The Rwandan Genocide has been at the center of controversy and debate for many years. Based on the readings from the newspapers articles I found it interesting that many Journalists compared the genocide in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Nonetheless, it makes me question why both of these historical events are compared to each other. The Holocaust clearly made a significant impact throughout the world. Throughout the past decades, the Holocaust has been highly publicized in books, documentaries, and even in Hollywood films. On the other hand, the Rwandan Genocide has not been publicized as much.
To be honest I knew very little information about the Rwandan genocide until this assignment. The only knowledge that I had of the Rwandan genocide was based on the major motion film called, “Hotel Rwanda.” Nonetheless, I never really thought to compare the Rwandan genocide with the Holocaust. Many film critics called the film Hotel Rwanda, “An African Schindler’s list.” This brings up the interesting combination of Historical events and Hollywood. In addition, it raises the question of authenticity within these historical films, and does it provide justice for the survivors in anyway?
Overall, it becomes a question of how history is replicated in today’s Hollywood films. In class we discussed about how some Holocaust survivors were deeply offended of a film/ show that aired on H.B.O. I believe film makers, and the actors have a great responsibly to the “survivors of the struggle” when recreating these historical events on to the big screen. In conclusion, both the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide are two separate historical events, and yet the Rwandan Genocide has not received the credit for its significance in its place in history.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Gacaca and the Nuremberg Trials
The article I chose was: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/20/world/kanombe-journal-after-the-horror-truth-and-some-healing-maybe.html. In this article "Kanombe Journal; After the Horror, Truth and Some Healing, Maybe", by Marc Lacey, the focus is on gacaca, which means " justice on the grass in the Kinyarwanda language"(Lacey).
The gacaca is a trial with judges to deal out justice. "It is a process Rwandans have long used to handle petty grievances between neighbors."(Lacey). After the 1994 killings in Rwanda, it is now being used "the cases of 100,000 people charged with various offenses related to the 1994 killing frenzy"(Lacey). Most of these trials are among peers and those local to the area, with a focus is on "the everyday Hutu who brandished hoes and machetes and, following the orders of others, hacked away at their Central African countrymen". People are accusing thier neighbors and these crimes, rather than accusations from Tutsi against the Hutu.
In this article, I saw a connection with the Nuremberg Trials. Both cases involve mass killing and genocide, and the justice that was sought after those events. A major difference between the two trials is that the gacaca is a local trial, and the Nuremberg Trials involved people from many different nations. Although World War II involved more than one country, unlike the 1994 killings in Rwanda, it was not considered for Germans to put fellow Germans on trial without outside influence. Adolf Eichmann said that "It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders." I found this to be similar to a quote at the end of the article, where an inmate said "I was not a bad person but the situation I was in made me bad." Many Nazi supporters claimed that they were just following orders and what everyone else was doing. The inmate is also blaming something else for the killing he had committed. Many people were killing in 1994, and during World War II, but there is nothing to suggest that those same wouldn't be murderers if their lives and situations were different. They may of chose to live different lives, or they may of chose the same actions.
I also saw a connection to Traces of the Trade and Hidden Sorrows with the questions of reprarations they both brought up. Reprarations, justice, and education can be closely related. ''We're not just punishing people,'' Mr. Mucyo said in an interview. ''We're educating them." (Lacey). Some people have said that reprarations are about seeking justice for actions of ancestors and educating the public about the economic effects slavery had. the gacaca is not just a trial, it is a way for people to both deal with, understand, and come clean about the trajedies of 1994.
The gacaca is a trial with judges to deal out justice. "It is a process Rwandans have long used to handle petty grievances between neighbors."(Lacey). After the 1994 killings in Rwanda, it is now being used "the cases of 100,000 people charged with various offenses related to the 1994 killing frenzy"(Lacey). Most of these trials are among peers and those local to the area, with a focus is on "the everyday Hutu who brandished hoes and machetes and, following the orders of others, hacked away at their Central African countrymen". People are accusing thier neighbors and these crimes, rather than accusations from Tutsi against the Hutu.
In this article, I saw a connection with the Nuremberg Trials. Both cases involve mass killing and genocide, and the justice that was sought after those events. A major difference between the two trials is that the gacaca is a local trial, and the Nuremberg Trials involved people from many different nations. Although World War II involved more than one country, unlike the 1994 killings in Rwanda, it was not considered for Germans to put fellow Germans on trial without outside influence. Adolf Eichmann said that "It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders." I found this to be similar to a quote at the end of the article, where an inmate said "I was not a bad person but the situation I was in made me bad." Many Nazi supporters claimed that they were just following orders and what everyone else was doing. The inmate is also blaming something else for the killing he had committed. Many people were killing in 1994, and during World War II, but there is nothing to suggest that those same wouldn't be murderers if their lives and situations were different. They may of chose to live different lives, or they may of chose the same actions.
I also saw a connection to Traces of the Trade and Hidden Sorrows with the questions of reprarations they both brought up. Reprarations, justice, and education can be closely related. ''We're not just punishing people,'' Mr. Mucyo said in an interview. ''We're educating them." (Lacey). Some people have said that reprarations are about seeking justice for actions of ancestors and educating the public about the economic effects slavery had. the gacaca is not just a trial, it is a way for people to both deal with, understand, and come clean about the trajedies of 1994.
Was it worth not getting involved with Rwanda?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/world/for-west-rwanda-is-not-worth-the-political-candle.html
Understanding now, what had happened in Rwanda about 15 years ago, strikes an interest in many people to find
out why didn't the US get involved? Why didn't the UN take their troops out?
