Soc. 3251W Race, Class, and Gender

Mantsios' criticism in his article on the media's unfair taint of society really should teach us to criticize his article. He came at us with a plain and simple thesis; the media gives a false outlook on today's class structure that Americans take without hardly any apprehension. Not that that isn't understandable as the level of impact is deep in the subconsciouss. As Mantsios points out, Americans spend a lot of time in front of the tube and that allows the television to really ingrain whatever it says as truth to it's audience. If every person walking around in downtown is seen getting shot by CEO's in limo drive-by shootings on TV, then many people are going to start to be scared of CEO's. I would attest that Mantsios had an implied premise within his article here. In telling us how wrong the media is in what it makes us believe, he is hinting that maybe we should be much more cautious with accepting what we see on television as fact.

With that premise in mind, he has successfully stripped credibility from his own article. It would be expected that in criticism of the medias' false hood, one would attempt to bring up facts in the contrary and support them in ways that the media does not. Mantsios skips the supporting step and hopes that his audience will accept what he says as true just because he says so (suspiciously similar to the way media does it). Sure it would be fun to believe what he is saying because cynicism is fun and makes us feel smarter than the big bad media-men, but that is no more intelligent of a step than accepting the media's brainwashing job. He looks to inspire criticism with an article that uses actual stats to support just a few points. Most of the time he just says, "this is wrong," and moves on to his next attack.

I don't mean to completely rip on his article, it does deliver a healthy reminder, as does Ehrenreich's article on her experience in trailer park life. The reminder is that, we all too often take a small bit of unfounded information from the media and many other societal forces such as parents, friends, etc., and we then place them in our memory as fact. We should and must be wary of all those things or we run the risk of being brainwashed. However, that waryness is just as applicable to Ehenreich and Mantsios' articles which also lack much of any sound foundation. Ehenreich is good in that she produces real hard facts, but it is a very limited amount of information. Meanwhile, Mantsios uses next to no support for his attack on the media. He may be right, but we musn't jump so quickly to side with the cynic without first applying some cynicism right back at them.

1. Did Mantios produce true and defendable data in support of his claims?

2. Is Ehrenreich's case enough to make the conclusion that living as an impoverished single woman with kids is enough to conclude that most all cases are like that?

3. How much evidence does it take in order for arguments like these to be deemed as rational and acceptable truths?

Posted by Jon at 3:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, while listening to the public radio station, I caught a news report about poverty. But it was not poverty as we normally hear about it in the news. According to AOL News, more people now live in poverty in the Suburbs than in actual cities. At first, I was very surprised to hear this, but then went on to explain the reasons behind this movement from city to suburb. Because more people than ever are living in suburbs, the population of suburbs are simply growing at a faster rate than in the city. With this population growth follows more diversity in the suburbs, and more jobs, specifically low-wage jobs. Also, recent immigrants are moving straight into suburbs and surpassing the city, and generally these immigrants have lower incomes than native born citizens. With these low wages follows poverty.

In the past, poverty has always been seen as a big city problem. But now, it is interesting to note how poverty can follow population growths and suburban spread. Unfortunately, this is a relatively new finding, and the general population still believes that poverty is mainly in the cities. This causes major problems for the poor who live in these suburbs without the resources that may be offered in a larger city to help them out. One woman spoke of how she had recently bought a car for $75 because there is no public transportation available to take her to her job, and how the insurance, gas money, and other expenses were slowly adding up and was becoming too expensive. Public transportation is just one example of something that the suburbs are lacking in terms of resources for the poor. The education in the suburbs is also usually more expensive, there are fewer organizations to help with everyday needs, the list goes on. Because the large population of people under the poverty line has been largely unnoticed in the suburbs, the poor there are struggling even more than they might have been in the big cities.

I guess it's time to rethink how we are helping the poor in our country and where to focus our energies. Even though it may seem that suburbs should escape the grips of poverty, it's time to realize that where the people go, poverty will follow. It's time to move to the burbs.

Posted by Molly Kay at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of you are interested in additional reading on a topic, I will periodically post reading lists of articles and books that might be of interest to you. Here is a reading list for whiteness theory. Others, including additional readings for race, will follow.

