Before modern technology, when an adolescent had a question, most would ask their parents. If the parents were unsure, then the adolescent would ask their grandparents. From there, they might ask a neighbor or a close friend. Then probably ask a member of a social group, such as church, for the answer. Information came from agents of socialization, or family, school, peers. The information was obtained from the geographical area one grew up in meaning the information received would usually be of best benefit in that area. After the expansion of technology (telephones, television, and in particular the internet), children most often go to the online world for answers. Then instead of going to their parents second, they chat online with friends. Sometimes they chat with people they have not met. The agents of socialization are now mass media, peers, family. The parents are left behind and close relationships with them are sparse. This happens because the internet offers very specific information about topics and the resources to chat with professionals of a topic. In comparison, parents' knowledge is microscopic. In this world, socialization creates who we are, thus technology advancements play an important role in the type of people we become.

For instance, the Ladakhis' basic needs (food, shelter, and clothing) were free of a money value. They worked together in close relationships to obtain what was needed. They did not realize that is was different for the foreigners, or people following Western-style ideals. The Ladakhis' began to feel poor because they did not have as many riches (jewelry, silver, and gold) as the foreigners did. When Norberg-Hodge asked a Ladakhi to show her where the poor lived, he responded, "'We don't have any poor people here.'" Then, eight years later, she overheard him speaking with tourists and stated, "'If you could only help us Ladakhis. We're so poor.'" This example shows how strong the influence of these tourists was. The Ladakhis' perception of themselves was more or less that everyone was an equal and life was full of nature's riches. After becoming socialized into the tourists' ways, they looked at themselves as unfortunate and not having enough to survive in an ideal lifestyle. They wanted to be more Westernized, after all, those with more money had the great life which was displayed on television.

There had been no television, but what happened after television came to Ladakh? With its arrival came media and Western and Indian films. These films gave an idea of power and wealth. It showed Ladakhis all different types of machines. These machines did much of the work for us Westerners. The images showed beautiful people doing glamorous things. The films exaggerated many aspects of real life thus making them intriguing and admirable. "Socialization happens from us learning the patterns of interaction, learning the culture, and developing our personality" (Rowan). The youth in Ladakh reflected on their own life and started to feel ashamed of their culture! Why did they need to get their hands dirty when they could look extravagant and clean and wealthy. Those people had more money and thus must have had a better life. These people could also go away to a school and become educated by professionals.

Western-style education was socialized into Ladakh. "The sociological point is that social structure sets the context for what we do, feel, and think and ultimately, then, for the kind of people we become" (Henslin 98). So the jump from traditional to western was a drastic change. Education in Ladakh was, "the product of a person's intimate relationship with their community and their ecosystem" and "Children learned from grandparents, family and friends, and from the natural world" (The Future of Progress). This meant that their education was directed at what was necessary for life in their culture. They knew how to provide basic needs for themselves and live close with the natural world and use resources sustainably and carefully. The jump to western style education brought focus on technology. It taught about generic things of which follow a mainstream industrial attitude. They neglected to teach about their current society and ecosystem. It was directed more toward progression in a money value.

A gentleman by the name of Ferdinand Tonnies analyzed shifts in relationships. He wrote of Gemeinshaft, or "intimate community" and Gesellshaft, or "impersonal association." Gemeinshaft described village life or a society where everyone knows everyone else, like Ladakh. But in the emerging society, or Western culture, "the personal ties, kinship connections, and lifelong friendships that marked village life were being crowded out by short-term relationships, individual accomplishments, and self-interest." (Henslin 98). Our time has become utilized much differently. Working together with the family and having closer physical relationships has moved to working for corporations where, "contracts replace handshakes." (Henslin 98). Henslin also notes how, "our time is spent with strangers and short-term acquaintances." We have ultimately become sufficient as individuals.

Technology has been an important tool in helping us achieve individualism. Individualism lead to the television being created, and one thing which came with it was the Media world. Mass Media was a large influence in why the Ladakhis socialized how they did. "Socialization influences not only how we express our emotions but also what emotions we feel" (Henslin 82). The Ladakhis went from being content with a life of self-sustainability to becoming insecure, competitive, poor, primitive, inefficient, stressed, and lonely. To the Westerners, technology is progress. Progression leads to domination. And once domination is achieved, we have taken over the world. It is a difficult decision to determine which is right or which is wrong. But it is blatant that a community of which nourished itself has become a community with many issues and problems.

Bibliography
Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology A down-to-Earth Approach. Allyn and Bacon: Boston MA

"modernization." The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 10 Feb. 2010. .

The Future of Progress (Green Books, Dartington, Devon, UK, 1992).

Wolf, Rowan. 2009. SOC 204 class discussions and notes.

Social Stratification by age is the most fundamental of stratification systems. One could argue that the way a society structures itself and its cultural ideology around age is indicative of how it constructs other forms of stratification. For example, one of the primary ways of "putting people in their place" is tone of voice. Higher status groups are generally talked to in a "respectful" tone of voice. Those with lower status are often "talked down" to - or talked to as if they were children. This early socialization into age status rules and roles is often reflected in the way other status group rules operate.

In societies where infant mortality is high (including the U.S. prior to the 1900's) infants are frequently not considered "people" or even given names for a period of time after their birth - usually three days to three months. Children have been seen as "expendable" in some societies
(Western Europe prior to the 1600s) through what we now call "toddlers." In hard times, the youngest children might be literally pitched out so the rest of the family could survive.

Like other forms of stratification, age systems divide resources, privileges, and responsibilities to the different strata. Sometimes special rights, or even laws apply to some groups but not to others. For example, in the U.S. we have various laws that are status based. Most of the remaining "status offenses" apply to those who are not yet adults; however, this has not always
been the case. The age-based status offenses cover activities for which it is legal for adults to engage in (drinking, being out after a certain time, reading certain materials, etc.), but are illegal when engaged in by a "minor." Adults can "run away" from home legally; children cannot. One of the remaining status differences among US citizens is that opposite sex couples can legally
marry, (so far) same sex couples cannot.

In many societies (and some cultures outside mainstream U.S. society) age stratification shows a clear progression across the age structure. Children have the lowest status, followed
by adults, followed by elders. A number of factors have influenced how age stratification actually works in mainstream society in the United States. Below we will explore some of the social forces that have influenced the "natural order" of age stratification.

It appears that for much of the history of human society, there has not really been the concept of
"childhood" as we know it today. Once a child was able to speak and eat on its own, it was essentially considered a miniature adult capable of participating in a limited way in the survival of the family. Once "children" hit puberty, they were considered adults, though they might not take on adult roles until they formed their own family. There was no concept of adolescence. For
many places in the world, this is still largely the case. To a large extent, the invention of both childhood and adolescence are a function of increasing agricultural production and industrialization.

In agricultural societies, including the U.S. during the agricultural period, the family was the primary economic unit rather than the individual. As soon as children could contribute in any way (pulling weeds, gathering eggs, hauling water, etc.) they were contributors to the economic unit. While public education was an early feature in the United States, it was extremely limited and structured to fit around agricultural schedules (as it still is today). School was not mandatory, and focused almost totally on reading and writing. As the industrial revolution progressed and became institutionalized business owners required higher levels of skill from their workers.

Slowly, the amount of education offered, the skills needed, and finally mandatory education created a longer and longer period of dependency for children. This changed their status from being economically productive members of their families to ongoing dependents. As we advance towards the middle of the twentieth century, mandatory education expands through high school, and we invent adolescence. Adolescence is that period of time from the onset of puberty, to "legal" age. - basically, 21 years old.

What we see happening here is that the concept of age is changing as social conditions and economic demands change. It is interesting when we look at the roles and expectations that we have of various age groups. Children went from "miniature adults" expected to act like adults but without the rights of adults, to a carefree, dependent period of exploration and learning. When we look at the expectations of "teenagers," we define this as a rebellious period of individuation. We simultaneously expect adolescents to act like adults and rebel from them at the same time. This is a period where people are sexually mature, but socially and economically dependent.

There does finally come a time when people reach adulthood (as it is currently constructed), but even that is in flux. The expectation, and necessity, of education beyond high school has many "adults" ending up in an extended adolescence either living with their parents or being supported by them as they continue their education. Rapidly increasing costs of living combined with stagnant or falling wages also send "adults" back into their parent's homes. People can find themselves in the situation where they are legally adults, but trapped socially in childhood.

Childhood in the U.S. also has another interesting effect in that children are essentially "property." The laws of child custody and care largely follow property law. Anyone who has been adopted (or is familiar with adoption) will know this very well. You are property that is removed from one owner (your parents) into the ownership of the state, who then confers "title" to you to the adoptive parents. This property relationship is apparent in other aspects of life. Parents are not simply responsible for the care of their children, but for their actions. Parents are esponsible for paying for the damage their children cause (such as breaking a window) the same way they are if other property causes damage (say your dog bites someone).

Let's explore the other end of the spectrum - the elderly. Just to put things in context, in the United States in 1820, only 2% of the population was over 65 and virtually none were over 85 years old. Fifty-eight percent of the population was under twenty. By 1950, eight percent of the population was over 65, 34% were under 20, and still virtually none were over 85. By 2050, it is expected that 4.8% of the population will be over 85, 21% over 65, and 25 % under 20 (U.S. Census Bureau). Social Security was implemented in 1935 by President Roosevelt. The driving force in implementing a paid "retirement" was to move older workers out of the labor force to make jobs available for younger workers.

This is where one of the problems with stereotypes of the elderly came into play. We live in a society that has become increasingly centralized on the economy as the center of life. Working, and the work one does, becomes central to our concepts of ourselves and how others see us. Think about introducing yourself to someone. What is generally within the first three questions that get asked? "What do you do?" Paid labor makes us not only able to function in society, but has come to define who is a "productive" member and who is not. What mandatory retirement did was to force people out of "productivity." They were no longer "useful" to society. They were dependent upon others for their survival (even if they had savings of their own). Because of the central place of "work" in this society, non-workers are of lower status. When a policy is implemented that essentially makes an age group economically dependent, then they lose "value" within the conceptualization of the society. Hence, we get all the negative stereotypes of the elderly.

