American Studies 202

Text: Douglas 139-191, 221-320; Brooks “The Wal-Mart Hippies.”

                After completing the Douglas reading I was left thinking about what she pointed out in the Epilogue. Her daughter, being four years old in 1994, is the same age as I am now. We have gone through the same experiences and witnessed the same media. I started to think about my favorite movies and TV shows as a child which included every Disney princess movie and Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood. I started to think about the image of women portrayed in those movies and how truly degrading it is. Then continuing on, I started to think of kid movies that came out between 2000 and 2010 to see if anything had changed. I immediately started seeing a trend of male protagonists that still exist in Up!, Ratatouille, Monsters Inc, Cars, The Incredibles and finally rated the best movie of the decade: Finding Nemo. Thinking the most about Finding Nemo is started thinking about women’s roles in the film. The main characters are Nemo, a young boy who is eventually taken away to live in a fish tank, and his father, Marlin, an overprotective clownfish who eventually finds him. The two main women portrayed in Finding Nemo are Dory (ironically voiced by Ellen DeGeneres), a mindless, stupid regal tang who adds the comedic relief to the movie, and Darla, the annoying brat of a little girl who is portrayed as stupid, insensitive and rude. I was shocked when I realized the way in which women are portrayed in this movie. It came out and 2003 and it has been judged as the BEST movie of the decade in any genre. This movie is living proof that white, male supremacy still lives today and the women would be nothing but stupid, comedic effect without him.

Discussion Question: How has the media of our generation affected us? Who or what is our “Beatlemania” and how can we break away from it?

Text: Lytle 316-376; Bloom and Breines 279-282, 379-392, 511-516, 516-520, 294-297, 310-312, 476-484, 487-489.

                Escalating to the Kent State shootings, the protests of the 1960s were all watched by the police in the same manner. The riot would escalate, the police would arrive and violence would usually outpour thus causing distrust and hatred for the police. Happening in almost every protest of the 1960s it seems to me that it was almost a vicious cycle of protesters against police with hatred and misunderstanding toward each other. I do not understand why after so much police brutality was used the police forces did not learn from their actions. The police never seemed to change their tactics even after realizing that they were not working. Throughout the 1960s whenever a conflict arose the police reverted to the same violence. They pulled out the tear gas or the batons. Why did the police not try to find another way of controlling mobs? Or, why did the police refuse to try to talk with mobs or reach an understanding? I wonder at the number of deaths that could have been prevented if the police had attempted different methods. I wonder at the number of violent protests that could have been avoided and the amount of hatred towards police that could have been diminished. I think that it is a shame that the police never considered changing their methods.

Discussion Question: If the police had not been in opposition of the protesters of the 1960s would the protests of the 1960s been as affective as they were?

Topic: Michael Eric Dyson program on 14 April 2010 at 7:00pm

                A powerful orator, Michael Dyson’s speech was extremely interesting and eye opening. Although, like he opened his speech, there were many controversial topics addressed in his speech. At first I did not understand why he opened his speech with facts and feelings about slavery. I felt that he should have been dealing with more contemporary issues. However, as his speech progressed I realized that his introduction was necessary in order to reach his conclusion.

                During his speech I did not agree with several assertions that he made. I did not agree with his thoughts about the VMAs and Kanye West. I think that had Eminim done the same thing that Kanye did there would have been many of the same consequences. I think that the reason Kanye suffered the consequences that he did was not because of the color of his skin, but simply the absence of class represented in his comment. Thus, I think it was very farfetched for Dyson to make the tie between Kanye’s comment and Elvis/Chuck Berry. Although I think his comment concerning Elvis and Chuck Berry was very poignant, he could have used a different modern parallel (of which one may not exist).

                Also, I had several problems with his discussion of African American church. I think that he is right in stating that African-American’s use church in a completely different way than most whites do. However, I think that his impersonation of whites and his stereotyping whites in the way that he did made him lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. I especially did not like when he mentioned that the Ku Klux Klan is a form of Christianity when the KKK denies most other religious groups – Christian or not – other than themselves.

