Monday, April 22, 2013

Working class and middle class kids in school

Okay so I'm way too busy right now with work and school and life and I don't even know where I put my Jensen book so this is going to be a quick post...

I can understand what Jensen (from the ten pages that I could read before I lost the book) and Hooks were saying about class and education.  After reading some of the Jensen last night, I talked to Erica about how comfortable we feel at RIC and at our jobs- places that are filled with working-class people.  We talked about how, when there is one middle-class person who needs to "get ahead" or his/her peers, everyone else seems to not like them.  Either they are deemed a "kiss-ass", too aggressive, or a "know-it-all."  And even though we are in our twenties- we both still see this today.  Working class kids like us are so comfortable being a team and we would question authority together if it meant sticking up for one another.  We've both always noticed this- but until taking this course, I never realized how much it had to do with our class and our background (what class we grew up in).

Friday, April 12, 2013

Class in America during the Vietnam War

I was researching for a paper I am writing on dissent to the Vietnam War during the 1960's.  I came across an article that is SO relevant to what we have been discussing about class, race, privilege, and most importantly, the Lareau article and how it showed that the middle class feels more comfortable questioning authority.

During the Vietnam war there was a disproportionately higher amount of blacks (mostly lower class- given the time period) being drafted and sent to war than whites (specifically of the middle to upper classes).  This obviously has to do with the racism existent in local draft boards- but there is more to it than that.  In the link below, James Fallows reflects on the drafts inequities.  One inequity was simply that the middle class had the resources to resist the draft, perhaps even in clever ways- while the lower class accepted the draft and accepted the fact that they might have to be shipped off to Vietnam.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Blog on Lareau

Okay now I see that Ms. Marshall was concerned about racial inequality.  See, Lareau didn't tell me that before.  It makes sense now.

I'm thinking he didn't mention it in the beginning because he wanted to put a specific emphasis on class.  In the beginning he states that, while race matters when talking about certain resources, class matters much more.  So at first, when talking about Ms. Marshall, it seemed like he attributed all of her reasons for getting involved and questioning authority in her children's lives to her social class.  But he was simply stating that her social class enabled her to get involved.  When Ms. Marshall talks about why she intervened, it was more about race.

So what I get from this is that Ms. Marshall, among many other African American lower, middle, and upper class parents, is concerned about racial equality in her children's lives.  However, the reason that she can make accommodations for her children and question authority when a problem is presented to her is because  she is a member of the middle class and has the resources to do so.  Meanwhile, a black mother of the lower class might feel the same way but feels too inadequate to jump in and question those above her.

There were two different "reasons" here: Lareau talked about the reason Ms. Marshall could get involved; what enabled her to do this.  Ms. Marshall talked about the reason that she did get involved; what prompted her to do this.

Random thought about Lareau article...

Just saying, if Ms. Marshall was my mom, I would tell her to calm down and back the heck off....

A mother's advice is all good and well.  But Stacey can totally handle her own problems without being coddled by her mom.

My mom would always give me advice on how to handle situations but she would never intervene without asking me if that's what I wanted.

Just a random thought.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Rambling- Mike Rose related to my life


