BakerJournal

Zinn’s chapter 9 article stated the ideas and attempts of slaves. Zinn talks about how the U.S. had such a desire for slave labor because of the production and sale of cotton. The slaves made it possible for their masters to produce more cotton than they could ever imagine with very little costs. The southern states had an enormous compilation of laws, courts, armed forces and etc. behind them to keep their control over the slaves strong. Zinn goes on to say that it would take either a full scale war or rebellion to free these slaves and change these deeply held beliefs that blacks were second class citizens at least. A large misconception back then was that slaves were happy and enjoyed there lives because of their singing and dancing at night. A former slave John Little spoke about this by saying that it was all that they could do to keep their hearts from breaking. The loud noises and celebrations were their only refuge from the painful lives they lived. Though there were many slave revolts in America, they were no where near as frequent or as large as some of the ones in the Caribbean or South America. One of the largest revolts in America was one that took place in New Orleans. This encompassed roughly 500 slaves. They first killed their masters and then proceeded to go from plantation to plantation and retrieve more help. This was ended when the military arrived and killed 66 slaves on the spot and many others were sent to trial. Most of the trials ended in death by firing squad. Revolts, wars and running away were the most probable actions masters would expect from their slaves. Running away was the most common practice and was generally much easier to accomplish than gathering a multitude of followers. It was tolled that an average of 1000 slaves ran away and escaped every year. Many would go north to Canada or south to Mexico. These countries often offered some refuge since the American government had very little power and these were not large slave using countries. Harriet Tubman was a leader of the Underground Railroad which carried slaves from the south to the north. Tubman, a slave used to say that she would either live free or die, she would never return to being a slave.
Why did the slaves not revolt in a large scale before Lincoln?
How did slaves begin a revolt?
I already knew that there were many attempts by slaves to run but did not know about all of the attempted revolutions undertaken. I don’t understand how they could not revolt for such a long time. The horror of slavery I think would be worth dyeing for instead of ever being a slave.

BakerBrodkin

“How the Jew Became White Folks” written by Brodkin discusses that when he was growing up the emphasis placed upon people by society was not really on religion and different races within one color such as Jewish whites. He goes on to explain that part of his ethnic heritage was to believe that Jews were smart and the success was due to there work epic. Even though he did agree with these traits the Jewish people portrayed he did not believe that it was all that was to receive credit for many of their success. Brodkin believed that along with the Jews desire to work hard and get a good education they were also able to consummate the removal of very strong social barriers. Euro races is thought of as the European races divided into many different inferior and superior races. This began with the huge waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe which started in the late nineteenth century. The early beliefs were actually somewhat laughable. Women were asked to stop breeding with other than superior races in hopes of shrinking the population out. Economic crisis and medical problems were blames on the immigrants so the idea of genetic differences became more and more widespread. Brodkin discusses the fact that through the faces of adversity in Columbia his father was able to make a strong and successful man out of himself and his mother did not feel the shame of being who she was and still had a happy life. Both parents always placed an emphasis on good education and hard work to achieve somewhat equality. Up until Brodkin reached adolescents he was still seen as a Jew in everyone’s eyes. He would go to school on the Z block of his area and his neighborhoods were mainly segregated, not just by race as it is now but religion. Once he reached adolescence Brodkin Jews were thought of as white folks, no more mainstream ideas of Jewish as a lower race. After the beginning of World War 2 much of the anti Semitism values and anti European racism lost its respectability. After what was going on it was hard to be a self respecting person while still upholding the values of a genocidal nation who we as Americans were fighting against for unfair treatments. This lead to the ideal that the United States would be a land of real equal opportunity and all people would have the option of becoming middle class. After the war was the largest building of colleges this nation has ever seen. Since colleges up to this point had been seen as only a marker for upper class, with all these GI’s taking advantage of their opportunity given by the government. This transformed America’s class structure once again. Though the GI bill was meant to work fro everyone the African Americans and Women of any race were not being compensated which was still a sign of somewhat underground prejudice.
1) Why were Jews outcast originally?
2) Who decided Jews were not white?
My reaction is not surprise. I knew the Jews were treated unfairly but I thought that it was mainly in Europe and that in America Jews were just as equal as others.

