americans big lips and a representation that they were all the same. During the time of slavery, an image that represented African Americans was the “Happy Sans Bo”, an image of a slave that was always well happy. He wore torn up clothes and did hard work, but he never seemed to dislike what he did. He was always singing and smiling as he worked. This image was shown throughout the north before the Civil War and gave the image that African Americans liked slavery and were very content with how things were. The idea was passed around that to change slavery would hinder African Americans and would actually put them into a worse spot then they were in. The reasoning behind that idea was that without slavery that African Americans would not be able to support themselves let alone their families. The movie led on that all these ideas of the Happy Sans Bo and later the minstrels and Zip Coon gave whites in the north the misconception that slaves were happy with slavery.
The real ideals of slavery must have been kept secrete to most of the northerners, for how could they possible believe that the African Americans were happy with slavery. Also, how could they believe that they would not be able to support their families and themselves. The only idea that I could think of in why they wouldn’t be able to support themselves is that at the time, racist was so strong that for a white employer to hire a black employee might not be done. However, I don’t really see how this view was thought of back then before slavery was abolished. For me to see any glimpse of reasoning for that is really a long shot.
Looking back to some of the old cartoons I used to watch when I was a child, I do remember seeing the Jim Crow Character, Happy Sans Bo, and the minstrels. At the time I never really thought anything of it and in fact I never did like those cartoons anyways, I saw them as too make believe in the fact that no one ever really acted the way that they did in the cartoon. I never saw them as racist when I was younger however. I just saw them as a cartoonist conception of how someone looked. Also, I didn’t just think it was the African Americans in the cartoons that looked make believe, I felt it was really the whole set of characters that were draw out too far fetched to be any type of realistic entertainment.
The rest of the movie classified the specific time periods and what happened in detail during those time periods. Also there were specific examples of different African American entertainers at the time, such as Bert Williams. Bert Williams learned how to speak non proper English so that he could play the part of an African American to amuse white crowds. He also had to darken his face to make it appear even blacker then it already was. The finally makeup effect that he had to do was to whiten his mouth to make it appear bigger then it was. He had to do all these things just to follow the conception of African Americans at the time.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 – Making Privilege Happen
Johnson begins by saying that privilege is attached to social categories and not to individuals. Well yes that is true, but only to an extent. I actually believe it is more or less the other way around. That privilege is more attached to the individual then to a specific social category. The children of famous, or rich parents have many more privileges then those children of poorer parents. Yes, that does describe a social category, but it is more or less categorized as the individual person than a social group. Johnson then goes on to almost contradict exactly what he says when he gives the example of giving admission preference to the children of graduates from elite colleges and universities. That is a privilege that is given to an individual over a social category. There could have been someone that was rich/poor, black or white that is going to that went to this university and there children are getting the admission benefits. This is more of a case of the university looking out for its alumni and giving them the perks of choosing their university over any other school in the first place.
Johnson does make a very good point in the following paragraph when he states that prejudice is a powerful force that provides fuel for discriminatory behavior and a rationale for justifying it. I think that is said perfectly and I completely agree. Prejudice does in fact give people a rationale to justify being discriminatory against a certain group of people. The prejudice arises from the people that this person is surrounding themselves with. They adopt the views of these people and believe them to be the correct views. Then when the opportunity arises to discriminate against a certain group of people they believe that their actions are the correct ones to take and they feel no sympathy. This is because they give them self a rational reason for the discriminatory choice that they made. The only area that I did not agree with was how one person could discriminate against someone’s spirit. The only rational I could come up with in this situation was that someone could bash or discriminate against someone’s excitement towards something, such as a religious view. In which case again, I agree with Johnson on that fact for the same reasons as previously stated.
The next area of the chapter deals with avoidance, exclusion, rejection, and worse. I have to say these topics that are being discussed are the most painful to all humans and the cause of all sadness in the world. Johnson gives us a list of things that we all do and don’t realize it as a form of rejecting someone. It is true though at one point or another that we all fall into this trap of either avoiding or excluding someone for some reason or another. Maybe we just don’t agree with that person, they aren’t attractive, or maybe for the simple fact that they are just boring. Johnson brings up the point that in some conversations we don’t use our regular speech and exclude some words that we would use if we were just speaking normally. For instance we may exclude certain curse words or words that regard to someone’s ethnicity. An example of this that I just loved, “instead of saying having balls, we should say having ovaries”.