                                                            The Fast Food Worker
 For about three years, I worked as a fast food worker at Burger King.  For about half that time, I worked as a manager there.  Fast food jobs are notorious for being the most unskilled jobs in America.  Don’t have a degree?  Looks like you’re going to be flipping burgers your entire life.  Get used to the phrase, “would you like fries with that?”  Sure, most fast food restaurants do not require their workers to have a degree in order to be hired.  However, the notion that fast food work or management requires no thought and all unskilled, physical labor is not true.
                A crew member at Burger King is thrown into the hot, grease filled kitchen and told to make X amount of sandwiches in under two minutes.  The amount of X all depends on how much a customer orders and could range from 2 sandwiches to 10 sandwiches and 5 fries.  First, the worker begins toasting all of the buns they need.  Then, the worker takes the sheets of wax paper and strategically marks any special requests about the sandwiches (no ketchup, extra pickle, etc.).  After marking all of these requests on the wax paper, the worker flips all of the sheets over for the sandwiches to be assembled on them. Remembering the order of the sandwiches on the already marked wax paper on their work table (which is referred to as a “board”), the worker takes the buns (sometimes all of the same buns if the customer ordered all regular burgers but most often, different types of bread) and places them on the wax paper that they correspond to.  The worker takes tongs and lays out the appropriate meat on each bun.  Now, the more difficult part: the toppings.  Not only is this worker remembering what toppings go on what type of sandwich but they have organized the sandwiches in their minds to know which customer wanted ketchup and which did not.  If the worker puts ketchup on the wrong sandwich, it is now covered in ketchup and he/she has to waste the bun and burger, toast a new bun and grab a new wax paper and start over with that one sandwich.  This might not seem like a big deal, but when the worker is in the middle of a lunch rush, they have just wasted a sandwich while more orders are coming in and it set them back about fifteen seconds.
Sometimes when it is really busy, the worker will prioritize sandwiches.  If two orders come in through the drive thru right after one front counter order, the worker will quickly make the drive through order first in order to “make speed of service” a.k.a. get the sandwich to the window in less than two minutes.  However, oftentimes, another drive thru and front counter order will come in directly after.  If one of these orders is more than just a few sandwiches, the worker will start falling behind.  If the worker runs out of chicken tenders or simply drops something on the floor and has to cook more, it’s considered a catastrophe to the manager AND the customer that is waiting.  Not only has the worker just wasted food, but they have wasted more time.
Not only do the workers deal with pressure from the managers, but the customers treat them horribly.  Working up front is not as stressful as working in the back concerning how much you have to do in such little time.  However, it is more stressful dealing with customers than making sandwiches.  “I’ve been waiting three F****** minutes for my Whopper!  You call THIS fast food?!”.  Oftentimes, the workers are called “disgusting” when the customer gets angry about something. Because of the fast pace the workers are forced to keep up with, sometimes the sandwiches aren’t as neat as the customers would like them to be.  “My sandwich is falling apart!  Those losers back there don’t give a S*** about anything!”  Once when I was manager, a customer received a wrong order: she did not want tomatoes on her Whopper and accidently, in the midst of making about 30 burgers, one of my workers accidently put tomatoes on it.  She exclaimed, “Are you really that stupid that you don’t understand how to not put tomatoes on a burger?!  Why don’t you go to school or something?!”.  Comments like this obviously hurt me but I couldn’t even begin to explain the pressure that all of my workers (and the pressure that I) was under in that restaurant.  I would just apologize, waste her Whopper, and (while the workers in the back were STILL getting slammed with orders) ask them to make her a new sandwich.
As a manager, we would get yelled at by our district managers for wasting food.  Food gets cooked at the beginning of lunch and would be held in pans for a certain amount of time.  If the food didn’t sell in that allotted time, we are supposed to throw it away- it is considered no longer sellable.  Our district managers were so concerned about wasting food that they would literally advise us to just sell the food anyways.  There were so many instances where I’d have the workers throw away the food and then the NEXT order would be that same food they just threw away.  They would have to cook new food- so although the food would be fresh, the customer would complain because it took so long to make, I would get in trouble for not making speed of service, and I would get in trouble for “wasting” food.  If the customer actually complained to the district manager (a common occurrence) it would be a triple whammy.  If however, I didn’t cook the customer new food, they would complain that the food was old and cold.  I literally could not win.
So how does this relate to Mike Rose?  Not only does a fast food worker exhaust him/herself in the kitchen or running around taking orders and making drinks, they constantly have to use their mind.    What goes on what sandwich?  Should I waste this food or should I sell it?  How much time do I have left to make this order?  How should I prioritize these sandwiches? Their minds are going at 100 miles an hour and all under the pressure of their managers and the bad attitudes of the customers.  In the two minutes they are allotted to finish each order, they probably make about 30 difference decisions.  And in the end, they are just considered lazy, unskilled, stupid workers.  I am actually disappointed that Mike Rose did not address the fast food worker in his book because it is the extreme of “they don’t use their minds” when they actually really do.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Waging a Living (Connections)


                The first reading that came to my mind when watching Waging a Living was Kozol’s, Amazing Grace.  One of Kozol’s major points is that when people are in poverty, it is not due to the fact that they are stupid or irrational.  It is simply because they might have had some bad luck and then the American system worked against them to prevent them from rising above the poverty level.  Similar to how Cliffie and his mom and Alice Walker could not escape the poverty they lived in; the people in the film were completely stuck.

Jean Reynolds (the CNA) and her daughter Bridget were in a heartbreaking situation- Jean has several children and Bridget is unable to help financially because she is dying of thyroid cancer.  They did not have access to health care so Bridget’s doctors told her plain and simple, “Enjoy this Christmas because it is probably going to be your last.”  Thyroid cancer does not have to be a life-threatening cancer.  However, it was threatening to Bridget because she couldn’t afford the right treatment.  How could Bridget and Jean possibly save money when they are trying to save Bridget’s life?  What will happen to the health of the other children when all of the money is being spent on bills and on Bridget’s cancer?  Bridget was not receiving any form of preventative treatment or the doctors would have caught the cancer in its early stages; Jean tells us that the illness is much too far progressed for treatment that they could afford.  Sure, this may seem like too much of a specific case- major health problems like cancer certainly have a huge impact on finances.  But the movie stated that 18,000 Americans die a year because they lack health insurance.  This entire group of people is probably trying to save themselves while trying to make ends meet.  Eventually, Bridget is provided with health insurance which covers the rest of the children as well.  The family moves into another home because they were evicted out of theirs.  Although Bridget now has health, she is still very sick and Jean still struggles because she only makes $11 an hour as a CNA.  Jean does not have the time to go back to school to be an RN.  She is stuck in a situation that provides her no advancement opportunity.

