Outside post #6 for 3rd quarter:

This is the last racsim pots, kind of sad. This post is about playing the race card. We all know about the infamous O.J. case, no need to explain it I guess. People try to rope racism into everything, Ford writes, ""But by the time the trial was over, it woul dve a case about race" (Ford 313). A murder trial in which a person was clearly guilty, decided by race. That should outrage you at those words. Race was as much of a factor in the crime as O.J.'s pro bowls and bad acting were. Ford describes, "Race may have had nothing to do with the crime and little to do with the prosecution, but it had everything to do with the media covergae" (Ford 313). O.J. and his laywers attempted to frame this case as the white man making the face of crime a darker one. Creating a murderer from a once loved athlete. It sounds crazy, but it happened. The media was all over the trial, Time magazine wrote articles about how O.J. was unfairly blamed. What? People are actually buying what O.J.'s lawyers are claiming. We have made a racist one of the worst thigns to be in modern day society. One can cry wolf about racism and get away with something undeserved. Its unfair.
But to be fair, the white racists didn't help either. They are the thing that allows the race card to be played. While O.J. was complaining to the courts, white racists were saying 'I told you so.' Ford writes, "For white racists, the murder confirmed what they had believed all along: this is what a white girl could expect if she got mixed up with a Negro" (Ford 314). Notice how Names are not mentioned in that sentence, Negro and white. All you take from that sentence is a black guy killed a white woman. It wasn't about O.J. Simpson killing somebody, it was about a black killing a white. We don't care who, we care what. This lead to an agreement, of all things, between racists, both sides. Some minorities want segregation, which is a fact, but their demands will never be met because if they play the race card; the one's who want it integrated will play it as well, thus the status quo is held. Ford writes, "Racists, white and black, would agree on one point-the crime was proof that racial mixing could only end badly" (Ford 313).This leads to a new (or old) mutual hostility between races. Whites think, 'they kill us, we don't want to be near them.' Blacks think 'They are trying to make us look bad, we don't want any part in them.' O.J. was able to play the race card successfully, make the trial about race, not murder, and win. What we should be asking ourselves is, "Can't we just look beyond race?" Then society would be so much better, the race card would be innefective, and racism would be all but gone. Racism comes from steriotypes, not biggotry. Eliminate the "them" and let there be only, "us."

Blog Post quarter 3 #5

What happens when there are threats about discrimination? People freak out. They would rather change their beliefs than be called a racist. This could be said about the entire college system of America. Colleges gave into protests. Some protests are OK as long as the vast majority agrees. For example, I won't complain about Darfour protests, there is a terrible thing going on. I would for example get annoyed with something like a protest about gay rights. Many people have the opinion that it is wrong, now frankly I couldn't care less. Protesters think that people who oppose it are wrong for their opinions and therefore lose their entitlement to it. When there are two sides to a story, one opinion can't be wrong. But colleges started allowing themselves to give into those protesters demands. Ford writes, "By he 1990's, multiculturalists went the way of so many radicals before them and melted into the institution they once attacked" (Ford 267). They went from, "we want it equal" to "we want it better" to "we must have it better or else its racist." Right now, as a white male, I would have a harder time getting into a good college with the same grades as a minority student, because colleges want to have a vast minority student population. Ford writes about how colleges handed over power slowly, "Rabble-rousers who once provoked administrators to call the sheriff's office now called the shots at the office of student affairs" (Ford 267). Colleges would not normally allow protesters to the front office, but due to protest demands, had to. In a way, it is unfair, in a way, it is playing the race card.
Protesters are annoying, there, I said it. They are complainers, nothing is ever good enough. The new dean of students that replaced an older one who allowed a "racist" (but not really) quote to be in the school paper. He attempted to integrate the college, but he didn't succeed. Ford writes, "Rawlings may have thought that minority students and civil rights activists would praise his determinations to exceed the minimal requirements... Instead, the proposal was met with student protests" (Ford 269). He tries to make the situation better, and is only receives complaints about how its not good enough, and Cornell now experiences protests once again. Ford describes, "Cornell couldn't be guilty of race discrimination both for establishing the programs houses and for trying to limit their segregative effects... How did the definition of racism become so malleable that passive acquiescence in the minority self-segregation and well meaning efforts at integration both qualified" (Ford 270). Not everybody wants it completely integrated, and that should be equally accepted as the minorities. Protesters molded racism to be whatever they want it to be so that nothing is ever good enough.

