Model Discussion Board Posts
Here is an example from my Survey of American Diversity course. It is a 200-level course.
Notice how the student utilizes and engages with course materials. Your responses need not
be this long, however, this student exemplifies how you should utilize the readings and
critically think about discussion board responses.
Example:
This week’s readings discussed the experience of both Japanese and Mexican immigrants as they
came to live in America in the 1900’s. Although they were from different cultures, their
experiences were quite similar in many ways. The Mexicans had an easier time entering the
country than the Japanese. The Mexicans simply had to“…� report at the immigration office on
the American side” (Takaki, p292). They did not have to plan, pay for and endure a long arduous
journey across the Pacific as the Japanese. They were not tasked with making the decision to
leave their families forever since the Mexican International Railroad (Takaki p. 294) made
traveling to America more efficient. Financial hardships had pushed the peasant class of both
Japanese and Mexican out of their native lands (p 232 & 293). The Japanese were being brought
down by hefty taxes and the Mexicans were forced to become tenant farmers of their own land.
Additionally, the Mexicans were fearful of a violent Revolution and came to America to “wait
out the conclusion” (p. 294). Both groups were “pulled” by their dreams of opportunity (p. 233
& 293).
Japanese and Mexican immigrants were able to establish their families in America. Japanese
women were pulled to Hawaii by their husbands or through “ picture marriages”. The families
labored on the farms together. (Takaki p 247 & p. 298). Families were the preferred labor force
of planters (p. 247). Consequently, Japanese families came to live in Japanese work camps (p.
247) in Hawaii, which bore a striking similarity to the conditions described by the Mexican’s in a
residence community know to them as “the barrio.” They found solace among the horrible living
conditions by being able to share culture, language, food, and fellowship.
In terms of education, both the Mexican and Japanese children were oppressed in the
American educational system. “The planters, however, did not want the children of immigrant
workers to have opportunities: they needed the second generation as plantation laborers. In their
view, these children should not be taught beyond the sixth or eighth grade (Takaki, p. 250).”
They wanted to raise the laborer’s youths into a class of subordinate adults and feared education
would contradict their plans despite their parents plans to educate them beyond the labor class. In
Japan, the Japanese were highly educated individuals, including the women (unlike the Chinese
culture). English was a major subject in their middle schools. To have their own children not be
afforded this same dignity in America must have been devastating for them.
The American’s attitude toward the assimilation of these two groups was also quite similar.
Despite their christening the American earth with their “sweat and tears”, they were constantly
being thought of as foreigners. Their American born children were still called names like “Jap”,
“shorty” or “greaser” by whites. It would appear that seeds of discrimination had been planted in
the American soil as well. “They talk to us about becoming citizens, but if we become citizens
we are still Mexicans (Takaki, p. 310)” One Japanese man replied to the Japanese future in
America with the following; “How many sons of ours with beautiful bachelor’s degrees are
accepted into American life? Men with degrees in chemistry and physics do research in the fruit
stands of the public market. And they all rot away inside (p. 261).” It appears that they were able
to successfully assimilate into their roles of subordinate laborers and not the role of respected
American citizen.
This inability to assimilate as an American citizen could be attributed to the concept of
“permanent inequality” as defined by Miller (p. 110). It is clear by their continued oppression
that the dominate group was not on a path to end the relationship of inequality as defined by the
concept of “temporary inequality” (p. 109). According to Miller, the dominate group is
responsible for defining acceptable roles for the subordinates. The dominate group has control of
sustaining or eliminating oppressive activities, stereotypes and discrimination. In her article
entitled “Oppression”, Marilyn Frye describes oppression as a “network of systematically related
barriers” (p. 152) put in place by the dominate group to “mold, immobilize and reduce” (p. 150)
the subordinate group. This can be applied to an example from this weeks reading. The Japanese
and Mexican immigrants were reduced to farm laborers and immobilized by their job
opportunities. Farm work was seasonal and migratory, with laborers following crops (Takaki p.
298). Constantly moving, these immigrants were unable to establish themselves as citizens and
not “ laborers”. Miller writes that dominants “impede the development of subordinates and block
their freedom of expression and action (p. 111).” This is evident in their limiting of educational
opportunities for the immigrant youth, both Japanese and Mexican. In another example, the
Japanese laborers were given a number to be referenced by rather than their name. Takaki (p.
240-241) quotes a worker as stating “Every worker was called by number,…Always by the
bango, 7209 or 6508 in that manner.” This is a classic example of a dominate group reducing
(oppressing) a subordinate. They were reduced to a number and not a name. In another example,
the dominate group tried to reserve their “skilled jobs” for whites only (Takaki p. 296). These are
just a few examples of how our readings of Oppression and Domination and Subordination can
be applied to the reading for this week.