Category: Uncategorized (Page 2 of 5)

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Kozol’s work on photography of women during the depression was insightful. We are informed that the “images ask to alleviate the madonna’s immediate need rather than demand political or economic exchange.” (pg 2) So what is the author’s point with this quote? As REBEKAHBENNINGER1  tells us “An author’s intent changes depending on the type of person an author is and also what type of book is being written.” Throughout the depression the female idea of motherhood was worshiped. (pg 1) In this article RA/FSA photos focused on the victim, woman and child. Kozol, almost sarcastic, tells us that the best way to justify the need for relief programs was through women and children. (pg 7) During the depression it was hard for anyone to get a job, let alone a woman. While these photos might have meant well, they were quite damaging to the working women. They created a stigma that women were helpless and they needed to take care of their family. There were efforts to bring the United States back to a patriarchal society and these photographs helped move that along. It is still true today that women and children are the central theme when portraying poverty. There are programs that are available to women and children in need. One such program, is only available to this select group. Women, Infant, and Children, also known as WIC, is a food “stamp” program to those in poverty. In order to be illegible for this program you must: be a woman, have a child younger than 5, and make no more than 800 dollars a month. While many people have mixed feelings about government aid programs and if they promote those receiving benefits not to work, one thing remains. The majority of the programs were meant just for women and children.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In this weeks reading, “Photography, Gender, and 1930’s Farm Relief,” Wendy Kozol tries to examine through photographs that the RA/FSA published, what exactly was their goal, and how they planned to help rural people at that time. Kazoo mentions that in the 1930’s photos were beginning to become a more credible source, so magazines and other sources with photography blossomed.  With the help of photos, they gave people and insight on how bad the situation was, showing that the government needed to provide even more aid to the people. However on the photos, Kozul believed that the Women, needed more help than Men did. She argues that Women are depicted as Madonnas or nurturers.  Kazoo states that, unlike Jessicasbode statement where she talks about Marxism stating “She connects feminism with Marxism because they “believe class structure has a role in gender,” Kozol states that class isn’t the only issue in the photo, but in fact it is the actions that the women in the photos are preforming, which is always either carrying a child. She believes that women should have been depicted in actual roles either in the field working as they often did. However, the RA/FSA wanted to divide gender by the roles they played in society. Another arguement Kozol mentions is the fact that gender is defined by the term Madonna, which as Cluna3 states is a approach that, “Marxist feminists also have a historic approach, that there must be a “material” explanation for gender”. So to sum that statement up, in order to fall into the female category of a gender you must be able to give birth.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Historical theory is quickly becoming more interesting as I learn more about its applications and this most recent article explains to the reader how the word “gender” can different functions when using in to explain historical theories and analysis and certain events. The word gender when it comes to theory is usually synonymous with the word women when comes to its application to theory and gender studies. But can also be used to understand historical events under a different lens such as the way chriscobar referenced talked about how his ideas of chivalry might have been harmful to the women’s suffrage movement and how it was an interesting connection. Another connection that fascinated me personally was the connection of  marxist and  feminist theory and its discussion  of sexual and well as socio-economic roles of women in the contexts of production and reproduction. The connection seemed especially interesting because it seems to be in contradiction of Marx’s own theory of class being the only factor starting social movements.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The reading on Scott’s “Gender; a Useful Category of Historical Analysis” reading gives the audience some information when dealing with the theory of gender. The reading starts off with introducing the textbook definition of gender from Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage of 1940. But Scott goes even further by giving various usages the term “gender” was used throughout history.

What I found interesting was unlike the theory of class, which happens to be associated the most with the ideology proposed by Karl Marx, the theory concerning gender does not happen to have any sort of association that stands out. Different historians have attempted to from some kind of theoretical formula for gender.

Feminist historians employed various approaches to analyze gender to the point where they were able to narrow it down to 3 theoretical positions: the first attempting to explain the origins of patriarchy, the second lies within the Marxist tradition, and the third bringing in the concepts proposed by the object-relation theorists (pg. 1058). Feminist historians tried to analyze the theory of gender through various accounts of inequality as social experience as one of their theoretical formulations. Object-relation theorists such as Carol Gilligan have placed their focus on the influence of experience, in their case how the child sees, hears and relates to the ones they care for.

With the Marxist approach in defining the theory on gender, they try to look at gender through a more historical perspective. CLUNA3 mentions how Marxist’s states that “gender has had no independent analytical status of its own,” and follows with stating how class may have some active role in the topic of gender.

