journalismmasscommunication

[journalismmasscommunication]

FILM. Race: The Power of an Illusion

    The first key point of this film is the general notion of race. Race: The Power of an Illusion describes how history and society characterized race as the division among people that’s biological and genetic. The identification of people are based on just by looking at them, and racial scientists in the past expressed that external differences are linked to internal differences between race groups. This lead to the key point of racial biology and if there are genetic markers that define race. There is no clear cut evidence that confirm this, and the reality is that race is an idea prescribed by biology as well as how we live in a extremely racialized society. Another key point is the face of power being white because of multiple things such as the Jim crow segregation, Native Americans being shunned, immigrants being stuck and crowded together in urban ghettos, and multiple other things. However, this wasn’t seen as a problem that comes from racists intention or no help from the government, but that it was the “natural order” of things. The crux of this comes the statement that if you can explain that people of color are biologically different then they should be at the bottom of the social hierarchy because that’s what they deserve. This leads to the next key point of the extinction of the race during the time of legalized segregation, society began approaching the extinction thesis where people of color, specifically black Americans, would die a lot younger and faster than white Americans. The last key point I will be summarizing is about mixed race people, where they were looked down upon because these people weren’t racially purified and brought down the level of greatness and positive characteristics of white people.

    Race has nothing to do with biology, but it’s real and it impacts people all over the world. Race is more of a social category than anything, something that plays a major role in our lives, histories, background, futures and society that we live in. It’s a very difficult concept, but the basis of it is that there are no specific racial genes that describe if one race would be better at something like sports or a musical instrument over someone from a different race. Race also generally refers to someone’s physical appearance, such as skin color, hair, eye color, and many other things -- but it doesn’t have anything to do with interior of our bodies and personalities. It’s a social construct and bind that prevents people from prevailing and expanding their future careers, education, and overall life. Race perception also changes over the years for people of color because of how they experience fucations and how they personally understand their individual racial identity. However, white groups racial perception has mostly remained stagnant as they live a life with white skin privileges such as being presumed safe, intelligent, and noncriminal.

    The construct of whiteness is celebrating the accomplishments of white people. Calls of celebrate whiteness ignores the institutionalization of our society that’s built on what white people did throughout history and because of this, it’s built into our daily lives. It also encompasses white fragility, where they feel like they are under the threat of non white people, and use violence, hostility, and verbal abuse as a cover to justify white people as a whole, monopoly on wealth, income, power, and workplace value. White people are just people, but by understanding that race is a social construct, there is also a consensual understanding that white people have used to imply that they are superior over people of color throughout history.

    Privilege is being able to do things and live your life without fear of unforeseen consequences and the blinding fact that you are able to do it and others simply cannot. It’s having an advantage over someone or a whole group of people in certain things generally because it’s an unearned access to resources such as social power. White privilege takes that to the next step where this advantage merely comes from being white, and in not being a person of color, they have more opportunities in education, wealth, power, jobs, and many other things. It means that you are born into the racial ‘norm’ and that they are less likely to be called racial slurs, be the victim of a racially motivated abuse or hate crime, have to march in a protect in order to demand equal rights, and many other things that you would suffer for because of your race as a person of color. It matters because it’s acknowledging hundreds of years of oppression that berated people of color and not discounting these experiences that are still happening currently.

    One thing that surprised me in this film is about the topic of Eugenics and how it was used to advance a social agenda. It was also surprising how widespread this was and how accepted it was because they wanted to breed the best and the brightest. There were many things that upset, specifically the aspects of mixed race people because I’m mixed and to think that people in the past that are like me were treated horribly throughout their entire life. The first thing I learned was how big the idea that race was biologically constructed and how it first began. The second thing I learned was the extinction thesis and how people of color’s extinction was inevitable and coded into their blood. The third and last thing I learned was about dark melanin and how it blocks out some ultraviolet light that is found where sunlight is intense while light melanin is blocking out some ultraviolet light that is found where sunlight is less intense.

[journalismmasscommunication]

What is the concept of race to me?

      Race to me is defined by an individual's physical appearance. These are things such as hair color, eye color, bone structure, skin color, hair texture, eye shape, nose shape, mouth shape, etc. Ethnicity is more of a cultural stance, where certain actions, situations, or experiences, can define your ethnicity without it just being more of a physical thing. Inequality is when you treat someone differently simply because they are not the same as you or the general population. Race and ethnicity are similar because they are defining an individual based on their origins, and then causing that to be their label as a person. It’s labeling people and sectioning them off just by their appearance or the way they act -- it’s very superficial and artificial considering most of it is a social construct and not really an intelligent way to describe someone without the possibility of offending them or an entire group of people. It’s different though because race is physical while ethnicity is more on the basis of emotional and mental - especially because there’s so many different cultures, so to bring ethnicity down to what culture you live thrive in is very vague and damaging. Simply ethnically labeling someone on their presumed bias of what that culture is happens more often than not, and can cause a lot of repercussions. Race, ethnicity and injustice all relates to each other because there are a lot more disadvantages or ‘injustices’ towards people of color. People of color’s lives are mostly surrounding by the way they look or the color of the skin. Their identity can be stripped down to how big their lips or nose are, if they have a monolid or not, the texture or oiliness of their skin, and many, many more.

