An issue everyone should think about as they comment on a Washington Post article on the Net, read a piece from Rolling Stone proverbially blowing the President (someone there probably has), or watches Fox News (as fair and balanced as Mahmoud Amadinejad's Holocaust-less reality). I encourage you to go read the report. Happy Tuesday, illegal aliens:
The Commission on Freedom of the Press produced the report “A Free and Responsible Press” in response to the question: is freedom of the press in danger? Their answer was a resounding yes. This reaction is debatable upon viewing the media’s response, or lack thereof in the days following the reports publication. As the cultural framework of our country changed from the time of our Founding Fathers to the industrial world power realized at the time of the 1947 report, the makeup of our mass media changed as well. There is a cyclical device at play in much of what the commission discusses. As they cover the danger that press freedom encounters from the new economic structure derived from the industrial nature of modern society, it is hinted that these models are necessary to support modern society’s large agents of mass communication. It is noted that the devices used to provide information can spread lies faster than our forefathers could have fathomed. Yet, it is insinuated that our ancestors would still place the utmost importance on a free media, as is shown by a Thomas Jefferson quote stating that he placed more significance on the role of the newspaper than that of government (under the stipulation that everyone could read. Big stipulation). The report uses more cyclical logic in their grappling with the fundamental paradox at hand. Can regulatory efforts of any kind refine the actions of the press to service the greater good? Or would this regulation inhibit the moral right of the free press to act as a marketplace of ideas? The commission begins to hint at their stance, in a dog chasing its tail fashion, by first saying, “Wholly apart from the traditional ground for a free press – that it promotes the “victory of truth over falsehood” in the public arena – we see that public discussion is a necessary condition for a free society and that freedom of expression is a necessary condition of adequate public discussion” (Hutchins, 1947, p. 9). Extremely eloquent, if recurrent. Yet, the historical context that follows helps to narrow their perspective. It is pointed out that the only serious obstacle to free expression in the days leading up to our country’s independence was government censorship. If protected, every man could start a publication of his own and partake in the competition of ideas in the local market place. Now, protection against government guarantees little to a man (or woman) with something to say. The powers that be in the media bureaucracy decide what is disseminated to the public (what facts, and, consequently, what version of the truth). This leads to a key statement: “The complexity of modern industrial society, the critical world situation, and the new menaces to freedom which these imply mean that the time has come for the press to assume a new public responsibility” (Hutchins, 1947, p. 17). A call to action! Finally! The answer, as the commission sees it, lies not in regulation of any sort, but in the restructuring of the press’ duties to the public they serve. As it is stated, “The freedom of the press can remain a right of those who publish only if it incorporates into itself the right of the citizen and the public interest” (Hutchins, 1947, p. 18). A pretty self explanatory phrase, but is it? The statement offers an ultimatum of those in control calling for press accountability in exchange for their freedom to publish. It hinges on the press’ ability to remove itself from its partial relationships with its economic background. This has certainly not been heeded and we are almost a decade into the 21st Century. The controlling interests are as involved as ever (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/27/newspaper-owners-editorial-control). It also implies the need to provide a forum for the “forgotten rights of speakers that have no press”. Low income members of our society have long been under represented. With the advent of one of the most important technological advancements of the past century (especially concerning the marketplace of ideas), they find themselves, literally, without a forum for their voice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030802362.html). It would be interesting to see how the Internet would fit into the commission’s report. They state that the five ideal commands levied to garner the intelligence needed to cultivate a free society can never be met, but it seems upon first inspection that the Internet covers all the proverbial bases. The issue still remains, in 2009, as roundabout as John Adams’ quote on the title page of the report: “If there is ever to be an amelioration of the condition of mankind, philosophers, theologians, legislators, politicians and moralists will find that the regulation of the press is the most difficult, dangerous and important problem they have to resolve. Mankind cannot now be governed without it, nor at present with it.”
P.S. If anyone who reads this gets the reference in the title and can pin it to my blog entry, I will wash their car...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
First things first...unless you miss it!
Take a look at this youtube video covering the topic of natural born citizenry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI&feature=player_embedded
Does this not raise a point that everyone must observe and digest, no matter their position on the political bell curve?
If we start budging on minor issues like this (the severity of the offense depends on who you ask!), where does it end?
An interesting issue for discussion.
Why has Obama spent so much to divert focus from his lack of a legitimate birth certificate?
Should this matter?
I believe it does. A President should be a child of American citizens. I say this until the powers that be change the Constitution. Follow the law of the land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI&feature=player_embedded
Does this not raise a point that everyone must observe and digest, no matter their position on the political bell curve?
If we start budging on minor issues like this (the severity of the offense depends on who you ask!), where does it end?
An interesting issue for discussion.
Why has Obama spent so much to divert focus from his lack of a legitimate birth certificate?
Should this matter?
I believe it does. A President should be a child of American citizens. I say this until the powers that be change the Constitution. Follow the law of the land.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Troublesome...
I always try to see both sides of an issue, but the potential appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court scares the hell out of me. Before I even get to the woman's credentials, I hear a comment like this:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
This statement is blatantly racist. It's logic rests solely on the arbitrary characteristic that is the color of a person's skin. More to the point, It's just plain stupid. Downright idiotic. And our President wants this lady to have a say in interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America?
Everyone is doing this, but it is a useful excersize. What if I said, "A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black man who hasn't lived that life."
