Week 14

  I really enjoyed the documentary that we watched in class this week. I got really into watching documentaries on social issues this summer and it's something that I actually might be interested in doing someday. I feel like it's one way to get the general public interested in issues that are not addressed in the 'typical' media. It's actually interesting that we watched a documentary about Angela Davis, because I just found out that she'll be speaking at my undergraduate university (in Wisconsin) on Martin Luther King day! I really wish I could be there on that day, because I think her speaking is so real and inspirational. Ta-Nehisi Coates actually just spoke there as well - it's a shame that all of these amazing speakers are speaking at my undergraduate university this year when I'm not there! I'm in the midst of reading his book "Between the World and Me" which has been so inspiring and eye opening.

   This class has surprised me in a couple of different ways - originally, this was the class I was least looking forward to. I've always been interested in history, but I assumed that this class would be somewhat boring and repetitive. However, I have really enjoyed this class and the discussions we have had, especially in regards to relating history to current social and political issues in America and the rest of the world! This journal project has been especially interesting to me, as it's helped me realize how passionate I am about social work and politics. I've always known that I was passionate about these subjects, but it's been amazing to see my thoughts formed into (hopefully) coherent writings. It's also interesting going back to my earlier posts and seeing how my thoughts have evolved. 

  One more political post to close out this journal. I posted before that my final paper for my racism class is on refugees and asylum-seekers. My mother lives in southern Germany, where many Syrian refugees have settled since the beginning of the conflict in Syria. My mom has recently started to volunteer at a school in Germany that teaches German to refugees recently settled in the area. My mother was a high-school teacher in America, and when she left to move to Germany, she said that she would never be a teacher again. Funny how the world works! She is absolutely loving volunteering at the school and teaching adults beginning German. She has a blog, so I'll link her most recent post about her experiences at the school. http://bhejl.blogspot.de/2015/12/debos-story.html
This post about Debo really helped to inspire me even more to keep doing the work that I'm doing. My mother is very quick to say that she doesn't volunteer because she wants to be noticed for it, but I am so inspired by what she has started to do in her community. She had been wanting to get involved in the community but wasn't sure how - and then a very Islam-phobic facebook post from her brother sprung her into action. She decided then and there to get involved - it was just the little push that she needed.

I am so excited to see what the next year and a half of this program will bring and I'm excited to start my career as a social worker. I have become more and more inspired over this semester and I can't wait to see what else will happen. :)

Week 13

    "The Meaning of Freedom" is such a moving collection of essays and speeches from Angela Davis. There are so many things that I could discuss regarding these essays that it is hard to know where to start. One of the things I like most about reading these speeches was looking at the time period in which she gave them. A majority of speeches towards the end of the book were given around the time of the 2008 presidential election. I especially enjoyed reading her speech titled "Democracy, Social Change, and Civil Engagement" that she gave at Bryn Mawr during Black History Month in 2009, right after Obama had been sworn in. After Obama was elected, it was very common to hear that "we are in a post-racial society" or "the last barrier of racism has been overcome". However, people who say that clearly don't understand the current society that we live in. That is not to say that the election of Obama was not a huge event in America's history, because it was - but that does not mean that all of a sudden all issues regarding race have been resolved and aren't an issue any more. The quote that stood out most to me in this speech was "Racism has not ended because one black man now occupies the highest office of the land, or because one black family is in the White House. As we celebrate their ascendancy, let us not forget the millions of families that have been disrupted because of the institutional racism that structures the criminal justice system.

It's also very interesting that in this speech, Angela Davis discusses the anti-Islamic rhetoric and racism, based on the many issues that we are having today with the same problem. Again, this was in 2009. If this was such a big issue that she could identify 6 years ago, why has nothing changed? Moreover, why have these issues gotten worse in our society? It is concerning to me that, as a society, we seem unable to address these issues of racism in a way that enacts change. I know that systematic change seems to take a long time, but does it have to?

  I have always been interested in doing clinical work with patients, but the more systematic social issues that I read and learn about, the more part of me thinks that I might want to be involved in macro-level social work by helping to change policies and so on. It's hard for me, however, to completely change my frame of mind for what I envisioned in my future. For better or for worse, this book confused me more regarding my future, because I can see all these huge issues that I can't completely address on a societal level as a clinical social worker.

Week 12

I was unable to be in class this week due to an illness, but I did read the chapters of Sandy Schram's book that you sent us. Though I am far from being an economist, I found the chapters to be easy to read and understand, something that I think is usually lacking in most economist's writings. One part that really resonated with me in the first chapter was when he wrote about how the effects of the recession in 2008 have been systematically forcing people at the bottom of the economic ladder to survive on limited options. If we look at individual policies, we might be able to see the hugely detrimental effects on the lower class. However, if we compile all of the policies together, it is so much easier to see how we have gradually taken away policies and programs aimed at helping this disadvantaged population, especially for low-income African-Americans.

  I really enjoyed the 8th chapter of Schram's book and I agree with the idea that we have to work through these current policies based on neoliberalism, rather than work around them to address the inequalities that they create. If we only work around these policies, there's no way to completely address the inequalities that have been created by them. I also really like that Schram gave concrete ideas on how to incite change, especially the changing of these policies that inherently exclude disadvantaged populations.