    Critical concepts and themes that I have learned about and found most impactful are white privilege and power, the model minority myth, and the differing spectrum of disadvantages certain people have depending on the lightness or darkness of their skin color. The films helped me understand the concepts, themes, facts, and ideas because they are visibly displaying the hatred and discrimination people of color have to face. A clear example of that in modern day society is in the film Dear White People, where they were students from not that long ago where they were facing injustices on their own campus. The concepts I have identified are important to our understanding of race, ethnicity, and inequality because everyone may go through similar situations, but their experiences towards them will always be different. A lighter skinned minority will probably have an easier time dealing with police or authority figures in general compared to darker skinned minorities. This does not mean there’s a ‘feel bad for me’ scale, but that there has to be an understanding that even society ranks people of color from the most threatening and dangerous (dark skin) to the viewing of the other minorities.

                                     AN INTERVIEW OF MYSELF.

1. What is your racial identity?

    Asian, European, American. More specifically: South Korean, Italian, Dutch, Indonesian, and Portuguese.

2. What do you love about your racial identity?

    I love the diversity in all the things. Food, clothing, style, appearance, books, music, and movies. The food would probably be my favorite thing because my mother makes a lot of Korean or simply different types of Asian fusion food, while my father makes a lot of Italian, American, and other types of European foods. 

3. What are struggles you have about your racial identity?

    The struggles about having my racial identity is that I am multiethnic/mixed race which means I usually don’t fit in with one specific group of people. Growing up this was especially hard and complicated considering most kids usually hung around kids who were similar to them. This was hard to me because I felt as though I have never fit in with any groups and didn’t have any friends who truly understood my day to day life.

4. Have you experienced racial bias or been the target of discrimination or prejudice? How do you work to eradicate racial bigotry?

    I have experienced racial bias considering that I have been generally bullied for being different. This has been a recurring theme in my live ever since I was younger (elementary and middle school) because it was always easy to pick on me considering I was a lot of different races.

[journalismmasscommunication]

Do perceptions on terrorism contrast between different racial groups?

An interview between 4 vastly different Americans.

      White privilege is being able to label yourself an extremist, white supremacist, white nationalist, neo-nazi, neo-fascist, and an alt-right member. Everyday domestic terrorism fills the national airwaves - turning the channel from the basketball game to Wheel of Fortune you get a glimpse of the local church that was shot up, the headline describing a mentally unstable man who was bullied in his youth. The next day you hear about the most recent “homicide bombings” and how the need for border control against there ‘thugs’ is now more necessary than ever. These news coverage's all have on thing in common -- both were acts of terrorism to plant a seed to hatred amongst the American people. But why does one story get people to act more considerate towards the coverage than the other? Racial groups may perceive certain events and cultural aspects distinctively, but even more transparent than that - simple words can be defined different amongst contrasting societies. The subject surrounding tyrannical violence brings up the question if perceptions on terrorism contrast based on different racial groups, if this even matters in today's society, and are there any disparities between different ethnicity? Despite any research to be held or answers from interviewees, these issues are undisputed important because domestic terrorism happens more often than not in today’s society. But, many aspects of these events are spoken about, especially when in regards of racial backgrounds and how that affects impressions on these issues. Is this to move away from such a deleterious way of speaking or a simple act of favoritism to people with a lighter skin tone? According to The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why? by Rex A. Hudson, different types of individuals are more prone to terrorism in attempt to guide counterterrorist procedures and policies within the United States. Compared to this, Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? by Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, discuss how instead of terrorism being a direct reaction to low market opportunities or general ignorance, it is a response based on the frustrated political conditions within America that have very little to do with economics. Whilst the Theories of Efficacy of Terrorism by Nicholas O. Berry, considers why terrorism works and how one important variable that affects personal bias towards their response is the target’s own perception of the terrorists. Nonetheless, the position involving how violence is interwoven with perceptions on different racial groups is what affects the topic of terrorism. Through the use of racist values and nationalistic historical events, race impacts the view on terrorism which then translates to anxiety provoking situations for young adults since they have proximal contact with these events and the ways to improve the situation would be to educate people nationwide to combat the epidemic of terrorism.