Gender itself can be view through these types of perspectives that previous historians have mentioned. As mentioned before, there is no ideology that closely associates with gender like how Marxism does to class, so there is not just one way to look at this concept that is gender and say their way is right.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In the article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” by Joan W. Scott, explains the history of the term gender. She explains that the term first appeared for Americans who were feminists that wanted a term that would be a “rejection of the biological  determinism” that is implicated with the term “sex”. (pg. 1054) She also focuses on the establishment of women’s studies because with the inclusion of women into history, it redefined historical significance, by created a new history, which  includes the account for women’s experiences. cluna3 connects gender to marxism by saying that there is a historic approach that Marxist feminists take to define feminism. She connects feminism with Marxism because they “believe class structure has a role in gender”. This does make sense because females for a duration of time and even now, in some cases, were seen as property with no social standing. Joan W. Scott also explains that theories of patriarchy have been directed at the “male ‘need’ to dominate the female” (pg. 1058).  She also explains that with Marxism, if women expressed their shared experience of being objectified, that women would  come to understand their identity and move forward with political action. Scott points out that theorist of patriarchy, while addressing inequality among males and female, that it does not “show how gender inequality affects areas of life that are not connected” (pg. 1059). Scott then discusses a theory known as the object-realations theory. This theory she says though “limits the concept of gender to family and household experience” which is difficult for historians because they cannot the concept or individual that is being focused on with using this theory to other social systems (pg. 1063).

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In Gender a Useful Category Joan Scott discusses the word gender. Scott analyses where the term came from, in what context it has been used, and the different meanings it holds. First we must understand what the dictionary definition of gender is: this is to label something or someone masculine or feminine meaning the male or female sex. Scott states that women began to use the term gender to refer to the “social organization between the sexes.” (pg 1053) This word first appeared among American Feminists to stress normative femininity. (pg 1054) What are the different views of gender according to Scott? What is more important, how do they apply to us today?

Feminist historians classify gender in two theoretical formulations. The first is a case study that shows the continuous accounts of inequalities as a social experience. The second does not address dominant disciplinary concepts, this is because they can’t prove women had a history or participated in it. (pg 1055)  Feminists historians then began to further theorizes about gender in two categories. First was in a descriptive context referring to existence of phenomena. Second is casual, in relation to nature and realities. They then claimed gender is a social category imposed on a sexed body. (pg 1056)

Marxist feminists also have a historic approach, that there must be a “material” explanation for gender. (pg 1059) Marxist’s state that “gender has had no independent analytical status of its own.” This view of feminism share the concept of work that Marxism classifies. As zhedrick says in their post, Marxism focuses on the disenfranchised workers and lower class. This ties in with the feminists in that they too also believe class structure has a role in gender.

Lacanian theory is “the key to the child’s induction into a symbolic order.” This theory talks about how children learn the meaning and behavior of words depending on their sexual differences. Therefore, depending on how a child is raised the words can have different meanings. This theory however can be very problematic because it suggests that males and females aren’t the same.

Ultimately, Scott calls for us to refuse “the fixed permeant equality of the binary opposition,” and to deconstruct the terms of sexual differences.  She also calls for us to “replace the notion that social power is unified.” She then states her definition of gender: the social relationships between the sexes, and it is the primary way of signifying relationships of power. (1067) With multiple views on gender, which is the “correct” approach? There is no right or wrong way to view gender, it ultimately depends on your viewpoint in life. While each has their own way of viewing gender the theory that applies to us most today is Lacanian. This idea of learned behavior is what makes up our society today. Young children have easily learned to use electronics. With this in mind, the youth of today was sponge up any viewpoint you feed into their minds.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

After reading Steven Biel’s “Unknown and Unsung,” the chapter brought some light into gender and what the other gender had to say about the Titanic. The sinking of the Titanic was a look into Women’s Suffrage. An idea that I did not know was tied to this ships sinking into the ocean.  “The chivalry displayed on the Titanic, which proved to many that women didn’t need the vote and that American society was basically sound, demonstrated precisely the opposite to feminists such as these.” (Biel 311) I found it interesting how Biel is relating the two things in this quote.  The idea that men were being chivalric to help out the women and letting them survive to make the race go on. (Biel) That they were not only saving women and children but also the human race as well at the same time. I see how some feminist might of seen this as a wrong but other cheering and being happy about the men leaving their lives behind and letting the opposite gender survive.  This can be related back to the post zhedrick. zhedrick talks about how the Industrial Revolution and this was talking about the Sufferage Movement as well as the progressive movement.  I do see how this movement was also an impact not only the economic side but also political. Having Women vote int he American elect is a feat that they have been fighting for. Biel was able to relate the Titanic to the rise of women in America.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

