Blog Seven

Anna Julia Cooper explored the sociology of race. She believed that individuals aren’t completely accountable because it isn’t the fault of one person but the entire society and culture to blame. Cooper looked at how societies dealt with minority groups. There are four models to deal with this. Pluralism is the first model. Pluralism is the act of celebrating cultural diversity and having equal rights for everyone. Assimilation is the second model which is where the minority group loses cultural variability and assumes the dominant culture. Segregation is when there’s a distinct separation, either formal or informal, of a group of people. Cities are racially segregated sometimes. Genocide is the last model. This is the deliberate killing of a group of people. All four of these models are dealing with the majority minority dynamic in society. There are a multitude of examples in the United States where all four models have been visible.

I am in a tribal government class this semester and I think this majority minority dynamic directly applies to the Native Americans in the United States. All four models have directly affected their lives.

In the late 1800s, Native American children were ripped from their homes and placed in boarding schools where they were expected to learn blacksmithing, sewing, laundry, etc. The children were beaten if they spoke their native tongue and no freedom of religion was granted to them. These schools were Americanizing Indian children and also teaching them a trade. Once their schooling was over, they were displaced into American society where they faced mental breakdowns and the suicide rate skyrocketed. They were attempted to be assimilated.

Segregation occurred when the government created the Indian Removal Act in 1830. Indian peoples were forced to move west and their land was allotted under the Dawes Act of 1887, which also forced assimilation, but also segregation. Tribes ended up on reservations, but that’s a complicated situation as well.

 

Genocide has definitely been witnessed in tribal life. Not only did a lot of Native Americans perish on the Trail of tears, where about 15,000 natives died on the march, but coastal Indians in California were legally killed. Bounties were placed on Indian heads. In the 1840s there were 150,000 natives, but by the year 1890, there were 17,000 natives left. The government allowed people to slaughter the Indians and essentially scalp them. People were granted $1 for a woman, $2 for a man, and 25 cents for a baby Native American. Not only did genocide occur with mass scalping, but small pox blankets were given to natives as ‘gifts’ but little did they know they were about to contract a deadly disease.

Lastly, pluralism is evident when we celebrate Native American’s cultural diversity. People explore native life and try to understand their rituals and practices against our own. Unfortunately, I think this is the model that is least evident in Native American’s lives in the course of their unique history. Taking this tribal government class allows me to really understand that this majority minority dynamic will never be fair in accordance to natives in the United States. I think natives just want fair treatment and ideally to be peacefully left alone. 

Drums of Thunder is a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvNAHByKPM that demonstrates Native uniqueness and a great reason why we should genuinely accept and celebrate their way of life. 

Blog Six

Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a very interesting woman. She’s covered in courses such as sociology, history, and economics. She believed that certain roles in society for women could stunt a woman’s creative and personal development. How can a woman achieve self-actualization if she were cooped up in her home? A woman, simultaneously, has to depend on a man’s income because she’s financially dependent on him, which results in an inferior status. Since there was a visible division of labor along gender lines, women were plagued with the duty of the household. Gilman dissects the roles of men and women, which was unheard of for a woman of her time to do so.

The most interesting part of Gilman’s sociology, to me, is her public and private sphere theory and also the androcentric culture she was witnessing. The public sphere is dominated by men. Men work in this sphere and interact in this sphere, a sphere outside of the home. A female dominates the private sphere, a more intimate secluded sphere. She came up with a geography to oppression. She was emphasizing that every perspective was through a male viewpoint. Males dominated society. This androcentric culture reinforced and maintained a lot of gender roles, where a woman is basically a domestic servant in her own home while her husband worked for the family. Male positions held power and authority, and what power did women possess?

In my history of women class this semester, we talked about Gilman. She was very critical of women’s domestic role. She was concerned that being a wife and a mother was just not going to cut it for women…they longed for something more. She was a member of Heterodoxy. This was basically the first feminist organization in the United States for radical feminist members. It’s interesting because this term meant the opposite of orthodox. It was unorthodox, very atypical, but Gilman herself believed in unorthodox views in society for a woman. She should be given more credit and mentioned more often in courses than she is. I watched this youtube clip on some facts from her life. “The Life of Charlotte Perkins Gilman” is a well-made clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0VYTV_ee2E). 