                However, other than these two issues, I really enjoyed his speech. I felt enlightened through his words and have come to a greater understanding of the prevalence of racism in our society. I really appreciated his analysis of a post-racial society versus a post-racist society. I feel that this ties into the idea of America being a “melting pot” which is a complete bogus claim. All Americans should be proud of their ethnicity and mindful of their heritage, always learning from the past. (Word Count 374)

Text: Lytle 269-288; Bloom and Breines 404-406¸ 409-412, 418-421, 429-434, 494-497, 499-502; Lorde all.

                I found it interesting how all of the struggles of the 1960s are coming together in the Women’s liberation movement and the gay liberation movement. Moving from the Civil Rights Movement, everything is finally brought together in these two movements. It is not simply races fighting for civil rights; it is the individual’s inside of those races fighting for freedom. However, the struggle is not defined by race. The struggle is defined by individuals. The struggle goes beyond race, so in a way, the Women’s liberation movement and the gay liberation movement break the limits of racism. I think that it shows a final binding together of all oppressed, no matter their race. Women and gays become groups that cannot be defined by a race. They are groups that are defined outside of racial boundaries. Thus, this adds a deeper struggle. Is America simply a nation run and defined by the white male? Is America run not simply by the white race, but by the white heterosexual male? If so, how can we stop this cycle? Is it stoppable? I think that more than anything, every social movement of the 1960s was challenging this idea.

Discussion Question: Is America still dominated by the heterosexual white male? If so, how can this cycle be stopped? More importantly, can it be stopped?

Text: Lytle 166-168; Bloom and Breines 38-40, 40-43, 388-393; Douglas 123-138.

                I completely agree with Casey Hayden’s assertion that the women’s struggle was similar to that of the black struggle. However, I think that a movement should have taken place outside of SNCC before it became such an issue inside of SNCC. I think that Hayden should have rallied other organizations to see if there were similar issues inside. Perhaps the women were scared, and perhaps as Douglas suggests they felt that they had no way out, but I think that the women should have started a movement against gender discrimination. I think by her statement that some may laugh at her proposition shows her understanding that what she is saying is almost inappropriately placed and will not be well received. Although I think what she was doing was necessary, I think she should have done something outside of SNCC in order to give her proposition validity. Also, if there was an outside movement going on I think that the men of SNCC would have taken her words more seriously; thus giving her plight a greater chance at success.

Discussion Question: Do you think Hayden’s statements and propositions would have held more validity as a movement outside of SNCC instead of within it?

Text: Angela Davis’ Autobiography

                Throughout this reading, I kept returning to the Bill of Rights and its promise for freedom of speech. Although, understandably, rules and regulations are different in prison, Angela Davis was treated differently and suspiciously outside of prison as well. Simply because of her opposition to the government and her obvious association with the Communist Party USA, the government became very suspicious of her. The government watched Davis and when any clue that she might be involved in the Marin County case; she was placed on the FBI’s top ten most wanted list. I was struck by this. What had she done besides buying a weapon that happened to be used in a murder case?  Why was her offense so great that she was placed on the FBI’s list? It seems to me that she was hunted down with such fervor because of her speech, and her words. Obviously this cannot be proven, but it doesn’t make sense that so much effort would be sent to search for her when she performed such a small part in a murder; they didn’t even have proof that the guns weren’t stolen. Throughout the entire novel, I kept returning to the question: do American’s truly have freedom of speech? Or, is freedom of speech only acceptable when the speaker is praising America and democracy? Technically, through freedom of speech and religion, any citizen is free to have any belief or voice that they please. Yet, demonstrated first by the McCarthy Red Scare and then throughout the emergence of the Black Liberation Party and the U.S. Communist Party, the presence of free speech in America is questioned and almost rejected.

Discussion Question: To what extent is the government’s action towards Communists and other political opposition groups in America a violation of free speech?

Text: Lytle 289-315; Bloom and Breines 125-128, 142-145, 135-138, 138-140, 145-147.

                Often overpowered by the civil rights movement and the black power movement, the Brown, Red and Yellow Power movement’s success was overshadowed by the two-race issues (white/non-white). I was most struck in this reading by the analysis of the Puerto Rican immigrants. In Puerto Rico there was not a class system based on race; instead their class system was based on education and wealth. Arriving in the United States, Puerto Ricans were shocked to find the simple-minded white/non-white system. Many dark Puerto Ricans were more educated and wealthier than many white Americans; however, simply based on their skin color they were forced to live in the poor black ghettos or run-down black neighborhood. I began to wonder: what if there was a new present day Puerto Rican Thomas Edison who came to America to help technology but was shot down because he was not white? Then I began to think more broadly: how many minorities were shot down that could have one day helped strengthen American society? Would our society have been smarter or more advanced if white Americans had not been prejudiced against minorities?  It’s a damning question that can never be answered. Many white Americans refused to consider the humanity of non-whites, or “others.”

