Media Post 10

For my last Media Post I found an interesting article online titled "The Psychology of Stereotypes Survival of the Fittest: Like Animals, Humans Are Biased". I thought it was very interesting because it talks about why people, like animals are biased and even if they dont want to admit to it, we all stereotype even at a young age. The authors John Stossel and Kristina Kendall start the article by talking about animals and how their basic instinct can tell them to snap at a predator. Chimpanzees attack other chimps that arent part of their group and even fish of the same species will attack each other if they are not hatched in the same lake. The article says that psychologists think that we are wired to stereotype automatically. We stereotype mainly by age, race and gender. Mainly the authors say that we do this as humans and animals because we need to distinguish who is our friend from foe. So although our readings clearly show the unfair side of discrimination, there is also a side that everyone is guilty of doing because it benefits us as people. We want to know who we can trust and who we cant, so race aside we can discriminate according to age or gender. An example is when I walk home alone at night from a late class and it is dark I clench one key in my hand, just incase someone stronger (maybe older and more likely a male) try to steal me. It is an honest bias I am looking out for my self interest, I have heard about attacks on campus as early as 7 at night so I am skeptical when it is about 9 pm. The article cites an experiment done by 20/20 where kids look at two different races of people and distinguish what they think about them. A man asked the children who they thought was nicer, The Arab man or the Chinese man both pictured at the top of the article. The children responded, "The Chinese man because he had a smile" but both men were smiling. Another experiment done with the children and a picture of Timothy McVeigh and Harvard professor Roland Fryer. The children said that Timothy McVeigh looked nice but mad about something and when the children were asked about the black man they said "he looks mean". When asked who was a criminal they pointed to Roland Fryer, when asked who they thought was a teacher they pointed to Timothy McVeigh. These findings show that children at a young age can recognize bias. I want to cite Johnson Chapter 2 when he says that people are "naturally afraid of what they dont know or understand", maybe those children dont understand? Or they are victims of their environments which says that a criminal looks like this. The article also continues to talk about bias in more detail and with students as volunteers for the experiment. The test results showed subconcious bias against things like career women, the elderly, gays, arabs and blacks. The test results also showed interesting results in one category, The researchers also found about half of the black people who took this test showed bias against blacks. One researcher says "many people discover they have biases that they wish they didn't". At the end of that case study the authors say "Of course, the biases in our head are only harmful if we act on them". I agree with this statement because it is possible to have a bad experience with someone of a different culture or even the same as your own but that doesnt necessarily mean that the whole ethnicity should be frowned upon. Johnson says in Chapter 2 "Privelage, Power and Oppression" that difference is not the problem. I disagree because in our society difference is the problem, we are taught at a young age about difference and everyday we are subjected to difference and have to act on what we have learned some obviously different than others. The last study in the article dealt with police and drawing their guns and who they were more likely to shoot at. The experiment opens with a story about how four cops shot down Amadou Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, while he reached into his pocket for what the officers feared was a gun but turned out to be his wallet. The experiment took everyday police officers and gave them targets, black and white and the targets would flash on a screen either holding a gun or an everyday object such as a cell phone or wallet. The experiment concluded that "They shoot very quickly when an armed target is black. They take a little bit longer to shoot when the armed target is white,". This by the way is not just a white police experiment, the results showed that even black cops shot faster at the target when it was black rather than white. The authors ended the article with asking one of the experimenting psychologists what we could do about our subconcious bias, he replied, "If we're just aware that it exists, it gives us a chance to do something, to be vigilant to not let our unintended biases -- our implicit biases -- take over our behavior, which can happen unintentionally,". I really liked this article because it subjected me to something different than our readings and I found it to be a very interesting article. I agree that we have subconcious bias whether it is because of a past experience or things that we have witnessed we are ALL guilty for judging someone by gender, race, or age. Sometimes I think it is meant to be harmless where we are only looking for our own self interest, like the animals mentioned early on in the article, but than other times I think that we judge too quickly and assume one person to be a whole culture and overlook the good for the bad. What does this tell us? Well, maybe like the professor said, if we all make ourselves aware of the fact that we are guilty of this we can have more control over it and maybe one day it wont be an issue at all.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2442521&page=1