Facts I learned about Charlotte Gilman:

-She was the niece of Catharine Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Isabella Beecher Hooker, all very strong and influential women of their time

-After she gave birth to her daughter, she suffered from postpartum depression

-She was a big proponent of Nationalism

-After she divorced her first husband, she married her cousin, but he died young of a cerebral hemorrhage

-After her cousin/husband passed, she moved to the west coast to be near her estranged daughter

-She was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer and suffered from it for three years before she committed suicide by overdosing on chloroform

Her life was too short. 

Blog Five

Harriet Martineau is a very interesting character. She believed that “the role of sociologist as that of public educator.” Her writing addressed absolutely everyone.

Martineau’s law of social life was simple: “the great ends of human association aim above all to the grand one-the only one-human happiness.” We strive for happiness, but how do we arrive there? She studied the fundamental organization of society by examining patterns of human relationships and activities within society. Her comparative approach led her to look at things such as attitude towards money, nature, entertainment, norms of housing, sexuality, etc.

But one of the most interesting things she talked about was anomaly. This term refers to the misalignment between morals and manners. This disruption essentially inhibits happiness. If the United States values things, or preaches to value certain traits, such as freedom and equality, then why do anomalies exist? Wage gaps, access to education, sexism, discrimination, women’s lower status—all of these things are a disruption to happiness. This isn’t equality, and some of it is just down right bull. Then there’s Gross National Happiness. And what the hell is that? With no universal definition of happiness, what would the GNH be? The term was coined by the fourth Dragon King in Bhutan. He was committed to building an economy that would serve their culture and Buddhist values. Their economic development should be balanced with the people’s well-being. As a goal, their cultural life should have a stronger sense of community.

I think it’s interesting if you ask someone to define happiness or the essentials to make you happy; everyone’s answer will vary with some overlapping. If you ask an eight year old boy what makes him happy, he might say a toy or a bike. Some people may say money, others may say Jesus, some may say just being alive. That’s exactly what this youtube video did called “What IS Happiness?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUHdwB-ph0). Some people say their relationship makes them happy, shopping, love, their children, etc. At the same time, some people say that the harder you try to be happy, the unhappier the individual becomes. One man says it’s hard to be happy when he continues to see poor people clash with rich people. There are unlimited answers to this question. 

Blog Four

Max Weber, in his writings, described power and authority. Power is the likelihood that your demands are obeyed; a domination. Authority is a type of power; a legitimate domination. People are accepting of it. Weber highlights three types of authority:

1.      Rational

2.      Traditional

3.      Charismatic

Traditional authority is all about doing things the way they have always been done. Usually, these traditions are passed down from generation to generation, and also consist of religion and beliefs. Rational authority is about laws and knowledge. Charismatic authority is all about exercising a compelling inspiring charm. This person or group is fascinating and strong in character.

I think charismatic authority is specifically intriguing. I looked up ten influential charismatic leaders on the web, just for fun, and came up with this list:

10. Napoleon Bonaparte

9. Fidel Castro

8. Winston Churchill

7. Mahatma Ghandi

6. Adolf Hitler

5. Martin Luther King, Jr.

4. Malcolm X

3. Nelson Mandela

2. Joseph Stalin

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

These aren’t in any specific order of importance. A charismatic leader is said to possess certain traits, such as: self-confident, inspirational, articulate, revolutionary, and being supportive. As anyone can tell, most of these listed people are political leaders. They served as leaders of countries, leaders of civil rights movements, and sometimes, leaders of genocides. All of these individuals possessed charisma. I found a video on youtube which reminded me that some of the most charismatic speakers aren’t famous people at all, they’re blended into society with all of us. This college professor speaks at graduation about the cancer he was diagnosed with and the advice he has for students. I think some of the best speeches can bring tears to someone’s eyes. These speeches usually can relate to each and every one of us and in this video in particular, I felt like it was my dad talking to me about life, because he was relatable and very commendable. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WmryhioApY).