Thursday, March 27, 2008
MediaPresentation
My presentation will be on the post “Gangs Of New York”. I will be explaining the racism that was geared toward the Irish immigrants as they arrived into America. I will be using a clip from the movie to help me instill my points about the hatred that these people received and the rebellion they fought for.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Night
First and foremost, it is important to differentiate between the author of Night, Elie Wiesel, and its narrator and protagonist, Eliezer. That a distinction can be made does not mean that Night is a work of fiction. Indeed, except for minor details, what happens to Eliezer is exactly what happened to Wiesel during the Holocaust. But Wiesel alters minor details (for example, Wiesel wounded his knee in the concentration camps, while Eliezer wounds his foot) in order to place some distance, however small, between himself and his protagonist. It is extremely painful for a survivor to remember and write about his or her Holocaust experience; creating a narrator allows Wiesel to distance himself somewhat from the trauma and suffering about which he writes.
Wiesel did not write Night merely to document historical truths about physical events. The memoir is concerned with the emotional truth about the Holocaust, as experienced by individuals. As Eliezer struggles for survival, his most fundamental beliefs—his faith in God, faith in his fellow human beings, and sense of justice in the world—are called into question. He emerges from his experience profoundly changed. The Holocaust shakes his faith in God and the world around him, and he sees the depths of cruelty and selfishness to which any human being—including himself—can sink. Through Eliezer, Wiesel intimately conveys his horrible experiences and his transformation as a prisoner during the Holocaust.
“Night” by Elie Wiesel is a gruesome story, not entirely true or false about one mans accounts in the time he spent in Auschwitz, a concentration camp during the holocaust. The accounts are not exactly what happened; they have been changed to differentiate between Eliezer and Wiesel. The story tells how Eliezer was taken from his home when he was just a boy and sent with his family to the concentration camp. When they arrived their family was split up, the mother and sister were taken away from Eliezer and his father somewhere else. A strange man told Eliezer to tell the guard at the front that he was 12 because if he was to young he would be killed. While there Eliezer saw some of the most horrifying things he could ever imagine. In the morning they would line up and the guards would shoot someone at random in the head. There were pits filled with bodies burning all the time that would produce the constant smell of burning flesh. Food was a great scarcity, not because there wasn’t enough but because they were being tortured and only given enough food to keep them alive. Every day was a guessing game on whether or not you would stay alive. This was all because Eliezer and his family were Jewish. The health conditions inside were atrocious to say the best. He loses his father while incarcerated at the camp. The struggle lasts for what seems like an eternity for Eliezer and many times during his stay he thinks about giving up on religion, he wonders how could God forsake him and others like this. Through it all he keeps his beliefs and makes it through as America joins the fight and frees him. America had been staying out of this battle in hopes that it would work itself out with time and that freedom would come without there involvement. Fortunately America did get involved and help those under attack and it couldn’t have been soon enough for all those suffering. This book relates to Johnson’s book “What It All Has To Do With Us”. Johnson explains that many American whites don’t think about privilege or oppression because they do not really experience it and think that they can’t to anything about what does go on. This is the idea that many American’s had during World War 2. They thought it had nothing to do with them because the war was all the way in Europe; Johnson said the problem was that if they weren’t doing anything to stop the pain and suffering they were almost just as bad as those who were causing it. This is true because granted the people in America did not cause it or support it they were not doing anything to make the Germans stop their massacre of what they thought of as impure races. According to Johnson American’s perpetuated the holocaust for not creating an uproar against it, and before they started helping they were just as bad as the German’s. When I read this book I was disgusted about the way some people can treat others, the fact that American’s did nothing for a long time and allowed this horror to happen was awful. I could not believe that some people were just able to torture people just because someone told them that they were not as important.
First and foremost, it is important to differentiate between the author of Night, Elie Wiesel, and its narrator and protagonist, Eliezer. That a distinction can be made does not mean that Night is a work of fiction. Indeed, except for minor details, what happens to Eliezer is exactly what happened to Wiesel during the Holocaust. But Wiesel alters minor details (for example, Wiesel wounded his knee in the concentration camps, while Eliezer wounds his foot) in order to place some distance, however small, between himself and his protagonist. It is extremely painful for a survivor to remember and write about his or her Holocaust experience; creating a narrator allows Wiesel to distance himself somewhat from the trauma and suffering about which he writes.
Wiesel did not write Night merely to document historical truths about physical events. The memoir is concerned with the emotional truth about the Holocaust, as experienced by individuals. As Eliezer struggles for survival, his most fundamental beliefs—his faith in God, faith in his fellow human beings, and sense of justice in the world—are called into question. He emerges from his experience profoundly changed. The Holocaust shakes his faith in God and the world around him, and he sees the depths of cruelty and selfishness to which any human being—including himself—can sink. Through Eliezer, Wiesel intimately conveys his horrible experiences and his transformation as a prisoner during the Holocaust.
“Night” by Elie Wiesel is a gruesome story, not entirely true or false about one mans accounts in the time he spent in Auschwitz, a concentration camp during the holocaust. The accounts are not exactly what happened; they have been changed to differentiate between Eliezer and Wiesel. The story tells how Eliezer was taken from his home when he was just a boy and sent with his family to the concentration camp. When they arrived their family was split up, the mother and sister were taken away from Eliezer and his father somewhere else. A strange man told Eliezer to tell the guard at the front that he was 12 because if he was to young he would be killed. While there Eliezer saw some of the most horrifying things he could ever imagine. In the morning they would line up and the guards would shoot someone at random in the head. There were pits filled with bodies burning all the time that would produce the constant smell of burning flesh. Food was a great scarcity, not because there wasn’t enough but because they were being tortured and only given enough food to keep them alive. Every day was a guessing game on whether or not you would stay alive. This was all because Eliezer and his family were Jewish. The health conditions inside were atrocious to say the best. He loses his father while incarcerated at the camp. The struggle lasts for what seems like an eternity for Eliezer and many times during his stay he thinks about giving up on religion, he wonders how could God forsake him and others like this. Through it all he keeps his beliefs and makes it through as America joins the fight and frees him. America had been staying out of this battle in hopes that it would work itself out with time and that freedom would come without there involvement. Fortunately America did get involved and help those under attack and it couldn’t have been soon enough for all those suffering. This book relates to Johnson’s book “What It All Has To Do With Us”. Johnson explains that many American whites don’t think about privilege or oppression because they do not really experience it and think that they can’t to anything about what does go on. This is the idea that many American’s had during World War 2. They thought it had nothing to do with them because the war was all the way in Europe; Johnson said the problem was that if they weren’t doing anything to stop the pain and suffering they were almost just as bad as those who were causing it. This is true because granted the people in America did not cause it or support it they were not doing anything to make the Germans stop their massacre of what they thought of as impure races. According to Johnson American’s perpetuated the holocaust for not creating an uproar against it, and before they started helping they were just as bad as the German’s. When I read this book I was disgusted about the way some people can treat others, the fact that American’s did nothing for a long time and allowed this horror to happen was awful. I could not believe that some people were just able to torture people just because someone told them that they were not as important.