Media Post 9

I have found it interesting lately the stereotyping that goes on about Mexicans. I havent really noticed it before and I am not sure if it is because I just didnt realize it or I just havent been around people who have talked about it until now. I found an article on-line talking about the stereotypes of Mexicans specifically and I was suprised at how many there actually are. The author starts off generalizing what stereotyping does for every culture not just the Mexican one. He states "Welcome to the world of stereotypes. Sling out a phrase and whether it's true or not, damage has been done. A negative implication has been made concerning a race, gender, or culture, and it can take decades to handle the mess. What I find fascinating is that races and cultures will form their own stereotypes. Sometimes, it's just a part of that culture's evolution." He may be right, for a culture to evolve it may need to be stereotyped or look down upon for whatever reason. The author continues by starting to talk about Mexican stereotypes the first was that Mexicans are poor and illiterate. I have heard this one before and I see it a lot on t.v. like cartoons (speedy gonzalez). It also reminds me a lot about our earlier readings when we read about how the English thought that the African Americans were not as smart as they were in Zinn. Another very common stereotype that I have heard a lot about Mexicans is that they will work for any wage, even if it is lower than minimum wage and they will also accept any job. I watch a lot of crime shows like CSI and Law and Order and there are always portrayls of Mexicans who can barely speak english and that are working bad jobs, some of them are even working illegally. I think personally that unemployment and being illiterate would be a problem for anyone in the US. One good stereotype that I am also very familiar with that the author brings to the readers attention in the article is that "Mexicans are taking all the jobs in the US". I have heard that stereotype a lot and I am not really sure why. In my opinion the jobs they do get are very underprivelaged, they do work for little, and sometimes bad hours. It is not like Mexicans are coming to America and just taking all the jobs there are, I think that Americans should be more welcoming to different cultures and diversity in the US. One of the last stereotypes in the article is that Mexicans procrastinate and Mexican women love their soap operas. I know that there are a couple of movies that I have seen that portray Mexican women as loving their soap opera time which takes place everyday from around 4pm sometimes until 9pm at night. I wonder why it is that we have to classify people only by what we see? I think that this could be because it is the quickest thing that we notice. The title of the article is Stereotypical Melodrama which I think is kind of funny if you think about it. Melodrama is of course when something is exaggerated so the title basically tells the reader right off the bat that the Mexican stereotypes are just that, exaggerated. I thought this would be a good article for my media portfolio because we have talked a lot about racial stereotyping towards Indians, African Americans (Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, Zinn chap 1)and even Jews (Brodkin, How Jews became white people) and Chinese people (Wu's Yellow). To me this just puts out there that it doesnt always have to be the typical African American stereotype but there are many other ethnicities who also deal with unfair discrimination and racial ideas against a race of people who dont deserve it. I hope that in the end the author is correct when he says that racial groups all have to go through stereotyping because it is how they grow and evolve into stronger people because maybe that will mean someday we wont just see color or ethnicity but maybe just people.
http://yasmin.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/06/651990-stereotypical-melodrama

