PinkerInk

I've come to think of oppression as any act of suppressing another’s happiness in order to gain your own. Poverty and racial categorizing are major issues that are indicative of oppression, but there are so many little things in our ways of living that are of an oppressive nature that we do not even realize it occurs. A good example of this was used in class; having a younger brother, and making sure he stays on the right path, and at the same time providing him with a good example to follow.

Since oppression is inherently cyclical there are patterns in our society that allow things such as poverty and racial categorizing to exist. I feel that a new pattern needs to develop to transition out of the oppressive state that we are in. There are so many people in our society that use their poverty stricken circumstances as excuses to not do anything with their lives. If these same people would use these circumstances as their motivation to succeed than the cycle would be broken and we could devlop a new cycle—one of liberation.

Oppression is a foolish and degrading act that’s used by selfish people who have no respect for other human beings or the human race in general. In the article he even says that those who oppress others are dehumanizing themselves just as much. Nobody has the right to control another person or treat another human being unjust or cruel. Oppression goes a lot further than what average people think it is. It isn’t just the slavery of African Americans or the Jewish in the Holocaust, but its something that exist even today not just with Puerto Rico but with many other countries, in families , in relationships, children, women, at the workplace, etc. I think it’s in our human nature to automatically categorize or label people without us even deliberately wanting to. It become oppression when one treats that person wrong just because they’re different in any way.
When it comes to someone choosing to be called Puerto Rican or Nuyorican I think to each is own. Personally when people ask me what I am I say I’m Puerto Rican. I don’t think I would even look at another Puerto Rican differently if they were to say they were Nuyorican.
When referring to other cultures I say the actual ethnicity instead of making up my own lingo for it.

Oppression is the act of being kept tame or down by a higher authority known as the oppressor. This person could be someone as high as the government or someone as low as just your boss at work. The fact that you must bow down and do or follow behind the oppressor keeps many or all of us oppressed. To be free of this issue is impossible, although Freire presents solutions, they are still not realistic ones when it comes down to each and every human being dedicated to following that solution.
What this reading does offer to me at least is the idea that we should all free ourselves in some way, if not fully at least to some extent. To be fearless as apposed to fearful of taking control of our own selves and lives. Because it is in the nature of being that some humans and even animals are more powerful than others, it is difficult to create this even and fair mentality for all. Their will always be individuals that follow and others that lead. It can only be in the hands of each and everyone of us to decide which we would prefer to be.
Answering the question, whether Nuyoricans are still Puerto Ricans is extremely difficult. Because those who live in Puerto Rico may feel that Nuyoricans are not “fully” Puerto Rican. But in my opinion a Nuyorican is still Puerto Rican. But some may feel that if you drift away from the culture or do not defend your Island, then you have forgotten where your ancestors have come from and who you are and therefore are not a Puerto Rican. On that thought I agree with the forgetting where your family came from but not the fact that it eliminates you as a Puerto Rican.

In my opinion oppression is making someone or a group of people feel inferior to you. Oppression is defined as “an unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.” I believe that oppression comes from a fear. Why would I want to oppress someone? There must be something I’m scared of in relations to that person that I want them to feel inferior to me. I think it is both oppressive to name/label and self-identify racially/categorically someone. We are human and I know I have oppressed people before. I had pre-conceived notions on Puerto Ricans when I was younger because of what people told me about them. As I grew older, my thoughts changed because not all Puerto Ricans are the way they were described to me as. I experienced this first hand. Still there are days when I oppress people without realizing it. I could think something about someone but I won’t realize at that moment that I was being oppressive.
I believe that Nuyoricans are still Puerto Ricans. If a Nuyorican feels that they are from the land that they came from and uphold the tradition(s), who is anyone to pass judgment and say that they are not Puerto Rican? For example, I am Dominican and I have lived here for about 17 years. Just because I was raised in the United States doesn’t mean that I don’t classify myself as a full Dominican because I do. When people ask me where are you from? I usually say “I’m from the Dominican Republic.” My first thought isn’t “I’m from the Bronx, or I’m Dominican-American.” This reminds me of the example that we used in class when the professor mentioned that J.LO who was born and raised in New York City doesn’t classify herself as a Nuyorican but as a Puerto Rican. There is nothing wrong with those who classify themselves in their own manner, its just who they are. I do believe that people from the islands feel oppressed by people like me who live in the U.S. because they may think that we are better than them. Oppression is cyclical and it happens in many forms. It can happen voluntarily or involuntarily.