Wild Wild West
http://movies.aol.com/movie/wild-wild-west/6300/synopsis
“Wild Wild West”, a movie that is supposed to take place a few years after the civil war ended, taking place from Louisiana to Washington. Jim West a black secret service member teams up with Gordon, also a secret service member at the orders of the President to find the person behind the kidnapping of many of America’s top scientists. The two operatives end up finding out that the kidnapper is Loveless an ex supporter for the South during the civil war and is back to exact his revenge on the country and divide it back to Britain, Mexico and other countries with some area for himself. The fact that the South had to sign a surrender in order to ensure that they would not be killed after many of their battles were lost. Many of the southerners shown that were from the South were still very racist and thought of blacks as second class citizens and tools. At a party blacks were not supposed to be inside since it was a meeting for friends of the South, which were supporters of the Confederacy. The plan to claim America and divide it heads in the desert as the President is christening a railway that will combine the North and South. As foreign dignitaries sit and watch the President is ordered to sign a treaty that gives up the United States to Loveless, he is rescued by his agents and Loveless is defeated. This story relates to Hoard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States”. In chapter 2 Zinn discusses the history of the United States and how slavery was started in America. The fact that slavery became illegal after the civil war made many Southerners angry and disgruntled and gave rise to many rebellions. Though there were no large scale efforts such as in this movie after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, there were many minor attempts, most of which were never even put into action. The racism after the civil war was not ended even though the civil war was won by the North, slavery was still a big part of most peoples lives and as in the movie blacks were still treated wrongly and talked down to. Lynching was a common practice back than and an attempted hanging takes places during the movie, just because a black man touched a white woman breasts. The rules back then were very different depending on your race and a crime that a white would get fined for could get a black lynched. This movie is a good example of the different treatment blacks received just because of the color of their skin. This movie was not supposed to be about race and slavery but it had a lot of ideas and beliefs that would subconsciously show through. There were some innuendoes implied in the movie but not enough time was taken on them to make it a racy film. At first glance the movie is pretty impartial, a white and black agent working together with no real degradation towards the black man that was race related.
http://movies.aol.com/movie/wild-wild-west/6300/synopsis
“Wild Wild West”, a movie that is supposed to take place a few years after the civil war ended, taking place from Louisiana to Washington. Jim West a black secret service member teams up with Gordon, also a secret service member at the orders of the President to find the person behind the kidnapping of many of America’s top scientists. The two operatives end up finding out that the kidnapper is Loveless an ex supporter for the South during the civil war and is back to exact his revenge on the country and divide it back to Britain, Mexico and other countries with some area for himself. The fact that the South had to sign a surrender in order to ensure that they would not be killed after many of their battles were lost. Many of the southerners shown that were from the South were still very racist and thought of blacks as second class citizens and tools. At a party blacks were not supposed to be inside since it was a meeting for friends of the South, which were supporters of the Confederacy. The plan to claim America and divide it heads in the desert as the President is christening a railway that will combine the North and South. As foreign dignitaries sit and watch the President is ordered to sign a treaty that gives up the United States to Loveless, he is rescued by his agents and Loveless is defeated. This story relates to Hoard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States”. In chapter 2 Zinn discusses the history of the United States and how slavery was started in America. The fact that slavery became illegal after the civil war made many Southerners angry and disgruntled and gave rise to many rebellions. Though there were no large scale efforts such as in this movie after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, there were many minor attempts, most of which were never even put into action. The racism after the civil war was not ended even though the civil war was won by the North, slavery was still a big part of most peoples lives and as in the movie blacks were still treated wrongly and talked down to. Lynching was a common practice back than and an attempted hanging takes places during the movie, just because a black man touched a white woman breasts. The rules back then were very different depending on your race and a crime that a white would get fined for could get a black lynched. This movie is a good example of the different treatment blacks received just because of the color of their skin. This movie was not supposed to be about race and slavery but it had a lot of ideas and beliefs that would subconsciously show through. There were some innuendoes implied in the movie but not enough time was taken on them to make it a racy film. At first glance the movie is pretty impartial, a white and black agent working together with no real degradation towards the black man that was race related.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Gangs of New York
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/synopsis
“Gangs of New York”, a film directed by Martin Scorsese, is a film based in New York in 1846. The beginning shows Irish immigrants coming into America and William Cutting enlists the help of his fellow “Native Americans” to wage war against the intruders. Many of the British and Dutch citizens with old money who have been citizens for generations make their discontent for these new comers very noticeable. During this battle Bill kills the head of the Irish army Vallon. The movie moves along into 1862 as more Irish immigrants poor into America in hopes of achieving the American dream. Vallon’s son Amsterdam who was lost after his father was killed returns in hopes of exacting his revenge upon his father’s murderer. What the immigrants really arrive in is the middle of the civil war. The immigrants are given uniforms and guns as soon as they get off the boat and are enlisted in the Union Army. Amsterdam finds Bill and becomes very close to him without hi realizing who he is. Another Irish reveals his identity and plot to kill Bill and Vallon is given away. After a faulty attempt to get his revenge Vallon is outcast and forms his own rebellious force against the “Native Americans”. The final battle ends after the riot outbreak from the drafts causes the army to intervene. Vallon gets his revenge and the North wins the war ending the public freedom of the slave trade. Throughout the movie racism is extremely apparent against the Irish, Chinese and Black. This movie relates to Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States”, chapter 2. Zinn discusses the history of racism in North America and how it plays a strong part in today’s society and ideals. The fact that Americans were not just racist against people of different colors but of people from anywhere other than the United States or Britain. The movie shows the racism and hatred to anyone that is not a native and the idea that they are not as important or pure as those who were there originally. The odd thing is that the people who were doing the discriminating were not even the first people here, but the Indians. Fortunately for almost all different ethnicities beside Indians and Blacks the oppression has been put to rest, though it took pain suffering and on many accounts needless deaths, the equality many Irish enjoy now is because of the battles their ancestors had to fight. The history of oppression goes much further back than the Irish immigration but this point is a crucial time because it is the start of freedom for at least one group of people and is really the first time a group has ever been released from their oppression. Even women are still oppressed in corporate America; though it’s not as noticeable it is still there. This movie gave a strong image about the pain and suffering that the Irish went through and how they were oppressed just for where they hailed from.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/synopsis
“Gangs of New York”, a film directed by Martin Scorsese, is a film based in New York in 1846. The beginning shows Irish immigrants coming into America and William Cutting enlists the help of his fellow “Native Americans” to wage war against the intruders. Many of the British and Dutch citizens with old money who have been citizens for generations make their discontent for these new comers very noticeable. During this battle Bill kills the head of the Irish army Vallon. The movie moves along into 1862 as more Irish immigrants poor into America in hopes of achieving the American dream. Vallon’s son Amsterdam who was lost after his father was killed returns in hopes of exacting his revenge upon his father’s murderer. What the immigrants really arrive in is the middle of the civil war. The immigrants are given uniforms and guns as soon as they get off the boat and are enlisted in the Union Army. Amsterdam finds Bill and becomes very close to him without hi realizing who he is. Another Irish reveals his identity and plot to kill Bill and Vallon is given away. After a faulty attempt to get his revenge Vallon is outcast and forms his own rebellious force against the “Native Americans”. The final battle ends after the riot outbreak from the drafts causes the army to intervene. Vallon gets his revenge and the North wins the war ending the public freedom of the slave trade. Throughout the movie racism is extremely apparent against the Irish, Chinese and Black. This movie relates to Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States”, chapter 2. Zinn discusses the history of racism in North America and how it plays a strong part in today’s society and ideals. The fact that Americans were not just racist against people of different colors but of people from anywhere other than the United States or Britain. The movie shows the racism and hatred to anyone that is not a native and the idea that they are not as important or pure as those who were there originally. The odd thing is that the people who were doing the discriminating were not even the first people here, but the Indians. Fortunately for almost all different ethnicities beside Indians and Blacks the oppression has been put to rest, though it took pain suffering and on many accounts needless deaths, the equality many Irish enjoy now is because of the battles their ancestors had to fight. The history of oppression goes much further back than the Irish immigration but this point is a crucial time because it is the start of freedom for at least one group of people and is really the first time a group has ever been released from their oppression. Even women are still oppressed in corporate America; though it’s not as noticeable it is still there. This movie gave a strong image about the pain and suffering that the Irish went through and how they were oppressed just for where they hailed from.