Outside post #4 for 3rd Quarter:

Defining discrimination is the focus of this blog post. How is it defined and what the reactions should be. There are obvious types, chief among them, facial discrimination. Ford Writes, "The most obvious type of discrimination is facial discrimination: a policy that explicitly assigns preferences of shabby treatment on the basis of race. Today, facial discrimination is rare" (Ford 180). So if it doesn't exist, what are people so mad about? It is almost impossible for any legislature to pass a single piece of a bill that slightly hurts an area largely populated by a minority. People complain about discrimination every day, yet they have no idea what discrimination truly is. It could be a social idea, Ford writes, "The decision has a discriminatory effect because of its social meaning. That social meaning is a statement that blacks are inferior" (Ford 183). What has happened is society has stopped all legislation and racists can no longer express their opinion publicly. But what is harming minorities is a general opinion that a race thinks and acts one way. This is homogenization. Saying something like, all Mexicans are work low wage jobs, automatically makes the Hispanic think that is the place for them to be, instead of getting a good job. The community is all at fault, instead of promoting those minorities who succeed, we sometimes would like to profile them in one way. Is it racism? You be the judge.
Is racism just subconscious? That is very possible. Racists sometimes don't even know they have offended anybody, so then racism grows. Ford writes, "Racial injustice... problems of bad bad intentions-diseases of the mind, of the heart, perhaps of the soul" (Ford 188). Is it possible that people are just taking out their anger on minorities without even knowing it? There are tests run to prove this theory. When you see the white piece of paper, you press a button indicating good or bad. Same goes for the black piece of paper. More often than not, they push bad for black. People could just be inherently racist. There may be no way to ever stop it. Ford writes, "this state of mind is usually inscrutable. ONly the accused party can know for certain wether he was motivated by bigotry, and he, for obvious reasons, can't be trusted to give an honest answer" (Ford 189). What we need to know is that our subconscious may have a the greatest impact on our emotions than anything else. People can be compelled to do something just because they are acting on what they think, or don't think first. Racism, for many people, may not be premeditated.

More Racism blogging!

Well, so far this blog has mentioned many big names, Kayne West, Mike Myers, George Bush,a. But this one will have the biggest name in history; Henry Louis Gates Jr. Can people complain about something in their daily lives and force the establishment to make a large change? Apparently. What happened was a Californian came out to visit his daughters in New York and call for a can. Many New York cabbies are extremely racist. (He is black) It took him over an hour of watching taxis go by before he got fed up and walked. Ford states, "Racist taxi drivers are a fact of life in New York... but this man wasn't a New Yorker... he simply wanted to publicize the problem and prompt modest reform" (Ford 60-61). As per usual, an ethnic person makes a small comment, and a huge name backs them up attempting to change the entire system to make it unequal the other way. It worked for colleges, so why shouldn't it work for the cab system? Ford recalls Harvard's Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s words, "African American who tries to function every day in a still very racist America. In the face of an critique of "black essentialism"(Ford 60). There are a few things wrong with that comment. America is not racist, its stereotypical. How many people do you know (besides the obvious teens wanting to be funny and get attention) that actually go out and say "white supremacy!" or KKK, or anything publicly? That's what I thought.
The fact of the cab driver case is, the majority of cab drivers are ethnic. Many people are so quick to point out the one or two white racists that they desire to change the system, not realizing that the people they are hurting are of a minority. Ford writes, "Black-on-black discrimination is far form unheard of, but it did cast the problem in a somewhat different light" (Ford 67). It is a loophole in logic. A minority can claim discrimination of a different race and get national attention, but what happens when its the same race? Maybe its not racism at all. An unnamed cab driver had this to say, Ford writes, "...middle-aged black people are the best tippers of all. But I won't pick anybody at all up in certain neighborhoods, I don't care what color they are" (Ford 68). This was a statement that proves the stereotype theory. Black people are compelled to live in a bad neighborhood because that is where the others of their race live. And since the majority of the people of the neighborhood are colored, if a cab drives by without picking up any of them, it is "racist". Open racism plays but a minor role in society today.