Posted by Eric at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CLASS
The reading for this week is Theories of Class. Karl Marx’s essays on alienation and capitalism are powerful and explanatory at the same time. “It’s the Economy, Stupid� (Slogan to help remember Marx). Marx divided people into two social groups: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the people who control the capital and are in the more powerful position in the society; while proletariat are the wage-workers, simply put they are the “alien object�-staying fit to produce an act as an dependent variable to the bourgeoisie.
The wage-worker is an object to capitalist, the object that can and will be replaced if the result of the replacement will result in greater profit for the capitalist. While proletariat society is pushing them selves to the maximum in hope to accomplish better wages, capitalist, on the other hand, is looking for a solution to decrease the wages and increase the profit. The capitalist is looking for the surplus-value in every worker; the money that is left after the labor and the machines are paid off.

When capitalist finds a solution on how to maximize his exploitation of wage-workers, he minimizes the wages, while increasing the work which results in larger profits. The workers who are in need of daily-necessaries, (food, water, etc.) are unwillingly force to work for these low wages in order to survive; workers are giving away their humanity to the capitalist who controls the means of the production.
Marx Weber determines the power by the: party, class and status. Party is the status of the person, by where they stand in the society. And thirdly, by the status, which is the social standings and occupation of the person. Status can, but does not have to be related to the class or economic standings, money. Unlike Marx, Weber was a pessimistic person and was considered to be more concerned with the traditional way of how things work in the society.
For Marx society was controlled by the upper class, the capitalist; while on the other hand Weber’s theory was that society was controlled by the people who were in power and had these three strong characteristics: class, party and status in the society.


Discussion Questions:
1. If a capitalist wants to create a surplus-value is it necessary to abuse the worker’s wages? Or, is the capitalist just ignoring the wage-workers who are, in this case, independent variable to the surplus-value, knowing that the worker is forced to work by human nature (struggle to survive; food water, etc.).
2. Higher class in the society, bourgeoisie, are the ones who are controlling the means of the production, while the lover class, proletariat, are characterized as the production. So, is it possible for wage-worker to somehow jump from lower class into the higher class of the society? Or is the capitalist making sure that this situation does not happen, by giving low, minimum, wages to the workers.

Posted by Fahrudin at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The articles that were assigned for today (Jan 25) deal with experiencing race, privilege and inequality in everyday life. Ellis Cose describes these things as a "dozen demons", a dozen factors that all different races (not only blacks) must deal with in life. This articles goes through and decsribes 12 factors that on a daily basis people of different races have to deal with. Some of these include presumption of failure where people assume that you will fail because of one case that they have had where somebody of a different race didn't do well, shattered hopes and the thought that you will never make it so you give in to something less, inability to fit in no matter what background and education you have earned you will never be like the whites, and guilt by association where just because you are a different race people will assume the worst of you. As I read through this I found myself having experienced all but one of the dozen, Identity troubles, I am who I am and there is nothing that would make me change who I am because if this is how I was made to be, then so be it. Someone should not be disregarded or underprivileged for their color, religion, or any factor or race. I believe that everyone is capable of doing better than what they expect of themselves and what they are expected of. Some societies have said that they have moved on from being racist and they treat everyone equally, but in reality there are still people that cannot look past this.

Another one of the articles that was assigned that I can relate to is Karen Brodkin's "How Did Jews Become White Folks". In this article she describes how at one point Jews were considered a different race. They did not have the privleges that normal white people did. Through this article though you can see the transgression to middle class whites that they now hold. For me, growing up in the Bronx, New York you had basically four different kinds of races,. At the time there were Jews, Itailians, Blacks and East Indians. Most Blacks and East Indians considered Jews and Italians who lived there to be whites, just based on the color of their skin. While reading the article it made some sense to me why they were considered "just as white as the next person", but it is still confusing. Jews and Italians hold different cultures than Americans, but yet they were still considered white. Yet for someone having a darker skin tone or color and also having a different culture they still have less privileges.

Another one of the articles that was assigned that I can relate to is Karen Brodkin's "How Did Jews Become White Folks". In this article she describes how at one point Jews were considered a different race. They did not have the privleges that normal white people did. Through this article though you can see the transgression to middle class whites that they now hold. For me, growing up in the Bronx, New York you had basically four different kinds of races,. At the time there were Jews, Itailians, Blacks and East Indians. Most Blacks and East Indians considered Jews and Italians who lived there to be whites, just based on the color of their skin. While reading the article it made some sense to me why they were considered "just as white as the next person", but it is still confusing. Jews and Italians hold different cultures than Americans, but yet they were still considered white. Yet for someone having a darker skin tone or color and also having a different culture they still have less privileges.