After reading this article by the NY times in 1994 about 2 weeks, i believe, after the genocide started, there
are many interesting points that help you understand why the UN and the US did not get involved. For instance
about 18 US troops were killed in Somalia, when the US was trying to "save" the country. So with the devastation and
the memory of the awful instance in Somalia the US was hesitant because they did not want the same thing to happen
in Rwanda. One thing the article mentions is about Tribal Hatred, "Although it has not been exactly articulated this way, no member of the United Nations with an army strong enough to make a difference is willing to risk the lives of its troops for a failed central African nation-state with a centuries-old history of tribal warfare and deep distrust of outside intervention." There are a couple of interesting words that are used in this sentence... "Failed central African nation-state" and "Centuries-old of tribal warfare". The reason these two phrases irritate me is because not only is this an African state that is failed and why should we save it, it is also a victim of tribal hatred. So when we look at Africa there is a reoccurring focus on "Savagery" and "tribes", people not being civilized. But when you look further into the detail about what actually happened you will see that these stereo types are fictionalized and only used by the US and the UN, so they did not have to participate in helping those who were being killed in Rwanda for fear they will loose a lot of soldiers. So naming it tribal warfare on their part actually changes the need to intervene. So if they decided to declare the Rwandan disaster a Genocide, the troops would be rolling in, but because they hesitated, they did not have to send in the troops.
When you think about it, and when you learn the other side of the story, its hard to comprehend why we have this image and why we believe in these fairy tales about places we know little about. Its sad and it makes Americans and Europeans seem clueless to what is really going on in the world.
Dangerous Labels
The information in this article was taken from The New York Times archive on the political situation of Rwanda in 1990.
In October 1990, a group of Tutsi from Uganda, thousands strong, stormed into Rwanda attempting to overthrow the Hutu-dominated government. These Tutsi were living in exile in Uganda, having escaped Rwanda after a long period of persecution at the hands of the Hutu decades earlier.
Even though the articles from this time acknowledge that the Tutsi of Uganda were once legitimate Rwandans, they are referred to as “rebels” and “invaders,” casting them in a very negative light and seemingly taking the side of the Hutu in Rwanda. Here are the articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/world/foreigners-flee-rwanda-s-capital-as-fighting-intensifies-in-north.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/10/world/rwandans-report-gains-on-invaders.html
As we have discussed in class, the application of a label to a group of people can greatly influence the way they are perceived in the public sphere. Limiting a description of a people to a simple definition causes them to be seen as only belonging to that definition, having no other significant qualities. The application of a term like “invader” to these Tutsi can cause people to forget that they are refugees of Rwanda, forced out decades ago by the Hutu of the area. When this article was released, especially to a population of Americans nowhere near the strife, many must have immediately taken a negative view of the Tutsi of the area, attributing no land status to them at all. Although the Tutsi did come into Rwanda with seemingly violent intentions, their refugee status was still glossed over by The Times, and their description as being “invaders” to Rwanda is forgetful of their roots in the country, neglecting the violent acts done to their people that forced many of them into Uganda.
If groups are described as being of a certain caliber or quality, they will be remembered as such. These two articles suggest that the press took the side of the Rwandan Hutu without even considering their history with the Tutsi, and their opinion was put on display for millions of readers across the globe, prompting them to view the situation as The Times did. Even credible news sources, major avenues by which we keep our memory, have the potential to lead us astray.
8This is just something interesting I noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/01/world/violence-roils-rwanda-s-embryo-democracy.html
The above is a link to an article that, in the midst of its story, takes time to say "Some Hutu, a shorter people than the tall Tutsi, contend that the new transitional Government is too conciliatory toward the Tutsi." The fact that the Hutu are shorter than the Tutsi has nothing to do with the story in the least. In other articles a similar tactic was undertaken. Also, in Purity and Exile, the Hutu are very intent on noting the physical differences between them and the Tutsi. I guess the writers of the articles must have picked up on the importance of the defining characteristics between the Hutu and the Tutsi, at least enough to describe the difference completely out of context.
In October 1990, a group of Tutsi from Uganda, thousands strong, stormed into Rwanda attempting to overthrow the Hutu-dominated government. These Tutsi were living in exile in Uganda, having escaped Rwanda after a long period of persecution at the hands of the Hutu decades earlier.
Even though the articles from this time acknowledge that the Tutsi of Uganda were once legitimate Rwandans, they are referred to as “rebels” and “invaders,” casting them in a very negative light and seemingly taking the side of the Hutu in Rwanda. Here are the articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/world/foreigners-flee-rwanda-s-capital-as-fighting-intensifies-in-north.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/10/world/rwandans-report-gains-on-invaders.html
As we have discussed in class, the application of a label to a group of people can greatly influence the way they are perceived in the public sphere. Limiting a description of a people to a simple definition causes them to be seen as only belonging to that definition, having no other significant qualities. The application of a term like “invader” to these Tutsi can cause people to forget that they are refugees of Rwanda, forced out decades ago by the Hutu of the area. When this article was released, especially to a population of Americans nowhere near the strife, many must have immediately taken a negative view of the Tutsi of the area, attributing no land status to them at all. Although the Tutsi did come into Rwanda with seemingly violent intentions, their refugee status was still glossed over by The Times, and their description as being “invaders” to Rwanda is forgetful of their roots in the country, neglecting the violent acts done to their people that forced many of them into Uganda.
If groups are described as being of a certain caliber or quality, they will be remembered as such. These two articles suggest that the press took the side of the Rwandan Hutu without even considering their history with the Tutsi, and their opinion was put on display for millions of readers across the globe, prompting them to view the situation as The Times did. Even credible news sources, major avenues by which we keep our memory, have the potential to lead us astray.