Outside Post #2

What is racism? That is hotly debated. Can a minority be racist? I say yes, but many say no. Do past events prevent minorities from being racist? In most cases yes. The general public and the media have made it so racists are cast out of society. Racist has become an insult just as communist, retard, and terrorist, taken from a group of people. In society today, one can just falsely claim discrimination and get money and recognition. But is this a step too far? Richard Thompson Ford describes a post Katrina fund raiser. Mike Myers and rapper Kayne West are giving speeches. West goes off script, Ford writes, "George Bush doesn't care about black people!" (Ford 42). Ouch. Yes, he did just get away with saying that. Was George Bush the greatest president, not a chance, far from it. That doesn't mean he is racist. By those standards, I could go up on national television and say Barak Obama doesn't care about white people. I would be called a racist and probably expelled. He was a minority so he could get away with saying that phrase. Many low class individuals wanted to blame Bush for the storm. Ford states what the problem was, "The levees failed because they were improperly maintained and never designed to withstand a Katrina-like storm" (Ford 46). Bush, Fema, Brown and the rest may not have made the right calls, but the levees were not their fault. The book speaks of levees with no effort to even renovate them. But, people are always looking for anyone to blame for a crisis, so Kayne West simply played the race card. Bush may be a sub-par president, but is certainly not a racist.
Racism can't have been responsible for Katrina, but can be credited for a few problems. If one could call it racism. Ford writes, "Racism didn't flood the black neighborhoods of New Orleans, but racism established and enforced the residential patters that made those neighborhoods black" (Ford 55). That could also be homogenization. Homogenization says that one group thinks and acts the same way. And as blacks started to move into those neighborhoods, society started to call those neighborhoods black. And so caused the snowball effect. This leads to even worse effects, Ford writes, "Some racial problems are as bad as or worse than they were in the Jim Crow era. Black segregation and ghetto crime rates have linger and, in some cities, actually worsened" (Ford 57). Homogenizations and stereotypes have put them there, but what can change that? What started as a place a minority can go, changes into the place a minority should go. I have talked to people who claim not to be racist for commenting on how Asian's eyes are thinner than others, or how other minorities over or under preform in America's schools. They say that they are not racist, they are simply stereotypical. These things are not caused by bigotry or obvious racist, they are caused by a way of thinking. Which leads to the question. SHOULD "RACIST'S" OPINIONS BE RESPECTED AND VALUED?

