Ellis and Conversation

C.P. Ellis testifies that he seceded from the Klan when he started having dialogues with blacks and other minorities. As Ellis spoke with local blacks and realized that both he and blacks had shared experiences, he saw that blacks were of equal footing to whites. He realized that “Low-income whites and low-income blacks are… used by those in control, those who have all the wealth.” (523) Conversation led to Ellis’s realization of equality. “I… didn’t like blacks. I didn’t want to associate with 'em. Blacks, Jews, or Catholics. My father said: ‘Don’t have anything to do with 'em.’ I didn’t until I met a black person and talked with him, eyeball to eyeball, and met a Jewish person and talked with him, eyeball to eyeball. I found out they’re people just like me.” (523) Exchanges might have influenced Ellis and his prejudice, but dialogue is typically not an efficient way to sort out differences. People do not want to discuss difficult topics, especially with those whom they detest. We are naturally stubborn, and so it’s difficult to force maturity onto unwilling recipients and then prod these individuals into rationally discussing a controversial issue. Ellis’s solution would not work on a large scale. Peace talks and United Nation-esque organizations have existed for years, but the decisions created by these meetings rarely succeed or are actually accomplished. The ongoing genocide in Darfur continues to be overlooked by the United Nations, proof of the ineffectualness of such summits. Ellis’s idea of dialogue can be accomplished by the open-minded on a small scale, but large-scale dialogues, like those held at United Nations meetings, are often tricky to manage due to their size and diverse composition.

Mainstream

The notion of a mainstream is indeed a myth. A mainstream implies a realm where a person can be entirely normal. However, as Yoshino states, “It is not normal to be completely normal.” (605) Every person, even a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male, has a trait, disability, or belief that distinguishes him from the members of a crowd. Most Americans realize, to some varying degree, that the concept of a mainstream is false. In fact, the myth of the mainstream has become a cliché. Many a novel introduce the reader to a plain character, only to reveal later a dark secret. “Nancy seemed like every other teenager, except that she was a cannibal on the weekends,” or something of that nature. If all members of the mainstream have a feature that actually separate them from the norm, then the mainstream is composed of the atypical and unusual. With dissimilar features coursing through its supposedly identical followers, the mainstream cannot exist.
Yoshino uses stories of racism and prejudice to aid his argument. He tells of Renee, whose job was threatened when she wore cornrows to her job at an airport. He writes about Robin, who lost her job when she married a woman. The veracity in these stories is shocking, creating disgust in the reader and leading the reader to agree with Yoshino’s argument. I thought his argument was fairly effective. I understand his desire to create laws that protect all of society from having to cover, but this aspiration is impossible to achieve. As Yoshino implies, some covering is necessary to ensure privacy and well being. Bigotry will continue to exist, and covering is occasionally necessary to be shielded from persecution.
Mainstream is synonymous with normalcy. Your mainstream American, for instance, is obese, takes Prozac, watches television whenever possible, and thoroughly enjoys apple pie and fireworks. This is indeed the typical American, but many more Americans loathe reality TV and have ambitions.

A Passage from "Incidents"

I found most of Chapter Twelve disturbing. Harriet writes about how, after Nat Turner’s Rebellion, white countrymen raided her grandmother’s cabin. She describes how these men harassed and beat her neighbors. I was disgusted as I read how these men rummaged through their food, their clothes, and their personal belongings.
“The door was rudely pushed open; and in they tumbled, like a pack of hungry wolves. They snatched at every thing within their reach. Every box, trunk, closet, and corner underwent a thorough examination… Towards evening the turbulence increased. The soldiers, stimulated by drink, committed still greater cruelties. Shrieks and shouts continually rent the air. I saw a mob dragging along a number of colored people. Among the prisoners was a respectable old colored minister.” (99, 102)
It’s very unsettling that Harriet must explain her letters and belongings to a group of drunken men. It’s disturbing how, as Harriet explains her literacy, her neighbors and friends are being whipped and searched. Her use of detail is effective in this chapter. The use of the words “shrieks and shouts” to insinuate torture is especially haunting. Her decision to write about the arrest of the “respectable old colored minister” tells the reader that these white men are cruel and without mercy.

The Truth in Fiction

In order for something to truly impact its reader, it must speak the truth. Truth is both stranger and more powerful than fiction. In a fictional piece, the reader can be affected by the emotions and events shown in the writing but can also take comfort in that these events never occurred. In a work of nonfiction, the truth in the unfolding events can actually distress a reader. The veracity in the piece astounds the reader because these events actually happened, and these people actually existed. It's what makes "Angela's Ashes" more relevant than "Misery." "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" is stunning because Harriet witnessed and lived the events of which she writes. The validity of her words makes them stronger and more meaningful than the words of fiction. Because her words have not been edited or censored, her autobiography is authentic in its tone and its grammar to how Ms. Jacobs would have voiced her experiences. If the editor had rid the book of its sometimes salacious subplots, the book would have lost its shock-value and its unadulterated truth.