Media Post 8

Recently in class we talked about the "Jena 6" and the librarian in the video we watched talking about how there is no racial problem in Jena. We had also gone over Wu's article "Yellow" when Wu talked about how when a white person cuts in line thinking they need to be given the VIP treatment, or when a white person doesnt become plauged by the idea that they have to sit by the kitchen or back of the resturant because of racial issues. I read another editorial in the BG News that I think relates to our class more than the other two do. The editorial written by Sean Martin is titled "The other side of Jena 6 racism, hate". Right off the bat Martin talks about how the "epic" story of the "Jena 6" has to come to an end sometime. He continues on saying that the end of the story comes with more facts brought to light. Mychal Bell admitted in court that he had repeaditly hit Justin Barker and left him unconsious. He also is taking a plea bargain for the charge of second degree battery. The author says this is the second conviction of Bell for a similar charge. The question "Could this be a patterend history of extreme violence and disregard for society, or just a system that is relentlessly targeting an innocent man?" is one I do not think I can personally answer. Do I think the charges of murder were too much for a high school fight? Yes, no questions asked kids from my high school have gotten the crap beat out of them and I have never heard of a more ridiculous charge but murder to someone who was out of the hospital hours after he was taken and even attended a school event later that night, dead people dont do that and thats what murder is, killing someone. But do I think that someone who has had a charge of battery or something similiar to it before deserves punnishment? Also, Yes. It is has a lot to do with time and place, wrong place wrong time but it doesnt make it right because you are responsible for your actions and you cant always make an excuse for it. Back to the article Martin makes a comment that again sparks thought "I am suprised an innocent man is copping a plea even when the entire nations knows of his 'injustice'". I think this is also true, but at the same time innocent people have had to take plea bargains before because if they plead "not guilty" and for some reason are found "guilty" the consequences are greater. As the article continues it goes on to talk about how congress wanted Bell released as well as celebrities such as David Bowie. Martin brings up Bryant Purvis (one of the six) talking about how he is facing battery charges in his new school for beating a kid. Farther down in the editorial Martin makes the comment "'injustice' is still being committed, but now everyone is OK with it. Is this because of laziness, and lack of attention, or do many realize the truth finally reared its head?". Martin brings in the article another of the 6 whose name is Robert Bailey and on his MySpace page there are pictures of him with $100 bills in his mouth and other pictures of him showing off bling with "free the Jena 6" shirts on. Personally, why attract attention to yourself? You are already under the scrutiny of the nation, which is split on you innocence, why show them ignorace? But I can say he is giving those against him what they want, he is showing people, "hey look!, he doesnt look upset or even acknowleges all that he went through instead he looks pleased with the heafty pay off. He must not have cared that much." On the Jena 6 website the situation in Jena is summed up in 158 words, I am not sure there is a way to describe a situation like that in 158 words unless it lacked detail and was poorly written. Martin cites that there is a lot of information on the website however about donating money. He also brings about bigger issues in his article which is how I tied this editorial to Wu. The question "Why is it that when a white man tries to seperate fact from fiction, he is 'extremely racist and using ignorant spin'" Again, I dont have the answer but I do agree and out of all honesty bottom of my heart, I am not racist. I was never taught to hate, so I dont, I accept people for who they are and therefore treat everyone equally in every sense. However this includes my opinion and if I think you are wrong in an action, sorry but I am going to tell you, white, black, purple, green whatever I put it out there because that is who I am. My dad told me when I was growing up that if I wanted to act like an adult I was to take the punnishment of the adult. Which I didnt like but it makes sense, if everyone wants equality, shouldnt we all be punnished the same? Of course, there are rich people who take a detour when it comes to law but for the most part we should learn to take punnishment for our actions and not think it to be "racism", it is called responsibility. So regardless of who you are and what your background is I dont care, because I dont see that. Its sad because a lot of times I am quiet about it because I do not want to offend someone, but why should someone be so sensitive? I would never say something that was offensive, but the truth and still I feel like it could be taken the wrong way and I myself dont want to be labled. So to end the summary of the article Martin goes on to say that he thought differently and went up against a lot of people for it. And lastly he says "Many 'took a stand' in Jena. Few realized that they were the ones now standing on the side of racism, hate, intolerance, opression and ignorance." Two things first off he is brave for being so honest with his opinion on such a broken subject. Secondly, lets look as this from a different perspective, what if a group of six whites beat the crap out of a black student? What would happen to them? because I am sure that no matter the actual situation racism would play a big part, but would there be this big of an issue about it? Like I said I do not know all the details, I know about the nuces which 100% was wrong because I believe it was meant in haste and that situation definatly required more action then what was taken. I know about the DA who said he could end lives with the stroke of a pen which again is completely wrong because intimidation or not that is one hell of a thing to say, especially if someone happened to be recording him. And I feel like this situation has been blown up, because if Jena were such a terrible place to live, leave. Do I still think there is racism? Yes, but you can find that in any state and even some big cities that everyone has heard of. Am I saying that it is just so easy for someone to pick up and move? Nope because financially it is not possible sometimes but more would be done to try and get out of the situation to begin with. I liked this editorial because it is interactive with the reader and made me think a lot about the issue and topics. As it has to do with Wu I think that sometimes it is overdramatized. Personally, I get cut in line a lot I dont think it is intentional I am just short and sometimes I am not even standing in a line like I thought. And yes I have been cut by more than just whites. Also I have never thought about my place in a resturant, sure sometimes my seat sucks but I prefer to be in the back because there is less noise and I dont have to be around the windows that let in cold or hot air from the outside. My take on it is that Wu is insecure/sensitive. I know some of the things that have happened to him were very impolite and shouldnt have happened but he is comparing his feeling of unacceptance to a child who most likely watched "teenage mutant ninja turtles" right before that. Sometimes I think that people look for injustice, it doenst always have to be intentional.

