Test Report

1. Answer to Question1

　I guess that the white nation's stronger army than any other racial nations was mainly the origin of racial discrimination from 15C to now. For example, Columbus, who “discovered” (in reality landed) America Continent for the first time, started the era of Native Americans' ordeals. They were deceived, and infected with some serious disease derived from white people that meet them. And finally they got enslaved by white's force and some of them who had resist white were one sided defeated and in many times killed as warnings to others. I guess this is the origin of racial discrimination against native Americans.

　This case also applies to the case of the discrimination against Blacks. They're also enslaved by white and conveyed from Africa to America as slaves. And after they got slaves that obeyed whites, much discrimination have continued until now in many times in American Continent though there're much event, or incident, for example the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, W.W.2, Civil Rights Movement, and so on. Though they became Americans, by changing law, and though they fought in W.W.2 as American armies for the protection of U.S. and its democracy, they were segregated in many places for example they couldn't eat food in the same place and many other forms of discrimination existed. After Civil Rights Movement, they couldn't get equality to majority. Even now, the racial discrimination against Blacks is the serious problem.

　In the case of Asian in particular East Asian in the U.S., it's different. They weren't slaves but immigrants. However, they also suffered from much discrimination. Especially, in W.W.2 when the war between the U.S. and Japan began, they got so intense that not only Japanese but also Japanese Americans were treated as if they had been enemies. And in the same time any laws that prohibited the immigration were constituted. And Chinese immigrants and its descendants were also the objects of racial discrimination, so I can say the discrimination against Asian isn't because of the war, but because white and other people's prejudices that Asian aren't human, they are like monkey. This is proved by the propaganda about Japanese in U.S. in W.W.2.

　In the case of Jew discrimination, I guess something different from other races. They have suffered from much discrimination for a very long time in Europe; on the other hand, they got some methods to live by themselves in any places by getting the commercial or academic ability. So, in the U.S. they also got the way that they have less discrimination than other minorities. That way is for them to contribute to many parts of the U.S. This help them get Americans easily and get economic and academic power in the U.S. so that I guess the discrimination against Jews isn't intense.

　In these cases, what is the main point in common is that the white people's thought that they are superior to any other race justify what white people have done, for example white have right to possess slaves, etc. This thought derived from their stronger army's conquest or dominant in history. And recently, this thought has been strengthen by mass media's propaganda. For example, in W.W.2 Japanese army was described as inhuman or subhuman, not human.

　The different racism among different races also resulted from propaganda. In W.W.2 many of American hated Asian, and in 60s Black people were described as violent race. Some American citizen's antipathy against immigrants led to the racial discrimination against Hispanics, Asians. Proposition209 or 227 in California are the examples that proved the antipathy of previous citizens led to unfair policies. They perhaps thought immigrants would do the U.S. harm. This is also discrimination.

Though many reason exist, I focus on one reason. This reason is that much discrimination results in much more discrimination because those who aren't equal to other stronger races are likely to discriminate against other weaker racial people. So I want to conclude that to remedy most serious discrimination, that is between majority and minority, will help us to remedy all racial discrimination.

2. Answer to Question2

　I guess the reason why Black people required not Martin Luther King's “pacifism” but Malcolm X, Black Panther's strategy of “armed self-defense” is the U.S. reality of the environment around the Black community in 60s. Black people had been continually discriminated and sometimes killed after the Emancipation Proclamation, after the W.W.2, so that Black people knew that if none of them struggled to get equal rights, nothing would change. So they had to start struggle. King began to struggle without guns, on the other side Malcolm X began to use guns to defense themselves. Then, As time passed, Black people came to approve of Malcolm's strategy because they found what King did useless. But why weren't pacifism useful to struggle? Compared with the strategy of Gandhi in India, who had influenced on King, King's pacifism wasn't powerful. The reason why Gandhi finally succeeded was that the struggle consisted of the so large number of his supporters that his struggle had much power, on the other hand King's movement had very little power. It's because in the U.S. the rate of Black citizen is low, so that the number of them consistent of King's movement didn't help Black people's movement. That's to say, in order to get the power to win, pacifism needed more than a half of all citizens, but in reality they were minority, so they failed. When white police oppress the struggles with guns, why did Black minority win the equality without gun? They couldn't defense themselves without guns, so they had no choice to struggle with guns.

The strategy, armed self-defense was so powerful because they acquire methods to struggle against armed police, and this strategy was supported by the 2^nd Amendment the constitution. So they could win several rights, for example affirmative action. This looked a great success. However, in 70s after this movement, in order to prevent Black from struggling against the government the gun control dictated by police began because the strategy armed self-defense had been so powerful that it was necessary to weaken them. The government adopted the policy that oppressed Black people instead of remedy of racial discrimination. This policy also shows that U.S. government is racist. If they want stop minority's movement, they should adopt the policy that will help all people more equal to satisfy what the constitution say.

　The Civil Rights Movement won some right, but didn't completely succeed. And law prohibited another Civil Rights Movement, so now to get equality Black people have to use pacifism, that is not powerful way.

3. Answer to Question3

　I think Clinton didn't know the reality of minority. I imagine it's because his misunderstood that the low rate of minority unemployment was eternal and it resulted from the affirmative action so that this problem was solved. However, in fact this low rate resulted from the good condition of the U.S. economy, not from affirmative action. So if economy return to depression, it's very likely that racial discrimination in employment will arise again. I think that the low rate of unemployment is temporary result. So I want to tell Clinton that you must judge whether temporary or not the low rate is before say, “overcoming racial differences.” After you know the reality, at least you will have no courage to say such a speech.

　I'll talk about Proposition209 in California that decided to abolish affirmative action in universities, because this incident proved that affirmative action wasn't succeeded and there was some discrimination in college or school. There is one example that after they decide the abolition of affirmative action, a law school will have no new Black student though last year 40 students entered the school. This result showed that Proposition209 discriminated against minority students so much that many of them got unable to study in higher educational institutions.

　I wonder why Clinton didn't criticize the decision of California. Did he regard this resulted as the outcome of affirmative action? Or did he think the affirmative action discriminated against majority students? I don't know what he thought of it, but at least I can say that the Proposition209 proved the racial discrimination isn't solved and much help for the minority is needed even now, so Clinton should have criticized this discriminatory decision.

　I conclude that what Clinton said was wrong for the reason that some statistics, for example the rate of death row, the rate of CEO in companies, etc, and incidents explain. I finally tell him not to see the reality of discrimination optimistically, but to face with this serious problem with all his might.

　戻る