The story of Barbara Brooks was inspiring.  She was abused by both her uncle and mother growing up so she went to live in a house with other teenagers.  She was then abused again by the workers at the house.  Several years later, she ended up being a single parent of five.  She worked at the house that she grew up in- the one that she was abused in- because she loves the kids there and wants to make a difference.  Working at the house, she was making $8.25 an hour so she decided to go back to school to get her associates degree.  Somehow, Barbara juggled raising five kids, working full time, and going to college all at the same time, which is truly admirable.  She then got a raise- $11 an hour.  This is where all of her hard work is supposed to pay off, right?  Wrong.  Since Barbara made more at $11 an hour, she was no longer eligible for food stamps or Medicaid.  Her section 8 housing rent was also increased by $149.  Overall, Barbara made $450 more a month than she did working at the house.  However, she received $600 less from government assistance.  She said, “The harder I work, the harder it gets.”  It’s agonizing to see a single mother work that hard to try to make her life better, only to be pushed down by the system she is stuck in.  She graduates with her associates and gets a new job, making $12.10 an hour to start.  After ninety days, her boss loves her performance and offers her a raise and full time status.  Again, Barbara’s assistance is cut and she has to work harder than ever before- simply because she got an associate’s degree and performed well at work.  She decides that in order to be successful, she needs to go back to school to get her bachelor’s degree.  She tells her boss that she can no longer work full time.

                Kozol would claim that these women were placed in awful situations that they did NOT cause- Jean’s daughter ended up with cancer and Barbara lived an extremely rough childhood.  However, when they try to rise above the situation that they’ve been stuck in for years, they are pushed down by the American system.  For Jean and Bridget, it is the health care system.  For Barbara, it is government assistance.  So much for the American dream…

                The other material that came to mind when watching the film was Wolff’s, Capitalism Hits the Fan.  He discusses how the productivity of workers has risen and continues to rise every year.  Yet, since the seventies, workers have been paid the same wages despite their hard work.



                This reminded me a lot of Jerry’s story.  Jerry was a security guard at a multi-milllion dollar building in San Francisco making $12 an hour.  Twelve dollars an hour, Jerry claims, is like making $6.50 an hour anywhere else because living in San Fransisco is so expensive.  His one-room studio apartment’s rent is $530 a month!  He also pays child support but has not had enough money to see his two children in nine years.  Jerry’s union protests for a pay raise and all of the security guards get one: a whopping $.75 raise.  Still, this helps him save some money to finally go see his kids (which, by the way, was a really heart-wrenching moment- anyone else feel tears surface?).  Finally, Jerry and his boss have a disagreement and Jerry is fired.  His union gets him a new job as a security guard at a different building- making $10.25 an hour with a $.25 cent raise every year.  It would take Jerry EIGHT YEARS to get back to the $12.75 he was making at his other security job.  It made me wonder if Jerry would ever see his kids again.  Then, a statistic came on the screen, which is specifically what reminded me most of Dr. Wolff, “Real pay for male low-wage workers is less than it was 30 years ago.”  As Wolff stated, during the 1970’s real wages for workers stopped declining.  Despite the fact that the company that Jerry works for is becoming more and more profitable each year, Jerry receives only a $.25 raise.

To wrap up my blog, I’ll throw out a statistic that the film showed,

“Over half of Americans that started the last decade in poverty, remained in poverty ten years later.”'

Mary Venitelli was the only  women in “Waging a Living” that finally got out of the mess she was in.  However, she could not do it alone as the “American Dream” likes to claim.  Mary met a man that helped her watch the kids while she worked extra hours as well as contribute financially to her family.  This means that out of the four people the producers of Waging a Living interviewed, only one made it past poverty- and she needed help in order to do so.  This movie shows how individualism is a myth and that, as Barbara Brooks stated, “There is no American dream.”

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Response to Andrea's Blog- Oliver and Shapiro

Oliver and Shapiro do raise some excellent points about systematic barriers that have led to the widening of the wealth gap between whites and blacks...

However, I completely agree with Andrea when she claims that racism is NOT a thing of the past (which is how Wilson makes it sound).  Wilson attributes the wealth gap between whites and blacks wholly to this historical, systematic oppressing of African Americans.  These systems surely contribute, but they cannot be fully blamed for black wealth disadvantage.

Andrea mentioned a few ways that blacks are disadvantaged because of pure racism and not the mere remnants of policies that were put in place in the 19th and 20th centuries.  For example, she mentioned job discrimination and black death at the hands of the state.

Really, all it takes is a simple news search on Google News to understand that anti-black racism is still prevalent in society and contributes to the widening racial wealth gap.


1. In the article attatched to the link below, the writer states:

http://www.theroot.com/views/quiet-bias-racism-2013

"Our culture is still deeply suffused with anti-black bias, despite an African-American president in office. National surveys (pdf) continue to reveal commonly held stereotypes of African Americans as less hardworking and less intelligent than whites."

