Journal #7: Immigration

     Although Nativists are incorrect in their assertions that all immigrants are not assimilating and that they are endangering the American way of life, these same assertions are true for a portion of the immigrant population. Immigrants from Latin America are coming to the United States in record numbers, and it is their refusal to conform to our language and culture that is causing the problem that the Nativists are talking about today. A large amount of today's immigrants are coming from Asia, with the majority from India and China. These immigrants are typically well educated and skilled, and they are prepared to contribute to the diverse and skilled economy of the United States. I have spent a considerable amount of time around such people, and I have noticed that the Chinese and Indians, along with the various other cultures from Eastern Asia, have an extremely hard work ethic and they value this hard work that brings success, and they place great importance on leaving behind a better future for the next generation. These traits, although possessed by recent non-white immigrants, are uniquely American. They learn our language, and although they speak their native tongue at home with the other immigrants and first generation Americans, they do not ask for special privileges such as their own languages on driver's exams or food labels. 

     Nativists are correct when it comes to the recent influx of Hispanic immigrants. They are coming in record numbers, and according to the United States Census Bureau, Hispanics are expected to comprise over 30% of the population by 2030. The trend of huge amounts of Hispanics from third world countries combined with political correctness is creating a dangerous trend. Instead of being immersed in an English speaking classroom, many classrooms are adapting to hispanics and are allowing special classes in Spanish in American schools, payed for by American taxpayers. (The story has been told, time and time again, of the ancestor who has come to America with their coat, 10 dollars, and no English. In each and every case they are instantly immersed into the language, and come out just fine. Never is this story of the ancestor who came over and the signs were in their native tongue.) All of my ancestors came to this country not knowing a word of English, and they were all able to become fluent in no time, and of the 6 immigrants that came to this country (my maternal grandparents and my paternal great-grandparents), they couldn't combine their English vocabulary to form a sentence. Anyways, the Spanish speakers now have official government forms in their language, road signs in Spanish, and nearly all products have Spanish visible. This creates an image in the young Latino's mind that they are a protected class and should be allowed to operate separately from the American mainstream. Also, amnesty for illegal immigrants is popular with a sizable minority of politicians (whether they directly admit it or not), and this further reinforces the sentiments that because Mexico and its southern amigos are burdened economically and socially, its denizens have the right to come to America without any restrictions. This narrative fits perfectly into the hands of the far left who use the strategy of "divide and conquer" in which new classes of oppressed people are created, and then legislation to "protect" them is enacted in the hopes of getting the vote of the "victims". (There is too close a connection between elements of the Democratic Party and La Raza).

     In turn, Hispanics who are truly coming to this country and trying to adopt our values are overlooked, since Hispanics today are given so many opportunities to remain insulated from the rest of society. (My grandmother learned basic English by watching our soap operas, while today's Hispanics can be insulated from learning our customs by watching telenovelas on Telemundo ). To put an end to the phenomenon of Hispanic non-assimilation, the "protections" that are in place today such as offering government services in Spanish and allowing students with limited proficiency in English to not participate in normal classes must come to an end. 

     Also, the culture of Mexico and other Latin countries does not value traditional families and a hard work ethic as much as the cultures which are experiencing a large influx of immigrants. The percent of Hispanic households headed by single parents is 40%, compared to 16% for Asians. Also the incarceration rates of Hispanics is 2.43 times as much when compared to whites. These cultural differences contribute to the sense that Hispanics are not fully assimilated and are never going to be.