As I grew up with a father that had an immense love of history, I found myself drawn to entertainment that centered around historical figures and time periods.  After reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War at a young age, I gravitated to Chinese history and sought out different media platforms that allowed me to discover more about the history of China.  One platform that allowed me to gain insight into Chinese history was the video game Dynasty Warriors.  Delving into the romanticized period of China known as the Three Kingdoms period between 220 ACE to 280 ACE, the forth iteration of the game provided a full character biography for all mentioned individuals within the game.  Reading through this, I became interested in the story that the game had been based on.  Leading me to read the epic Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong, I became captivated by this unique period in Chinese history responsible for producing vast amounts of literature, cinema and cultural traditions within Chinese society.  As i familiarized myself with the stories of the Three Kingdoms, I continued to look at the actually history of the characters and their respective achievements during this period in Chinese history.  Looking at this game as a historian, it is necessary to separate it from the hack and slash action and over the top character designs to discover the historical importance of Dynasty Warriors.  The game offers the modern gamer to enter into a time period marked with great devastation and political upheaval to understand components of Chinese history that helped shape the modern Chinese state.  Though retelling the story of the Three Kingdoms period, viewing this game as a historian allows the individual to see the attention to detail of this chaotic epoch.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In Biel’s writing, Unknown and Unsung, he used the 1912 Titanic disaster and the reactions to it in the United States to explain and highlight the lesser known elements of the American culture in the Progressive era: the reactions of women,  black people, and the poor. He explains how two major factions of feminists disagreed on the actions of the upper class women, how most black people were not phased by the disaster and only reacted about it through song, and how the rising socialist movement used the poor conditions on the titanic as an example of the dire straights of workers rights.  The goals of the feminist and progressive movements remind me of a quote by Winston Churchill, “Never let a good tragedy go to waste.” Whether they meant it maliciously or were rather using it as an honest way to spread their message the results are the same.  The third part of Biel’s writing focused on the progressive movement and that reminded me of the communist manifesto. Biel explains that the leaders of the movement denounced the lack of trained professional, for cutting costs (a common complaint against capitalists), and the disregard for human life for the purpose of cutting costs. He went on to explain how the radicals used this disaster to prove how little regard the bourgeoisie had about their lives (the amount of rich that lived compared to the poor) and the power that they had if they realized they literally made the ship run. As Marx explain in the manifesto, summed up by ZHEDRICK, ”  Though this work can be seen as a call to arms, it is better used as a framework for a growing working class to understand the inherent powers they hold over the middle and upper classes.”

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

When I finished the intro, I began to ponder over his words that he used in the first few pages. He constantly mentioned that he felt that he was just a background object during the production of the Titanic documentary, more amplified when there was no mention of him to the general public during or after the show. In some ways, this is how a historian is, in which the historian is part of the background because the historian is observing events that have already occurred. In the case of the feeling of alienation that he felt, it could be interpreted in that even though an historian is watching the events that has happened, a historian cannot respond directly to the historical event, rather the historian can only respond indirectly such as through research.

By studying history, it is by observing and reading anything that was recorded or left behind from a particular historical era. At the same time, it also involves attempting to interpret what occurred or how the people thought. As mentioned by my classmate, the struggles and challenges that the white European immigrants and African American citizens faced could be interpreted as a Marxist struggle. Meanwhile, my other classmate mentions that in the sinking of the Titanic, there was a conservative attitude that occurred among the wealthy passengers.

In each case, the interpretation was derived from the evidence that was left behind. Each interpretation was done to show an idea or action has actually happened. They did not make up ideas that were not present in their interpretation. Even though its obvious that my classmates were not present in that specific historical time period, they were still able to understand the time period.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Biel’s text explains how different people in the United States remember the Titanic Disaster, and it also takes a look at the current political atmosphere during the beginning of the 20th century. The two groups of people that are examined are Blacks and Women.  During the early 1900’s American women were campaigning for suffrage, and the sinking of the Titanic had been used by both sides as a political propaganda. Women wanted equality between genders in every aspect and an argument to that would mean the end of Chivalry. When the Titanic sunk, women and children boarded escape boats and the men sacrificed their life to save the opposite sex. A counter argument that Biel presents was that women are needed to reproduce and that is the main goal of every living species. Another argument was that the law of the land was separate from that of the law of the sea; which is true, on international boarders, there is only customary law that presides between states beyond their extended economic zone. The other group that was spoken about were the Black population and their coverage of the story. There were many songs and poems that were written about the catastrophe; and  chriscobar explains that  “the idea of class is also brought in with having immigration and racism in the center of it.” This was noticed by comments from the white population that told the Black population they were lucky they could not afford to buy tickets to go on the ship. which was more of a sarcastic insult presented as a blessing.  The final thought the Biel’s wants to bring to light was that the Titanic was just like any other disaster, but different people were trying to make the incident remembered in a different context.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Steven Biel’s “Unknown and Unsung” talked about how the Titanic was viewed through different perspectives.  These different perspectives came from “the most important and troubling problems, tensions, and conflicts of the time.” (Biel pg.306)  Not only that, but Biel goes on to say that the people’s interpretation of the Titanic’s sinking was a “collective work” one that was “pervasive, defying clear-cut divisions between conservatives and reformers, between high culture and low culture, between staid and sensational reporting, between sections and regions of the country.” (Biel pg.306) One of the perspectives Biel touches upon is gender/class.  Biel discuss how there was this whole myth behind the first cabin male passengers on the Titanic, and how they gave up their lives because they put women and children first.  Biel goes on to say that not only did these wealthy men die to save women and children, but they also died so that their “weaker” counterparts might live. This act Biel says “reinforced conservative views of gender and class relations in which both women and workers were best served by accepting the authority and protection of paternalistic elites.” (Biel pg.307)  I found this very interesting because it brought to my mind the Communist Manifesto and the very reason that it was made.  ZHEDRICK talks about how the Communist Manifesto was a “philosophical work that proposes a societal shift in which the proletariat rises above the shackles of the bourgeoisie and creates a world of economic and social equality.”  Conservatives during the Titanic’s sinking thought that women and workers could not fend for themselves and that is why they needed the elites to look out after them.  To these conservatives the Titanic proved that these elites were superior and smarter than women and workers.  Through this view we can see that gender/class was a big topic during this period.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Over the course of spring break I went to the Museum of Latin American Arts (MOLAA) for the sole purpose of gathering materials for my Art 101 comparison paper. As I was allowed to take pictures of the artwork, I was able to focus on the concepts an artist would take when looking at the art piece. It was not until the weekend before break ended that I realized my presentation was approaching. As I looked back at the pictures I had taken from the museum visit that I realized something that could be looked upon from a historians perspective. One of the pieces by Frank Romero, The Arrest of the Palateros, depicted a scene where police officers were persecuting Latin immigrants who were trying to make a living by selling their commodities in the streets of Echo Park, Los Angeles. The artist made the painting in 1996 to depict a scene that is common in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