This very stereotype (and racism) is what causes job discrimination.  If blacks are discriminated against in this way, they certainly have a harder time getting a job and earning an income.  I know that income is different than wealth, but income contributes to wealth.  I don't think you can acquire much wealth without any income.

The writer also states this:


To be sure, this whole issue of racism had a more straightforward quality in the past. We did not have to resort to complex surveys and experiments to reveal its depth. There used to be something loud and obvious and terrible about racism -- circumstances with some ironic virtues. A visible and openly declared enemy is so much more directly confronted than one that operates stealthily.
And that is the dilemma of racism in our times. We have hints, suggestions, indications, if you will, of racial bias all around us today.


I think that this is exactly where Wilson apparently got confused.  Sure, in the past, pure racism was much more outward that it is today.  But this is not to say that it doesn't exist and contribute to the amount of wealth that blacks are able to accumulate.  Racism is a prominent contributing factor to wealth inequality between race.

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/opinion/coates-the-good-racist-people.html?_r=0

This is another really awesome article in the New York times about how blacks are disadvantaged.  The actor, Forest Whitaker, was accused of shoplifting at a deli but he hadn't done anything wrong.  The only reason why this grabbed great attention was because Whitaker is famous.  However, these situations occur daily to African Americans-- situations that wouldn't have occurred had there been a white person in the same situation.  It might seem like a stretch to apply this to the widening wealth gap, but Oliver and Shapiro claim that, due to these historical systematic policies, blacks do not have "the skills and education necessary to fit in a changing economy."  Sure, this might be true.  But even despite these policies, how are blacks supposed to attain skills and education when they cannot be trusted in a local deli?

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/this-is-how-you-educate-p_b_2790080.html

This article discusses racism AND history as causes of the wealth gap.  The point of the article is not really relevant- that in order to educate people about racism, we must first address "progress" in America and then talk about what we can further do to prevent racism.  However, the author discusses racism and history as equal contributing factors to the wealth gap.

He claims:
"Much of the actual structure of racism remains, and that's a much larger obstacle to equality of opportunity."

And directly after goes onto claim:
"Unfortunately, few Americans understand the extent to which anti-black racism was an organizing principle for public policy through much of 19th and 20th centuries."

THIS is what Oliver and Shapiro should have done to address the wealth gap.  They should have discussed both racism (that yes, still exists today) AND the layers of systematic disadvantages towards blacks.  Both of these factors have led to the growing wealth gap between whites and blacks.

Monday, March 11, 2013

OMG update on high class xmas party!

So, that uppity Christmas party I attended?

The lady and her husband are big shot lawyers who graduated from Harvard Law School, which is why they are so rich...

However, she apparently has a gambling problem... and now she just got arrested from embezzling 145,000 dollars from her clients!  Yet, at the Christmas party she still held up the image of being completely filthy rich.

Here's the news story:
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2013/03/ri-state-police-appointed-as-guardian-warwick-lawyer-embezzled-from-client.html

Everyone at my poor, low class Christmas party had more money than her individually.  Shows how class and economics can be COMPLETELY different things.


Just found that extremely interesting.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Barbara Jensen and Sye's Christmas Parties

This is a sort of random post and it's not one of the assigned ways we are supposed to post but I think it is related and funny...

In her book, Jensen discussed two different confirmation celebrations that she attended.  The parties were held by people of a different class, which made for two very different experiences.  As I read about this, I was laughing out loud because this Christmas I experienced something extremely similar.

This Christmas, I attended five different Christmas parties and I have no idea how I got suckered into going to every one.  However, there were three in particular that really stood out to me as a lower/working class celebration, middle class celebration, and upper class celebration.  And they were SO different...

The Lower Class Celebration: My lovely little family on Christmas
I have a relatively small immediate family that I celebrate Christmas with every year on Christmas morning (like most people).  My partner (Erica) and I drive to my mom and her fiance's (Arthur) house where we eat monkey bread, watch Elf (yes, we watch Elf EVERY year, it just never gets old), and we all exchange and open presents with my other three siblings.  When we walk into my mom's house around 10:00am, my brother is in sweatpants, my mom is still in her pajamas, and the TV is usually on.  I'm not fond of hugging, so my siblings purposefully attack me for a "group hug" and scream "Merry Christmas!"  Everyone is wearing slippers and it's an extremely laid back experience.  Once the presents are opened around noon, my family gathers to eat around one.  By now, some have changed out of their PJ's and some have decided to go the whole day in comfortable attire.  We eat turkey, mashed potatoes, stuffing, cranberry sauce, rolls, green bean casserole, and macaroni and cheese.  Then some of us go to sleep, while others sit on the couch and relax.  By the end of the meal, there are usually a couple people out of our group who are a least a little tipsy on cheap wine or beer.  Our conversations range from school and friends to sex and drugs.  Conversations often get hilariously way too personal and out of control.  Sometimes we play a game like Cards Against Humanity (if you have not played this game, you are severely, severely, deprived my friend).  Eventually, we all eat dessert, curse ourselves for eating way more than our bodies can handle, and go home.