Media Post 7

On Ethnic Newswatch I found an article titled "Beneath the underdog: Race, religion and the trail of tears". When I first tried to use Ethnic Newswatch I couldnt find anything that I liked so when I went back on and found this article I was impressed. This article talks about the slavery of Native Americans. As slavery developed in the US it became based on the lessons learned in the enslavement of traditional peoples of the Americas. It became known as "Chattel Slavery" which is defined as a movable piece of property not including buildings, or a slave/bondsman. When The Spainards enslaved the Native Americans they believed that they were inferior to them "as children are to adults and women to men". Which is what I think that the Americans thought of both Indians and Native Americans. The article states that "many of the early explorations of the New World were quite simply slaving expeditions." The Indians were being kidnapped in large numbers and taken away to go work for others. The article also mentions something else that we have talked about in class, the same ideas were being applied to those "barbarians" and "heathens" of Scotland and Ireland. The Americans kept citing the Indian "savagery" and "depredations" as justification for the enslavement of them, stating also that the "hostilities" of the Indians sparked "Indian wars" which I believe was just a cover for American cruelity. The article brought to my attention that at that time in the late 1600's and early 1700's the slave trade was larger than that of the fir and skin trade and became the primary source of commerce between the English and the English in America. African Americans and Indians shared enslavement, they worked together in the fields, shared livins spaces, and shared recipes. The article talks about how Indians and African Americans began to take part in intermarriage and soon after this became illegal. The Indians also did not see race and when talks of attacks started it was said in the article that "nothing can be more alarming to the Carolinians then the idea of an attack from Indians and Negros". Not long after Indians and Native Americans were to be seperated and Native Americans were offered bounties to return runaway slaves. The government started to make a better investment in Indian agriculture in an attempt to convert them into good Christians. Jefferson believed that it was possible to induce the Cherokees to "enter on a regular life of agriculture and to familiarize them with practices and give them property and to lead them right away. On Indian plantations there were slaves but they were treated differently, one slave says that his owner let him have property and if there was no work to do, there was no work for him to do. He also said he was allowed to freely roam the plantation and they were allowed to establish their own housing. In return the African Americans became more than laborers for the Indians they were also technicians and their diplomats as well as religious leaders. David George was a noted slave in this article he was a founder of the Silver Bluff Baptist Church and was allowed to preach there until more than thirty people showed up and it was taken by the English. Some slaves were not allowed to call their Native American owner "master" some Native Americans preferred "brother". I think that the most important sentences in this whole article are "By learning to overcome that which seperated them as a people, they learned to conquer that whcih created estrangement within themselves. In so doing, they laid the foundation for a common history, one 'written in the hearts of our people'". This is so important because it is completely a true statement. The article ends with talking about the Trail of tears. Cherokees were put in the hands of the US military. They were removed from their homes violently and forced to walk in chains and because it was the dead of winter 4600 Native and African Americans died on the journey. One solider recalled "the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever knew". The trail was lined with gravestones for the children and elders who lost their lives on the journey. The very last sentence of this article "On the trail where we cried, there were also African tears. This we must never forget" is also an important sentence becasue both cultures have suffered horrendous fates while on the path of acceptance. I really, really liked this article because it talks more about the Indians and how they were very admirable people (which I knew) because in class we have never completely focused on Native Americans in depth like this article provides. One article it can compare to is "Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress" because this article also hits on the Indians as slaves and their struggle, but more specifically it references the Arawak Indians. Also Takakis "The Tempest in the Wilderness" this article is relevant because the main point of the article is that the English thrived from the Indians, Indian death meant life for the English. I think it is also important to remember that the Indians overcame the issue of difference and gave the African Americans rights on their plantations and did not treat them as though they were inferior. If the Indians could develop this type of relationship with the African Americans, why couldnt the English?

Media Post 6

I found another editorial I thought would be relevant to my media portfolio, it is titled "Time to rethink affirmative action?". First off affirmative action in the U.S. is a policy or program intended to promote access to education, employment or housing among certain designated groups (minorities etc). The editorial, I think, is very good well worded with a point at the end of the editorial that is common to our readings. The author starts out this column by saying that he likes diversity and that diversity contributes to a greater good but as he continues he is skeptical to the power of affirmative action. He asks the readers questions such as "If two people apply for a job, college admission, scholarship or other scrutinized entity, should one be given better treatment than the other because of their skin color?" Of course the answer is "no" noone should have to feel as if they have been discriminated against either. Wasnt that the point of affirmative action? He continues saying that if his comment were read 50 years ago automatically it would be assumed that he was referring to African Americans but nowadays we know that statement is more relfective of organizational practices designed to ensure diversity in specific environments. The article slams the idea of affirmative action saying that it was not enforced and was to make minorities feel like something was going to happen and what a better way to instill false hope than to draft the practices that gave special consideration to race? After desegregation although flawed, through time African Americans were given access to more and more opprotunities. My favorite part of this editorial is the part when the author tells readers about the newest supreme court cases dealing with diversity to show where our country stands now. One case talked about how Jennifer Grantz was denied admission to the University of Michigan as an undergraduate because she was considered in an "underrepresented group" and U of M admits their students on a 150 point scale and because she was part of the "underrepresented" she automatically had to fulfill 20 more points that students of the majority. Barbara Grutter was also denied admission to the University of Michigans law school because they use race as a predominent factor in the admission process. The author also quotes a person of law saying "within 25 years this should not be an issue" they believe in that time frame society should move to a point where racial intolerance is a non-issue and should not play a role in an admissions process. But should it even be now? Think about all the time we have had already. As he continues he talks about how this process grants unfair admission to students who may not be as qualified and some states have already started movement on this problem such as California, Washinton and Florida have all banned the consideration of race in all government contracting hiring and state supported education. The author ends with a good thought, "Diversity is a good thing. It makes us a better institution, state, and country. But let's not unfairly and wrongly achieve this admirable goal. Let's have a discussion about how rightly we can ensure a diverse environment for all of us, not at the expense of qualified individuals being left out." I thought this was a good editorial for a couple reasons. One being that it deals with unfair treatment but in an environment we are familiar with, the college/university setting. Secondly it relates directly to what we are talking about in class. Comparitably, "Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom" on page 137 of that article Zinn says that blacks had to struggle constantly with the unconcious racism of white abolisionists. Why should anyone be judged that harshly for admittance or anything? Everyone is suppose to have equal rights. Also Zinn's article talks about how the underrepresented were the backbone of antislavery movements. I think that we are going in the right direction but we still need to make a large leap to be where I think we should be on the issue. Also the movie "Eyes on the Prize" specifically for Brown vs. Board of Education which ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional. But the movie is also relevant for other things such as the little rock nine and their struggle for acceptance and equal education. I believe that diversity is a very good thing but affirmative action is not enforced and at the same time even if it was there will always be people who have personal hate for no good reason. I think that we are fortunate to go to a diverse school because I think it provides equal opprotunity and the chance to meet people and learn about different cultures other than your own.