There is another interesting twist at play within the U.S. construction of age. That is an idealization of "youth." Now it is hard to say what "youth" is but it appears to span the late teens to the mid-twenties. It is this age group that is seen as being vibrant and "attractive." However, this is also an age group that is seen as not being particularly "mature" and "responsible." All of this serves to create a conflict that on one hand elevates the status of this group, while those falling beyond that age are seen as increasingly less socially desirable. We can see this emphasis on "youth" as desirable at the other end of the spectrum - children. Increasingly, even very young children are dressed and decorated to look like "little adults" - more mature, and certainly more sexually mature, than they are.

The Affects of Age Stratification in
Our Lives

It is difficult to overstate the impacts of age stratification in our society and our day-to-day lives. From the role expectations of various age strata, to the stereotypes, to the segregation of age groups, to social policies developed, age impacts us all of our lives. Children are expected to be obedient and carefree. Teens are expected to be rebellious and destructive. Adults are expected to be "contributing, law abiding" members of society. The elderly are portrayed as largely feeble of mind and body, backwards and stuck in their ways, and drains on the society personally and economically. Children are segregated into schools, and within that into narrow age groups. Adults are in the world of work. Many elderly are ultimately institutionalized, or left alone in a shrinking world of friends and family. Both physical and social isolation reinforce our cultural perception of age and the people who populate them.

Social class and race play tremendous roles in the actual impacts of the age stratification system. Those across the population who lack economic resources suffer disproportionately. If we focus on the issue of age (and there are many aspects that go beyond age) in relationship to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans we see that the poor elderly, and disabled seemed most trapped and most likely to die in the disaster. Those without resources - in general - were not able to leave the city. They had neither the transportation or economic resources to leave. Those who had a choice (in other words were free and able to leave their homes) could go to the Super Dome or the Convention Center. There was not food, water, medical supplies, or backup generators at either location. Of those who did not, or could not, go to these "shelters of last resort" many were elderly and/or disabled. Many of these lived alone or in nursing homes. Some were in hospitals, and the public/charity hospitals were not evacuated until days after the storm.
By and large, they were left behind and left to die.  In one case, residents of a nursing home were strapped to their beds and left to drown in the rising waters. At the time of this writing, the owners of the nursing home are facing charges for 34 deaths (International Herald Tribune). As of (9/13/05) over 1600 children evacuated from New Orleans and the surrounding area are still either orphaned or separated from their parents.

Generally, those who had the economic resources were able to evacuate before the storm. This included residents in more expensive nursing homes and independent living centers, and those in the private hospitals. The primary difference between escaping or not, between living or dying, for the elderly and disabled was their social class. Disproportionately this meant that those who escaped and lived were white, while those who did not were people of color. President Bush stated: ""The storm didn't discriminate, and neither will the recovery effort," ( CBS 5.com, 9/13/05)  but neither the preparation for disaster, or the efforts afterward were able to overcome the institutionalized racism, classism, or ageism of out society.

Conclusion

Age plays a basic role in our social structuring and institutions. It is important to realize that age, while an ascriptive status, is socially structured and transforms across time and society. Our basic introduction into the roles and rules of status occur in our early socialization as children. The foundation of how we interact across status groups - including age groups - are located in those early lessons.

Not all societies or cultures have the same age systems and meanings as mainstream U.S. society. However, in terms of the age status groups within mainstream society in the United States, children and the elderly vie for the lowest status while adults have higher status. There is a cultural discrepancy on whether "youth" or "adults" have higher status within this system. On one hand, "youth" is presented as being socially desirable, but "adult" is seen as being economically more stable and responsible. On the whole, "adults" have higher status than youth. This is a dramatic contrast to many other societies (and even cultures within the United States) where elders clearly have the highest status and are valued for their wisdom.

To Explore Further

The History of Childhood : a Powerpoint presentation from California State University. examining the concept of childhood in Western Europe from 500-1550.



The Philosophy of Childhood from Stanford University discusses the concept of childhood and how it has changed over time.



The History of American Education links to articles covering different periods in the development of education in the United States.



History of
American Childhood - this is a detailed course description, but it contains some interesting discussion about the development of childhood.



The Invention of Adolescence - Psychology Today article on the invention of adolescence. It looks at both the cultural and physical changes that have occurred from the 1600s forward.



Explore a Century of Teen Life to Uncover Chicago's Past  This is an interesting examination of "teen" life over the last 100 years in Chicago. It offers an excellent comparison of the vast differences in what we think of "teens" now and what their role in society was a hundred years ago.



Social Security History This is an exploration of the implementation of social security as a program from 1935 to the present.

In a time when survival was entirely unorganized and unpredictable people valued a different assortment of attributes. You were respected for being a good hunter, gatherer or someone who was physically fit and had the ability to go beyond the laws of nature. As time continued on, man discovered innovative ways to make life more adaptable to fit our needs. We found ways to bring resources in closer proximity to where we lived by creating cooperative social groups known as societies. With basic life sustaining resources in a manageable position, humanity found themselves in a world where we could use our brains for more than just survival. This allowed humanity to invent new contraptions and concepts that further improves the quality of life. In this evolved western based society, people strive to modernize in order to be viewed as a success. We've come to value modernizing, because it allows us to be more productive and efficient. This momentous appearance has attracted other societies to join our ambitions. Not all societies see modernizing as a means to success.

Before 1962 there stood a village that was a pure Gemeinschaft society. This village was occupied by the Ladakh. In 1962 the Ladakh abruptly got on a pathway to convert to a Gesellschaft based society. Before the conversion, this isolated society used natural farming methods, scavenged for resources and manufactured their own tools with out any help or influences from neighboring cultures. In other words they were an "intimate community" that relied on the success of the group.

The Ladakh also followed a Gemeinschaft style economy, which is distinctively diverse in comparison to our own. Helena Norberg writes in her article The Pressure to modernize about the Ladakhns. She wrote about the economic strategies of the Ladakh. "The labor one needed was free of charge, part of an intricate web of human relationships."(2) What this is suggesting is that the Ladakhn's obtained every thing they needed to survive by creating social arrangements with members of their own society. Everyone who lived in the Ladakh's society worked to maintain the health of the whole village by sustaining life giving necessities and distributing evenly throughout the group. The Ladakhi's were on a steady path that allowed them to prosper in their isolated environment.

In 1962 the Ladakh's were discovered by the outside world for the first time in recorded history. Almost immediately they converted their culture to a Gesellschaft society. This adopted westernized culture required a new approach on how they would survive. They had to use money to make basic transactions and to obtain money the Ladakh's had to adjust their occupations. The Ladakh's found themselves absent of the knowledge and resources needed to be wealthy in a westernized economy. They did not have enough jobs, the right resources or the education required to successfully adapt into the newly formed society. This caused the Ladakh's to become economically poor.

The story of the Ladakh's is simply a tragedy, but what troubles me is why they felt the need to convert to a Gesellschaft society. Holmes talks about the false assumptions the Ladakh's had on western culture "They cannot so readily see the social or psychological dimensions - the stress, loneliness, fear of growing old. Nor can they see environmental decay, inflation, or unemployment."(3) What the author was trying to express is that the Ladakh's were completely mislead. They were showered by our media, which could be confusing to those ignorant of our concepts and values. The Ladakh's had no way of knowing what it took to be a part of a modernized society; they only looked at what they saw without realizing the sacrifices that come with it. There are also a number of sociological laws that contributed to the Ladakh's desire to change.

We perceive ourselves based upon our interpretations of how others react to our actions. Once these responses are fully translated and developed into understanding they act as a guide to social growth. This concept is known as the Looking Glass Self. It's called this because it's essentially a mirror of oneself created by the people who we interact with. This metaphorical looking glass or mirror is a delicate structure that can be warped or cracked with any form of social interaction. For instance, when the Ladakh were introduced to the new culture their looking glass changed. Exposure to the foreign culture revealed new ideas and new technologies that were far more advanced than their own. Norberg mentions how the Ladakh felt in comparison to the new culture "In contrast to these utopian images from another culture, village life primitive silly and inefficient."(3) This must have caused the Ladakh to reflect upon their own societal accomplishments. Seeing how little they accomplished in comparison must have made them question their own looking glass and the images that are being reflected back from it. The Ladakh were the victim's looking glass that was warped by the visual superiority of the modernized nation.

Language also can alter ones perception. According to Essentials of Sociology a down to earth approach, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a concept that is defined as "rather than objects and events forcing themselves onto our consciousness, it is our language that determines our consciousness and, hence, our perception of objects and events."(44) What this is saying is that when people are exposed to new words they gain new symbols, which can essentially alter their perception on a particular object or event. The Ladakh were affected by this law because they were introduced to the Indian language and the western culture. This exposure gave them a new perception on themselves. Norberg states that the Ladakh youth associated Western society with words such as "speed, youthfulness, super cleanliness, beauty, fashion and competitiveness" (3). All these words are primarily associated with power and success and are attributes that most people strive for. The Ladakh on the other hand were labeled with words such as "primitive" and "inefficient" which are negative words. The Ladakh must have felt ashamed of their culture for being associated with such words and symbols.

People feel the need to modernize because they want to gain a new perception of their limits. The more we advance the closer we are to discovering greater things. What we need to realize is that it takes a long time to develop a society that can handle the pressures of modernization. The Ladakh's unfortunately couldn't grasp this concept. They thought the American life was easy and simple, but in reality it is the most complex and delicate society ever assembled. They converted because they were mislead by glamorized advertisement and misinterpreted language. The desire to modernize made them unaware of the serenity that they could have, if they had remained with their original way of life.

Bibliography
Henslin. "Essentials: Sociology a Down to Earth Approach."

Norberg-Hodge. "The Pressure to Modernise and Globalise."

