Author: hernan.14

Text Review Assignment – Remember the Titans

by

In 1970s Virginia, Remember the Titans, based on a true story, tells the story of a town integrating one black and one white high school. With that comes one combined football team. Herman Boone, the head coach of the black high school is chosen as the head coach of the new team over the head coach from the white school, Bill Yoast. Boone and Yoast themselves at first struggle to respect and work with one another, and it takes even longer for the newly integrated team’s players to do the same. The movie explores the impact a newly integrated school has on the community, making sure to take note of the hardships and unjust treatment the team and school receive.

The idea of injustice is present throughout the story, with the focus turning being on coach Herman Boone, a black man. Despite getting the head coaching job, the school has decided Boone will be fired if he loses one game. This is a clear example of injustice, as the school board which has been carried over from the white school, doesn’t want to have a black head coach. Later in the season, they attempt to rig a game so Boone will lose and be fired, and this reflects on not only injustice but systemic injustice. The school board attempted to change the system to force Boone out, a method that would affect him and all black coaches, and this makes it a systemic injustice. The act is an injustice alone in wanting to fire a coach because he is black, but the means in which they do it make it systemic, an idea the class content covered deeply.

Power, as it pertains to structure, is present in the movie from the jump. Boone is initially chosen as head coach of the integrated school by the white school board because they want to appease all. This touches on the class concept of “the Other”, as it can be seen Boone, a black coach, is outside the power structure but can work his way in. Boone would not be “the Subaltern” because he isn’t boxed out of the power structure permanently, but he is still “the Other” because it wasn’t completely in his control to get a position of power. Identity is also at play, as much of the movie is driven by identity specifically as it pertains to race, with most characters outside the team siding and sticking with those of the same race, only capable because of the system structural inequalities built. Ultimately, I believe the makers of Remember the Titans want us to see that although positive stories coming out of such an ugly era, even the good stories didn’t go without their harsh realities. Even once the team came together and accepted each other, they faced hateful, racially motivated treatment from the outside. This creates a conversation around injustice, power, and identity, as we see and discuss how those ideas helped prop up such an ugly era.

Remember the Titans | Disney Movies

(Image found at: https://movies.disney.com/remember-the-titans)

“Yo, Is This…” Advice Column

by

It is no secret that the United States has a long and dark history of systemic injustices ranging in a wide variety of aspects within its society. While some of the areas within society that systemic injustice once touched have been phased out and eradicated, there are other areas where systemic injustice is still present. One of those areas would be housing, whether it be towards homeowners, property owners, or renters. Systemic injustice in the housing sector has survived while others couldn’t, seeking out its targets in both the 1900s and the present day. To develop a better understanding of how systemic injustice has found survival in this area, this column will look at and compare two systemic injustices involving housing from the past and modern eras, all while also asking, is this racist?

Understanding the evolution and survival of systemic injustice in the housing sector is much easier when starting from the beginning. That is why it is best to first look at the case of Bruce’s Beach in Southern California, property that once belonged to Charles Bruce and his family. Charles and his family lived on the property, but they also used it to run a successful hotel business. The property has not belonged to Bruce’s family for quite some time, for “[Manhattan Beach] officials in 1924 condemned the neighborhood and seized more than two dozen properties through eminent domain”, a statement written by Rosanna Xia in a Los Angeles Times article (Xia). As for why this happened, “the Bruce’s and their guests faced years of threats and harassment from white neighbors”, meaning that when harassment didn’t drive the Bruce’s out, abusing the system became the only choice (Xia).

Now that the 1900s blueprint for systemic injustice in the areas of housing and property has been introduced, the modern blueprint must also be revealed. While the case of Bruce’s beach involved the ownership of property and housing, the modern case looks at the renting of property. In Washington D.C., renters are being faced with “serial eviction filing”, which is defined in a Washington Post article as “repeatedly filing against the same tenants at the same address” (BrandStudio). Serial eviction filing isn’t happening across Washington D.C. at an even rate, for “fewer than 3 out of every 100 … received an eviction filing” in areas with a low number of African American renters, while areas with higher numbers of African American renters see a rate that is at “25 out of every 100” in terms of “[receiving] one” (BrandStudio). While “serial eviction filing” isn’t an everyday term, it can be summarized as a tool provided by the legal system to landlords that allows them to ramp up the pressure on their renters, and have a much less contested, legal path to removing those who they choose.