    Moreover, the conversation surrounding who is involved within terrorist attacks drives the notion of who is seen as a terrorist and who is not. The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why? by Rex A. Hudson discusses this in depth, deliberating on topics such as why terrorist databases become outdated as well as terrorist profiling. This sociology article is of importance to the topic of perceptions on terrorism contrasting between different racial group because the hazards of terrorist profiling is based off of an isolation of attributes. Hudson summarizes the aspects within a terrorist profile, details included were: age, education, occupation, socioeconomic background, general traits, marital status, physical appearance, origin, and gender. These are what a terrorist was defined as in the past, where analysts would compare characteristics of members of numerous terrorist groups in various regions of the world and then make generalizations about these characteristics. However, what is argued in this article is that “unfortunately for profiling purposes, there does not appear to be a single terrorist personality” which means that certain racial groups themselves will define a terrorist differently (60). In addition to this, Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? by Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova argue that “[there is little] connection between poverty or education and participation in terrorism” as well as “poverty at the national level may indirectly affect terrorism through the apparent connection between economic conditions and the proclivity for countries to undergo civil wars” (141). Krueger and Maleckova also discuss how “there is little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or increase in educational attainment will lead to a meaningful reduction in the amount of international terrorism, without other changes” (142). Lastly, Nicholas O. Berry argues that “terrorism demands that the target perform and induces a test of the target's competence, whether the target is a regime or an insurgent group” leaning toward the conclusion that terrorism is a mixture of racism, not a specific group, and ignorance.

    For the interviews that took place there were four interviewees, six questions that was then concluded with their own personal opinion, as well taking note of direct quotes about their beliefs, attitudes about this issue, and what they think causes it. Conversely, many people in modern day society define terrorism differently from others, however, many bring up a lot of exceptional discussion points. The first interviewee, Christopher Moschella, spoke about his perception on if terrorism contrasts based on different racial groups. He describes how there are different ways you can look at terrorism and he thinks about it through the lens of conditions that are wrong with America today. On one hand, he has a lot of the same values of Anglo Saxons so he sees things in a contrasting view than most left leaning Americans. However, that group of white Americans that talk about terrorism tend to look at it in fear of ethnic religious groups and because of this, it leads to racism towards a whole group of people which is not want we want. He says “it doesn’t solve any problems” because this way of thinking is a trap in seeing terrorism in a one sided perspective. Another thing he’s seen especially living in California and interacting with a lot of people from a homogenous society, those people (Asians from his personal experience) see it differently because they do not have that acknowledgement that terrorism and racism is blended together. So from this perspective, sometimes they struggle understanding why terrorism is a big problem because they do not live through those things that much. The second interviewee, Cora McClain, talked about how there is a difference but she is not sure the exact specifics and can only speak from the white perspective where she says they usually point their finger at other people. Jennifer Moschella, the third interviewee answers this question by saying there is a generalized perception on terrorism especially with 9/11 in which there is an obvious polarizing American standpoint. She says, “there’s been so many terrorist groups, events like the Japanese internment where the government wasn’t seeing these things as unconstitutional and illegal caused a lot of people of color to protect other minorities from future discrimination (ie. the muslim ban) as a lot of people were there in support of one another”. But there are a lot of layers of discrimination within racial groups as “people who are comfortable with their privilege tend to not want to help other groups, hence they don’t recognize their privilege”. The last interviewee, Andrea Paterno, discussed how there are different classes within a race in which they are going to have different opinions on terrorism. Most of them are similar, yet there is a spectrum of how radial their ideas are, hence there are a multitude of opinions.

    The next question that was asked was: why are white Americans less likely to be called a “terrorist” despite being a bigger domestic threat? Christopher answered this by describing how it is a mixture of race and terrorism where this country was founded by a white population, so inherently there is credibility in that because that was the dominant race in this country. However, it is no different from any other country where the local race is the dominant one; what is hugely different here in America is that “this country was kind of founded on a different principle”. So you have -- excluding slavery -- forced intermingling, where there is generally a lot more diversity and mixture of culture than other places. But because of the founding part of it, that culture, they (white Americans) are going to see outsiders of more of a threat until and unless something really big happened, an overwhelming type of event to change that mindset. Cora answered explaining how it is because of systematic racism where because white people are the dominant race that control law enforcement and other authority type jobs, that is the reason why someone who is paler gets through things such as TSA quicker than somebody who is of a darker skin tone. She says, “it’s in the structural systemic racism especially in this era of terrorism, where it’s connected to radical Islam which is a muslim religion that originates in the middle east, and people’s racist outlook on that culture is that people there are usually a darker skin tone”. Jennifer explains that people associate terrorism with outsiders of America and that “there’s not an equivalent personification or label that has the same weight as a ‘terrorist’” and that’s why they use that word; what white Americans are doing is still horrifying, but why should you focus on a label rather than the atrocious acts? This is an example of why one racial group should not be targeted as a terrorist nation because there “are people in your own country doing the same thing” and that labels are not the point of the conversation. Andrea describes how American favors the white male because everyone else just thinks that people who are not white are just terrible people. Americans like to “make that generalization of non whites” because whites get off scot free especially when it comes to the sentence times in prison since “America likes to favor white rich people only because they think it’s going to ruin their life if they get into jail”.