Discussion Questions:

If a White American was to adapt a whole different culture, religion and way of life woudl they be just the same as the next person in that culture/religion?

If society is trying to become an unbiased world, why are there less provileges given to others with a different race? Which is defined as white and "of color", as stated in the article Experiencing Difference and Inequality in Everyday Life

Posted by Shakti at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The articles for today, "How Did Jews Become White Folks" and "Experiencing Difference and Inequality in Everyday Life" really made me question what the real basis of one's skin color is all about. Previous to the first article and a discussion we recently had in class, I was not aware that Europeans including Jews were once considered a race other than white. It wasn't until after World War II that Anti-Euro racism and Anti-Semitism had lost its charm and Jews and Europeans were finally viewed as middle-class white citizens. There were many theories on how the Jews in particular were able to move in such an upward mobility fashion. These theories ranged from because they were smart to their individual efforts and abilities were superior than most. The real reason for such upward mobility was in fact because of the federal programs that created opportunities in which the abilities of Jews and Europeans was finally acknowledged and rewarded. I do think that what the federal programs were able to do for Jews and Europeans was by far a stepping stone in our racial inequalities timeline; however, what I do not think was anything but a step back in time was how these federal programs completely segregated against African Americans.

It was once stated in the first article that in time, all ethnic groups would have equal opportunities and be considered middle class. In my opinion, we have made much progress throughout the years when talking about racial inequalities; however, I do not ever see it not being an issue at all. We touched upon this topic briefly in class as well. As much as we want to deny it, racial inequalities are almost instilled upon you from birth. As much as we don't want them to be a factor, they are. In discussion we came to the conclusion that there are always going to be inequalities whether they are conscious or not. We have permanently built in ideas of inequalities, so therefore, we automatically classify things. Madison Grant mentioned his belief that race and class were one intertwined category. The upper class only included the Nordic people, who of course were "pure" in regards to race, and the lower class was for all of the other races. I think this makes a strong point as well. In our society today, race and class are still intertwined. If someday there is equal opportunity for all ethnic groups, then there will be an extreme barrier that will need to be overcome to do so.

After World War II, Brodkin talked about how by adolescence, Jews were not separated by religion or ethnicity at school or in their neighborhood. She thought of her family as middle class. Race was not visible, or as she thought and peers were not conscious of racism. This really surprised me that according to Brodkin, race seemed to drop off the end of the planet for awhile. I am somewhat curious if this was really the case, or if in their adolescent years they were oblivious to any racism because of their new white middle-class status. Even if racism was deleted from the lives of Jews and Europeans, it was still definitely present in the lives of African Americans and other races. This just shows that even as we try to socially accept more and more races, there is always going to be some type of inequality present.

In the second article, it talks about how we learn stereotypes through socialization. This was just the topic of our lecture the other day. Race is a socially constructed concept that we learn from society and social interactions. Racial categories are very unsteady as the meaning of race fluctuates throughout time and location. We would like to think that racial categories are going to continue to evolve positively over time; however, we have no facts to back that up.

Questions:

1. How does our society go about remodeling racial categories to include whatever races seem worthy of whiteness at the time?

2. Did Jews and other Europeans become white because they first became middle class? Or did becoming white allow them to be referred to as middle class?

3. Do you think that race was not an issue as Brodkin described in her adolescent years or do you think that it was merely overlooked because of the new hype of being white middle-class citizens?

Posted by Heather Wencel at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the Ore readings on race and privilege there are some powerful ideas that are hard for people to not only comprehend but also to accept. Through Karen Brodkin’s “How the Jews Became White Folks…� We were provided a lot of specific stories in an attempt to help us empathize and understand. Historically in the case of the Jewish race in the United States we can see the evolution of white privilege in a sense. One question that is brought up relates to the interconnectedness of economics and privilege. She asks, “did money whiten� (63), or was it that with “whiteness� came economic opportunity and success? The system though could not be unraveled with such simplicity nor would it go down that easily. The system has been set up since before we can remember. There have always been plans that start somewhere that almost seems unrelated, but when it gets enacted just as the GI bill did in 1944, it is suddenly clear today that there was a lot more behind the bill than giving access to college. Education is one of the biggest contributors to inequality in my opinion, and when you give one group (i.e. white males) that much of a head start on it, especially right at the time that college begins to really equate to prestige and success, it is clear that the system came in pretty handy for the power holders of that day and of the future.