Quarter 3 Outside post #1

Does racism still exist today? Yes, of course. Is it still large enough to send a crime to a national level? That question is up for debate. Has society making such a big deal about racism given birth to the race card? Richard Thompson Ford thinks so. Racism exists, all can agree upon that. Many people use threats about discrimination to their advantage. When that happens, that is called playing the race card. Ford writes about a "crime" committed against a young girl named Tawana Brawley, "When her clothes were removed, the markings were stark and unambiguous: the words "n-----(fill in the blanks)" "bi---" and "KKK" were scrawled on Brawley's torso in black charcoal" (Ford 1). After this incident, Brawley went to the hospital, and later to the police station where she identified an unnamed, unidentified white cop. The nation went into a frenzy, all over a simple rape case. Al Sharpton got involved. Ford writes, "Sharpton-not-Brawley-named names, accusinga local police officer, who later committed suicide, and assistant district attorney... who later sued Sharpton for defamation" (Ford 4). Racism has transformed this nation into one that will allow big names to cause suicides over an unproven case. The race card has been played.
How and why is the race card played? Tawana Brawley didn't set out to make an officer commit suicide. So the question is, why? Ford describes, "... used a claim of racial bias in order to gain something they didn't deserve- notoriety, attention, money, public support of their controversial racial politics" (Ford 7). We live in a society where anybody can claim something with minimal evidence to get a desired thing. The nation will over react to a minor thing even if it was true. But the question is, why does it work? America must need at least some evidence. Ford describes, "They (claims of racial bias) "work" because there are enough similar verified case for the lies and exaggerations to seem plausible" (Ford 8). Just because there were cases of police raping young black women in the sixties, it means that there could be one today. I am not a racist, but this nation has gone from freedom of expression, to freedom of expression, as long as its what we tell you. Racists went from those who's opinions differed, to social pariahs.

Advanced notice:

The book I am Reading is the Race Card by Richard Thompson Ford. This book is in no way racist, and does not necessarily represent my view (although it does a lot). Ford is a black man so the book can't be racist. My blog for this quarter is made up of facts, not discrimination. Not a racist, thank you for your time.

FINAL outside reading paragraph #12

This was John Dillinger's final try at evading the law. This time he was going to die for sure. He had nowhere left to run. The FBI kept raising the reward on Dillinger's head. Hoover and the FBI were closing in, he was hopeless. Daru Matera writes, "The world was closing in on John Dillinger. AHe had few friends, associate or relatives left that weren't itching to collect the $25000 reward on his head" (Matera 334). Even the people who had worked with him in the past were trying to find him to bring in. $25000 was huge compared to the bank jobs that the gang did. Usually, the Dillinger gang would collect roughly $125 per score. Dililnger was out of luck. Nobody would help him. Dillinger was done for, vigilantes were hunting him and the police was looking the other way on that. The two people who killed him were agents McCarthy and Gillespia. Matera recalls, "There was a long moment of eerie silence as Dillinger's blood spilled out on the cement. Then, as if by some signal, pandemonium reigned... Pedestrians swarmed the fallen felon" (Matera 354). It was bound to happen sooner or later, there were vigilantes, police, some of the national guard, and the FBI swat teams. John Dillinger died young, he was a true celebrity criminal. He is the most famous criminal ever to live.

Reading post paragraph 11

Dillinger had just escaped jail again with one of his greatest achievements; a carved gun. Dillinger was on the run at this point. He was so high on himself for his last accomplishment, he forgot all else. Dillinger who was known for both his care and his arrogance, was displaying his arrogance trait. Daru Matera writes, "Continuing west, the four men crossed the border into Illinois- a minor event that had the dramatic legal effect of allowing J. Edgar Hoover into the game. Dillinger, flushed with freedom, couldn't care less" (Matera 207). J. Edgar Hoover was the one who would finally bring him in to justice. Had Dillinger not made this mistake, and just quit for the rest of his life, it is possible he could've died a free man. He crossed the border of states which makes it a federal offense, calling Hoover. This small peice of ignorance was quite consequential. John Dillinger's latest escape was unbelievable. Dillinger was passing off as a mental patient in the prision. He somehow drew a pistol in a short window of time when the guards had a few cells open. So when the one to discover it spread the word, he was met with remarks like this. Matera recalls, "Dillinger's escaped!" the postman gasped. "You're nuts," one of the volunteers snapped, shooing him a way like an annoying gnat. "Get out of here" (Matera 207-208). The jailers believed that the old dog Dillinger was out of tricks. He escaped. It was quite reasonable to believe that nobody would even believe the postman.