8This is just something interesting I noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/01/world/violence-roils-rwanda-s-embryo-democracy.html
The above is a link to an article that, in the midst of its story, takes time to say "Some Hutu, a shorter people than the tall Tutsi, contend that the new transitional Government is too conciliatory toward the Tutsi." The fact that the Hutu are shorter than the Tutsi has nothing to do with the story in the least. In other articles a similar tactic was undertaken. Also, in Purity and Exile, the Hutu are very intent on noting the physical differences between them and the Tutsi. I guess the writers of the articles must have picked up on the importance of the defining characteristics between the Hutu and the Tutsi, at least enough to describe the difference completely out of context.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Historical Amnesia in the American South
In Response to James Perry’s The Living Consequences
In this entry, James acknowledges the tendency of Americans to downplay or even ignore the effects of the effects of the hundreds of years of slavery in America. The difference between those memories of the North and the South is distinct in the fact that, with the exception of Traces of the Trade, Northern based slavery is not the focus of many individuals. Widespread Southern plantation slavery has been mutated from the horrific forced labor it was, to a less-offensive period of friendly servitude more along the lines of the “Glory days”. This image of the beautiful South is preserved by naivety toward slavery, as an acknowledgement would mar the region’s celebrated past. The Charleston Museum’s initiative to create such an exhibit is the first step toward presenting and accepting the South’s former culture.
I applaud their actions and support their desire to inform the general public in lieu of ignoring the era as it has been in the past. Much like Katrina Browne’s work, slavery education needs to start somewhere—and what better place than the country’s oldest museum.
In this entry, James acknowledges the tendency of Americans to downplay or even ignore the effects of the effects of the hundreds of years of slavery in America. The difference between those memories of the North and the South is distinct in the fact that, with the exception of Traces of the Trade, Northern based slavery is not the focus of many individuals. Widespread Southern plantation slavery has been mutated from the horrific forced labor it was, to a less-offensive period of friendly servitude more along the lines of the “Glory days”. This image of the beautiful South is preserved by naivety toward slavery, as an acknowledgement would mar the region’s celebrated past. The Charleston Museum’s initiative to create such an exhibit is the first step toward presenting and accepting the South’s former culture.
I applaud their actions and support their desire to inform the general public in lieu of ignoring the era as it has been in the past. Much like Katrina Browne’s work, slavery education needs to start somewhere—and what better place than the country’s oldest museum.
In James' blog, he posts an article about the Armenian genocide and historical amnesia. I think historical amnesia is an interesting term, especially when we apply it to our discussion of slavery in class. Someone in class mentioned how when we learned about slavery in elementary school, we were basically taught that the North were the good guys, and the South were the bad guys. Seeing slavery in simple black and white terms just doesn't work. James said that this was one of the main themes of Traces of the Trade, and I am inclined to agree, because it was one of the things that struck me the most.
Like the DeWolf family, I really wasn't aware of the extent of the North's role in the slave trade. Because of what I learned in school, I figured the bulk of the slave trade took place in the South, and that the North was a place full of Quakers and Underground Railroad stops. I have to question why I was taught that this was true. Is it just easier to explain slavery in terms like this? Did the North originally not want to admit to their role in the slave trade and thus their true role was never discussed, even up to today? These questions are something I have to think about, and I wonder if elementary school curriculums will ever be change to reflect a more accurate picture of slave trade
Like the DeWolf family, I really wasn't aware of the extent of the North's role in the slave trade. Because of what I learned in school, I figured the bulk of the slave trade took place in the South, and that the North was a place full of Quakers and Underground Railroad stops. I have to question why I was taught that this was true. Is it just easier to explain slavery in terms like this? Did the North originally not want to admit to their role in the slave trade and thus their true role was never discussed, even up to today? These questions are something I have to think about, and I wonder if elementary school curriculums will ever be change to reflect a more accurate picture of slave trade
Battle Star Galactica, and the U.N.
James Olmos' and his non-racist approach is admirable. It also makes me want to watch the show battle star galatica all the more. I do disagree with him at one point. There is such things as a latino race, asian race, and etc. Although biologically the differences between each race, and using race as a cultural determinant is racist, it doesn't constitute the non-existance of race. Race is a social construct and the way individuals use race to develop a racist discourse among one another has a terrible reality. James' is well intended but in order for his intentions to be realized. He has to come to terms that it is a socially constructed ideology that pervades even in our times, and expose people's actions and thoughts that are fueled by racist ideologies. Saying that race doesn't exist, is simply masking what people are really doing and saying.
At the end of his speech, where he discusses how caucasians created this idea of race as a cultural determinant in order to subdue and conquer other races, had me thinking that history of racism is a vital part of eliminating racism altogether. As we saw in traces of the trade, the effects of history, is possibly right infront of us and we simply ignore it or don't realize it. In the present, what we can learn from the past should be racism in any form is wrong, and the consequences of being racist is profound. Racism may take on other forms currently but the results are still the same; therefore, the message of history is still the same. It is my hope, however, that in our generation we as society as a whole, can come to grips with this issue and use the power that history has to never let itself be repeated.
At the end of his speech, where he discusses how caucasians created this idea of race as a cultural determinant in order to subdue and conquer other races, had me thinking that history of racism is a vital part of eliminating racism altogether. As we saw in traces of the trade, the effects of history, is possibly right infront of us and we simply ignore it or don't realize it. In the present, what we can learn from the past should be racism in any form is wrong, and the consequences of being racist is profound. Racism may take on other forms currently but the results are still the same; therefore, the message of history is still the same. It is my hope, however, that in our generation we as society as a whole, can come to grips with this issue and use the power that history has to never let itself be repeated.
Response to Perry's About His Blog
After looking through Jame's blog I was a little confused. It all seems to be news blurbs on recent race developments. Most of the posts seemed rather clinical. I suppose my confusion stems from a dissonance between what I was expecting and what Perry actually writes about rather than my inability to understand the material. I felt that if he was so affected by his journey, enough to maintain a blog dealing with race, that there would be more feelings involved. Instead, it is a running list of the state of race relations in the US.