   In getting ready to go home for Thanksgiving, I have been thinking a lot about my family and what sorts of conversations we will have while I am home. I am from a part of Wisconsin that is relatively rural, where people love their hunting seasons and Republicans (generally speaking). My mother and I have always been black sheep in our family regarding politics and social issues, but I enjoy having constructive discussions regarding politics. My family doesn't really talk much about politics when we're together because of the differing opinions, but I almost hope we do this year. Even though I often disagree with what my family believes, I do feel that it is important to understand the opinions of people who are on the other side of politics. Though my father and I do not talk about it much, I do know that he and my stepmother support Ben Carson (I know, it's horrifying to me too). My father's family is very religious, so I believe that is one of the main reasons they support him. At this point, I'm just glad they don't support Trump, though I think that Ben Carson is just about as scary a candidate as Trump is.

And because I love late night talk shows, especially Steven Colbert:

Week 11

I think that looking at art and artifacts from the past is so interesting and important and can show us how actual people may have been feeling at that time and allows us to compare and contrast that to today's current events. I think Celan's "Todesfuge" is such an important artifact from the Holocaust, because it's two voices are so interwoven that it creates this amazing dichotomy that can resonate so strongly with us. The two voices are always in harmony even though they're pursuing different paths. And even though more and more complexities are interwoven, you can always pick out the original voice. Listening to Celan in German, even if you don't understand the language, is so powerful and moving - I highly recommend listening to it after reading the translated poem. It's amazing what you can get and feel from something, even if you don't speak the language.


  I thought that the article by Ann Weick was actually very interesting and echoed a lot of my current thoughts on social work. While it's true that social work has historically been a woman's profession, I get so aggravated when people still believe that and see it as a negative thing. I definitely agree with Weick when she says "The problem of defining what social work do continues to plague us". I love that social work is such a broad field because I think it allows us to have influence in multiple aspects of society. But, I think that the general public, then, doesn't really understand what social workers can do. We, as a profession, tend to be in the background, which leads to a lack of knowledge about what we do. That being said, however, I don't know of anyone going into this field who is hoping for acclaim and acknowledgement. We truly want to help people, at least in my experience so far. 

   When I was trying to decide what to do with my life post graduation, I knew that I wanted to get a graduate degree in clinical psychology or something similar. But, I knew that I did not want to get my PhD yet (if ever) because I did not want to be in school for another 5-7 years. In doing much research on different programs, I decided on social work. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what a social worker did, but I know now that my knowledge was incomplete. At one point, I came across this article: http://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/reasons-to-join-social-care-2015. The first time I read it, I was inspired and excited for the journey I was about to embark on. After rereading it this week, I realize that, though it certainly is inspiring, it also does not show the whole picture. Social work can be very rewarding and you certainly have many opportunities to change lives. However, it can also be exhausting, heart-breaking, and challenging. I think that's something that this article is mentioning and something that I think needs to be taken very seriously. My field placement this year is at a school for children who struggle in regular-education settings, usually due to their behaviors. Every student at the school has a primary diagnosis of an emotional disturbance (PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, ADHD, etc.). It can be very rewarding to work with the students and to help them make progress with controlling their emotions and making better choices, but it can also be heartbreaking when some of the kids don't want to go home, probably because at least at school they get 2 meals a day and aren't abused. We do all that we can to help these kids (like filing Childline reports on families that are abusing or neglecting their children), but if an investigation is conducted and the children can remain at the home, we often know that we are sending the kids into situations that they shouldn't have to be in. It's important to realize that we are sometimes the only support system for these kids. Social work is amazing and rewarding, but it's also important to recognize that it is often not an easy job. The video below is one that also moved me, especially the beginning.

Week 10

   In theory, the so-called "American Dream" doesn't seem like an inherently bad concept. It's good to dream of success and strive for something better, right? The problem is that the "American Dream" is exclusive and only available to some people. Also, success is subjective. Just because society's view of success is making money, having a home of one's own, or achieving more than one's parents, doesn't mean that that is my view of success. Indeed, the definition of success or the American Dream has changed over the years. When the idea of the American Dream was first created, the dream was not only making money, but also "enabled everyone to develop their capacity", and to own your own home. It was an inherently consumerist ideal. In the 50's and 60's, it also meant getting a good education, as well as getting a good job - yet another example of consumerist materialism. Though the markers of the American Dream might have changed slightly, the consumerist mentality never faded, and still remains to this day. It's interesting that many of the Republican candidates focus on the idea of "making American great again" - related to both the idea of American exceptionalism and the American Dream, which are are fairly exclusive ideals. One of the Republican Party's recent problems is appealing to younger voters as well as minority voters. It seems backwards to me, then, that they would focus on these exclusive ideals that may not be as readily available to those populations.
   Something that is happening in our world right now that relates significantly to the idea of the "American Dream" is the current refugee crisis. I'm writing my final paper in my racism class about this crisis and the refugee process as well as the barriers to mental healthcare, and it still astonishes me that nearly every day I hear people saying that we shouldn't let more refugees into our country because "we don't know if they're terrorists" or something equally as inflammatory. This country was built on refugees, and yet somehow people think it's ok to turn our back on people who need our help. I honestly don't understand how people can think that way. But I suppose that this is the world we live in. Those who need to shout against helping refugees should do as they must. But those who also call themselves Christians – what exactly are they learning in their church? Did Jesus say "Love (and help) your neighbor as long as it poses no risk to you"? Remember “WWJD?” (“What Would Jesus Do?” – a slogan American Christians wore on t-shirts and bracelets several years ago.)? Would Jesus turn the refugees away and say it’s too risky to help them because some among them might be terrorists? I am not claiming to know, because Jesus never spoke in my ear. But then I’m not one of those who display Christian slogans or attend church regularly.
   I think it is so important when we speak and learn about history to also view artifacts, including arts, poetry, and music, because that is how we can really see how this period in time affected people. I'm so glad that we have opportunities to do that in this class, and I found Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" to be so powerfully moving, which points out to me that art like this doesn't lose meaning over time. I'm also interested to discuss Todesfuge by Celan. I have a German major (as well as Psychology) and we discussed this poem in one of my classes at length. I remember listening to a recording of Celan performing it, which is similarly powerful to "Strange Fruit". I sometimes have a hard time comprehending poetry as much as I think I should, but listening to Celan (in German), I don't even think you need to understand the language to comprehend the feelings and emotions during that period in time.