      Immigration, as a whole, has immensely helped America, and this country would not be where it is today if it were not for immigrants. Immigration, along with our constitution and our political culture of being a nation of "laws, not men", make up why this country is the greatest on Earth. Immigrants coming to America are always seeking a better life for themselves, and therefore America receives the best and the brightest from around the world. In turn, our country has an entrepreneurial spirit that makes living in America much better than anywhere else because it is only here where a poor European worker can move, send his kids to school, and they can start a business and invent new ideas that make life better here. In each and every age since the founding of the original colonies, America has been at the forefront of whatever technology was state of the art at the time. In the early days, we were known for our exceptional agriculture, as there were infinite possibilities for crops to be grown and land to be plowed. Our crops were in demand all over the world, and farmers poured into this country from Europe where they had been crammed into small, unproductive farms which they did not own. This country provided an escape. As industry began to replace agriculture as the forefront of technology, the United States led the way, and immigrants were an important part of that. Immigrants came to America to work in our factories and also to invent new ideas free from the political pressures of Europe. Now, manufacturing has been replaced by high-technology as the driving force behind our economy, and the United States is in the lead. Who invented Facebook, who has the world's biggest stock exchange, who has the largest economy? America. While China might be gaining steam and cranking out many plug-n-chug engineers, the best from that country are still coming to the United States to work, average people in China still enjoy few of the rights and freedoms present here, per capita income there is miniscule, and they are just feeding off of American ingenuity by making the products America invents, creating very little of their own along the way. Along its entire journey as a nation, America has attracted the best and most willing immigrants to assists in making the nation great, and without the huge amounts of immigration, America would be just another country, not exceptional as it is today. America is a melting pot of cultures. It absorbs the good and desirable traits of cultures, while also, importantly, melting the bad and undesirable traits out of immigrant cultures. This blending of cultures and the removal of poor traits makes for an environment containing a fraction of the animosity present between cultures in Europe, which emphasizes diversity and pays the price for it.  

     As a whole, immigration has greatly served this country, and will be a vital component in America's success in the future. 

Journal #6

     I have mixed views on the changing role of men in society, for I view the full equality of the roles of men and women as detrimental to society, while at the same time I believe that all citizens should have the same right to select their careers and activities solely because they are individuals, and not members of any class or group. So the way I can support this view is by recognizing that individuals have rights solely because they are individuals and citizens, not because they belong to any particular group or class. The individual has a right to choose his or her career and role, however it is not always the best for raising a family. So I would conclude this introduction to my personal beliefs by saying that an individual, especially a woman, has the right to make her own choices, however choosing to advance her career over her family is not always best for the development of her children.
     Ever since the beginning of the '70s, the roles of women with regards to the family and careers have been changing in an unprecidented way. Cultural expectations have changed in a way that now supports women who go to college and have a career while at the same time raise a family. I, however, do not see the opposite pattern for men in our society. Although women are now graduating college at a greater rate, I have not noticed a change in the societal expectations of men.
     The elitist Hanna Rosin might be quick to assume that because women are now earning more degrees than men, this means that men are on the decline. Just because a man doesn't earn a college degree doesn't mean that he cannot be successful in life. There are plenty of tradesmen who do not have a formal university education and who are making much more than teachers and other people with masters degrees. These jobs, which can include electricians, plummers, mechanics, entrepreneurs, and a host of other professions, carry a high degree of respect and importance in society, and will always be needed. It is also these jobs which have always been dominated by men, and due to their physical nature, they will most likely be dominated by men in the future. She also makes an attack at men based on how men are portrayed in movies, although it is common sense to know that just because something comes up in a movie doesn't make it true in real life. That is not only indicative of Rosin's lack of common sense, but a prime example of why the media today is so wrong when it comes to the portrayal of both genders.
     Because of today's fast paced society, our media has become so dumb in terms of the content and the advertisements. By dumb, I mean that all intelectual content has been taken out, and viewers are subjected to sensory overload, an orgasm for the eyes. The same has been happening with the increasingly narrow gender roles in today's media, where women are just sex objects and flirts who also take more pleasure in witholding sex from their man that actually having sex, and with men who are only interested in having sex with unrealisticly attractive women. In reality, the gender roles have become more mixed, and both men and women are interested in sex AND a satisfying emotional connection. Even with these trends, Rosin is still wrong when she says that men are portrayed as pathetic and impotent.
     Despite our modern culture, there is still value in the domestic role of some women, as the development of children is the most important role of any family. In most circumstances, men still make more money than their wives, so it would make sense for the woman to stay home provided the man's income is sufficient. Just because that same woman can go out and become a lawyer does not mean that her kids will be any better off.
     Yes, times are changing, and women certainly have the right to pick a path which makes them happy, but that is not always the best choice for the family. By empowering themselves, some women are putting their own children at a disadvantage by not being present in their development.