Blood Diamond
http://movies.aol.com/movie/blood-diamond/23021/synopsis?flv=1&ncid=RpWxcJEVXc0000000073&icid=rbox_movie_titles.M
“Blood Diamond” is the story of the pain and suffering in Sierra Leone. The residents have been enslaved all across the country into mining for diamonds. The story emphasizes the struggle of Solomon Vandy, his small fishing village s raided and the residents are either captured or killed. Once captured these poor people are forced to join the rebellion and to dig for diamonds. These diamonds are sold all over the world to mainly rich white people. Danny Archer, a missionary is a diamond smuggler to the highest bidder, this deal happens to be with a white jewelry store owner in Europe. The natives of Africa are enslaved not by whites but mainly blacks. Though blacks are the direct slave owners forcing the labor and causing the pain, the reasons for this slavery is coming from the pressure mainly given by the world powers which are generally whites. The movie paints a vivid picture of how the desire of white ignorant people is continuously pushing the slavery around the world. Even though most are not the actual slave owners, the money that they are offering for these seemingly innocent stones is causing pain to a whole country. The movie sheds light on the idea that slavery is not necessarily a direct institution but can be indirect upon the needs and wants of people half the world away. The story shows uptown stores in large cities displaying many of the diamonds mined throughout Africa and perpetuating the slavery. This movie relates to Johnson’s book “Privilege, Oppression and Difference”. Chapter 2 talks about the way in which people who are not oppressed justify and attempt to ignore those people who are oppressed. Almost all of the people who are accepting these diamonds are of a high social class and do not have to recognize that there is a problem with the way things are actually working, or the people may realize but just decide that others are over reacting. Most Americans in the beginning of the movie are shown not really understanding what the problem is and thinking that yes, some people are in pain but that they just aren’t paid enough. The reality sheds during the end when a reporter that had been following Danny and Solomon through a lot of the movie writes a critical and devastating article. The article describes many of the incidents and injustices that have been happening through the carelessness and greed of many people. Pictures of young black males as young as 8 are shown carrying assault rifles, camps where thousands of people live together in misery after their homes were destroyed by rebels attempting to gain more miners. The pain and suffering of these people is transmitted and the U.N. finally asserts force that actually has a chance of working in hopes of crippling the slavery in Africa. This movie is a eye opener and has a real emotional effect, the fact that slavery is happening just because of the money we are willing to pay for some rocks is mind boggling but understandable. The unfortunate thing is that this is actually a real problem and even though the U.N.’s attempts it is still going on.
http://movies.aol.com/movie/blood-diamond/23021/synopsis?flv=1&ncid=RpWxcJEVXc0000000073&icid=rbox_movie_titles.M
“Blood Diamond” is the story of the pain and suffering in Sierra Leone. The residents have been enslaved all across the country into mining for diamonds. The story emphasizes the struggle of Solomon Vandy, his small fishing village s raided and the residents are either captured or killed. Once captured these poor people are forced to join the rebellion and to dig for diamonds. These diamonds are sold all over the world to mainly rich white people. Danny Archer, a missionary is a diamond smuggler to the highest bidder, this deal happens to be with a white jewelry store owner in Europe. The natives of Africa are enslaved not by whites but mainly blacks. Though blacks are the direct slave owners forcing the labor and causing the pain, the reasons for this slavery is coming from the pressure mainly given by the world powers which are generally whites. The movie paints a vivid picture of how the desire of white ignorant people is continuously pushing the slavery around the world. Even though most are not the actual slave owners, the money that they are offering for these seemingly innocent stones is causing pain to a whole country. The movie sheds light on the idea that slavery is not necessarily a direct institution but can be indirect upon the needs and wants of people half the world away. The story shows uptown stores in large cities displaying many of the diamonds mined throughout Africa and perpetuating the slavery. This movie relates to Johnson’s book “Privilege, Oppression and Difference”. Chapter 2 talks about the way in which people who are not oppressed justify and attempt to ignore those people who are oppressed. Almost all of the people who are accepting these diamonds are of a high social class and do not have to recognize that there is a problem with the way things are actually working, or the people may realize but just decide that others are over reacting. Most Americans in the beginning of the movie are shown not really understanding what the problem is and thinking that yes, some people are in pain but that they just aren’t paid enough. The reality sheds during the end when a reporter that had been following Danny and Solomon through a lot of the movie writes a critical and devastating article. The article describes many of the incidents and injustices that have been happening through the carelessness and greed of many people. Pictures of young black males as young as 8 are shown carrying assault rifles, camps where thousands of people live together in misery after their homes were destroyed by rebels attempting to gain more miners. The pain and suffering of these people is transmitted and the U.N. finally asserts force that actually has a chance of working in hopes of crippling the slavery in Africa. This movie is a eye opener and has a real emotional effect, the fact that slavery is happening just because of the money we are willing to pay for some rocks is mind boggling but understandable. The unfortunate thing is that this is actually a real problem and even though the U.N.’s attempts it is still going on.
Monday, March 24, 2008
American History X Transcript-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/synopsis
“American History X” is the story of a man named Derek Vinyard, a neo nazi white supremacist. The story tells a tale of a young man brought up as a racist by his father in California. During his teenage years is father was murdered by a black drug dealer while trying to put out a fire in the projects. Derek became increasingly resistance to any other races. After his father died Derek started a rise against everyone who he believed to be ruining his country and way of life. Derek was a very smart man and with combining intelligence, exuberance and poor ideas could get a large group of people to follow his every word. Derek takes his hatred to far one night as he kills two young black men for trying to steal his truck. While in prison he finds that any of his previous ideas were wrong and that in the real world the deciding matter is not the color of some ones skin but their character and loyalty. He meets other skinheads while in prison and joins their group, but somewhere along the way he finds that they are not actually true to their ideals and he turns his back on them. A black man that Derek works with ends up becoming close to Derek and helping him through his time alive, also his old principal starts remolding his mind through conversations and books. As Derek is released from prison he meets up with his brother and some old friends and attempts to fix the damage he had caused. His brother ends up paying the ultimate price for hatred in death at the hands of a black highschooler which he had taunted earlier. This movie relates to what has been discussed in class in a couple of ways. One way in particular is what Loewen wrote in chapter 4 of the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me”. Loewen says that any high school students are reading about history through white eyes, through the eyes of the white society throughout history instead of impartially. Derek in the movie was looking at other races as through his father’s eyes and the hateful eyes created by anger. Without realizing that all people are different Derek just believes that all blacks are sub human and do not deserve the respect of whites. He does not just believe that blacks are lower class citizens but any race aside from white protestant; Jews for instance are not equal. In the way in which our history books present information is putting emphasis on the trials and tribulations we as white people were subjected to, but the pain of other races and beliefs is not truly shown. Derek doesn’t seem to understand everything that other races has gone through and their struggles and just sees what he was taught. I believe this movie had an excellent message and helped in the fight against racism.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/synopsis
“American History X” is the story of a man named Derek Vinyard, a neo nazi white supremacist. The story tells a tale of a young man brought up as a racist by his father in California. During his teenage years is father was murdered by a black drug dealer while trying to put out a fire in the projects. Derek became increasingly resistance to any other races. After his father died Derek started a rise against everyone who he believed to be ruining his country and way of life. Derek was a very smart man and with combining intelligence, exuberance and poor ideas could get a large group of people to follow his every word. Derek takes his hatred to far one night as he kills two young black men for trying to steal his truck. While in prison he finds that any of his previous ideas were wrong and that in the real world the deciding matter is not the color of some ones skin but their character and loyalty. He meets other skinheads while in prison and joins their group, but somewhere along the way he finds that they are not actually true to their ideals and he turns his back on them. A black man that Derek works with ends up becoming close to Derek and helping him through his time alive, also his old principal starts remolding his mind through conversations and books. As Derek is released from prison he meets up with his brother and some old friends and attempts to fix the damage he had caused. His brother ends up paying the ultimate price for hatred in death at the hands of a black highschooler which he had taunted earlier. This movie relates to what has been discussed in class in a couple of ways. One way in particular is what Loewen wrote in chapter 4 of the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me”. Loewen says that any high school students are reading about history through white eyes, through the eyes of the white society throughout history instead of impartially. Derek in the movie was looking at other races as through his father’s eyes and the hateful eyes created by anger. Without realizing that all people are different Derek just believes that all blacks are sub human and do not deserve the respect of whites. He does not just believe that blacks are lower class citizens but any race aside from white protestant; Jews for instance are not equal. In the way in which our history books present information is putting emphasis on the trials and tribulations we as white people were subjected to, but the pain of other races and beliefs is not truly shown. Derek doesn’t seem to understand everything that other races has gone through and their struggles and just sees what he was taught. I believe this movie had an excellent message and helped in the fight against racism.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bibliography
Bahk, Jane. "Historical oppression at heart of African American - Jewish relations ." News Release 16 Feb 1993 1. 10 Feb 2008.