Week 9

I know we've been talking about Jane Addams for a couple of weeks now, but I still find her insanely fascinating. I really like that she emphasized experience as being the key to knowledge and good practice. That's definitely a key aspect of the program at Penn, which I think is great. You can only learn so much by reading and watching video examples; the best way to really learn is through experience. Making mistakes is part of learning, so while budding social workers may be nervous about making mistakes, it really is one of the best ways to learn. I also think the idea of sympathetic knowledge is extremely interesting and important for social work. I do think that learning is an inherently social activity, and that mutual, engaged learning comes through relationships with others. Society as a whole tends to see groups of people as abstract and we can't learn from them if we see them that way. Through relationships, we can see those groups as concrete and then we can learn from them. I think that it is completely vital for social workers to see their relationships with their clients as mutually beneficial. Of course, as social workers, we want to help our clients and teach them skills that they can use, but it's so important that we realize how much our clients can teach us.



When doing some further research on Jane Addams, I found a poem written by Kevin Coval on Jane Addams Day in 2006. It's a very long poem and has many different facets, but I think it encompasses much of what Jane Addams did for the city of Chicago and the lasting effects that she had as well.

remains. Jane Addams town

Jane Addams is dead
like Fred Hampton
who chicago shot
sleeping in bed
next to his pregnant wife.

for she is ghost,
haunting the utopian.
the city and house
built by her faith
encompassed in c.r.e.a.m.
(cash rules everything
around me). ask uic,
depaul, uofc, area 21
planners who dictate
and red line and run
over Pilsen, pave over
Maxwell St, who forget
what we look like
when we work with our hands,
when we hunger and live in tenements,
when we labor in unsafe conditions
and livable wages get transported abroad
and the communities left without labor
become the unsafe conditions of crack(s)
and crevices and guttered alleys before rehab

and who bought all the land after 1968
and who benefits from university village
and who wants Latin Kings locked in privatized cages
though they are sixteen year old boys who got left behind
in CPS (the chicago prison system), and the renaissance
in 2010 will be repealing brown v. board and the schools
will again look like the city and their will be no crossings;
no Devon Ave., no Rogers Park, no Little Village / Lawndale taqueria
no Hull House mash up collage, where 2000 immigrants a week
play music, sip coffee, watch theater, read books, organize labor
and their lives, together in the kitchen close enough to smell
each others funk and taste each others foreign sauces,

there will be no one left if the planners remain undeterred.
if the giants sleep undisturbed.

this is conjecture.

if Jane Addams were a Black man
she’d be dead by white hands, at least
bound and gagged like the boss
did Bobby Seale.

you can’t go into white folks homes
and get them cleanin up the place
unless they pay you for domestic work
or invite you in for finger foods.

Jane Addams’s birth right wrote her among the wealthy.
her and Ellen Gates Starr and Florence Kelly and a bunch
of their homegirls; white women who flipped, deemed crazy
and prescribed bed rest, who moved into each other, out
side of marriage and single family homes, who questioned the nature
of domesticity. the home maker is maker of culture
and the culture is broad like the people are broad
shouldered, hulling hours in jobs that should be valued like the jobs of bosses
and the fate of bosses and the people are the same cuz we live
in the same house, where we hull and haul our bodies into public space
where all bodies should be clothed and fed and coddled and caressed freely
by the hands of doctors and cooks, lovers and communists, american these hands,
immigrant and chained, dirty and clean finger nailed, raw and stubborn, the
home and public space blurred, or extended like the good and goods a citizen should be offered.
whose america are we living in anyway and who has the courage to say what could be

who constructs the chicago we call sweet
who tastes the candy, who is paying the dentist
who lines pocket books green
who blue-lights corners of brown neighborhoods
who oversees west side stoops where children double dutch
who sends fabled blue collars over seas, who pioneers
who has déjà vu, who sees colonial too, like double dutch
who is from the place they are from
who knows what their neighbors want for Christmas
who knows if their if neighbors celebrate Christmas
who is family, who counts nepotism and legacy
who is confined to the grave and gravity
who is brave, who has bravado, who aches for zion
who has been told no and never
who wakes before the sun / for their sons
who lives though death is certain

Algren said
since it’s a ninth inning town…
it remains Jane Addams’ town
cuz the ballgame is never over.

and we need heroes
who stand up to giants,
who carry a big bat to home plate
though the pitcher is throwing money
balls and the umps are in on the fix.