I do agree with Johnson on most of his opinions, except for the fact that I don’t agree with how he says some of his opinions. He puts a bias sarcasm that really shows his point of view. Which is not always a bad thing, just he makes it feel like his way is the only way and he is right and there is no other option. For instance, his says, “To look at racism in particular, as subtle as it often is…” This part really does not need to be there and just gives a negative view on the subject. Johnson does this a couple other times throughout his writings. They are often suttle and not easily picked out, but I do get a strong sense of his views.
Johnson begins by saying that privilege is attached to social categories and not to individuals. Well yes that is true, but only to an extent. I actually believe it is more or less the other way around. That privilege is more attached to the individual then to a specific social category. The children of famous, or rich parents have many more privileges then those children of poorer parents. Yes, that does describe a social category, but it is more or less categorized as the individual person than a social group. Johnson then goes on to almost contradict exactly what he says when he gives the example of giving admission preference to the children of graduates from elite colleges and universities. That is a privilege that is given to an individual over a social category. There could have been someone that was rich/poor, black or white that is going to that went to this university and there children are getting the admission benefits. This is more of a case of the university looking out for its alumni and giving them the perks of choosing their university over any other school in the first place.
Johnson does make a very good point in the following paragraph when he states that prejudice is a powerful force that provides fuel for discriminatory behavior and a rationale for justifying it. I think that is said perfectly and I completely agree. Prejudice does in fact give people a rationale to justify being discriminatory against a certain group of people. The prejudice arises from the people that this person is surrounding themselves with. They adopt the views of these people and believe them to be the correct views. Then when the opportunity arises to discriminate against a certain group of people they believe that their actions are the correct ones to take and they feel no sympathy. This is because they give them self a rational reason for the discriminatory choice that they made. The only area that I did not agree with was how one person could discriminate against someone’s spirit. The only rational I could come up with in this situation was that someone could bash or discriminate against someone’s excitement towards something, such as a religious view. In which case again, I agree with Johnson on that fact for the same reasons as previously stated.
The next area of the chapter deals with avoidance, exclusion, rejection, and worse. I have to say these topics that are being discussed are the most painful to all humans and the cause of all sadness in the world. Johnson gives us a list of things that we all do and don’t realize it as a form of rejecting someone. It is true though at one point or another that we all fall into this trap of either avoiding or excluding someone for some reason or another. Maybe we just don’t agree with that person, they aren’t attractive, or maybe for the simple fact that they are just boring. Johnson brings up the point that in some conversations we don’t use our regular speech and exclude some words that we would use if we were just speaking normally. For instance we may exclude certain curse words or words that regard to someone’s ethnicity. An example of this that I just loved, “instead of saying having balls, we should say having ovaries”.
I do agree with Johnson on most of his opinions, except for the fact that I don’t agree with how he says some of his opinions. He puts a bias sarcasm that really shows his point of view. Which is not always a bad thing, just he makes it feel like his way is the only way and he is right and there is no other option. For instance, his says, “To look at racism in particular, as subtle as it often is…” This part really does not need to be there and just gives a negative view on the subject. Johnson does this a couple other times throughout his writings. They are often suttle and not easily picked out, but I do get a strong sense of his views.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
PPD Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Privilege, Power, and Difference By: Allan G. Johnson
Privilege, Oppression, and Difference
The only thing that surrounds difference is privilege and power. The opening sentence of the chapter, which in fact is absolutely true. Privilege is the only thing that separates different races, and power is gained through this privilege. If you think about it, if everyone was color blinded, everyone would have the exact same opportunities that the most privileged people have. Some whether we like it or not are still born with more privileges then others. This gives them more power then the normal person. However, according to Johnson, difference is not to be at fault here. People are naturally afraid of what they don’t know or understand. Yet, that still doesn’t prove to be the case. We are afraid of what we have learned to think about these ideas in ways that make us be fearful or troubled. If we have been born and raised with the concept of being in a diverse situation, we would not know what it would be like to be segregated. Johnson gives the example of the people in Africa, they know what it is to be African, but don’t know what it is to be black until they come to the United States. They on the other side of the coin, the person from Norway doesn’t know what it is to be white until he arrives in the United States where he is worshiped for being white. He then praises himself for being white and makes sure everyone else knows it too. This is how racism starts and how it gets carried away. To key note a very important quote by Johnson, “The trouble around diversity, then, isn’t just that people differ from one another. The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass.” Johnson right there gives the whole cause for why racism happens. It is how we are taught as we travel our lives through this world, how the world forms into different groups of people who make bias judgements about certain groups of people and how they act. The whole thing about cultural creation is false, it is made up and it is how we experience the world around us. All types of racism is all relative to our situation and stance in the event. We might not think someone is fit for a task based on their skin color or heritage, but that is just based on what we have prior knowledge on with their race or heritage, but is not always true with the individual. For instance Irish people are know to always drink a lot, but for instance you will find someone that is Irish that doesn’t like to drink. It is just a stereotype about a certain culture that is not always true, this is the basis for racism and how it effects our lives and lifestyles.
