Author: ADRIENNE HUANG

“I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell made this statement in opposition to slavery reparation.

“We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We elected an African American president,” He added.  It is inexplicable that McConnell seems to believe that Barack Obama’s presidency was a form of reparation. Besides, the Civil War fighting centered largely on the North-South divide on economic interests and cultural values than the cause of slavery.

The argument that “slavery has nothing to do with this generation therefore we are against any form of reparation” is somewhat logical; however, not necessarily the best argument. As we have seen in history, reparations have been paid to the Japanese for their loss of property and freedom during WWII; compensations had been issued by Congress to reward native tribes whose land has been taken forcibly by the U.S. The taxpayers that funded the reparations at the time of compensation issuance were not necessarily responsible for the Japanese’s treatments during WWII and natives deprivation of land that happened decades ago. As such, reparation is not considered an individual responsibility, but collective responsibility as American citizens towards those who had been oppressed in the past.

As we have seen from these precedents, slavery reparation is not impossible, but certainly in the case of slave descendants will be much more difficult to implement than the cases mentioned previously. But more studies should be conducted to configure the details of who should be eligible for reparation, where the money comes from, and how it can be administered.

In section IV, “The Ills That Slavery Frees Us From,” Coates narrated history to the readers, establishing a foundation for readers to understand ongoing conflicts that will be illustrated later in the reading. Coates demonstrated changes that society had undergone before and after slavery became a legalized institution by pointing out that racism did not occur until after the legalized slavery was established. This system was designed to be perpetual to facilitate the economy and secure wealthy landowners’ property. Coates supports this claim by providing historical facts; he cited Bacon’s Rebellion in which ‘blacks and whites joining to burn down Jamestown.’ At the time, African slaves and white indentured servants had similar financial circumstances. In contrast, lower-class white would later align with the upper-class whites to give their race an advantage, thereby forming the black and white division. Coates also presented life stories and used primary sources to connect to the readers. Cortes mentioned ‘Henry Brown, a slave in Richmond, Virginia’ and included his diaries to show the enslaved community’s fear for forced-separation from family.

In Section V, ‘The Quiet Plunder’ and section VI, ‘Making The Second Ghetto.’ Coates dived deeper to show that new legislation that seemed revolutionary, such as the New Deal that promised support for those in need, was usually not available to all African Americans and benefited the whites. Coates used this White man’s quote referring to his black neighbor who was “probably a nice guy, but every time I look at him I see $2,000 drop off the value of my house.” to support his argument because this shows the opposite view, as well as how this demonstrates that banks and federal policies had strategically developed the material reality unfair to African Americans. Coates quoted this two times and referred back to it once more in the conclusion piece; this created a memory point using a central point that runs throughout the text. I thought this interpretation was strong and worked very well for supporting the author’s claim.

Michelle Alexander starts the introduction by using Jarvious Cotton’s case that three generations could not vote due to different constraints. Immediately I thought, this is a very particular case that is not representative of the entire colored community and that comparing the criminal justice system to the Jim Crow was a bit extreme. Later, Alexander moves to explain her shift in beliefs: From seeing the comparison between the Drug war and Jim Crow as ‘absurd’ to come to believe that mass incarceration is a ‘well-disguised system’ of legalized racism. By mentioning her experience working for ACLU and her changing views, Alexander relates herself to the readers, setting us up by placing us into a neutral and nonjudgemental position.

Throughout Alexander’s writing, the thesis was evident. Numerous times, she emphasizes that this book intends to demonstrate the persistence of legalized discrimination and ‘stimulate a much-needed conversation’ regarding this topic. Alexander claimed that “we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” Statistics and facts supported this view: White youths have a higher tendency to engage in drugs compare to people of color; however, mass incarceration is submerged with people of color. The statistics provide strong evidence by revealing the questionable contradicting facts indicating that the system has propelled people of color into incarceration and protected whites from getting this status. As a result, stereotypes are being formed and consolidated. This unhealthy cycle continues leading to practices of legalized discrimination, allowing racial injustice to persist but in a slightly altered form. Alexander was right that the criminal justice system’s problem should be informed to a broader audience and stimulate more conversations to establish a new social consensus. However, mass incarceration still does not have the same degree of severity as Jim Crow. Liberty and equality that was promised cannot and should not be reversed. Even though mass incarceration is virtually another form of legalized segregation, it is also critical to acknowledge the liberty and freedom that the colored community had achieved.

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5875835/sci-fi-movie-snowpiercer-is-one-of-the-most-political-films-of-the

“So long as the system exists as it is, those who seek to change it are doomed to become chewed up by it.” … the only way to change ……“is exploding the order as it exists and embarking upon something new entirely, even if that something new leads to certain death.”

vThis review based on the movie Snowpiercer was written by Emily VanDerWerff, who claimed that preexisting order must be destroyed in order to establish a new one. VanDerWerff supports this view by linking Bong Joon-ho’s use of rhetorical strategies in the last scene which “blatantly evoke Adam and Eve”. Toward the last quarter of the movie when Curtis reached Wilford’s compartment, there was a moment of hesitation when he(Curtis) was offered the supreme role but abandoned the temptation when he realized sacred engine relied on Child labor to properly function. In VanDerWerff’s view, it was from this point that Curtis realizes the goal of the revolution which led him to destroy the current system by blowing up the train, sacrificing the death of hundreds to initiate a new system.