Johnson, Allan. Privilege, Power, and Difference. 2nd. McGraw Hill, 2006.
Korry, Elaine. "A Fraternity Hazing Gone Wrong." NPR Education 14 Nov 2005 1. 10 Feb 2008.
Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me. 1st.
"Native Injustice." Opinion 01 Feb 2008 1. 10 Feb 2008.
Rocky. Dir. John G. Avildsen. Perf. Sylvester Stalone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers. DVD. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1976.
Zinn, A People's History Of The United States. 1st
Bahk, Jane. "Historical oppression at heart of African American - Jewish relations ." News Release 16 Feb 1993 1. 10 Feb 2008
Johnson, Allan. Privilege, Power, and Difference. 2nd. McGraw Hill, 2006.
Korry, Elaine. "A Fraternity Hazing Gone Wrong." NPR Education 14 Nov 2005 1. 10 Feb 2008
Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me. 1st.
"Native Injustice." Opinion 01 Feb 2008 1. 10 Feb 2008
Rocky. Dir. John G. Avildsen. Perf. Sylvester Stalone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers. DVD. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1976.
Zinn, A People's History Of The United States. 1st
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
It's a parent's nightmare and a nagging fear for the people who run colleges and universities: A young fraternity pledge dies when hazing gets out of control. It's happened at least once each year for more than three decades. Nine months ago it happened at Chico State University in California, and this time prosecutors did something unusual: They filed felony criminal charges against the fraternity brothers involved.
But that's not much comfort to the family of Matthew Carrington, who died during the Feb. 2, 2005, hazing accident.
In his 22 years, Gabriel Maestretti has often been a role model: an altar boy, high school homecoming king and a volunteer coach. But in the past year he's also been called a "tormentor" and "a mean drunk." And earlier this month, he became something worse: a felon.
The Butte County courtroom of Judge Stephen Benson was awash in red, the color worn by family and friends of Matthew Carrington to honor him. Gabriel Maestretti, deeply religious as a boy, had never been in trouble before. Yet, according to the district attorney, he was the most culpable in Carrington's death. He stood before the judge, baby-faced, with the physique of a linebacker, choking back tears.
"I did what I did out of a misguided sense of building brotherhood, and instead I lost a brother. I will live with the consequences of hazing for the rest of my life," Maestretti told the court. "My actions killed a good person, and I will be a felon for the rest of my life, and I'll have to live with that disability, but I'm alive and Matt's not. "
Moments later, Maestretti and three of his fraternity brothers -- John Fickes, 20, Carlos Abrille, 22, and Jerry Lim, 25 -- were handcuffed and led off to jail.
Matthew Carrington would have turned 22 this month. He grew up with his younger brother in a small ranch-style house in Pleasant Hill, east of San Francisco. Debbie Smith has a giant portrait of her son on the fireplace mantle. Dozens of snapshots fill the coffee table and bookshelves.
"We did everything together as a family, so we have tons of pictures, and I have to have them out," she said. "I have this need to just be surrounded by him. I can't put him away."
Like a lot of moms, Debbie Smith says her son was destined for great things. But Carrington's plans weren't grandiose at all. He just wanted to graduate and get a good job, marry and have kids, his mother says. Now, she mourns the wedding she'll never attend, the grandchildren she'll never hold.
Boarded-up on the edge of campus is the Chi Tau fraternity house. From the outside, the white building doesn't look like a crime scene. The basement, says Chico Police detective Greg Keeney, the lead investigator on the case, is another story.
"It's kind of like the medieval castle dungeon," says Keeney. In February, at the time of Carrington's death, the dark and dirty basement would have been very cold, says Keeney. Repeatedly scribbled on the walls was the phrase, "In the basement, no one can hear you scream."
Carrington died during Chi Tau's "Hell Week." Junior fraternity brothers were in charge and were told to be tough on the pledges. Carrington was at the Chi Tau, located in Chico, Calif., north of Sacramento to support his friend, Mike Quintana. Both were sober, according to police reports.
The two pledges were ordered downstairs and told to do calisthenics in raw sewage that had leaked on the floor. For hours, according to district attorney Mike Ramsey, they were interrogated and taunted.
There were forced pushups and trivia quizzes. Through it all, the Carrington and Quintana were ordered to drink from a five-gallon jug of water, which was filled over and over. Fans blasted icy air on their wet bodies. They urinated and vomited on themselves. Then, according to DA Ramsey, something went terribly wrong.
Carrington collapsed and started a seizure. Fraternity members didn't initially call an ambulance. By the time they did, it was too late. Carrington was taken to Enloe Medical Center, where his heart stopped. At about 5 a.m. he was pronounced dead from water intoxication, which caused the swelling of his brain and lungs. Not a single fraternity brother was there, a fact that still haunts his mother.
"All I could think of was, 'Matt's alone. Nobody is with him... why is that?' " she said. Hours passed from the hospital's first call to Carrington's parents before they learned how he died.
Hazing is illegal in the majority of states, including California. But usually it's a misdemeanor offense that brings a slap on the wrist. Most colleges have banned hazing, and rogue Greek chapters have been suspended. But sometimes the strategy backfires. Hazing expert Hank Nuwer says once they're decertified, these chapters are accountable to no one.
"It's kind of like having unregulated gangs on campus, and yet it's a hidden problem that doesn't get discussed on the news a lot," says Nuwer.
It was a problem at Chico State. Chi Tau was among a handful of suspended fraternities that had been in trouble before. For now, the school has shut down all Greek recruitment. A task force is overhauling all the rules for student conduct. And University President Paul Zingg has threatened the ultimate punishment -- an outright ban on fraternities and sororities.
"They talk about integrity and scholarship and holy friendship forever," says Zingg. "And I basically said, if that's really what you believe in, you've got a respected place on this campus. But if you're nothing but drinking clubs masquerading as fraternities, you don't."
Fraternity members pass the now-defunct Chi Tau house everyday on their way to classes. It's a vivid reminder of Carrington's death.
"We're still dealing with it. Everybody's still kind of haunted by it," says Adam Cherry, a Chico State junior and a member of Sigma Pi, a fraternity which he says doesn't haze. He thinks it's only right that the defendants are in jail. But he resents being lumped together with the young men implicated in Carrington's death.
"This fraternity, Chi Tau, was not recognized by the school, not recognized by anybody. So basically they were just a bunch of guys with letters on their house," says Cherry.
There's a growing movement to toughen the penalties for hazing. Two states, New York and Florida, have done it already, and Carrington's parents say now it should be California's turn. They want hazing out of the education code and charged under the penal code, like other violent crimes. But even that's not enough, says Debbie Smith. Something else has to change: the mindset that considers hazing just part of college life.
"I understand that they didn't intend to kill Matt," she says. "My hope is that they learned something, that we all learned something, and that they can teach others from their experience so that we don't have to have this keep happening to our children."
It may be too late for Gabriel Maestretti, who will serve one year in jail. But he, too, wants to get the message out.
"I accept my punishment, with the hope that it will serve as a warning to others not to follow the path I did," he said during his sentencing. "Hazing isn't funny, it's not cute. It's stupid, dangerous. It's not about brotherhood, it's about power and control."
