Reading Responce

During the late 19th and early 20th century Chinese immigrants suffered at the hands of

the American government much like the African Americans did. They were not given the same
rights that white citizens were getting, they were threatened out of their homes, and yet they still
fought back. What surprised me though was the statements that were made by papers that the
Chinese were a dirty people even though it was the states fault for not installing proper health
facilities. “Chinatown my not have been the only area of Los Angeles afflicted by ‘filth and stench’
but it was the only section whose inhabitants had almost no political recourse and even less
social leverage with which to effect change” (pg 28.)Though the U.S. government integrated laws
that were to be followed by all, state officials seemed to only be cracking down on Chinese
citizens. Take the case of Quong Long for example. According to the state Quong’s laundry mat
was in violation of zoning regulations, as was his white counterpart. Both of them tried to appeal
to the court to get an extension Quong asked for a two year extension while his white counterpart
asked for three. Both had petitions written up and handed them into the court to show how many
people wanted them to stay. Though Quong had a large group of white neighbors that appealed
on his behalf, the court ruled in favor of the white citizen.
We could also relate this situation back to the ugly trailer park article. If the city put a little
effort in helping the area look appealing, making it a tourist sight or a nice place to look at, that
area could be used not only as a segregated residential area but a place where people could
come together as well.

Seminar Response

Recently I participated in a Socratic seminar in my senior humanities class. We were discussing a few stories and speeches that clashed together laws, morals, and ethics. During this discussion I kept thinking about the relationship between laws and one's moral code. Questions instantly popped in and out of my head. Are our laws based on morality, if so who's? who actually makes a law? People with the money to do it? The people of this country? The government? Are laws just the morals of the majority? A good example where some of these questions have been turning up is the debate on the gay marriage vote.

Debates on the outcome of the vote have come and gone. We can come to some answers by just looking at the actual vote in California. Voters seemed to take a more moral standing, be that personal or religious morals, when making their decision. Since the majority rules in our country, the right for the gay population to marry in the state of California was declined. This thought then made me think about the Jim Crow Laws in the 1930's. If we take the issue of years of racism out of the equation these two situations are very similar. People, voters, are taking a moral standpoint which is separation a particular group of people from a right that, according to the Declaration of Independence, all people should have. The right to peruse happiness. Even if voters took a religious moral standpoint they are now disregarding the Separation between church and State, which was a main moral decision that this country was founded on.

In conclusion by bringing the subject of gay marriage, or segregation, to a state/governmental level, the government is being quite unethical. Firstly because it takes away a large group of people's inaliable rights which, according to the Declaration of Independence, can not be taken away. It is also unethical because the subjects themselves, though maybe not intentionally, allows people to take a more religious morals standpoint which contractions Separation of church and State.