Chicago remains Jane Addams town
cuz Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
dream here and Haki Madhubuti builds
institutions and Lavie Raven teaches
in a high school mothers made
by refusing to eat until the children
of Little Village had the same quality
education gold coast children deserve.

it remains Jane Addams town
cuz Marc Smith is at the Green Mill
and Nikki Mitchell’s at the Velvet Lounge
and there are men and women who can’t go
cuz they work the third shift and their lovers
will miss them until morning, when they will
pass like elevated trains close enough to touch
but never at the same station cuz there is work
to be done, and Studs Terkel refuses to quit
and my father is in a basement trying,
and the Cubs put on uniforms every season,
and Rami Nashashibi is the Muslim Martin King,
and Beth Richie wants the world to stop beating
Black women and their daughters, stop dictating
their bodies locked. start freedom.

Sun Ra, Ana Castillo, Ang 13, Ken Vandemark,
Koko Talyor, Sam Cooke, Rick Kogan writes here,
Stuart Dybek, Patricia Smith, Cap D, Lupe Fiasco,
and names never spoken, faces covered in knit wool
tucked beneath the Kennedy, faces forlorn and worn
wandering Michigan Avenue, Lavel blind between
red and blue lines at Jackson, Oba Maja passing out
poems at the six corners of Damen and North Ave.,
David schizophrenic in front of the Wicker Park
post office holding out cups asking for change

who is asking for change

it remains Jane Addams town
cuz of the people
working for change
and the people
are working for change
and the people never really change
but stay working, toiling in the death
of industry, though the light dims
the people who work for change
know tomorrow is
ahead of them.

One of the passages that spoke most to me was "you can’t go into white folks homes and get them cleanin up the place unless they pay you for domestic work or invite you in for finger foods." It's undeniably true that, had Jane Addams been anything other than white, she would have been met with many more hurdles than she had to deal with (not that she didn't deal with any hurdles). To change white people's minds and to get them to care about other people, change has to be enacted by white people, generally speaking. That's a horrible reality that we have to deal with and hopefully change sooner rather than later.

Week 8

I think the speech by Abraham Flexner in 1915 regarding Social Work as a profession is very intriguing. I'm always fascinated by how opinions can change based on the current political and social climate. I looked up the whole speech online and Flexner concluded that social work is not a profession because it does not have clear cut boundaries and it collaborates with other fields in a way that most professions do not. He also says that social work is in touch with many professions, even though it is not a profession in and of itself. Flexner was careful to say that he didn't think that social work was useless, but he thought that social work needed to abandon social reform and focus more on research. Since Flexner's speech (though I doubt because of it), I do think that social work has started to focus at least a bit more on research, but without abandoning social reform. I doubt that we are focusing on research as much as Flexner would have liked, but I also don't think that we need to abandon social reform to do so. Of course, today Social Work is pretty widely accepted as a profession. The breadth of Social Work, which Flexner critiqued as a reason that it was not a profession, is the very reason that I think social work has reached "profession" status. The definition of a profession, per google, is a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. Perhaps back in 1915, Flexner could allow himself to believe that Social Work did not required prolonged training, but I doubt he would be able to say that now with the amount of training that we receive.
   I also think it's interesting that this attack on Social Work had a very gendered approach. Social work was (and generally still is) seen as "women's work". To make social work a profession, then, it needed science, which could be seen as a masculine trait. While I agree that having some sort of scientific evidence is important (we need to make sure we aren't harming our clients, after all), I don't believe that research was needed in order for social work to be considered a profession.  This speech was clearly a product of its time, though, and I think it's important to remember that. I really do wonder what Flexner would think of social work now - are we a profession in his eyes now? Since we still focus so much on social reform and our boundaries are more flexible than ever, I think that he would still be wary to call us a profession, even though we do focus more on research now.