As Americans we believe to view our way of life as the best way to live. We have developed technology that makes life easier for us. You want to talk to a friend send them a text message, you want to go out and take photos poof your digital camera will not only take the photo but you will be immediately able to see the image. We can log into a number of social networks to say "hello" to any acquaintances or family members that maybe on your friends list. We are a society that loves technology so much so that actual personal relationships seem to be a thing of the past. In American culture we tend to place value in materials, looks, and science/technology. The core family value is a thing of the past, education is not nearly important as it use to be; it seems more like a fashion show. Who's wearing the latest and greatest fashions? Parents give kids credit cards as a way to show their children that they are loved. Where are the family traditions that are to be passed down? Have we lost all core values that make us lose sight of a true family culture?

In the example of the Ladakh people modernization seems to have torn a very deeply rooted culture into two pieces. Within culture there is tradition, traditions that are passed down from each generation. Those traditions are what make a community thrive. These people have held true to their roots, for more generations than first world nations have been alive. They understand the lay of their land and know how to cultivate what they need to survive. They take no more and no less than what is given to them. They have strong family connections to each other, and understand how population works within their community. Even money plays different role in their society. The Ladakh basic needs for shelter, food, and so on could be met without money. In the article it was cited as "The labour one needed was free of charge, part of an intricate web of human relationships." I thought that part was an interesting observation. That everyone's needs could be met without using money but relationships between people.

In the modernized world we hold no idea to a true concept of community like the Ladakh have. The great divide will begin to spring fourth as the younger generation of Ladakh begin to take on Western modernization ideas. This is leaving their culture, traditions, and values even their native language behind. With the younger generation leaving behind the foundation on which their community is built how will this affect later generations?

Modernization and Globalization have been around longer than we can probably even realize. If we think back to the roots of America we can clearly see that at first we began to modernize and globalize the Natives that inhabited this land. It starts off slow, bringing western education to a people that were already educated in the ways of their land. Perhaps we begin to tell them their style of dress is primitive, so we begin to bring "western" style to them. Maybe we show them that it's better to live in a house versus what they live in. Modernization does not think of the damage it does to a community of people rich in traditions. Without a thought of what it might not only cost a people, but what it costs the earth to have these traditions broken.As with the case of the Native Americans it wasn't enough to modernize them into western culture, they ultimately have lost much more than western modernization has ever given to them.

As a modernized American I can feel within myself this loss of culture and community. I can't help but wonder what it is that I have missed out on having no real sense of community or tradition in my life. In the article it was mentioned how modernizing was making the younger generation of Ladakh people feel ashamed of their traditions and culture. However they lose a true sense of identity of where it is they come from. They are reaching out a culture that has no real basis in building traditions or culture. Western culture is based on the now, leaving no traditions to be passed down such as farming (which use to be the back bone of our country). I found myself searching for culture and community that has unity with instilled traditions and hard work. Often I've felt very rootless not sure of where I come from.

With modernization and globalization we stand to lose what little unity we have within those small communities that make them so valuable. We forget that our way of living might not be right for everyone. I sometimes wonder if it's right for Americans. I think perhaps we have a lot more to learn from these communities than we have to learn from modernizing.

During your registration you will be asked to "Join a Class" Use the appropriate course id to enter in the correct class.

Your Course ID: cm613138

When you go to access your ebook, enter the following ebook course id to access my ebook.

The eBook ID: Course ID: Wolf00458890eb.

There are a number of online resources that come with this text. We may need to use some of them if our school gets hit with H1N1 flu.

To purchase the EBOOK ONLY.
(Do NOT do this if you purchased the regular text and are tring to access the online text. For that you should use the card in the text and the codes I provided to you.)

Go to the site: www.mysoclab.com
Click on registering as a student

Click on 1st choice: Mysoclab

Click on I want to buy mysoclab with ebook

Click on Henslin 8e essentials

Follow registration process.......

There are many different types of stratification within a society. A societies' particular value system based on their cultures ideology of how power, wealth, and prestige are allocated determine where a person is placed in their stratification system. These basic stratification processes can also be used to categorize countries around the world where the distribution of wealth, power and prestige is extremely unequal. An individual country's position in the stratification process is established by its relationship to other countries and its ability to achieve economic power. This is global stratification.

This global stratification process is still going on today but the Western European countries have been replaced by multinational corporations. These corporations "sail" around the world and find the least expensive labor they can, set up shop (just as the colonists did), and begin exploiting the indigenous people and their resources. Third world countries are a particularly easy target because the people there live in extreme poverty. Any offer, no matter how meager, is usually better than what they currently have available to them.

Many people defend multinational corporations, and "globalization" saying they create jobs, transfer technology, and help a countries economic development. This can be true, but what we are finding today is that the main goal of the huge multinational corporations is to maximize profits, not to try and help the local population in their plight for a better life. These multinational corporations operate without any respect for the people, the environment, or even the government of the country in which they operate. They continuously break laws with no consequence. They exploit workers with no consequence. They pollute the land with no consequence. And they do all this to earn bigger profits for Wall Street.

Some of the biggest multinational corporations are oil companies. These corporations have had a long history of bad behavior in which they exploit the local population for their own economic gain. One example of this is ExxonMobil. This is an American company based in Irving, Texas. They were operating a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Lhokseumawe, Ache (A special territory of Indonesia located on the northern tip of Sumatra). MobilExxon paid the Indonesian government (a centralized, military-dominated government) 30% of its total oil and gas revenues in order to operate there; however, the local population did not receive any benefits from this arrangement. (Collingsworth) When the natural gas was discovered there in the 1970s the local villagers were immediately displaced and forced to move from their land without any compensation.

After beginning operations, ExxonMobil separated themselves from the local population by building their own "compounds" that were fenced off from the local villagers. These compounds included luxurious living quarters for their corporate staff. The ExxonMobil elite even had their own paved road (the only paved one in the area) which the locals were not allowed to drive on. The locals had to constantly put up with natural gas flair ups and chemical spills. These spills caused many health problems in the nearby villages. The industrial waste from the plant polluted rice paddies (their main source of food) and fishing ponds. The villagers who organized themselves and tried to speak out against MobilExxon were routinely raped, tortured, and even murdered by Indonesian Military soldiers who were hired by ExxonMobil Corporation to provide security for them. These atrocities were reported by human rights groups, international human rights organizations, and the U.S. Department of State, to no avail. Many of the people were tortured by the security forces inside the ExxonMobil compound itself. The facilities had special areas built inside the compound to accommodate the military forces needs, such as barracks and holding rooms. Additionally, ExxonMobil provided these security forces with heavy equipment to cover mass burials after a conflict with locals who were protesting against conditions there.

Even though ExxonMobil knew of these human rights violations, they kept providing the Indonesian military with money and resources. Clearly, ExxonMobil believed the people of Ache were a separate underclass that did not deserve to be treated the same as their corporate "elite" who were mostly American. The ExxonMobil officers and management did not care about the land, environment, or the people of Ache, they just wanted to extract natural gas and make very large profits even if it was at the expense of the locals and the environment.

Another multinational corporation who definitely stratifies the country they operate in and the local people is Coca-Cola. In the late 1990s, Coca-Cola (Nestle Corporation participated in this too) was accused of bringing in paramilitaries to intimidate, kidnap, torture and then ultimately murder union leaders who were trying to improve working conditions at the bottling plant in Columbia. Coca-Cola wanted to keep wages low and orchestrated these events to keep the unions from gaining power. In fact, the multinational corporations have so much power in Columbia, that more union leaders are murdered there than anywhere else in the word.

In India, Coca-Cola is accused of polluting groundwater and soil, causing water shortages and having high levels of pesticide in its soft drinks. Amit Srivastava, of the India Resource Centre stated, "We are profiling a series of community struggles against Coca-Cola in India, all of which point to a pattern in the company's operations. The communities are left thirsting as Coca-Cola draws water from the common water resources. . ."

Additionally, Coca-Cola has illegally occupied some private property that belonged to local villages and has not even paid for it. The villagers took Coca-Cola to court and the company was ordered to pay the villagers for the property, but they were never paid. When they protested the Coca-Cola plant hoping to get their money, they were met by 200 law enforcement officers who were sent to the plant to protect Coca-Cola. The demonstrators were then badly beaten by the police and sent away. (Srivastava, 2003) Furthermore, when Coca-Cola set up bottling plants in India, they agreed to divest a forty-nine percent stake in the company to Indian entities within five years of operation. Coca-Cola no longer wants to do this, and the government of India became worried that Coca-Cola may leave India, so they will accommodate Coca-Cola by accepting a new arrangement which includes some ownership without any voting rights.

I personally know several people who have worked for Coca-Cola in America. The workers there were treated like numbers, not people. The employees were never happy and had many quotas set on them. I can only imagine how the employees in other countries are treated without the protections that are afforded workers in the United States. It is evident that the Coca-Cola Corporation thinks they can do what they please to laborers in other countries. They feel the people in third world countries are beneath them and they will continue to exploit them in order to keep soft drinks cheap, and earn Coca Cola large profits.

Another example of multinational corporations exploiting a country and the people is Chiquita Brands. They are headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. They produce fresh fruits, vegetables and juices which are sold all over the world. Chiquita's exploitation of workers began in the 1950s when it used it political power to convince the U.S. government to overthrow the government of Guatemala. Over 100,000 people we killed or went missing as a result of this action. Additionally, they used a pesticide called Nemagon that is so toxic it had been banned in the United States since the 1970s. They would spray Nemagon on their crops without any type of protection for the field workers. Sometimes the workers were still in the fields picking bananas when the spraying occurred. Nemagon has been proven to cause many medical problems including migraines, vision loss, liver and kidney damage, infertility, cancer, miscarriage and birth defects. Additionally, Chiquita brands admitted in Federal Court that it had for years paid terrorists to protect its banana fields in Columbia. According to U.S. Officials familiar with the case, the terrorists that had been paid were involved in torture, kidnapping, rape, beatings, extortion, drug trafficking, and the killing of thousands of rural Columbians.

Lastly, is the Gap which is headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Gap has manufacturing facilities all over the world, including some that are in American territories. All the countries where the Gap operates have reported human rights abuses. In October 2007, Indian authorities raided manufacturing facilities in New Delhi and found children as young as 10 years old who had been sold to the factory by their parents working there as slaves - they were not even earning a salary. Another factory reported three deaths in 2007 because management refused to allow the employees to leave when they became seriously ill at work.