Before it can be asked whether one or both cases are racist, the type of injustice at play must first be addressed. When discussing an injustice, what defines the injustice in part is whether it is a stand-alone injustice or systemic injustice. Both Bruce’s Beach and renters in Washington D.C., the two cases introduced earlier, would be defined as systemic injustices over stand-alone moments. Yes, Bruce’s Beach focuses on one person, and the renters in Washington D.C. are not an expansive number of people, but that doesn’t make either case a stand-alone moment. They are rather systemic injustices because the system was manipulated and changed to carry out those injustices. In the case of Bruce’s Beach, the city government of Manhattan Beach used eminent domain, a power only the government can exercise, to remove Bruce from his property. As described earlier when individuals couldn’t drive Bruce out on their own, they had the government step in and abuse the power of the system to remove him, a systemic injustice for that reason. For the Washington D.C. renters, landlords used the fine print of the legal system to drive out renters they wanted going, taking them to court if the unrealistic demands they asked for were not met, demands provided to landlords by the legal system. This is a systemic injustice because landlords used the system to drive out who they wanted, and it is the act of using the system that makes this a systemic injustice. In neither case is this about nothing more than individuals finding a way to use the system to carry out their injustices, defining each move as systemic injustice.

With both cases now defined as systemic injustices, it must be asked “is this racist?” or put simply, “are these systemic injustices driven by racism?”. Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to both the case of Bruce’s Beach and the case of the Washington D.C. renters being racist. Starting with Bruce’s Beach once again, the evidence pointing to this case being racist begins before the systemic injustice by way of the government ever steps in. Rosanna Xia’s quote from the Los Angeles Times should once again be referenced, with that quote being: “the Bruce’s and their guests faced years of threats and harassment from white neighbors” (Xia). After this occurred, the government drove Bruce from his property, and it is no coincidence why that injustice was carried out. When Bruce’s white neighbors failed to drive him out using their old tactics, they had to turn to a new tactic to accomplish what they wanted, and they did just that, proving why this was in fact racist. As for the Washington D.C. renters, only the statistics needed to be compared to see the racist motivations, with “fewer than 3 out of every 100” renters receiving a serial eviction filling in neighborhoods with fewer black renters, and neighborhoods with more black renters having a rate of “25 out of every 100”, per the Washington Post (BrandStudio). Those statistics speak for themselves, with the systemic abuse that is a serial eviction filing being exercised heavily and unevenly, seeing a rate substantially higher in neighborhoods with more black renters. It can be said that yes, this is racist, for they prove the motivations of the landlords carrying out the injustice.

After absorbing the previous information, both the systemic injustice and racist motivations, several class concepts appear within Bruce’s Beach and Washington D.C. renters. The most glaring class concepts present would be “the Self and the Other”, “Subalterns”, and “Structural Inequalities”. The role of “the Self” is presumed by those attempting to remove Bruce from his property, and also the Washington D.C. landlords. In both instances, “the Self” is achieved because those mentioned view themselves as superior, being a class above who they view as “the Other”, and because of this, choose to belittle “the Other” and take out injustices on them. By nature, Bruce and the renters become “the Other”, because in a relationship where “the Self” has already been taken on, those they target to become “the Other”. Additionally, the concept of the “Subaltern” is present, but mainly in the case of the Washington D.C. renters, not Bruce. Bruce would be defined as “the Other” more than the “Subaltern” because there is a chance for him to fight back and be inside the power structure, gaining it back, which is proven by his family recently being awarded the property that was always theirs. The renters are the “Subaltern” because they have no chance at making it inside the power structure, to a degree have to comply with the landlords, for they need a place to live, and fighting back for that reason is not an option, cementing their role. Lastly, “structural inequalities” are present, for it is structural inequalities that provided the landlords and those driving out Bruce with the opportunity to access the power they needed to succeed. Structural inequalities made it so the system was much easier to access for certain groups, and because of this, they took advantage and abused the system for their power, an opportunity provided by structural inequalities.