Podcast #4

     In this podcast, the speaker makes some interesting points on the civil rights movement, and covers a lot of material that we have already covered in class and in the homework readings. In class, we discussed the “talented tenth” that Du Bois had thought would lead the Black people up from poverty. He also mentions the contrast between Washington and Du Bois, something covered quite heavily, but I was surprised to learn that Du Bois also approved and supported Washington and vice-versa. 

     I agree with the speaker that the civil rights acts of ’64 and ’65 are crucial in enforcing equal protection under the law, and for protecting the original message of the constitution. I believe that the government should exist to protect our liberties and rights, and that is what was done in this case. Anything above that, such as affirmative action, I  disagree with on the grounds that it goes well beyond ensuring our rights. He also makes a highly debatable point that we have discussed extensively in the beginning of the year, that America is not in a “post civil rights age”, or post racial. He asserts that race issues today still matter and that there are some new civil rights that have not been protected. He calls this the 4th phase of the civil rights movement. 

    I disagree with the claim that there are still rights which are ignored and not protected. He mentions that gays are one of these examples, however, gays are not beaten up in the streets, denied access to any public place, or disenfranchised. Gays are just upset that they cant be a part of an institution which was created to raise children, something which a gay couple cannot produce. The tactic of many on the radical left today is to divide people up by class and to then pander to each, calling them the victims of some sort of oppression, and then handing out goodies in exchange for votes. This is in direct opposition to the spirit of the constitution which is supposed to unite us. 

     I would have to agree with what he calls the “conventional” view of the civil rights movement and say that there was both a good and bad side, and that the good side is what should be remembered and studied because of what it produced with non-violence. Dr King is rightly celebrated as the leader of this “good” side because of the non-violent movements he led so that many could get equal protection under the law. What did “black power” achieve? The bad side just incited violence while bringing up the divisions that most Americans wanted to put behind them. So the conventional view of history, in my view, is that way for a good reason. 

Podcast #3 Response, "The significance of Reconstruction"

     After listening to the podcast, I was convinced that the period of Reconstruction is crucial to understand if one wishes to have a complete understanding of our country's history. What especially struck me as fascinating was the transformation in the role of the federal government from before the war to after. Before the war, the federal government was seen as an entity which must not expand in order to protect liberty and freedom as the founders saw it. However afterwards, the federal government was seen as the institution which would be best able to enforce the necessary laws to ensure the ever expanding freedoms were upheld. As mentioned by Foner, the very wording of the bill of rights, such as ,"congress shall pass no law", demonstrated the view of the country at this time, that the federal government must have restrictions placed upon it to preserve liberty. As time goes by, the attitudes change, and the wording of the ammendments goes along with it. In the 14th ammendment, it states, "Congress shall have the power to enforce...". This clearly demonstrates an ideological shift in who is going to protect out liberties. The period of reconstruction not only sought to reconstruct the political system of the South, but to rearrange the power of the federal governments with regard to the states.
     I am deeply saddened and dissappointed that Eric Foner, a so-called intellectual, would not believe in American Exceptionalism. I do not see how anybody, especially somebody who has had the blessing and tremendous opportunity of being born in this country, could be called an an intellectual if he does not realize (or "realise", as he might prefer) that America has always been the hope of the Earth and the Nation most dedicated to liberty for each time period it has been in. It is true that by modern definitions, this country has not always been "free", but by the definition of liberty and freedom in each respective time period, this country has always been at the forefront. It was not an issue that "only" white men could vote or become citizens in the early days, for even the idea that a people can govern themselves and rights to influence and obtain political power were not only restricted to a wealthy elite was truly revolutionary. This country has consistently been adapting to the ever-expanding definition of what truly makes man free. Also, If America were not so exceptional, why would we have had a massive influx of immigrants from every single part of the globe? Is this just because America is just another country? This is a major issue I have with his thinking, and maybe he says that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism to appease a crowd of foreign students, but the attitude that Americans should be guilty for being a productive country is persaive through the upper echelons of university educators, and is in itself a dangerous threat to the maintenence of a society that is truly free.

