Introduction

Hi all, my name is Emily. I decided to take this class in order to gain a better understanding of the interaction between, history of, and effects of different ethnicities in the US.

Rosenblum and Travis

Among the master statuses that form primary axes of difference in American Society are race, sex, social class, sexual orientation, and disability. These are considered to be the traits that will ultimately dominate their opposites. Often times, occupants of these statuses are unaware of their impact on the rest of society.
Essentialist and constructionist views are what set people’s perceptions of these indifferences apart. As in the case of the three umpires, some call them as they see them; some call them as they believe them to already be, and some make them into something they were not already. Some believe that differences exist yet mean nothing until assigned an importance by society or culture, which I tend to believe. People don’t choose to exist in one group or another therefore it is not as if one decides to be in the group that is judged or persecuted. They just are, and what spin the world decides to put on that placement is what gives it its controversy. Essentialists generally view differences as essential and inherent while constructionists generally view differences as socially invented and arbitrary. Either way, both sides try to look at what these differences actually mean in the scheme of things.
In accordance with the constructionist view, that says discussing differences not only points out aspects of that difference but create the difference itself, naming a difference is the first step in categorizing human beings. This refers to the names people give to themselves or others in a particular group, such as homosexuals. Asserting a name plays a role in constructionist views as well, especially when it comes down to who is doing the naming. Depending on how big the dispute over who names who, social conflict could likely erupt. Such tension arises when a name is applied to categories of people who, as individuals, may not agree with the term. Different events cause adjustments to terms. The book refers to the terms Negro, black, and African American as transcending from derogatory to more socially acceptable. Many of the terms like these came about as a result of conquest anyway though, so the dispute over which is “correct” is never ending. In order to keep such disputes at a minimum, the government gathers demographic information, such as the census, in order to overcome racial inequality. After this, the article continues to discuss the dichotomization of races into American and non American as synonymous with white and black. It also describes the origins of racial division and today’s dependency on appearance as a means by which to label a group. One quote that stuck out to me was this: “Race is a biological fiction, but a social fact.” This clearly illustrates today’s method of judgment by appearance.
Though I wrote on the wrong sections of the article, I have to say that I was pretty interested in the essentialist and constructionist views. I tend to go along with the constructionist side of things. The way I see it is that people were just born the way they were born and that those differences wouldn’t matter unless someone hadn’t drawn a line of so-called superiority somewhere along the road.

Columbus

This chapter, written by a Howard Zinn, focuses on the most negative aspects involved in American history, expressly the cruel and unusual treatment of the Arawack Indians who greeted Christopher Columbus on his first adventure to the Americas. The man, hungry for power, immediately oppressed the natives of his so called "new world". The people were extremely generous, far from modest, and "remarkably hospitable”, therefore highly subject to slavery and violence in the form of modern weapons and technology, so to speak. The author then proceeds to generalize the majority of the world's history into this monstrosity of war, tears, domination, poverty, oppression, and degradation. Zinn goes on to say that historians often enjoy glorifying heroic events yet smother truthful stories of murder and other shameful acts. “…One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth [Howard Zinn]”. While yes, many students miss out on hearing about this tragedy and that tragedy, yet, I somehow recall devoting entire curriculums in high school to the travesty that was Nazi Germany, to the interment camps Japanese Americans were forced to endure during the Second World War, to the injustice of slavery during the Civil War and before, and yes, even to the horrors faced by the Indians upon European invasion. While I do believe that it’s only fair to give the victims of past oppressive governments, I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to focus only on the most heinous of history’s moments nor do I believe that it is necessary to leave them out entirely. What I do disagree with is the portrayal of the American government, though riddled with scandal, as a self-serving, brain-washing, power hungry institution. I happen to have a modicum of faith in the government. I like to think positively about the future of our nation. I mean, it’s obviously improved since the days of Columbus so how is it fair to say that we haven’t learned of the horrors of our history?