The Other Side of White Privilege: Forgotten Races
In the three Ore readings for May 1, the connecting themes of all the passages relate to oppressed groups in America which do not receive as much publicity as the Black and White conflict does. The first passage focuses on the Asian American population in the U.S. and how they are thought of as recent transplants in this country, no matter how long their family may have been here. This culturally separates them from the general population. From lecture in class we have learned that Asian Americans have the smallest gap in median earnings compared to whites, and generally are seen as the least discriminated against race in America. Does this necessarily mean they are approaching equal footing with the majority? Of course not; Espiritu describes the feminization of Asian American men in the view of the American public as one way in which they are oppressed. This places Asian American women in a precarious position.
They need to choose between supporting the Asian American men and their fight for equality, therefore supporting male privilege within their own culture by standing together against the racial ideologies binding them both, or standing alone to expose the oppression within their own race. It seems to be a no-win situation, as either way women in the culture will end up being the subordinate group.
The last two passages focus more closely on equality; the first deals with seeing more than just black and white races, and the second with gender. Martinez raises the issue of how Hispanics (a broad conglomerate of races, generally referring to Spanish speakers of Latin America) are largely ignored in American culture, from advertising to simply public awareness. She states that by 2050 it is estimated 32 percent of the U.S.’s population will be Latin/Asian/Pacific and Native American, rendering a large portion of the population which is neither black nor white, and the elimination of a white majority in America. With such a large percentage of Americans being characterized in this manner, why are they still so underrepresented in the face of our culture? This answer lies in the popular American ideology that all Hispanics are immigrants and that immigrants are the root of many social problems. This stereotypical view greatly inhibits the ascension of Hispanics up the social ladder. Many people think they are migrant farm workers, when in reality, one quarter of the population of New York City is Latino (and I don’t think there are many farms in the city). This basic attitude will eminently change in the future, as the face of the Latino people becomes increasingly present in American culture.
The passage on gender equality characterizes differences between men and women, in contrast with male and female. Gender is the associated roles of the sexes as based on cultural norms, rather than the physiological differences which differentiate between male and female. Lorber declares that the status of women compared to men is as much of an issue of power and privilege as is the status of people of different races and social classes. The patriarchal society in the U.S. turns a blind eye toward the contributions of women to the success of our nation; most families could not survive without women’s paid work. Women are generally the parent associated with childcare, even though it is shown that men have much more leisure time in comparison. Humans constructed gender as a means to distinguish between the “appropriate� roles of males and females in society; this inherently oppresses women. It is time for equality in America, whether it be racial, gender, or any other means of characterizing a group.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is it possible for minority groups to band together for awareness of their oppression, rather than take part in the 'minority olympics' labeling themselves as the most oppressed?
2. Would changing the ideology concerning the oppression of women by equilibrating gender roles in society be beneficial towards eliminating other types of social oppression?
Comments
I am responding to discussion question one. I do not see the difference in banding together through awareness of oppression and taking part in 'minority Olympics'. Obviously, people are aware if they are playing the race card. I do not personally blame current society for past oppression for some people the subject is deeper than trying to label themselves most oppressed. I think it is not about minority awareness, but of possibility for change. People tend to feel much anger for past oppression when they are shown similar incidents in present time. I can only hope that minorities will band together for an equal society.
Posted by: Vanessa Pacheco | May 3, 2007 10:26 AM
responding to question 1.
I think it's not impossible for minorities to band together rather, it will be very very difficult because different minorities have gone through and go through different types of oppression. In order for all minority grous to band together, they all have to come to a realization that they all have been oppressed and it doesn't matter who was oppressed more or less, oppression is oppression. But, I don't think minority groups are ready to do that yet. I think this is so, becuase of the oppression these groups are facing. Oprression divides.
Posted by: Wadzanai B Msimbe | May 6, 2007 11:50 AM