Response to "Inequality and Violence in the U.S" Chapters 1 and 2

        As I read through the beginning of this book, I came across a fact that struck me. In discussing the different patterns of violence, it was noted that "Poor minority neighborhoods have high rates of crime" (p. 13). As I read this, I wondered why this is true. Why do people in a lower economic class commit more crimes than people who are wealthier? Perhaps they are more driven to anger because they're unhappy with their disposition in life. Maybe they resent people that are more fortunate out of jealousy. This jealousy causes an inner rage that perhaps is bottled and later released during moments where the person committing the violence feels it is justified. 

        Next, I began thinking about the deep rooted causes of this kind of violence. Jealousy is just the surface of the issue; the bigger issue is rooted in the neglect of the needs of these poor neighborhoods. Inadequate housing, food, and healthcare is causing people to be both malnourished and sick. This is not a good recipe for a content disposition in life. This would be true for anyone, regardless of class, ethnicity, and gender. 

        After realizing this, I began wondering why people are resorting to violence to solve their personal problems. One theory is that we are genetically disposed to protect ourselves in a violent manner at times. It is not something that is learned over time, but more a natural reaction to threatening situations. I feel that in some cases this is true, especially in moments of self defense, such as being raped, fighting off a person attacking you, or experiencing a break-in at your home. Another theory is that different outlets of the media are affecting children at a young age, making them more likely to use violence as they grow into adolescents and adults. Personally I feel that it is a parent's responsibility to protect their children from certain violent programs and video games. It is their duty to slowly expose their children to the violence in the world while placing an appropriate context behind it. The way kids are exposed to violence affects the way they feel about it and will deal with it in the future. It is not the responsibility of the media to censor their programs and video games so that parents can have the luxury of not explaining to their kids the context of why this violence exists and non-violent ways to alleviate these situations. People that simply blame the media for the violence in society do not usually understand that the correlation between violent television programs and video games does not prove the cause of violence. In fact, in a study between homicide in several different nations and the material the media shows, it was discovered that there was no relationship that could be unearthed (p. 31). I think that lessening violence in the U.S starts with more involved parenting. 

        As I was finishing these chapters, I started questioning whether it is even possible to eliminate violence. Humans are naturally imperfect beings and on many occasions we resort to our emotions to explain stressful situations and we react in less than admirable ways. Some people suggest that we make it harder to acquire guns in order to solve the problem. Clearly, this is not going to work, as people will surely find other avenues in which to commit violence. I think it can be agreed that violence comes about when people feel neglected and oppressed. If we can get to the root of these emotions, we can further begin to understand how to alleviate them.

Image from:

http://www.therazor.org/images/kenya_violence.jpg

 

Response to "When Europeans Were Slaves"

This article was enlightening in the fact that it highlighted oppression and slavery that white people have endured. I think that sometimes we forget that racism does not necessarily mean the contempt the white race has for others. By looking at slavery and racism on a broader scope, we can better start to grasp the whole concept. Racism occurs in many forms and over a wide range of people. In fact, the stereotypes we know today that typify different races and religions are examples of culturally and nationally accepted racism. How did these stereotypes form? Would there have to be some shred of truth in them in order for them to form in the first place? Realistically, we all stereotype; does that make us racist people? I don't think this is necessarily true; I think it's more of a societal influence and accepted norm that is difficult to shake off of ourselves. In fact, this article can teach us that it's important to challenge standard stereotypes and to question accepted teachings. 

It's been widely accepted that when people discuss slavery, they generally talk about the Atlantic Slave Trade. While this is indeed the largest evidence of inhumane slave treatment, it isn't the only one. This is what we must keep in mind when we discuss the broad topics of slavery and racism. There are many examples of such instances. 

Image from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE6y_aEPAq7pf5g1P23ds6URArcI6SJhdJQq2Zg2gQ1snSjJaJznZkrkzc-5FiXEvO4inKaYQjBD-Pt256HJKJN6evZEu8LstaqR7usQcpicVOCBSrCx9uW3hQBV-DrVHppECGFQwIvqs/s1600-h/stereotypes.jpg

Response to 1st Chapter of Racism, by Alana Lentin

As I read this selection, I came across a quote that resonated in my mind:

"A racial order has always structured humanity" (p 4). 

I feel like this statement is very true in many senses. In order to try to understand why this might be true, I envisioned myself hundreds of years ago as someone who had grown up never seeing anyone of another race. What would I think if I saw someone of another skin color than myself? Would I be scared? Confused? Intimidated? 

These feelings of disorientation that I would feel could create a metaphorical wall in my mind that would not allow me to accept anyone other than people of my own color. Now I begin to think about how this would react on a much larger, national scale. This would create a lot of hostility among all these different cultures. 

Now I wonder how people determine which race is the superior and inferior? In the 17th and 18th centuries, Europeans dominated the world because they were more "historically developed" (p 27). What makes a nation more historically developed than others? Is it an organized form of government, be it a monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship or democracy? Or perhaps it means a system of writing and a good grasp of the language? Maybe a mature system of trade and commerce constitutes a developed society...

Another section of the reading that I found to be worth noting is the section discussing Social Darwinism and the effects of both positive and negative eugenics. As I was reading this section, I was wondering how you can create a society through positive eugenics without alienating and treading on someone else's God-given rights? How do you strengthen a race without eliminating the weak links? Is it even possible? Perhaps the solution to alleviating these race issues is doing away with positive and negative eugenics altogether. What kind of effect would this have over nationalism and national pride? Would we have to consider ourselves all the same? In my opinion, everyone should be proud of their race, regardless of their sketchy past. This doesn't mean that in being proud of your race that you look down upon others. I'm simply stating that you should be proud to be what you are, and remain sensitive to the issues that other races face.

Image from:

http://www.maps-charts.com/images/22.46%20Prints%20-%20Eerste%20Boek.jpg