BakerAnalysis2

I believe that Christopher Columbus should not be considered as a hero. Columbus made his name famous through the torment, pain and triumph of people who were not as industrialized. The fact that Columbus was the man acclaimed for finding the New World may make him important to our society but should not turn him into a hero. I will be using articles from the course such as Howard Zinn’s “A people’s History of the United States”, and Loewen’s book “Lies My Teacher Told Me”. I will be using Zinn’s ideas to explain some of the misunderstandings most of our society has about Columbus including beliefs that the Indians were treated fairly and not taken advantage of. I will be using Loewen’s book to show that many of the ideas our society is taught when young is taught through “white eyes” and that many ideas are misconstrued even in textbooks. I will use the evidence that Columbus forced many Indians into slavery to repay his debt to Europe. I will show that even though Columbus is credited with the finding of the New World even though he was not the one who first spotted it. The fact that Columbus discovered the New World is just belligerent on the very principle that it was already inhabited. The ways most schools and textbooks teach early “American” history through the eyes of white people and try to explain how what was done was ethically right is also evidence I will be using to prove my point.

BakerRosenblumTravis

In Karen Rosenblum and Toni Travis’s book “The Meaning of Difference” the authors discuss the social construction of race, gender, inequality and privileges. The fact that all of these are constructed by our values is one of the key points that the authors are trying to convey through there writing. One idea discussed is theoretical framework which is a set of basic ideas we have when trying to understand the world that surrounds us. This is a crucial part of our everyday world and how we understand it, as the building of a house needs strong resilient framing so do our ideas and beliefs. The authors also discuss what a master status is and what the five main master statuses are. A master status is the status which overpowers the others. To understand that however it is crucial to know what a status is. A status is what is cast upon a person either by nature or society such as gender or career position. These statuses can cause privilege or oppression depending on what culture is being looked at and which status a person holds is highest on the list. According to the authors the five main master statuses in social order are race, gender, sexual orientation, ability/disability, and social class. These all are what society in general looks at when determining a persons “worth” if you will. Though we may not like to think of ourselves as such insensitive creatures unfortunately these ideas are very strong and are often seen but unnoticed everyday by just about everyone. The authors also convey the ideas of essentialist versus constructionist. An essentialist believes that the world and everything in it is natural and just simply “there”. Where as a constructionist believes everything is there and requires an interpretation from everyone. Social construction is another idea talked about in this book, which is generally regarded as the rules and boundaries set in place by society to sway our actions into conformity. A few examples of things which socially construct our reality are the law, careers, religion, schools and families. The authors discuss the role in social construction plays in the study of race and ethnicity. Their idea is that the two terms are just a product of social construction because there actually is no true difference between people. Naming, the placing of people into groups by labeling them is also an issued discussed.
1. Why do people continue to believe race is biological?
2. Is there any time in history when statuses did not exist?
I believe in many of the points the authors are trying to make and I can understand what they are talking about. Though I haven't ever really thought about these statuses I can understand how they play a big deal in our lives as individuals and how we see eachother.

BakerECJohnsonCH12

In Johnson's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" chapter 12 dealt with the issues of how many textbooks are pitted on the basis of speaking in a "white" tone. Johnson believes that many of the textbooks, especially social studies and subject of that nature are having a negative effect on not only minority children but also white children. The theory is that when dealing with history one must have some emotional response to what is being brought in, whether it is forced or not. When books are read from only one point of view which generally triggers an emotion it is often times negative. Many books Johnson talks about are written from a white point of view which when read by privileged whites is some what productive because they can relate and put a good emotion toward it. On the other hand when an African American or Native American begins to read and contemplate these readings more negative feelings come into play. These negative feelings may be having a impact on these children which is much less than desirable. When someone reads something they believe is unfair or unjust in a certain way they may tend to block it out and forget it which in turn results in a lack of knowledge. Johnson talks about a student of his who had been teaching in a school in with a large Native American population the celebration of Thanksgiving came up and one boy said that he was told not to listen to what any white man had to say because it was wrong. This shows Johnson's point that when things are told in a certain point of view they may sometimes be dismissed rather quickly. Johnson also discusses the impact of education on the idea of the Vietnamese war. With a logical idea most would think that the more educated on is the greater the desire would be on average that war would want to be avoided. This was what was expected of the census taken in January 1971. The result however confused many social scientists and scholars. Apparently the less educated people were the higher the average was that they wanted the troops to return home from the war. What is believed to be the reason now is that people in the upper third of the educational and pay range of our society is believed to support society more since they have done so well in it where as the “lower class” are more empt to resent what is supposedly good for society.
1. Why was that idea not thought about before the polling?
2. What was the point for the census, the government wasn't going to listen anyway?
I can agree with what the author is saying because when I was in school I would find it almost warming to hear that our ancestors were such great people. After learning about how whites were so domineering over other races and could be so horrible toward others I found myself appauled, these views were not coming from the "white" state of mind but looking in and emotions played a large part in my thoughts. I don't however agree with blocking out because I don't like what I hear, since I've learned how bad some whites have been I have gained curiosity.

