Race and Justice: Writing II, Spring 2010

To those who do not know any better, the day Columbus set foot on America was a great day. Columbus Day is a day of no work or school. It is a day of fun and parades in Columbus’s honor. However, the moment he set foot on America he damned the Native Americans from that time all the way to the present and for this reason the Native Americans refuse to join in the celebration. In fact, according to Churchill’s article, “Confronting Columbus Day”, a group of Native Americans tried to break up one of the parades (3).

Churchill makes some very powerful arguments in “Confronting Columbus Day” that can not be ignored. But of course that was his intention. Who would deny that we Americans walk, sleep, and eat on what use to be Native American territory until white settlers scammed the natives of their land. I think that the Native Americans were tired of watching people praise a dimwitted explorer who got lucky in finding a new land and brought a plague so devastating on the Native America that they have yet to recover fully.

Personally, as much as I agree with Ward Churchill about Columbus Day, it seems quite impossible to get rid of Columbus Day unless one finds a way to discredit Christopher Columbus.

So far the most interesting article has been Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. I found this article appealing, because the first time I had heard of the term was in a movie named The Great Debators. The minute I heard the term I found it interesting because it was expressed as a rhetoric tool to persuade the audience. Civil disobedience expresses the view of minorities in all instances where the majority abuses their power. In the article he states that what is the point of one having his or her ideas and opinions if it will be neglected, and they will be subject to conform to the wants of many. Thoreau also uses many literary techniques allow the audience to sway in his favor. These techniques come in the form of thought provoking questions, sarcastic comparison, and many metaphors. This helps the reader relate to his message.

            Civil disobedience is a subject that still causes lots of controversy. It brews a passionate feeling in me to know that a man who graduated from Harvard and was considered a radical felt so strongly against the United States Government. I agree with Thoreau when he states that less government is the best government. Government should not try and impose their will, or answer to the elite. Government should be run in a more just way where the ideas of all groups are taken into consideration. We have a right, even an obligation to respond with Civil Disobedience in the case that the those in power commit unjust acts against the rest.  

Thoreau gave us his opinion on governmental issues and whether it is right for them to make decisions for us.  He states that the government cannot force us to perform duties that we believe to be unjust.  I believe that Thoreau brings up a great point because after all many of us question the morality of governmental decisions at times.  If we look at slavery as an example, how can the government allow such a discriminating practice to be pursued? Are we just supposed to believe things are right because they are legal? Is everything that is legal moral, or should moral things be legal? It proposes a very debated concept.  “That government is best which governs least.” This quote explains exactly how he felt towards the political authorities.  Just because the government declares something to be legal does not mean everyone should have to follow it.  Politicians should stay out of our lives as much as possible in order to give us the freedom we deserve.  Especially if it goes against their personal morals and values.  He was imprisoned for refusing to pay the poll tax, not because he was unable to do so but because he did not want his money to be used for an immoral acts.  After reading Thoreau, I saw a different perspective than the loyal one I always had.  He proposes many good points and I was very interested to keep reading.

This essay has to be one of the most thought provoking essay’s I have read. I think that it was very clever how they made an argument for injustice when it was really proving why justice is so important to society. I think this essay was about how justice is constantly changing throughout time and it is almost impossible for everyone to act just when everyone has a different perception of justice. An example of this is how the Spartans believed that any land they touched with their spears belonged to them. The Athenians believed that any ground that produced olives or grain was their property. The statement that justice changes over time is obviously true. We see that even nowadays when our government ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. As Cicero mentions, “Justice is not one static thing, it changes over time and in different places because its not like a rock, tree, or color.” Another interesting comparison was wisdom and justice. Cicero states, “wisdom, prompts us to increase our resources, to multiply our riches, to enlarge our frontiers.” If we were to abide by wisdom we would be acting unjustly because that would constitute in conquering people. The point here is that if we were to act justly than the world would be a much different place than it is today. Over history there is always people conquering lands and building empires and that is how we evolve and become more advanced. No ones perception of justice will be the same and if that day just so happened to come then we can live in a just world. Where everyone is following the same laws and acting justly. Until that day, everyone will act how they feel is just and not even care about any other group of people.

Celebrating Columbus Day, and enjoying the sports with its teams names and Mascots which exaggerate the characteristic of the race of Native American, such as red skin: Ward Churchill’s insistences of lack of respect for Native Americans, and both issues are close to our life in the U.S.A. In my opinion, I agree with his opinion which stop celebrating Columbus Day, however, both issues are another matter altogether from the point of view of race and justice. So I can not agree with stopping to use the team names and Mascots. I totally agree with his opinion about Columbus Day, because there is a clearly lack of respect for Native Americas as he explains. There is also contradiction of America’s action and history under the international law (Genocide).