Media Post 5

Ever since we looked at Sarah Barnes editorial from the BG News, I have been reading them almost daily. I came across an editorial that I thought would be really good for my media portfolio. It is titled "Proud to have a tattoo", by the title you wouldnt think that it could apply to what we are learning in class but it does. The first sentence of it states "What is it that makes people rush to judgment based on our appearances?". It continues to talk about how the columnist went to Michigan to get a sleeve and before leaving his parents called him and gave him argument after argument about why he shouldn't do that to himself. Zach Franks (the author) says that his parents made him think about "all the lame ideas society has about appearance." As he continues his comments made me think about Johnson Chapter 8 immediatly. Franks talks about how we are taught that we need to go to school with our hair combed, never wear jeans with holes or tears and to "never ever get a tattoo". He asks the question are you really concerned with what people think of you? or is it your parents who are concerned that people will look at them and their child and wonder what kind of parent raises a kid that has tattoos everywhere. "I think society and its accepted norms, is to blame for their reactions to such things". It is like these things such as the color of your hair or the ink on your skin determine what kind of person you are. What really made me connect this article to our classwork is when Franks states "It kind of sounds like when people make the same judgements based on the color of your skin". Which I agree with completely because we can look at the color of someones skin and instantly wonder what kind of person they really are. He also talks about how you can ask anyone who has a tattoo that really means something to them and they will tell you that they as a person determine who they are not the ink on their skin. Continuing down the article Franks mentions that hopefully in the years to come bias against people who have tattoos will have disappeared and he finishes with saying if you are going to get a tattoo make sure it is something that has meaning to you because it is part of you forever and also you are a part of it. Concerning our class material, this editorial can be compared to many of our readings and even a movie. The first thing that came to mind was Johnson Chapter 8 "Getting off the Hook: Denial and Resistance" because it would be so easy for someone to take the path of least resistance and not get a tattoo, and not have green hair or express themselves in other ways. I also think this article can be related to Johnson chapter 6 because of the one sentence "bad in the world is seen as somebody elses fault". There was a time when I was younger and I saw people with tattoos and dyed hair and really baggy pants and my mom would always be there telling me never to get a tattoo because they were for "bad people" so in my eyes "bad people" were those people who had tattoos and dyed hair and I was even scared to look at them. But now I know that my mom was using those people as examples to instill fear in me so I would never do that to myself because it was not socially acceptable, she blamed the "bad" on someone else. In some sense it is hard to compare this editorial with some of our readings because I am not trying to downsize what African Americans or any other race has gone through to be accepted as citizens because what they went through is unimaginable compared to that of someone who has a tattoo, I am just using the material in comparison. When the author talks about how he thinks that the judgements made on his appearance or that of others with tattoos sounds like when people make judgements based on the color of your skin, I agree with him. I also think this can be related to "Eyes on the Prize", sure there are not sit ins but people with tattoos are making statements of their own. Everyone wants to be accepted, and if someone told you they didnt they would probably just be lying. By having a tattoo or purple hair you are making a statement about yourself and you want people to accept that. If we can grow as a society and learn to accept people for their differences and who they are as opposed to what they are not, whether it is skin color, tattoos, etc. we would be able to conquer anything. I say anything because I know that we are far from accepting every person as they are so when we do, if we ever do, that would be an accomplishment which would open a lot of doors for us all.