Just like the early European colonists, these corporations have no regard for the people, or the government of the country where they operate. They move in to these countries in order to exploit the people and get valuable resources to benefit only themselves. They do not build infrastructure, offer medical plans, or try to enhance the indigenous people's life in any way. They are arrogant, powerful, and many times can be more powerful than the governments where they operate. If multinational corporations are going to continue to expand around the world, perhaps we should consider a "world minimum wage" and world "working conditions" reforms that all the companies must abide by. The wages do not have to be as high as they are in the United States, but they should be high enough that the people can work a normal workday and live comfortably. If these multinational companies had these types of regulations put on them, they may even think twice about moving into another country and interfering with their culture and traditions. Maybe it will slow down the pace of their expansion around the world and their exploitation of the people, their resources, and governments to get what they want - corporate profits at the expense of everyone.
Works Cited:

1. Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology A down-to-Earth Approach. Allyn and Bacon: Boston MA

2. Collingsworth, Terry. "Using the Alien Tort Claims to Act to Introduce the Rule of Law to the Global Economy"
http://wwwlaborrights.org

3. Leech, Gay M. "Coca-Cola Accused of Using Death Squads to Target Union Leaders" 2001
http://www6.svsu.edu/~boles/index/coca-coladeath.htm

4. Srivastava, Amit "Communities Reject Coca-Cola in India" India Resource Center. 2003
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7508/

5. Krebs, A.V. "Chiquita, Dole, & Del Monte Sued for Poisoning Banana Workers in Costa Rica" The
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chiquita100804.cfm

6. Staff, "Chiquita pleads guilty in terrorism probe" The Associated Press 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17688439/

7. Staff, "Nicaragua: International Action Day in Support of Banana Workers!" Report from Nicaragua Network. 2003
http://www.labournet.net/world/0311/nicarag1.html

8. Cisneros, Noel "Gap Sweatshop Videos Cause Uproar" ABC7. 2007
http://www. abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=business&id=5732845

9. McVeigh, Karen "Third death in a year at Indian factory that supplies Gap" Guardian. 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2191399,00.html

"Human history is the chronicle of class struggle, those in power using society's resources to benefit themselves and to oppress those beneath them - and of opposed groups trying to overcome domination." (Henslin 2009)

This quote from Henslin's book, "Essentials of Sociology," shows us that all throughout human history, there has been class struggle, and there have been those in power, whether it is political or corporate power, who will use society's resources to benefit only themselves.

Let us begin with the notion that unattractive jobs must be filled by foreign workers. Employers who state that Americans will not do certain jobs because they are beneath them imply that the foreign workers who take them are a separate underclass. Having our government back these employers by issuing policies that allow them to hire guestworkers internalizes this ideology in our society - that guestworkers are a separate underclass and deserve to be treated as such. This idea is in conflict with what we are outwardly taught that America is a society that believes in equality of opportunity and that we should avoid ethnic and racial discrimination of any kind.

This internalized ideology is prevalent among employers who seek to hire guestworkers for low wages. An example of just how prevalent this ideology is among employers comes from a company, Professional Grounds, Inc., which is a landscaping company located in Springfield, Virginia. In 2006, they ran a help wanted ad in the local newspaper for landscaper help. The company stated in their ad that the starting wage was $7.74 per hour - which is $8.32 in comparable 2009 wages. (In researching these figures, I found that one of the lowest paid positions in Springfield at the time was a car wash attendant who made $11.00 per hour in 2006 wages and $11.83 per hour in 2009 wages). The company always placed ads like this, and they hoped that nobody would respond, because if they did, Professional Grounds would by law, have to offer the jobs to United States citizens. Professional Grounds actually recruits its real labor force from Mexico and Central America through the United States Department of Labor's H-2A Program. This is a program that allows employers who cannot find enough American workers at the market's "prevailing wages" to hire foreign migrant workers on temporary work visas. By advertising for these jobs at such low wages, Professional Grounds is assured of being able to hire "guest workers" and pay them very low wages because they know that American citizens will not apply. The low wages offered for these jobs support the ideology that "Immigrants fill the jobs native workers won't do." The President of Professional Grounds buys into the ideology wholeheartedly. When he was asked if "native-born Americans" would apply if the wages were doubled he said, "I don't think it's a wage situation. It's the type of work and the nature of the work. It's hard, backbreaking work." (Jaynes, p. 6)

Additionally, the idea that the guestworker policy is good because it helps keep prices low and does not affect American jobs is not true. History has showed us time and again that guestworkers are exploited and abused. In fact, we should ask ourselves, "How can a program, which permanently isolates a class of workers and treats them as a separate and unequal social class, not lead to exploitation?" According to Henslin, conflict theorists believe that there are two main ways to keep laborers under control. "The first tactic is to keep workers insecure. Fear of unemployment works especially well," and the second tactic is "encouraging and exploiting racial - ethnic divisions" by pitting worker against worker". (Henslin 2009) One of the main problems guestworkers face is that fact that they cannot freely change jobs, because their H-2 contract stipulates that they can only work for the employer who hired them. Moreover, they do not complain if they are exploited or abused because they are afraid that they will be deported. Furthermore, they face many civil rights abuses. Some of these abuses are that they are cheated out of wages, held captive by employers who confiscate their documents, forced to live in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, denied medical coverage if they are injured on the job, and many are forced to pay large sums of money for the privilege of coming to the United States to work. (Bauer 2007)

The first occurrence of guestworkers being exploited and socially oppressed began in 1942, when the United States negotiated with the Mexican government to import low-skilled labor, creating the Bracero Program. This program began as a way to help American farmers because there was a labor shortage as the United States had just entered World War II. The Bracero Program was supposed to bring in a few hundred experienced farm laborers to harvest sugar beets in California, but by the time the program was abolished in 1964, more than 4,500,000 Mexican laborers filled jobs of the Braceros. Although this program had many legal protections written in it, including contracts with workers, housing that would comply with minimum standards, wage guarantees, minimum of 30 days of work, and shared transportation costs, none of these protections stopped American employers from exploiting the Braceros.

As is the case today, due to deportation threats, the Braceros were afraid to complain; they were technically held captive because they did not work consistently and were unable to earn enough money to even pay their way back home. When they did work, they had to work long hours - sometimes 12 a day, and their earnings barely covered their expenses. They constantly had unauthorized deductions taken out of their pay, were given little or no food and they had to live in run-down, unsanitary and overcrowded housing. In addition, they encountered unsafe working conditions that sometimes led to disabling or fatal accidents, and they even tolerated physical abuse, as well as severe racial discrimination. In fact, the exploitation and mistreatment of the Braceros was so severe in Texas, that the Mexican government barred Texas from participating in the program from 1942 to 1947. This first guestworker program was so abused and the people were so badly exploited that the Labor Officer in charge of it, Lee G. Williams said that it was a system of "legalized slavery." (Bauer 2007) Conflict theorists term this type of treatment of one social class exploiting the other, "internal colonialism." Internal colonialism is similar to colonialism, but instead of an industrialized nation taking advantage of a less industrialized nation, a country's dominate group exploits minority groups for their economic advantage. They manipulate social and governmental institutions to control minorities and deny them full access to their society's benefits. (Henslin 2009)

Just like the employers of today, the farmers' main purpose in recruiting foreign workers was to be able to exercise control over who worked, dictate how much they earned, and to be able to control under what conditions they worked and lived. Like any other classification based on immigration status, guestworker programs segregate the workforce, which allows employers to exploit immigrant workers which in turn, drives all workers' wages down.

Stratification of the guestworkers become even more pervasive when, in addition to abuse in the work place, Braceros had to contend with discrimination in the communities where they worked. Many of the establishments in these communities posted "No Mexicans, White Trade Only" signs in an effort to keep Braceros away. Furthermore, many Braceros reported that they often received verbal abuses, false arrests, and physical attacks. (Hines 2006)

After the Bracero Program was terminated in 1964, another phase of exploitation began when foreign workers were imported for agricultural work under the H-2 sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This program was set up in 1943 because Florida's sugar cane industry requested and was given permission to hire Caribbean workers to cut sugar cane on temporary visas. This program too, was badly flawed, and the Caribbean laborers were often exploited, abused, and paid a lower rate than originally promised. Then, in 1986, a well-publicized labor dispute occurred where 300 sugar cane cutters refused to work unless they were paid their stated contract amount. The company involved called the police, and they used guns and dogs to gain control over the laborers, round them up, put them on busses and send them back to the Caribbean. This incident demonstrates the opportunity for extreme abuse in a guestworker program, because it permits the employers to have absolute control of the workers, which includes their right to remain in the United States. (Bauer 2007)

This H-2 program was revised in 1986 as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which divided it into two sections, the H-2A agricultural program and the H-2B non-agricultural program. Both these programs have protections written in them, but these protections exist only on paper. As was stated earlier, one of the fundamental problems with these guestworker programs is that it gives the employer absolute control over their guestworkers, not just in their wages and working conditions, but also in their legal status. This creates a huge imbalance of power, which is dangerous and leads to extreme abuses.

The exploitation of guestworkers normally begins in their home countries when the agencies that represent the United States employers recruit the workers. Lured by these recruiters and promised jobs that pay high wages, they are required to pay large fees, sometimes thousands of dollars, to cover the cost of travel, fees, visas and profit for the recruiters. Most of the workers who want to come to the United States to work are doing so because they have little or no economic opportunities available to them, and they usually are living in poverty. To pay these huge fees, they borrow from friends, or may mortgage a family home. If they don't have anything to mortgage, or have friends to borrow from they must take out loans at very high interest rates, making it impossible for them to ever pay the loan off during the term of their contract.

For example, in her article "Close to Slavery, Mary Bauer of The Southern Poverty Law Center writes how Guatemalan guestworkers paid an average of $2,000 in travel, visa, and hiring fees to obtain forestry jobs in the United States. She states, "Guatemalans are recruited from Huehuetenango, an extremely poor region where many indigenous people live. . . They generally work as subsistence farmers and have virtually no opportunity to earn wages in rural Guatemala.

