Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom

In "Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom," Maia Szalavitz establishes a convincing argument. She makes a casual claim saying that legalizing opium production will provide more benefits than totally eradicating the crop. She adequately describes the problem, proposes a solution, and justifies her claim.

In paragraph 4, Szalavitz provides convincing facts demonstrating the futility of eliminating drugs as a result of ending opium production. By following that statement with another citation about the suffering going on in the world due to lack of availability of pain relievers, she strengthens her appeal to pathos. Not only does the reader feel sympathy toward those who are in pain, but also resentment for the clear availability of the drugs that could put an end to that pain.

Another thing Szalavitz does to enhance her argument is to nod to an opposing idea. By acknowledging the fact that there would be potential problems in the Senlis plan, she shows her ethos appeal. It shows that she considered all options and proves that she isn't a blind believer in her cause.

C.P. Ellis

C.P. Ellis's story about overcoming the racism he'd felt all his life seems credible. Terkel helped him to establish his credibility by keeping that narrative in Ellis's own language. By retaining the dialect, the reader was able to better connect with the uneducated, poor older man. In the beginning, Ellis described his encounter with two young black men downtown, where he put a gun up to one of their heads. By admitting this shame, he strengthens the idea of how big of a change he endured. Sitting down and talking about family and common problems with his enemy, Ann Atwater is what finally pushed him to find that black people are just as human as he is. Although it doesn't seem like a situations that many people would have the opportunity to experience, I think that that is a perfectly reasonable way for a man to change his opinions about race.

However, I don't believe that this is possible on a larger scale. Ellis was distinguished from others because he was actually willing to work with Ann Atwater, even though she was black. When he walked door to door, he found that many white people were calling him a sell-out and slamming the door in his face. This was the same response that Atwater faced walking to the black households. Ellis's epiphany was sitting and having a conversation with a black woman, but based on other peoples' reported reactions, I don't think that they would be willing to o so far. Most of those people are probably the type who would feel more comfortable sticking to their own blind beliefs. As Ellis said on page 521, the people he met in the KKK were mostly individuals who were poor and felt oppressed by the system. They were unwilling to surrender their scapegoat. Ellis faced feelings of inferiority, and for many of these individuals, to deprive them of a more oppressed people than themselves would have caused many to fall into a deeper depression. I'm not saying that this justifies their racism, but it does prevent a complete reverse of societal perceptions of racism or other prejudice.

Myth of the Mainstream

Yoshino writes on page 605 that the concept if the "mainstream" is only fallacy. He states that although you may be normal in one aspect, you will always differ in another characteristic. For example, a straight, white, protestant man appears to be the typical member of the majority on the outside, but maybe he's colorblind, or a hairstylist, or diabetic. Nobody is a true member of the mainstream because there will always be something that puts him or her in the minority.

Yoshino is reasonably persuasive, but I only half agree with the idea that laws should cover everyone and not a specific group of people. Near the end of page 606 he writes that instead of granted gay marriage, the courts should say that anyone can marry anyone. This is an impossible thing. A law that states, "Party A can marry Party B" will always be interpreted as the law that allows same-sex marriage. It is true that nobody is in the majority for every category, but I don't believe that putting this idea in the minds of those who are considered most normal, or anyone, for that matter, would change anything. People would still get away with discharging a man who refused remove his yarmulke or firing a woman with corn rows.

The term "mainstream" is difficult to define. I would define a person in it as someone who has no characteristics that would allow him or her to be discriminated against, visibly or otherwise. A diabetic man is not a likely candidate to be denied any of his rights unless it prevents something bad from happening to someone else.

Incidents Conclusion

At the end of Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Linda is disappointed with Northern life. She finds that racism is just as prevalent in the North as it is in the South, the only really difference being the actual institution of slavery. Although she finds a friendly person to board with, no one is pleased by her presence. In the train, she is not permitted to dine with her fellow nurses, nor will she be served in her room. She is forced to eat with the rest of the black people on the train because the white waiters feel degraded to serve a black woman, and the black waiters want equal service among themselves.

Linda eventually obtains her freedom by being bought and freed by a friend of Mrs. Bruce for only $300. Linda has mixed feelings about this because she has become aware of the fact that she is not a piece of property. To allow herself to be bought is to admit to herself and her old master that she is less than an independent human being. However, she is also grateful to finally be free.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl 2

On page 68, in the first full paragraph, Jacobs writes in response to her father's former mistress putting a gold necklace around her baby's neck, "I wanted no chain to be fastened to my daughter, not even if its links were of gold. How earnestly I prayed that she might never feel the weight of slavery's chain, whose iron entereth into the soul!"

I find this statement extremely powerful. Even something that Linda's white mistress would have cherished, and many slaves would admire as a luxury had become a symbol of servitude to Linda. I find her strong desire for her children's freedom beautiful, and this quote really reflects that desire well.