For other students, the message hasn't sunk in yet. Despite the trauma of Carrington's death, two more Greek organizations at Chico State have already been suspended for misconduct this semester.
This is an article about a young college student who was a tragic victim hazing gone wrong. A son, brother and all around good person, Mathew Carrington died a month before his 22nd birthday after an emergency call to Enloe Medical Center. Carrington was a pledge at a fraternity house which had a deadly hazing ritual. The thought of brotherhood and the group clouding young kids minds in the hope of being accepted into something larger then just themselves. Brothers in the fraternity made Carrington and his friend consume large amounts of water, perform grueling physical tasks and be cold while in raw sewage as a custom of “Hell Week”. These brothers just did what they were told to do, though they may not like it, it was easier to do than argue.
This article goes along with the class discussion and Johnsons ideas in chapter 6. These kids did not necessarily agree with what they were putting Carrington through but it was certainly easier than trying to change tradition, they themselves have went through this along with others. The path of least resistance was the obvious choice to these young men and sadly it was the last choice for Carrington. The members of the fraternity keep the system going by being in it, and with that they participate in the customs and traditions which shape the upper members to continue the traditions because no one really wants to try and change it, a tradition is history and they are taught to be proud of it. This self perpetuating system has some positive effects but when weighed against death there is no benefit worth it. The members most likely didn’t realize that they were continuing a dangerous and unneeded tradition. Many are told that this builds brotherhood and the unity needed but in reality this drags people apart, through humiliation and degradation hazing has been a consistent system through sports, clubs and other types of groups. These rituals show the true power of the paths of least resistance. Though it is known that horrific things have happened it is still easier for people to continue hazing than fight against it, this shows that it is natural for people to give up their ideas for ideas of others and that social forces are extremely strong. Whether hazing or something much more publicized like racism. It is easier to just stand quiet during a joke you don’t agree with than to speak out about it. The social pressure is to laugh or don’t speak and it is strong enough to make many of us bend our ideas and beliefs.
I found it horrific that people can do this and allow themselves to be a part of this. To be part of a group and brotherhood one should build trust and compassion with others not resentment and anger. I don’t know what could have been running through Carrington’s mind while participating in these gruesome tasks, I cant imagine needing friends so badly that I would put myself through such vast amounts of pain.
But that's not much comfort to the family of Matthew Carrington, who died during the Feb. 2, 2005, hazing accident.
In his 22 years, Gabriel Maestretti has often been a role model: an altar boy, high school homecoming king and a volunteer coach. But in the past year he's also been called a "tormentor" and "a mean drunk." And earlier this month, he became something worse: a felon.
The Butte County courtroom of Judge Stephen Benson was awash in red, the color worn by family and friends of Matthew Carrington to honor him. Gabriel Maestretti, deeply religious as a boy, had never been in trouble before. Yet, according to the district attorney, he was the most culpable in Carrington's death. He stood before the judge, baby-faced, with the physique of a linebacker, choking back tears.
"I did what I did out of a misguided sense of building brotherhood, and instead I lost a brother. I will live with the consequences of hazing for the rest of my life," Maestretti told the court. "My actions killed a good person, and I will be a felon for the rest of my life, and I'll have to live with that disability, but I'm alive and Matt's not. "
Moments later, Maestretti and three of his fraternity brothers -- John Fickes, 20, Carlos Abrille, 22, and Jerry Lim, 25 -- were handcuffed and led off to jail.
Matthew Carrington would have turned 22 this month. He grew up with his younger brother in a small ranch-style house in Pleasant Hill, east of San Francisco. Debbie Smith has a giant portrait of her son on the fireplace mantle. Dozens of snapshots fill the coffee table and bookshelves.
"We did everything together as a family, so we have tons of pictures, and I have to have them out," she said. "I have this need to just be surrounded by him. I can't put him away."
Like a lot of moms, Debbie Smith says her son was destined for great things. But Carrington's plans weren't grandiose at all. He just wanted to graduate and get a good job, marry and have kids, his mother says. Now, she mourns the wedding she'll never attend, the grandchildren she'll never hold.
Boarded-up on the edge of campus is the Chi Tau fraternity house. From the outside, the white building doesn't look like a crime scene. The basement, says Chico Police detective Greg Keeney, the lead investigator on the case, is another story.
"It's kind of like the medieval castle dungeon," says Keeney. In February, at the time of Carrington's death, the dark and dirty basement would have been very cold, says Keeney. Repeatedly scribbled on the walls was the phrase, "In the basement, no one can hear you scream."
Carrington died during Chi Tau's "Hell Week." Junior fraternity brothers were in charge and were told to be tough on the pledges. Carrington was at the Chi Tau, located in Chico, Calif., north of Sacramento to support his friend, Mike Quintana. Both were sober, according to police reports.
The two pledges were ordered downstairs and told to do calisthenics in raw sewage that had leaked on the floor. For hours, according to district attorney Mike Ramsey, they were interrogated and taunted.
There were forced pushups and trivia quizzes. Through it all, the Carrington and Quintana were ordered to drink from a five-gallon jug of water, which was filled over and over. Fans blasted icy air on their wet bodies. They urinated and vomited on themselves. Then, according to DA Ramsey, something went terribly wrong.
Carrington collapsed and started a seizure. Fraternity members didn't initially call an ambulance. By the time they did, it was too late. Carrington was taken to Enloe Medical Center, where his heart stopped. At about 5 a.m. he was pronounced dead from water intoxication, which caused the swelling of his brain and lungs. Not a single fraternity brother was there, a fact that still haunts his mother.
"All I could think of was, 'Matt's alone. Nobody is with him... why is that?' " she said. Hours passed from the hospital's first call to Carrington's parents before they learned how he died.
Hazing is illegal in the majority of states, including California. But usually it's a misdemeanor offense that brings a slap on the wrist. Most colleges have banned hazing, and rogue Greek chapters have been suspended. But sometimes the strategy backfires. Hazing expert Hank Nuwer says once they're decertified, these chapters are accountable to no one.
"It's kind of like having unregulated gangs on campus, and yet it's a hidden problem that doesn't get discussed on the news a lot," says Nuwer.
It was a problem at Chico State. Chi Tau was among a handful of suspended fraternities that had been in trouble before. For now, the school has shut down all Greek recruitment. A task force is overhauling all the rules for student conduct. And University President Paul Zingg has threatened the ultimate punishment -- an outright ban on fraternities and sororities.
"They talk about integrity and scholarship and holy friendship forever," says Zingg. "And I basically said, if that's really what you believe in, you've got a respected place on this campus. But if you're nothing but drinking clubs masquerading as fraternities, you don't."
Fraternity members pass the now-defunct Chi Tau house everyday on their way to classes. It's a vivid reminder of Carrington's death.
"We're still dealing with it. Everybody's still kind of haunted by it," says Adam Cherry, a Chico State junior and a member of Sigma Pi, a fraternity which he says doesn't haze. He thinks it's only right that the defendants are in jail. But he resents being lumped together with the young men implicated in Carrington's death.
"This fraternity, Chi Tau, was not recognized by the school, not recognized by anybody. So basically they were just a bunch of guys with letters on their house," says Cherry.
There's a growing movement to toughen the penalties for hazing. Two states, New York and Florida, have done it already, and Carrington's parents say now it should be California's turn. They want hazing out of the education code and charged under the penal code, like other violent crimes. But even that's not enough, says Debbie Smith. Something else has to change: the mindset that considers hazing just part of college life.
"I understand that they didn't intend to kill Matt," she says. "My hope is that they learned something, that we all learned something, and that they can teach others from their experience so that we don't have to have this keep happening to our children."
It may be too late for Gabriel Maestretti, who will serve one year in jail. But he, too, wants to get the message out.