Paragraph #10 outside post

Dillinger was defeated. He was in jail for the second time. Escape seemed less probable. His gang members were captured with him or already in jail. There were few places left to run. Dillinger is caught. Matera describes the events, "These bastards won't give me a break. I was supposed to be brought before the Tucson judge, but those Chinamen hustled me out!" (Matera 188). Dillinger was not getting the fair trial he believed he deserved. The question was weather or not he deserved a fair trial. Dillinger had the blood of many officers on his hands, he had stoles thousands of dollars. If it was up to the public, he'd be dead. Unfortunately, that isn't how the justice system works. Dillinger was to be killed. Either he'd be killed, or face a trial for murder. The only thing that ironically saved him was a crowd of the public. Many wanted him dead, Matera writes "Stege wasn't able to execute Dillinger on the runway, as he so ached to do" (188). Captiain Stege was only the man who was in charge of transporting Dillinger to the courthouse, he wanted him dead. If there weren't so many people there, Dillinger would have died that day. If Stege wanted him dead a little bit, Matt Leach wanted him dead more. Leach was the guy assigned to catch him from the very beginning. Leach was one step behind him for years. The papers insulted Leach many times for failing to bring in Dillinger. The force wanted the Jackrabbit dead, but they couldn't do it in front of the public.

Outside reading posts: getting closer to the end

John Dillinger's gang was always under heat from the law, yet he managed to hide quite well. His head was always hunted. John Dillinger's gang was getting closer and closer to being jailed. Dillinger didn't quit while he was ahead, he let things happen things like this. Matera recalls, "The following day, Chicago police arreted a Dillinger gang errand boy named Leslie Homer at Ohio and Lasalle streets" (145). The cops were getting closer. The errand boy who assisted them in hiding so many years was now gone. The DIllinger operation was shrinking in size each day. The bank jobs became more scarce, he should've quit. But couldn't. Also, the gang always fluctuated in size. At different times it was the "Terrible Ten" "Crazy Eight" "Savage Seven" and even the "Terrible Two" (Matera 144). These were mention how often Dillinger had to recurit to keep a successful gang, and how difficult it was to stay away from the law.

Outside reading post 1-21

John Dillinger's fame grew and grew. As it grew, the less glorified he felt. Everything about him was reported, there were Dillenger patrol cars. Policemen from all over the Ohio-Indiana area were being assigned to capture the Jackrabbit. He felt guilty and a respect for those who died at his hand. Dillinger lost his cool and wound up killing a policeman named O'Malley. Matera writes, "They would grow up bitter that Dillinger's name lived on in infamy, while their hardworking , salt-of-the-earth father was instantly forgotten" (Matera 167). Dillinger was quickly feeling guilty. He and his gang had killed many men of the law. DIllinger didn't like killing. That example is what he said to his lawyer. He was being truthful. A good strong O'Malley would be forgotten. But a criminal would be remembered for generations. As John Dillinger continued to kill, he seemed to cross a line. Stealing money from banks was one thing. The papers could write good stories. But, killing officers was another. Matera compiles, "Anger over O'Malley's death inginted new talk about John Dillinger being wanted "Dead or Dead" (167-168). Before, the papers had referred to him as a character who was eluding the government. Now, he was a cold blooded killer.

Outside post 1-21

John Dillenger spent his career making sure that those close to him would keep their mouth shut. It often never even occurred to him that one of the people in his gang would even think of betraying him. Although it didn't happen too often, it did happen. Dillenger often looked the other way, as to hope the situation would work itself out. Matera writes, "During the leisurely drive, Dillinger suddenly queried McGinnis about his relationship whit Forrest Huntington, saying he'd heard they were distant in-laws... Dillinger was naively satisfied with that, his ego blinding him" (Matera 129). Dillinger was indeed blinded by his ego and overconfidence. Deep down, he suspected something was going on. One of his gang members was involved with an officer of the law. But he almost tried to wish it away. However, this didn't work. The Dillinger gang would suffer. Matera recalls, "Miginnis met with Huntington, and unloaded the gold mine of information... It also finally dawned on The Savage Seven that Art McGinnis was the snitch (Matera 131-132). McGinnis came quite close to destroying the whole operation. In response, the Savage Seven went underground, and were not heard from for a while. Dillinger had a blind trust in the people he worked with. He should have been less trustworthy.