Discussion Question: How would our society be different if racism was not ingrained into much of our history and thought?

Text: Lytle 185-190, 224-239; Bloom and Breines 105-108, 116-121, 122-125.

                Although seemingly inevitable, I was struck with the power involved in the Black Nationalist Movement. I always admired any and all that attempted to help the civil rights cause, regardless of color. I admired the whites who gave up their lives alongside the blacks. So, I was left questioning why their efforts were not appreciated; why their efforts were even condemned. I think that although their plight was encouragable and understandable, I think that it was harsh of them to not appreciate the efforts of the whites who helped. Also, I think that SNCC’s refusal of funds from whites to help their efforts was unnecessary. I think that they could have held a conference to discuss ways to help make both races more comfortable around each other. I think that the Black Power movement was being racist against whites, although understandable; I think they went to the extreme to fight for what could have been negotiated for.

Discussion Question: Do you think that the Black Power Movement was racist toward whites? Why or why not?

Text: Lytle 240-265; Bloom and Breines 186-191, 278-279, 297-299, 333-335, 353-357, 364-365, 366-369.

                Does Johnson never give up and apologize? He keeps everything going, even when many of his officials resign and say that it’s not a good idea. Yet again, he cares more about saving his own face than actually helping his nation. I cannot understand why Johnson was never impeached for blatantly lying to the public and allowing an unconstitutional resolution to be passed (Tonkin Gulf). The public appears to be angrier at the government than they are at Johnson as an individual. Furthermore, his Great Society plan was only a scam. Martin Luther King Jr. mentions that he was excited about the bill for the poor, but as soon as things in Vietnam escalated, the bill was dropped. The poor were forgotten, much like the whole American society was forgotten in order to save Johnson’s face. At least he says he will not be up for reelection in the next term. Much of Vietnam could have been prevented if Johnson had cared about anyone but himself.

                To take some of the blame off of Johnson, the entire US army had no clue that perhaps the Viet Congs would attack on the night of Tet. They did not care about Vietnam or the Vietnamese. Like the North Vietnamese said in the documentary ”Two Days in October,” they had no idea why the Americans were in Vietnam. They had no wealth, nothing worth fighting for. If the US army had studied Vietnamese history they would have also seen the huge conflict between Vietnam and China throughout time. If only Johnson and the US government/army had taken the time to learn a little more about the Vietnamese and the world around them – outside of the war room – perhaps much of Vietnam could have been prevented, abroad and at home.

Discussion Question: Do you think that MLK was right to speak out against Vietnam? Or, like many of his critiques, do you think that through his disagreement with Vietnam he was taking away from the civil rights movement? Why or why not?

Text: Bloom and Breines 174-183, 195-196, 197-199; Lytle 178-184; Zeitlin.

                How could Johnson be more interested in determining his status as a “great president” when thousands of soldiers and innocent victims were dying tragically in Vietnam? Johnson attempts to get everyone’s approval by using federal money to “please” every economic group, young and old. Yet, he is so busy spending money and worrying about his reputation that he forgets to consider the importance of foreign policy. He does not consider the welfare of the soldiers fighting abroad. He does not consider the psychological issues that the soldiers and nurses will face for the rest of their lives after the end of the war. I do not understand how such a smart man can have such little empathy for human existence; perhaps it is because he did not attend Harvard that he was not a good president – who knows. I think that if Johnson had even acknowledged the soldiers in Vietnam and their dedication, his popularity would have risen. If he had saved the federal money to help pay off future debts, his popularity might have risen. Yet, all Johnson seemed to care about was the present. He wanted Americans to like him immediately. He wanted to become a “great president” quickly. He wanted to put his interests above any other individual. Thus, he became one of the worst presidents of American history.

Discussion Question: Do you think that Johnson’s Great Society was beneficial at all in the long run? Why or why not?