BakerAnalysis

Columbus, a great explorer, founder of the New World and profiteer. Yes, this man did push the idea of human progress throughout the new world and urge Europe to recognize the untapped labor force; but is what he did acceptabe? Columbus is thought of as a "Hero", as taught in early school, he found the New World and made it possible for us to be here today. So with all that he has done to help our way of life should he be remembered as a greedy, genocidal, selfish man? The awnser is yes. While contributing much to society and productivity Columbus hurt countless innocent people who had no desire but to help and teach him. This man was greedy, selfish and should not be remembered as a hero, but as a murderer.

BakerLoewen

Red Eyes, a chapter from "Lies My Teacher Told Me" was an illustrated view into the wrongful ways many textbooks handed out to America's youth use to depict Native Americans. Almost all history books stated Indians as savage, barbarick, primitive and so on. This continues well into the 90's. Until recently textbooks gave little if no reference to the Native Americans culture before verbally bashing them and making them out to be unfit to walk on the same earth as the white Europeans. Now adays atleast 10 out of 12 textbooks Loewen surveyed gave atleast 5 pages to depict the ways in which Native Americans lived. In many areas Europeans pitted tribes against one another to extend their own rule. Even though the Indians were willing and able to help the Europeans in the planting, growing and cultivation of food while possesing knowledge to also help them catch food and herbal medicine. The Europeans made Indians slaves which in turn let them trade for food instead of grow it. "Instead of weaving a basket they could trade some beaver for a kettle." The Indians were widely regarded by whites to have a natural ability in the medicinal arts and ability to help cure, they have been living off the land for who knows how long and have not had any of Europes new, industrialized remedies or docters. With this in mind the Europeans would make medicines and bottle it with pictures of Indians on the cover pursuading people to buy it. Not only would medication come with the pictures of Indians but other European products would as well.
1) Why didn't Europeans just accept that leaving the Indians alone would benefit more than enslaving them.
2) Why were whites so attached to the idea of enslavement?
I was not very suprised when I read this article. I have read about the other horrible things the Europeans have done to the Indinans and this just seems to rank right along with them.

BakerJohnson6

"What it all has to do with us". This article is showing the way that taking the path of least resistance is often followed by most people. The path of least resistance is the chioce which makes one not have to fight as hard once the chioce is made. One of the examples in the text is a manager is told to fire many employees or he will be fired himself. By refusing to fire the others he would encounter much resistance, mainly from losing his job, so most likely the man will fire the other employees. This idea conforms to the idea that individualism is not as important than the group. If most people take the path of least resistance, taking out the extreme circumstances, the group as a whole will benifit, that same company which desired the man to fire his employees may have made that decision because they are aware of the companys loss of profits and if the company were to keep the employees it would have gone under, which would have forced more people out of their jobs. While there are some times that people aren't even aware of the other choices that could be made which still leads them to the path of least resistance. Sexism and racism both tie into this idea, to fit in many people will jump on the bandwagon to ridicule or humiliate just so they aren't cast out of their group. It is much easier to agree or not say anything to a joke or statement you dont really agree with than to show how you are different and be ridiculed yourself.
1) Why do most people not know how the path of least resistants is the path they choose because it is so much easier?
2) Why are white men, supposedly the highest ranked social class, many white man are discriminated in society today because of their incomes or age.
My reaction to this article is that I guess I can somewhat relate to the conforming to social classes by going with the norms and taking the path of least resistance but I dont think I ever though of it that way. Most of the time the path of leat resistance is the only that will end the same way, if everything doesn't turn out the same than not only are the paths different but results are to, which one could just argue people do things because of the results.