Thus, their only realistic option for raising the funds needed to secure H-2 jobs in the United States is to visit a loan shark, who will likely charge exorbitant interest rates. Many of these workers report having been charged 20 percent each month. Given that the pine tree planting season is three months long and workers often earn less than $1,000 per month, they have little hope of repaying the debt doing the work for which they were hired." In her report, she tells the story of Alvaro Hernandez-Lopez who came to the United States to work for Express Forestry Inc. He states, "What I earned planting trees in the States was hardly enough to pay my debt . . . it was really hard for us to fight to get to the States legally and then not earn any money. We were told we had to leave our deeds to get the job. On a blank paper, we had to sign our names and hand over our deeds. They said that if we didn't sign this paper they wouldn't bring us to the states to work." (Bauer 2007)

Then, there is the story of Nelson Ramirez. He signed up to work with Eller and Sons Trees Inc. The agency who recruited him required his wife to sign a paper agreeing to be responsible for his debt if he did not honor his contract. Again, as the conflict theorists believe, this is a tactic of keeping the workers insecure, and therefore, under control.

This type of extortion is not limited to Latin America. There are recruiters in Thailand who charged $5,000 - $10,000 or more for the privilege of being employed in short-term agricultural jobs that pay less than $10.00 per hour. In actually, the workers were not even paid that.

Additionally, in an effort to keep wages low, many employers will seek long visa periods, claiming to have many more months of work than they actually have. When the guestworkers have completed their contract, the employer "allows" them to go work somewhere else. The guestworkers call this period "tiempo libre," or their "free period." This is violation of the immigration laws, but the workers think this is legal because their employer gave them permission. By allowing this period of "tiempo libre", the employers are able to continue to attract a low paid workforce. (Bauer 2007) This policy of allowing a worker to "work off" their contract, then being released to work somewhere else closely resembles the definition of an indentured servant.

Another tactic of ensuring that the guestworkers remain insecure and vulnerable is that the employers "hold all the cards" relating to the employment of the guestworker. The worker basically has no rights because the employer can send them home for any reason whatsoever. A forestry worker from Guatemala reported that when a supervisor noticed that a guestworker was getting fed up because the pay was too low, the employer would take the workers papers away. The forestry worker said the employers would rip up their visas and threaten them with deportation. This has been one of the most common complaints from guestworkers - the seizure of their papers. Some employers say they are holding the documents for safekeeping, while there are others who will admit that they are taking the papers so the guestworkers will not leave in the middle of the contract. The employers believe that if the workers have their paperwork, they will leave. (Bauer 2007)

Discrimination is another form of stratification guestworkers must endure. Many of the workers who want to come and work in the United States are told by recruiters that they are too old. One guestworker was told that it was the policy of the North Carolina Growers Association that they don't accept employees over the age of 40. The United States claims they have no jurisdiction over this type discrimination because it does not happen on United States soil. Moreover, guestworkers often times receive different pay based on their national origin, and women are frequently put into H-2B jobs (non-agricultural) because they pay less than H-2A jobs. (Bauer 2007)

In addition to discrimination, women guestworkers report being continuously sexually harassed. After meeting with farm workers in Fresno, California, William R. Tamayo, a regional attorney for the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), stated that, "We were told that hundreds, if not thousands, of women had to have sex with supervisors to get or keep jobs and/or put up with a constant barrage of grabbing and touching and propositions for sex by supervisors." Additionally, Tamayo was told that there is a field in California that the guestworkers refer to as "fil de calzon," or "field of panties," because so many women had been raped by there by their supervisors. (Bauer 2007)

Another requirement set by the H-2 guestworker program is that employees of the H-2A program (the agricultural workers) are to receive free housing that is in good condition for the period of the contract. The housing is often times inadequate, and some workers have reported that as many as 20 workers must share a "house" and many more report having to live in accommodations such as old school busses. Guestworkers who are hired on the H-2B program are not required to receive free housing, but many employers still offer it purely out of necessity - the workers are paid so little they cannot find housing on their own. The employers who offer housing to the H-2B workers are allowed to charge them rent which, of course they do. The rent, which is often excessive, is deducted from the workers' paycheck, and the workers end up earning much less than they expected; it often works out to be less than the minimum wage.

Moreover, employers often locate guestworker's housing in isolated rural areas. This causes the workers to be extremely dependent on their employer since they usually don't have cars and there is insufficient public transportation available to them in these rural areas. In addition to being exploited by their employers, the workers must also rely on them for transportation for trips to the grocery store and banks. Having the guestworkers so dependent on the employer gives the employer absolute power over their workers. Furthermore, many guestworkers report that the housing given to them lacks electricity, bathrooms, and even windows. For example, some of the guestworkers who were hired to help clean up after Hurricane Katrina actually had to live in the hotels that had been damaged by the hurricane. These hotels were dirty, moldy, and filled with garbage. The water was not safe to drink, but the workers had no choice but to use it to cook their food. (Bauer 2007)

Due to the fact there is so much illegal immigration in the United States, there is much debate in congress about what we should do with our H-2 guestworker program. President Bush implemented changes to it before he left office that President Obama and our new representatives do not agree with, so the debate continues. However, what congress really needs to consider is whether or not we can really fix a broken program that has had allowed such terrible abuses to migrant workers. Moreover, since these abuses have been ongoing since the 1940s, maybe we should consider a completely new approach to the guestworker dilemma. While researching what might work to fix the H-2 program I discovered what seems like a promising alternative to our current program. A Futurist and an International Affairs Student, named King Taj, suggests that a possible solution would be to allow the migrant workers to move freely from the United States to their home country. He calls this a "Circular Pattern." This would allow the migrant workers to maintain a relationship with their families, and maintain social ties with their home country. He states, "This can lead to eventual permanent repatriation for many reasons. First, it may help migrants maintain a sense of belonging to their original communities. It may also encourage migrants to develop business relationships and look for financial opportunities in their home countries. For immigrants in the United States, a circular pattern means being able to return home without the risk of being shut out when trying to return to the United States. Daniel Griswold argues that most Mexicans who come to the United States do not have plans to stay permanently, and that the goal is typically to return home and rejoin families and communities. The implication here is that migrant workers are afraid to return home for fear they will not be able to easily return to the United States." (Taj, 2007)

This seems like a promising idea since we have a history about this too. Before the introduction of the Border Patrol in 1924, and before the introduction Bracero Program in 1942, Mexican laborers were free to cross the border, work, and return home. Most laborers did not stay in the United States. They just wanted and needed to work and then would return home to their families, friends, and their own familiar culture. The United States created the problem of illegal immigrants by making it hard for the laborers to reenter the United States after they returned home. Perhaps our representatives in Washington D.C. should look at what has worked in the past before making decisions about what we should do in the future.

Clearly, the H-2 guestworker program contains many flaws in it that allow employers to exploit migrant workers who want to work in the United States. Although changes to the policy could offer more protections to the guestworkers, I do not believe this program should be expanded, or even used at all in the United States. Moreover, when immigrants come to America, they become part of our society and culture. Even the immigrants who are here illegally can become part of our society; if not them, their children who are born here can. Unless we can change the ideology that the politicians and the corporations have engrained into our culture, a guestworker and their family will have no opportunity to become part of our American society. They will be slotted into a "caste," with no real hope of ever rising above it. They will never be viewed by Americans as equals. They will never be immigrants or future Americans; they will merely be janitors, construction workers, and housekeepers. (The New Republic, 2006)

Works Cited

1. Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology A down-to-Earth Approach. Allyn and Bacon:
Boston MA

2. Hines, Sarah 2006. "America's Last Guest Worker Program: A System Designed for Maximum Exploitation"
http://www.counterpunch.org/hines04212006.htm

3. Bauer, Mary 2008. "Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States"
http://www.uncommonthought.net/global/SPLCguestworker.pdf

4. Coleman, David A. 2007. "To the Contrary" PBS TV show transcript
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/quotes_library/#coleman

5. Taj, King 2007 Guest Worker Programs: Establishing a Circular Pattern.
http://kingtaj.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/30/694137-guest-worker-programs-establishing-a-circular-pattern

6. "That's Hospitality" 2006 The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/thats-hospitality

7. Jaynes, Gerald D. "Migration and Social Stratification: Bipluralism and the Western Democratic State"
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FDBR%2FDBR4_01%2FS1742058X07070026a.pdf&code=ec0f02a071a588220244640216120c97

I admit it, I am a Californian transplant. Unable to afford the rising housing trends of my home state, I moved northward where rumors of better prospects existed. When I asked locals where I would be able to buy a house in the Portland Metro area, I was unanimously directed (by whites) to what was referred to as "the Ghetto," or the inner Northeast. I was informed that there was a revival of areas where the prices were cheap and the neighborhoods were on the "up and up."

The ITS Geography Dictionary & Glossary defines gentrification as "the renovation of the housing fabric in an old, usually inner-city area, when more affluent groups displace lower income groups en masse over a relatively short period of time. May be triggered by a clear event such as the improvement or provision of a better transport link, or by something less tangible such as a fashion trend taking off in the housing market" (ITS, 2009.) Elizabeth Kirkland writes "in urban lore, the pre-gentrified neighborhood is inhabited mostly by African Americans or other people of color when the rumblings of change begin, and the rumblers are typically white--white, upper middle-class, professional homebuyers, displacing the original residents" in her article 'What's Race Got to Do With it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of Gentrification' (Kirkland, 2008).

Through these processes, it is no far leap to surmises how gentrification could in fact re-enforce segregation as housing prices escalate and trendy consumer culture drives away cornerstone community businesses. Unable to afford rising costs, families move farther out to cheaper areas, which in effect dissolves the core of all neighborhoods- community. "As black residents leave the central areas of Portland and Seattle for the suburbs -- either because they have sold their homes or been forced out by higher rents -- their community is being splintered by geographic dispersal and racial integration" (Harden, 2006).