What brought me to think about the historical perspective of this piece relates back to the reading due for April 3^rd concerning the theory of race. The artwork and the little description below it show how the officers were able to take advantage of these immigrants because they do not have their documentation, leading the officers to exploit this weakness. It led me back to Coates’ reading. Coates refers to one African American, Clyde Ross, to show how those in authority would take advantage of those without power to do much in retaliation. Looking back at the work caused me to reflect on the theme of class struggle and race and how it existed not only back over 200 years but how it can still be seen in more recent times.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In the Roediger article, the theme of the article was revolving around the notion of how immigration is seen. The idea of class is also brought in with having immigration and racism in the center of it. Another theme of the article is who is white. Some of the immigrants were later considered white due to being fair skinned. I big theme or idea is that all immigrants learned the very disrespectful word to call an African American when they first arrived in the United States. People from the start were being taught to dislike African Americans and any dark skin immigrant.

The Coates article is something of an insight of what African Americans experienced in Chicago.  What was interesting in this one was how Clyde Ross explained his personal hardships in the South. How his family was free but not. They were still in some kind of slavery but legal due to not fully being able to own the thing they had. Clyde Ross also goes on to explain how the draft wanted him not in the war but he refused and went anyway. Later he would find a way to live in Chicago but there was a catch. The house he bought was not bought through a bank. Coates then states that during this time, many African Americans were not able to get mortgages and had to buy from a person who set up a contract who bought the house cheaper and up sold it. Coates explains this has been a problem in Chicago and how many people were cheated out of their money. In zhoeffken post on Marx,  zhoeffken writing relates to what was happening to African-Americans in Chicago. This relationship is that people were making money or capital off of people who in the lower class, and during this time people needed to find ways to be able to live out their dreams and some were willing to make money off of that need.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

David Roediger’s Whiteness and Race brings forth the debate of what it meant to “become white” and how it pertained to the different immigrant groups within the United States.  Reading Roediger’s work as a way to understand the racial history of the Untied States, the primary argument for this piece is the perception of the American people of the incoming immigrants.  The question asked by Roediger is how the different ethnic groups obtain the title of “white” and how this shaped the racial identity of the arriving Europeans.  By using Upton Sinclair’s King Coal, Roediger brings forth a racial hierarchy that developed within the United States.  As the Americans and the British occupied the primary rung of the hierarchical ladder, the degree of “whiteness” is diluted as it spreads from the British Isles and into Southern and Eastern Europe.  With the allotment of “whiteness” coupled with nationalities and religion, becoming “white” in American culture was obtained through the degradation of the African American community and an assimilation into the American culture.  Gravity21 see Frederick Douglas’ mention of the Irish as a warning that they too will treat the African American community with the same degree as the Americans.  However, it is in this passage that Douglas brings forth the belief that racial identities did not transcend national boundaries.  This became an important aspect in the challenges to “becoming white.”  As a basis for a historical  approach to the discussion of race in the United States, the article’s focus on immigrant groups allows for race to be discussed as a social construction in response to an influx of ethnic or religious groups that do not define themselves according to the nation’s societal standards.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In American society our class struggle is that between the White Americans and the Black Americans, this is the easiest way to split. According to the article by Roediger in fiction and immigrant could earn their whiteness by reinforcing the status quo. Often fiction represents the ideals of society and it is easy to see that black Americans were looked down on in American history. Roediger also gives other works as proof that focus on this divide especially in the work force. Other then fiction Roediger gives real life experiences as well like those of Douglas on his trip to Ireland. He had hoped that immigrants like the Irish would join the cause for emancipation because even if what they felt was not the same pain it was something that was similar, Douglas said he could feel this in their music. Those who had wished immigrants would join emancipation attempts were often let down by the fact immigrants did not end up joining.