As mentioned in the opening sentences of the column, one of the goals of comparing these two cases was to find out how systemic injustice, and specifically that motivated by racism, as found a way to evolve and survive in the area of property and housing. This question should be answered because of the longevity systemic injustices have found in this aspect of society, with Bruce’s beach happening in 1924, and the Washington D.C. renters happening in the 2020s. And although the “early” example here takes place in 1924, there are plenty of examples just like that one that happened long before 1924. To answer the question of how longevity has been found, there is not one concrete answer to the question, however, part of the answer has to do with the fact that the legal system is similar across most states. When systemic injustices driven by racism worked, such as Bruce’s beach, the blueprint on how to do so was placed out for those looking to do the same in states across the nation. America’s legal system is painfully difficult to change, so once these loopholes were found in one state, they spread to another, and another. Since they aren’t crimes by law they are technically allowed by way of the legal system, they have found survival in the fact that they work because of a system that will never be completely changed, and as long as the system lives, so do the injustices. The other aspect briefly touched on there is the fact that these injustices work in almost any state, so their survival works in part because the system is difficult to change in one place, let alone 50 different states. To conclude, the survival and evolution of these racist, systemic injustices have gone on for as long as they are not painfully obvious, they hide behind the US legal system, and it is the mere fact that they are systemic injustices and not stand-alone moments they have been allowed to continue.

To answer the question this column began trying to address, yes, the cases of Bruce’s Beach and the Washington D.C. renters are racist. Through an exploration of class concepts, systemic vs stand-alone injustices, and motivations for action, it could be determined that yes indeed, these are racist. Class concepts, and what they teach about the dynamics in relationships as well as the history of racism in the United States, allow for these cases to be looked at critically, and come away with that conjunction. It was this form of bias and structural injustice that stood out the most, as it was the motivation for these wrongful acts, and an eye capable of seeing that can be trained through the class concepts. Conclusively, these compared cases reveal a lot more than just being racist, they also reveal how and why America continues to struggle with systemic injustices and change to prevent that is so difficult.

Photos: Bruce's Beach property authorized to return to family - Los Angeles Times

(Present day photo of Bruce’s Beach, provided by Los Angeles Times Article)

(Photo of targeted Washington D.C. neighborhoods, provided by Washington Post article)

Works Cited

BrandStudio, W. P. (2021, March 25). Fighting D.C.’s home eviction crisis with data. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/wp/2021/03/25/fighting-d-c-s-home-eviction-crisis-with-data/.

Xia, Rosanna. “Bruce’s Beach Can Return to Descendants of Black Family in Landmark Move Signed by Newsom.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 30 Sept. 2021, www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-30/newsom-signs-law-to-return-bruces-beach-black-family.

Diary of Systemic Injustices Showcase – Housing Deeds

by

In 2020, a couple in the Los Angeles area decided to share the dark history of their home, a disturbing history they hadn’t become aware of until purchase. They ultimately decided to expand on that dark past with Realtor.com, telling their interviewer, Clare Trapasso, that the home’s 1920s deed “stated that no one of African or Asiatic descent could remain on the property after 6 p.m., unless that individual was a caregiver to someone living in the home” (Trapasso). 

Deeds such as this one are defined by Trapasso as “legally [preventing] people of certain races from buying, renting, or living in individual homes in white communities” (Trapasso). While the story follows one couple, the focus is on the deed preventing anyone of Black or Asian descent from owning/renting the home, a blanket restriction meant to target all Black/Asian Americans, not just one person. It is in this way that this is systemic injustice, along with the writers of the deed using legal documentation to create an injustice targeting Blacks/Asians, manipulating the legal system to make racism a reality. Had this just been a stand-alone moment of injustice, those with the intent of carrying out the injustice would have targeted one individual or one group, with an action that could only be applied one time. By creating a deed that would exist for decades, they ensured that anyone ever looking to buy that home again would be targeted, being allowed to target those in the future because they changed the system. The immediate impact was an even deeper divide in America, with those knowing how to work the system being able to keep white neighborhoods white, dictating who could buy homes where. The long-term impact was the ability for those with racist intentions beyond Los Angeles dictating where those of Black and Asian descent could live, as the same legal system that they altered was present in most states.

