Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 14, 2008
Journal #22 Ruiz de Burton
Quote:
"Only let us out in time to bring the milch cows home,before night comes on,'said old Miller,dryly.
'Exactly , we want to look after our cows, too'"(Ruiz de Burton 95).
Summary:
The newly granted land owners have come to the estate of Don Mariano to discuss the the land and cattle situation.
Response:
The new landowners have just acquired new land from Mexico and they have come to Don Mariano's estate to tell him to get out of the cattle business. The irony is how the landowners are complaining about the cattle yet they are so worried about bringing their cattle back to their pasture before it is to late. This helped shape the publics opinion by showing just how unlogical the demands of the new land owners were. It also played into the emotions of the public opinion by showing how demanding the new land owners were to the current land owners. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo much of Mexico's land was given to the government of America. Here is where the problem lay, you were expecting people who had been living on and working the land for hundreds of years to give up land that was their's overnight. I can just imagine just how much of a issue this must of caused. Of course public opinion did not care about the Spanish and Mexican landowners, public opinion expected the Spanish and Mexican's to hand over the land unconditionally. What Ruiz de Burton did to sway public opinion was to point out the ironies and hypocrisies of the white people. In the above quote the white people have come to complain to Don Mariano abou t how his cattle have destroyed their crop.At the same time they are so worried about their cattle. You can not have it both ways. Either you want to raise cattle or you want to raise grain( which is what they propose Don Mariano does). Their is also another big irony that I forgot to point put, Don Mariano proposes they grow fruit bearing trees and plants instead of grain but the white's are so stuck on growing grains. Don Mariano proves to be the smarter of the three because the county of San Diego later in the states life becomes known for an excellent place to grow oranges and grapes just as Don Mariano had suggested.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The irony in,"Life among the Piutes".
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 14, 2008
Journal #21 Winnemucca
Quote:
"You call my people bloodseeking. My people did not seek to kill them, nor did they steal their horses,-no,no,far from it.During the winter my people helped them"(Winnemucca 504).
Summary:
Winnemucca is defending her people by showing how the whites are the "savages", not the Native Americans.
Response:
The irony behind the above quote is that the real savages are the white people themselves, not the Native Americans. When the European's came and saw the way the Native American communities lives and ate they titled them all savages or beasts. The Europeans could not have been more grosely wrong. The Native Americans were the much more civilized of the were societies. They knew how to plant and harvest their land, they knew how to hunt efficiently and their general hgeine was of a much higher standard. The European's are the real savages because they never bathed, enslaved people and killed and ran the Native Americans off their land. This irony that Winnemucca brings up helps sway the public opinion because it shows just how brutal and barbaric the Europeans were compared to the Native Americans. I just find it hard to believe that the Native Americans would have to defend themselves against such ugly name calling.A lot of times, especially in the winter,if the Native American's had not taken care of the Whites than many of them would have perished. The whites would have perished because they did not know how to work the land or how to build shelters in the cold enviroment. This helps to shape the public's opinion by pointing out who the real "savage" was. Although I do think that it took the public a long time to accept this new view of the Native American.
English 48B
February 14, 2008
Journal #21 Winnemucca
Quote:
"You call my people bloodseeking. My people did not seek to kill them, nor did they steal their horses,-no,no,far from it.During the winter my people helped them"(Winnemucca 504).
Summary:
Winnemucca is defending her people by showing how the whites are the "savages", not the Native Americans.
Response:
The irony behind the above quote is that the real savages are the white people themselves, not the Native Americans. When the European's came and saw the way the Native American communities lives and ate they titled them all savages or beasts. The Europeans could not have been more grosely wrong. The Native Americans were the much more civilized of the were societies. They knew how to plant and harvest their land, they knew how to hunt efficiently and their general hgeine was of a much higher standard. The European's are the real savages because they never bathed, enslaved people and killed and ran the Native Americans off their land. This irony that Winnemucca brings up helps sway the public opinion because it shows just how brutal and barbaric the Europeans were compared to the Native Americans. I just find it hard to believe that the Native Americans would have to defend themselves against such ugly name calling.A lot of times, especially in the winter,if the Native American's had not taken care of the Whites than many of them would have perished. The whites would have perished because they did not know how to work the land or how to build shelters in the cold enviroment. This helps to shape the public's opinion by pointing out who the real "savage" was. Although I do think that it took the public a long time to accept this new view of the Native American.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 8, 2008
Journal #20 Booker T. Washington
Quote:
"...so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defence of yours"(Washington 681).
Summary:
This quote is from a speech that Washington gave at the Atlanta exposition, as a representative of the Negro race.