Privilege, Power, and Difference By: Allan G. Johnson
Privilege, Oppression, and Difference
The only thing that surrounds difference is privilege and power. The opening sentence of the chapter, which in fact is absolutely true. Privilege is the only thing that separates different races, and power is gained through this privilege. If you think about it, if everyone was color blinded, everyone would have the exact same opportunities that the most privileged people have. Some whether we like it or not are still born with more privileges then others. This gives them more power then the normal person. However, according to Johnson, difference is not to be at fault here. People are naturally afraid of what they don’t know or understand. Yet, that still doesn’t prove to be the case. We are afraid of what we have learned to think about these ideas in ways that make us be fearful or troubled. If we have been born and raised with the concept of being in a diverse situation, we would not know what it would be like to be segregated. Johnson gives the example of the people in Africa, they know what it is to be African, but don’t know what it is to be black until they come to the United States. They on the other side of the coin, the person from Norway doesn’t know what it is to be white until he arrives in the United States where he is worshiped for being white. He then praises himself for being white and makes sure everyone else knows it too. This is how racism starts and how it gets carried away. To key note a very important quote by Johnson, “The trouble around diversity, then, isn’t just that people differ from one another. The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass.” Johnson right there gives the whole cause for why racism happens. It is how we are taught as we travel our lives through this world, how the world forms into different groups of people who make bias judgements about certain groups of people and how they act. The whole thing about cultural creation is false, it is made up and it is how we experience the world around us. All types of racism is all relative to our situation and stance in the event. We might not think someone is fit for a task based on their skin color or heritage, but that is just based on what we have prior knowledge on with their race or heritage, but is not always true with the individual. For instance Irish people are know to always drink a lot, but for instance you will find someone that is Irish that doesn’t like to drink. It is just a stereotype about a certain culture that is not always true, this is the basis for racism and how it effects our lives and lifestyles.
Rosenblum
Rosenblum, Karen E.
Group 2
Karen Rosenblum is writing many on the topic of the U.S. census. On top of that she is referring to the part of the census that refers to race and ethnicity. The first census came was made in 1790 and every census since that time period has had a question in regards to race and or ethnicity. Over the years as the census has evolved, there have been more choices for race. In 1970, the choices for race were white, Negro or black, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, and Other. The census also mandates that it is the head of the household that decides what race to place on the census. However, the 1970 census was the first census that included ethnicity. It included ethnicity by asking the question of Hispanic or non-Hispanic ancestry. This area of ethnicity was added to hopefully eliminate or minimize the effects of undercounting. Undercounting is the effect where people are overlooked and not counted. This happens mostly in poor areas where poorer people more around a lot and are difficult to contact. This also happens with people who are illiterate and who are illegal immigrants who do not want to send something back into the government. The purpose of the census is the properly appoint the number of seats that are in the U.S. House of Representatives and also the distribution of federal funding to states and localities. Positives for having race on the census help with the voting rights act, equal employment opportunity programs, and racial disparities in health, birth, and death rates. Many it is a statistical program that helps to identify exactly what is going on in the country with regards to the people and how they are living. Still however, in 1970 the census referred to every race that was non-white as a minority. The aim of this data collection was to be able to pinpoint the extent of discrimination. The United States now has moved on from a basic white, non-white society to become a mixed multiracial country. We have advanced on and are still advancing to include everyone and respect everyone’s heritage. On the latest census, 2000, people were able to check more then one race, as a multiracial person they were able to identify themselves. Only two percent of the people who took the census checked off that box, however it was a move to further identify everyone for who they were. One such change that was not made was the change to identify Arab or Middle Eastern People. That is still a change that can be made for the future. The census as well as everything else in life can always get better, that is just the future to come.
