Waging a Living ~Connections

The movie was first of all very depressing.  It opened my eyes to the battle so many Americans are facing, but with no reprieve or solution in sight. It showed different families and the different paths they were taking trying to stand on their own two feet again.  Since I just mentioned it, the two articles that this movie made me think of were Kozol's "Amazing Grace" and Coontz's "We Always Stood on Our Own Two Feet. "

Kozol reminds us that so many Americans get knocked down by the systems we have in place and once down, the only way to go is further down.  I take for example Barbara Brooks, and her fight to keep her family with housing and food.  She had a rough life herself, but managed to find her path in life and went back to school.  However, when Barabara got a better job and position, along with a raise she got into more trouble.  Whenever someone we know gets a raise we immediately think of a job well done to deserve such a thing.  Barbara thought that initially too, until she realized it was no longer a prize, but a punishment.  The State offered her assistance with housing and food to help support her and her children, but once she received her raise, she lost daycare, food stamps and the aid section 8 provided. The way the system is designed is to keep her down. It's almost as if the government says,"hey you, good job, but now you don't need us at all, you made an extra 50 dollars a month but we are now going to take away any help you may have received and set you back ohh how about 1,000 a month? "I understand the idea behind the system, a raise signifies people standing on their own two feet again, but the way in which the system drops people is ridiculous.  I think of a ladder, you need 50 steps to raise the top, and every 5 you move up you have to go back 6.  You never reach the top no matter how long or hard you climb.  The roofer keeps making the ladder higher and the rungs further apart.  Barbara now had to  work harder and longer, even with her raise to make up for what she had before with the assistance of the State.  Its not Barbara's fault, she was dealt an unlucky hand from the beginning and fighting like hell to get on top got her nowhere.  This is another demonstration of how individualism, pure hard work and dedication,  is a load of crap.

The other article that I was reminded of was the Coontz article.  The video is a perfect demonstration of how American perception, according to Coontz is off.  If Barbara worked harder and longer she would be fine she could get herself out of poverty on her own.  She must be lazy, she takes government hand outs and doesn't work hard enough.  Barbara depends on the States help to survive, without it her family would probably be starving on the street. Barbara is also a direct contradiction to what the idealized American looks like.  How many people have grandfathers they can imagine saying, "I walked fifteen miles in the snow, I worked for everything I have, no one gave me a free bee when I needed it."  Well grandpa I'm sure you did, but your success was not entirely due to self reliance.  Coontz and Shapiro also both give evidence that any and all aid that was available, invisible to the memories of many Americans of course, was meant to help the white-middle class American only. We refuse to see whats right in front of us.  Which is why perceptions of the poor are so off and negative.

For example while we were watching the story of Barbara, someone said "she has a gold tooth and jewelry and has her nails done and can't afford food without help."This is true she was wearing Jewelry and this is a negative thought about her and her position. I remember growing up was hard for my mom she was a single mom, like the three in the film trying t make it with three girls who had no idea the complexity of the financial situation we were in.  What did the film say? After a divorce a mans quality of life rises 10 % and a woman's decreases by 27 %? Well that was us and I remember my mom always had her nails done every other Saturday for years.  When I was around 12 or 13 I got into an argument with her about the dumb nails.  I wanted to borrow 10 dollars so I could go to the movies or something and my mom said she didn't have it.  Being a hot headed preteen I yelled about her always having her nails done and she should spend that money on something else for a change.  I remember she cried and said it was the one thing she got to do for herself since the divorce, it made her feel prettier and better.  If I were a mom who's children demanded so much of me, like a roof over their heads, clothes, food, school supplies, electricity, appearances, I may sometimes want to give myself something too. (Now that we're grown she frequently reminds us of what she had to go without in order to make ends meet.  The mother guilt code of conduct? Maybe I'm biased about this situation)

Coontz says,

"As long as we pretend that only poor or abnormal families need outside assistance, we will
shortchange poor families, overcompensate rich ones, and fail to come up with effective policies for helping families in the middle. "

In other words what Kozol is talking about in these failed systems continuing to fail the poor and blame them for mistakes they cannot control or fix without the forbidden, limited, frowned upon, and invisible outside help.  