I don't have much to comment on. Many of the posts are short and purely informational. One thing I would like to see if I were to follow his blog would be his connections to the material. Though the purpose of his blog is stated, it is unclear. I would like him to address why he feels running this blog is important. I don't like the lack of personal experiences in his blog. To me, a blog is a journal of sorts. While it can be used as a media source, I feel it has the most impact when people's reactions and thoughts are recorded. For a few of the posts that I look over, Perry did not give his personal opinion of what he was writing about. I assume that he agrees with the items he is posting, but I cannot be sure. I am left questioning how effective his blog is. I don't know its purpose. While I feel that any sort of exposure of issues is good for the larger public, I wonder how much influence his blog has among those who do not already have reason to be there.
Ultimately, I was hoping to find out why Perry feels this is an effective or appropriate outlet following his experiences seen in Traces of the Trade. I did not and I cannot immediately see these answers in any of his more recent posts. He never says why he felt a blog was a step in the right direction. The link to the post I am referring to in embedded in the title of my post.
I don't have much to comment on. Many of the posts are short and purely informational. One thing I would like to see if I were to follow his blog would be his connections to the material. Though the purpose of his blog is stated, it is unclear. I would like him to address why he feels running this blog is important. I don't like the lack of personal experiences in his blog. To me, a blog is a journal of sorts. While it can be used as a media source, I feel it has the most impact when people's reactions and thoughts are recorded. For a few of the posts that I look over, Perry did not give his personal opinion of what he was writing about. I assume that he agrees with the items he is posting, but I cannot be sure. I am left questioning how effective his blog is. I don't know its purpose. While I feel that any sort of exposure of issues is good for the larger public, I wonder how much influence his blog has among those who do not already have reason to be there.
Ultimately, I was hoping to find out why Perry feels this is an effective or appropriate outlet following his experiences seen in Traces of the Trade. I did not and I cannot immediately see these answers in any of his more recent posts. He never says why he felt a blog was a step in the right direction. The link to the post I am referring to in embedded in the title of my post.
Traces of the Trade and it's Results
(Sorry for the delay, forgot all about posting last week's til I went to post this weeks)
Watching Traces of the Trade sparks mixed feelings for me. Yes, the slave trade was a horrible trade. However, for all intents and purposes, its been over for almost 100 years. Of course, there is still racism, but this is a seperate issue in my mind. Racism is something horrible that still goes on today, and still affects people. No one alive today has truly suffered from it, nor gained from it(except possibly some inherited money). But the idea of reparations, to me at least, is a bit ludicrous. It's people who haven't committed a crime paying victims for a pain they (essentially) have not suffered. There are no more people who were alive to be slaves, just as there are no people alive who were slaves.
The anger people still feel about it is slightly confusing, as illustrated by what happened to me. A friend of mine was horribly angry at all white people, insisting his ancestors had been enslaved and their (and his) live ruined because of it. Then, one day, he came to me with a sheepish apology. He had learned his family had freely immigrated to America, not forced over as slaves. This highlights one of the major problems with reparations. How do we determine who gets money? With the lack of records of slaves, will it really be possible to trace out who is descended from slaves and who isn't?
The idea of an apology is still a bit strange. This time, it's people who haven't committed crimes accepting responsibility for the suffering of people who haven't been victimized. Yes, they may be in a rough position in life, but this is more due to racism, and racism is what needs to be addressed and confronted. Bringing slavery back up is essentially avoiding what should be the main issue.
Reparations for something that happened hundreds of years ago is a very tricky subject. If accepted, reparations could have all sorts of other consequences. Could the descendants of a murder victim sue the murderer's ancestors 100, or even 200 years later? Yes, the two cases are drastically different, but the basic premise behind them is the same.
This is not to say I don't understand the troubles the DeWolf's face. They are much more closely linked to slavery. But for the majority of people, there might be no connection at all. Who's to say my ancestors considered slavery immoral and didn't own any? Or that they ran a "stop" on the underground railroad?
Slavery was indeed a terrible thing, but it is one that(for the most part) has been "defeated" throughout the world. I think people need to stop arguing about an issue of the past, and focus more on the issue of the present, racism.
Blog 2 (Racism Conference)
The debate over the UN Conference on racism is a bit confusing to me. With so little of the actual wording of the document released, it's hard to understand exactly why countries are boycotting the conference. All we hear are vague comments about "unacceptable references" to things like Israel and Palestine, reparations, and religious defamation.
When it comes to religious defamation, what exactly is this doing in a conference on racism? And what exactly do they mean by defamation? To some, religious defamation is not only insulting a religion, but also denying that it is true. If this is included, is it really the place of the UN to decide what religion is "right"? On the other hand, if they mean simply insulting a religion, this is an entirely seperate topic and does not belong in a conversation about racism. Race and religion are two seperate things.
I'm not surprised in the slightest that countries would be upset about reparations, especially the US. Our country has always been slow to, if they ever even do, admit they did something wrong. This extends beyond slavery - internment camps for Japanese citizens in WW2 for example. The wrongs committed by our country are quietly swept under the rug, and other things talked about instead. Forgot about what we did to our own citizens - we liberated the death camps!!! This sort of attitude is chronic in this country - ignore the wrong, focus on the good.
The same goes for the talk of Israel and Palestine, though without the actual language it is hard to figure out why. I would guess that the language did not describe Israel as blameless and Palestine as guilty, and that is why it was rejected. Several countries, including this one, have long turned a blind eye to wrongs committed by Israel. To suggest anything other than Palestine is the aggressor and Israel is blameless is always rejected by most of the Western world. (Of course, any suggestion that Palestine is not blameless is generally rejected by the Muslim world) What really needs to happen to achieve peace is for both sides to suck it up and admit guilt. Neither is blameless.