The Middle Class Celebration: Erica's family
Erica's immediate family is extremely lower class but her aunts and uncles are middle class.  And they live in NICE houses.  Every year we pull up to the house and there are at least fifteen people already there.  There are nice plates (especially designated for Christmas celebrations), cloth napkins tied in fancy napkin holders (? no clue what they're called), and clean silverware with  Christmas designs.  Women are wearing heals, nylons, and dresses and the men are wearing khakis, dress shoes, and button ups or sweaters.  There are nice decorations around the house and light Christmas music playing in the background.  There is typically some type of golf tournament on the television.  There are things to eat like cheese and crackers, fruit, shrimp, etc. on one of the tables and  the island in the kitchen.  The dining room table has all the plates and utensils on it because that is the table where most people will eat.  Slightly expensive wine is served with a variety of beers as well as soda and water of course.  People help themselves to vodka and orange juice (which I think is called a screwdriver) in skinny glasses with a long stem.  When it comes time to eat, first Erica's aunt's famous lasagna is served.  She makes vegetarian for us and a couple of Erica's cousins and also regular beef lasagna.  Once that is consumed and everyone thinks that they're full, a second round of food comes out- bread, mashed potatoes (with vegetarian and regular gravy), turkey, squash, cranberry sauce, pasta with red sauce, and holy crap every type of food you could possibly imagine all right there on the table.  People start to talk about how fat and full they are from eating so much food.  As people drink, more and more is revealed about this group.  One Christmas, Erica's cousin went around the party showing everyone a picture of... well a penis that was sent to her... on her cell phone.  Often times after eating, some one will abruptly stand up and announce to the entire table "okay, I have to poop!".  Discussions about sex and men are popular among the women.  Erica's mother always says way too much out loud and I end up laughing in embarrassment while others laugh at the mere fact that I'm embarrassed. "Sorry Sye," her mom says about the way too intimate detail she just shared about her sex life with Erica's father, "but it's the truth!"  Then the homemade Christmas cookies and pies are unwrapped and everyone eats just a little more.  We all drink coffee and tea out of the Kureg machine.To wrap up the night, sometimes we watch funny videos on youtube and sometimes we play the Wii.  Eventually, people get in their pajamas to relax while the night is winding down.  Big hugs and kisses are given before everyone leaves.

The Upper Class Celebration: Arthur knows some really uppity people
I have not felt uncomfortable at many parties in my life.  Well, then again, I don't go to many parties.  But wow, when you are put in a room of upper class people knowing nothing about their etiquette or how you are expected to interact- you feel uncomfortable!  Arthur suggested that we (Erica, my brother Jeremy, my mom, and I) should all stop in at his friend's Christmas party for a bit.  I had never met his friends and I didn't really care what we did so we all agreed.  We were wearing jeans, sneakers, button ups, and jackets.  Right when we walked up to the house, Erica was laughing and pointing out all of the nice cars parked in the driveway and in the street.  "Wow, thank god I didn't drive my piece of shit car- they would probably call the cops before I got to the door" she said.  We all laughed and Arthur turned around and said something sarcastically like, "Okay, now that's enough children.  Can we at least pretend to be civilized?"  When we walked in the house, I felt immediately out of place.  Nobody was dressed like we were and everyone was shaking my hand- not like they really cared to know me but rather, like it was an honor for ME to be meeting THEM.  They were polite- they offered us crackers and cheese and fancy dips.  There were (god I just cannot think of the word for these pre-dinner snacks, I keep wanting to say "appetizers")-- but anyhow, there were "appetizers" in every room of the their huge freeking house and all of the snacks were on fancy dishes that stood tall and had three surfaces to put a different snack on each.  These people did not just have SUPER expensive alcohol.  Oh not, they had a goddamn bartender.  A BARTENDER.  Who was wearing a suit and tie and making fancy drinks for everyone at the party.  And hitting on Erica which was hysterical to watch (just as a funny side note).  She said "Hey, if he makes me good drinks he can hit on me all night."