    Subsequently the question, how does someone’s personal definition of terrorism affect their opinion on immigration and/or border control? was asked. Christopher explains that it does affect their opinion because there are groups of people out there that are against what American society is based on and values. The trap is that “you then lump all those people together with another group that you say are similar to them and if you lump them all into a religious group, that’s where the problem is” because that is what people in America tend to do. He concludes, “So you then naturally ask, how you know the good people from the bad people? Then of course, it’s an easy solution to just be against immigration”. Cora describes how they more likely to be afraid of terrorism or more ignorant on it, than the stricter immigration policy. It is equating any sort of immigration to letting dangerous people in because of the xenophobic nature of this perspective. She believes that it also means there would be tighter border control and the train of thought is that if they “are letting less people come in, there’s the mentality of: less likely terrorists will be able to get in”; through this, it allows political parties to target and use these ethnic groups as a scapegoat and a propaganda topic. Jennifer communicates her opinion on how people think terrorists only come from the middle east and that “there is a need to ban all immigrants because they are the only source of bad things”, however, ignorant people do not know the extent of anything. She explains the “American military and government agreed to do many terrible things in Iraq and the middle east, they did a lot of fucked up shit and put a lot of bad people in power in the middle east”; basically describing how people need to learn their history and that history was built on minorities through events like Chinese people building the railroads and black women building the NASA rockets. She says that “even though politicians say that they’re all about border control, you look at what companies are associated with and how they run on immigrant labor for cheap labor, even though it’s illegal and wrong -- it just doesn’t line up”. Moreover explaining how it is not safe because people die and that these major companies are lobbying their funds to major politicians in which they do not mind the unethicalness since they are making a lot of money, it is overall hypocritical. Andrea says that sometimes it does and sometimes it does not because people are naturally hesitant with having immigration because of what is going on in the world. People think terrorism is causing havoc and that is “where it differentiates between people, because it’s not the opinion on terrorism that makes things horrible, but the racist spectrum people have on immigrants as terrorists”. She explains that this way of thinking makes them always want to have border control because “it’s generalizing a whole race of people, just because they’re that specific race” and that “everyone likes to blame it on the immigrants because it’s the easiest”.

    Following this, the question -- based on opinions of terrorism, how does it affect personal perception on dark-skinned and/or Muslim people? was asked. Christopher describes how you can not be naive about these things since there are groups of people who are Muslim that are “bad” but people will wrongly make it about a person of a specific skin color. From his point of view, “you can easily have white people, white muslin fanatics out there that do believe those kinds of values that will eventually be harmful against ‘us’”. Cora answers this by explaining how it depends on how versed you are on the topic, the more ignorant or just by making assumptions, the more negative of a view on dark skinned and Muslim people you have. Because terrorism is related to radical Islam, it equates to the middle east where these places are “war torn by these groups that are trying to instill their religion, a non-Anglo Saxon religion, and they are violently trying to enforce their political control so it is painted by the bad people who are using it for their own gain”. Because of this, it leads to the generalization of people east and political figures are framing this as only being connected to the religion of muslim, the people from the middle east, and it creates the idea that terrorism only comes from someone on the outside. She says that “people don’t expect it from within the country, but outside of the country trying to tear down America” since people within are not seen affiliated with terrorist. Andrea describes it as it just being racism, a favoritism of white people, and then Americans just blaming it on those things. Jennifer explains how this does have an affect because there are videos and posts on Twitter describing how “sure, women are scared of men walking down the street, but more women are likely to move away if it’s a dark skinned or ethnic man, and less likely to if it’s a white man”. There is no correlation but the media portrays ethnic men as monsters and the villains while white men are the heroes for white women, hence forcing people to see “darker skinned and ethnic men as a threat”.

