Everyone knows or at least have heard of a person like the character Walt Kowalski in the beginning of the movie, Gran Torino. Walt is the typical ‘had a rough life and doesn’t know how to deal so blames it on others’ racist. Unfortunately, little aspects of that Walt remind me of my grandfather. My grandpa grew up in Germany and left right as the holocaust was starting. Many could say that he is lucky. However, I know how scarred he is from that experience. He watched his whole town burn up while in hiding in the forest. He had to quickly leave his home and lifestyle. He didn’t get to say good-bye to most of his family and friends, the majority whom eventually died in the war. Much of the information I know of the pain and trouble of my grandfather’s life does not come from him. Rather, it comes from old family and friends. Just like Walt, my grandpa does not easily share anything about the past or anything that has the potential to show emotion.
Walt and my grandfather also share similar racist values. However, what is surprising about my grandfather is that his hatred is more towards, ironically, the Jews. When comparing my grandfather to Walt, I can make sense of his self-hatred. To me, Walt was not an all around racist, but really just against Koreans. So although the majority of his comments were racist, I never viewed Walt as a racist. I just viewed him as a man, who was trying to justify his past in the Korean War by saying that those people were less than him. My grandfather does a similar thing. He doesn’t want to believe that fighting for religion is noble or that being a faithful Jew can bring upon happiness and not only death. That would bring him regret or trauma, and my grandpa is not one to deal with his past emotions. Walt is the same. I never saw the movie as Walt being the racist one, rather I saw a stubborn man trying to deal with the past.
When Walt does deal with his past, his racist values not only change but also his values on gender roles. From the beginning of the movie he criticized Tao for not being a real man- for gardening, and cooking, and work that Walt views as ‘woman’s work.’ Throughout the whole movie he is pushing Tao to always stand up for himself and to be a man. However, when Walt’s eyes are opened his perspectives on his gender roles change. When Sue, Tao’s sister, is raped, Tao steps up to plate. The ‘old’ Walt would give him respect for fighting for his family. However, the ‘new’ Walt locks him up and refuses to let Tao fight. I understood this as Walt accepting individuality. If one has strict beliefs on gender roles, than they do not understand how each person can be so different. For example, they couldn’t understand why a guy, who’s role ‘should be’ to support the family, would want to be homemaker. Walt clearly struggled with this as well. But by the end, him not letting Tao fight was representative of Walt’s acceptance of Tao. Walt finally understood how gender roles and ignorant assumptions on people set boundaries and obstacles that are difficult to overcome.
Prompt: How should income be distributed in the United States? What should the balance of welfare programs and high taxes be to low taxes and unlimited earnings? Should CEO’s make that much more money than their lowest employees? Would a different system of distribution help stop the cycle of poor and impoverished or just enable the lazy?
In the past month, the news has been all over a popular, new movement. This movement is called the ‘Occupy Movement’ and it’s goal is to fight against economic and social inequalities. Thousands of people feel that the current wealth distribution in the United States is corrupt. I bring this up because in today’s blog I am answering questions about the United State’s economy and the way income is distributed. Although I do not fully understand how the Occupy movement is achieving their goal, since their goal is very unclear, I did learn something important from the movement. I learned that a mere 1% of Americans have all the wealth, while the other 99% are only getting more poor. This is similar to all the concepts we have learned in Unit 5. In the chapter, Income Gap is Widening, they stated the same fact that the “top 1% (more than 348,000) are receiving the largest share of national income since the Great Depression.” Immediately I realized this is not some far out issue, this issue is currently present all over the U.S and is being advocated through the Occupy movements. These chapters all have concern over the income gap. I agree and feel that a redistribution of income will help the income gap. I don’t want to create a communist country, I am advocating for redistribution in order for the poor to have their basic needs met. I believe that people should work for what they want, but the government should help those in need. Thomas Jefferson said that the main purpose of government is to help the needy because the rich will take care of themselves. To me, the needy includes the poor, elderly, orphans, mentally sick, physically sick, those who have suffered setbacks like natural disasters, and others in need. Income should be redistributed by taxing the wealthy and providing money, opportunities, and aid to all those in need, as needed. New job opportunities will give the needy jobs so they can take care of themselves, making redistribution no longer need. The money that the government uses to help those in need can be used from income tax. The income tax is a tax where all citizens pay the same percentage of their income. To me, this is fair because those who make more, pay more and those who make less, pay less. So aside from those in need, their would be equal opportunity. Another issue in today’s economy is that CEO’s make much more than their employees. In order to lessen the gap, this also needs to change. This issue I am more fuzzy on. However, I feel that many people who aren’t CEOs work harder than their bosses, but still do not gain economic rewards like their bosses. It is important that while lessening the economic/societal gap that anyone who works hard, ignoring their status, is rewarded. And that people who choose to be lazy do not get the same helping hand. It is crucial we call attention to this economic and social gap! Maybe through Occupy, which simply just gives people information. Or maybe by redistributing income. Since I am only a senior in high school, I do not know the best route to get to a better, more fair, economy. However, I am confident that things need to change.
