Journal 11: In the Hands of a Fellow American

Since when I first began to learn about the African American treatment after the Civil War, back in middle school, only one question has ever consistently played in the back of my mind. After reading the story by Pauline Hopkins, “As the Lord Lives, He Is One of Our Mother’s Children,” this overwhelming feeling to ask who gave another individual a right to take the life of another American citizen, has grown even stronger. 

Our nation was founded on the idea that each individual should have the right to their own life and not be told what to do by the masses, the ones in charge. Our legal system and Congressional system take a long time to complete actions because they are making sure they do not encroach on anyone's personal rights. In the story, "As the Lord Live, He is One of Our Mother's Children," Gentleman Jim, or George Stone as we first know him as, is one who is fighting for his right to live. He has been accused of killing a man and there was no evidence he had done it but individuals from the community decided he and his friend were guilty, without trial, just hearsay. Then that same community took his friends life through lynching and sought to do the same to him. Is hate the driving force of inequality in America? Things have changed since then but during that time there was so much innocent blood spilled by the hands of other true blooded Americans. 


I guess my question is not easily answered but I would conclude as such. Every person has the right to a fair trial, as stated in our Constitution and no other individual has the right to take the life of another person out of anger, greed, jealously or hatred. In the era of lynching, hatred and anger drove the actions of the people in the South and I commend those African Americans who had the courage to stay and risk their lives to try and start living their own "American Dream." 

Journal 10: No Turning Back

The short story, “The Wife of his Youth,” by Charles W. Chesnutt was a surprise to me up until the last line with a true “Aha!” moment. The story did not go the way I thought; in fact I believed that somehow the women the main character, Mr. Ryder, intended to marry would be somehow a apart of the surprise. I like the fact that it was Mrs. Dixon, the woman he had intended to ask to marry him, who answered him first after his speech about a hypothetical story ending with the question “Shall you acknowledge her?” It is the first place where I realized where the story was taking a turn and has a bit of irony to it. It is ironic that the woman he had become infatuated with is the one to tell him to recognize his true wife. This story pairs well with the poem “Learning to Read” by Frances Harper because it is one about perseverance against all odds. Mr. Ryder’s first wife traveled for 25 years searching for her true love, never giving up on something she wanted above all else. The poem is from a free slave woman’s point of view of her talking about how she is looked down upon for reading but she will do anything to read her Bible and “the precious words it said.” Like Liza Jane, Mr. Ryder’s first wife, the speaker in the poem will only feel at home when they are in a place where they feel safe and independent and free from fear and doubt. 

I enjoyed and found insight from both readings. The perseverance and courage both women have is inspiring. During this time for a woman to travel alone to multiple cities in search of one man is dangerous and would be seen as hopeless. She looked passionately for 25 years and never gave up. Would someone today do that for their loved ones? We hear of stories where military wives divorce their husbands over seas after just a year of being apart. Devotion and honor is not like it used to be. Then the woman in the poem, who sought to read her Bible is a sweet and innocent sign of independence. She inspires those who feel persecuted for doing something different to fight the good fight and never relinquish their right to knowledge. 

Journal 9: Home to Who?

Being a San Diego native, immigration and the laws surrounding them are very familiar to me. When you live about 5 miles from the border of Mexico you can't help but notice or be aware. California has been a sanctuary for many different races immigrating to America even before the 1860's. From China to Mexico, a wide range of immigrants have found a way to settle in the prosperous land of California. Even today many people seek to come to California for work, mostly from Mexico. But one thing hasn't changed in all these years and that is the constant struggle in politics about immigration laws. Whether the reason be exclusion due to hostility, like the Chinese Exclusion Act, or for the fear of overcrowding in already crowded cities, both sides had a reason to argue their case.

What is funny is that even today this political battle is continuing. Some states would like to pass laws, and some have, that have limited immigration into America. Others call this unconstitutional and believe that we should welcome all kinds in with open arms to escape persecution. I see in the past where our laws about immigration have been to severe and probably led to the killing of many Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. Could we have possibly saved a few thousand more from returning back to a gas chamber? But I've seen with my own eyes the economic destruction of a city where there are too many people and they demand so much, too soon.

In the reading they talk about immigrants "flocking" to America, and taking the benefits and opportunity by storm. It is the true American Dream to be able to build a life for you and your family out of having nothing. But there must be a line drawn to how much is too much and how many a house or home can hold before it causes that home to be destroyed from the inside out.

Journal #8 Responded to Alex London