Media Post 4

When I was younger I watched the Disney channel a lot. While thinking for ideas for my media portfolio, I thought of shows that I used to watch as a younger child. One show that came to mind was called “The Proud Family”. It can pretty much be summed up as a middle class African American family’s lives. During episodes we see Penny’s life as a young teenager, her father’s life as a producer of snacks, Trudy (Penny’s mom) who is a veterinarian and her grandmother. There are problems with this show, on any episode there are constant reminders of the African American stereotype. For example Brainy Asians, spoiled Hispanics, and Ghetto-talking, rap-loving African Americans and white kids who wanna-be. I managed to find an episode on you-tube just titled “The Proud Family”. On this particular episode Mr. Proud (Penny’s dad) has to ship out 15000 crates of his snacks and he freaks out because he thought that the paper only said 1500. It turns out that the paper said 15000 he just spilled his food all over it and covered up a zero. In his factory working for him are a monkey and a child operating the fork-lift. When the child walks off, Mr. Proud has to try and work the fork lift himself and is incompetent to do so and ends up backing up and knocking crates onto his only other worker the monkey who he calls “Mr. Chips”. The next scene takes place in Trudy’s vet waiting room, where Penny is asked to answer the phones for her mother while she is with the patients. Penny’s friend Dijonay slams open the door and says “Penny do you want to go to the mall?” Penny replies with “No I have to answer the phone for my mom while she is busy” Dijonay continues with “Well that’s great now you can watch my little siblings while I go”. Enter all of Dijonay’s loud, wreck less, and uncontrollable little brothers and sisters. Of course there is a lot of yelling in this scene and slang also, there is also a disregard for all the other people in the office. Mariah Carey is a guest on this episode and Dijonay walks up to her and at first thinks she is Oprah. After recognizing who she is, the chaos gets worse. The scene ends with Mariah Carey sneaking out a back door of the vet clinic with what she thinks is her pet monkey (but it really got switched). In so many ways can this episode or any episode I have seen of this show can be applied to what we are working with in class. First I will start with Ethnic Notions I know that I refer to this movie a lot, but the stereotypes presented in that movie may not be presented the same way as in the past, but are still around in our society. First Mr. Proud can be considered a “Sambo”, he is so unbelievably hard to take seriously, he is loud, lazy, he thinks he shouldn’t have to cook or clean, and he is disrespectful. Although this may have not been mentioned in the movie, how about the stereotype that blacks are loud and obnoxious? In the movie it talked about how blacks were considered to be three things. One, ugly, two, savage, and three happy servants and with all of these things leading to total distortion of the black image and sending the subliminal message that all blacks are grotesque. The grandmother (although not present in that scene) is a “Mammie” when she is around, she is the boss even though she is in her son’s house (she can be shown hitting him upside the head at least twice on every episode), and she has no sexual appeal what so ever. I also want to tie this show in with Johnson Chapter 6, where on page 80 he states “In the end, the default position is to adopt the dominant version of reality and act as though it’s the only one out there”. I think that this show has adapted to the black stereotype of today, the slang, rap loving, loud and uncontrollable African American child. It is not the only option; I myself know many people, teenagers, and children etc. that do not act in this manner. I can honestly say this show is degrading. I found reviews for this show on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293737/usercomments one reviewer wrote:
“The second reason is because of its racism and negative stereotypes. African-Americans are portrayed as being, cool, slang spewing, hip-hop lovers. White people are portrayed as being nerdy, ugly people who are "wannabes". They try to be cool, or should I say "off the hizzy" (or however you say it), but ultimately are treated like crap by others. Asian-Americans are portrayed as being people who are obsessed with working hard, and learning karate. Latin-Americans are portrayed as being rich and full of themselves. I live in Toronto, which I think is a fairly multi-cultural city, and I do not know ANYONE who talks using slang terms like "off the heezy" or "in the hiz-ouse", black or white. Also portrayed by negative stereotypes are males and fathers in particular. The fathers are portrayed as being incompetent, self- centered idiots who watch football all the time they can, and have zero respect from there children. Other males in the show are portrayed as being sex-maniacs, wimps, or arrogant losers who think they can beat anyone at anything (but always end up losing to females). The one homosexual character is portrayed as a loser who has been excluded by everyone, except the girls who use him as a fashion designer, and treat him like crap anyway. I probably would not be so annoyed/angry if this show was not a kid’s show.”
I think that for my media portfolio this is a good item because it shows how children are subjected to the ideas of inferiority and stereotyping interestingly enough, not just black stereotypes but also Asian, Hispanic, White, Latin, and even homosexual stereotyping. It is important that we don’t teach people that stereotypes are an acceptable idea of multiculturalism which is the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.
Episode at http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNatoWfLPMw&feature=related