The most important stuff in these readings was the information on white privilege and white supremacy. Through my work in Social Justice I see white privilege issues at the forefront of discussion. White activists more than anyone need to get with it on this issue because we have never had to experience the other side of it and in many cases never really know what we are benefiting from. It is essential to understand inequality as a system and how it works but for white people the extra step comes in realizing and admitting to the fact that we are the system. Privilege is invisible and deceitful. Just like Wildman and Davis say, something as seemingly futile as what language we have been taught our whole lives is what hides and protects the system of white supremacy. The phrase “white supremacy� alone has always been hidden as something that just the extremist white folk practice, but when you look at what white supremacy actually entails it is pretty clear to see that if you are a benefactor of white privilege, which ever white skinned person in the U.S. is, then you are also a benefactor of white supremacy.
We, as white people, need to face the truth. We are the system of inequality. One difficult issue for me as I picture my future in social activism and justice is, as a white woman, figuring out where I fit in and where I can make a difference. I realized that because of my race alone, I will need to step back many times and simply be an ally to the movements for equality that I am so passionately supportive of. As hard as it may be to create sentences that contain your name, followed by a powerful and defining phrase such as white supremacy, it is just the necessary means to starting to fight the system. Change in our systems of equality comes with empathy and brutal honesty about what really goes on in our world. As a white woman, I feel very passionately about the importance of understanding that what and where I am today, what and how I got the things I have today, and what I will do and have done too me tomorrow are all direct benefits of my privilege.

Discussion Questions:
1. Do you agree with Wildman and Davis that "all whates are racist in this use of the term, becuase we benefit from sytemic white privilege?" Why or why not?

2. Do you think that the "Dozen Demons" exerpt by Ellis Cose is a good example of many of the dimensions that have resulted from the system of privilege?

3. What ideas do you have for successfully facilitating a discussion about white supremacy to people who do not understand?

Posted by Caitlin at 7:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In today's readings, Ore presents the reader with what it feels like to be racially stigmatized constantly, the ways through which racism is perpetuated, and the possible historical basis for many of these issues. The exploitation of what it means to be black in America's workforce and the things that blacks must cope with are described in "A Dozen Demons." This entry lists many things that blacks may encounter at work that, as a white person, I would not have thought about. These include the inability to completely fit in no matter what level of education or success is achieved, low expectations blacks have of themselves because they believe employers are out to get them, expectations of black failure by employers, shattered hopes of never getting the chance to fully prove one's abilities as well as the immense fatigue it takes just to achieve and maintain the success that one has, need to keep silent despite injustices which leads to a buildup of rage, and constant stereotyping by one's fellow employees and employers. It was incredible to me how much some black people have to go through to achieve even the smallest of successes and to obtain support from those they work with. I think a lot of people think that blacks and other minorities may struggle finding jobs, but once they have been hired, their troubles are over. Conversely, their hardships are only beginning.

Ore proposes several reasons for the incessant perpetuation of racism in our society. She suggests that, above all, whites have many privileges that we do not realize we have. We are trusted and shown respect until we prove that we do not deserve these things whereas many minorities are not trested and shown disrespect until they can prove that they are more than the stereotypes and labels people believe them to be. Even more than that, these privileges are seen as the societal norm so that those who do not have such privileges are not seen as unlucky, but rather as incompetent, unmotivated, and as failures. On the other hand, those who are privileged, cannot see that they are privileged and see themselves as successful due to strong-will and motivation. This invisibility of privilege further intensifies the power and effects of racism.

One of America's largest problems in dealing with racism is our individualistic nature. America is all about being an individual, paving the way for oneself, and finding internal motivation to become successful despite those around you. Rarely do we emphasize teamwork and the need for support to become successful. In this way, instead of seeing people as successful due to the circumstances and opportunities that have been given to them, we determine that one must have strong character and be resourceful if he or she is successful. Along the same lines, when we observe racism, we blame the person who is making the racist comments or not giving chances to those of a different race. The problem with all of this individualistic thinking is that it ignores the actual institutions and societal systems that cause people to be racist or cause some people to be successful and others not to be. I mostly agree with Ore on this topic. I agree that the way of our society has made people who they are and has prevented some from getting equal opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that we have been raised to accept things the way they are and to not question them. However, I do not completely agree with Ore in her suggestion that white privilege is invisible. There may be some white people who do not realize just how lucky they truly are, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a white person who was unaware that they have been given privileges that minority racial groups have not and truly thought that the only determinant of success was individual motivation. I think that for the most part, white people understand this, but perhaps not to the degree that is necessary to make a change.