What I found most peculiar were the conversations these people were having about their lives.  They all wore big diamonds and talked about how successful they had been at a recent project they were working on.  Or how accomplished their kids were.  My brother, Erica, my mom, and I sat in a corner of one of the rooms and ate the snacks.  They all were drinking (I probably would be drinking if I did drink).  My mom said, "Whew boy, I'm gonna need some alcohol for this one!" (meaning the party).  One lady came up to us to talk (and would not stop talking) about her son and her husband and how successful they were and how much they had done.  Her son just graduated from God Only Knows What Private College and he was going to work for God Only Knows What Big Business.  "Where do you go to school?" she asked me.  I remember just looking at Erica, who had an enormous grin on her face.  "Um... RIC."  Her face fell a little, and then she pretended to be interested, "Ooo, what for?!"  I told her history and philosophy.  "Wow that's really interesting."  And then the question I love-- "What are you going to THAT" (as she laughed a little bit).  "I'm going to be an enlightened philosopher and just sit and think my entire life."  "You could!" She said.  Yes, bitch.  If that's what I wanted to do, I goddamn could.  My mom just laughed at my joke and took another sip of her drink. There was no way that she was going to share that she went to CCRI in her forties to become a nurse.  Which is sad, because that is one of the things I am most proud of my mom for doing- and in the light of this conversation, she seemed embarrassed to even share that.  The lovely lady turned to my brother and starting questioning him on his entire education and work experience.  I said, "Hey, he has his resume in the car I think if you want him to go grab it."  She didn't quite understand the joke.  She changed the subject, "So are you all siblings?".  My mom chimed in, "oh, no no just these two" pointing to my brother and I.  Of course, I had to say the thing that would make EVERYONE feel awkward.  "Nope!  Erica is actually my girlfriend!" and I put my arm around her.  The lady was taken back.  She said, "Oh! Okay!" and she laughed.  Like what?  What's so funny?  That basically got her to walk away. Thank God.

There were times where I'd be walking to go to the bathroom or walking to get more water and people at the party would look me up and down.  One man literally scowled at me when I politely said, "excuse me" when I was trying to get past him.

We didn't stay for dinner and as we left everyone told us how nice it was to meet us and that they hoped we'd join them again (yeah friggin right).



I didn't expect to write that much, but Jensen's book reminded me a lot of these experiences.  And also this class reminds me a lot of how uncomfortable I felt at that upper class party.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Debt (Quotes)

David Graeber said a few significant things about debt  that somewhat changed my perspective on lending, owing, and paying debts.


"Surely, one has to pay one's debts." (pg. 4)

This seemed obvious to me before.  I knew about the immorality of some debt lenders and how unfair interest rates are, but this fact still seemed fairly obvious: if you owe a debt, it is only right to repay that debt to the lender.  I might still partially think this- after all, this is how the world works.  But I never thought to pick apart the actual practice of paying back debts itself and the morality that I have unintentionally attached to it.  So sure, it is typical practice to pay back debts.  However, is it "morally right"?  In some cases, it may be.  In others, (such as in specific situations that Graeber described) not so much.


"One might think it would be hard to make a case that the
loss  of  ten  thousand  human  lives  is  really  justified  in  order  to  ensure
that Citibank  wouldn't  have to  cut its  losses on one  irresponsible  loan
that  wasn't  particularly  important  to  its  balance  sheet anyway. But
here was  a perfectly decent woman-one who worked for  a  charitable
organization,  no  less-who took it as self-evident that it was.  After all,
they owed the money,  and  surely one has to pay one's debts." (pg. 4)

Graeber makes this remark about a certain situation in Madagascar.  Madagascar owed money to IMF-imposed programs and consequently, they had to cut spending to the monitoring of mosquitos and malaria, which caused more than ten thousand people to die.  This is one of those specific cases that I was talking about.  Here, we can compare two moral facts and determine immediately which seems less ethical.  First, it is immoral for Madagascar to not pay back their debt to IMF-imposed programs.  Secondly, it is immoral for IMF to continue to impose these debts on Madagascar even though they are in a tight financial situation that prevents them from saving thousands of lives due to the obligation of paying back these debts.  When viewing the situation in this light, it seems blatant that the former moral fact does not come close to expressing a situation as immoral as the latter.

"The crucial element would still seem to be the gun." (pg. 7)

And all of this is partially due to power; who is in charge?  A war debt, Graeber claims, would surely be looked at differently if the country paying the debt suddenly gained more world power than the debtor country.  The "gun" (the power- more specifically, a power than instills fear) is in the debtor's hands.  As soon as the subject in debt gets a bigger gun of his own, the dynamic changes.  No longer is the debt a problem that the subject fears- it is now more of a liability.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Connections between the arguments of Wolff and Currie


Okay- I’ve been writing and reading all day.  It is late and I am tired.  So we’ll see how coherent this post turns out to be…


Richard Wolff and Elliot Currie both deal with different specific issues that are caused by practically the same exact thing. 

Currie discusses drug abuse in the United States and how some believe that this crisis was detached from a social context.  In other words, many falsely believe that drug abuse is an individual problem- the individual person who uses drugs must be immoral, irrational, or unintelligent.  In actuality, Currie argues, drug problems in the US are due to a larger systematic structure in society that has changed over time and widened the gap between the deprived and the wealthy.  He calls it the “strategy of inequality” which has reshaped American society and culture since the 1970s.  First, job opportunities have declined greatly since the seventies because more and more employers began looking for workers who are educated.  Blue collar jobs were suddenly disappearing and low-wage jobs were on the rise.  For example, between 1979 and 1987, more than four out of five new jobs for men in the American economy paid poverty-level wages or below.  This causes workers to work harder, earn less pay, and struggle more to provide for themselves and their families.  Ultimately, this relates to drugs because social and economic deprivation and “a sense of exclusion from the ‘good life’ breed drug abuse”- and yet America has chosen policies that cause the depravity.