The second article by Coates focuses on the struggles of black Americans after emancipation. Black Americans were not simply left alone to live their lives as free men but instead were terrorized with Jim Crow laws or other issues. Many were kept in debt due to having to be sharecroppers at the mercy of the landholders. Even later in the North issues were faced like unfair housing terms. Black Americans simply cannot work out of poverty and are said to be more likely to fall into poverty then white Americans.

Both articles can be tied into a marxist approach as well with the fact that one can see it as another proletariate bourgeoisie class affair. Marxism focuses on the disenfranchised workers and lower classes as zhedrick talked on in their post. White Americans can be viewed as as the bourgeoisie as they were the ones in charge of the land during sharecropping as well as keeping blacks out of housing areas while the proletariate is the black American who strives to have the same wealth as the whites but it held down by the system.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Throughout most of the human race’s written history there has been problems connected with the different types of race or ethnicity a person could be born into. For this class the easiest representation of this concept is ‘white’ Americans vs. other ethnic Americans that live within American borders.

Much like in juanrosasmp’s post ‘businessmen and marx’, I also noticed that in the article Whiteness and Race many of the works of fiction and even people from history that is mentioned all somehow revolve around business and the placement of people with ‘lower’ ethnicities. The works of fiction range from Out of This Furnace to King Coal, all of which have different groups complaining about another different group for one reason or another. Often times this was because different ethnic groups were readily hired over another, with African Americans being some of the last to be hired of the multitude people looking for work. Of course then there is the people from history that are mentioned. Such as Fredrick Douglass, Malcom X and Alex Hayley, all of whom had speculations about white immigrants coming over that could take available jobs from or learn to instantly start being racist towards African Americans. Roediger brought up that most of the social historians focused more on white immigrants and how they were treated within America instead of any overall history of how all immigrants within America were treated. Which could connect to Marxism through the idea that ethnic groups are not being treated in similar manners to another. That connects with Roediger statement that history surrounding the groups that are not considered ‘white’ enough and time periods where they were held under microscopes are the most studied. This is most likely because they are considered so different from the ideal whiteness.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The readings on theorizing race showed two different aspects that I would like to address. In David R. Roediger’s Whiteness and Race abstract, the author addresses the issue of different immigrants and how they fare compared to the whites when immigrating to America. The abstract uses the oppression of African Americans as a reference point for how other white ethnicities are treated. One specific race I wish to touch upon is the Irish. According to the reading, the Irish immigrants have been through some not to say the same kind of mistreatment as the African Americans but can be compared to some degree. Frederick Douglas was used in the reading to show how he felt toward the treatment of the Irish people, which was a mixture of sympathy for the immigrants as well as some kind of worrying that they would treat his brothers in kind the same way the American whites do as well. The abstract talks how the Irish upon seeing their level of whiteness being questioned, rush to form some sort of status for themselves.

The other aspect I would like to address relates back to what JESSICABODE said about the concept of the Communist Manifesto, with the white people being the bourgeois and African Americans being the proletariat. In Coates’ reading, he uses one African American, Clyde Ross to show how exactly the concept of the bourgeois and proletariat play into effect. Many African Americans wish to own properties but can’t have mortgage on their own so are therefore forced into contract with white contracters, who are basically the building’s original who bought the building at a cheap price and make the African Americans pay for more than what the original building is worth, leaving them at the hands of the white people to do what they wish and bathe in their newfound wealth. The White people would find any way possible to keep the African Americans from doing anything which displeases them and can be seen not through the

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

juanrosamp‘s post mentions that “one of the key points of the Communist Manifesto is that the bourgeois takes advantage of the proletariat in order to maintain and increase their wealth”. This relates to the “Whiteness and Race” article and “The Case For Reparations” article. Because both deal with white supremacy, with the white people being like the bourgeois, and the African Americans being the proletariat, and being taken advantage of, specifically their labor in order to increase the Southerners wealth in the 1800s. While the “Whiteness and Race” article by David R. Roediger focuses more on the literature about white racial identity and the idea about “becoming white”with European immigrants, there still is a theme about racial superiority being talked about. This is also true for “The Case For Reparations” article, by The Atlantic because its about the struggle that African Americans had to go through in order to own a house back in the 1920s; and how there are still things that are going on in real estate that result in African Americans not getting the best loans for houses. In the “Whiteness and Race” article, it mentions how studies on marxism raised issues of how immigrants into the U.S. learn about white supremacy. One point that i found interesting while reading the “Whiteness and Race” article was that even though Italian immigrants did not make a point of claiming themselves as white even though they participated in campaigns to only allow Caucasians into the neighborhoods that they lived in.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