In some of the earlier readings, Ore proposes the idea that today's racism is just a continuation of the creation of white privilege in the past, particularly in the post-WWII period. She believes that those who are extremely privileged today are relatives of the men who were able to take advantage of the GI Bill, the families who were able to move into the developing suburbs in the 1960s, and those who the federal programs supported. The GI Bill of Rights, although claimed to be imposed for all GIs, was really just a help to males of European descent. Black men who serviced in the war were dishonorably discharged at a rate twice as large as that of white men, suggesting direct racism. Also, after the war, black men were not given employment information, were not able to easily enter any college if it was not for black men only, and black families were directly discriminated against in the development of suburbs. As a result, far less black people became educated, far less black people were able to find good jobs, and far less black people were given the opportunity to live in even moderately prosperous areas. Ore suggests that this is why blacks are at such a disadvantage today. I do not think that there is any reason to discount this view. It makes perfect sense that racism that occurred less than a century ago would continue to be propagated to today.

It is clear that blacks and other minority groups are at a severe disadvantage economically and socially. They are not given equal chances in school, the workplace, or even in their living situation. As a result, many see black people as unmotivated, uneducated, and unable to hold a job down or a family together when in fact it is their extreme lack of opportunity that makes it so hard for them to succeed. While many white people realize the discretion between white and black opportunity, most, if honest, are still racist to some degree. While no one wants to be racist and most of us try to treat all racial groups equally, inevitably, we still associate certain racial groups with certain stereotypes or connotations, we still have a compulsive need to know what race each person we enconter is, and we still are a little bit surprised when a member of a minority group is hugely successful. As Ore suggests, if we could just face this fact and admit it, we could work on the core of racism: our societal institutions and the way our society teaches us to approach race.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1) In the excerpt on the history of Jewish-American racism, the question is brought up: does money whiten people or does being incorporated into an expanded version of whiteness open the economic doors to middle class status? In other words, do you need money to be accepted or do you just need to be around money or around accepted groups which indirectly help make you successful and accepted? Or is it a combination of both?

2) Where is the boundary line between acknowledging race- maybe even acknowledging that you are racist- and trying to ignore race altogether? Is it better to lean towards one side or the other? Is it even possible for us to acknowledge or true feelings or race or conversely, to ignore race?

3) Although racism is not propagated by the government as strongly as in the time just after WWII, Ore suggests that our government still indirectly encourages racism. In what ways does the government or federal programs do this?

4) As a white person, I would like to know what those of you of other races perceive to be the largest cause of racism or what racist gestures bother you the most.

5) Do you think that those who attempt to ignore their racial identity or act like another more accepted race are further propagating racism?

Posted by Brit at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Lectures and readings are posted in a single page per sheet, but you can easily print them out on muliple pages per sheet. If you click on the "print" option in Adobe Reader, the print dialogue box opens up. In about the middle of the print dialogue box, there is a box labeled "page scaling". Click on the box next to it and you will see an option called "multiple pages per sheet". Click on that and some new options will show up allowing you to print as many slides per sheet as you want. It looks like this:

Posted by Eric at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After voting in class on Thursday, the alternative final date and time is set for:

Mon, May 7th, 10am – 12am.

We will still have our regularly scheduled final on Saturday, May 12th, 4pm-6pm.

If you want to take the final at a time different from these two, please contact me and we may be able to work something out.

Posted by Eric at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The assigned readings for today, excerpts of professional work from Ore, Bonilla-Silva and Winant, concern the social construction of race. Although they shared similar topics, there analysis of the social construction of race is noticeably different. Ore emphasized the concept that nearly everyone, regardless of race, class, or gender, learns some type of racial classification, with the overarching issue being one of political nature. He focuses on the issue of hypo-descent, which was briefly covered in last Thursday's lecture. Winant believes that the economy and the government have negatively perpetuated the social construction of race, by creating a cycle of racial oppression. Bonilla-Silva, on the other hand, theorizes that the system of rewards, associated with multiple social structures, has formed the social implications of race.
Each author provides a somewhat different approach when attempting to decompose the social construction of race in society. My opinions on the topic aligned with the ideas that served as commonalities between the researchers. For example, I agree with ideas from Bonilla-Silva and Winant, which argue that social change is not occurring because the oppressed groups are continuing to resist the system that can spark a shift. Finally, the social scientists show that there is immense intricacy involved with the topic of racial inequality, by describing several factors from various social structures, and that there are many ideas of how to correct disparity in the social construction of race.

