Summary and analysis of "A Regionalized America, Ch. 13."

A Regionalized America, 1830 – 1860; (succession started in the early 1860's(point of reference))

This Chapter is split into two major sections. The first (Pg.201- 208) is about The North, it is a very brief overview of Northern Society during the era. The second (pg. 208-215) claims to be about the southern cultures but is really about the authors view on slavery and class distinction (which is all he talks about, other than the fact that “Gone with the Wind was not an accurate description of the culture). I would also like to point out that the author does not have a section for the west as a separate group in chapter, despite the fact that in the introduction the author does mention that westerners did think of themselves as a separate group.

The North was heavily influence by 3 major things, they were its defining factors. 1) Increased industrialization (AKA “The Market Revolution”) 2) Massive immigration (massive not used lightly) and finally, 3) Increasing urbanization. Increased industrialization did three major things, it decreased Northern “need” for slaves, it lead to urbanization, and it helped concentrate assets in the hands of an “elite” class. Massive immigration, whoa I think that is never given enough credit for changing the North. Immigration on this scale in a nearly free market society made the economy boom, while at the same time both decreasing the number of menial jobs available (what would have been low class jobs) and increasing the local value of held assets (land, factories, ect.). Because of the asset consuming nature in immigration, immigrates needed jobs (badly) and would work for less and do more than established residents, this caused residents to both look down on immigrants (because they would work for so little pay, and resent immigrants (because they would get jobs). Asset concentration leads to urbanization, which of course lead to an increase in asset concentration. Asset concentration can also lead to racial and ethnic discrimination and did so in this case. Because the increase in population increased the value of assets (such as land), prior residents were atomically in a higher socioeconomic bracket then immigrants (assets concentrated in long standing residents). As such immigrants as a group were looked down upon (I think this has to do with the fact that “you” do not want (from an evolutionary standpoint) to marry “down” in an economic sense and as such people “below” you become less desirable). Increasing urbanization leads to increasing ability for education. Education leads to rights movements and in many cases leisure time. This was true in the North, the number woman in the workforce increased (but was still dismally low), the service and entertainment industry gained a better foothold than it had before, and abolitionist movement’s haven was in the north.

In the south, the population distribution was much more rural. A majority of white southerners were subsistence farmers. A very small percentage of the population owned plantations, but they were very rich. Nat Turner was not a very educated man but he did have just enough information to know that freedom was something to be desired, not just for you but for your brethren too. This of course made him dangerous, he came under the impression that if all the whites in the region were killed then he and his people would go free. So instead of advocating a peaceful resolution to slavery he advocated mass murder. His views we very tempting to a great many oppressed people in the south and as such he was able to form a small army and kill about 60 whites in the region. However much as in the case of 9/11, this violent form of protest lead to major setback to equality and justice (to say the least).

Schultz goes on the describe different type of slavery organization systems, slavery “justifications”, and the effective practice of a form of Jihad by slaves. I feel as if I should further describe the Jihad comment. Jihad does not mean what many think it means, it is not “holy fight by Muslims to defend Islam” or “a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam”. Jihad is the internal and external defense of one’s beliefs and the maintenance of one’s self-identity. In this case the slave were exercising there own control over themselves to decrease productivity wherever they were working. They would break tools, work slowly, play dumb, run away, fake sickness, steal things, ect. This did two things, 1) it show that they were not “true” slaves (they owned their own minds)(this helped maintain sanity) 2) it made slavery less profitable (this could have eventually lead to the end of slavery without a war).

An essay I wrote: "The Devil’s Advocate: Border Patrol Angels and Demons"

When Luis A. Urrea wrote The Devil’s Highway, he wrote backwards in a stack of notebooks. The fact that this book is a work of investigative journalism, with some educated guesses thrown in, and that it was not written front to back needs to be kept in mind during an analysis of Mr. Urrea’s writings about the Border Patrol. Before Mr. Urrea wrote The Devil’s Highway, he was of the opinion that the Border Patrol was made up of a bunch of jackbooted thugs; this however changed. During Mr. Urrea’s Meet & Greet at UTSA, he explained, much as he did at the University of Washington, that during his research, there was a moment in the desert that he realized, with a little help, that the US Border Patrol are made up of people: fallible, emotional, genuine (UWTV 2009). The human nature of Border Patrol is what makes them so easy to demonize or idolize, and it is this idea that is reflected in the book.

Urrea talks about the origins of the Border Patrol in the beginning of The Devil’s highway; he says on page 8 “White Europeans conceived of … El Norte mania[,]… the first illegal immigrants…were Chinese [; fear caused the]… force known as the Mounted Chinese Exclusionary Police [to take]…to the dusty wasteland”(Urrea 2004). In other words, the Border Patrol was formed out of a non-native people’s fear of immigration. What does that make the Border Patrol? Urrea is implying that they are nothing but the imperfect tools of a hypocritical society. He goes on to further describe the contradictory impression that their imperfection has made on immigrants on pages 14-15, “They’d walked into hell trying to escape the Border Patrol, and now they were praying to get caught”(Urrea 2004). Despite the fact that apparently when Border Patrol agents encounter immigrants they “Sometimes,… [they] beat them down with …[their] baton, and sometimes everybody just laughed and drank… [their] water”(Urrea 2004). This apparent contradiction exemplifies the fact that the Border Patrol is group of people, and as such, they have all sorts in their ranks: demon, angel and everything in-between. At Mr. Urrea’s Meet & Greet at UTSA, he mentioned that he once asked an agent about how they deal with the bad eggs in the force, the agent said, “They better hope the public finds out about them before we do.” To put it another way, the force has internal justice for any immigrate beaters that might be in their midst. Death hardens people, makes their humanity more difficult to recognize. Border Patrol agents encounter death at almost every turn desensitizing them to a phenomenon that much of humanity tries their best to avoid. The agents seeming lack of emotional response to death often alienates them from more emotionally effected members of society. Sometimes even their coping mechanisms alienate them from society. One method that agents use to help cope with the amount of death they see is similar to that of an emergency room surgeon: jargon. They generally refer to the sick or dying as already dead. This concept is seen and explored on page 16 where Agent F says, “We’ve got five bodies on Vidrios Drag”, as if the people he found were already dead. This dehumanizing terminology can cause many people to assume that the Border Patrol agents are emotionless, cold, and unfazed by death. But this is not the case as Mr. Urrea found out on the Devil’s Highway when Kenny Smith let Mr. Urrea know that the tough guy exterior is just that, an exterior (UWTV 2009).