    So what causes it? The interviewees had many answers, and starting with Christopher he explains that fear is a big part of the conversation, but besides that, people do not take an effort to learn what other people go through. Knowing other people, it is easy to stay inside a group that you are comfortable with, but “as far as staying within your group, people kind of go with their family values, which might not be good”. Being open to talk about these things and trying to make their kids have their own opinions on things will help fix the problem, and he “[doesn’t] think there’s enough of that”. Cora explains how it depends on the actions that happen since terrorism was not huge or really seen until 9/11. This event impacted American directly because before this, America just looked at outside problems. For example she describes “before WWII we didn’t want to get involved until America itself got attacked, because yes there was communism and genocide, but we were more focused on the alarm of getting attacked specifically”. War on terror was not very big until America was personally attacked and she believes that 9/11 was the beginning of America entering the gray because “it was a problem over there -- until it hit American soil”. For Andrea it is about close mindedness, the fear about being around “‘those types of people’”, the influence of the news, and most importantly, racism. Jennifer describes how it is to keep white people in power and everything else that happened throughout history. She explains how the Japanese were allied with Germany but nobody really cared and that it was not a big deal that they were slowly taking over China and all these other places. But when power was starting to shift, “America was scared of having a non white empirical power in charge, and they wanted to have their control back because whenever there’s a change, there’s such a strong negative reaction to it”. People do not like change so history is very important to show that these things happen and that the ability to progress has never worked because “people’s grandparents and their friends were lynched, like as a common occurrence, and that was only two generations ago”. It has just been happening for centuries that it is now normalized; anything to hinder white privilege causes fear within that community because it is not natural since white people have been in power and “they do not understand that feeling of unnaturalness and fear is what people's lives are every single day -- they like their privilege and they don’t want to give it up”.

    For their own personal beliefs and opinions, Christopher starts off by describing how race weaves with terrorism and that “it is important to remember our perceptive as Americans comes from a place of privilege - even ethnic people in this country, and a lot of the times it’s forgotten. While things aren’t perfect and that there’s still problems, other racial discrimination happens, reverse racism still happens”. He explains that the benefit that we have of living here, should be remembered and something we all are proud of. There are a lot of other places in the world where things are a lot worse, but there has to be a balance that was to take place “so that the older generation doesn’t get complacent and the younger generation doesn’t feel like nothing's been done and to not be proud of the society”. Andrea says that people need to stop generalizing Muslin people because “there are so many other dangerous people like school shooters and I never see anything that involves Muslin people. People need to open their eyes an see the truth because these people, these shooters are white and it’s so annoying to have to see everyday racism be so normalized by people because it happens so often. People are just joining in on it because that’s what they think they are and supposed to be -- they need to see the truth, and nobody wants to see the truth, and when people do they just get attacked over it”. Jennifer explains that “bad people can be anywhere just like how good people can be anywhere. The concept of war on terror is stupid because it’s just a never ending campaign of hatred that doesn’t make any sense”. She points out that people “don’t know what a terrorist looks like because there’s no code of what a terrorist is” as well as how there is “a lot of narrative around the fight of terrorism that is based on fear, and fear isn’t an emotion you should have when declaring war. And that’s why there are so many mistakes post 9/11 because everything was based of of fear and panic and jumping to conclusions”. Lastly, Cora describes how terrorism is “using public violence to forward a political view, any sort of view. It can be a person driving through a crowd of people, planes going through a building -- it’s really using violent actions to create and forward a symbolic ideal. Even a person going into a bar specified for gay people and shooting it up because they don’t like gay people is terrorism”. She explains how it happens a lot more often than the media likes to portray because they do not like the idea that it is someone within the nation wanting to change it because many believe it always has to be someone on the outside.

The origins of this social issue starts from historical events where the only terrorist acts widely reported were those of middle eastern nature or by darker skinned/ethnic individuals. In 1991 there was a reported terrorist attack where Islamic militants in Lebanon “release[d] kidnapped American journalist Terry Anderson after 2,454 days in captivity”, then the tragedy of 9/11 occurred, and in 2010 there were terrorists who attacked Ahmadiyya Mosques in Pakistan which killed 94 victims and injured over 120 innocent people. All of these events were deemed as terrorist attacks and threats to other people, but a common thread was that these major headlines were about darker skinned individuals (HISTORY). However, terrorist attacks caused by lighter skinned individuals such as the anthrax-laced letters weeks after 9/11, the gunman that attacked the Pulse Nightclub in Florida, and General Pinochet's agents murdering Chile’s former Ambassador in American soil in 1976 are acknowledged, but not a staple of terrorism that most Americans are familiar with (Sarah Pruitt and Becky Little). Terrorism is an act of mass violence in which causes divided nations; this internally displaced young adults since many are refugees running from hostility labeling themselves as survivors of war. Recent findings explain “children’s distress and the disorders they may developed consequent on their direct and indirect exposure to war”  as well as “they suffer from guilt as well as [experience] many violent distressing events” (Williams and Hazell). Beyond children themselves, teens often experience discouragement, disillusionment, mood swings, irritability, anxiety emotional distance and isolation, as well as substance abuse; there are many different ways that young adults have an collective trauma that impacts their social, emotion, development, psychological, coping and emotional regulation, sociopolitical attitudes, and their general beliefs about the world (Barringer). Hence, by not learning together, people will say ignorant about conflicts in a specific region of the world they are unfamiliar with and not do further research.