In short, I think the reasons for boycotting the conference come down to political pandering and nothing more. The elimination of racism is too important a task to let petty political squabbles interfere. But then again, this country has never let something like the good of all get in the way of politics, so why be surprised that it does now?
Watching Traces of the Trade sparks mixed feelings for me. Yes, the slave trade was a horrible trade. However, for all intents and purposes, its been over for almost 100 years. Of course, there is still racism, but this is a seperate issue in my mind. Racism is something horrible that still goes on today, and still affects people. No one alive today has truly suffered from it, nor gained from it(except possibly some inherited money). But the idea of reparations, to me at least, is a bit ludicrous. It's people who haven't committed a crime paying victims for a pain they (essentially) have not suffered. There are no more people who were alive to be slaves, just as there are no people alive who were slaves.
The anger people still feel about it is slightly confusing, as illustrated by what happened to me. A friend of mine was horribly angry at all white people, insisting his ancestors had been enslaved and their (and his) live ruined because of it. Then, one day, he came to me with a sheepish apology. He had learned his family had freely immigrated to America, not forced over as slaves. This highlights one of the major problems with reparations. How do we determine who gets money? With the lack of records of slaves, will it really be possible to trace out who is descended from slaves and who isn't?
The idea of an apology is still a bit strange. This time, it's people who haven't committed crimes accepting responsibility for the suffering of people who haven't been victimized. Yes, they may be in a rough position in life, but this is more due to racism, and racism is what needs to be addressed and confronted. Bringing slavery back up is essentially avoiding what should be the main issue.
Reparations for something that happened hundreds of years ago is a very tricky subject. If accepted, reparations could have all sorts of other consequences. Could the descendants of a murder victim sue the murderer's ancestors 100, or even 200 years later? Yes, the two cases are drastically different, but the basic premise behind them is the same.
This is not to say I don't understand the troubles the DeWolf's face. They are much more closely linked to slavery. But for the majority of people, there might be no connection at all. Who's to say my ancestors considered slavery immoral and didn't own any? Or that they ran a "stop" on the underground railroad?
Slavery was indeed a terrible thing, but it is one that(for the most part) has been "defeated" throughout the world. I think people need to stop arguing about an issue of the past, and focus more on the issue of the present, racism.
Blog 2 (Racism Conference)
The debate over the UN Conference on racism is a bit confusing to me. With so little of the actual wording of the document released, it's hard to understand exactly why countries are boycotting the conference. All we hear are vague comments about "unacceptable references" to things like Israel and Palestine, reparations, and religious defamation.
When it comes to religious defamation, what exactly is this doing in a conference on racism? And what exactly do they mean by defamation? To some, religious defamation is not only insulting a religion, but also denying that it is true. If this is included, is it really the place of the UN to decide what religion is "right"? On the other hand, if they mean simply insulting a religion, this is an entirely seperate topic and does not belong in a conversation about racism. Race and religion are two seperate things.
I'm not surprised in the slightest that countries would be upset about reparations, especially the US. Our country has always been slow to, if they ever even do, admit they did something wrong. This extends beyond slavery - internment camps for Japanese citizens in WW2 for example. The wrongs committed by our country are quietly swept under the rug, and other things talked about instead. Forgot about what we did to our own citizens - we liberated the death camps!!! This sort of attitude is chronic in this country - ignore the wrong, focus on the good.
The same goes for the talk of Israel and Palestine, though without the actual language it is hard to figure out why. I would guess that the language did not describe Israel as blameless and Palestine as guilty, and that is why it was rejected. Several countries, including this one, have long turned a blind eye to wrongs committed by Israel. To suggest anything other than Palestine is the aggressor and Israel is blameless is always rejected by most of the Western world. (Of course, any suggestion that Palestine is not blameless is generally rejected by the Muslim world) What really needs to happen to achieve peace is for both sides to suck it up and admit guilt. Neither is blameless.
In short, I think the reasons for boycotting the conference come down to political pandering and nothing more. The elimination of racism is too important a task to let petty political squabbles interfere. But then again, this country has never let something like the good of all get in the way of politics, so why be surprised that it does now?
Races and Faces
I visited http://living.jdewperry.com/ and was immediately drawn into the frequently updated entries that deal with modern events. The article I chose was "Facial recognition and “implicit racial bias”"(http://living.jdewperry.com/2009/03/facial-recognition-and-implicit-racial-bias/#more-1388). I chose this article because of a psychology class I had taken where we talked about this subject. Although we talked about a different study in that class, I think this is an interesting subject that does not get a great deal of attention. The study that he talks about is a study about "individual condition" and "categorization condition", while also using ALPS (“Affective Lexical Priming Score”).
He comes to a couple of conclusions about whether the study was really measuring subconscious racial bias. He suggests that the study might measure a person's ability to differentiate between people of different races. I agree with his conclusions and can see how my own background supports his conclusions. He says some of the factors that might influence their test scores are "their demographic characteristics and life experiences... racial diversity in one’s environment, especially as a child." I am of a mixed race, and I do find it easier to distinguish Asian people and white people than other races. Growing up in my town, there were very little African Americans, a few Native Americans, and practically no Hispanic people. My town was mainly white with a small population of Asians. I first started to experience wide scale diversity in college, and not before then. The other conclusion he comes to is that "tests of “implicit racial bias” may be largely measuring perceptual mechanisms... which are quite distinct from prejudice, subconscious or otherwise." I think the tests are not measuring "implicit racial bias", but how you see people of different races in a categorical sense. If you lack large scale exposure to a certain race, I think it is understandable that you will perceive them differently than other races which you were exposed to more.