As i was reading the 2 readings, I realized that both selected readings involved businessmen that had a high interest in turning a disaster into a business opportunity and to prevent their business from being damaged by facts.  I then began to read the blog post and noticed that the businessmen and Karl Marx would not see each other in the eye at all. In the writing of Kevin Rozario, it is constantly mentioned that businessmen did not see the disaster as a disaster to business but a huge boon for business. For example, businesses rushed to San Francisco to take part in the reconstruction process instead of leaving or staying away from the city.  Meanwhile, a fire that occurred in New York earlier also attracted businessmen, in which they made even more money to replace the money lost in damages. As mentioned here, the article by Ted Steinberg discusses the methods that business did to prevent money loss. Newspapers attempted to downplay the disaster that struck San Francisco by using evidence to show that the earthquake was not that deadly. These practices of the businesses to benefit from disasters, which can be viewed as taking advantage of the suffering of the lower classes, would most likely clash and reinforce the beliefs of Karl Marx. I admit that they are different scenarios but a connection can be made.  As summarized here, one of the key points of the Communist Manifesto is that the bourgeois takes advantage of the proletariat in order to maintain and increase their wealth. This is somewhat similar to the businesses that took advantage of the disasters to expand their wealth.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In “What Comes Down Must go Up” Kevin Rozario talks on the San Francisco earthquake and fire and how that disaster is good for capitalism. Rozario looks to find why Americans view disaster as a good thing, he states that in the past disasters were seen as a way to punish people for their sins and remind them of what is truly important in life, God’s salvation. Overtime Rozario says that Americans started to see disasters as not only a religious event but also as an economic boon. He says that modern capitalism needs the destruction so that outdated structures can be rebuilt and made new. Rozario seems to take a Marxist stand on these events. Marx in his manifesto talks on how there is an issue with over production and that capitalism can only continue with exploiting old markets even more or by finding new markets. A disaster allows investors to buy up the land and rebuild something better it gives them their new market to work with. Buying up these lands allows them the pick what they want to build be it new apartments or businesses, this could push people out of their homes because they can no longer afford the rent.

Steinberg in his article focuses more on how investors wanted the disaster to be blamed mainly on the fire then the earthquake. Fires can be prevented but earthquakes cannot be. An earthquake is not something one could avoid through planning. Cronon’s idea of second nature to where a city can be built to avoid things, like in Chicago’s case where they lifted to city to avoid sewage problems that JOHNKANE touched on.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

What Comes up must go down is written about the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. This was a massive point of destruction, with about five acres destroyed. Rozario’s states that people thought this was a “blessing in disguise.” (Rozario, pg 73) He points out that townspeople thought this disaster was tied in with faith. Rozario then questions why people view disasters as a blessing, or act of God. (Rozario, pg 73)  He states the reason people tied faith with disasters is because they thought it was a sign from God to recall his chosen people. (Rozario, pg 75) The Chicago fire was also thought to be product of God. In an earlier post Chriscobar tells us that the people of Chicago believed God was punishing them for being sinful.  Was it really a blessing or curse from God? In this point of time faith, was present in every day life. When something tragic occurs in someone’s life it may be common to turn to God fore explaining for the unknown. This could be said about the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake.

Another thing Rozario mentions ties in with Cronin is nature. Despite the destruction prospective investors continued to invest in San Francisco because it is a “natural metropolis.” This ties in directly with the Cronin reading, first and second nature. A similar scenario occurred, as Gravity21 mentions, investors wanted to rebuild because they knew the surrounding land, first nature, has advantages. Why is it that we see these two similarities? The time era might have something to do with it. I think the logical reason is that townspeople from San Francisco must have drawn comparisons themselves  with the Chicago fire. The Chicago fire happened twenty years earlier, they could have looked to how they rebuilt and their mindset.

Smoke and mirrors by Ted Steinberg talks more about the fire after the San Francisco earthquake. Steinberg argues about the class structure and how it was maintained in the rebuilding of the city. The business class was behind trying to make people forget the disaster and rebuild. (Steinberg, pg 109) Newspapers were also noted for maintaining social order, they did this by down playing the disaster. This is the opposite of what happened in the Johnstown flood. As SANCHEZRON13 reminds us, this was a weird amusement for disaster tourism.  So why the differences in how the news portrayed the disaster? The San Francisco flood wanted to rebuild the city while maintaining old class structures. Down playing this event meant less outside investors and  influence. 