When examining this systemic injustice against theoretical class concepts, the relationship between “the Self” and “the Other” can be seen. The group who wrote up the deed and did so in hopes of controlling where Black and Asian Americans could live, seeing themselves as “the Self” and looking at Black/Asian Americans as “the Other”. This becomes clear when looking at their motivations, as the writers wished for their neighborhoods, the ones they lived in, to remain all-White neighborhoods. If they had truly viewed everyone as an equal, not as a self or an other then this deed would never have been written, for the writers would have no issue living in a diverse neighborhood. In wanting to keep the neighborhood all White, they are acknowledging the relationship of the self and the other, for, at its core, that concept relies on the idea that some groups view themselves as being superior. The self and the other can be seen in racism, a topic discussed in the class, and by understanding the racist motives of the deed, this concept exists here.

Dan Shiplacoff and L.A. home

(The home of the Los Angeles couple who was featured in the interview, photo provided in the article)

Racial covenant language

(An example of deeds similar to this one with racist intent, provides an idea of what the deed actually looks like in legal writing, photo provided in the article)

Works Cited

Trapasso, C. (2020, June 24). ‘Legacy of Shame’: How Racist Clauses in Housing Deeds Divided America. Real Estate News & Insights | realtor.com®. Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/racial-covenants-systemic-racism/.

 

Negotiating Identities Part 2, (Second half of Lisa Ko’s The Leavers) Week 11 Context Presentation

by

In Lisa Ko’s The Leavers, it can be seen through the lives of Polly and her son Deming how difficult it can be transitioning to a life with no remnants of one’s previous culture. For Polly, she moves to the United States from China, and for Deming, he moves in with a white family away from family for the first time. In both cases, the characters are forced into attempting to adjust to a new life vastly different than the one they had come accustomed to, and there are no resources to help them in their transition. To help ease this transition, neighborhoods such as Chinatown in numerous big cities have been established, with hopes of providing aspects of Chinese culture and life that America simply can’t.

The early history of Chinatown saw growth in two parts according to an article from the National Park Service, first by immigrants from the west coast who were pushed out by “mob violence and rampant discrimination”, and the “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965”, which overturned the “immigration quota system” (U.S. National Park Service). This influx of Chinese immigrants left many coming to New York in hopes of living in a neighborhood that had aspects of their culture, leading to what would eventually become Chinatown. According to the Tenement Museum in NYC, Chinatowns’ setup was successful because the neighborhood was located “close to jobs and Chinese cultural intuitions” (Steinberg). This made the early Chinatown more attractive to those coming to the US, leading more to choose Chinatown as their new home, resulting in success for the neighborhood.

Chinatowns across the US have become quite prominent today, continuing to have an impact on those coming to the US from China. In a National Geographic article, Peter Ng describes why this is so, stating that when he lived in Chinatown, “there were only a couple of authentic Chinese restaurants” and that made “everyone come here” (Ng). By continuing to be one of the only places where aspects of life in China is prevalent, Chinatown has allowed itself to remain prominent, offering what others can’t. This continues to have an impact on those immigrating to the US, as Chinatown provides a place where the transition to a new life is smoother, ensuring that new residents don’t have to let go of all they once had, something that Polly and Deming didn’t always have the luxury of.  

Works Cited

“Chinatown and Little Italy Historic District New York, New York (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/places/new-york-chinatown-and-little-italy-historic-district.htm.

Ng, Rachel. “Why Does the U.S. Have so Many Chinatowns?” Travel, National Geographic, 17 June 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/why-does-the-us-have-chinatowns.

Steinberg, Adam. “The Lower East Side and Chinatown.” Tenement Museum, 5 June 2014, www.tenement.org/blog/the-lower-east-side-and-chinatown/.