Also this movie made me think about Shapiro and Oliver.  Throughout their entire article they give evidence as to how the African American race has been held back and are now as a result forever concreted to the bottom of the economic ladder.  However, did anyone else notice the only African American family we met in the video was Barbara's.  The other three stories we saw were a white make and two white females.  This makes me wonder of Shapiro and Oliver are off about a few things, like race has not been the only factor to cement people.  Im not saying this video accurately represents populations, it just gave new face to the other struggling out there.  It makes me think we are all have more in common and face similar woes than just skin color.

Casta Paintings~ These are some of the paintings I was talking about in class Tuesday

1.De Español y d'India, Mestiza

2.De español y Mestiza, Castiza

3.De Español y Castiza, Español

4.De Español y Negra, Mulata

5.De Español y Mulata, Morisca

6.Morisco con Española, Chino

7.Chino con India, Salta atrás

8.Salta atras con Mulata, Lobo

9.Lobo con China, Gíbaro (Jíbaro)

10.Gíbaro con Mulata, Albarazado

11.Albarazado con Negra, Cambujo

12.Cambujo con India, Sambiaga (Zambiaga)

13.Sambiago con Loba, Calpamulato

14.Calpamulto con Cambuja, Tente en el aire

15.Tente en el aire con Mulata, No te entiendo

16.No te entiendo con India, Torna atrás

Oliver and Shapiro~ Connections/Build

First I wanted to say bravo to Andrea and Sye, I found their blog postings both enjoyable to read and very informative.  I have to say that I too agree with the both of you that this article does mainly focus on the past as a reason for uncured wealth of African Americans.  It seems that no matter what advances are made the past is always a huge factor in where we are going.  I also agree that race is not a thing of the past, in fact I think its true if I'm bold enough to say it, that most likely race will never be a thing of the past. We are creatures of habit and what is that saying, History is doomed to repeat itself? As well as with what Andrea said in our denial to accept and deal with our past we will continue to make these same mistakes.  

One thing I wanted to point out to you as well Andrea, is that Wilson is a complete hot air balloon, and Shapiro and Oliver contradict themselves throughout their entire book. They say here that they agree and praise Wilson, yet if you look toward the end of the Shapiro reading in chapter 2 when they are discussing race and class and their relationship to each other they boldly state, "to focus on one as opposed to the other is counterproductive."

The argument for class, most eloquently and influentially stated by William Julius Wilson in his 1978 book The Declining Significance of Race, suggests that the racial barriers of the past are less important than present-day social class attributes in determining the economic life chances of black Americans…Discrimination and racism, while still actively practiced in many spheres, have marginally less effect on black American’s economic attainment than whether or not blacks have the skills and education necessary to fit in a changing economy. In this view, race assumes importance only as the lingering product of an oppressive past. As Wilson observes, this time in his Truly Disadvantaged, racism and its most harmful injuries occurred in the past, and they are today experienced mainly by those on the bottom of the economic latter

Yet in the passage that Wilson most eloquently states, he focuses on class as being more important than issues of race and discrimination.  Shapiro and Oliver also state that both factors are equally responsible for racial inequality. 

The argument of the text is that it "offers a new perspective on racial inequality by exploring how material assets are created, expanded and preserved." 

Something that I found interesting in this text is Shapiro and Oliver mention closing the gap on wealth and the inequality of wages. It reminded me quite a bit of the article that we read a few classes ago which discussed some of the same issues.  I believe it was called the Cost of Inequality. The Cost of inequality discussed a distribution of wealth policy that if successful would distribute the wealth of the top 1%, enough to end world poverty four times over might I add, and level out the unequal debt of the United States.  Shapiro and Oliver briefly mention distributing wealth, but they also discuss the Confederates plan after the Civil war to equally distribute land they took from plantation owners and give it to newly freed African Americans.  The same policy, both nice to dream about, both have never happened. The system stood in the way then more directly in the past, and the system stands in the way now.  

 The Cost of Inequality article also discusses the limited social mobility of those who suffer from inequality. Shapiro and Oliver discuss this issue as well, but the have made the argument solely against race, while the Cost of Inequality uses income and wealth to make its argument.  Race was mentioned but not crucial.  Shapiro makes race crucial, and the disadvantages of  african americans have faced have stemmed over generations of layered accumulation of disadvantages.  Again referring to the past as the main reason of continued disadvantage. I ask the question, if race is so crucial to this argument, what about mixed race individuals? Those who are half white and half black?  (before the civil war called mallato) I wonder where they fall in this continued pattern of disadvantage.  They too were continuously oppressed as never belonging to either racial group, treated in some instances as garbage in other instances pillars of ethnic beauty. I wonder if their place in society has grown, if they have managed to bypass the systems of oppression, like the banks and mortgage companies, where they fit now, pessimistic or optimistic view? That is how Shapiro and Oliver would say it. 