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In chapter 3, Kevin Rozario, explians how the middle, as well as the upper class in society, profit off of disasters that can be earthquakes, fires, floods, wars, or even just destroying property with the intent of building something new. He explains how throughout history disasters have destroyed cities, but that the destruction of city has been revolutionized to be  a positive thing. Especially in the Capitalistic world. He goes on to explain how that if a city is destroyed you have the potential to build something more impressive, modern, and profitable. He also states that although lower class people do not benefit because most of the time their home and valuable items are destroyed, wealthier people can but the land for a cheap price and turn it into something more profitable for themselves. He also explains how in New York, they would constantly destroy and rebuild to gain more profit. This was possible because of capitalism, unlike Marxism as, JohnKane, explains their intentions, “Their plan had many steps that needed to be taken in order to achieve this goal; some included seizing private property, nationalizing factories and agricultural production, and regulating production throughout the market”. With the controlling of land, the idea of destroying to rebuild would be irrelevant, because they would’t see it as useful, because not too any people would profit from it, thus making people content with what they had, and not wanting to modernize themselves. Chapter 4 goes more into detail about Disasters but still mentions how class is a issue. The disaster which it talks about, is the Earthquake of San Francisco, which caused many deaths to undocumented Chinese immigrants. The author explains how the upper class tried to blame the damage of the city on fire, rather than the actual earthquake, so that they could still convince people to live in the city. However many people knew that the fire wasn’t to blame, but rather that the upper and middle class wanted to turn this disaster that mostly happened to the immigrants into a way to profit off of their damaged properties. People knew this and still wrote against the upper class and stated the facts, that the city was damaged by earthquakes, and by doing so stand ups against the upper class and supports ZHEDRICK‘s idea that, “Though this work can be seen as a call to arms, it is better used as a framework for a growing working class to understand the inherent powers they hold over the middle and upper classes”. The power they held was to expose the truth that the city was a risk, because of the damage the earthquakes could cause.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The Communist Manifesto, written during the height of the Industrial Revolution, defines the class struggles caused by Industrialization and Capitalism between workers and owners. Boyer contextualizes the work of Karl Marx by describing the social and economic conditions leading up to Marx’s publication. Boyer also notes that the last few sections of the Communist Manifesto are ideological, pertaining to a specific political philosophy rather than a strict economic philosophy. Marx implores the proletariat of the world to follow the Communist ideology, which as Zhedrick states, “implores them to initiate a bloody revolution in the name of equality.” Boyer finds the distinction between Marx’s economic and political messages significant enough to distinguish them. In this regard, I feel the distinction is important because economics and policy are not separate. They directly influence each other: economics is often decided by government policy. This is why Marx’s rallying message at the end, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” closes his statement. He calls for revolution, a violent political resistance against the higher class. To seize the means of production and redistribute them to the working class is a political revolution, not just an economic ideology.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is philosophical work that proposes a societal shift in which the proletariat rises above the shackles of the bourgeoisie and creates a world of economic and social equality.  Written during the Industrial Revolution, this text spoke to the growing urban populations that experienced a growing disparity between work and wages earned.  As the Industrial Revolution transformed both the countryside and the urban centers, mass migrations into the factory systems for work create a stark separation among the already diverging economic classes.  Speaking to the marginalized working class, Marx and Engels created a unifying ideology for the disenfranchised workers to rally around and champion their own needs in the growing urban centers.  The ideology presented by the authors created an identity for the working class, one that stressed the importance of the laborer in the industrialized world.  John Kane believes that the Manifesto is a work that solves the growing disparity between the classes by providing a solution that benefits the masses.  However, this ideology is targeting a specific class of people, the proletariat, and implores them to initiate a bloody revolution in the name of equality.  The contents of the Manifesto endears the proletariat  to force a confrontation with the societal plagues that seek to oppress them.  Though this work can be seen as a call to arms, it is better used as a framework for a growing working class to understand the inherent powers they hold over the middle and upper classes.  It is a work that understands the trials and labors of the laymen, propelling them into a unity to protect themselves from the interests of the bourgeoisie to create a society that protects the workers from the employers.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles wrote a Manifesto that they thought would solve societies problems of inequality between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes. They wanted to give more to the working class by taking private land from the factory owners. their plan had many steps that needed to be taken in order to achieve this goal; some included seizing private property, nationalizing factories and agricultural production, and regulating production throughout the market. The one beneficial aspect that the communist ideology possessed was to eradicate child labor in every form. The Communist Manifesto begins by explaining what society’s problem is, then it continues to argue who is to blame for the social injustice, and provides a new never before attempted idea to reform society to benefit the masses and not a single class; it finally provides information on the political parties that it supports in different states and finishes by provided one last uplifting quote to motivate people to join the communist revolution. The other paper we had to read was a historical background for the manifesto, which explains what was going on in society during this era, who they were reaching out to, and why they thought this revolution would inevitably come. One problem that I noticed in the Manifesto was where it mentioned German Philosophers and their ideas/ philosophies; but never names any philosopher specifically. In the city, many people were herded into factories to work long hour days to make minimal wages just to scrape by, but never enough to actually make enough to prosper. These people were like that of those in Chicago when it was first being developed.  Like ZHEDRICK said,”Chicago became a center for cultural integration between different societal groups that would otherwise not interact”. These different societal groups are the people that Marx had hoped to convert to Communism and potentially start the revolution.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