He comes to a couple of conclusions about whether the study was really measuring subconscious racial bias. He suggests that the study might measure a person's ability to differentiate between people of different races. I agree with his conclusions and can see how my own background supports his conclusions. He says some of the factors that might influence their test scores are "their demographic characteristics and life experiences... racial diversity in one’s environment, especially as a child." I am of a mixed race, and I do find it easier to distinguish Asian people and white people than other races. Growing up in my town, there were very little African Americans, a few Native Americans, and practically no Hispanic people. My town was mainly white with a small population of Asians. I first started to experience wide scale diversity in college, and not before then. The other conclusion he comes to is that "tests of “implicit racial bias” may be largely measuring perceptual mechanisms... which are quite distinct from prejudice, subconscious or otherwise." I think the tests are not measuring "implicit racial bias", but how you see people of different races in a categorical sense. If you lack large scale exposure to a certain race, I think it is understandable that you will perceive them differently than other races which you were exposed to more.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Brown's Slave-Trade Memorial
This post, "Brown University to Erect Slave-Trade Memorial," from The Living Consequences interested me because it relates so directly to Traces of the Trade and which is probably the result of efforts such as those made by the DeWolf descendants, including James with this blog. I was shocked to read that "James D’Wolf and his family sent out a thousand slaving voyages, more than half of those sent out from the entire country, and brought more than 110,000 enslaved Africans to the New World", a statistic of which I was not at all aware. It definitely shakes up the popular notion that slavery and the slave trade were ways of the South (and limited mostly to the South).
It seems very important that Brown is responding to recommendations from the 2006 report by the Committee on Slavery and Justice, which seeks to understand and spread information about the university's historical involvement with the slave trade. The other reccommendations, which appear to focus mainly on education initiatives both within the university and in the greater community. That such a prominent university would designate time and money to this endeavor is important.
We have not talked too much about memorials in our class, but they stand as real, physical objects symbolizing and evoking our memory and devotion to "never forget." To memorialize something is also to bring it permanently into the public sphere, a process that the DeWolf family was beginning to engage in by the end of Traces of the Trade, and which James is continuing through his blog. Memorials, as generally large, public structures, force us to look and remember. Of course, without also providing education, the public may never fully understand Rhode Island's slave-trade involvement, however, it seems that is the intent of the educational initiatives that accompany the reccommendation for the memorial.
Something else that interested me was the Committee's reccommendation for "a memorial to honor Native American heritage."I think it is wonderful that a committee on slavery and justice would extend its arms to the plight of Native Americans in this country. The violent dislocation, enslavement, and genocide that was inflicted on Native Americans was and (perhaps maybe in its contemporary manifestations) still is vastly unacknowledged in the public's collective understanding. Bringing those narratives to light through memorialization is just as important. I was surprised but deeply appreciative that the Committee recognized the two injustices on the same level, because I think they often are not.
It seems very important that Brown is responding to recommendations from the 2006 report by the Committee on Slavery and Justice, which seeks to understand and spread information about the university's historical involvement with the slave trade. The other reccommendations, which appear to focus mainly on education initiatives both within the university and in the greater community. That such a prominent university would designate time and money to this endeavor is important.
We have not talked too much about memorials in our class, but they stand as real, physical objects symbolizing and evoking our memory and devotion to "never forget." To memorialize something is also to bring it permanently into the public sphere, a process that the DeWolf family was beginning to engage in by the end of Traces of the Trade, and which James is continuing through his blog. Memorials, as generally large, public structures, force us to look and remember. Of course, without also providing education, the public may never fully understand Rhode Island's slave-trade involvement, however, it seems that is the intent of the educational initiatives that accompany the reccommendation for the memorial.
Something else that interested me was the Committee's reccommendation for "a memorial to honor Native American heritage."I think it is wonderful that a committee on slavery and justice would extend its arms to the plight of Native Americans in this country. The violent dislocation, enslavement, and genocide that was inflicted on Native Americans was and (perhaps maybe in its contemporary manifestations) still is vastly unacknowledged in the public's collective understanding. Bringing those narratives to light through memorialization is just as important. I was surprised but deeply appreciative that the Committee recognized the two injustices on the same level, because I think they often are not.
Unemployment for blacks in 2009
http://living.jdewperry.com/2009/03/black-unemployment-rates-soar/
Above is the website I took my information from.
While looking over the website of James Perry, there was one article that struck me as interesting. I guess it struck
me as interesting because i took a class on Race relations last semester and this topic was highlighted throughout
most of the class. James wrote about the unemployment rates of blacks since the recession. This is based on an
article in the LA Times, so the statistics were based out of California's population. The blog that James posted
emphasized that the unemployment rates for blacks, "reached levels not seen in decades". Which to me it seems
impossible but true. In his blog he went over the impacts of the Jim crow era which for decades held the blacks
back from accumulating any type of wealth or passing down education opportunities like the people in "Traces of the
Trade". So when the generations over times try to gain any type of status in the US, they have a hard time due to
education opportunities, job training, and their living conditions (are they living in a high crime city area or suburbia).
Not only has this recession impacted lower class blacks, it is now affecting middle class blacks as well.
In my Race Relations class this was a big deal of how there is a white privilege, and that our generation and
also the generations younger than us, do not understand. We have grown up on black and whites are equal, equal
education, values, money, everything. So we do not understand that the generations of blacks have not been able
to accumulate wealth, job status, education opportunities etc, that many whites have. There was also another
key concept that came up in the class that emphasized those who are hired last are the first ones to be fired. So
the blacks in this case were the last ones hired in certain types of jobs, and so in the economy we are in now, they
are the first ones to be fired.
