Buffet History

History is always told to be the key into understanding the complexities of the present by turning to the past.

Conflict and Acts of Self-righteous Justice are two of the oldest actions that we as a people take upon another group of people. Whether it be between classes, nations, or religions, History provides us we precedences that can help us make a decision toward the eradication or advancement of such actions.

But when we omit, dilute or other wise tamper with History, how does that affect the outcome of or judgments, or even or identity as a nation?

Even if we start at the beginning of “our History”, we cannot get more than a few pages in without seeing glaring disparites.

We generally begin by stating that Columbus “discovered” America, even though we acknowledge that there were other inhabitants on the land prior to.

This is just the beginning in the ethnocentric interpretation that we allow to be called our “History.”

There is much dispute as to who actually discovered North America, discovered in the context, that they were the first to arrive.

Some say it was the Africans, some say the Norse, some even say that inhabitants of Asia came over as far back as BC. It is an issue of much debate for anthropologists, geologists, and historians alike. But what is not disputed is that it was not Columbus.

Now it could be stated that we use Columbus because it is a solid fact, to which we can rely on and teach to our children-that Columbus did in fact go there. However, there is so much we don't even know about Columbus himself.

His origins, purpose, and likeness are all undetermined. But what we do know is the slaughter he created in Hispaniola.

What we also know, is that he helped bolster the slave trades to such propositions that it helped to wipe-out many Caribbeans, Africans, Cubans, and other natives.

Accelerating the slave market, and the amount of foreign currency and items within the regions.

Some where completely enslaved, such as Hispaniola, while others like Africa saw a bit of profit for a period of time.

Profits that propelled their peoples closer to the “better life.”

We honor the effigy of a man we barely knew that did more confirmed damage than good in the sake of preserving the facts. We preserve no facts,only blood shed, and for this we learn nothing from the mistakes, except how to bury them.

In conclusion of Class

In the assessment of class we are not placing an amount of worth on a person, but setting the limits to their success. Although there are a lucky few who are able to greatly improve their lives and raise their class, most fall do not stray far from it.

The duality that exists within the identification of classes is acknowledging the advantages, and creating programs that are meant to lessen the disadvantages.

We create these programs, aid funds, and other means to lessen this gap, yet we do little to nothing to improve their home lives.

We place such importance of psychological triggers as factors that determine who we are and what we will become. And yet, we allow these conditions go unaccounted for within the lives of children living in poverty.

The class divide is an obvious picture of the disparities in essentials in our society. We can see through class, what challenges the individual will have to face.

Only through cognitive dissonance do we allow systems so obviously detrimental to continue.

Rainbow Pie and the promises of the good life.

Today I watched a lecture on Joe Bageant's memoir/ call to class conscious shifts: Rainbow pie

The title comes from an old hobo's song in the vein of consumerism's lure. The lower classes were offered a veritable “rainbow pie” if they moved to the cities, gave up their farms and grew into consumer culture.



Yet, no one ever got that “rainbow pie”. The rainbow pie, being the luxuries of the upper classes, in exchange for breaking their backs working.

There was formerly a strong sense of community among these small towns. Although many didn't have a lot of money, there was true barter-systems in place. These communities relied on each other to build barns, trade milk for chickens, ect.

And then they moved to the city to work in factories and other minimum wage jobs. Since virtually no one was college educated, many accepted jobs with low wages and no benefits. Many signed mortgages with adjustable rates. This meant that the banks could simply shift the rate, and nearly wipe out the debt paid on a property.

Another finer point of the lecture is the emphasis placed on racism in the south. It is not to say, as he puts it, “all peace and love”, but understanding and cohabitation. Many worked in the same labor line jobs, or low income neighborhoods. He ventures that it is the media, and more so the affluent spreading this myth that all “rednecks” are racist.

Probably the saddest point throughout is the use of low income in wars. Bageant's family had been in every single war since the French and Indian war, yet it still is low income. This is a very rarely expressed concern about are war logic and tactics. The plight of the lower classes fighting the wars sanctioned by the upper.

"FORA.tv - 'Class' with Joe Bageant." FORA.tv - Videos on the People, Issues, and Ideas Changing the Planet. Web. 09 Nov. 2010. .

Race vs. Class

The focus of the is section will be the class divide. But before I really get into that, I'd like to address some of the issues of race that play into that.

The thesis, and core of my view of oppression is that we must have a solidarity against oppression. This is to say that in the matters of race, class, sex, and other identities that we are viewed, and unfortunately discriminated against as a result, we need to stand together.

This is not to say that the issues are the same. To better explore this issue, I watched a debate of race vs. class in affirmative action.

The debate featured Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP; Lee Bollianger, president of Columbia University; Dalton Conley, dean of Social Sciences at New York University; and John McWhorter, of the Manhattan Institute.

The purpose of the debate was to establish how effectively Affirmative Action is solving the disparities of race and class in America.

Although several points and factors were addressed during the debate, I believe most vital were the points made by Julian Bond and Dalton Conley. Although they were on opposing sides of the debate, I believe their ideas work in concert with the main idea of the struggle against institutional oppression.

Bond noted that Affirmative Action was developed to help solve some of the disparities in opportunity cause by institutional racism, slavery, and other historical forms of oppression weathered by Black America.

Although Conley points to the vast differences that can be noted by the net-worth of black and white families, I feel that Bond answered the issue quite poignantly by noting

“They didn't beat Rodney King because he was poor.”

As Bond addresses within the debate, being color blind in America is to be blind to the consequences of race.

Race, sex, and political affiliation are not the same. In a solidarity against oppression, we cannot lump the consequences that surround these issues together. They all fall under the same umbrella of injustice, but the solution and cause of one, is not necessarily the same for another.

In this solidarity we must all accept that we don't have all the answers. We must seek this answers in each other, and as Bollianger addressed when posed the question of race based affirmative action or class/ economic status

“We want both”

Having both is the ultimate goal, and as Conley points out, although diversity in schools is important, these students go back to segregated neighborhoods, and that is the real problem.

"FORA.tv - Race vs. Class: The Future of Affirmative Action." FORA.tv - Videos on the People, Issues, and Ideas Changing the Planet. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. .

Intro to Class

What is Class?

The question seems simple, but it's far from it.
The convential way that we use to establish what a class entails was through money, but there are other factors that shape this view. These factors include, but are not limited to, education and social status.

Many in society feel that within this country we live in a “classless” society. Yet, we acknowledge those that come from great wealth. We also acknowledge the advantages behind background.

That being said, how much does class determine the course, and opportunities within our lives? Do we share the same concerns on a national level? Are we all living the proverbial "American Dream"?

More importantly, how do we identify ourselves as a solid cohesive experience when the majority of us classify as simply "not rich".

Upper, middle, upper middle, lower, working and all the micro-classes in between.

With so many classifications, where do we stand?

And better yet, who determines that standing?