In the article "Constructing Race, Constructing White Privilege," the author talks about whites assuming "white" as a racial identity based on different benefits at the time. Is there a value of "whitness" today? Explain your position.
When the author talked about whites assuming "white" based on the benefits of the time there was a whole paragraph if not more of privileges whites had over blacks. For example; more pain could be inflicted on blacks than on whites, whites alone could bear arms, whites alone had the right to self-defense. At that time, there were many benefits to being white, so this made obviously non-superior whites have a false sense of superiority over blacks.
I don't think this exists in society today if at all it's situational and locational, maybe in the deep south or something like that but not around here. I think any advantages or disadvantages in society today are less race related and probably more geared to wealth and status. It seems to me if one hundred black people from a poor area tried "making it" in society they would have a hard time probably more often for being poor than being black. That's what I mean by situational because say one of those hundred black people go to get a job and the manager is racist, he's probably not going to get the job, but I don't think its because of an overall white advantage in society, just a situation where race was involved. I'm not entirely sure if I'm contradicting myself by saying racism exists but white advantage doesn't but I am definitely sure that if there is any advantage at all it certainly isn't as strong as it was in the past.
20080228
20080225
Parenti's quote
In his article "The Plutocratic Culture: Institutions, Values and Ideologies", Michael Parenti writes the following: "The desire to 'make it,' even at the expense of others, is not merely a wrong-headed attitude but a reflection of the material conditions of capitalist society wherein no one is ever economically secure except the super-rich." Explain what he means by this. Also, use some of what was expressed in the "Devil and Dave Chappelle" article to think about Parenti's quote.
I interpret Parenti's quote like this; basically he's saying that money shouldn't be the goal of people trying to build successful lives because in the end even those who are successful aren't successful forever. Like in "Devil and Dave Chapelle" the author states "... nothing succeeds like success, but the truth is nothing fails like it, either." I guess it would be how you deem 'making it' if you deem success on how much money you have, Parenti would obviously disagree with you, but I personally think success could be measured in many different ways and it should be left up to the person to decide whether they are successful or not. I don't agree that money is the route to success but to each his own.
The Chappelle article was interesting in that it was true, to me the stereotypes were funny, I'm sure if i actually sat and thought what is Chapelle trying get across here it wouldn't have been hard to figure out but when I would turn on Comedy Central to watch him, laughter was on my mind, not deep thought. Which I assume is the whole point of the article is how white people were laughing at the stereotypes, not with them. But, to defend myself a little I laughed equally at all the stereotypes, including the white ones. I don't know if it's just me but if you're looking for respect and people to take you seriously, comedy is probably not the best place. I will admit though after reading that article I will look more deeply into some of his sketches.
I interpret Parenti's quote like this; basically he's saying that money shouldn't be the goal of people trying to build successful lives because in the end even those who are successful aren't successful forever. Like in "Devil and Dave Chapelle" the author states "... nothing succeeds like success, but the truth is nothing fails like it, either." I guess it would be how you deem 'making it' if you deem success on how much money you have, Parenti would obviously disagree with you, but I personally think success could be measured in many different ways and it should be left up to the person to decide whether they are successful or not. I don't agree that money is the route to success but to each his own.
The Chappelle article was interesting in that it was true, to me the stereotypes were funny, I'm sure if i actually sat and thought what is Chapelle trying get across here it wouldn't have been hard to figure out but when I would turn on Comedy Central to watch him, laughter was on my mind, not deep thought. Which I assume is the whole point of the article is how white people were laughing at the stereotypes, not with them. But, to defend myself a little I laughed equally at all the stereotypes, including the white ones. I don't know if it's just me but if you're looking for respect and people to take you seriously, comedy is probably not the best place. I will admit though after reading that article I will look more deeply into some of his sketches.
20080224
Dominance?
1) We've gone over dominant/target groups in class somewhat. Where do YOUR identities lie? How has membership in those identites shaped who you are today? Do you have any reaction or feeling about the notion of some of them being dominant and others being target groups?
I'm a twenty year old heterosexual white male who's in good shape. That sentence alone puts me in four out of five dominant categories, my age being the only target trait. Who cares, I know I don't, in ten years ill be five out of five, big deal. I don't believe that being dominant makes me any better than anyone else or anyone who is older than me is better than me. Maybe its easy to say this from the dominant group because I haven't really been discriminated against besides my age here and there but nothing major. I guess being in the dominant group means there are more people out there like you, so i guess this means i would have an easier time than someone who is four out of five in the target groups, but nothing major has happened that really impacted my life, i guess I'm trying to say maybe I'm ignorant but it's not like i walk into a pizza place and I'm like hey you gay white woman, I'm better than you move out of my way...
So I guess my reaction to groups being target/dominant is that it's stupid and doesn't really make a difference to me, you have to prove to me your better than me, and i would expect to have the same challenge from anyone else, the way I see it were all equals until one of us is proven worse. Like in sports both teams start at 0-0, as far as i know it's that way in every sport, no teams get an extra point for being older or a certain color, obviously life is more complex then sports, but it would be nice if we were all equal wouldn't it?
I'm a twenty year old heterosexual white male who's in good shape. That sentence alone puts me in four out of five dominant categories, my age being the only target trait. Who cares, I know I don't, in ten years ill be five out of five, big deal. I don't believe that being dominant makes me any better than anyone else or anyone who is older than me is better than me. Maybe its easy to say this from the dominant group because I haven't really been discriminated against besides my age here and there but nothing major. I guess being in the dominant group means there are more people out there like you, so i guess this means i would have an easier time than someone who is four out of five in the target groups, but nothing major has happened that really impacted my life, i guess I'm trying to say maybe I'm ignorant but it's not like i walk into a pizza place and I'm like hey you gay white woman, I'm better than you move out of my way...