Week 7

We did our presentations this week and I learned about so many interesting museums in Philadelphia that I hadn't visited before. I have heard of a lot of them before but I haven't had the opportunity to visit any of them. This class has been really eye opening to me because it's helping me to realize the importance of critically thinking about everything that is presented to the public, regardless of the medium. My undergraduate university did teach me to critically think about everything, however, I never realized how unfortunate it is that other people don't critically think about what they see, especially in the media. I think that's something that we're seeing a lot in the current political discourse in this country, especially in regards to Trump and Carson.
My group visited the Constitution Center, which was truly a surreal experience. The way America's history is presented at the center is such a glorified and sugarcoated version of what actually happened in our history. For me, it all culminated in the multimedia presentation called "Freedom Rising" (video below). The Constitution Center claims that Freedom Rising is the story of "We the people", which they loudly proclaim multiple times throughout the performance. This "version" of history that is presented pervades our entire society and is so damaging to the minds of children and students.
Freedom Rising Video
When researching "Freedom Rising" after our visit, I found an interview with the CEO of the Constitution Center who stated "“I defy you to find a roller coaster that when people get off it, they feel as good as they feel at the end of Freedom Rising.” That truly does describe how the constitution "teaches" America's history to school groups and tourists. You'd think that a $185 million dollar building would be a huge institution in Philadelphia, but that's not really the case. The staff at the Center told our group that the majority of people who visit the Center are either school groups or foreign tourists. 
One of the main things that my group discussed while at the Constitution Center was the lack of acknowledgement of diversity issues. There was one very small plaque acknowledging that the constitution was not created to include African-Americans and there was another small plaque regarding the lack of women in both the Constitution and the Declaration. It worries me that children visiting this museum (and being taught in the US school system) only get this one view of America's early history. The US school system does not, for the most part, teach students to critically think, so I fear that the students who see this information take it as 100% truth, without realizing how this information is presented in such a biased manner.

Week 6

These photos are from Jacob Riis' project titled "How the Other Half Lives". This project, which later turned into a book, highlighted the dangerous conditions that poor immigrants were subject in the 19th century in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Riis' assumption was that if people were made aware of what was happening in the shadows of society, people would be moved to provide more assistance for this disadvantaged population. In fact, Riis' book actually did lead to improved conditions on the Lower East Side, even in a time where society was becoming increasingly skeptical of social welfare.
    The Social Darwinism that was emerging at this time believed in pretty much the opposite of what Riis believed. Social Darwinism believed that society would perish if these poor were allowed to continue to exist and made a strong argument to not provide any assistance at all. It doesn't necessarily surprise me that some people thought this way back in the 19th century, but sometimes I wonder if Social Darwinism is truly dead. According to Social Darwinism, essentially any attempt to improve society is wrong.

  In 2011, Herman Cain said "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself" (shown in the video above). This statement exudes Social Darwinist philosophy - placing the blame of any inadequacy solely on the individual, and not allowing any critique of the system itself. Though Social Darwinism is perhaps not regarded as a widely acceptable ideology today, the theory seems to be becoming more acceptable in American politics. We can certainly still see this in the current presidential election. Many (if not all) of the Republican candidates want to limit or completely eradicate some governmental programs aimed at helping these disadvantaged populations. Though they claim that they "want to turn the power over to the states", this is a horrifying possibility. As social workers, I think that we need to get even more involved in government and have our voices be heard.

Week 5

Even though we haven't talked about this in class directly, I'm going to talk about the shooting in Oregon for a little bit. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that for such a "progressive" country that we claim to be, that we can have mass gun fatalities every few months. On what level does that make sense? I read an article this week that there are already 310 million guns in circulation in the United States, which is almost one for every U.S. resident. I know that, because the 2nd amendment exists, that we could never outlaw gun ownership in the US, but there are so many other things that we could do to cut down on gun violence, and we don't seem to want to do anything. And even though mass shootings come around with distressing regularity, deaths from mass shootings are essentially "drops in a vast ocean of suffering" (as the article put it). Research shows that requiring universal checks for gun licenses can work, so why do we not implement laws like that on a federal level? Connecticut has a permit-to-purchase law that it introduced in 1995 and research estimates that the law reduced gun homicides by 40%. More "good guys" with guns are not the answer AND people with guns are more likely to kill themselves than to kill others. For every gun murder, there are almost two gun suicides, and firearm suicides are on the rise. And the demographics of gun murders versus gun suicides are vastly different. Young black men are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of gun murder, but those who commit suicide via firearm are likely to be older, white males. And it's so easy to say "just keep guns out of the hands of people with a mental illness", but the vast majority of mentally ill people are never violent to others. The link between mental illness and gun suicide is much more powerful. Another thing regarding this most recent mass shooting that has bothered me is that now people (including many republican presidential candidates) are posting on various social media sites "I am a Christian". Apparently this most recent shooter targeted victims who were Christian. My problem with this movement is not that people are posting "I am a Christian", but that if the tables were turned and Muslims had been targeted and people started posting "I am a Muslim", many people would be saying "Why do they always have to make it about religion?". I don't care what religion, sex, race you are - you should not be targeted because of it and you have the right to be proud of your identity. I do think that it is very hypocritical to claim that "even persecution happens in America against Christians". Even though it might in isolated incidents, it is NOTHING like the institutional racism, sexism, and religious persecution that minorities face in our country every day.
              Back to things we actually talked about in class, I think it is so interesting that when Jim Crow laws were first questioned and brought to the Supreme Court, that they were deemed constitutional because they 1) Didn't disadvantage one race more than another and 2) "racial instinct might lead to violence if people are allowed to mix indiscriminately". One of the reasons I find history so interesting, is because laws can change depending on the current social infrastructures and opinions at that time. It floors me that a legal document could support and disseminate racism so directly. Of course, no law so blatantly racist could ever be passed today (or at least, I hope not), but institutional racism still exists and is perpetuated by some laws, especially drug laws. This institutional racism has been entrenched in our society since the very beginning. As Stern says in chapter 5, even when social welfare movements were beginning to gain traction, society wasn’t responsive to the needs of black families until much later. Even Settlement Houses, which were seen as a catalyst to kick-start social change, tended to lump the problems of blacks with those of other immigrant groups.
             The idea of a "culture of poverty" was also really interesting to me. I firmly believe that no one should have to live in poverty and that thinking that it's that person's fault, rather than looking at structural issues is a horrendous mistake. I know people that, even today, say things like "oh well if he/she would just get a job, then they wouldn't need to rely on the government any more". Sometimes I have to take a step back and remember that people can actually believe things like that (and worse) because it is so shocking to me. One of the reasons that I love the video below is that I think that it can really humanize people who are homeless for those people who often don't really see them as human. These people aren't "bad" people like society often views them - they are human and deserve the same respect that everyone else deserves. I'm usually a quiet and reserved person, but lately I've been getting more and more riled up when people say things about social issues that are just so wrong and I have to learn to keep myself in check sometimes. It's interesting, because I would say that most of us in the SP2 program have a pretty similar view about social issues (the beauty of being aspiring social workers!), so I don't feel like I have to hold in my political feelings, which is so freeing. I grew up in a relatively conservative household on my dad's side, so besides being able to talk to my mother about political issues, I've rarely had the opportunity to voice my opinions and I'm absolutely loving it.