It is amazing that we are taught in school that we are of equal status of blacks in this country, and hey look
there is a black president. But, in reality there is such a class difference and privilege difference between the blacks
and the whites in this country. That is why it is hard to grasp the concept of being ashamed of your heritage
that is why it is hard to grasp wanting to go through the pain the slaves when through, because the country we are
growing up in today is a country of equals.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Traces of the trade
So better late then never....My blog is finally working... After seeing "Traces of the Trade", I didn't really know what to think. My reaction at first was, what is the overall goal in tracing the steps of your ancestors to Ghana and Cuba, just to see how horrible the slaves were treated? To me it seemed as if they wanted to clear their conscious saying that they went through that experience and it was horrible, and they could sympathize with those who were in the trade route of the DeWolf family. But the family seemed disappointed in some way because they were not able to experience it. They only way you can experience a slave trade is if you were physically there...
The movie was disturbing to me, this family of upper class, who all went to ivy league schools, wanted to go and see the way slaves were traded by their family members. Yes, it is a shameful history, but why not acknowledge it and then just try everything in your power to talk about it within the US. Talk about it in schools, churches, raise charities or something for reparations. Why take a trip to help ease your guilty conscious about your heritage.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Traces of the Trade
After watching this film I have a lot on my mind. I feel like everything I've ever learned about slavery is different from the way I learned it. To me, the most unsettling aspect of the film was how large the scope of slavery was to the birth of this nation. Slavery seems to be at the root of all production. I have a different view of the North and the Civil War. In my mind, the Civil War has always been about the good and fair North against the bad and racist South, but this was not the case. It seems silly to say it, but I didn't realize that slavery existed in the North as well.
Another point in the film that stuck out in my mind was in the beginning when she Katrina mentions the stone walls of New England being built by slaves. My mother is from Massachusetts and I would spend my summers there as a kid. She always commented on the stone walls and mentioned how she loved looking into the woods when we were on the highway and seeing them there. She told me they were built by settlers. I will always have the incorrect image of pilgrims building walls all over Massachusetts. It was shocking, to say the least, to learn that the walls my mother so loved were actually probably built by slaves.
I have a different view of slavery after this film. I felt the movie was very powerful and I have never seen something quite like it. It's unsettling to think that even the abolitionists in the North were fueling the slave trade they were fighting against just by buying sugar or coffee. I have been thinking about slavery reparations and after this film, they seem more necessary. I don't know what they would look like, but I think a public apology and acknowledgement of the far-reaching effects of slavery is a good place to start. Racism can never be eradicated if whites in this country refuse to take responsibility for a system which they are supporting by being passively racist.
Another point in the film that stuck out in my mind was in the beginning when she Katrina mentions the stone walls of New England being built by slaves. My mother is from Massachusetts and I would spend my summers there as a kid. She always commented on the stone walls and mentioned how she loved looking into the woods when we were on the highway and seeing them there. She told me they were built by settlers. I will always have the incorrect image of pilgrims building walls all over Massachusetts. It was shocking, to say the least, to learn that the walls my mother so loved were actually probably built by slaves.
I have a different view of slavery after this film. I felt the movie was very powerful and I have never seen something quite like it. It's unsettling to think that even the abolitionists in the North were fueling the slave trade they were fighting against just by buying sugar or coffee. I have been thinking about slavery reparations and after this film, they seem more necessary. I don't know what they would look like, but I think a public apology and acknowledgement of the far-reaching effects of slavery is a good place to start. Racism can never be eradicated if whites in this country refuse to take responsibility for a system which they are supporting by being passively racist.
Traces of Trade
I thought Traces of Trade was an excellent film about the American slave trade. I was always aware that the slave trade was a business, but I didn't realize what a huge business it was. The town of
I don't know how people are going to take this, but I don't understand how giving reparations is suppose to make up for the past. Whenever you hear about reparations, it always seems like after reparations are given everything is ok, and I just don’t get it. I also don’t understand why they are given to begin with, how does some money make everything ok again? Again I’m not sure how people are going take this but I just don’t feel reparations should be given, and I don’t see how it makes everything better.
It was very noble of Katrina and the others to follow the route of the slave trade and visit where the slaves came from. They went there feeling sorry for things their ancestors did, but I find it weird that the decedents of the slaves almost acted hostilely toward them. They still hated them because of things their ancestors did. Yes, the slave trade was horrible, but Katrina and the others had nothing to do with it. It’s almost as if Katrina and her party were forced into being guilty just because they were white. I hope people don't take this the wrong way like I am arguing that the slaves trade was justified, I just wanted to talk about it from a different perspective.
Traces of the Trade: Redefining History
Overall, Traces of the Trade was very interesting documentary. Throughout the semester we had touched on the fact that history can be examine through many different ways such as, archives, testimony, and oral history etc. In this case, the Dewolf family wanted to trace back the history of African slaves in order to come to an understanding of the past. Throughout the beginning of the film, Katrina Browne had stated that her families from the past were known throughout their hometown as historical figures of America. In reality, Katrina Browne wanted to prove that the family business of slave trade degraded, and caused a lot of pain for millions of Africans.
What I found quite interesting about this documentary is that how a small town from Bristol, Rhode Island embraces the DeWolf family’s business as proud part of history; rather than viewing the “slave trade” that caused harm, and made to millions of Africans suffer. Throughout American history we tend to reconstruct the dynamics of history in order to hide the horrific truth behind it. An example of this would be is the history told of Christopher Columbus, better known as the heroic man who discovered America. The reality of how America was discovered could be considered as the unforgiving part of U.S. history. This country was built and constructed on violence, war, and conquering land. Nonetheless, I believe the Dewolfs slave trade business should be viewed as extreme as the holocaust. The slave trading business even until this day has an impact on society’s way of status, class, and culture.