     There are many ways we can improve this situation, first being that schools can offer classes in school that everyone has to take, either sometime in high school or middle school where these things can be talked about amongst students and have those kinds of discussions built into class. Another ways is to offer reassurance, support through active listening, regulate media exposure, develop safety plans, and promote positivity amongst Americans starting at a young age (Barringer). In The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism, Hudson, terrorists “cannot be detected by personality or physical traits” and “even a watch-list is not foolproof” which means that by avoiding stereotypes and generalizations can develop modern day society (71). According to Krueger and Maleckova, “neither social background, educational opportunity or attainment seem to be particularly associated with terrorism” imposing the conclusion that terrorists do not act based on racial motives or can be defined by them (141). By indulging teenagers opinions, society can now gauge emotional complexity that will eventually support and reassure them to explore the topic of terrorism and everything it unpacks. Through discussing this further, it can educate society, people of both young and old age, hopefully moving towards a more homogeneous and joyful community.

                                                    WORKS CITED.

Barringer, A. (2018, February 19). Talking about terrorism and mass violence with teens: What can parents do? Parenthetical. Retrieved from https://parenthetical.wisc.edu/talking-about-terrorism-and-mass-violence-with-teens-what-can-parents-do/

Berry, N. O. Theories on the Efficacy on Terrorism. Conflict Quarterly.

HISTORY. (2019). Terrorism. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/tag/terrorism

Hudson, R. A. (1999, September). The sociology and psychology of terrorism: Who becomes a terrorist and why?. The Library of Congress.

Krueger, A. B & Maleckova, J. (2003). Education, poverty and terrorism: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 17, Number 4, Pages 119-144.

Little, B. (2018, October 16). How a dictator got away with a brazen murder in D.C. in 1976. History Stories. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/pinochet-terror-attack-dc

Pruitt, S. (2018, October 4). When anthrax-laced letters terrorized the nation. History Stories. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/anthrax-attacks-terrorism-letters#gid=ci02349043000326cb&pid=antrhax-letter-1993224

Williams R.  Hazell, P. (2012). Children and young people who are refugees, internally displaced persons or survivors or perpetrators of war, mass violence and terrorism. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/Abstract/2012/07000/Children_and_young_people_who_are_refugees,.5.aspx

[journalismmasscommunication]

Black History Month.

     February 1 - February 29

[journalismmasscommunication]

Black History Month!

     The origins of Black History Month begins at Chicago in 1915 where Carter G. Woodson and his friends traveled to Washington, D.C to be apart of a national celebration. This celebration was dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the emancipation where hundreds, if not thousands of black Americans travelled across the nation to see displays and presentations about the destruction of slavery and the progression black Americans acquired. Woodson and Jesse E. Moorland founded the ASNLH, also known as the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History -- this was an organization that was based on the research of black Americans descent whilst promoting the achievements made by them. They aspired to bring black history to the light and push towards the appreciation of black success and their triumph after slavery was abolished. Woodson eventually chose February as black history month for traditional and reformation reasons. People say that Woodson chose this month because both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln had their birthdays in February, and they had an important role in black history. Black Americans had been celebrating Douglass for years prior to this, and since Woodson was well aware of pre-existing celebrations, he built black history week / month around traditional days that commemorated black history. It has evolved over the years by the more recent changes, that being through a group of activists and movement called Black Lives Matter. They wanted to change Black History month to Black Future month because there are many issues that are being displayed through artwork and articles that express the injustice black lives are put through. Many of these things recount on the life-changing history such as the Civil Rights Movement, Harlem Renaissance, Brown v. Board, and countless of other events -- but it’s also important to shift the focus from the past to the present to allow for immediate political action to be taken. By renaming it Black Future month, we would be more focused on changing current day policy to ensure the safety and future of black Americans.

    The theme of the most recent Black History month was the 2018, “African Americans in Times of War” which displayed the annual end of the First World War in 1918. It explores the deep and complex implications and connotations of the worldwide struggle and the aftermath of the war as a whole. Through this, we manage to examine black Americans in every war and the many stories of black soldiers, sailors, veterans, and even the civilians. By having this theme, it suggests that the conditions for black Americans both past and present, force us to pause and examine the issues that they faced in times of war. In the past the issues they faced included opportunities of advancement, the deep struggle to integrate the experiences black Americans had during the events of segregation and apartheid, their lives once they came home, global and international discourse, and many more. The issues in the present include the murders of black teenagers, the arrests of hundreds of black Americans while letting white Americans scotch free of the same crime, racism in educational and workplace settings, as well as many more. This theme is important because with the events that leads up to and followed the protests in Ferguson -- black Americans have felt like they’re in a warzone once again. Always having to fear for their safety and the lives of their friends, family, children, and their own because of all the articles and news reports about the killings of innocent black Americans.

VIDEOS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ryXqoXPkbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glZpu0xMSuM

[journalismmasscommunication]

What is White Denial?