In class discussions we learned the importance of social structure on the maintenance of culture and how social institutions re-enforce our connection to culture. So if the social institution of Economy drives families and communities apart to different geographical areas, the culture as was defined prior will be in risk of losing power over identity of not just the culture at large, but of the individual as well. The loss of identity sparks depression, low self esteem, and isolation. In many ways, this can be seen as a means of controlling a specific population by stripping away aspects of power. Isolation in itself defies organization, which is a fundamental pillar of social change.

Last winter I took a job as a holiday delivery helper for UPS. The Mississippi/Emanuel Legacy Hospital is Curtis's (the driver) route. Curtis is a tall, thin, black man whose family moved to Portland in the mid-50's from the "deep south." He grew up in the neighborhoods where we were delivering packages and I was amazed at how many people he knew on a personal level. He called the elderly by their formal last names, who in turn greeted him with lifelong familiarity and called out greetings to pass to his family members. He pointed out cousins, childhood friends, teachers, old neighbors, old sweethearts, and congregation leaders of his past. And it was through Curtis that I learned Oregon was still segregated until 1964.

He told me about how he couldn't go into stores, movie houses, or restaurants when he was a young man and how it made him feel frustrated and angry, and yet it was perceived as normal at the time. He told me how the neighborhoods had changed and how many people had moved to other areas of Portland, including himself due to inflating housing costs. He embodied what I now recognize as a communal story of black displacement in Northeast Portland. As more white people move into these neighborhoods, that web of community is littered with gaps of connection and replaced with suspicion, doubt, and even a lack of introduction.

I have since moved into Northeast Portland over the last month and have literally not met a single neighbor on my street. And as I grow to understand the history on how parts of Portland became black communities, there is a deep sadness attached to my time with Curtis because I understand now that these communities were forced into these specific places, however, in these areas there was a vast network of family and extended family to serve as culture informers and a framework of support. And these communities had been thriving.

When Oregon became a state of the Union in 1859, the state constitution excluded the right of admittance and establishment of black Americans. This remained state law for more than 60 years (Yardley, 2008). In 1943, the "first influx of African American families moved into cramped quarters in the Guild's Lake district and... into the new wartime housing project at Vanport" to work in the shipping yards (Robbins, 2002). In the flood in 1948, Vanport- which had been the second largest city in all of Oregon- was under 15 feet of water and thousands of low income dock workers, both white and black, were suddenly homeless (McGregor, 2003).

Portland had restrictions on who could rent what and where. Ridiculously enough, this was written in what was called the real estate industry's "Code of Ethics," which forced black people into the Albina area of Portland (McGregor, 2003). If you were black, you could not rent or buy a home in any other area of the city aside from the Albina district. This was built into law and re-enforced by deed restrictions, bank loans, and policing. Even once the "Code of Ethics" had been amended to repeal these restrictions, in "1960, when over 10,000 African Americans lived in the city, 73 percent of them were still huddled together in Albina.  Because of this concentration, Portland's schools were as segregated as Alabama's" (McGregor, 2003).

It wasn't too long until the city of Portland began increasing the density of residents to smaller neighborhoods by reclaiming areas for urban renewal, beginning with the construction of the coliseum of the Rose Quarter in 1956 (Hyatt-Evenson and Griffith, 2002). The city claimed the housing in this area was substandard, and presumably the people living there too. If the norms of a culture, in this instance white elite Portland developers, is to regard the black community as insignificant, than the range of acceptable behavior is to ignore or possibly even fail to acknowledge the impact of literally wiping out neighborhoods for the sake of a sports arena. It is highly possible that the attitude atmosphere at the time was one of complete ignorance and lack of caring towards the displacement of black residents. William Toll outlines the city's continual moves against the black community over the next twenty years of development:

"Between 1956 and the early 1970s a series of massive construction projects decimated the Albina district. In 1956 voters approved bonds to build the Memorial Coliseum, which was located on the oldest portion of the neighborhood. In the 1960s the interstate highway to Seattle was routed away from downtown Portland to the east bank of the Willamette River through central Albina. In the 1970s Emanuel Hospital expanded to absorb still more housing, and construction began on the Fremont Bridge. Its ramps to Interstate-5 shredded the southern end of Albina, pushing still more black families to the northeast (Toll, 2003)."

And Portland isn't the only city to take such actions against the black community. Birmingham, between 1926 and the mid 1970's, zoned and constructed highways directly through the center of black neighborhoods to perpetuate racial segregation (Connerly, 2009). This was happening to black communities all over the nation- it was purposeful and damaging to the integrity of the established neighborhoods.

So it is no wonder why in the 1980's so much of the inner Northeast of Portland was falling into disrepair and abandonment with empty lots and boarded up houses. The people who had been living here had been forced to relocate multiple times! With so many empty houses, the property values of the neighborhoods fell which attracted many developer's eyes. "In the mid to late 1980's, it was possible to buy houses in Portland that were in sound condition for under $30,000" (Howe, 2004: 187). However, the unwritten policy of banks financing mortgages set the loan minimum to $25,000, as such, "someone who could qualify to buy a $25,000 car could not obtain a loan for a $16,000 house. It was a system of red lining without the red lines (Lane, 1990)" (Howe, 2004:193).

The 1990's brought more of the me's (that is Californians) to Portland in the form of Dot-Commer's (not me) who were young, 20-34, with pockets full of fast made money. This influx of population drove prices higher, and moderate to low income families weren't able to participate in the property purchasing. "Between 1990 and 1996 housing prices rose so rapidly that north and northeast neighborhoods saw prices double and in some places triple" (Gibson and Abbott, 2002) (Seltzer, 2004:69). With African American homeownership growing only 1.6% compared with white homeownership's 6.9% increase in the 1990's, it is clear that the accumulation of equity in the form of property was slanted toward white favor (Howe, 2004:190-191). This directly affects the social class and social stratification placement of the large group of black families that could not afford to purchase a home, and as we discussed in class, the access to control over resources is closely tied to power and prestige. These neighborhoods were primed for the reverse of white flight in the form of white flood. And as I write this from my apartment just off of Mississippi Ave, I know I am part of the problem facing the black community in Portland.

So what is to be done regarding gentrification in Portland? There are many currently working on this issue. The Restorative Listening Project is designed to provide the opportunity for those affected by gentrification to engage in dialogue with the "gentrifiers" in an effort to establish an understanding of the experienced impact. How much will this help? I can't imagine it will stop gentrification or black displacement but it may provide an awareness to the white people moving into these historically black neighborhoods. As for me, when the time comes to buy a house, I think I will look into other areas of Portland. Until then, it's about time I meet the neighbors and find a way to engage in the community around me. While I will always be considered "white," although it wasn't too long ago that my Hungarian ancestors were not, I can be considered a good neighbor and a part of the community.

Works Cited:
Connerly, Charles E. 2009. "From Racial Zoning to Community Empowerment: The Interstate Highway System and the African American Community in Birmingham, Alabama." Portland State University Urban Planning Department class notes.

Curtis, the UPS driver. 2008.

Harden, Blaine. 2006. "In Parts of U.S. Northwest, a Changing Face: Economics Drive White Gentrification of Core Black Neighborhoods of Seattle and Portland." The Washington Post. Monday, June 19.

Howe, Deborah. 2004. "The Reality of Portland's Housing Market." The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities. Edited by Connie P. Ozawa. Pages 184-205. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Hyatt-Evenson, Tania and Sarah Griffith. 2002. "Albina Residents Picket Emanuel Hospital." Oregon Historical Socitey. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=0004CBF8-16F2-1ECD-A42A80B05272006C

ITS Tutorial School. 2009. " 'G' , Geography Dictionary." http://www.tuition.com.hk/geography/g.htm

Kirkland, Elizabeth. 2008. "What's Race Got to Do With it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of Gentrification." The Western Journal of Black Studies. 32(2):18-30.

McGregor, Michael. 2003. "The Vanport Flood & Racial Change in Portland." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/learning_center/dspResource.cfm?resource_ID=000BC26B-EE5A-1E47-AE5A80B05272FE9F

Robbins, William G. 2002. "Cramped Quarters." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/the-oregon-history-project/narratives/this-land-oregon/oregon-depression-war/cramped-quarters.cfm

Seltzer, Ethan. 2004. "It's Not an Experiment: Regional Planning at Metro, 1990 to the Present." The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities. Edited by Connie P. Ozawa. Pages 184-205. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Toll, William. 2003. "Subtopic : Portland Neighborhoods, 1960s-Present: Race and Progressive Resistance." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=220

Wolf, Rowan. 2009. SOC 204 class discussions and notes.

Yardley, William. 2008. "Racial Shift in a Progressive City Spurs Talks", New York Times. http://www.srwolf.com/wolfsoc/articlearchives/2008/06/racial_shift_in_a_progressive.html

When you go into any franchise market, restaurant, or store, you often encounter this rather impersonal and insincere attitude from the workers in these establishments. You are often thought of as a number, another customer that is adding to the company's profit, and not as a human being or individual. I remember going into a Walmart store in Virginia Beach, VA a long time ago, and experiencing first hand just how impersonal a big franchise could be. The cashier barely looked at me in the face, and had this rather monotonous tone in their voice that voided them of any personality. Most big companies are typically set up bureaucratically. This means that jobs are divided up, and the hard labor tasks are done by workers that make the company functional who, incidentally, all working under the supervision of CEOs and managers. After having experienced such an undesirable situation at a Walmart store, I made a conscious decision to start supporting local businesses because of the personal interaction and care you get from the workers when you buy from them, and not to mention you are supporting the local economy and making it thrive. The rise and expansion of big companies and franchises such as McDonald's and Walmart, has clearly made a negative impact on society by standardizing the way people live their lives.