Polls!

As a person interested in politics and journalism, I understand the importance of presenting unbiased news. However, details in presentation can undermine a person's attempt to appear nonpartisan. This morning, for instance, I was listening to the radio, and the radio host proclaimed, "Today's a good day to keep Indiana red." Yesterday morning, this same radio host had gone on a ten minute spiel about the fairness of his news cast. A presenter of news can show passion, but this passion must be contained when a show is touted as unprejudiced. Watching CBS tonight, I could tell that the station had a blue tinge. Many of the guest commentators were talking about Obama, his campaign, and the change he would bring to Washington. At Fox, a station known for its red tendencies, the commentators spoke about McCain, Palin, and whether Palin was a ticket sinker. I flipped back and forth between these two channels for about an hour, and I find this race absolutely fascinating.

Confrontation

I haven’t been involved in a confrontation about race. I’ve seen prejudice actions take place, but these actions were not overtly rude or cruel. Yes, at airports Muslims are frequently pulled out of security lines, but, sadly, this can be expected. Security guards and airport officials are paranoid. I’m paranoid. Last Spring Break, my family visited Washington, D.C. When at a famous art museum, I saw a Muslim speaking Arabic into a walkie-talkie. Suddenly, I felt an intense urge to flee the building because I was absolutely sure this man was going to blow up the museum and all of its American paintings. I convinced my brother I was sick, and we promptly left. Of course the museum did not go up in flames; I had let a stereotype influence my judgment. Afterwards, I was upset at myself for being so skittish and weird. I can’t say these kinds of decisions won’t happen again for they have. At the state fair or at the mall, I will purposefully avoid groups of black men because they worry me. It might be bad that I do this, but I’ve heard too many stories. I don’t agree with every statement in Wachtel’s essay. I’m neither racist nor indifferent. I know there are racial unbalances in America, and I feel for those affected by these unbalances. I’m friends with all types of people and treat them all the same. My actions are sometimes not founded in reality, but I’m only trying to protect myself.

Socialization Process

Parrillo writes, “In the socialization process, individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality, and social class (514).” According to Parrillo, the socialization process occurs when a child is exposed to prejudices and beliefs and, over time, accepts these notions. A child doesn’t necessarily have to be taught such beliefs or stereotypes. Acquired by simple exposure, these ideas will slowly leak into the subconscious. These ideas can be heard and displayed in the community this child is raised in, the media this child is exposed to, or the school this child attends. A child will hear a racist comment and will store this comment in the subconscious. Such comments will remain in the mind and will become a truth for the child. When the child is older, he might be a quiet racist or even be unaware that he is racist. As described by Parrillo in his essay, “… if we develop negative attitudes about Jews because we are taught that they are shrewd, acquisitive, and clannish — all-too-familiar stereotypes — as adults we may refrain from business or social relationships with them. We may not even realize the reason for such avoidance, so subtle has been the prejudice instilled within us (514).” I do think prejudices are instilled this way. A child can be taught hatred by his parents, but a child can also pick up this hatred at school or when watching television.
Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda of the Nazi party, revolutionized propaganda. He came up with a way of selling ideas that is still used today. He would create a horrible lie and continue to repeat this lie until it was considered truth. Goebbels would write his ideas into German films and books, leaking his views into the minds of others. Like children, the people of Germany slowly accepted Goebbels’ lies. Some Germans had always been anti-Semitic, but Goebbels’ propaganda turned many more Germans into followers and believers in the Nazi party. Goebbels’ propaganda was like the socialization process in that it used time and exposure to change the minds of people.
I’d like to think I refuse stereotypes, but I know that’s not entirely true. In elementary school, I remember some classmates would squint their eyes and say, “Look, I’m Chinese!” Because my two older siblings are Korean, I’m extremely sensitive to comments like that, and I used to have no problem telling people to shut up. But in middle school, all the smart kids were Asian, and so I began to buy into the stereotype that all Asian students are gifted in math and science. In the back of my mind, I knew this was untrue, but whenever my math class was assigned a project, I’d rush to the nearest Asian and ask her to be my partner. Towards the end of middle school, this technique proved to be unsuccessful because I was following a stereotype and not basing my partner picks on actual intelligence. I know this stereotype is untrue but, because of our culture, I cannot shake its hold on me.