Response:
I have to give a lot of respect to a man that was so humble. I say this because of the above quote. Washington, as a representative of the black race, says that they they are willing to die for their masters. This I do not doubt. I really believe that almost all slaves would unconditionally do anything for their masters. You almost have to take a step back and see just how devoted and how strong the African Americans were. The cruelty they faced and the terrible laws they faced and they still remain so loyal. This speaks volumes for the character of the under appreciated and held down slave. It goes to show just how great out society would have been if the problem of slavery never existed. You have to reach out your hand and give these people a lot of sympathy for what their race has had to endure. These are very powerful words that Washington is speaking at the Atlanta exposition. I think that by saying how devoted the African Americans are, he is actually helping his race by showing their humbleness. Washington reminds me of Martin Luther King Jr. They both used compassion and humbleness to spread their words and ideals. This later worked by just taking a look at what King Jr. was able to accomplish in the civil rights struggle. From looking back at what Washington and Du Bois wrote I can say that I have earned a greater deal of respect and knowledge of these two men. At first I did not agree with Washington's philosophy but I can now say that I respect what he did and his humbleness.
English 48B
February 8, 2008
Journal #20 Booker T. Washington
Quote:
"...so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defence of yours"(Washington 681).
Summary:
This quote is from a speech that Washington gave at the Atlanta exposition, as a representative of the Negro race.
Response:
I have to give a lot of respect to a man that was so humble. I say this because of the above quote. Washington, as a representative of the black race, says that they they are willing to die for their masters. This I do not doubt. I really believe that almost all slaves would unconditionally do anything for their masters. You almost have to take a step back and see just how devoted and how strong the African Americans were. The cruelty they faced and the terrible laws they faced and they still remain so loyal. This speaks volumes for the character of the under appreciated and held down slave. It goes to show just how great out society would have been if the problem of slavery never existed. You have to reach out your hand and give these people a lot of sympathy for what their race has had to endure. These are very powerful words that Washington is speaking at the Atlanta exposition. I think that by saying how devoted the African Americans are, he is actually helping his race by showing their humbleness. Washington reminds me of Martin Luther King Jr. They both used compassion and humbleness to spread their words and ideals. This later worked by just taking a look at what King Jr. was able to accomplish in the civil rights struggle. From looking back at what Washington and Du Bois wrote I can say that I have earned a greater deal of respect and knowledge of these two men. At first I did not agree with Washington's philosophy but I can now say that I respect what he did and his humbleness.
The docile Washington
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 8, 2008
Journal #19
Quote:
As a rule, not only did the members of my race entertain no feelings of bitterness against the whites before and during the war, but there are many instances of Negroes tenderly caring for their former masters..."(Washington 670).
Summary:
Washington is describing how the slaves acted during and after the civil war.
Response:
After my previous two blog entries bashing Booker T. Washington I came to a big realization about Washington. I came to the conclusion that the reason he preached the submissive philosophy is because of how he grew up. Washington grew up into slavery while Du Bois grew up in a middle class family. Obviously Du Bois had a lot more opportunities than did Washington. I believe this is what helped shaped the two mne we read about this week. I think that the reason Washington was so submissive is because this is the natural attitude of the slave. A slave really has no options as to what living condition he is put into. The slave has almost no control over what he or she does or says. So what better way to improve your situation than by accepting who you are and trying to make yourself stronger. Washington was a firm believer in self-teaching and the agriculture business. Slaves were the people that tended and harvested the crops for the white people. There was no better way for the slave to improve himself/herself than focusing on what they did best. Now I do not completely agree with this but I can definitely see where Washington's point of view came from. On the other hand it was much easier for Du Bois to be the outspoken when you come from an economically better background. I think that when it came down to it and I was a slave during the civil war era I would have chosen Washington's philosophy because it was more low key and not as intrusive as what Du Bois preached.
English 48B
February 8, 2008
Journal #19
Quote:
As a rule, not only did the members of my race entertain no feelings of bitterness against the whites before and during the war, but there are many instances of Negroes tenderly caring for their former masters..."(Washington 670).
Summary:
Washington is describing how the slaves acted during and after the civil war.