Watch the Harvard debate (attached) and write a blog post responding to it and its issues, citing moments from the debate at least twice.
As the granddaughter of holocaust survivors, I often think “that could have been me.” It was not my grandparents wrong doings that had them in that terrible position, rather just bad luck. This feeling that “could have been me” still comes up constantly. When I see a person less fortunate than I, I do not believe that it is their fault that they are in that situation, rather that a series of unfortunate events must have led them their. I am comforted to know that Michael Sandel and Rawls share this belief, but have proven it in a more eloquent manner. Michael Sandel begins by arguing Rawl’s point of a “veil of ignorance,” which is a method to help determine morality of certain issues. When the veil is on, the person is ‘ignorant’ of how everything works, and must decide how society should distribute wealth in order to make it more equal for all. After Sandel states principles that come from the veil, Mike points out that Sandel is too focused on the bottom. Mike adds a different perspective, and says that he would choose a merit-based principle. However, when Mike began to argue that our current system is fair, I started to disagree with him. Kate made a point that I strongly agree with: growing up in an environment where I am academically pushed, I know that if I did not have this push or had no support, I would most likely not even be applying to colleges. Sandel cites an experiment that only 3% of selective Universities is made of people who come from poorer backgrounds. Mike explains that Rawls argues that people are where they are today because of arbitrary factors. I was blown away by the way he proved how arbitrary the factors can be. He proved it by having the people who are first in birth order raise their hands- most of the students were. Birth order is unrelated to effort, it is arbitrary effort is shaped by random factors. Making the conclusion that income, wealth, and opportunities should not be based on arbitrary factors. This video has strengthened my belief that life is, for some part, out of the individual’s control. But also put a lot of pressure on me as the eldest child of my family.
Essential Question: There are a variety of notions surrounding discrimination in everyday life throughout these various chapters. We have a tendency to feel that all of the issues presented in this book are evil and negative in some way. The better challenge and mental exercise is to evaluate them as social issues, up for debate, and not only social problems that inherently require a solution. For this blog post, pick two chapters that don’t actually appear to be problems and address them. Tell your readers why you think they are not actually problems at all and are, instead, social issues that should be discussed and carefully watched.
The chapter “Race and Family Income of Students Influence Guidance Counselor’s Advice” discusses a study that showed that college counselors pushed middle class students more towards 2 year colleges, and upper class towards 4 year colleges. To me, this difference is not necessarily a problem, rather it is a personal choice made by the counselors. Going through the process now, I know that I am pushed towards colleges much different than my classmates. I am told to look at colleges based on my grades, my activities, and even on my income. A college counselor would not recommend that I look at Harvard, not because they are discriminating against me, but because they know the process and know that Harvard does not match up with my high school grades. The same goes for income. If counselors know that the child will not be able to pay, the counselor would more likely show them schools that are more realistic for the student. There is no problem with a counselor helping a student pick a school which they believe is best for the student, however it is up to the student to make sure that the college counselor has the student’s best interest in mind.
In the chapter, Where “English Only” Falls Short, deals with businesses hiring employees that speak a different language, but still requiring that they mainly speak English. The author of this article was concerned with how an “English Only” policy might limit the amount of positive communication among employees, and limit any cultural development. However, I see no problem with the “English Only” policy. I believe that a work environment is different than any other environment. Most businesses have one goal: to earn money. Businesses must focus on how to best please their costumers, rather than how to make sure their employees, who are paid, experience their culture while working. Speaking the language of the costumers makes the employees more relatable to their costumers. Outside of work, employees are free to speak whatever language they wish too, but in work it is the boss’s decision of what language spoken would give them the most profit.