Group 2
Karen Rosenblum is writing many on the topic of the U.S. census. On top of that she is referring to the part of the census that refers to race and ethnicity. The first census came was made in 1790 and every census since that time period has had a question in regards to race and or ethnicity. Over the years as the census has evolved, there have been more choices for race. In 1970, the choices for race were white, Negro or black, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, and Other. The census also mandates that it is the head of the household that decides what race to place on the census. However, the 1970 census was the first census that included ethnicity. It included ethnicity by asking the question of Hispanic or non-Hispanic ancestry. This area of ethnicity was added to hopefully eliminate or minimize the effects of undercounting. Undercounting is the effect where people are overlooked and not counted. This happens mostly in poor areas where poorer people more around a lot and are difficult to contact. This also happens with people who are illiterate and who are illegal immigrants who do not want to send something back into the government. The purpose of the census is the properly appoint the number of seats that are in the U.S. House of Representatives and also the distribution of federal funding to states and localities. Positives for having race on the census help with the voting rights act, equal employment opportunity programs, and racial disparities in health, birth, and death rates. Many it is a statistical program that helps to identify exactly what is going on in the country with regards to the people and how they are living. Still however, in 1970 the census referred to every race that was non-white as a minority. The aim of this data collection was to be able to pinpoint the extent of discrimination. The United States now has moved on from a basic white, non-white society to become a mixed multiracial country. We have advanced on and are still advancing to include everyone and respect everyone’s heritage. On the latest census, 2000, people were able to check more then one race, as a multiracial person they were able to identify themselves. Only two percent of the people who took the census checked off that box, however it was a move to further identify everyone for who they were. One such change that was not made was the change to identify Arab or Middle Eastern People. That is still a change that can be made for the future. The census as well as everything else in life can always get better, that is just the future to come.
Zinn
Zinn
The article talks about Christopher Columbus and how
the Spanish are treating the native Americans that
they have encountered. The way that the article is
written is in a negative sense and only describes how
the natives are being mistreated. That is really the
main focus of the article. A background of the
situation. The Turks have taken control of eastern
Europe and most importantly the Eastern portion of the
Mediterranean Sea. This is preventing countries in
western Europe, such as Spain, England, and Portugal
from trading with countries in the far east. Portugal
has monopolized the trade route around Cape Horn in
South Africa, so Spain to get one up on the
Portuguese, has to find another route to the far east.
Italy is full of sailors with limited people to
sponsor them. This causes Christopher Columbus to
travel to Spain in search of someone to sponsor his
journey. Columbus hopes to travel west in order to go
east and reach Asia and the countries of India and
China. He meets with King Ferdinand and Queen
Isabella of Spain and convinces them that he is the
man for the mission. One of the probable reasons that
Columbus was chosen for the task over many others was
his charm and flirtatious abilities towards the Queen
of Spain, Isabella. Naturally, they granted him
permission and organized a fleet of three ships to
sail with him. On board his flag ship of the Santa Maria were thirty nine sailors. It was said that the
first man to sight land would receive a special
pension. However, the first man to actually sight
land was pushed aside by Columbus, who took the credit
for himself and in the end received the pension. This
act was taken more to impress the king and queen then
to receive the actual money in the pension. This I
believe ends up being Columbus's semi-downfall. Even
though Columbus never ended up in a poor state and
still receives honor and glory for his journey, he did
make some mistakes along the way. His major one was
trying to impress the king and queen too much and not
considering the effects of his actions. Many died as
a result of his actions to search for gold and when
none could be found the natives were taken as slaves,
where many of them died (about half) just on the
journey alone to Spain from the Carribean Sea. The
island of Hispanol, now Hatiti and the Dominican Republic consisted of give or take 250,000 natives at
the time Columbus landed there, when he left, they
were roughly extinct. The natives were eager to meet
with Columbus and would trade willingly, but they were
treated as less then animals. Always as inferior and
ignorant as one example was given, one of the natives
not sure what Columbus's sword was, grasped at it,
causing his hand to bleed. The Spanish saw this type
of action as inferior people and thought that they
could push them around because of there superior
technology and force. They made the natives take them
to gold and when they weren't taking them to the gold,
they were force to search for it themselves. When a
native returned without the gold, his/her arms were
cut off and then they bled to death. The treatment
was awful, it later turned into just mass killings of
natives where in the end the natives just started to
committe suicide instead of face death by the Spanish.