Media Post 3

I wanted to take the opportunity we had with this media portfolio to do something different that what we learned directly about in class. I read an article titled “Islam and its misrepresentation”; the article itself can be linked to so many things we have talked about, learned about, and watched in class. “Islam and its misrepresentation” is written by Federal Agent Mark Briskey whose first sentence got my attention “The reality is that the target of our endeavors (efforts) is but a small minority who, through their disproportionate acts, affect equally disproportionate views of Islam and Muslims”. The article continues to talk about the portrayal of Islam’s and Muslims after September 11th and years before. Briskey talks about how the media gives us the worst portrayal of these people and it is everywhere, we as Americans count on the media whether it be for entertainment or news. Most of us do watch T.V. at night or pick up popular magazines. I guess I will ask it this way and maybe it will be easier to understand because we don’t see negative images anymore (although after September 11th they were everywhere for a while) everyday but when is the last time that you can think of that you saw a Muslim portrayed positively? Briskey describes in the article how the media does expose us to the bad of the Muslim and Islam people he states, “Even conventional news magazines distort views of Islam to sometimes significant degrees. Time magazine has, over the years, unfortunately published articles which, although relatively benign content wise, almost subliminally support Islamic generalizations through the accompanying images they present. The following relatively recent historical examples are proof that this distortion has been evident well before September 11, 2001. A 1998 feature in Time Australia titled Stalking Satan, featured an eye-catching double-page picture of President Khatami in his clerical robes against a clearly defined and superimposed backdrop of militant young men in camouflage aged military fatigues raising their clenched fists. This image, by presenting the combination of a clerically-robed President Khatami and military-garbed, defiant young men presents a clearly distortive representation, which, instead of focusing on some of the liberal measures President Khatami was trying to Promulgate, preferred to depict an image which could easily be construed as that of a militant, bloodthirsty and devious Muslim population” (Briskey 2). The article continues, it is not only in magazines, but movies such as Rules of Engagement, Navy Seals, and True Lies. Briskey says America also categorizes Islamic Fundamentalism as a shorthand metaphor for terrorism, oppression and as a redundant and medieval way of living. As it continues the article talks about what is being done today to try and abolish such stereotypes. The AFP which tries to reduce counter-terrorism, and keep productive, harmonious relationships with Muslim nations, their values include respecting diversity and in no way will subject to aspersions of any bias whether ethically, sexually, or religious. So far the AFP has been successful in using these ideas to maintaining and producing relationships with the Muslim countries of South Asia and the Middle East. Briskey describes moves like these to be good for our countries future as well as others, if we can all work together to get rid of such negative images and ideas. This article can be tied into movies we have watched in class such as Ethnic Notions and Race: The Power of Illusion because we are all alike and anyone could have done terrible things to the US but it happened to be the Muslims and now they are ALL categorized as terrible people, when only few did those terrible things. Also this article could be relevant to the articles we have read in class dealing specifically with how Columbus thought the Indians were savages. I think this was a really good article; it pertains to issues that are newer but can date back to the 1970’s. I feel like Muslims are portrayed poorly and it is a really sad thing. I am ashamed to say that even today when I fly on a plane and someone is wearing a turban or speaking in a different language that I think can be related to Muslim heritage, I get nervous. Of course, it is for relevant reasons, September 11th, but the media does have a huge influence in our society, not all Muslims are bad, or wish to harm us (America). But from what we are given to work with in our society and what is presented to us about other cultures and beliefs it is no wonder that this has become a problem and will continue to be for a long time.
This PDF can be found at http://www.afp.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/3593/islam.pdf

Media Post 2

The second item I chose for my media portfolio is a movie called American History X. I chose this movie because it tells the story of someone who is extremely smart and talented and how he got dragged into a neo-Nazi way of life, pretty much because of his father’s critical views on black culture and affirmative action. After his father is killed by a black drug dealer, things spiral down for Derek. Derek (main character) becomes the second in command to a local neo-Nazi gang. Doris (Derek’s mom) doesn’t really see what is happening to her son until she has her Jewish friend Murray over for dinner and Derek freaks out on him for his open views and liberal thinking and shows him the swastika tattoo on his chest and says to Murray, “You see this? That means not welcome”. That same night three black men drive up to Derek and surround him. Derek ends up shooting at them. He kills one and wounds another, the third man drives away. Derek does end up killing the wounded man by telling him to “put your mouth on the curb” and stomps on the back of his head. Unknowingly, Derek’s little brother Danny is watching the whole time, and is horrified. The movie is actually based off of Danny’s flashbacks, I am just telling it in summary. Derek goes to prison for three years (which is good because if Danny testified it would be life imprisonment). Surprisingly in jail Derek alienates himself from the white gangs and makes friends with a black inmate named Lamont. He is released from prison early because his honors English teacher vouches for him, and he realizes that he is living wrong and is fearful for Danny. Derek comes home to Danny molded just as he was before prison, and maybe even worse, Danny wrote a paper for school about how Hitler should be considered a civil rights hero. Derek returns to the gang leader and his fellow friends to tell them that he will no longer take part in the gang and he threatens them to stay away from his brother, Danny. Danny is at first mad at what his brother has done, because he thinks that he is so different than before he went to prison, but when Derek explains to Danny what happened in prison they decide to change together, they go home and rip down the neo-Nazi signs in their bedrooms. The next day Danny goes to school with his new report and walks into the bathroom where he is shot several times in the chest by an African American boy who had previously had an altercation with him. Derek arrives and holds Danny realizing that his old ways of life killed his little brother. Then the movie ends with Danny reading his new essay on the beach with the famous quote by Abraham Lincoln "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies”.
In my opinion this movie is a good portrayal of what we have read in class. It really gives the message that although times have changed, people necessarily haven’t. In a way this movie reminds me of Johnson Chap 6 and Chap 8 and even though we haven’t read it yet, the very beginning of Chap 9. In these three chapters it can be summed up that we need to change our ways, although we were taught to discriminate hundreds of years ago, because it starts with one person. Think about it in the sense that if Danny and Derek’s father hadn’t taught them to hate their lives would have been dramatically different. Besides the fact that the story is fiction, things like this do happen in real life and children do pay for their parents actions.