My understanding of oppression is someone’s execution of total cruel and unjust act against another. As discussed in class, the oppressor takes advantage of the oppressed ignorance to benefit their needs and by not teaching the oppressed the necessary skills to succeed in life leaving them dependent of the oppressor’s orders and authority to survive. As I was reading the pedagogy of the oppressed and seeing oppression and explanations of it numerous times in the reading, the first thing that came to my mind was employer. In my opinion, an example of oppression in the world is employers as oppressors and employees as oppressed. I want to use the example of Professor Bernard’s incident at Hunter College, where she felt obliged to stop teaching her material but she took the decision to leave and stand up for what she believes in. This action showed that anyone can stop oppression as long as you have the necessary information and tools to do so. There are many people that were and are in Professor’s Bernard situation and decided to stop teaching the material simply because they were scared to jeopardize their job, or to speak up and let their voice be heard. They instead submerged their opinions and beliefs because they probably felt that as employees they are obliged to follow rules and orders and forgot that the employers need the employees to operate their business. This also leads to racially categorizing someone and is often applied by employers when hiring employees, if they have a bad impression of the potential employee due to their race, gender, or class and the applicant will not be hired even if they are the right candidate for the job. This is a major factor in an oppressed society because people fear the consequences of their actions if no one has done it before and it takes courage to be the first person to initiate change. Fear of the unknown leads to more oppression but one single act of change can lead to freedom and this sets an example for others. Another thing that caught my attention in the reading was that the author’s use of the word men and manhood to explain the material and in some situations he included the word women, making me feel that it was a bit semi anti-feminist. As far as my understanding of the word Nuyoricans it means a person was born in New York who has Puerto Rican roots.

Oppression to me is inflicting emotional pain over someone or a group of people which is created by an erroneous idea that person has. In society we see oppression everywhere. People usually consider oppression in the big picture as when it comes to race, religious and sexual orientation discrimination. Although this should never be tolerated and should be condemned, most acts of oppression also happen in the smallest ways. For example, how often is it that we see no one help a mother carry a stroller up or down the stairs? How many times have we seen the elderly stand on the train as the youth sit? How is it possible that if you’re of dark color you are expected to not know how to speak proper? When a non dark person does not dance, it is not of shock to anyone. How is it that when we see a minority with a nice car we assume they sell drugs? All these situations we come across in our daily lives are examples of oppression to me. We have an idea in our head that what’s going on in our surrounding is of a certain way and thus we continue to think in that way without actually analyzing it appropriately. I believe oppression is born with either hate or a false impression of something or someone, it is passed on by proof and the tongue, and destroyed with having respect and love towards your fellow being. Until, we all have love for another, oppression will always continue to harvest and spread.

"But while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives, only the first is the people’s vocation." When i think of people's vocation being humanization, it becomes difficult to argue agaisnt this fact. The dehumanization of others in my opinion is a true vice but it seems to breed in us, those fortunate to presist, a need to humanize. In some way, this vice gives us an oppurtunity to find the virtue to humanize. As freire would state that the oppressed could, should and does humanize the oppressor. This humanization is a great deed because of the handicap of the oppressed. An achievement is only as great as 1)its intrinsic value and 2) the ability of its creator. How amazing is the feat of the oppressed to change the oppressor, such handicap makes this humanization amazing and in some way such cycle is needed to really value the good we are all capable of. I may be playing the devil's advocate but in retrospect we as people have done things that were thought to be impossible, is it that impossible to believe that this good we are able capable of could consistently be instantiated?So. maybe the second choice is necessary to truly become humanized.

Oppression is the state where a person or persons right to be human or, as Freire puts it, "more fully human" has been taken away. It is the dehumanization -- reduction in a person’s humanity, brought on by their being objectified by another. In relation to the other, the person is an object, not a person. At this level the state of oppression occurs, it becomes the condition of the oppressed or an oppressive condition as Freire states, "An act is oppressive only when it prevents people from being fully human." And, although this prevention it is a state of illusion, feeling real, it provides "actors" and "spectators" with information. The information can be used to illuminate a situation or propagate the dehumanization of a person or people. Information used to stereotype is one of the ways in which this is done.

We can use labels /categories to organize, disseminate and comprehend information of all living and non-living-- animate and inanimate-- things in the world around us. Alternatively, we can use that same device to oppress a race (there is no such thing as race but in the manner in which we use it today, for there is only one race and that is, yeah you guessed it, the human race). Therefore, the question is posed "What's in a name?" A name, as a word, can be used to empower or disempower. When we identify ourselves as a "Black woman," or a "Black man," or a "Latina" we are using it as a description that connects us with a community of people that we identify with; in that context, it can be uplifting. Now, if a person were to say or infer that "all black women are loud," or "all black men are thieves or dealers," or "all Latinas are promiscuous," it becomes a stereotype and not a fact-of-life. Stereotypes are framed as judgments, not descriptions, and it does not change when new information is presented; stereotypes have "staying power."

