Racism+-+'Class+in+America'

Racism: "Class in America" I think I'm going to have to disagree with Mantsios concerning Myth 1 and the realities he proposes. Myth 1 states that "The United States is fundamentally a classless society" (333), however Mantsios disagrees and says that there is a huge gap between classes. So it is true that "Sixty percent of the American population holds less than 4 percent of the nation's wealth" (334), but I think that within the majority, the United States is fundamentally classless. Sure, the 1% (using Occupy Wallstreet's terms) has much more than most, but the 99% is relatively equal. Perhaps it's cynical to say that the 99% is equal in that they're poor, but that's how it is. The "myth" states that America is fundamentally classless, not completely, we're willing to admit that there are differences in wealth, but, those outliers excluded, everyone ends out with similar wealth standings, much closer to average at least. Besides, class is more than just money: it's lifestyle, privileges, rights, protection under the law, and the ability to enjoy similar things on a whole. Granted, the 1% excluded, there is still a poor and not-poor class, but even the poor in America are still better off than the rest of the world's poor people. Furthermore, every citizen is given equal protection under the law. True, it ends up that there are anomolies that get everyone in a tizzy, but it's that general reaction that tells me we have a classless society under the las; if there were distinct, privileged classes, people would be used to, if not okay, with the idea that the "higher-up"s can get away from crime nearly scot-free. I also don't like how Mantsios simply states that "the middle class is shrinking in size" (335) and then moves on. Saying the middle class is shrinking is a pretty big statement, even if it happens to be true, Mantsios should take the time to prove his point, otherwise he appears to have made a point that just came off the top of his head and could be very innacurate. Again, America's economic standing is still better than most of the world's, so what may be low or middle class here, would be fabulously wealthy in other countries. Given that there's such a large gap between America and the rest of the world, and given that America is, admittedly, currently on a decline, perhaps it is our definition of "middle class" that needs to change. In class, we've talked about how, under the current definition, most would barely be middle class, if not at all, yet we're certainly not poor, so it makes sense that instead of worrying about a dissapearing group to shift focus down a bit, then we'd have the same strong middle-class we're known to have.

I also don't see how education proves America has defined social classes. I'm willing to budge and say we have something that resembles class, but again we are relatively classless for the most part. I do see how a person's grades and general attitude can reflect a person's class, the principles people are raised on affect their work ethic and a person's economic standing affects the importance put on school and how often a person can attend school. I can generally see how economic standing and education corelate with each other in the lower end of the spectrum, but not the higher end of the grade spectrum. There really isn't a super wealthy family, or fabulously wealthy family within the walls of RayPec, and a large portion of the students are about equal in economic standing. I'm sure that my family is on the same level as a majority of other students' families, but I have a higher GPA. I don't think the GPA, at least here at RayPec supports the idea that "the higher the student's social status, the higher the probability that he or she will get higher grades" (342). Raymore and Peculiar don't have any highstanding families, and for the most part, there isn't any immense, obvious differences. Without a highstanding family, there simply isn't any support for Mantsios's thoughts, and RayPec, my world, that should be representative of Mantsios's theory if true across the board, doesn't support his theories. My personal experience in education goes against what Mantsios says; then again, it is only a limited experience.

I think that the American profiles that Mantsios uses in his article were very important to his argument, almost being the foundation on which his argument lays. Again, however, I think that that Mantsios's thinking is a little off. When comparing Bob Farrell and Harold Browning together, Mantsios states that "the differences [between the two] are class differences" (339). Just because of a one person to one person comparison shows a clear contrast between classes, does not mean there are established classes. If more people were given profiles, there would be a trend of more Bob Ferralls and Cheryl Mitchells, and that board-wide similarity means there isn't much class distinction. If there were classes, more profiles would continue the trend that the three start, but a lack of board-wide evidence makes it hard for me to buy into the idea. I'm finding it really hard to argue against Mantsios effectively, mostly because there isn't really anything to use that goes against the article, so I'll have to budge a bit. There are definitely differences within our relatively classless society that seem to create classes. Minorities versus majority and women versus men create gaps, much like the one between Ferrall/Browning and Mitchell. Again, I think that if there was more information, we'd see more people along the lines of Mitchell, and generally speaking the samples would show that people tend to concentrate around where Ferrall and Mitchell are on the spectrum, which would demonstrate a lack of classes.