Essentialist vs. Constructionist

This articles sums up how different people view different situations and how they believe they effect those situations. In the story of the baseball umpires three main ways to view balls and strikes are identified. The first one being balls and strikes exist independently in the world no matter how he calls them. Second umpire views them as independent but open to interpretation. Finally, the third umpire perceives balls and strikes as having no meaning until the interpreter gives them one. I believe one of the most important things the author points out about the differences in essentialist and constructionist is what question they would be more likely to ask. An essentialist would ask what causes people to be different while a constructionist would ask about the origin and outcomes of the classification system.

The author then goes on to discuss how many believe that just like race or ethnicity, a person’s sexual orientation is something they are born with. They have no choice as to what sex they are attracted to. The author tells the story of Chris Yates and how his family dealt with him being gay because they thought he chose to be only to later come to realize it was something in his genes that made him that way. The author then goes on to talk about names and whether we as individuals name ourselves or if those around us name us. I was very surprised to hear the story of the two females that took offense to the use of women and girl. I had never even considered either term to be able to be taken offensively.

While reading this article the question that came to mind was can really everyone be solely put into one category or the other of being an essentialist or a constructionist? Throughout the whole reading I was trying to put myself in each situation or think which would I more likely fit into and it seemed to me that in I went back and forth a lot between which I would be like. I didn’t seem at all to fit into one any more than the other.

I really enjoyed reading this article. I found it very interesting and felt I could definitely pin point people in my life that fit a lot of how I perceived each category of people to be. This article kept my attention a lot better and I definitely felt like I could relate to it quite a bit more.

Howard Zinn's Article

Howard Zinn’s article Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress not only looks at Columbus’s discovery of the new world from a different perspective but he also makes generalizations and conclusions about history itself. Zinn uses a lot of his article to explain how in most history books and sources it just talks about Columbus going on a voyage and establishing a new world that Spain would have control over. These history sources forget to mention all the killing and enslavement that took place when Columbus and his crew arrived here. Zinn goes out on a limb by criticizing sources for leaving out this part of history. Basically, Zinn is looking to make the point that more often times than not history is written how those in power want to portray it.
Zinn argues that without history there can be no progress. This statement is so true. How can we not learn from history and keep from repeating the same mistakes if the history lessons we are being taught from an early age are leaving out some of the most important parts of certain events.
The biggest question in my mind while reading this article was how different would our lives be today had we known all that happened with the founding of our country? Would other mass killings and wiping out of groups of people been avoided? As a country would we still be so judgmental of people and have as much hate or perhaps even more? When reading this whole piece all I could about was why as a sophomore in college having been through year after year of history lessons have I never heard about the “other” side of the founding of our nation. I couldn’t help but feeling a little angry with never being exposed to all the truths. It really opened my eyes to the true events and what really happened.

PPD Chapter 1!

The author concludes that even though he may not fit the all the terms given he can still be part of the solution of bringing all people together and everyone being able to get along. He stresses the fact that he has to go off the defensive side in order to be able to help with the solution. I find the author is truing to trying to enlighten readers on new ways of thinking about the differences of people and ways to change that can make a difference.

Basically, what I got from Privilege, Power, and Difference, Chapter 1 Rodney King’s Question, was the most racism and hate for “then” which is anyone outside of a certain persons “Us” group or who they consider themselves part of comes from the white race. I felt like throughout the whole chapter they were saying only white people are racist. I also got from the text how important it is for people to talk about racial and ethnical problems not just stay in their comfort zone and not be afraid to use certain words that may be offensive. I felt like the other had good ways on overcoming the barriers between people and also stressed how important it is for not only the underprivileged but also the privileged make equal treatment of all people everyone’s problem.

Although I agree with the fact that in the past most racism was from the white side I believe times have changed that. In a society where it is so stressed to treat everyone with respect it seems to me that now that racism may be flip flopped. From personal experience of having my first encounter of living with an individual of a different race it seemed more to me that they carried a chip on their shoulder that all whites are racist and think of themselves as better. It felt like they talked down on me for not having been in some of the situations they had been in while not going through the trials they had been through also.

At first when reading the text my defense mechanisms did come out but then the more I read the more I thought well yes this is true. However I did feel there was a whole other side to everything then they put out there. I felt they could of shown both sides of the spectrum and been a lot less offensive to white people. As much as everyone would like to believe there is no racism against white people there is just as much as there is against every other race. I felt there was a lot of truth in what the author was talking about its hard to talk about certain topics if u can’t use they the words in which may be offensive. In which case I firmly believe that many people do feel if they ignore the trouble or don’t talk about “them” then the problem will just go away which only makes it more complicated.

Introduction!

Hey blog readers! I am Alyssa Newland. I decided to take Ethnic Studies because of some of the things I went through as a freshman at Bowling Green with those of a different race that I didn’t really understand how to understand them or where they were coming from because I had never been faced with some of the issues that came up. The town I grew up was very small and was made of pretty much all one race, color, background, religion, and social class. When going away to school it was a big change for me that I felt I adjusted to very well but ran in to many other problems of not feeling accepted by those of a different background around me. I chose to take Ethnic Studies to be able to better understand other perspectives of those of different backgrounds than me!