Ellis's hatred toward blacks faded as he realized that similar to himself, a low income white man, blacks were also being controlled and manipulated by the upper class white community. He discovered through " eyeball to eyeball" conversation that he shared the same struggles that the people he exerted some much energy in hating did. Although it seems to be a fairy-tale and idealistic, but not achievable, way of changing, it was successful in Ellis's experience. He was " born again", he felt as though his life had changed forever and he didn't have to live with the guilt of hate. I don't necessarily think this story could be possible on a heavier scale. As much as we would like it to become feasible, in all realities it simply is not. Ellis's change was a result of personal encounters and compassion he found with a black women in his society. If this method was applied to the greater society it wouldn't provoke the same result. Changes wouldn't be immediate and not everyone will be able or have the chance or the person to feel compassion with. It also involved chance, Ellis had to take a chance in befriending or even listening to someone of the race he absolutely loathed, and the general racist population isn't willing to take that chance.

Yoshino is saying that mainstream is a myth by stating that no mainstream actually exists. Our society can't achieve a mainstream person or expectation, because mainstream is subjective. A "normal" person to me isn't the same as a "normal" person to you, or my parents, or my neighbor, or the president or anyone else. The judgment of labeling someone normal becomes opinionated and one idea of mainstream will always differ from the next. Yoshino also addresses that by being mainstream you must achieve a quality of average accomplishment in every characteristic of life, and that too is unachievable.

I think he supports his argument well. He includes many situations involving many different kinds of people which makes his essay relatable to most readers. He talks about how everyone is trying to become normal but nobody can or will become this because it doesn't exist.

My idea of mainstream prior to reading this was someone who is average, typical, and in some cases perceived as boring. But after considering Yoshino's points, I think really mainstream is defined by the people who an individual considers mainstream and not by the ultimate community.

When Linda finally reaches the north she is only faced with a disappointment. The utopia she had dreamt of while lonely living in the attic quickly crashed as she experienced racism in the north similar to the racism she felt in the south as a slave. Physically she was living a "free" life but the way whites treated her was no different. She was not forced to follow rules regarding her skin color, the complete opposite of what she had imagined for herself in the north. In some aspects the south was even better, yes she didn't have to live with the fear of a beating as a punishment, but the people in the South were honest about their immoral behavior, where as in the north they denied it.
She gains her freedom by being bought, the same exact way her freedom was held from her in the South. She was fleeing the south to find a life better for herself where she could live freely around people who didn't hold her as a second class citizen but the north only offered the same flaws, just in a less upfront manner.

"My children grew finely; and Dr. Flint would often say to me, with an exulting smile, these brats will bring me a handsome sum of money one of these days."
I thought to myself, God being my helper, they should never pass into his hands. It seemed to me I would rather see them killed than have them given up to his power." pg 68


It was difficult for me to choose one passage that emotionally captures my attention more than another. The book is basically all emotional stories explicitly stating the brutality of slavery. I guess i can write about this one where she makes a unimaginable reference to her children and the future she would wish upon them. For a mother to reach an extreme of death to avoid the ownership of her innocent naive children speaks more that a whole book to me. I don't know what exactly it is, but when circumstances are imposed on children it hits home for me. The idea that a mother would rather see her children pass then live the life of slavery is powerful and obviously has resonated with me.

The fact that the book is completely truth is imperative to the validity that the narrative holds. If this slave account was changed or modified, readers could rebut with the idea that the author was only exaggerating the events and emotions to appeal the reader. You can dramatize something for an effect, but because it is all true, the brutality is real and creates an image and puts a name on the experience for the reader. The whole true is the only text that holds credibility.

Also the "unrefined" language and style contributes to the merit. When actual dialect is used it again creates an image that can put the reader there and give them the closest account of slavery possible for someone who is living well beyond those days.

I only watched the News briefly as I ate breakfast before leaving for school, two soccer practices and a family birthday party took up most my night. Differently than the past 3 months of constant discussion and debate among my mom and step dad about the election, they both stood looking at me for something to say, maybe something to get them to stop sulking. I could tell without even glancing at the newscast, that indeed Mccain had lost. The Fox News cast has been on constantly for the last 3 months, and in my house is "the only unbiased newscast," which I doubt. But they were showing Mccain's speech for the most part. Him recognizing all his supporters and wishing Obama the best in his endeavors. They basically made Mccain out to be the nice guy, while Obama with "little experience" took the position. I haven't involved myself much, and truthfully only hear what my parents talk about but by watching this news for a brief 10 minutes I can see where people are swayed. I think the issue becomes what news program you are watching. Every single one manipulates and edits details that falsify the other candidate while amplifying the other.

Honestly, I haven't encountered many instances where I personally witnessed racism. Living in Carmel, Indiana as a typical white teenage girl I have grown up living as a majority.

The only memory that comes to mind is one that I briefly remember from middle school. I went to Orchard, a private, expensive, and predominately white school. Most of my friends were just like me and they lived with parents just like mine. Orchard had always emphasized the importance of diversity, but I never found it in the hallways of my school. We would spend hours reading about injustices, watching movies about rasicim, and discussing prejudices but never could I find a minority within my classmates. As I reached 5th, 6th, and 7th grade I gradually was surrounded with more cultural people. Not only black, but asian, indian, and middle eastern people as well. I felt like the years they spent drilling equality into our heads was actually being represented among our school now. But my respect for Orchard's efforts in creating a diverse community came crashing to a halt when I over heard a conversation between two important adults. They were talking about promotion material, and one person said that we needed to place a black person on the front. The other fired back " Why would we do that? The families who can pay the tuition and who will receive this brochure are not the people who value diversity. We need to approach them with the image of their child." The lady responded casually by agreeing and moved on about her afternoon.

Not to mention names, but these two individuals were role models within the community of Orchard and the audacity they demonstrated to even have this conversation, let alone in front of students, baffled me. Not only was the individual being racist she was also categorizing all the people who could afford to go to school at Orchard as racist too.

In relation to Parrillo the socialization process consists of the prejudices and moral values your parents impose, or influence you to believe as a child. As a young kid you are naturally inclined to follow the lead of you parents, and as your grow to form an opinion in many cases your values are only a reflection of your parents.

I completely agree with this notion. I have experienced this first hand from the time I could engage in a controversial conversation with a peer of my own age. From politics to religion my friends continue to carry out the values their parents instill in them. Whether this effect is direct or indirect it is apparent among almost all kids. I find this to be true because, in the atmosphere of your home you are able to state you opinion with a biased angle. Within the walls of your own home why should someone have to "edit" their opinions or alter the way the present their beliefs? They shouldn't this is own area where it isn't exactly necessary to be pc or to consider all opinions. The youth of the household is only agreeing with the beliefs of the conversations that their parents are promoting.

Not to say that one's idea's and values can not change, or differ from their parents as they grow up and experience life for themselves, but commonly until you reach an age where you engage in life separately from your parents you will unconsciously agree with them. The atmosphere in which kids are most greatly influenced by is their own home, and the parents aren't expected to edit their values within this home, but maybe that isn't exactly a good thing because the most impressionable people are soaking in every word and taking away the closed minded opinions of their parents.