For the class presentation I decided to use the recent video game Nioh. Nioh is set in the cusp of the Edo period in Japan durring the Battle of Sekigahara with a focus on the historical warrior faction the Samurai. Though primarily a work of fiction including the application of demons and spirits within the game, it brings some historical accuracy with many of the characters representing actual historical figures. This includes the protaginist whom is supposed to represent William Adams, who is historicaly known as the first western Samurai. This being said the fiction of the game is prevelant even here, as the original Adams was of Briitish descent and had dark hair while the games Adams is of Irish descent and has fair colored hair. Apart from this a subplot within the game is the war between two factions of Samurai and the impact it has on the remaining, this too is fairly historicaly accurate to the war between eastern and western japan led by Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyori respectively.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Through the first half of the semester, we were given four chances to express our understand of articles we would later discuss in class. This gives us a chance to better our writing, make us really think about what we are learning, and propose an interesting point of views that we might have during that reading. From our first blog post to our most current ones you can see differences in our writing in a positive light. At the beginning of the blogs we summarized the readings we had like JESSICABODE did in her first post, but as we got more invested in our readings we began to add our own personal views that agreed or disagreed with the author just like JOHNKANE did in his post. As we got more organized about or posts and remembered to actually do them on our assigned day, we started making an outline of how we were going to write about an article or book. We unknowingly followed the pattern of summarizing the piece of writing, adding in a colleague’s post that we agreed with and related to our own point of view and then like PETERROSSI1 did, would start to answer the questions the author brought up.

Looking through my own blog posts through this first half of the semester, I noticed that I started following this unwritten outline like many of my classmates.  From my first article review on Disaster Tourism and the Melodrama of Authenticity: Revising the 1889 Johnstown Flood to my last article on A tempest around “Isaac’s Storm” I have seen my writing grow and my insight of these author’s historical questioning grow stronger. I made the goal of bringing in my own thoughts and then using those to decide if the author’s arguments are valid just like many of my colleagues.  Through this, my writings have gotten stronger and my analysis of articles have become more about finding an author’s historical arguments, answering their questions in the article, and finding if they are credible or not instead of just trying to understand what I am reading

 

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Looking back on the posts that our class has done on the various disasters it is very interesting to see the different styles we write in and also the various themes we all pick out of the readings. Many of us started off using a one paragraph style post such as JOHNKANE‘s post, but then we started to break down the posts into a two or more paragraph style like JUANROSASMP‘s post. The class is getting good at spotting themes in the readings, Whether it is Racism like in cluna3‘s post, a missunderstanding like in JESSICABODE‘s post, or Prejudice towards Immigrants like in PETERROSSI1‘s post, the class had something to say about it and had found why that existed in each case. You can also see the development the class has gone through in regards to the content included in each post. The posts as a whole all slowly started to include more in depth insight to the readings and also in how we dissect each reading to make connections to others blog posts. While looking at other’s posts, I notice that mine also fall in the same pattern with starting off unorganized and odd, but then with help and discussion they started to pull together. I do wish I could have added more insight and theory based material into my earlier posts. Overall I think the development of the classes has been very good and has shown the progress from post to post towards being able to break down each readings to a simple paragraph each week.

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

I figured from the name of the class that we were going to focus on thinking about history in this class, not just a competition over who can regurgitate the most information, but it didn’t hit as to what the class was meant to teach you until cluna3’s class presentation on the Last Samurai and Jeremy Popkin’s Herotodus to H-net reading. For me the purpose of this class has been to make us start thinking like historians through the analysis of multiple articles and change the way we look at history to take in mind different perspectives which was the purpose of why we did class presentations. For the blog posts, as far as I’ve seen have been successful in teaching us in how reference each other’s work the same way historians do to legitimize our arguments.

The presentation by peterrossi1 mentions the idea of different perspectives to historical events and why their aren’t certain accounts for historical events to get the account from a new source that was never thought of before like how he mentions the lack of representation of those who were actually in the battle. This idea of challenging sources looking from a different angle comes back to the purpose of the class. Also rebekahbenninger1’s blog on the Tempest Around Isaac’s Storm mentions author intent and how Isaac’s Storm doesn’t stand firm when it comes to historical accuracy. This brings up fact stretching to suit the narrative of the story and whether this can be considered good history from a research stand point. This issue of inaccuracy is again brought up by zhedrick with his blog post about the inconsistancies of Larson’s work in regard to stick true to the facts and embelishing others and there is evidence of this within the notes of the book itself. Zhedrick’s other blog on the Faith and Doubt article talks about the importance of having different accounts of different historical happenings to understand themes, circumstance, culture and societies of the time period in general and how this can aid in coming up with an argument that you may want to push in a paper you’re writing.