Blog Post 1-15

Even though John Dillenger was a famous celebrity criminal, he still demanded respect. Even some on different sides as John Jr. thought that even though he was a criminal, he was still a decent man. Matera writes, "The note, sincere or not, deeply affected John Sr. "I smiled for the first time in years because maybe he'd won after all... Johnnie hadn't forgotten and now he was going to go straight" (Matera 99). John Dillenger Sr. had always paid attention to the news, he knew what his son was doing. He believed his son was a decent man. This arises the question; can a law-breaker be a decent man? John Dillenger robbed so many people of money, yet all it took to convince his father, was a quick little letter. Dillinger was a decent man who even quickly got along with anybody. Of course, this included the man who was his warden. Matera recalls, "Dillinger had grown to like the hefty, personable sheriff, and didn't want it to happen this way" (106). Dillinger didn't like to kill, no matter who it was. Later, he gets mad at the person who shot the sheriff. It is possible that a criminal can be a decent person. As long as they get what they deserve, it is right. Dillinger would eventually pay his debt.

1-8 Reading post #2

John Dillinger was not alone. Times were tough, and it tuned out that criminal was a fairly common profession. It was in the middle of an economic crisis (the depression), and people just needed ways to get money. Even though it was an evil profession that took money of good citizens, many liked reading about these infamous crooks who managed to out-race the omnipotent government; which was currently failing them. Matera recalls, "Newspapers were bannering the colorful bank robbery stories often speculating as to who was involved... There would be twenty nine bank stickups in Indiana alone during 1933, nearly one a week" (Matera 58). People were getting desperate. Part of this can be attributed to the harsh economic times, but the newspaper publicity helped this crime boom. Dillinger was hardly alone, with this many gangs on the loose, Dillinger managed to fly under the radar for quite some time. The papers also contributed to this crime boom. By publishing the stories with such prestige, it gave people ideas. It also raised awareness. Daru Matera describes the situation of older times "This production was directed by a tough, arrogant robber named Lester Gillis who as battling Dillinger fornt page for front page on the publicity front" (Matera 73). By giving Dillinger such publicity, it made more and more people to want to be like him. It also helped that they top tier crooks were given nicknames, John Dillinger was the Jackrabbit. Lester Gillis was George "Baby Face" Nelson (where have we heard that before?). The newspaper gave them such prestige for breaking the law; and that inspired more people to be like Jackrabbit and Baby Face.

OUtside reading post 1-8 part one

(I'm a little behind but I'm catching up.) John Dillenger is often portrayed as an underdog in society who just goes with what his superiors tell him. Daru Matera explains how Dillenger makes the leap from farm boy to criminal. Even as a criminal, he started out small, robbing stores for small prophet. Matera describes, "It's not known how much they netted, probably no more than one hundred dollars-a good chunk of which was turned over to Shorty George Hughes to compensate for the damage to the vehicle they had rented from him" (Matera 48). As it started out, Dillenger still had to answer to the "big guys" of crime. After a low reward low risk robbery, they had to reparations to the supplier of the getaway car. A chunk was taken out. John Dillenger quickly became annoyed with the small time robberies. Like any minor leaguer, he wanted into the big leagues. Matera writes, "Already growing weary of the nickel-and-dime antics of the White Cappers, Dillinger envisioned a serious gang of veteran bank robbers made up of his mentors wasting away inside the state pen" (Matera 49). Dillinger slowly was developing a taste to always improve and get a bigger job with more of a reward. This would eventually lead to his downfall. By acquiring this taste, he set himself up to never be satisfied. Set up to never know how to walk away. If Dillinger would've stopped while he was ahead, it is possible that he could've escaped capture for all his life.