The oppressors forget that within every group there is an individual. That individual can fit within the description presented or NOT. Of course, oppressors cannot identify the individual within the group because for them the group represents objects not subjects, things not people, "death" not "life." Why? It serves their purpose, it raises their level of existence, Freire points out:

For the oppressors, "human beings" refers only to themselves; other people are "things." For the oppressors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace, over against the right, not always even recognized, but simply conceded, of the oppressed to survival. And they make this concession only because the existence of the oppressed is necessary to their own existence.

Oppression, as I have come to know it, is a system used by one individual or group to maintain another individual or group relationally inferior to one another. While most things can be interpreted as oppression, due to their use of people in such a way, not everything is oppression. Oppression must be defined in a way in which the superiority/inferiority relationship is perpetuated on for the sake of oppression consciously and unconsciously. In combination with the readings, while Freire has a right idea in the nature of oppression, he postulates an idea such that every superior/inferior relationship may be seen as a form of oppression. Oppression must be done for its sake in order to truly be oppression. Similarly, I do not think the reasons for oppression is limited to those discussed in the Matrix of Domination, there are many other demarcations, in which humans can oppress one another, such as intelligence and disabilities.

Are Nuyoricans Puerto Ricans? Yes and No, we are Puerto Ricans in the same sense that we share a similar history to those born on the islands and the diasporas, but we are not Puerto Ricans in that we have our own history in New York and experienced different issues in our lives. As many islanders do not consider us true Puerto Ricans, in a way meant to keep us as an inferior Puerto Rican, I would say that there is oppression in this relationship. The main reason is that the oppressors, here the islanders, give us a prescription to becoming true Puerto Ricans – birth and growing up on the island.

In accordance to the reading by Freire oppression is dehumanization; it is any act that prevents people from becoming more human and/or “any situation in which “A” objectively exploits “B” or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person”. I agree with Freire in the sense that it is oppressive to generalize and/or have anyone make attempt of understanding the class of oppression by way of comparing and contrasting our current state of being.
Such definition is exemplified in La Vida as Lewis enters an environment of systematic and continuous oppression via abuse, exploitation of people and land and attempts to “research” the reasoning for their state of being. I believe oppression is generalization of a people, with out regard to the historical influences, based on one interaction and/or observation. With that said, to categorize people via race or liking is oppressive, however in that token how do we identify and relate in a world that is principled around connection?
I think to how I view myself as a black woman; and to my definition that mean strong, resilient and full culture, however my meaning contrast thus that see me as emasculator of black men, exotic creators to mutilate and exploit, etc. In framing myself and the history of my people I am comfortable in my meaning of being “black”. However, I am unable and feel uncomfortable to characterize others, such that I can’t really say if Nuyoricans are Puerto Ricans. My mind frame of identity is to always be in opposition with oppressors.

In my opinion I think that opression is a tool designed for the benefit of the elite. Without opression there wouldn't be a rich class. In some sence the goverenment encourages opression on the people beacuse of all the constraints that are place. Howe er the government is not to blame alone. We opress ourselves as well. For example. In class we discussed what is the meaning of the American dream? That idea alone is opressive to others beacuse your thought of what that means might not be the others person view. But it is still opressive. Beacuse as humans we always try to out do each other and always try to be better than the next person. That is also a form of opression. Beacuse that person might feel like you are better than them for what you have achived in life. Wheather you like in new York or in puerto Rico. You are who you are based on what u identify with. To me being nuyorican and puertorican are the same thing. If that is the culture that they wish to identify with. Who are we to mis judge them?

In my opinion oppression is a state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority. It is the way we think and label others. It is making others feel inferior due to their race, class, religion, sexual orientation, or social economic status. I believe we have all been oppressed or have oppressed others in one-way shape or form. We do it on a daily basis a good example is the example that Prof. Bernard used with people passing judgment on beggers or someone less fortunate. We feel that they have nothing therefore; they should take what ever it is we give them. Our mentality is beggers can’t be choosy. We also encounter oppression in the workplace in my previous employment all of the Administrative Assistants were minorities and the Managers/ Executives were all white. It came across like minorities were only good to do administrative work, that they didn’t have the education and skills to be managers. One of the assistants wanted to move up in the organization and completed her Master’s Degree and was only promoted to Office Manager and was still not paid what others with equivalent education were paid. She left the organization because she felt this was unjust, and after a few months they realized she was an asset to the organization. They rehired her with a different title making more money. My question is why wasn’t she promoted from the beginning? Did it have to do with her race or ethnicity? Did they question her capabilities because she was a minority?