Response:
After my previous two blog entries bashing Booker T. Washington I came to a big realization about Washington. I came to the conclusion that the reason he preached the submissive philosophy is because of how he grew up. Washington grew up into slavery while Du Bois grew up in a middle class family. Obviously Du Bois had a lot more opportunities than did Washington. I believe this is what helped shaped the two mne we read about this week. I think that the reason Washington was so submissive is because this is the natural attitude of the slave. A slave really has no options as to what living condition he is put into. The slave has almost no control over what he or she does or says. So what better way to improve your situation than by accepting who you are and trying to make yourself stronger. Washington was a firm believer in self-teaching and the agriculture business. Slaves were the people that tended and harvested the crops for the white people. There was no better way for the slave to improve himself/herself than focusing on what they did best. Now I do not completely agree with this but I can definitely see where Washington's point of view came from. On the other hand it was much easier for Du Bois to be the outspoken when you come from an economically better background. I think that when it came down to it and I was a slave during the civil war era I would have chosen Washington's philosophy because it was more low key and not as intrusive as what Du Bois preached.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Washington's backwards ideals
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 7, 2008
Journal #18 W.E.B Du Bois
Quote:
"Mr Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,-
First, political power,
Second, insistence on civil rights,
Third, higher education of Negro youth,-"(Du Bois 906).
Summary:
Du Bois is summarizing the philosophy that Booker T. Washington advocated.
Response:
The submissive route is not the way to go when approaching civil rights. I am now further convinced that Washington was completely satisfied with being labeled an inferior person. This is definitely the wrong way to approach civil rights. In my previous blog entry I wanted to give Washington the benefit of the doubt by saying that he was not a coward, but Du Bois sums him up pretty well. He was absolutely afraid of the white communities backlash. To me I can see who the braver man was, Du Bois. Du Bois really wanted to see his race achieve racial equality. While Washington just seemed to tell all blacks to mind their business and not speak out against the wrongs. This just seems completely backwards of what a race trying to achieve freedom and equality would want to do. It would not surprise me if Du Bois had a much larger following than Washington. The above quote just shows me all steps backwards that would be made if Washington's followers, followed and applied his advice. He wanted people to give up critical things that would help the African American's quest for equality. How can a group of people give up their political voice, their future's education and their civil rights and expect to get anywhere with their struggle. I just see way to many flaws with Washington's politics. As I have said before I hate to sound like I am bashing Washington but to me his ideals just make absolutely no sense.
English 48B
February 7, 2008
Journal #18 W.E.B Du Bois
Quote:
"Mr Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,-
First, political power,
Second, insistence on civil rights,
Third, higher education of Negro youth,-"(Du Bois 906).
Summary:
Du Bois is summarizing the philosophy that Booker T. Washington advocated.
Response:
The submissive route is not the way to go when approaching civil rights. I am now further convinced that Washington was completely satisfied with being labeled an inferior person. This is definitely the wrong way to approach civil rights. In my previous blog entry I wanted to give Washington the benefit of the doubt by saying that he was not a coward, but Du Bois sums him up pretty well. He was absolutely afraid of the white communities backlash. To me I can see who the braver man was, Du Bois. Du Bois really wanted to see his race achieve racial equality. While Washington just seemed to tell all blacks to mind their business and not speak out against the wrongs. This just seems completely backwards of what a race trying to achieve freedom and equality would want to do. It would not surprise me if Du Bois had a much larger following than Washington. The above quote just shows me all steps backwards that would be made if Washington's followers, followed and applied his advice. He wanted people to give up critical things that would help the African American's quest for equality. How can a group of people give up their political voice, their future's education and their civil rights and expect to get anywhere with their struggle. I just see way to many flaws with Washington's politics. As I have said before I hate to sound like I am bashing Washington but to me his ideals just make absolutely no sense.
Double Consciousness
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 7, 2008
Journal #17 W.E.B. Du Bois
Quote:
"...an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder"( Du Bois 896).
Summary:
Du Bois is explaining his idea of the African American's "double consciousness". This is the idea that the black person will always have an inner struggle between his African roots and his current situation in America.
Response:
Du Bois was a strong advocator for standing up and fighting for the rights of the African Americans. Unlike Booker T. Washington he did not want to accept his place as a inferior person in the white community. I completely agree with Du Bois and his philosophy. To me it seems that Washington, although with good intentions, did not want to see any type of confrontation therefore he preached the more submissive philosophy. This type of philosophy, to me, does not seem like the type that will cause and changes to happen. It feels like he was almost saying that he agreed with the labels that were put onto blacks by the white people. In order to advance a race and to improve their situation you need a voice that will challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that are placed on them. I am not trying to bash what Washington did, but what Du Bois said and preached took more courage and bravado.Du Bois's philosophy behind race relations reminds me of the Beastie boy's song,"You've got to fight for your right to party!". In the song they advocate for speaking out against what is fair and unjust(in their case partying) so that their message is heard. Du Bois's message tried to do this. He also helped strengthen the black race by reminding them of their culture and heritage. He made sure that all his followers knew where they came from; Africa.
English 48B
February 7, 2008
Journal #17 W.E.B. Du Bois
Quote:
"...an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder"( Du Bois 896).
Summary:
Du Bois is explaining his idea of the African American's "double consciousness". This is the idea that the black person will always have an inner struggle between his African roots and his current situation in America.