This part of history seems to get lost in the mixture
of things. We have to remember our past in order to
strive in our future.
The article talks about Christopher Columbus and how
the Spanish are treating the native Americans that
they have encountered. The way that the article is
written is in a negative sense and only describes how
the natives are being mistreated. That is really the
main focus of the article. A background of the
situation. The Turks have taken control of eastern
Europe and most importantly the Eastern portion of the
Mediterranean Sea. This is preventing countries in
western Europe, such as Spain, England, and Portugal
from trading with countries in the far east. Portugal
has monopolized the trade route around Cape Horn in
South Africa, so Spain to get one up on the
Portuguese, has to find another route to the far east.
Italy is full of sailors with limited people to
sponsor them. This causes Christopher Columbus to
travel to Spain in search of someone to sponsor his
journey. Columbus hopes to travel west in order to go
east and reach Asia and the countries of India and
China. He meets with King Ferdinand and Queen
Isabella of Spain and convinces them that he is the
man for the mission. One of the probable reasons that
Columbus was chosen for the task over many others was
his charm and flirtatious abilities towards the Queen
of Spain, Isabella. Naturally, they granted him
permission and organized a fleet of three ships to
sail with him. On board his flag ship of the Santa Maria were thirty nine sailors. It was said that the
first man to sight land would receive a special
pension. However, the first man to actually sight
land was pushed aside by Columbus, who took the credit
for himself and in the end received the pension. This
act was taken more to impress the king and queen then
to receive the actual money in the pension. This I
believe ends up being Columbus's semi-downfall. Even
though Columbus never ended up in a poor state and
still receives honor and glory for his journey, he did
make some mistakes along the way. His major one was
trying to impress the king and queen too much and not
considering the effects of his actions. Many died as
a result of his actions to search for gold and when
none could be found the natives were taken as slaves,
where many of them died (about half) just on the
journey alone to Spain from the Carribean Sea. The
island of Hispanol, now Hatiti and the Dominican Republic consisted of give or take 250,000 natives at
the time Columbus landed there, when he left, they
were roughly extinct. The natives were eager to meet
with Columbus and would trade willingly, but they were
treated as less then animals. Always as inferior and
ignorant as one example was given, one of the natives
not sure what Columbus's sword was, grasped at it,
causing his hand to bleed. The Spanish saw this type
of action as inferior people and thought that they
could push them around because of there superior
technology and force. They made the natives take them
to gold and when they weren't taking them to the gold,
they were force to search for it themselves. When a
native returned without the gold, his/her arms were
cut off and then they bled to death. The treatment
was awful, it later turned into just mass killings of
natives where in the end the natives just started to
committe suicide instead of face death by the Spanish.
This part of history seems to get lost in the mixture
of things. We have to remember our past in order to
strive in our future.
About Me
About me
My full name is Christopher John Schiazza. I was born on August 13, 1987 in Bloomington, Illinois and moved to Avon Lake, Ohio at the age of 2. Avon Lake is right on Lake Erie and is about 20 minutes driving time from east of Cleveland. I enjoy playing really any sport, and I have played on various teams for pretty much every common sport, such as wrestling, baseball, football, soccer, track, and tennis. However, I enjoy soccer the most and have played it all my life. I love watching the World Cup, and especially when my team, Italy beats France in penalty kicks to win the championship game. My plans for after I graduate in 2010 are to travel to South Africa to watch the next World Cup. I figure it is a once in a lifetime experience and what better time to experience it then being right out of college. My reasoning for liking the Italian team is the main fact that I am Italian. My grandparents are first generation Americans, they came from Italy, well all of them except my grandpa on my mom’s side that came from Ireland, which gives me a quarter Irish. Anyways, I have in fact been to Italy before. I visited northern Italy and southern Germany last summer and plan to return within the next couple of years.
