Riots

What I learned today in global connection is about the riots in L.A and how there was other major riots before Rodney king,due to racism.I also learned that the police was abusing minorities and separating the minorities from the whites and making them have their each own community.And if a white person would go to the minority communities to watch a show or something the cops would treat them bad and the women would be accused as prostitution sometimes.Mostly the minorities were beaten up by the police using brutal force and doing police brutality.One case that showed police brutality and racism was the case of Rodney King and how he was beat up by multiple cops,and he wasn't resisting arrest.The brutality of police have been getting so bad that CNN said ''Los Angeles (CNN)The video was silent, but it spoke volumes: three white Los Angeles police officers, supervised by a sergeant, threw Rodney King to the ground, tased, kicked and stomped him, and battered him with batons 56 times.''In the quote it explains the police brutality that happened it and it shows how later on it played a big role in the L.A riots because minorities were tired of the racism and police brutality.

white privilege and the impact it has had on minority

Redlining and the impacts it had on minorities

Today in class we had discussed white privilege and the meaning behind white privilege. we

learned about redlining. Redlining was basically a method of restricting the places minority's could live in. The government had established the home owner loan corporation or H.O.L.C  for short to provide low interest, long term loans to help homeowners during the urban foreclosure crisis. the H.O.L.C would draw out residential safety maps then categorize section depending on things like building type, terrain, and age of buildings. another factor would be the type of person that live there currently. The H.O.L.C would color code the area green for good, blue for average, yellow bad, and red really bad. The classification method was heavily influenced by neighborhood racial and economic demographics. Private banks had adopted this system of classifying neighborhoods, denying bank loans from areas marked as red. This had created communities as undesirable or not worthy of investment. This had lead to banks not loaning money to minority and undesirable people. So how does this affect us minority in modern times. This affects minority since they were not able to buy a home, they do not have that financial asset like a white person could have. If a person owns a home is a long term investment while a person that pays rent is just a waste of money it does not go to help you it just disappears.

https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/04/27/redlining/

Morals V.S Ethics

In the beginning of the school year we learned about the difference between morals and ethics. Morality is often used to define personal character or judgement.  It is an independent view of something if it is a "right" behavior or not.  An example of this could be peoples view on cursing. Some people do not like or are uncomfortable with others or themselves cursing. While others don't find it a big deal.  As for ethics it places emphasis on social system in which morals are applies. It is standard codes of behavior and views expected by groups to which individuals belong to or are accounted for. They are completely dependent on group influence. An example of this would include religious affiliation. Christians believe that there is a God, and Jesus has risen. But in the Jewish religion they still believe the messiah has yet to risen, and are waiting for him.  These religious groups believe in different conducts and ideologies, and go about living a specific way of life.

The White Privilege Quiz

Hey guys,

We recently did the white privilege quiz, and I found it to be very interesting exercise in meta cognitive thinking. I never really thought about most of the things the quiz brought up. There was a few things running through my mind while I was taking it though, one of them stands out the most: Is this quiz an accurate representation of white privilege?

For the record, I got a 181/250, a score that seems to be in the upper-middle class of privilege. The thing is though, I don't view myself as white. I don't look white, my hair doesn't look white, I don't really identify with the label white, yet I seemingly got a high score. Was this because of the area I live in? Is this because my mom is half white and looks white, yet I seemingly didn't inherit the white skin from her? Was this because I never really found myself a victim of overt racism here in the bay area?

What do you guys think? Personally, I think this quiz does seem to measure white privilege to an extent, but it really has a lot to do with the area you live in and what you've experienced in life. We live in a very multicultural and relatively accepting area, and, in my opinion, that's why I got a seemingly high score. What do you guys think? What was your score? I'm very interested in hearing your guy's opinions on this.

Audrie and Daisy Case

A few weeks ago in class we watch a documentary about Audrie and Daisy that was written in 2016. Audie was the teen that hung herself because of when pictures of her were shared all over school. She was sexually assaulted 8 days before she killed herself. People continued to bully her everyday that she would walk onto school campus grounds. She was getting stared at everyday and people were looking at their phone seeing the picture of Audrie Pott and then give her a dirty looks. One day Audrie got tired of getting bullied over social media that she went home in the middle of the school day and hung herself. There were a lot of cases with the guys that did it and court and stuff but it reminded me of a friend that this almost happened to her. She got sexual assaulted but we all helped her at out so much that she didn't kill herself. She still sometimes carries the stereotypes around with her whenever she goes to school but students realized how bad this was that they didn't think it was right calling her names and hurting her. The boys at her school that did it, got in major trouble and didn't get to come back to the school that she goes to now. I really liked watching this film because one, it hit "home" to me and may me think of a girl that I was friends with and two, it was a film that was so interesting. It was also a great learning experience for all of us even though we all know that it is bad thing to do in some sort of way. 

Frat 1st Amendment

The issue of the first amendment rose with a fraternity in Oklahoma. They made a public statement that they would rather lynch and African American than allowing them in their frat. They also had chants about lynching and etc. This case hadn't made it to the supreme court.
Should this hate speech be allowed according to the first amendment? The point of the first amendment is to allow people to speak out for themselves because the government cannot speak for everyone. I noticed that the KKK when asked what they believed in, stated that they were pro themselves and not anti others. They also did not publically promote violence in order to not be shut down. Even though I think this idea of pro self-based on something like race is wrong, I believe that this is shut down, this takes away from the 1st amendment which leads to tyranny. However, I do not believe that putting others down and promoting violence based on rights should be allowed based on the 1st amendment. So this takes me to the conclusion that this frat should be shut down. What do you think? When does something become too much for the 1st amendment?

4th amendment

When we were learning about the various school cases with students having issues feeling that their amendments were being broken. An interesting thing that I learned was that if your 4th amendment is violated and you can prove it in court, then whatever evidence was found during the violation of reasonable search and seizure cannot be used against you in your trial. My question is,  is it right to not convict someone if the evidence is still there?

If an officer pulls over someone for a burnt headlight and they end up searching the car and find an ounce of cocaine, this evidence cannot be used against the person driving. Is this right because they are still in possession of drugs and have enough to distribute. I believe that they should not have the evidence used against them and this clause is good because it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. What do you think?