Discussion Questions:
1. With such emphasis on the social classification of race, do we ever consider that we are overanalyzing, or acting excessively sensitive about racial classification in our society?
2. How do these three analyses of the social construction of race affect your thoughts regarding affirmative action?

Posted by Jillian

Posted by Eric at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of you who go the 2nd Edition of the Ore book, here is the table of contents for the third edition, so that you can compare the two and find the appropriate page numbers for the readings.

Posted by Eric at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The main topic for today’s articles is racial formation. According to Omi and Winant, racial formation is a sociohistorical process. They argue that the meaning of race is created by the specific social relations and historical context. In the article “The Modern World Racial System� by Winant, he pointed out the importance of history in the past shape the meaning of race today. After WWII, a period of anti-colonialism and anti-apartheid emerged to challenge the idea of white supremacy. Bonilla-Silva has a similar view on racism. He believes racism should be understood by investigating the structural framework or from the view point of racialization such as the authors associated with institutionalist, internal colonial, and racial formation perspectives, not the class structure such as the Marxist or irrational ideology of the mainstream social scientists.

I agree that history plays a very important role in racial formation. We tend to believe that race is something that’s fixed in nature, but its meaning is actually resulted from the diverse historical practices. For the U.S., its history of slavery background has added a little meaning to be “Black� today. Although history is an extreme important factor that shapes the meaning of race, the media is another powerful tool in displaying the dominant racial ideology or even shape ideology. In the article by Bonilla-Silva, there is a part that he examines racism at the individual level that I disagree with. He said if racism is not related to the society and prejudice only a characteristic of individuals, then social institutions cannot be racist. How is that true when social institutions such as our peers and families are made up of individuals. The statement can only be true when all individuals are not racist.

Discussion Questions:

1. Bonilla-Silva said racism is treated as a static phenomenon: racism yesterday is like racism today. Do you agree with that statement and why so?

2. All three authors believe history is a very important factor for racial formation. Can you think of any examples in which history affected how we think about a specific race? Are there any other views that you believe are also important that shape the meaning of race?

3. Do you think the U.S. determines a person’s race by the hypo-descent system is a fair method? Would it be better off if they are classified as multiracial?

Posted by Nhien at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The three articles assigned for today (Jan. 23) deal with how race as an idea was formed and how racism is not only an ideological or cultural idea but also a social construction that is still present in today's society. The three authors all seem to agree on the ways that racism should not be defined, but each have a slightly different solution to the problem of racism. The first article by Omi and Winant spoke of how the concept of race has been formed by society through history. They give examples of how race is often viewed as something that is rooted in biology and is unchangeable. However, they do not agree with this view but argue that race is unstable and that the meanings of race that are created by society constantly change. They suggest that in order for our view of race to change we must realize that race is a socially constructed idea. In the second article, Bonilla-Silva defines how the mainstream population defines racism and then suggests a new alternative framework for racism, which he calls a racialized social system. His central argument is that mainstream socialists do not provide a well-grounded theory for understanding race relations and racism. He writes that racism is not a free-floating ideology that is about the individual mindset, but is rather an idea that comes from the racialization of society. He suggests that by eliminating racialized characteristics from the social system that the use of race will end. In the third reading, the author Winant argues that although some may say that the world has “moved beyond race�, race still defines and organizes the world’s future, if only in more hidden ways than before. He offers four examples of how the world has not moved forward, and suggests that in order to do so we must not get rid of the concept of race but come to terms with the fact that humans have many variations but that we are all of the same race.

It is interesting how each of the authors goes about getting their point across but in different manners. I am unsure of which author I agree with the most because they are very similar and all of their points are valid and well thought-out. I do not agree with Bonilla-Silva when he says that members of a dominant racial group will be less objectionable to the other when they have control over their racial relations, but will behave like all the other members of the dominant group when that control is taken from them. This is a broad generalized statement, and does not explain who the “other members� are, and how they are reacting to race. However, I do find his point about how race relations today are often covert and invisible to whites in the United States. It is true that we do not see racism because it is so well hidden in our society and it is ingrained in our everyday lives. I appreciated Winant's examples from the United States, Brazil, South Africa, and the European Union because they opened my eyes to what is happening with race around the world. I am not often aware of these issues because they are not talked about in the media. It just goes to show how covert the issue of race really is in our present time.