Week 4

It's interesting that classical republicanism can be found when looking at Ancient Greece and Rome, since we tend to believe that good systems of government can only in the modern era. Not that Ancient Greece or Rome was a perfect system of government, but it's ironic that they were both concerned with the common public good, moral virtue, and participation in the community and were opposed to corruption and extravagance, whereas America seems to care about the exact opposite values. Classical republicanism was focused on virtue and the corruption of citizens and public officials, and I have to wonder if today's republicans had to list their top 25 focuses and values, if any of the classical republican values would show up on that list. I had a chance to visit Rome last December, and it's so amazing how deeply politics and government was entrenched in their society so long ago. Even though I criticize politics and government quite a bit, I suppose it really is true that we can't live without it.

This relates, without a doubt, to chapter 5 in Dionne, where he talks about how conservatives left community behind. He questions how conservatism could be becoming more individualistic during the same time that the religious right was gaining ground in society. For much of American history, evangelicalism was associated with social reform movements. However, as the 20^th century dawned, evangelicals adopted a new label, “fundamentalist”.  This religious movement drifted further to the right and focused more on personal, and individual, salvation. Dionne then quotes Gerson, who says “If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted, and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose.” I hope Gerson is right, but it seriously terrifies me that people could be even considering voting for the current top 2 Republican candidates, Trump and Carson. Not only do they essentially ignore those populations, they even attack them. How can an individualistic view of America create an equal society, if everyone has to fight for themselves? The reality is that everyone does not have the opportunity or means to fight for themselves in this individualistic view of American that comes from the Republicans.
             I thought the quote from Sara Ahmed that we talked about in class, "We might consider giving up happiness and experiencing life", was really thought provoking. It seems like people in general are always trying to obtain happiness, but what is happiness? In America, I think that we tend to focus on material happiness, but can that really fulfill someone? I suppose material happiness probably can fulfill some people, but I think there is so much more to pure happiness, and I'm not sure that you can consciously obtain pure happiness. I think that if we focus on happiness, we end up feeling unfulfilled and that we can always find something else that we think could make us "happier". I think focusing too much on happiness ends up basically controlling our lives and then all of a sudden, we're at the end of our lives and realize that we've been so focused on obtaining "happiness,” that we haven't really lived. I don't think we necessarily need to give up happiness, as Ahmed says, but it is so vitally important to live in the moment and to not be consumed by one thought over everything else.

Week 3

I truly believe in being politically intelligent, which is why I’m currently watching the Republican debate. It’s so interesting (and aggravating) how much this sounds like a middle school fight between adolescents. Name calling, direct attacks – I can’t even take most of these candidates seriously, because all I hear is how Obama is horrible and the Iran deal needs to be ripped up. No one is talking about their personal policies and their voices just keep getting louder.

I actually ended up turning off the debate early because I couldn’t handle the constant bickering, but I was surprised as to how much I could relate our class discussions and readings to what the candidates said (or didn't say). It's pretty clear to me that, in general, republicans seem to follow more of a Residual Welfare model. Not that they would necessarily admit that (maybe Trump would) or that they agree with every aspect, but the republican party nowadays seems to emphasize individualism above everything else. I can certainly imagine someone like Trump saying that welfare programs enables the poor and that they should learn to be self-reliant (perhaps he has already said that - I try to not read too much about him. In my opinion, the residual social welfare model is horrifically dangerous for those who can't support themselves. Where would they end up if they've exhausted all other resources, such as their families? Does the government just drop them like a hot potato and leave them to fend for themselves? It sickens me that people can think that way. I'm not saying that we should 100% support everyone in the world, but there are always going to be different classes - shouldn't the higher classes help to support those who can't support themselves? If I need help from the government someday, I truly hope that I would get help.
             One thing that I was thinking about when we were talking about the Declaration of Independence was how it (and the Constitution) is taught in school. I don't remember a lot about learning about the Declaration or the Constitution, but I definitely know that we never criticized it in school. Since it created our nation (along with other documents), how could there be any problems with it? I think that we don't believe that kids (especially young kids) can think critically, when really (if they were ever given opportunities) kids are actually pretty good at thinking critically. Why do we wait until college (maybe high school) to assume that students can think critically? The individualistic notions in the declaration was a product of those times. But we've changed as a nation since then, so conscripting ourselves to only those views in the Declaration and the Constitution is selling ourselves short and limiting our ability to progress. Clearly, the tea party doesn't believe that (as Dionne says in his book), but it continually surprises me how strictly they want to apply the constitution. My museum group is actually going to the Constitution Center, so I’m interested to see how our class discussions are represented in what we see at the Constitution Center.