As Jackson give a example, America’s posture in the first Nuremberg Trial was lack of common law, and the trial ended up as victory nation’s one-side win.  This is very similar to the history in America which one-side robbed the land from Native Americans and made a lot of victims by immigrant. It is also similar to celebrating Columbus day because American history and its cruelty to Native Americans are conveniently neglected, there are nothing to fun and to celebrate for them. I feel that the winner just takes its all and control everything for feeling comfortable or enjoying by themselves.

These problems mean that law is not justice, what a victory race did is justice. Law is not always justice but Genocide is a fair to protect their culture, life and rights for minority of race, which are prohibited that these are one-side robbed by a victory nation at least.

In my opinion, I do not think that the team names and mascots should be stopped, because I think mascots insist the existence of Native Americans itself. I am Japanese, and I am not familiar to American history same as American. When I saw the sports team names and mascots at first time, I felt it is a kind of respect for them because the name of sports team or Mascots are supported to be chose as the symbol of strong and cool. That’s why I think it is not related that race and justice so much. The real problem for it is the U.S. which does not accept and admit the history under the international law is enjoying it without responsibility for Native Americans.The U.S. should throw away the wrong justice that a victory is justice, and should stop irresponsible behavior and event.

Henry David Thoreau point out that people’s obligation are those which we should think about what our right is and we should act belong to what we think right against the government, and he believe that it lead to justice.He thinks that “Any government that is not totally just, totally moral, and totally respectful of the individual”(175). I agree with his opinion. The government which is ruled by the majority is never based on justice, he says. People is valued as a good citizen if they respect law and allegiance to the government; however, under such a situation, people serve the government as a just one of institution (soldier etc.,) of the government using their body almost before one realizes it, which means people are not treated and existed as a person under the government. I think that it is a slavery because the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses.
I think the most important thing from Thoreau’ opinion is those that we should be human to judge themselves before governed. If we have some objection to the system of the government, for example, against slavery, it is not enough to vote against it. We should not admit the government as our government, and we do not need to wait for amending the law which made by the majority. There are not including our will and not space to take it in.
As he says, “The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual”(196). The individual should have the power higher that the government. Through Civil Disobedience, government which has justice mean that it can respect and depend on individual, and its power and authority should be used for individual, not for government. Law which has justice is existed for individual.

For those of you who don’t know, Thoreau was an inspiring writer from the 19th century whose worked has influenced many people involved in social movements in the 1900’s. One example of Thoreau’s followers was Martin Luther King, who used Thoreau’s work to fight segregation during the 50’s and 60’s.  One example of how Thoreau’s work was used to fight injustice in America was during the Vietnam War. At the time, the government were drafting of boys and men into the army to fight the war without their consent. People felt that this was unjust to draft people who did not voluntarily decide to join the army and fought for this to be changed.  Because of Thoreau”s “Civil Disobedience”, Americans  today can decide on their own whether they want to join the army or not. Today, Thoreau’s work is still used including in films such as “The Great Debaters”.

“Civil Disobedience” focused on how unjust the government is. He mentions that the government not only use their power to create laws in their benefit, they abuse their powers to bend the laws for themselves when they are responsible for an unjust act. An example he uses is Slavery during the 19th century. Even though the government says that men are equal, the government is composed of men who use other men to provide for their own advantage (178). I agree with how unfair the government was for allowing slavery. It sounds like the government was being  a hypocrite for not being a body of government true to their own words. They bend the rules for their own sake which makes it unfair to those who are equally the same as those who apart of the government. One of my favorite quotes from this piece of writing is as follows: “That government is best which governs not at all”. I agree with this quote because the government should have considered laws that are in favor of everyone instead of for themselves. Minorities, or those who favor whats not in the opinion of the “grand eye” should have a voice in the issues that were being faced, and that included those were held captive during slavery.

From Pulitzer Prize winner David Mamet, comes his most explosive four-letter word yet. Race.

Race is the riveting new play by America’s foremost playwright, Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winner David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-Plow, American Buffalo, November) in which three attorneys, two black and one white, are offered a chance to defend a white man charged with a crime against a black woman.

Directed by the playwright, it stars Emmy Award winner James Spader (“Boston Legal,” Sex, Lies and Videotape), Tony nominee and television star David Alan Grier (“A Soldier’s Story,” “In Living Color”, “Chocolate News”), Kerry Washington (Ray, Lakeview Terrace) and Richard Thomas (“The Waltons,” Democracy, Twelve Angry Men). — telecharge.com

Student Rush Tickets for “Race” can be purchased at the Barrymore Theatre Box Office two hours in advance of each show for $26.50. Students who see “Race” are welcome to write about it for one of the two remaining essays this semester.