So I guess my reaction to groups being target/dominant is that it's stupid and doesn't really make a difference to me, you have to prove to me your better than me, and i would expect to have the same challenge from anyone else, the way I see it were all equals until one of us is proven worse. Like in sports both teams start at 0-0, as far as i know it's that way in every sport, no teams get an extra point for being older or a certain color, obviously life is more complex then sports, but it would be nice if we were all equal wouldn't it?
20080216
Reverse Racism?
In response to the topic of reverse racism that was brought up in class Thursday, I will be writing my first ever blog to argue that reverse racism could exist. While quietly taking in the opinions of my classmates I came to the conclusion that reverse racism could exist, although most of my classmates including the teacher sided for the non-existence of reverse racism. I personally never have been in any situation that would be considered reverse racism but that doesn't mean I can't think it exists.
So I think the first thing would be what does reverse racism mean to me? Maybe I'm over simplifying this but, to me a racist, one who practices racism, would be someone who deliberately discriminates against someone due to race, just like a sexist would be someone who discriminates against someone due to sex. That's what I think those terms mean maybe it will help to add the dictionaries definition:
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
As far as I can comprehend thats pretty much what I said but they just use more sophisticated writing skills, which if you've actually been reading this you have probably figured out already I'm not an English major.
So that would mean that reverse racism, to me, would be someone who is racist being discriminated against because of their race. Two wrongs don't make a right people, but we don't follow the simple rules of kindergarten do we, but thats a different story maybe that could be a whole other blog. So it seems pretty simple to me, a reverse racist is someone who discriminates someone, who in turn discriminates someone due to their race, not necessarily in the same instance.
Maybe I should try to create an example to better explain my reasoning: Say we have two people, for simplicity well call them thing 1 and thing 2, ( if only Dr. Suess knew they were racist) this may not be as drastic as some of the cases of racism in the past and present world but in my opinion, examples of racism nonetheless. Thing 1 is white and owns a pizza shop and one day he refuses to serve a black man... it wasn't because the man was poor, young, tall, fat, religious, or any other reason besides he was black. What happened after that I don't think really matters so there's no point in making anything up, the story continues and thing 1 is traveling through a different town on a business trip and stops for gas. Thing 2 is black and is the owner of the gas station, not to be confused with the black man that was refused service, the have no connection whatsoever. Thing 2 approaches thing 1 and tells him that he is not allowed to pump gas here and he can go down the street to the other station, for the same reason as situation 1; completely based on race. So basically, thing 1 was racist and thing 2 was racist to thing 1, creating reverse racism.
Another thing that I wanted to talk about may be a little far fetched of a thought, but oh well here it is anyway. Lets see the definition of racism again: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. So... wouldn't arguing against the fact that reverse racism exists be racist in itself, basically you're saying that only white people can be racist, which is excluding different races from being racist because of their race. Now maybe this is where it gets far fetched, but maybe people enjoy being racists, not just white people, but lets say a person who wasn't white wanted to be racist, if reverse racism didn't exist then he couldn't be racist, which in turn is racist, because he can't do something he wants because of his race.
So lets clear a couple things up, I do not in anyway embrace racism, and I agree that obviously some instances of racism are more severe than others, I am solely saying that I believe that reverse racism could exist, although I do not want it to.
So I think the first thing would be what does reverse racism mean to me? Maybe I'm over simplifying this but, to me a racist, one who practices racism, would be someone who deliberately discriminates against someone due to race, just like a sexist would be someone who discriminates against someone due to sex. That's what I think those terms mean maybe it will help to add the dictionaries definition:
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
As far as I can comprehend thats pretty much what I said but they just use more sophisticated writing skills, which if you've actually been reading this you have probably figured out already I'm not an English major.
So that would mean that reverse racism, to me, would be someone who is racist being discriminated against because of their race. Two wrongs don't make a right people, but we don't follow the simple rules of kindergarten do we, but thats a different story maybe that could be a whole other blog. So it seems pretty simple to me, a reverse racist is someone who discriminates someone, who in turn discriminates someone due to their race, not necessarily in the same instance.
Maybe I should try to create an example to better explain my reasoning: Say we have two people, for simplicity well call them thing 1 and thing 2, ( if only Dr. Suess knew they were racist) this may not be as drastic as some of the cases of racism in the past and present world but in my opinion, examples of racism nonetheless. Thing 1 is white and owns a pizza shop and one day he refuses to serve a black man... it wasn't because the man was poor, young, tall, fat, religious, or any other reason besides he was black. What happened after that I don't think really matters so there's no point in making anything up, the story continues and thing 1 is traveling through a different town on a business trip and stops for gas. Thing 2 is black and is the owner of the gas station, not to be confused with the black man that was refused service, the have no connection whatsoever. Thing 2 approaches thing 1 and tells him that he is not allowed to pump gas here and he can go down the street to the other station, for the same reason as situation 1; completely based on race. So basically, thing 1 was racist and thing 2 was racist to thing 1, creating reverse racism.
Another thing that I wanted to talk about may be a little far fetched of a thought, but oh well here it is anyway. Lets see the definition of racism again: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. So... wouldn't arguing against the fact that reverse racism exists be racist in itself, basically you're saying that only white people can be racist, which is excluding different races from being racist because of their race. Now maybe this is where it gets far fetched, but maybe people enjoy being racists, not just white people, but lets say a person who wasn't white wanted to be racist, if reverse racism didn't exist then he couldn't be racist, which in turn is racist, because he can't do something he wants because of his race.
So lets clear a couple things up, I do not in anyway embrace racism, and I agree that obviously some instances of racism are more severe than others, I am solely saying that I believe that reverse racism could exist, although I do not want it to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