I think this video was shown in one of my classes when I was in elementary school.

I think this is also interesting in light of the Stern chapter that we read for this week. The chapter was about the pre-civil war period in American history, but spoke a lot about how exclusive the constitution was originally (and let’s be honest, still is in many ways). The Declaration was based on limited democratic ideals and cited the promotion of the general welfare as one of the reasons for forming this new government. However, as Stern states, there was no mention of social welfare concerns among the newly elected congress. Providing for the social welfare needs of citizens became the responsibility of the states. It’s so interesting to me that many modern republicans still desire to follow exactly what the Constitution said when it was created as if we haven’t changed as a nation since 1776. Of course, we’ve added amendments since that time, but I highly doubt that if there was a desire to add another amendment to the constitution, almost regardless of what the amendment would be, that we would be able to pass it, due to the unwillingness of our governmental officials to work with each other. I think it’s also interesting that Stern talks at length about the immigrant populations during this time. It’s fascinating to me that we can have similar problems now to problems that we were experiencing before the civil war, namely that immigrants were (and are) perceived as a threat to American citizens. I suppose this surprised me because I’ve always been taught that America is a “melting pot” and that we pride ourselves on being built by many different cultures. In reality, though, it seems like we’ve always had similar social issues, we just sugarcoat it for easier digestion years later.

Week 2

Sometimes I wonder if I’m always going to be angry about one social problem/injustice or another. It is so frustrating to me that some people don’t get fired up about inequalities and injustices in this country and throughout the world. And if people do get fired up, they forget about it by the next day because it doesn’t affect them in their everyday lives. I can recognize that I lead a life of privilege. I am a white woman from a family who is very staunchly middle class – I have had to deal with comparatively few injustices personally in my life. But precisely because I come from a place of privilege, I feel as though I need to be the voice for people who have injustices levied upon them every single day. I keep having this experience where I read about a specific social injustice and I feel the need to discuss it with someone, but mostly it ends up with me talking about the injustice to someone and then a discussion never really occurs because it either doesn’t affect them personally or they don’t have their own opinion about it. Thankfully, I’m in a place where I can finally discuss things like this on a daily basis with other people who understand what I’m saying and have things to say about it too.

             The chapters in the Dionne book this week talked a lot about communitarianism versus individualism. Dionne says that America’s inability to understand its own character leads to confusion and tension. He also talks about Bill Clinton saying that there are two commitments – to protect personal freedom and to seek common ground - and that America is bound to both of those obligations. Many historians even say that the best way to understand American philosophy during the time of the revolution and the founding is to see it as both individualistic and communitarian. Somewhere along the line though, I feel that “community” somehow received a negative connotation.

             It’s actually kind of funny that we talked about “American Exceptionalism” in class this week, because my mom and I criticize this idea quite often. My mom is an ex-patriot and lives in Germany with her husband. She and I both criticize America and Americans a lot for claiming to be this perfect land where everyone has the same opportunities to be successful, where in reality we just tend to ignore our rampant issues. In reality, we’re all part of the problem by letting this continue to occur and basically saying that everyone can have a success story, as long as that person has self-reliance, responsibility, and doesn’t expect any handouts. My mom and I compare Germany and the US a lot and it’s very interesting to see the differences between how they remember history. Germany acknowledges its less than stellar history, and attempts to learn from it, not hide it. It also commemorates horrible acts that have been committed by Germany/Germans by some of the most beautiful memorials that I’ve had the opportunity to see. Whereas America doesn’t really teach its full history to students and doesn’t acknowledge the horrible acts that it has done to others (such as the Native Americans and African Americans). I, for one, knew embarrassingly little about Native Americans and the horrible atrocities that America committed against them – I wasn’t taught much about that time in history in school, and what I was taught glossed over the genocide we committed against them). The so-called “American Dream” is entrenched in this idea of American Exceptionalism too. America and Americans seem to be so intent on creating an “other group” and being so exclusionary, that we can never be a cohesive nation of people. Of course, that’s not to say that other countries don’t have similar issues, but they don’t seem to flaunt their “acceptance” of others as much as America does. We say that community is a central part of American thought and life, but most of us don’t seem to practice it much in our daily lives.