Emotions lie inside almost every human out there, including Border Patrol agents; it is easy to forget that especially if they refer to you or someone you know as a “body,” “tonk,” or “wet”(Urrea 2004). People generally dehumanize the dehumanizer, they say that the emotionally unaffected are, or cannot be, normal people. This stigma helps continue the stories that Border Patrol Officers are just as likely to kill you and rape your daughter as to save you and give you water. Not to say that Border Patrol agents are given a bad rap for no reason. There have been cases of “disproportionate use of force” by agents in the Border Patrol in the past (2012). Where after getting pelted by rocks an agent “shot and killed a 15-year-old…boy across the Rio Grande”(2012). Cases such as this litter news articles dating back to the formation of the Border Patrol, but in most cases, especially these days, the agent responsible for the crime is found and prosecuted. Rarely will you hear about the lives that Border Patrol agents save because that is just part of their job, not news. As such, it is easy to get a disproportionate view of the Border Patrol.

Before I read The Devil’s Highway I never really thought about the Border Patrol as a group of people just doing a job. In fact, I really did not think about them much at all. In reading The Devil’s Highway I was moved by the portrayal of agents, and gained a greater perspective on the border controversy as a whole. Now, I have a much greater empathy for both the agents and the immigrants in this political conflict. Much like the agents on page 54 in the book I have gained a slightly greater distrust for my own government’s motivations and a simmering hatred for those who lead their prey into the desert.  

Works Cited

(2012). US border agents 'killed Mexican'. Belfast Telegraph Online.

Urrea, L. A. (2004). The Devil's Highway. New York, Little, Brown and Company.

UWTV (2009). Devil's Highway: An Evening with Author Luis Urrea, YouTube.

Blog VII: my thoughts on the Summary of (total titles to long)

What do I think about these documents’ stances on women’s rights? I am not completely sure, as I did not live in the time period… but I tend to agree with their message if not their particulars. For instance I agree that women should be treated equally to men, but I do not believe that men tend to be any more tyrannical then women. I do however believe that men tend to have more chances to be tyrannical on average. How does this topic relate to today? Women’s rights are very much an issue today, both with equal pay and with gender discrimination, here and abroad. The only thing I have to say that might be considered not fair is that I do not think that women should be (legally required to be) given any extra time off (maternity leave) if they are being paid the same as men… I truly believe if equal treatment. I think that child birth is an very important part of anyone’s life and should be well thought out and planned in advance…. However, I also think I am male and as such have no real right to make any decisions that have to do with others childbirth. I do not think that women should be denied rights based on PMS… In fact there are some interesting studies that have come out that suggest mood swings related to PMS are not much more then societal constructs (Links: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/pms-moodiness-may-be-a-myth-study-1.1000582 ; http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-pms-ess.html ; etc Google it) as such PMS cannot be used as a excuse to not vote for a women… But then again it cannot be used as an excuse to act like a tyrant ether. Speaking of tyrants… lets name some female ones (just to justify my claim that women are just a likely as men to be tyrannical): Cleopatra; Countess Elizabeth Bathory; Queen Ranavalona I the Cruel; Elena Ceauşescu; Queen Mary of England; Empress Catherine II; etc. Yeah… % wise… I think that more female leaders have be tyrants then men… But then again less women have had a chance so those that have clawed their way to the top may just have be more likely to be tyrants (Just because they had to fight that much harder to be in charge). Well that’s all for now, hope to see you next time… Till then, stay alive (after then too). Goodbye all.

Blog VII: Summary of

Correspondence between Abigail and John Adams (1776)

Mrs. Adams opens up the dialogue on women’s rights almost quietly. She never once directly tells him to do his best to give women equal right. The entire letter does point to that, do not get me wrong. But, for the most part she does take a relatively submissive stance on the issue. Her most direct being “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” She does go on to say that, men are “Naturally Tyrannical” and should give up their pretense of superiority over women and instead embrace equality. John Adams’ reply: At first glance, I thought he was blowing her off, and then I realized he was not. In fact he says that women, in practice not theory, are the masters of men, “in Practice[,] you know[,] We are the subjects.” Of course, he also says that he could not help but laugh at her letter, and that she is “so saucy”. He effectively says that the nation is already in turmoil and that it was not time for a full-blown women’s rights movement.

In all I felt that Mrs. And Mr. Adams missed each other, this was conveyed in their light (but partially hidden) banter. And that they both agreed that women did deserve rights just as men did.
“On the Equality of the Sexes” (1790) By Judith Murray

To sum it up, Ms. Murray is upset that women are not treated equally. She lightly suggests that men are not only not superior to women but might in fact be inferior. She says the only reason why men know more about science then women on average is because of the way they are educated (something I wholeheartedly agree with).