In this whole passage about getting her children baptized, there is an overwhelming feeling of shame, where it should be joy and pride. It shows how everything in a slave's life revolves around her degradation and the constant feeling of inferiority. Even in situations where a white person could have the privilege to experience the air of celebration, the slave is drowning in guilt. One of the things that makes it so powerful to me is her constant reference to embarrassing her parents. She is ashamed of having to use her father's name, and feels uncomfortable knowing that her mother could stand in this place purely, in Linda's mind.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl 1

That the book is nonfiction is very important to completely convey the point Harriet Jacobs was making. Were it fiction, the reader could read it and say, "Oh, that's horrible," but have a clear conscience knowing that the atrocities happened only to the character, not a real person. As a true personal narrative, the reader loses the comfortable cushion of an imaginary world. He or she must face that a real person is telling them what happened. It also assigns a face to the occurrences in the book. Today, the average person can look back at the antebellum south and see something bad happening to a large, nameless mass. Individualizing a crime allows it to dig into those not directly involved and feel sympathy. The personal connection humanizes those who would otherwise be lost in a seemingly distant system.

Using the original language of Harriet Jacobs is extremely important. The reader can't hide behind frilled-up words and stories and still feel that jab needed to really induce sympathy. To clean it up would make milder the evils of slavery, when the purpose of the narrative was to expose them. There is also another important aspect of not changing Jacobs's words. Gloria Anzaldua wrote that you must use your native tongue to tell your stories in How to Tame a Wild Tongue because "[L]anguage is bound up inextricably with ethnic personal identity." Changing Jacobs's words would only rub out some of her personal identity, which is so crucial to a personal narrative.

Election Coverage

Watching the election coverage, I didn't really notice any comments regarding race directed toward Obama, other than him being the first black president. However, I did notice a strong emphasis on "groups" when votes were being recorded. On CNN, whenever they would refer to incoming votes, they would always display a screen with a red or blue bar crossing over a group of people. "White Evangelicals." "Women." "Jewish." "Black." I sort of understand where the interest in knowing that would be, but I also doubt that it is a beneficial thing to publish both when the votes are being counted and when the candidates are actually campaigning.

In both of these situations, it draws attention to the differences of in-groups and out-groups. When a president is being elected, you'd think it would be better to think of Americans as one people, rather than groups of people. Also, during the campaign, pointing out these differences may lead to corruption, or at least misinformation from the candidates. For example, if someone is running for president and is told that (s)he's down on votes from the "Women" group. Now he or she may be inclined to manipulate his or her policies to appeal to the females of the county. Then the candidate sees that he or she is lagging in the "Mexican-American" group. Because of this, all of the population is expecting to be appeased for their specific group needs, most of which cannot be done simply because one president can't do everything he or she promises. On top of that, the divides have been accentuated, and each group now has room to accuse people in their relative out-groups, and in some cases the president, of racism or prejudice. Pointing out the groups really only makes a mess of things.

Confrontation of Race

Recently, a friend's mom (F), who happens to be a psychologist, saw a client who was Muslim (D). F had a lot of uneasy feelings when she saw women who covered their heads since 9/11, and she had a lot of misconceptions about Islam, like the definition of jihad. When they scheduled the appointment over the phone, F noted that D had an accent, but couldn't figure out what it was. Stepping into the waiting room, F saw D wearing her hijab, and was immediately nervous. However, during therapy, F found D to be a beautiful, intelligent person who was actually very nice. When F came home that night, she talked about her experience, but made no effort to discover more about Islam.

D was seeking therapy for anxiety, and there was little talk of anything other than typical psych-evaluation-type stuff. The interaction began stiffly on the part of F, but comfortably for D. As the session continued, F appeared to warm up to D and see her for who she was, not for her own false perceptions. Although F's view changed, I don't believe that the interaction was truly productive. F was able to see that Islam and terrorism are not synonymous, but her more positive view was probably directed only toward D, and not to all Muslims, as demonstrated by her lack of interest in researching.

After reading Wachtel's analysis, I don't see the interaction any differently. F is aware of her prejudiced views and accepts them. Indifference is maybe an applicable word because of the resistance to learning more about something she knows nothing about.

Causes of Prejudice

According to Parrillo, the socialization process is where external influences help to develop an individual's belief system. This could be a teacher or parent to a child, or simply the attitude of a culture on any individual.

I believe that many prejudices are instilled this way. A white 4-year-old will gladly approach a black 4-year-old on the playground, unless otherwise taught. The two will be perfectly happy to play with each other until the parents call them back. Young children rarely seem to be affected by racial prejudices, I think. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the prejudices are instilled by adults or social influences. As children, they have not yet experienced the economic competitions or anxieties that cause frustrations typically leading to scape-goating. I think it becomes a cycle, though: These 4-year-olds grow up to find each other as scape goats, but their prejudices become habit, and their children learn from them to hate the other.

The socialization process seems more to be a vessel for the perpetuation of the prejudice, not its cause. There would have to have been a trigger to spark the initial hate, but then that hate would become a value or social norm. Once a hate has become a social norm, then people learn their prejudices through external influences: students from teachers, children from parents, workers from their colleagues.