"I accept my punishment, with the hope that it will serve as a warning to others not to follow the path I did," he said during his sentencing. "Hazing isn't funny, it's not cute. It's stupid, dangerous. It's not about brotherhood, it's about power and control."
For other students, the message hasn't sunk in yet. Despite the trauma of Carrington's death, two more Greek organizations at Chico State have already been suspended for misconduct this semester.
This is an article about a young college student who was a tragic victim hazing gone wrong. A son, brother and all around good person, Mathew Carrington died a month before his 22nd birthday after an emergency call to Enloe Medical Center. Carrington was a pledge at a fraternity house which had a deadly hazing ritual. The thought of brotherhood and the group clouding young kids minds in the hope of being accepted into something larger then just themselves. Brothers in the fraternity made Carrington and his friend consume large amounts of water, perform grueling physical tasks and be cold while in raw sewage as a custom of “Hell Week”. These brothers just did what they were told to do, though they may not like it, it was easier to do than argue.
This article goes along with the class discussion and Johnsons ideas in chapter 6. These kids did not necessarily agree with what they were putting Carrington through but it was certainly easier than trying to change tradition, they themselves have went through this along with others. The path of least resistance was the obvious choice to these young men and sadly it was the last choice for Carrington. The members of the fraternity keep the system going by being in it, and with that they participate in the customs and traditions which shape the upper members to continue the traditions because no one really wants to try and change it, a tradition is history and they are taught to be proud of it. This self perpetuating system has some positive effects but when weighed against death there is no benefit worth it. The members most likely didn’t realize that they were continuing a dangerous and unneeded tradition. Many are told that this builds brotherhood and the unity needed but in reality this drags people apart, through humiliation and degradation hazing has been a consistent system through sports, clubs and other types of groups. These rituals show the true power of the paths of least resistance. Though it is known that horrific things have happened it is still easier for people to continue hazing than fight against it, this shows that it is natural for people to give up their ideas for ideas of others and that social forces are extremely strong. Whether hazing or something much more publicized like racism. It is easier to just stand quiet during a joke you don’t agree with than to speak out about it. The social pressure is to laugh or don’t speak and it is strong enough to make many of us bend our ideas and beliefs.
I found it horrific that people can do this and allow themselves to be a part of this. To be part of a group and brotherhood one should build trust and compassion with others not resentment and anger. I don’t know what could have been running through Carrington’s mind while participating in these gruesome tasks, I cant imagine needing friends so badly that I would put myself through such vast amounts of pain.
“Rocky”, a hit movie that inspired people all throughout the nation is a hope story about rising through the social classes to achieve the American dream. This is a story of a not so common street fighter who through the face of adversity rises to stardom. Rocky, a uneducated single man is muscle for one of Philadelphia’s loan sharks. Also being a amateur boxer who has the reputation to take anything and keep coming gets his chance when a professional boxer gives him the chance to fight in a championship bout. Against his better instincts Rocky agrees and pushes his body, mind and soul to the breaking point just to make more out of his life than a punchy enforcer. In the end Rocky rises up and is noticed as somewhat more than just a bum who fights which shows that though it is extremely hard one can move through the social classes and change how they are seen.
This relates to what we discussed in class and to chapter 7 in Loewen’s book “Lies my teacher told me”. In the article Loewen writes about how people are not inherently stupid, they know about social class and the problems and advantages with each one. People know that it is extremely difficult to get into a higher social class and that it may sometimes just seem impossible. In the movie the main character was able to go against the odds and by sheer luck receive the ability cast into the light of the upper class. Now what he did when standing in the spotlight was what made him a hero. Unlike many people who will freeze or run when confronted with a challenge the star took his opportunity and faced what he needed to in order to get where he wanted to go. One chance, that’s all he got, in the society we live in today there are not many times when you have a chance to jump up the class ladder, one must consistently fight tooth and nail through it every day for most of their lives which is the reason it is so rare. The desire to be important and to move from nothing to greatness is the dream and desire of just about everyone. Unfortunately it is not that hard to move down the social ladder, anything from marrying below your class to mismanaging your finances could plant you in the lower class which has happened to many people in this country. Lately many people have been losing their homes and savings from the unsteadiness of our economy which is making it increasingly more difficult to move up the ladder. Rocky showed that through blood, sweat and tears one can achieve their dream but it’s not easy and comes with pain.
The movie was a great story of a hero and his triumph through the face of society’s hold on him. The theory is very good, that a man may make it to where he desires to go but not without the sacrifice that comes along with it.
This relates to what we discussed in class and to chapter 7 in Loewen’s book “Lies my teacher told me”. In the article Loewen writes about how people are not inherently stupid, they know about social class and the problems and advantages with each one. People know that it is extremely difficult to get into a higher social class and that it may sometimes just seem impossible. In the movie the main character was able to go against the odds and by sheer luck receive the ability cast into the light of the upper class. Now what he did when standing in the spotlight was what made him a hero. Unlike many people who will freeze or run when confronted with a challenge the star took his opportunity and faced what he needed to in order to get where he wanted to go. One chance, that’s all he got, in the society we live in today there are not many times when you have a chance to jump up the class ladder, one must consistently fight tooth and nail through it every day for most of their lives which is the reason it is so rare. The desire to be important and to move from nothing to greatness is the dream and desire of just about everyone. Unfortunately it is not that hard to move down the social ladder, anything from marrying below your class to mismanaging your finances could plant you in the lower class which has happened to many people in this country. Lately many people have been losing their homes and savings from the unsteadiness of our economy which is making it increasingly more difficult to move up the ladder. Rocky showed that through blood, sweat and tears one can achieve their dream but it’s not easy and comes with pain.
The movie was a great story of a hero and his triumph through the face of society’s hold on him. The theory is very good, that a man may make it to where he desires to go but not without the sacrifice that comes along with it.
African Americans and American Jews are both linked and divided by their histories of oppression, according to Paul Berman and Cornel West.
Berman, a cultural and political critic, and West, chair of African American studies at Princeton University, spoke at the Stanford University symposium "African Americans and American Jews: Bridges, Boundaries, Identities" on Friday, Feb. 12.
The symposium was sponsored by Stanford's Program in Jewish Studies, the African and Afro-American Studies Program and the Stanford Humanities Center.
When the Jews first came to America, they "encountered yet another 'tragic people' whose identities are rooted in their own oppression," said Berman, a recent recipient of a MacArthur fellowship and a frequent contributor to the New York Times, the New Yorker and the New Republic.
However, the two groups had a radically different vision of America, he said. The Jewish people saw it as a land of freedom, and African Americans saw it as a land that enslaved and oppressed them.
For immigrant Jews, America was "a different kind of situation from the past 2,500 years: With a certain amount of effort, they could, in fact, have rights. To Jews, liberalism was the counter-thesis to the aristocratic/religious-dominated society, which was oppressing," he said.
"But in America, it was one of the unique tragedies and ironies of African American existence that they were oppressed precisely by the society that defined itself as liberal."
West said that "the black folk said [to the Jews], 'We've been down for a long time. We've been here while you were getting your butts kicked in the Ukraine. We've been getting ours kicked here.'
"We're not additions to American life as you were taught in your high school courses in the 1950s and 1960s, nor are we defections [from] it; we are constituents in the formation of American civilization," said the author of the forthcoming book Race Matters.
"Every immigrant who comes with a smile has to recognize that they're going to be Americanized. . . , which is to say 'discover that you're white,' " West said. "Jewish brothers didn't know this until they got here."
Many African Americans turned from liberalism to "Third World-ism," which further divided African Americans and American Jews, Berman said.
"One of the natural consequences of this was to find - in the question of Zionism - that the Palestinians were the oppressed Third World people, and the Israeli Jews were the white European imperialists," he said.
The Jews became to the African Americans "the hypocrites that I have always known among American liberals, because it was the same liberals who practiced racial oppression."