How is it prevalent in our society today?

    White denial, is being color blind and ignoring the fact that race is not something you can just ignore, and that racism still in fact, is very prevalent in our society. Tim Wise states, “White people are much less likely to be harassed by the police when they’re innocent, but more likely to get away with illegal activity. Congratulating ourselves by our post-racial and colorblind we are, does nothing to change these facts and in many ways, makes things worse” (White Like Me). It’s prevalent in our society today because just ignoring race won’t make institutionalized and systemic racism disappear, it’ll still be there and affect people of color’s lives no matter if you like it or not. Just because something isn’t affecting you personally doesn’t mean it’s not a problem for someone else. Ignoring it and being colorblind makes our society a harsh and unjustifiable one, where people don’t look after each other and would rather walk about with horse blinders than face the truth and reality of the world around them.

Do you believe racial discrimination is a significant national problem?

    I do believe that racial discrimination is a significant national problem because it deals with a big security issue. Racial injustice remains a real vulnerability in our nation and it makes it easy for not only foreign powers to attack, but also letting Americans fight against other Americans within the country. It cripples our government and progress regarding anything about race and cultural expansion, as well as implements racial profiling. Because of this, we need things like affirmative action, protests against police brutality against minorities, and the resentment against immigrants – if racial discrimination wasn’t an issue there wouldn’t be a need for any of these things. Racial discrimination causes an exclusion amongst people of color and whites because there’s a feeling or power and it affects how we view others.

How are minority groups compared – and positioned in relation – to the dominant white group?

  One way minority groups compare to the dominant white group is through wealth, that being the measure of an individual’s financial net worth. Wealth makes it easier to live because you can move into new and better neighborhoods, get around an area easier, get a higher education, etc. – but unfortunately, wealth is greatly unequal and distributed by race. White households are more economically secure and have far more opportunities for economic mobility, to move further up and apply for higher paying jobs. Wealth inequality gets more strict throughout the years because there are a lot less chances to build wealth in future generations for people of color compared to white people. The wage gap between black Americans and white Americans is disparaging because the average black American work is more likely to be unemployed compared to whites. In a recession time, the duration of job searches increase more for blacks than whites as well as blacks having a more difficult time in job opportunities. They also compare in relation to position is that there are many assumptions on people of color. One assumption is that the poor is mostly blacks and that they are statistically higher in receiving welfare compared to whites and that they take advantage on the system. Another example is that white people blatantly disregard people of color’s experiences when in reality, just because white people don’t see racism around them doesn’t mean it’s not there. It’s being able to trust people of color’s assessment of a situation but they don’t get that because white people are in a position of power over minorities.

What are your thoughts on Black History Month? Should there also be months dedicated to other minority groups?

How about a White History Month?

  I’m far beyond a mere supporter of Black History Month, I fight, and will continue fighting, for this to continue on being a major event in America. It’s something that has so much power in America because it’s black Americans taking back everything that so was forcibly and violently taken away from them. With the brutality from the police and murders that occured over the most recent years, it’s safe to say that racism still exists and is very prevalent in this country. When those people who are continuously getting hurt can stand up and take pride in themselves for an entire month without having to feel ashamed or being easily put down is beautiful and I think more people should support it. Even people who aren’t black should support this month, even though they can’t relate or participate in everything since they are from a different race, it’s about the joining and support of minorities and majority races which can bring all people together. Black History Month isn’t an exclusive month, it’s for everybody. It’s a month for people to understand the history of people who have been oppressed for hundreds of years – it’s an opportunity to reflect, learn, and most important, celebrate the diversity through the unity of all people. I wouldn’t be against having months that celebrate other minority groups because it can teach so many people about all different types of cultures and spread cultural integrity worldwide. We do NOT need a White History Month because white history is taught every day in history classes across America, so there is no need to give it its own specific month. White history has never been ignored in school classrooms like people of color’s histories and culture.  

How does racism affect both minority and dominant groups?

Do you think that believing racism only affects the underprivileged is a form of white denial?

  Racism affects both minority and dominant groups because there’s obviously a power dynamic there and a disparity in advantages and disadvantages. But because minorities “get” things like welfare and affirmative action, white people or dominant groups get angry because they feel like they’re getting left out. They lash out in anger because they feel as though they aren’t getting the help the deserve because they’re working for it and have a good job. It’s being racial blinded and unconscious because it’s easy to view the world in a certain way when you just want to help out your life and your situation instead of being a white ally. Believing racism only affects the underprivileged is a form of white denial because they are basically stating that people of color’s experiences are just their own and there’s no way to relate to them without being a person of color. It’s pushing people of color away and not admitting that racism affects everyone no matter their skin color because it’s such a prevalent issue in our society.

[journalismmasscommunication]

What is Race?

What is race and what are the messages people heard growing up about race?