I am a freshman here at Bowling Green State University, this is my second semester. I really enjoyed my first semester and am looking forward to what this school has to offer. As for my major, I am still undecided, but am leaning towards something to do with history. My dream job would be to be the American ambassador to Italy, but I feel this job is few and far between to come by, so therefore my options are still open. However, I am still keeping my hopes up.
I took this class Ethnics 101, really just to fulfill a credit in I do believe diversity; correct me if I am mistaken. I do however hope to gain more knowledge in this field of study. My town is pretty non-ethnical if I should say. It was a mainly a middle to upper class white city. We did not have very much diversity. In my opinion I never really felt that it was either a strength or weakness. I don’t personally realize diversity too much, I am more responsive to culture aspects of a society then what color skin the people are. I like to know where people are from which goes back to my liking for history in the aspect that I like to think of what has occurred in those locations of the world. Take for instance Italians, they are derived from one of the world’s greatest empires, Rome. Everyone has a history to them and where their relatives have come from. That is really my outlook on ethnics, but I do hope to further this outlook for the better.
Anyways to wrap up about me, I like all types of music. There is really nothing I don’t listen to, from techno to rap, with softer music mixed in, then all the way to Frank Sinatra and Elvis. The range is very wide, but I get tired of one type of music very quickly and have to change to another type. At the moment I am going through a country fad which will probably pass quickly, but nonetheless I am enjoying it. Alright the rest of about me has to be figured out in person, so I hope to meet many people in class and find out about them. Till then arrivederci!!!
My full name is Christopher John Schiazza. I was born on August 13, 1987 in Bloomington, Illinois and moved to Avon Lake, Ohio at the age of 2. Avon Lake is right on Lake Erie and is about 20 minutes driving time from east of Cleveland. I enjoy playing really any sport, and I have played on various teams for pretty much every common sport, such as wrestling, baseball, football, soccer, track, and tennis. However, I enjoy soccer the most and have played it all my life. I love watching the World Cup, and especially when my team, Italy beats France in penalty kicks to win the championship game. My plans for after I graduate in 2010 are to travel to South Africa to watch the next World Cup. I figure it is a once in a lifetime experience and what better time to experience it then being right out of college. My reasoning for liking the Italian team is the main fact that I am Italian. My grandparents are first generation Americans, they came from Italy, well all of them except my grandpa on my mom’s side that came from Ireland, which gives me a quarter Irish. Anyways, I have in fact been to Italy before. I visited northern Italy and southern Germany last summer and plan to return within the next couple of years.
I am a freshman here at Bowling Green State University, this is my second semester. I really enjoyed my first semester and am looking forward to what this school has to offer. As for my major, I am still undecided, but am leaning towards something to do with history. My dream job would be to be the American ambassador to Italy, but I feel this job is few and far between to come by, so therefore my options are still open. However, I am still keeping my hopes up.
I took this class Ethnics 101, really just to fulfill a credit in I do believe diversity; correct me if I am mistaken. I do however hope to gain more knowledge in this field of study. My town is pretty non-ethnical if I should say. It was a mainly a middle to upper class white city. We did not have very much diversity. In my opinion I never really felt that it was either a strength or weakness. I don’t personally realize diversity too much, I am more responsive to culture aspects of a society then what color skin the people are. I like to know where people are from which goes back to my liking for history in the aspect that I like to think of what has occurred in those locations of the world. Take for instance Italians, they are derived from one of the world’s greatest empires, Rome. Everyone has a history to them and where their relatives have come from. That is really my outlook on ethnics, but I do hope to further this outlook for the better.
Anyways to wrap up about me, I like all types of music. There is really nothing I don’t listen to, from techno to rap, with softer music mixed in, then all the way to Frank Sinatra and Elvis. The range is very wide, but I get tired of one type of music very quickly and have to change to another type. At the moment I am going through a country fad which will probably pass quickly, but nonetheless I am enjoying it. Alright the rest of about me has to be figured out in person, so I hope to meet many people in class and find out about them. Till then arrivederci!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)