Henslin (P. 124-125) describes the typical characteristics of bureaucracies. "Bureaucracies have: Clear levels, with assignments flowing downward and accountability flowing upward. A division of labor. Written rules. Written communications and records. Impersonality and replaceability." These characteristics hold true for most big companies because this is how most of them are able to function and stay alive. With big companies, you always have a head person (usually a CEO or a manager), and they have to do the least amount of labor-intensive work. Rarely do any of the owners or CEOs have any communication or interaction with the labor workers who work below them who help keep the company functioning, and very rarely any of the consumers. Most of the labor workers of these companies are often worked to death and paid grossly low wages for the amount of work they put out for the company. Most of the ways that the CEOs of big companies get in touch with the workers is through impersonal e-mails or fliers and bulletins for the employees to read.

With this impersonal way of communication, it leaves much to be desired for the workers to believe that the company actually cares about their overall well-being. To the CEO's and managers of these franchise companies, they do not see their workers as actually human beings/individuals, they see them as expendable entities that if they are not helping the company with their monetary gain or accretion, that they can easily replace those workers who are not helpful, and hire new workers that will. When those companies are gaining profit, most of it goes to the CEOs, leaving the workers frustrated, depressed, and usually poor because of their low wages and hard working environments. Most big companies only care about branching out, becoming more famous, and of course, becoming wealthier.

This sort of mentality has bled into mainstream culture. We have billions upon billions of fast food chains for those who do not have time to cook, and want something quick, easy, and know you will always get the same product every time. We live in a world where we expect everything to be consistent and reliable. We are always looking for something grander, trying to beat out others, to gain status and power, and taking down anyone along the way. The flaw of this type of mentality in everyday social interaction (personal and professional) with each other, is that we as a society have become stripped of any feeling or empathy, which is a pertinent characteristic of what makes us individuals, what makes us human beings. We have become a society that mainly thinks about themselves, and not really care or are aware of the well being of others. We are so submersed in our own selfish needs, that we often forget that there is world with people and living things that surrounds us.

An example of a type of bureaucracy is chain supermarkets or stores. When you go into a huge store chain such as Walmart or WinCo foods, you walk in, and immediately upon putting one foot into the store; you get this sort of impersonal vibe that inundates you the whole time you are there. You immediately sense the lack of diversity, and this overwhelming feeling that you are a small ant wandering through this huge dirt hill. I get the same feeling inside me whenever I walk through a Walmart or WinCo food, which is why I avoid shopping at these particular places all together. As soon as you walk into a Walmart, you notice a similarity in everything around you. All the isles in the store look alike with the same products stocked in the shelves, and all of the employees are dressed the same with their blue vests. After a couple minutes of being in the store, you start to have a hard time distinguishing between the different employees because they all start to blend together and look the same. A quote that is referenced in the article, "Eleven Inherent Rules of Corporate Behaviors" by Jerry Mander by the president of Nabisco Corporation:

"One world of homogenous consumption... [I am] looking forward to the day when Arabs and Americans, Latinos and Scandinavians, will be munching on Ritz crackers as enthusiastically as they already drink Coke or brush their teeth with Colgate" (Mander, P.4).

This quote epitomizes one of the main characteristics of bureaucracies - homogenization. Big companies have this idea that everything needs to look, feel, act, and smell the same, the less variation the better. They want to be able to have consistency, and reproducibility in their ideas and products because that is what they know will sell and will help their company grow. The same idea becomes embedded into their workers as well. Going back to Walmart, when you go to ask a cashier a question about where a certain item is located, you get this sort of friendly-fake yet monotonous tone in their voice when they respond to you.

They have to act a certain way towards the customers, and usually have a spiel to do because that is what is expected of them, and after a while, the employees will start using that same monotonous tone in their everyday personal interactions, and even catch themselves using that same spiel in a setting outside of work. I know I caught myself using that monotonous voice when I worked at Burgerville and Meier & Frank. Walmart has also been know to branch out to more areas, and put out numerous ads in the newspapers and television to make themselves more prominent all over, as if they weren't already.

I have been working at Kaiser Permanente as a Certified Nursing Assistant for about two years now. Kaiser Permanente, as you might know, is a big HMO. Kaiser is well known and is located all over the United States, and came up with the lingo "Thrive" as a way to distinguish the company from the rest. When I first started working at Kaiser as a Certified Nursing Assistant, it definitely was a challenge to get all of the tasks assigned to me done by the end of the shift. We always had set tasks that were mandatory for CNAs to complete before the end of our shifts, and a majority of the time, I would barely get everything done. Since I work on the busy post-operative nursing unit, things can get pretty hectic, and quite unpredictable.

When I first started working at Kaiser, I was handed a sheet that had all the assigned tasks for what each CNA on each shift is supposed to do, and even had a time frame of when we are supposed each tasks. With my first three months working on the unit, I was trying my hardest to complete all of my assigned tasks, and answer call lights in a timely manner. I would religiously look at that sheet, and even had my own copy that I would carry with me as a reminder if what I should be doing at what time. As I worked longer and longer, and gained more work experience on the post-operative unit, I no longer needed the sheet because it was embedded into my brain of what I am supposed to do as an employed CNA at Kaiser. In the article, "The McDonaldization of Society" by Robert Keel, it describes today's society as being developed through the process of rationalization, "A far reaching process whereby traditional modes of thinking were being replaced by an ends/means analysis concerned with efficiency and formalized control." (Keel, P.1).

Having worked so long on the floor, and becoming accustomed to the pace and the demands of the floor, I have reprogrammed myself to be quicker and more efficient at work in order to succeed as a CNA on the floor. I would sometimes have 15 patients that I would have to do routine vitals on, that sometimes I would come in, say a few words to the patient, and leave. I do not have a choice in this matter because I am on a time frame of when I am supposed to start and end getting my vitals signs finished, regardless of how many patients I have during a shift. Sometimes when I am extremely busy (which is all the time on my floor), I have to sometimes stop for a minute and remind myself to slow down, and remember that I am there to take care of patients and not robots. The patients that I am caring for are human beings, and most of the time human beings can be unpredictable. You cannot control or expect human beings to look and act all the same, all the time. When I come to work, I usually get in this frame of mind and think in my head of all the tasks I have to accomplish that evening, I sometimes become this robot, and will just go through the motions of the shift.

On my unit, we have experienced a lot cutting of core staff and the amount of hours we are supposed to spend with each patient with each shift we work. With that said, we have less time to spend with patients, and when we are busy, we have little time to converse with the patient. Saying only few words, and being curt to the patients because you are pressed for time can be perceived by the patient as you having a snooty, holy-than-thou attitude. Having this mentality ingrained into your personality is less than desirable when it comes to everyday life, and I have noticed lately that I have let this exact mentality bleed into my own personal everyday interactions. I no longer have this sense of creativity or spontaneity I once had before I started working at Kaiser.

In the article, "George Ritzer's Theory of McDonaldization: A Modern Weberian Theory?" by Cecilia Phenix of the Associated Content, it states that:

"People in society are now concerned with predictability to the point that it seems as society is begging to stay within the proverbial lines. Society has whitewashed all unique characteristics that once colored our movies, malls, dinners, houses and campsites." (Phenix, P.3)

I noticed that in my relationships with my family and friends, my mannerism has changed quite a bit from before, and tend to be very abrupt and curt. I lost a part of my bubbly, carefree personality that I once had that was endearing to my friends and family. Since working at Kaiser, I have been more aware of my mannerisms, and how I have this sort of controlled personality. I tend to get uneasy if something is not done correctly or put away. When I come to class, I want to sit in the exact same chair, and was discombobulated when someone sat in the chair one day. Even with my room, I often will have to straighten up my room when I come home from work because my manger told us that we need to pick up the patients room, and make sure their tidy before the next shift comes on.

Kaiser is very strict about coming onto work on time. We are not considered late if we clock in no more than seven minutes past our scheduled shift time. I also notice that I have picked up a little road rage because I would sometimes be rushing to work just so that I do not clock in past those seven minutes. With doing just regular, everyday tasks that I do, I have this sort of tendency to rush everything and try do to everything as quickly as possible, and this is because at my work, we are always rushing, always pressed for time, and always trying to get everything done before the end of our shift to clock out exactly at 11:30pm. Having been employee of Kaiser for a while and experiencing working in a big HMO, I do not think that Kaiser is living up to their motto of "Thrive".

The article, "Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans" by William G. Ouchi of Administrative Science Quarterly, talks about how big companies are hiring new workers and "socializing them to accept the company's goals", and then eventually the "employees' natural (socialized) inclination is to do what is best for the firm." (Ouchi, P.132) This has great negative affects because big companies are always trying to convince people to buy their products, or conform to their beliefs by blatantly advertising their "hidden" agenda.

A friend of my mine who worked at Walmart told me that during her time of employment with the company, she had five different bosses that were above her. If she did something wrong, she would only get told what she did was wrong by one boss, but by five different bosses. Having being told so many times what is expected of her as an employee, and also what the standards of the company are, eventually she started to notice that she would do things that were above and beyond her tasks. Having been told what to do so many times, it was eventually embedded into her head, and eventually she did not even have to think about it because it just became automatic. My friend did not even know how to express her concerns or opinions in any matters pertaining to work because she was "socialized" into Walmart's expectations. This is a big way, I think, that huge companies use their money and power to control and exploit their workers in order to gain more money and more dominance in society.

In mainstream society, I feel that people have become dehumanized and desensitized because we no longer have to think for ourselves. We are constantly bombarded with these big companies and images all around us telling us what we should do, eat, think and feel. We have lost our compassion towards each other because we are always thinking about ourselves, and trying to get ahead. We have let bureaucratic ideology control us in all aspects of our professional and personal lives, that it has marred the meaning of what it means to be a human. Writing this paper has made me set a personal goal for myself to not let this mentality continue to overtake my life. Although it has affected parts of my being, it is never too late to change and step away from this ideology, and to be more a person, an individual, a human being.