Are these messages about race are based on physical characteristics and differences assigned at birth or are filtered through cultural beliefs and learned?

     Race is a social construct that is just a category we place ourselves, other people around us, and entire groups of people in. It has nothing to do with biology and our genetic code, but it’s very real and it impacts people all over the world. Race is a major role in everyone’s lives, history, background, future, and society that we live and grow in. It generally refers to someone’s physical appearance, such as skin color, hair, eye color and many other things -- but it doesn’t have anything to do with the interior of our bodies and personalities. Some messages I heard about my race while growing up is that Asians -- specifically East Asians -- are extremely bad drivers, that East Asian women are meek and overall sexualised, that they are good at math, politically inactive and have a socioeconomic standing through merit. One message I heard about a different race, black Americans, is that they were big and dangerous people, specifically black men. There was a generally feeling of staying away from black Americans because most of them were criminals and that was perpetuated throughout my childhood. I do think these messages about race are based on physical characteristics and differences because a lot of people don’t like things or are scared of things they don’t understand or that are generally different from them. Many people take solace in similar things, and one thing that can be narrowed down to is race, most people in certain groups tend to stick to each other rather than be with people from a different race and culture that they don’t know anything about.

Is the United States a racist society? How is racism defined anyway?

Is it a societal and institutional phenomenon, or a personal, individual mindset? 

     I do believe the United States is a racist society because not only is it just a generally major problem in American life but it’s such a complex issue of racial bias. There’s constant days of protests and hate crimes done against people of color that hearing about is hardly a surprise anymore. There’s so much racial tension because of people of color being racially profiled that incidents occur then catch further fire on social media. I would define racism as racial prejudice and power. It’s a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions deriving from perceptions about race/skin color. Racism is based as a society that is structured as a hierarchy, because practicing this originates from somewhere on this hierarchy directing hate towards someone else in another lower location on the hierarchy. I think it’s both an institutional and personal mindset because it’s a socially-imbued power, which can be used in assumption or intentionally. Individuals within a race may benefit from power of which they are unaware, but it’s a deliberate exercise of power which makes it personal.

What is privilege? How can it be applied to race in the U.S? Who has it? Who does not?

How can people with privilege affect society in ways people without privilege cannot?

     Privilege is being able to do things and live your life without fear of unforeseen consequences and the blinding fact that you are able to do it and others simply cannot. It’s having an advantage over someone or a whole group of people in certain things generally because it’s an unearned access to resources such as social power. It can be applied to race in the U.S because it's the burden of representation where it can be manifested in many ways. One way it’s manifested is that one minority individual is assumed to represent their entire cultural/racial group, usually combined with the assumption that this individual is traditional. Another way is that the expectation of dominant culture to receive affirmation from minority cultures that are not racist or use those in the less privileged position as proof they are not racist. White people have the majority of the privilege when it comes to race for many reasons. Some of the reasons are that they have a positive relationship with the police, are favored by school authorities, attend segregated schools of affluence, learning about their race in school, and finding children’s books that overwhelm represent their race. However, East Asians and lighter skinned people of color still hold privileges and advantages over darker skinned people of color because they are still seen as less of a threat over other people. People who have privilege affect society because they either can unknowingly and blindly use their advantages over people of color without doing anything, or work to fix these types of problems.

Name some examples where white people receive certain advantages -- either unconscionably or consciously -- that people of color don’t receive.

Are these examples of white privilege institutional or interpersonal?

     Some examples of advantages white people receive is that they can arrange to be in a company of people where their race is the dominant race most of the time, if they need to move they can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which they can afford in which they would want to live, they can shop alone most of the time without being followed or harassed, they get to freely learn and believe that other white people made this country what it is, and they don’t have to educate their children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection as well as many more. These examples are institutional because white people are born into a system that benefits them and they can automatically receive these advantages whether they like it or want it. It happens right at birth no matter how aware they are of these advantages they have over people of color, it still happens.

What are some of the costs of racism for white people? Why should white people work to address white privilege?

How can all people work collectively to address issues of race and privilege?

     One cost of racism for white people is that they may be perceived in a certain way that causes them to be offended. For example, they might be considered racist just for a little thing they do or say -- however, it doesn’t really affect their life other than hurt their ego. White people should work to address white privilege because it can prevent hate crimes or people of color-on-white crime, black violence and death rates against black Americans, as well as help the socioeconomic status between races in the United States. By just pointing out that white privilege exists doesn’t mean they are being accused of being a racist, and for white people to understand this, means they’re moving towards acknowledging white privilege offers the freedom to amplify important issues in ways that those without it cannot. All people can work collectively to address issues of race and privilege in many ways by learning to recognize and understand your personal privilege, examine your own biases and consider where they may have originated, and call out racist ‘jokes’ or statements.