Discussion Questions

1. Bonilla-Silva speaks of questions that were developed in order to detect racism that are not suitable for this time period. What are some suitable questions to ask to detect racism in the present?

2. What does Bonilla-Silva mean when he says that "racism crystallizes the changing "dogma" on which actors in the social system opperate and becomes "common sense" and provides rules for percieving and dealing with the "other" in a racialized society"? What are some examples of this?

3. What are some other examples from around the world of how race relations are invisible to whites?

Posted by Molly Kay at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Below you will find the day you signed up to post the reading reaction/discussion questions. Remember that postings are due by noon the day before your assigned class .

If you decide to change, please let me know so that I can put you in the appropriate day.
If you miss the day that you are supposed to post, email me and I will assign you a new day.

Tuesday, Jan. 23rd: Nhien Chau, Jillian Rankins, Molly Stoltz
Thursday, Jan 25th: Brittany Johlmann, Shakti Ramoutar, Caitlin Haugan, Heather Wencel
Tuesday, Jan 30th: Molly Schwab, Fahrudin Turnazic
Thursday, Feb. 1st: Jon McDuffie, Patrick Steidl
Tuesday, Feb. 6th: Nicole Buddy, Anna Sievert, Matt Kegler
Thursday, Feb. 8th: Amy Duchan, Brandi Kreuger, Lacey Reed, Steph Feakes
Tuesday, Feb. 13th: Ronny Cary, Jessica Stiffarm, Bertha Msimbe
Thursday, Feb 15th: Ashley Smith,
Tuesday, Feb. 20th: Jessie Quinn, Caroline Younts, Angela Fralish
Thursday, Feb. 22nd: Bo Muwahid, Priyesh Jain, Vanessa Pacheco, Leilani Rodriquez
Tuesday, Feb. 27th: Emily Christy, Cam Sorden, Matt Hoffner, Maggie Grossman
Thursday, March 1st: Christa Nicols, Sandra Jackiewicz, Britt Dillon
Tuesday, March 20th: Rita Weiss, Qadro Abdi, Sadia Mumin
Thursday, March 22nd: Sally Paulson, Jennifer Sanchez
Tuesday, March 27th: Chelsea Beach; Grant Heuke
Thursday, March 29th: Eric Stewart, Paul Cogliano
Tuesday, April 3rd: Ashley Yang, Joe Wax, Don Schoppe
Thursday, April 5th: Ann Schrempp, Amanda Le
Tuesday, April 10th: (Open)
Thursday, April 12th: Dave Jenson
Tuesday, April 17th: Stephen Anderson
Thursday, April 19th: Angela Siebert
Tuesday, April 24th: Amal Mohamud
Thursday, April 26th: Shirani Jayasuriya
Tuesday, May 1st: (Open)

Posted by Eric at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I watched CNN’s Paula Zahn Now. Zahn has been doing a series of shows about race in America, and last night’s show (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/16/pzn.01.html) was specifically about the role that race has played in the Duke assault case. The story is probably quite familiar to most people, but here is a quick summary. Last March members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team threw an off-campus party and hired 2 female strippers to perform at the party. One of the strippers, who is black, accused 3 white team members of raping her that night. The players were charged with rape, kidnapping, and sexual offense, but the rape charges were dropped last month.

This case is a great illustration of the intersection of race, class, and gender. The alleged kidnappers/sexual offenders are white males who attended an elite, private university. The alleged victim is a black female who attended North Carolina Central University, an historically black university. Indeed, these differences of race, class, and gender between the accused and the accuser seem to be a main reason why the case has attracted so much national attention.

The stripper was, not surprisingly, vilified by many observers in the media. Unfortunately, that is almost to be expected for a black woman, particularly one who is a stripper, who claims to have been raped. I don’t think that would have happened had the situation been reversed. Imagine a white female student (who did not work as a stripper) from Duke accusing 3 black men from NCCU of raping her. I believe the media would have granted her much more credibility than they did to the accuser in this case.