Bibliography
Henslin, James M. (2009). Essentials of Sociology. A Down-to-Earth Approach. New York: Pearson

Keel, Robert. (n.d.). The McDonaldization of Society. Retrieved 11/28/2009 from
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/010/mcdonsoc.html

Mander, Jerry. (n.d.). Eleven Inherent Rules of Corporate Behavior. Retrieved 11/28/2009 from http://dieoff.org/page12.htm

Ouchi, William G. (March 1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 25 No.1 P.129-141. Retrieved 11/28/2009 from http://glennschool.osu.edu/faculty/brown/home/Org%20Theory/Readings/Ouchi1980.pdf

Phenix, Cecilia. (May 14, 2007). George Ritzer's Theory of McDonalization: A Modern Weberian Theory?. Associated Content. Retrieved 11/28/2009 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/240243/george_ritzers_theory_of_mcdonaldization_pg3_pg3.html?cat=4

Being born in the United States a Filipino-American, I have always had this underlying feeling of being "different" from the majority of my classmates growing up. Most of my classmates were predominately Caucasian, and I would always be part of the "few" who stood out from the rest. My parents and close relatives (who all immigrated from the Philippines some 30 years ago), never taught my brother or I how to speak Tagalog, which is one of the native languages spoken in the Philippines. My Mom would cook traditional Filipino fare, such as Pancit, a noodle dish, to Adobo, which is any kind of meat (usually pork) that is marinated in soy sauce and other spices). We would also eat a lot of Taco Bell, McDonalds, and Round Table Pizza, the typical "American" fast food. Although I knew my heritage is Filipino, having been raised in society that is "American", I associate and relate more to this western culture, rather than my Filipino heritage.

I always felt, and sometimes still to this day, somewhat robbed of my cultural heritage. I don't have very many Filipino friends, nor have I even been to the Philippines, which I wouldn't even call my native homeland. My parents both had very poor upbringings growing up in the Philippines, and both moved to the United States to have better lives. With raising my brother and I in an American culture, they felt that if they taught us English and raised us in an "American" way, that we would both adapt better to the culture, but still keeping some of the Filipino traditions. The problem with this kind of upbringing is that it creates this sort of cultural confusion.

We are to adapt to and blend in with this society in which we live in, yet we are expected to follow traditions from a culture that we hardly associate with. In the text, it talks about cultural diffusion, in which a group is willing to adapt and change their own ways in order to fit into another society, or norm (Henslin p. 56). This is exactly what my parents did with raising my brother and I, and this, at least for me, has distorted my idea of what culture I should be following. In one hand, I am American because I speak the language, I know all of the cultural norms, and it is the culture I grew up with. On the other hand, I am Filipino because that is my blood heritage, where both of my parents came from, and is the box I check when I fill out those surveys where they ask what ethnic background you are. Sometimes I will check the Asian/Pacific Islander if the survey is not being specific. So you can see how confusing this can get.

With my parents trying to adapt themselves, and my brother and I into this American Culture, there is this question of are we abandoning our Filipino culture? In the text, "Essentials of Sociology", it talks about cultural leveling, a process in which cultures become similar to one another (Henslin p, 56). With adapting to this society with which we live in, in one aspect it can say that we are shamed of who we are, and we do not want to stand out from the "norm" of this society. Another way to look at it is that since my parents chose to move to the United States, they want to be respectful of the American culture by learning and imitating as much as they can of the people and ways of this society as a way of integrating themselves. Does this ultimately mean that we are abandoning out Filipino heritage? Maybe so. With my brother and I growing up in the United States, our way of living and thinking is going to be very different than of someone who was born and raised in the Philippines. In the Philippines, traditionally, the youngest (especially the girl) would have to live with their parents until they find a husband that will take care of them. For myself, I grew up in a culture where once you turn 18 years old, you are free to be independent, and move out of your parent's house. I just recently moved out of my parent's house, and I basically broke all the social norms of Filipino culture. First off, I moved out of my parent's house without being married first. Secondly, my roommate happens to be male. The way I think of it, if my parents wanted to raise children in the United States, then they must find a way to learn to accept that we are going to go by the social norms of the society in which we grew up in.

Having to be Filipino-American female living in an American culture has been struggle for me my entire life. Living in essentially two different cultures has eschewed my relations with both cultures (much more so with the Filipino culture), and maybe only once I visit the Philippines and see the place where my parents grew up, can I then have a better understanding and a newfound sense of pride of my Filipino heritage.

Bibliography
Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology. A Down-to-Earth Approach. Pearson Custom Publishing

Perception is everything. What we perceive as reality and what is actually truth can be two VERY different things. Propaganda has proven to be an effective medium for imposing certain views on a group. Not all media poses negative results, but for the majority of our society is has become one of negative effects. During World War II, flyers depicted a Japanese soldier attacking an American soldier. Underneath the image was a clip from the newspaper, headline reading "5200 Yank Prisoners killed by Jap torture in Philippines (1)". The government used the media to illustrate the Japanese as harsh, inhumane people who should be killed. This helped increase the amount of soldiers recruited and also helped settle the conscience of the American people. The media was used to change the way that we viewed the Japanese. If the American society viewed the Japanese as human beings, soldiers that were only following orders, it would have been almost inhumane to be Pro-War. The Government wanted the American people to view the Japanese as "mean", so that going to war with them would be the right thing to do. The media negatively effects how we as a society behave and think.

The media is an agent of socialization. It helps send messages of gender and specific gender roles. In class we discussed the difference between a man/woman and father/mother. I was not surprised when the characteristics we describe of a father/mother are also characteristics of a man/woman. A woman is supposed to be nurturing, loving, and motherly. A man is supposed to be strong, protecting and head of the household. How did we all come up with similar characteristics? It is shown in TV shows, movies, and commercials how men and women are suppose to act. And what happens when a male teenager does not act the way a male is suppose to act? He is made fun of. His peers then make fun of him since he is not following the social norm of the gender roles the media has inflicted on us. The media only shows the positive effects, not the negative repercussions that come with those choices. In the story of the Ladakh people, the younger generation was influenced my western culture. The new road brought western civilization. In turn, the young Ladakh people wanted to become more like Americans and less like their own people (3). They only see the glamorous side of the western culture.

One might have the warm and fuzzy feeling that all is well with so many sources of media to help to educate us on our decision making process, but I would encourage you to look closer. Even when you are in line at the grocery store, go ahead and look at each magazine that you see on the racks while you are waiting to check out. Ever notice how each magazine carries the exact same story? So what is it that gets one to purchase a particular magazine over another? Something about that particular magazine you put in your basket resonated with you in some way to get you to pick it over the rest. Much the same thing occurs when we see stories on the evening news. If a story makes national headlines, you will see that story on every channel, and no matter if you like Wolf Blitzer or Katie Couric, each respective anchor will have just about the same exact story with the same exact details and will tell you the same ending to the story as far as they have been informed on it. So, who is dictating the stories and how they get told? A prime example of how the news can extremely affect the outcome of events can be seen as recently as the election of the President of the United States in the year 2000. At that time, the news began to use "exit polls" to predict the winner of the election. What transpired next was unprecedented: a lawsuit to determine who actually won the election? When the reporters began to declare that one candidate was going to be a clear winner based on exit polls being conducted on the East coast after their polls had closed, people on the West coast (with a full THREE hours of time remaining before THEIR polls closed) began to make a decision to not vote. In their mind, even if they were going to vote for the "losing" candidate, it would make no difference and thus was simply a waste of time. The one right that the founders of this country fought so bravely for to earn the right of equal representation in a small event that we refer to as the Revolutionary War. The same right that millions of our countrymen have gone to war to help defend for lesser fortunate countries to abolish tyranny and oppression in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet here we sit in our own country, letting lobbyists, lawyers and government tell us what is right and what we should think. We allow ourselves to be dictated to and told how we should look, feel, and act in any and all situations. We are allowing ourselves to be conditioned to accept certain things as fact even without all of the information to make a proper decision. This is nothing new...

If we wish to see what is in store if we do nothing to shield ourselves from the affects of mass media, we need do nothing more than allow our brief history to become our teacher. Many books have been written on this subject. George Orwell's book "1984" was written well before that year came to pass. In his book he talks about "Big Brother" and how everything that everybody knows is dispensed by a central agency that determines what people need to know. He also suggests that "Big Brother" will go so far as to rewrite history to suit the needs of the regime at the time. If something comes up that is indisputable yet contradicts current beliefs, then "Big Brother" will go ahead and embrace this "new found knowledge" as if it were always there and then rewrite the history books to reflect how this new knowledge was always the case. Could this happen? Is it already happening? Well, we haven't started burning and banning books just yet and so far it is not considered treasonous to embrace another time or culture, yet. But I believe that things truly are changing. It's not so much about what we accept as moral or acceptable behavior; these are both fluid things and change with the socialization of our species. What was considered unorthodox only 100 years ago such as a woman voting or a black person having civil rights are now as normal as breathing, which brings to light the positive effects of mass media. Without the ability to get an opinion out to the masses, change might not occur as fast or at all. So, the question remains: what is the balance we must strike in order to keep media free and open yet unaffected by the whims and storms that can steer this particular vessel into dark and ominous waters? Do we want our government to determine what we see, hear, and read? If you have read 1984 and allow yourself to be swept up in all of its drama, then you might answer no to this particular suggestion. Which leads us to the other end of this pendulum as it swings: to allow media to run un-tethered and free of any sort of influence. I personally do not believe that either is the right answer. Unfortunately, when we look at any of the above mentioned occurrences, we can see what can transpire. It is a story destined to repeat itself over and over throughout our history and our future. If I could say only one thing on this subject, it would be that we need to use prudence when we make our decisions regarding the future of mass media, much the same as we must use the same prudence to recognize that the latest, greatest diet pill on the market endorsed by doctors and trainers alike must be thoroughly researched to the best of our ability before we decide to take this "magic pill".

To summarize, I will borrow a quote: those who choose to ignore history are destined to repeat it. We will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. We will allow our leadership to choose what we are exposed to up to the point that we recognize that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as said by Lord Acton. Once this occurs, we will allow our media outlets to run wild and un-checked until we realize that exposure to all the horrors, beauty, terror and salvation will create a world numb to all of these horrors, beauty, terrors and salvation. Things will slowly begin to mean nothing and what once could create a lasting impression will no longer have such strong effects. And the pendulum will swing...

Works Cited
1.
2. Norberg-Hodge, Helena. "The Pressure to Modernise." ISEC. 27 October 2009.