Before Derek went to prison, I hated him. I immediately got the sense of how strong and powerful he was, and hated him for being able to preach values that I am against so well. I hated that he instilled racist values in his brother, his friends, and other teenagers. However, after he developed as a character I realized that he was not the leader, but rather a victim as well. Through the blur of his racist comments, it is hard to see how he is actually a victim. During his speech to the boys before the supermarket attack, he comes off as passionate as if this was his life goal. However, as the movie progresses it is clear that he is just another impressionable teen, who is just saying whatever he has heard from Cameron and his father. In jail, he has an epiphany and realizes how brainwashed he was. Derek was not the only one to get corrupted from the influence of others. Danny is more clear evidence that he was not truly full of hate, rather just influenced to hate others. This provokes a question of racism in general- Is it an actual feeling? Or a feeling that was brought on by the influence of others and the vulnerability of the individual? Looking at both Derek and Danny, we see that their racist beliefs were developed when they were unstable with their own lives, so were in search of something, or someone, to blame their problems on. Derek and Danny were not characters worth hating, rather characters that needed guidance. Sweeney understands that their actions do not define their potential or their true values, and refuses to give up on them. Sweeney helps Derek and Danny be happy and realize the error of their ways. Although their epiphanies of how to be good again were realized too late, the point is that they were realized. This movie may not be a true one, but it is true that there are many teenagers that are easily influenced to be members in hate groups. However, their isn’t always a ‘Sweeney’ out their to help the youth realize good values, and these kids grow up and pass on their racism to their kids. If kids can be brainwashed to evil, how come they aren’t brainwashed to do good through their education? Derek’s hatred caused two innocent men to die, however through analysis we realize that Derek is a victim also. This movie was truly brilliant, and it had a strong impact on me. I can not stop thinking about its powerful scenes and its hidden messages.
After watching an online Harvard lecture (http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-09/#watch) all about whether race should or should not play a role in a an admission decision, I was left with a lot to think about. This subject was particularly relatable because I am going through the college admission process right now, and am often thinking about what is ‘fair’ or not in this process. This presentation was based on a case involving a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. An affirmative action policy means that it takes into account race and background. Cheryl felt that she deserved admission more then the students, who were admitted because of their race. I do not know what position I would take, but their were certain arguments made that I agree with. The first argument made was against the affirmative action policy. A student argued that it isn’t fair because race is an arbitrary quality, a student does not have control over it. I have to agree with this. Sometimes, when I am filling out applications, I get annoyed that I can’t do anything to be able to check a box other than ‘Caucasian’ in order to have a leg up in admissions. However, another student argued the point by bringing up legacies. Legacies, applicants who have parents who have attended that University, also have an advantage that is out of the student’s control. This made me rethink if the whole ‘legacy’ concept was fair. If one says that race is too arbitrary, than that person would have to agree that having an advantage if you are a legacy is too arbitrary. A argument made for affirmative action was that if a college is measuring the potential a student has, they also have too look at opportunity the student has had. If the student is part of a poor minority and belongs to a school that lacks funding than the grades or test scores may not be a great demonstration of the student’s potential. That is one reason that minorities having an advantage would be fair. I agree to this point. I am a student whose had great opportunities, without my opportunities I know I would not be at the point I am today. Another argument made for affirmative action is in order to have a more diverse class. I agree with this point, in a discussion if people have different backgrounds and stories the discussion becomes more interesting. If colleges only accepted privileged white students they would not have the diversity that is so important to the educational and social college experience. With this argument, it would make sense why college can prioritize different races and backgrounds over grades and test scores. The presenter explained the importance of diversity perfectly when he said, “The quality of the educational experience of all students depends in part on these differences in the background and outlook that students bring with them.” However, in the presentation a student brought up the negative aspect of judging based on race. Even if it is giving minorities an advantage, it is still discrimination. He also brought up a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. where King states that he wishes to “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Giving advantage to a minority is judging on skin and not on character. These arguments may have not helped me make my own opinion on whether I am for affirmative action policy or against it, but these arguments made me start to really think about this topic and how there is not just one answer to the question.
In my RCG class, we discussed the famous Abercrombie dilemma in a chapter in our book called, Personal Voices: Facing up to Race. I have heard of the reasons why people hate Abercrombie before, it is because the store only hires white people for sale floor jobs. At first I was also offended by this. However, after deep thought I began to see where the company was coming from. From my understanding, the company felt that a great way to attract costumers was to tap into their unconscious minds. In the first unit, our class discussed that there is a social hierarchy and that whites are on top. Many people might not consciously realize that this takes a role in their judgment on people, however I believe and I think Abercrombie does too, that this hierarchy can make us judge a person positively or negatively. I am curious, does the idea that they were just trying to attract customers, and choose their employees like a modeling agency, justify the fact that they did discriminate? What were there reasons for wanting the “American look”? This to me can explain why many advertisements and models are white—they are chosen to represent the product because their skin color can be viewed as “superior.” However, this is a terrible justification. My other thought is if employers didn’t higher mainly white, would that help make the hierarchy less clear, and help the fight to end racism?