             Another place that we see community as an essential aspect in American life is with this idea of “The city on a hill”. As Winthrop said, “the eyes of the world are on us” so we should be seen as caring for the powerless. This Christian charity was seen as the heart of the community during Winthrop’s time. I think it’s interesting that we claim to be a nation founded on Christian principles, but (again) most people don’t seem to practice the ideals of Christianity very closely. Of course, some people go to church, but in terms of actually practicing these Christian principles in their daily lives, many people fall flat. This is one important reason why I am very critical of organized religion. Most of my family is very religious, so I respect the fact that faith and religion can be important parts of people’s lives. However, when people pick and choose which parts of religion are important and which ones can be ignored, I get very annoyed at the hypocritical statements they tend to make. (Update: I’m watching the Republican debate and Governor Kasich just said that he wants to restore America to the city on a hill!).

 

Week 1

In Dionne’s first chapter, he talks a lot about the conception of the Tea Party and the party’s amnesic qualities when it comes to remembering parts of American history. To be honest, I’ve never really understood quite how Americans allowed the Tea Party to be created – even some Republicans don’t take them seriously. Dionne explains that the Tea Party was basically founded by opponents of Obama who got angry when Obama pursued the policies that he ran on. What’s even more embarrassing to me than that, is that I have family members who I strongly suspect identify with major chunks of Tea Party ideals. (I should interject here that, while I grew up in a conservative household, am decidedly not of a conservative mindset). What was most surprising to me in this first chapter of Dionne’s book is on page 34. On that page, he writes of the 150^th anniversary of the civil war. During this time, defenders of the South’s “Lost Cause” sought to downplay the role of slavery as the Civil War’s primary cause. I’m a pretty open minded person, but to me, the answer here is cut and dry – those “defenders” are just plain wrong. I honestly can’t believe that people could possibly spout that nonsense in today’s day and age. Truthfully, the people who say that are on the same page as Holocaust deniers in my book. It’s appalling that people can deny such an important part of American history. Despite all of the problems in the school system (such as denying/hiding the genocide we enacted against Native Americans), we at least learned about the root cause of the civil war – how can someone claim that the root cause was anything else?

             One of the reasons that I find history so interesting is that although there are certain facts that can’t be denied, history is subjective. What to Americans looked like progress when we started displacing Native Americans, looked unfair and cruel to the Native Americans (and rightly so). Does progress have to come at the expense of someone else? The definition of “progress” (per google) is “the forward or onward movement toward a destination”. But that doesn’t really encompass how America sees progress. Often when we progress, we don’t know exactly where we are heading, hence there really isn’t a desetination. Progress, by nature, is subjective. What may seem like progress to someone, may be seen as regression to someone else. I don’t believe that progress has to come at the expense of someone else, but I think that it often does (whether intentional or not).

             One thing that is in the news right now that relates to this is the refugee crisis currently in Europe. Germany has recently relaxed restrictions on immigrants because of the refugee crisis. This makes entering Germany much easier for the refugees that are currently detained in Hungary. Many Germans and people around the world are praising the chancellor, Angela Merkel, for these recent developments and Germans have actually been seen at train stations greeting the refugees with cheers and gifts. For a nation that has traditionally been xenophobic, this progress is certainly heartening to see. However, there are certainly some Germans and others who do not see this as progress and have been protesting and burning down facilities meant for housing refugees. From one perspective, this progress isn’t coming at the expense of anyone, but others could argue that it is coming at the expense of the German tax-payers. As Americans, we tend to not care as much about things that aren’t happening right in our backdoor. But, when the picture of the little Syrian boy who drowned went viral, all of a sudden there was this major outcry from Americans saying that Europe should be letting more refugees in, etc., when in actuality, this crisis has been going on for months. I’m not saying that the outcry is unwarranted, because I do think Europe should be doing all that it can for these refugees, but I think it’s interesting that it only entered in to American’s eyes recently. I feel sad for that boy and his family, but there are more like them out there. I’m glad America opened its eyes to this crisis, but I don’t think we will be as welcoming when the refugees are at our doorstep asking for help. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but somehow I doubt it. In their book, Stern and Axinn say that anti-immigrant attitudes has existed in America essentially since its conception. Even Benjamin Franklin was worried about the German language and culture spreading in Pennsylvania. Despite this country calling itself a “melting pot”, we have traditionally been repeatedly resistant to that idea. As Stern and Axinn say, the entry of millions of immigrants since the 1970s has both provoked the belief that immigrants enrich our society and also the intense fear that they will steal “our” jobs.

           One part of the first class that I found thought-provoking was the Walter Benjamin text. I read a fair bit of Benjamin texts when I was studying in Berlin, but I hadn’t read this one before. Benjamin’s critique of history as progress is certainly warranted. We, as Americans, don’t really question ideas as much as we should and I think we accept that history is progress without second guessing it. I think it’s important for us to take a step back and objectively look at our history – is it pure progress? Are there things that we may not be proud of? Then why do some of us still consider it to be history? Benjamin saw history as catastrophe and tragedy. Perhaps if we combine Benjamin’s thoughts about history with Marx’s, we come up with something similar to Dionne’s view – that we progress, but leave behind chaos as well. In my opinion, that seems to be the most encompassing view of history. I don’t think anyone can claim that history is beautiful and perfect and can be fit into one nice box. History is messy, but perhaps if we realize that, we can grow from it and be more successful in the future.