What I found interesting throughout the documentary was that the DeWolf family wanted to give some type of reparation back to African Americans. The biggest question was how? Another question that stood out was: should compensation be based on money, or is it something much bigger than wealth? Overall, what I have examined throughout the documentary was the fact that history can be changed and molded into different perspectives. Which makes me question how can we define what is right or wrong history?
What I found quite interesting about this documentary is that how a small town from Bristol, Rhode Island embraces the DeWolf family’s business as proud part of history; rather than viewing the “slave trade” that caused harm, and made to millions of Africans suffer. Throughout American history we tend to reconstruct the dynamics of history in order to hide the horrific truth behind it. An example of this would be is the history told of Christopher Columbus, better known as the heroic man who discovered America. The reality of how America was discovered could be considered as the unforgiving part of U.S. history. This country was built and constructed on violence, war, and conquering land. Nonetheless, I believe the Dewolfs slave trade business should be viewed as extreme as the holocaust. The slave trading business even until this day has an impact on society’s way of status, class, and culture.
What I found interesting throughout the documentary was that the DeWolf family wanted to give some type of reparation back to African Americans. The biggest question was how? Another question that stood out was: should compensation be based on money, or is it something much bigger than wealth? Overall, what I have examined throughout the documentary was the fact that history can be changed and molded into different perspectives. Which makes me question how can we define what is right or wrong history?
Traces of Trade - A Good Intention, but wrong decision
Like others in the class, I was certainly struck by the dependency and extensive involvement of the North in the slave trade. It is sad how much we are still unaware of the slavery of this country, even though we may think we know and understand the events.
I also agree that Brown's intentions and desire to do something is certainly something to be respected. Just the facts that the group of descendants gathered to confront the problem at all is surely a good thing. However, I think they went about it in the wrong way. The whole trip and most of the discussions seemed very self oriented. Over and over, they spoke of looking for closure, loosing their guilt, etc., but that is not what needs to be done. It seemed like they were making this problem about them.
Something that stuck out to me was when they were in the discussion room and an African women said that whites need to learn about African culture. This is what I think needs to be done. The DeWolf descendants traveled all around the world, when what they should have been doing was exploring the communities in America and gaining an appreciation and understanding for African culture. I don't see this happening though. Other people have already blogged about how privileged they all are...it seems like they want to "confront" this problem, then get on with their lives where they most likely have little to no meaningful involvement with the culture from which they are seeking forgiveness.
This is obviously not an easy fix, and even growing up in western Pennsylvania I saw a disgusting amount of racism and expressions of white superiority. I think white people in general need to take their desires and motivations out of the picture and instead listen to and learn from African American culture, so that some day we might actually be able to comfortably live together.
I also agree that Brown's intentions and desire to do something is certainly something to be respected. Just the facts that the group of descendants gathered to confront the problem at all is surely a good thing. However, I think they went about it in the wrong way. The whole trip and most of the discussions seemed very self oriented. Over and over, they spoke of looking for closure, loosing their guilt, etc., but that is not what needs to be done. It seemed like they were making this problem about them.
Something that stuck out to me was when they were in the discussion room and an African women said that whites need to learn about African culture. This is what I think needs to be done. The DeWolf descendants traveled all around the world, when what they should have been doing was exploring the communities in America and gaining an appreciation and understanding for African culture. I don't see this happening though. Other people have already blogged about how privileged they all are...it seems like they want to "confront" this problem, then get on with their lives where they most likely have little to no meaningful involvement with the culture from which they are seeking forgiveness.
This is obviously not an easy fix, and even growing up in western Pennsylvania I saw a disgusting amount of racism and expressions of white superiority. I think white people in general need to take their desires and motivations out of the picture and instead listen to and learn from African American culture, so that some day we might actually be able to comfortably live together.
Traces of the Trade
I like the format of the film. We got to hear and see everyone's reaction to what they were learning. My first reaction was that I did not know as much about the slave trade as I thought, even though I have learned it for so long in high school. It opened my eyes to seeing that the North was just as much affiliated with the slave trade as the South. They were just as guilty. Even the whole communities were effect and revolved around slavery. The con was how they displaced so many blacks, however without the slave trade I doubt we would be the country we are today.
In addition to this, what really got me was when they were in the African country and there was a black lady who said she was expecting not to see any whites. She distanced herself from the family. And then Browne brings up a great question: "What is our responsibility?" After understanding the inhumanity of her family's ancestors, she says: "It's important to roll up our sleeves to deal with what we all inherited from our country's history." What really got me was that Browne learned the past and was trying to change the future. However the black lady who didn't want anything to do with white people, I feel was still living in the past. And I think this is why there is a misunderstanding. There is apart of Black society that think the are entitled to a lot because of the past. However, life has changed: affirmative action was put in effect to help better the blacks. And now in schools, anti-racism classes are taught, I took one in my high school. I think that is the answer to Browne's question. Maybe one day the color of one's skin would have no meaning about their race.
In addition to this, what really got me was when they were in the African country and there was a black lady who said she was expecting not to see any whites. She distanced herself from the family. And then Browne brings up a great question: "What is our responsibility?" After understanding the inhumanity of her family's ancestors, she says: "It's important to roll up our sleeves to deal with what we all inherited from our country's history." What really got me was that Browne learned the past and was trying to change the future. However the black lady who didn't want anything to do with white people, I feel was still living in the past. And I think this is why there is a misunderstanding. There is apart of Black society that think the are entitled to a lot because of the past. However, life has changed: affirmative action was put in effect to help better the blacks. And now in schools, anti-racism classes are taught, I took one in my high school. I think that is the answer to Browne's question. Maybe one day the color of one's skin would have no meaning about their race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)