American Jews believed that African Americans would understand and empathize with their attempts as a "despised minority to try to create rights for themselves for the first time," Berman said. "[They thought] 'Jews in the Middle East are a people like yourselves, and that Zionism is the equivalent of the civil rights movement. It is the movement of the protection of the oppressed minority.'
"The same quality which links them in some way is precisely the quality - because of the small difference between liberalism and Third World-ism - [that] sets them utterly at odds," he said.
To better understand each other, African Americans and American Jews need to know about each other's histories, West said.
They should be aware of "the profound hatred of Jews that sits at the very center of European culture" and "the profound hatred of African people [that] sits at the very core of American civilization."
"We're talking about two underdogs," West said, and "we should attempt to interpret each other's histories, to understand why the prevailing anxieties are being articulated in the way that they are."
West advocates an "all-embracing moral vision" for the future, which would be "a universal ethic in which we attempt to not lose sight of the humanity of others."
"We should try to stay attuned to the circumstances that [others] are responding to," he said. "There should be a broadening of empathy and we should try to identify with their frustrations."
This article is about the differences and similarities between the African Americans and the Jewish Americans. The text talks about how the Jews were persecuted and hindered in their homeland where they found oppression and pain much like African Americans have received here. When the Jews came to America they saw a country where they had the opportunity to make something out of their lives and where they were accepted. When compared to how they were treated in Germany that is a reasonable view, the blacks on the other hand are persecuted here. When the Jews see freedom the blacks see enslavement. The two different groups of people need to look at what has happened through both of their histories and understand the pains and turmoil’s which have been suffered to realize they are not all that different.
This article is related to chapter 2 in Johnson’s book. The title of this chapter is “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference”. This article tells how different races and classes are constructed through cultures instead of actually just being natural. While in France a white French man does not get discriminated against for being French, but if they were to travel to America they may be, or if they were to go to Africa they would most likely be treated different because they are white. African Americans were not discriminated against in Africa but once they were brought to America and enslaved whites made them the lower class. Since in America religion is not a large part of how we view each other, which is a cultural trait, and is much harder to determine than color, we do not as often discriminate against Jews. Unlike in America Europe holds a large emphasis on ones religion which made oppression of the Jews a large problem. Therefore the Jews had somewhat the same problem in their homeland that the blacks do in America. When the Jewish people came to America they saw the ability for the majority of them to be free and chase their desires without persecution, where as the blacks are put down because of the perceived notion built of a large amount of time that white is the correct race and that is really the only thing that matters. The privilege that the Jews receive here in America is vastly unmatched by African Americans because of the social construction of difference is a large part of how Americans view each other. Privilege in America is granted mostly to white males where we as Americans continuously keep this illogical idea going. The fact that the Jewish people found refuse here is because of the thought of white being the ultimate form of human existence and is a self perpetuating system. The Jews didn’t make any revolutionary steps in the help to create equality for African Americans though they wished someone would have for them in their homeland. This is related to the article because it is stated that “We should try to stay attuned to the circumstances that [others] are responding to," he said. "There should be a broadening of empathy and we should try to identify with their frustrations.”
I understand what the subject talked to talked about, when someone arrives in America there aren’t really and religious differences seen or discussed as in other countries, most thoughts and ideas in this country are based on race and skin color.
Berman, a cultural and political critic, and West, chair of African American studies at Princeton University, spoke at the Stanford University symposium "African Americans and American Jews: Bridges, Boundaries, Identities" on Friday, Feb. 12.
The symposium was sponsored by Stanford's Program in Jewish Studies, the African and Afro-American Studies Program and the Stanford Humanities Center.
When the Jews first came to America, they "encountered yet another 'tragic people' whose identities are rooted in their own oppression," said Berman, a recent recipient of a MacArthur fellowship and a frequent contributor to the New York Times, the New Yorker and the New Republic.
However, the two groups had a radically different vision of America, he said. The Jewish people saw it as a land of freedom, and African Americans saw it as a land that enslaved and oppressed them.
For immigrant Jews, America was "a different kind of situation from the past 2,500 years: With a certain amount of effort, they could, in fact, have rights. To Jews, liberalism was the counter-thesis to the aristocratic/religious-dominated society, which was oppressing," he said.
"But in America, it was one of the unique tragedies and ironies of African American existence that they were oppressed precisely by the society that defined itself as liberal."
West said that "the black folk said [to the Jews], 'We've been down for a long time. We've been here while you were getting your butts kicked in the Ukraine. We've been getting ours kicked here.'
"We're not additions to American life as you were taught in your high school courses in the 1950s and 1960s, nor are we defections [from] it; we are constituents in the formation of American civilization," said the author of the forthcoming book Race Matters.
"Every immigrant who comes with a smile has to recognize that they're going to be Americanized. . . , which is to say 'discover that you're white,' " West said. "Jewish brothers didn't know this until they got here."
Many African Americans turned from liberalism to "Third World-ism," which further divided African Americans and American Jews, Berman said.
"One of the natural consequences of this was to find - in the question of Zionism - that the Palestinians were the oppressed Third World people, and the Israeli Jews were the white European imperialists," he said.
The Jews became to the African Americans "the hypocrites that I have always known among American liberals, because it was the same liberals who practiced racial oppression."
American Jews believed that African Americans would understand and empathize with their attempts as a "despised minority to try to create rights for themselves for the first time," Berman said. "[They thought] 'Jews in the Middle East are a people like yourselves, and that Zionism is the equivalent of the civil rights movement. It is the movement of the protection of the oppressed minority.'
"The same quality which links them in some way is precisely the quality - because of the small difference between liberalism and Third World-ism - [that] sets them utterly at odds," he said.
To better understand each other, African Americans and American Jews need to know about each other's histories, West said.
They should be aware of "the profound hatred of Jews that sits at the very center of European culture" and "the profound hatred of African people [that] sits at the very core of American civilization."
"We're talking about two underdogs," West said, and "we should attempt to interpret each other's histories, to understand why the prevailing anxieties are being articulated in the way that they are."
West advocates an "all-embracing moral vision" for the future, which would be "a universal ethic in which we attempt to not lose sight of the humanity of others."
"We should try to stay attuned to the circumstances that [others] are responding to," he said. "There should be a broadening of empathy and we should try to identify with their frustrations."
This article is about the differences and similarities between the African Americans and the Jewish Americans. The text talks about how the Jews were persecuted and hindered in their homeland where they found oppression and pain much like African Americans have received here. When the Jews came to America they saw a country where they had the opportunity to make something out of their lives and where they were accepted. When compared to how they were treated in Germany that is a reasonable view, the blacks on the other hand are persecuted here. When the Jews see freedom the blacks see enslavement. The two different groups of people need to look at what has happened through both of their histories and understand the pains and turmoil’s which have been suffered to realize they are not all that different.
This article is related to chapter 2 in Johnson’s book. The title of this chapter is “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference”. This article tells how different races and classes are constructed through cultures instead of actually just being natural. While in France a white French man does not get discriminated against for being French, but if they were to travel to America they may be, or if they were to go to Africa they would most likely be treated different because they are white. African Americans were not discriminated against in Africa but once they were brought to America and enslaved whites made them the lower class. Since in America religion is not a large part of how we view each other, which is a cultural trait, and is much harder to determine than color, we do not as often discriminate against Jews. Unlike in America Europe holds a large emphasis on ones religion which made oppression of the Jews a large problem. Therefore the Jews had somewhat the same problem in their homeland that the blacks do in America. When the Jewish people came to America they saw the ability for the majority of them to be free and chase their desires without persecution, where as the blacks are put down because of the perceived notion built of a large amount of time that white is the correct race and that is really the only thing that matters. The privilege that the Jews receive here in America is vastly unmatched by African Americans because of the social construction of difference is a large part of how Americans view each other. Privilege in America is granted mostly to white males where we as Americans continuously keep this illogical idea going. The fact that the Jewish people found refuse here is because of the thought of white being the ultimate form of human existence and is a self perpetuating system. The Jews didn’t make any revolutionary steps in the help to create equality for African Americans though they wished someone would have for them in their homeland. This is related to the article because it is stated that “We should try to stay attuned to the circumstances that [others] are responding to," he said. "There should be a broadening of empathy and we should try to identify with their frustrations.”