When given the task to find my ancestry, I began to look at the stories of my grandparents also, so I included that in here. My skin color is white, however I would not classify myself as the average 10th generation American girl. My mom’s mom is from a small village right near Hungary. When my Grandmother was my age she and her family were captured by the Nazis in Poland. Forced onto trains, the entire family was sent to Auschwitz. Everyone except for my grandmother and her younger sister perished in the war. After the holocaust my grandmother moved in 1948 to the United States. In California, she sewed her life back together, married, and raised a family in the Jewish faith. Her story and bravery has inspired me incredibly. My mom’s dad lived in Germany. His family was still around during Kristallnacht, when they hid in a nearby forest and watching their house and temple get destroyed. After this, his immediate family fled to Kansas, America. They lived on their farm in Kansas for many years, and became a typical Wizard of Oz family. My dad’s mother’s parents moved to America a little before having her. She was born in New York, but when she was my age her and her family moved to Israel and opened the first Kosher hotel in Tel Aviv. She constantly would remind me of the night Israel became an independent state and everyone was dancing in the streets. My dad’s father has a mother from Russia and a father from Germany. He was raised in Germany, but a neighbor warned the family that a war was soon approaching. Him and his parents escaped, but his sister, her new husband, and newborn baby stayed and perished in the world. All my grandparents ended up in America, and my parents ended up in California. I guess my final census would be an American Girl, but with European and middle eastern blood.
In my RCG class, we read many chapters in my Unit 2 section, and I agree with most things the various authors had to say. However, when I read the Oppression section, I had a big problem with one of the author’s ideas. The author was clearly a feminist, and although I am a firm believer for equal woman rights, I often have problems when feminists become extreme. The author claims that men who open doors for woman are sexist. “These gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock woman..” She claims that when men open the door for woman it is to assert dominance and to mock woman. This is the type of feminism that I have a problem with. She takes a polite act, as opening the door for another person, and twists it into men ridiculing woman. I grantee that when the average man opens a door he is not thinking that a woman is incapable or how this action is done to remind the woman that she is a mere “servant.” If anything, this action shows respect and is done to try to please the other person. If a man is kind enough to open the door for anyone who walks through then that is a good man, not a cruel person like this author is trying to portray him as. I will forever appreciate a man, woman, or any person who opens the door before me..
The film Crash is full of examples of the complications of Race, Class and Gender within various contexts (The notion that stereotypes and generalizations tend to become more dynamic as the individual’s context changes). Write about the way the movie as a whole connects with our notions of difference and circumstance from Unit 1. To do this, provide specific references from the movie as evidence to your central argument or thesis. Finally, end your blog post with a quesiton.
In the film Crash, we see many interactions of people with different race, class, and gender. In most of the interactions we also see discrimination. In Unit 1, we went into detail about the social hierarchy, this same hierarchy was demonstrated in the movie Crash. A scene that really demonstrated the tensions between races was the scene where Jean Cabot, played by Sandra Bullock, gets carjacked. Mr. and Mrs. Cabot were a wealthy white couple, walking in a nice neighborhood in LA, however immediately when Mrs. Cabot sees the two black men, she felt uncomfortable. They did not look dangerous, they just looked like two normal UCLA students, however the fact that they were black made them not “normal” to her. In class we discussed how if one is black they have to “act black.” In our discussions we realized that acting black had to do with being violent. This violence is only encouraged when the rest of society expects it. That is exactly what played out in the scene. When Jean Cabot assumed the two men were violent because they were black, she reinforced violent behavior. Cabot is among many who help give groups, races, classes, genders, and people a self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy explains why humans do what they think others will expect them too, positive or negative. Many expect black people to act more violent, which can cause many black people to feel that is their role. And when one stereotype is confirmed, a person may just begin to stereotype for everything. We see this right after the robbery. Jean Cabot comes home and notices that a Hispanic man is changing their locks. Immediately she has a panic attack to her husband and says that the man is a ‘gang member’ and is going to ‘sell the key.’ Again, she was not basing these stereotypes off the man himself, rather what is known of the Hispanic race. With the ladder in mind, it would be clear to her that she is much higher than the Hispanic locksmith. If she knew him, rather then blindly judged him, she would have found out that he was a quality man with great family values. However, after being mugged, she began to trust the stereotypes too much, making the infamous yet subconscious hierarchy dangerous.
If behavior can be influenced so easily by negative expectations, can we change society by expecting good from everyone?