Wolff deals with the overall economic crisis of the United States.  He also talks about the economic changes in the 1970s and points out that wages have not risen since that decade- but profits have risen enormously.  As a result, people worked more to make more money and also borrowed money from the big companies.  However, this creates another problem and widening of the gap between the deprived and the wealthy because the workers have to pay back these loans with high interests.  These policies of the 1970s have completely changed the American economy and have consequently caused the economic recession America entered at the turn of the century.

Rather than attributing drug abuse and economic recession to individual problems as many Americans do, Wolff and Currie point out that it is a policy problem- a systematic problem that began in the 1970s- that has contributed greatly to these issues we face today.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Capitalism.

This is not my blog for the weekend.  I just wanted to share that I am only 20 minutes into the Capitalism Hits the Fan video and I am already extremely angry and depressed!  The system is so blatantly unfair I can't even believe it exists!

.... Okay I'm finished venting.  Anyone else share my thoughts?

Monday, February 11, 2013

Mantsios "Media Magic"


                After reading Media Magic, I started to youtube and google search shows and movies that might support his ideas of class and the media.  I was specifically interested in stories that portrayed the poor in a certain way, rather than those that deny their existence altogether (as Mantsios argued the media often does).  I found a particular pattern of plots in the media that portray the upper class “taking in” a member of the lower class and how this changed everyone’s life.  These stories demonstrate a number of Mantsios’s points on the lower class and the media.

First I’ll describe the shows/movies and then I will make connections…

                The television show, The O.C. begins with two boys stealing a car and driving away from the police (an act in which they don’t succeed).  Somehow, one of the two boys ends up in the hands of a wealthy, defense attorney and ultimately lives with the attorney and his family.  The boy gets a chance to live in the primarily upper class community of Orange County- a living situation that enables him to work hard and succeed.

The movie, The Blind Side portrays a story about a poor boy that lives in a lower class neighborhood.  The boy is taken in by a white upper-class family and has the chance to go to school and play football and becomes a professional football player.  Sure, this is based on a true story.  But it is significant that the media portrayed this particular football player’s story instead of the stories of the other men on his team.

The movie, Step Up has a similar plot.  A group of three boys who are members of the lower class get in trouble with the police for breaking into a school.  One of the boys is assigned 200 hours of community service cleaning at a local arts school.  While cleaning the dance studio one day, the boy volunteers to be a girl’s dance partner.  He ends up dancing with her and creating something better from himself through the white upper-class realm of the private arts school.

Okay… now some connections…

One of Mantsios’s first arguments is that the media portrays the poor as undeserving and blameworthy for their situation.  In The O.C., the show begins with two boys stealing a car in a low class neighborhood.  Now, I watched this show a long, long time ago (perhaps, before I came to my senses about what is important in life).  However, I think I remember clearly several times where this upper-class family had to return to Chino (the town the boy was from) for one reason or another.  This experience was always a negative one including guns, drugs, and abusive relationships.  Since this is how the lower class is portrayed, everyone can say, “Wow no wonder they’re poor! Look at the way they conduct themselves!”  In The Blind Side, men sit in groups on the street corners doing drugs and gambling.  These men represent the lower class in this movie.  Thus, it appears as though this is what poor people do- sit around smoking and wasting their money.  Where are the people of that community that work hard to try to support themselves?  They hardly exist in the media.  Step Up depicts a similar image- a group of boys who commit crimes and get busted by the police.  All of these negative lower-class images make poor people look careless, lazy, and undeserving of anything better.  But these images are hardly an entire representation of the lower class.

Mantsios also argued that the media portrays the poor as an inconvenience and irritation.  In all three of these media plots, the lower class boys are burdens to the upper class.  The wealthy family in the O.C. took the boy into their house and had many discussions surrounding whether or not they should “take the responsibility” for him.  [side-note: in the trailer I think you can hear one of these conversations].  In The Blind Side trailer, the father of the wealthy family turns to his wife and asks, “He IS only staying for one night, right?”  In the trailer for Step Up, a boy warns his friend (the female dancer) “You know that low life (lower class boy) isn’t going anywhere, right?”  In other words, why are you even bothering with him and taking responsibility for him?  These types of conversations heavily imply that the lower class is simply an inconvenience for these people.

Mantsios mentions that normally during Christmas time, the media paints the image that the poor is “down on their luck”.  These types of stories are often linked to charitable activities and contributions.  Most importantly, these media images paint a false picture about society: they “tell us that the affluent in our society are a kind, understanding, giving people- which we are not.”  The show and movies I have used here do just that- they show how understanding the white, upper class community can be.  They are the good guys and once in a while, one of them will even be good enough to take in a bad guy and make him good.