I understand what the subject talked to talked about, when someone arrives in America there aren’t really and religious differences seen or discussed as in other countries, most thoughts and ideas in this country are based on race and skin color.
The case of the mismanaged American Indian trust funds is Dickensian both in length - now 11 years before the courts - and inequity. On Wednesday, Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Interior Department had "unreasonably delayed" its accounting for billions of dollars owed to American Indian landholders and that the agency "cannot remedy the breach."
There is, of course, no full remedy - not for the historical wrongs or the cynical and shabby accounting or the years of frustration. And as Robertson and others before him have noted, a meticulously accurate tally of what the American Indians are owed is almost certainly impossible. Yet that does not mean that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached or that the government should abandon efforts to find one.
In 1996, Elouise Cobell, a Blackfoot Indian, filed a lawsuit claiming that the government had mismanaged billions of dollars in oil, timber and other royalties held in trust for some half-million Indians. The Indians were given land allotments between the end of the 19th century and 1934, a time when it was government policy to try to do away with tribal entities and reserv
ations. The government held title to the land, and these accounts were meant to collect and disburse the revenues.
The simple question is this: Can the government account for the money it held in trust? Judge Robertson's judgment: "It is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible task." This, as he points out, is an "irreparable breach of fiduciary duty," a breach that, in our opinion, is all the more galling because these individual trust accounts have come over time to look like a form of paternalistic fraud.
Even with meticulous oversight, monitoring them accurately would have been a tough assignment. But the government's failure is not simply sloppy bookkeeping. It is willful neglect, including the active destruction of records and the failure to comply with court orders.
As Robertson notes, the fact that the government cannot provide a full accounting for what may be billions of dollars "does not mean that a just resolution is hopeless." He has scheduled a new hearing to try and find a remedy. We hope it will indeed mark the beginning of the end of this case and the beginning of real equity for the holders of these accounts.
This article discusses the great injustices the American government has thrust upon the American Indian. As stated in this article the government has taken control of property that the Indian’s were supposed to own but that the government declared they were owned by the state. The American government actually had the job of removing tribal entities and reservations, which aside from being un-American is a horrible travesty. The thought of just removing Native Americans from their land just to release it to whites is unthinkable; the premise that all men are created equal is what we hopefully base our country on and to allow the government to take these actions is wrong. Along with taking the land from these people the government has refused to give retribution from their seizures. This article identifies with our discussions during class, mainly from Zinn’s writing in chapter 1. Zinn discusses the desire for the Arewak to come up and welcome Columbus and his crew and only to be met with hatred and pain. When the Europeans arrived and saw the gold worn upon the Arewak’s they made up the plan to receive the gold no matter how much it hurt these native people. Columbus was under contract with his native land to return with something which would have made his journey worth while. With this bearing on Columbus’s mind he made the choice to manipulate and eventually enslave the Indians for this gold he so desperately desired. These two articles have many similarities, our government today and throughout the recent past has been removing Indians off their lands, forcing them to move from their land place to place and never just allowing them to settle, even today reservations are small and scattered because it’s not like they were here first. Columbus also took land, but unfortunately that was not all, he took fathers, mothers and children into captivity and forced them into servitude. This fact is often overlooked because it was a “necessity” to get to where we are today. Through our countless relocation and eradication of the Indian people America has been able to claim vast amounts of land which are unarguably some of the most fertile and well placed on the planet. Europe was able to use these slaves to extend their hold on a world power. With all the slaves acquired Europe could have a large amount of cheap labor while not having resources devoted the slaves. Fortunately in one sense, the Indians were able to somewhat defend themselves which unfortunately led to there eradication. If the Indians had submitted to what the Europeans desired they may have just been able to survive, granted they would have lost their land but it seems it was lost anyway.
I am not surprised by this article, I always knew that the American government used its power unethically and has removed many Indians from their land. My education when I was younger did not entirely show the severity of the situation. I was taught that Columbus was a great man and that everyone was treated equal throughout society, but as I aged I realized this is just a sugar coated theory that our government may try to portray but not nearly enforce.
There is, of course, no full remedy - not for the historical wrongs or the cynical and shabby accounting or the years of frustration. And as Robertson and others before him have noted, a meticulously accurate tally of what the American Indians are owed is almost certainly impossible. Yet that does not mean that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached or that the government should abandon efforts to find one.
In 1996, Elouise Cobell, a Blackfoot Indian, filed a lawsuit claiming that the government had mismanaged billions of dollars in oil, timber and other royalties held in trust for some half-million Indians. The Indians were given land allotments between the end of the 19th century and 1934, a time when it was government policy to try to do away with tribal entities and reserv
ations. The government held title to the land, and these accounts were meant to collect and disburse the revenues.
The simple question is this: Can the government account for the money it held in trust? Judge Robertson's judgment: "It is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible task." This, as he points out, is an "irreparable breach of fiduciary duty," a breach that, in our opinion, is all the more galling because these individual trust accounts have come over time to look like a form of paternalistic fraud.
Even with meticulous oversight, monitoring them accurately would have been a tough assignment. But the government's failure is not simply sloppy bookkeeping. It is willful neglect, including the active destruction of records and the failure to comply with court orders.
As Robertson notes, the fact that the government cannot provide a full accounting for what may be billions of dollars "does not mean that a just resolution is hopeless." He has scheduled a new hearing to try and find a remedy. We hope it will indeed mark the beginning of the end of this case and the beginning of real equity for the holders of these accounts.
This article discusses the great injustices the American government has thrust upon the American Indian. As stated in this article the government has taken control of property that the Indian’s were supposed to own but that the government declared they were owned by the state. The American government actually had the job of removing tribal entities and reservations, which aside from being un-American is a horrible travesty. The thought of just removing Native Americans from their land just to release it to whites is unthinkable; the premise that all men are created equal is what we hopefully base our country on and to allow the government to take these actions is wrong. Along with taking the land from these people the government has refused to give retribution from their seizures. This article identifies with our discussions during class, mainly from Zinn’s writing in chapter 1. Zinn discusses the desire for the Arewak to come up and welcome Columbus and his crew and only to be met with hatred and pain. When the Europeans arrived and saw the gold worn upon the Arewak’s they made up the plan to receive the gold no matter how much it hurt these native people. Columbus was under contract with his native land to return with something which would have made his journey worth while. With this bearing on Columbus’s mind he made the choice to manipulate and eventually enslave the Indians for this gold he so desperately desired. These two articles have many similarities, our government today and throughout the recent past has been removing Indians off their lands, forcing them to move from their land place to place and never just allowing them to settle, even today reservations are small and scattered because it’s not like they were here first. Columbus also took land, but unfortunately that was not all, he took fathers, mothers and children into captivity and forced them into servitude. This fact is often overlooked because it was a “necessity” to get to where we are today. Through our countless relocation and eradication of the Indian people America has been able to claim vast amounts of land which are unarguably some of the most fertile and well placed on the planet. Europe was able to use these slaves to extend their hold on a world power. With all the slaves acquired Europe could have a large amount of cheap labor while not having resources devoted the slaves. Fortunately in one sense, the Indians were able to somewhat defend themselves which unfortunately led to there eradication. If the Indians had submitted to what the Europeans desired they may have just been able to survive, granted they would have lost their land but it seems it was lost anyway.
I am not surprised by this article, I always knew that the American government used its power unethically and has removed many Indians from their land. My education when I was younger did not entirely show the severity of the situation. I was taught that Columbus was a great man and that everyone was treated equal throughout society, but as I aged I realized this is just a sugar coated theory that our government may try to portray but not nearly enforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)