Response:
Du Bois was a strong advocator for standing up and fighting for the rights of the African Americans. Unlike Booker T. Washington he did not want to accept his place as a inferior person in the white community. I completely agree with Du Bois and his philosophy. To me it seems that Washington, although with good intentions, did not want to see any type of confrontation therefore he preached the more submissive philosophy. This type of philosophy, to me, does not seem like the type that will cause and changes to happen. It feels like he was almost saying that he agreed with the labels that were put onto blacks by the white people. In order to advance a race and to improve their situation you need a voice that will challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that are placed on them. I am not trying to bash what Washington did, but what Du Bois said and preached took more courage and bravado.Du Bois's philosophy behind race relations reminds me of the Beastie boy's song,"You've got to fight for your right to party!". In the song they advocate for speaking out against what is fair and unjust(in their case partying) so that their message is heard. Du Bois's message tried to do this. He also helped strengthen the black race by reminding them of their culture and heritage. He made sure that all his followers knew where they came from; Africa.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Whose land is it?
Gustavo Quintero
English 48B
February 1, 2008
Journal #16 Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton
Quote:
"...shall be governed by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; the law of the nations; the laws, usages, and customs of the government form which the claim is derived..."(Ruiz de Burton 93).
Summary:
Ruiz de Burton is telling the reader where and how the Untied States was able to get it's newly acquired land.
Response:
The reason I chose the above quote is because it is the closest one I could find on what I wanted to write this journal entry about. If I run onto another tangent than I apologize. I have always felt a inner struggle between the American culture and the Mexican culture. The reason being is because both my mother and my father were born in Durango, Mexico. I was born in California. From very early on I have never really known which side to embrace more. At times I want to embrace my Mexican Heritage because of my parents roots, yet the closest I have ever been to my parents homeland in Tijuana or Mexicali, Mexico( which does not really count as being Mexico). On the other hand I was born in the United States and here I have been given opportunities and education that I would have never seen If I was born on my parents ranch. The reason I bring this up is because after reading a little of Ruiz de Burton's introduction, I get the sense that she also has a similar conflict. She is a Mexican -American,like myself, in the midst of a land transformation. It must have been an extremely difficult time for the Spanish and Mexicans to have to give huge lots of their land overnight. This has been an question that has plaugued me ever since I first learned about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; How different would California and it's surrounding states be if Mexico was able to defeat the Americans and keeps the land that it ultimately gave up? This goes back to my inner struggle, especially when I consider many legislation going on.
Take for example the border situation, part of me says let them in because they want to work and make money buy another part says that if we let all Mexican immigrants in than the California will become overcrowded and its resources and money will fade quickly. I find it so hard to put my foot down for either side. It's an issue that I have learned to deal with by sort of ignoring it. I know that this is the wrong way to approach it but it's how I have dealt with issues concerning American and Mexican relations.
English 48B
February 1, 2008
Journal #16 Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton
Quote:
"...shall be governed by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; the law of the nations; the laws, usages, and customs of the government form which the claim is derived..."(Ruiz de Burton 93).
Summary:
Ruiz de Burton is telling the reader where and how the Untied States was able to get it's newly acquired land.
Response:
The reason I chose the above quote is because it is the closest one I could find on what I wanted to write this journal entry about. If I run onto another tangent than I apologize. I have always felt a inner struggle between the American culture and the Mexican culture. The reason being is because both my mother and my father were born in Durango, Mexico. I was born in California. From very early on I have never really known which side to embrace more. At times I want to embrace my Mexican Heritage because of my parents roots, yet the closest I have ever been to my parents homeland in Tijuana or Mexicali, Mexico( which does not really count as being Mexico). On the other hand I was born in the United States and here I have been given opportunities and education that I would have never seen If I was born on my parents ranch. The reason I bring this up is because after reading a little of Ruiz de Burton's introduction, I get the sense that she also has a similar conflict. She is a Mexican -American,like myself, in the midst of a land transformation. It must have been an extremely difficult time for the Spanish and Mexicans to have to give huge lots of their land overnight. This has been an question that has plaugued me ever since I first learned about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; How different would California and it's surrounding states be if Mexico was able to defeat the Americans and keeps the land that it ultimately gave up? This goes back to my inner struggle, especially when I consider many legislation going on.
Take for example the border situation, part of me says let them in because they want to work and make money buy another part says that if we let all Mexican immigrants in than the California will become overcrowded and its resources and money will fade quickly. I find it so hard to put my foot down for either side. It's an issue that I have learned to deal with by sort of ignoring it. I know that this is the wrong way to approach it but it's how I have dealt with issues concerning American and Mexican relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)