Link to Trailer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jXaZENPQrsw

Media Post 1

First I decided to go to the grocery store to look at products that represented different races of people. I choose to do this because I thought it would be a good way to see how people are portrayed today in comparison to the movie we watched in class, Ethnic Notions. I have to admit though, even though I do go grocery shopping and am in the store every week I never noticed until after the movie the way people were actually being portrayed in our everyday life, so I thought this would be interesting for this assignment because it is applying what is presented to us in class to life. The products that I chose to analyze for the assignment are Uncle Ben’s Rice, Land-o-Lakes Butter, Aunt Jemima Pancake mix, and Little Einstein’s Fruit Snacks. When I looked at the Uncle Ben’s Rice container, I didn’t see anything that portrays African Americans the way that the movie did. Uncle Ben looks respectable, and is in a suit. One ad I found online even puts Uncle Ben in an office setting. I could though say like in the movie, Uncle Ben can be portrayed as an African American would at the time, he does not look like he would threaten anyone, and he is older and in that sense not being portrayed as a sexual being as the slaves would be (I remember it being said that there was denial to the fact that there were affairs). Uncle Ben also looks happy, and in one ad at the bottom it says “Uncle Ben knows best”. In comparison to the movie slaves were portrayed as happy like Uncle Ben, although he is not a slave, and the “Mattie” was portrayed as the controller and always knowing what was best. I think that in comparison to the movie, Uncle Ben is not a bad portrayal of African Americans.
I looked at the Land-o-Lakes Butter and the Indian women on the front. The box makes the Indian women look welcoming, like they were when Columbus first landed in America. To me though she is kind of in a serving position, she is kneeling holding the butter out to us making it look like she is a servant. Also behind her is all land, no development or even other people. I am not even sure the girl on this box is an Indian. She is wearing makeup which I doubt the Indians had and Columbus had noticed that one of the only things that the Arawak Indians had were tiny gold ornaments in their ears which of course led him to believe there was more. The only pictures that I have seen of Indians have led me to believe that this is a bad portrayal because they hardly had any clothing and had a very developed agricultural system which I think would be present in the picture, besides that what about other Indians? In our reading it said that they lived in villages together. I also don’t think that the Indians at that time would have made processed butter.
I also looked at Aunt Jemima pancake mix. Different from Uncle Ben I think that Aunt Jemima may actually be portrayed as a “Mattie”, just a new age one. She looks very nice and happy and I would have never thought twice about it except when I came home I looked up other images of Aunt Jemima and found some that have Aunt Jemima with a bandana covering her hair, she is fat in others and she is talking in slang on some of the ads. I even found one ad from 1991 with both Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben is still in his suit and Aunt Jemima looks like she is going to clean the floors, not make pancakes. Comparing ads from even as recently as the 90s to now I can say that I feel they have come a long way.
Lastly, I looked at fruit snacks (which are a show) called Little Einstein’s. I chose this because there is one boy on the show who is African American. I have watched the show before because I have younger cousins that I baby-sit in the summer and I have only seen one episode where the kids have gone on an adventure and it could be taken offensively if someone were to look for it. In the episode the kids have a “Mississippi hoedown” and Quincy (the African American boy character) is in drab by clothes (as are the others) and his is playing a banjo looking instrument. Otherwise in the show one of the only differences between him and the other characters is that he is afraid of the dark. I was happy when I saw that the show Little Einstein’s portrayed all the characters in a good manner, teaching the children who watch the show that everyone is the same.
Overall I was surprised at what I noticed when I went to the store. Normally I wouldn’t look to interpret the butter or rice that I picked up off the shelf, and I think that some ads that do portray different races poorly only get away with it mainly for that reason; I just don’t feel as if people are looking for it. If everyone were to interpret the ads presented to us, maybe things would be different.