These media images also support Mantsios’s argument that the media makes it seem like there are two classes in society: the underclass and everyone else.  We, the viewers, are everyone else.  The boys that are taken from the lower class neighborhoods are the underclass.  This leads to Mantsios’s similar point that WE are the wealthy.  Viewers envision themselves as the good guys, rather than the men out on the street gambling or the boys getting arrested by the cops.  My examples of the media were made to appeal to people like us.

Lastly, all three of my examples provide contrasting ideas about two classes.  These boys had nothing except the ghettos of their lower class neighborhoods until they were taken in by wealthier people.  This shines a completely positive light on the caring, selfless upper class that provided an opportunity for success to members of the negative lower class.

And why does any of this matter?  Because the media is extremely influential on the ideals and values of society in general.  When society views these images in the media, people begin to actually believe that the lower class is a small group who only has themselves to blame for their poverty.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Kozol "Amazing Grace"


Okay.  Does anyone else feel guilty?  I feel guilty.  I feel horrible that I was fortunate enough to not be born in the South Bronx.  Why should I be so lucky as to be born in a town like Smithfield, Rhode Island while Cliffie walks the streets of the Bronx witnessing murders and ingesting harmful toxins?  Why am I in college at age 20 simply beginning my life while Cliffie might not even make it until age 20?  These are the questions that rolled through my head as I read Kozol's Amazing Grace.

One thing is certain; and Kozol makes this argument very clear.  I am not more fortunate than Cliffie or David and Alice Washington simply because I am more rational than them.  I might not even be smarter, kinder, stronger, or more determined than them but here I am at Rhode Island College; and there they are in South Bronx fighting to survive (that is, if none of them have passed away yet- which I doubt having read about Alice's condition).  Surely, I have just astounded professors and social scientists like Lawrence Mead who apparently cannot find any other causal factor of poverty other than some sort of personality defection.  I'm going to go ahead and assume that Lawrence Mead was not born in the South Bronx.

"And if I was born in the South Bronx," says Mr. Lawrence OMG America is the amazing land of opportunity Mead, "then I would have studied hard in school, gotten myself a decent job, and rose above the destruction of the South Bronx and made a better life for myself!"
Oh, Mr. Mead, if it were only that simple...

With his stories, Kozol demonstrates how low class people are naturally disadvantaged socially, economically, and politically.  I use the term “naturally” because the situation of low class members cannot be attributed to anything that they have done.  They are not lazy, careless, or irrational- they are just unlucky and then treated unfairly by their government and society.

For example, Kozol discusses the health care situation in the South Bronx with Alice Washington.  If she or her son falls ill, they are forced to visit an unaccredited hospital that is understaffed and makes patients wait for days to be seen by a doctor.  Many people avoid going to the hospital if they are sick because they are afraid they will catch an additional illness while waiting with other patients.  Many patients who do go, wait for days, and get a room in the hospital end up having to clean up after a previous patient because the hospital is understaffed.

We can compare this situation to health care in higher income areas.  For example, Kent Hospital and Rhode Island Hospital are accredited health care facilities where the most a patient is going to wait is several hours before they are seen by a doctor.  Once they are seen, they surely do not have to clean up after the previous occupant of their assigned room.

As for the individualistic suggestion that low income people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get ahead through school and hard work: I’m sure it is incredibly difficult to focus and rise above your situation when you are concerned about your health.

This is all demonstrative of Kozol’s argument about low income groups being disadvantaged despite their actions.  If an unaccredited hospital was the only health care available to a middle class community, the community members would find a way for that to change and their voice would be heard.  The people of the South Bronx do not have any voice and have to live the way they do- due to bad luck and disadvantage- but not due to their ability or inability to think rationally.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

A little about myself...

My name is Syeda but for those of you who are too afraid to try to pronounce that out loud, Sye works perfectly fine.  I am  a double major in history and philosophy and this is my third year at RIC.  After I graduate with my bachelors, I hope to get my MAT and move to Florida with my partner.  I work at Whole Foods Market and at RIC's library.  I have two pitbulls that I rescued; one of which is a maniac with severe separation anxiety (she's lucky she's cute).  I also have a turtle (a red-eared slider to be specific, for any of you turtle lovers out there) and an unusually plump bunny that I was tricked into keeping (lucky me).  I live in an apartment in Smithfield that is certainly too small for the two of us and all of these animals but it all works out fine.  I am taking this class because last semester, I was introduced to women's studies and I loved it.  It also counts for my history major so, look at that, a win-win. I guess that's about as interesting as it gets about me!  I'm looking forward to the course.

Oh yeah! I'm half Morrocan!.... that's pretty cool, right?

Sye <-- Do I sign my name at the bottom of a blog like I would for an email?  Well, apparently I do.  But I'm not very knowledgeable on blog formatting...