Podcast #2

     I believe, after listening to this podcast and after reading all of the class materials, that sectionalism really grew along the border and made the civil war possible. The increasingly radicalized parts of the border who looked towards different economic systems to support themselves grew increasingly tense as the issue was forced to the forefront of national politics. There had never really been an increase in the territory of slavery before like there could have been, and the Republicans made the issue become a hot topic. Ayers notes that families and towns along the border that had once been close together and had friendly relationships now looked at each other with animosity. I find this profoundly intriguing, as they have been able to tolerate slavery for so long, but just then when states begin to secede do they have hostilities towards each other.
     My reaction to this podcast is quite interesting and mixed. When I was able to stay awake for it, it made me think how his students are even able to stand listening to him, as there are no points at which he makes a concise point. At other times, especially right before he was about to end, I was left in awe of how he was able to ramble on for so long with so many seeminlgly unconnected points and then finally tie them back together.
     I am left with a couple of questions about the Civil War, however. More specifically, how was it that the Union kept up its morale to preserve itself when times got tough? I would like to know more about the inner workings of the government at that time, which is why I am going to begin to read "Team of Rivals".

Journal 4: How should John Brown be remembered?

     John Brown was a man who used his anti-slavery political views and warped sense of what Christianity stood for to justify violence. The definition of a terrorist is the use of violent acts to try to frighten people as a way of advancing a political goal. What John Brown did at both Pottawatomie and Harper's Ferry would certainly fall under this definition. He killed individuals, depriving them of their lives without due process of law, for the purpose of advancing the cause of abolitionism. No matter whether the cause is worthy or not, the violence he used in his attacks still categorizes him as a terrorist. The definition must be applied when the acts fit under terrorism, not just when the acts are for a seemingly unjust cause or the acts are commited against ourselves. For example, al Qaida would not consider themselves as terrorists, and there are many sympathetic to their cause that would feel the same way. But under the definition, they are using violence, in the most extreme way, as a means of intimidating people and advancing their political goals. John Brown lived in America, which even back then was the most free and open country, and the country where anybody can rise from nothing and become influential in politics. This country was founded, in part, of the principle of self-government. So if John Brown wanted to impact political change, he could have run for office or convinced people through speaking or the press that his cause was one worth voting for a candidate for. He did not go through the established political channels in this country, and instead chose to violate the natural laws upon which our country is founded. He chose to deprive individuals, who were not violating the law, of life without due process, and that is why he is not a hero. He would have been a hero if he had managed to convince people that slavery was wrong by legitimate political means such as running for office, but he did not do so. Although people today see a man who stood up for what he believed in, he committed murders and the political cause does not make the murders any less wrong.

Do Slaves Have the Right to Kill in Order to Obtain Their Freedom?

Journal #3: To Secure Freedom, Did Slaves Have the Right to Kill?

     A life in slavery must have surely seemed hopeless, and the thought of freedom would have caused desperation in most slaves. The notion that it is wrong to kill that is universally shared would be severely altered since the slave would have feel as though the master has taken away their life. Killing their master might have seemed like a reasonable way to secure freedom, but it could also have disastrous consequences that limit what small freedoms a slave might have. 

     The founding principles of this country should not just apply when there are good times, but in bad times too. One of this country’s founding principles is the right to life, and although a slave would definitely have had some people in society trying to take advantage of them (slave holders), that does not mean that a slave has the right to deprive the master or anybody else of their life without a credible threat to theirs. It is the rule of law that governs man in this country, not the feelings of one man at one moment. 

     Since I believe that the institution of slavery was wrongful and deprived the enslaved persons of liberty, I would have encouraged them to run away. In that case, there may have been people looking to kill them, and in the event someone was about to cause harm to or kill a slave, I would not see any problem with deadly force in self-defense. In the case of self-defense, any man should and does have the right to kill someone else, so the slave would be morally just by saying since their liberty was being deprived, they ran, and since their life was threatened , they had to use deadly force. The notion though that a slave had the right to kill the master without a threat to their life, I disagree with. The masters often did not intend to harm or kill the slaves, as keeping them alive would be a much better investment. 

     To conclude, although the slaves were in a desperate situation, there are laws that prohibit the deprivation of life, so there would need to be an immediate threat present in order for a slave to justifiably kill their master in order to obtain freedom.