What did surprise me, however, was the way the lacrosse players have apparently been mistreated by the legal system. They are people who are privileged by their race, class, and gender, yet they have been subjected to a shoddy investigation by the police and the (white, male) district attorney, who has recently been recused from the case. According to the program last night, crucial evidence was withheld from their defense attorneys by the prosecution for months, and the police line-up where they were identified by the accuser as her attackers was conducted in a way that did not conform to state or national guidelines. One is left to wonder if these players are actually privileged at all. On the one hand, their race, class, and gender seem to have been an advantage to them by making them appear more credible to some in the media than their accuser. On the other hand, if these men were not treated fairly by the legal system, then who is?

Posted by Ryan at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is a summary of the results from the first day student survey, in case you are interested. I will discuss the results in class on Thursday.

Posted by Eric at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Below are due dates for assignments and exams:

Research Paper Proposal -- Thursday, Feb. 8th.

Outline and Annotated Bibliography -- Thursday, Mar. 1st.

Midterm Examination -- Thursday, Mar. 8th.

One Media Journal and Two Responses -- Thursday, Mar. 8th.

First Draft of Course Paper -- Tuesday, Apr. 10th.

Final Draft of Course Paper -- Thursday, May 3rd.

Final Examination -- Saturday, May. 12th.

One Media Journal and Two Responses -- Saturday, May. 12th.

Posted by Eric at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is a copy of the syllabus.

Posted by Eric at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The articles for today had two seemingly different views of how social inequality is generated. Ore believes that race, class, gender, and sexuality are all separate, but related, socially constructed locations. She argues that various institutions, including family, education, the economy, the state, and the media all play important and distinct roles in created social inequality. Grusky, on the other hand, seems to argue that social inequality is primarily generated through systems of social stratification (or hierarchy) via the economy that place people into a distinct class positions. Race and gender (he doesn’t talk about sexuality in the article) are given an almost secondary status in which they are ascribed characteristics that are strongly related to ones ultimate position in the class position.

While we haven’t learned enough about these issues to make a judgment between these two views, it seems to me both views are partially correct, but about different things. I believe that Ore is right to place race, class, gender, and (maybe) sexuality as equally important, but highly related, aspects of social life. Importantly, I don’t think that one can say that class is more important than race and gender because they are so bound up with each other. Class is partially dictated by race and gender, while distinctions between the races are often described in class terms, etc. On the other hand, I believe that Grusky is correct in his emphasis on the economy, and the state, as a very important institution in generating social inequality. So much of your position in society is based on material rewards, including your material possessions, your health and mental well-being, your status, your social circle, and the list goes on and on. While I believe that all of the other institutions are also important in determining social inequality, the economy is definitely an extremely important one.

Discussion Questions:

1. Who do you think is most correct in how social inequality is generated, Ore or Grusky? Why?

2. Do you think that the act of social constructing of differences must result in inequalities, or can there be social differences without inequality? In other words, is there always going to be social inequalities based on differences? Why or why not?

3. Ore argues that sex and gender is biologically defined but socially constructed, such that gender differences are largely due to socialization and cultural norms and expectations. Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

Posted by Eric at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

To login, follow the Login to UThink on the right side of the screen. Enter your x500 id and password.

1. First, set up a nickname. Once you've logged in, you'll be taken to the Movable Type main menu (Movable Type is the name of the blogging software the U is using). In the top right corner, you'll see "Welcome yourx500." Click on your name and you'll be taken to your Author Profile. In the "Display Name" box, enter what you would like displayed as your name on the blog. Your first name is fine, though if you want to use something else that's fine too: just email me and let me know what it is.

2. To make your first entry, from the Main Menu page, just click on the "New Entry" link under "Soc. 3251W Race, Class and Gender." You'll be taken to a page that looks like this:

In the "Entry Body" box, write your post. In general, it's a good idea to write your post first in a simple text editor and then just paste it into the box. For short entries (two paragraphs or less), just put the whole thing in the "Entry Body" box. For longer entries, break up your entry by putting anything past the second paragraph into the "Extended Entry" box. That way your entry won't take up all the space on the main pages and people will have to click a "Continue reading..." link to see all the post.

3. To post a response to a entry, click on the "comment" link in the posting and enter your first name and comment. You can preview your comment if you want, or just click "post" to post your comment.

A few notes:

• To make something bold, highlight the word and then click the "B" icon.


• To italicize something, just type the word, highlight it and click the "I" icon.


• To make a weblink, write the text you want to make into a link, highlight it and then click the link icon above (it's a little chain icon). Then, in the window that pops up, type (or paste) in the URL you want to link to.


• Obviously, for all of these you can just use HTML tags as well if you know them.

Posted by Eric at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)