Also in Chapter 1 when Shapiro and Oliver discuss Dividing the Economic Growth, it reminded me of the video we watched, "Capitalism hits the fan."  The professor talks about the economic crisis we have on our hands.  Most of his discussion focuses on the American worker using many of the same statistics and information Shapiro and Oliver use about the stall in the increase of wages. Yet, the professors argument is never limited to race and the opposition of one race over another.  Its merely the numbers of income.  It just makes me wonder if Shapiro and Oliver are putting too much emphasis on race here. I understand where they are coming from many instances of the past have shaped the future, but we are not limited only to that past. African Americans are still continuously oppressed even though we understand and can identify the systems that are at fault.  

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, I hope I'm not coming off that way.  I thing the argument Shapiro and Oliver make is one sided.  African Americans were oppressed and they still are but this article made me feel depressed like there was never any hope for them and there never will be.  Kind of like they always have been and always will be kind of thing. I try not to think that way I still want to believe in the rags to riches stories.  I have ended up mostly confusing myself.  African Americans were oppressed, they still are, I think racism is for the weak-minded and heartless, and that this article made me hate their depressing findings. 

Honey Boo Boo

Ah, I knew there was a reason I stopped watching reality TV. Like one on the people who the author quotes in his discussion, I too stopped watching reality TV.  I shared the repulsion in what TV has become, but I have to say I did not go as far as to remove my cable.  Keeping the TV off is a safer option only because my step dad lives most of his existence glued to the television... Anyway, Honey Boo Boo...
"They know there is little America likes more than judging fat folks–especially fat women who don’t have the decency to hate themselves for being fat; poor people and poor parents; Southerners and young women who have sex outside of marriage." 

So if anyone stopped reading beyond this point they would believe this article was entirely dedicated to Honey Boo Boos overweight mother. Its the entire basis of the conversation, that and how little pride she must have raising her children the way she does.  This quote from the author I think does a good job of summing up most of the biases Americans have about themselves.  We never want to admit we are talking about ourselves and that we are better, never one to stoop so low and so on, but in reality we are what we eat.  We eat people for being different, eat as in chew em up and spit em out so they feel a little worse than before, maybe then they will have some common sense, or at least thats the perceived reason why we criticize. And once we have made someone else's life a living hell we forget that we have just brought this upon ourselves.  Its funny the author says theres little more that we as americans like better, and his absolutely right.  However, let us not forget that we are making fun of ourselves the epidemics that the United States has become known for over the past thirty years.  Obesity is a national epidemic, girls having children before they are 17 is a national epidemic, and we push it away to the rednecks of Georgia.  
So, how many people remember that show "The Secret Life of the American Teenager"? I hardly ever here that show criticized although it deals with one of the same issues as previously mentioned.  Oh but wait, the mother isn't 300 pounds, she is a poor little white girl who made one mistake and receives national sympathy.  Oh yeah she's not a redneck so she must be intelligent.  Well we should be making fun of ourselves for this one because it tells everyone else in the world that American teenagers are immoral and sex crazed. I don't hear the mother of that teenager being criticized about  her parenting because she was not watching what her teenager was doing 24/7. 

 "The comments above are revealing of one interesting thing: Some folks may be made uncomfortable by “Honey Boo Boo” because it challenges their association of thin, shining, educated middle-classness with whiteness and Southern accents, fatness and poverty with blackness."

This makes me wonder if Honey Boo Boo's family was black if they would have ever made it to television screens across America.  That may have been far too taboo even for todays consumer market. So all those girls in the south aren't really southern belles ? Who would have thought it was possible for someone not to fit the traditional mold.  I wonder if so many hate this show because it does what the author says it does, it challenges our ideas about the neat little categories we try to shove people into.  We as humans attack what is different, we don't take the time to understand, because we our instinctive creatures. We see difference as weakness and by extension to Darwin the survival of the fittest the outsider will first be left to die because it is different.  Different is a threat and we respond to threats by explaining it away, and blocking it from our rational thought. we expect black southerners to be in the gutter because that it what we are taught but a white gutter family, oh something is wrong with them. Ok, the head of the family she's fat thats why they are the way they are and their children are the way they are.