I believe Nuyoricans are also Puerto Rican. We are Puerto Rican because of our ancestors and roots. A Nuyorican is a Puerto Rican who is born and raised in New York. Yes, Puerto Ricans in New York are a lot different from Puerto Ricans from the Island. This difference comes from the way we were brought up, our education and the resources that are made available to us. Just because we were born and raised outside of Puerto Rico doesn’t mean were not Puerto Rican.

Patricia Hill Collins states that “Oppression describes any unjust situation where, systematically and over a long period of time, one group denies another access to the resources of society.” Paulo Freire makes connections between dehumanization and oppression and states that “[humanization] is thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression, and the violence of the oppressors; it is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed for freedom and justice, and by their struggle to recover their lost humanity.” To me, oppression is the occurrence of unjust acts where the other is stripped of their voice and power. This can occur within different situations and contexts. The one which we are asked to talk about deals with one of the social dynamics, race. To classify oneself as a specific race as a way of separating or connecting to a group of peoples is something that we have all fallen victim to. For me to classify someone to be Nuyorican who classifies himself/herself as Puerto Rican may in fact be seen as oppressive in that it strips the person of the choice of identifying him/herself based on location and experience. I’d rather us individually identify who we are in the world of race. In this circumstance, each person has their own voice and their own power to either identify with a race or state otherwise.

The idea of racially identifying someone can be seen as oppressive because it asks us to, in a sense, not be individuals, but be a part of the larger group. We are seen as attached to others. Do I racially identify myself and others, yes, but I also think this identification can be seen as oppressive and as liberating. If a certain group, collectively, goes through the struggle of liberation and progress through the dualities of the oppressed, humanizing both the group and those who have oppressed them, maybe that entire group is able to reach liberation and possibly no longer oppressed. By racially identifying with a specific race and/or culture (oppressive?), the group as a whole can recognize and acknowledge their oppression and work towards liberation (act of liberation), which shows that the identification can be both oppressive and liberating.

Something I would like to point out about Freire’s theories in relation with my own ontological existence is the question about being aware of one’s own oppression. Friere states, “But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression.” To attempt to reach liberation, one has to at least be exposed to his/her own oppression after which, dialogue can take place, and the oppressed person recognizes his /her place within the world of oppression and seek liberation/humanization. My question is however, what happens when this person does not want to even acknowledge that he/she is oppressed? There can be such submergence in their oppression, and maybe even an acceptance of it, that there is no yearn for freedom. No desire for humanization because the person is complacent in their own experience and life. It was James (forgive me that I do not know your last name) who said that the problem lies in the complacency of the oppressed. I completely agree and will also say that a lot of this complacency results in the experience of the person. If one is surrounded by oppression but does not see anyone, or psychologically ignores those who do, reach for liberation, will that oppressed person reach for it? In my own little world, I have seen many people in what would be called oppressive states (although to say someone is oppressed is oppressive in itself) seem to be lackadaisical in their desire for more. They seem stuck, for lack of a better term, in the situation they are in. Their hope for liberation comes in different forms but there is difficulty in getting them accomplished. Even when speaking to someone who is educated and tries the method of dialogue, the conversations do not seem to register. Of course the person can be striving for liberation in their own right, but has no first step, so to speak, or no experience in how to seek it. However in the same light, the issue of complacency seems to rear it’s ugly head again in that the person simply stops. The struggle is to great, the process of liberation to long, and the road to humanization too shaky. To bring this back to the forefront, my point is, or rather my question asks if there is no acceptance of oppression or acknowledgment of the problem, how can one become liberated? Or if there is no desire for liberation, does that mean there is no oppression (in that person’s own ontological experience)?

Oppression, to me, is when one group or individual thinks, acts and makes another group or individual feel inferior. One of its definitions states it is “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.” I believe there are many types of oppression, some more subtle then others, which we face and encounter on a day-to-day basis. Whether you name/label someone or self-identify racially/categorically, it can be oppressive to a certain extent. If you’re labeling or self-identifying is unjust, bias, or degrading; then it definitely is oppressive. I have always thought I had a solid understanding of oppression and what was needed for one to free them selves, but Freire gave me a deeper understanding of what it meant to be oppressed and freed. “In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not in seeking to regain their humanity, become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.” It is a fascinating concept for me that the oppressors must restore the humanity of both. Even though I had never thought of it in this light before, I can see why this is needed, because if it’s not done this way, then it’ll just become a perpetual cycle of oppression.
I think that Nuyoricans are definitely Puerto Ricans. Just like a Matanzero (someone from Matanzas, Cuba) is still Cuban; a Nuyorican is a Puerto Rican from New York. It’s a label, name, and yet another way to categorize Puerto Ricans outside of Puerto Rico. I’m sure we’ll further develop this theory later on in the course.