I found this view inspiring since I had different interpretations when watching the film. As oppose to VanDerWerff’s view, I believed that Bong intended for the audience to see that revolution can be disruptive and led to the eventual death of the entire human race. Based on the assumption that the children survived from the explosion became targets of the polar bear, we can thus deduce that this revolution has not only caused fatal destruction but has also shattered the future of humanity. Assuming that all of the above is true, the director’s intentions are clear. The continuation of human civilization is dependent on a certain class model, some sort of social class, and order must exist in a community to maintain balance. 

However, since the movie was left with an open ending, both interpretations are not absolute. Perhaps the goal of the revolution is to exchange one generation’s sacrifice, for the next generation’s dignified life, or perhaps war and revolution simply result in different patterns of power distribution, while problems of poverty and class stratification continue.

Pg. 118

“Once again, Relative Valorization is inextricably linked to civic ostracism.”

Kim’s main argument in the paper is the assertion that white dominance persisted during colorblindness by the use of relative Valorization and civic ostracism. The transition from before and after 1965 was merely adjusting the use of racial terms into cultural terms. Abandoning the biological inferiority approach, the architects of social hierarchy— or the opinionmakers who are often white—takes the other cultural distinction approach to maintain their status. Here in the quote, “relative valorization” refers to the model minority comment made by whites. Asian Americans were being portrayed as the model minority group; the trend of disengagement in politics among Asians was being credited as the reason for their success. “Civic Ostracism” refers to the over-generalization of diversity within Asian communities and cultural distinction made by the opinionmaker onto the minority group. As Kim had provided evidence, citing the work of William Peterson, the success of Japanese Americans was attributed to their “Tokugawa” cultures, even though much of the Japanese descents were born as American citizens. This classification of cultural values concerning social status established by Whites resulted in the persistence of White dominance in the U.S. Racial triangulation had contributed to this cause.

Akdong Musician(AKMU) – 얼음들(MELTED) M/V

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUCIzn0mRHc

The music video started with a scene featuring an older adult living in a skyscraper overlooking the busy city(0:01), his pet lizard wriggles in the cage glass. This first scene was filmed in a cool color tone; the lizard at the start of the scene indicates indifference and coldness in the man’s heart. The man thinks back to his past in which he leaves home for his passion for photography. (0:20)Accompanied by a joyful rhythm, the next scene shows a young boy carrying a camera. It is worth noting that the scene’s color and lighting are bright and warm, symbolizing hope, opportunities, and the unknown awaits.  (0:58)The boy boards a taxi but was dislodged shortly by the annoyed driver after taking pictures of him and his belongings. (2:16)Later, he meets a woman who lets him take photos of her, and was kind to give him a ride, but later he was brought to a pub and left with a receipt(2:47). (3:08)Unable to pay, he was injured by the owner during which his camera was broken. (3:40)While he was at the police station with his broken camera attempting to receive some assistance, the officers were busy dealing with other matters and ignored him, perhaps seeing him as unimportant. 

(4:03)In the pre-ending scene, he disappointedly leaves the police station. Along his journey, he encountered a dog he tried to befriend. The dog was being unfriendly and barked at him(4:24). This scene sums up the similarities in the previous event. The young boy offers kindness to others but was rejected because those around him cared more about secular matters and were too concerned about their own lives to notice a helpless boy. Fortunately, the dog’s owner(4:46) appeared: a native American man became the turning point. He sees the boy and offered to fix the broken camera. This action cured the boy and brought a smile back to his face. (5:10)The music video ends with the first set with the older adult putting down a glass with melted ice. The last scene correlates with the song title as well as the main theme of the piece.

We live in a Capitalist society where most individuals goal relates to success and wealth. Nowadays, since people are more concerned with time management and being productive, aspects of communication are being neglected. In the old times and perhaps some rural areas today, neighbors would befriend each other; people are more friendly to strangers. This is not the phenomenon today, especially in a city setting like that of the music videos. The artist and producer are trying to point out this fact and convey to the audience how little actions could change one’s life, how little kindness could bring warmth to others’ hearts, and revive them from hopelessness. The music video was filmed from the boy’s point of view, echoed with the lyrics “Why are they so cold” referring to the adults’ world. The cool tone of the old man’s setting contrast with the warm tone of the boy’s scent. Perhaps the start and end scene indicated that he has become one of the city working people that has a lack of concern for others. There is a contrast between nature and city life can also be the artist’s way of encouraging city people to take a break from the busy working life, take a moment to enjoy life, come to the realization for humanity.