Game over. Nite Nite. Black listed (excuse the pun).
It's point blank ignorant. And we haven't even touched upon her legal perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Maybe you didn't mean to say it, but you did, lady.
The Founding Fathers that you claim, Sonia, are heroes of yours would turn over in their graves if they could hear you make such flippant remarks about the system they set in motion so many years ago.
Congress makes the law. The judicial system interprets it. It's pretty cut and dry and something we all learn in middle school (or maybe the second time around in high school).
Sam Stein from the huffingtonpost.com says it's not that simple these days:
"But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.
'She's not wrong,' said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. 'Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.'"
At this point, we run into a divide. Your position on this topic depends on your stance regarding the Supreme Court's role in the process. How far does determining the laws set forth in our Constitution go? Past mere interpretation? Sonia think so. So does Mr. Segal.
By clarifying the law, they are interpreting it. It may sound like semantics, but that is not making it. There's one guy who would stand next to me:
"One single object ... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
You may disagree with me, but one thing that should abhor anyone of any background is that a Supreme Court Justice, with the ultimate power of interpreting our most sacred document, would let personal experiences enter into their decision making process. That is NOT acceptable.
What scares me even more is that someone nominated this lady. But then again, should it surprise anyone?
http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441
NOPE.
One last thing. Check out this court decision:
In New York Times Co. v. Tasini (1997), freelance journalists sued the New York Times Company for copyright infringement for the New York Times' inclusion in an electronic archival database (LexisNexis) the work of freelancers it had published. Sotomayor ruled that the publisher had the right to license the freelancer's work. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the reversal; two dissenters (John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer) took Sotomayor's position.
Sotomayor thinks that someone's hard work belongs to someone else, and not solely to the creator of that article. Sound like socialism to anyone else? Too far? I'm on the fence.
I'm not on the fence about keeping this lady out of that chair.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
This statement is blatantly racist. It's logic rests solely on the arbitrary characteristic that is the color of a person's skin. More to the point, It's just plain stupid. Downright idiotic. And our President wants this lady to have a say in interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America?
Everyone is doing this, but it is a useful excersize. What if I said, "A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black man who hasn't lived that life."
Game over. Nite Nite. Black listed (excuse the pun).
It's point blank ignorant. And we haven't even touched upon her legal perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Maybe you didn't mean to say it, but you did, lady.
The Founding Fathers that you claim, Sonia, are heroes of yours would turn over in their graves if they could hear you make such flippant remarks about the system they set in motion so many years ago.
Congress makes the law. The judicial system interprets it. It's pretty cut and dry and something we all learn in middle school (or maybe the second time around in high school).
Sam Stein from the huffingtonpost.com says it's not that simple these days:
"But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.
'She's not wrong,' said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. 'Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.'"
At this point, we run into a divide. Your position on this topic depends on your stance regarding the Supreme Court's role in the process. How far does determining the laws set forth in our Constitution go? Past mere interpretation? Sonia think so. So does Mr. Segal.
By clarifying the law, they are interpreting it. It may sound like semantics, but that is not making it. There's one guy who would stand next to me:
"One single object ... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
You may disagree with me, but one thing that should abhor anyone of any background is that a Supreme Court Justice, with the ultimate power of interpreting our most sacred document, would let personal experiences enter into their decision making process. That is NOT acceptable.
What scares me even more is that someone nominated this lady. But then again, should it surprise anyone?
http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441
NOPE.
One last thing. Check out this court decision:
In New York Times Co. v. Tasini (1997), freelance journalists sued the New York Times Company for copyright infringement for the New York Times' inclusion in an electronic archival database (LexisNexis) the work of freelancers it had published. Sotomayor ruled that the publisher had the right to license the freelancer's work. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the reversal; two dissenters (John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer) took Sotomayor's position.
Sotomayor thinks that someone's hard work belongs to someone else, and not solely to the creator of that article. Sound like socialism to anyone else? Too far? I'm on the fence.
I'm not on the fence about keeping this lady out of that chair.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Last Word...
"Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it" - Thomas Sowell
First off, I would like to state that I found this course on Race, Gender and the Media to be thought provoking, if, at times, redundant. It was a great concern of mine that the recurring themes of the class, or the repetitive mention of inequality and the need for enlightened perspectives, would leave some students in the class jaded, having the opposite affect intended, planting cynical seeds. I don't think this happened upon visiting with classmates. Being slightly older than the other individuals enrolled in the course, it was interesting to observe the way younger members of my generation view race and gender. The subject matter is mercurial and at times explosive, but it was rarely combative, with members of different races and genders having intense but open discussions on the state of our world and the media that covers it.
As for the media, I think the above quote hits the nail on the head. The media, whether it be papers, web-sites, advertisements (especially), or television programming, is out to generate revenue. It goes hand in hand with our capitalist roots. Of course, the fourth estate's job is to keep an eye on the government and other agencies that serve the general public, but it wouldn't be able to do so without making that ever important dollar (look at all the papers closing down recently). If it would make a company more money to advertise a product in a particular way, they would most certainly do it and not think twice about it. The system of free enterprise we subscribe to may be grounded in greed (which has recently provided some nice setbacks in the form of asshole Wall Street types), but it has allowed more people of lower class to raise up and gain wealth and success than any other system yet enacted in the history of the world. Some minor government regulation is necessary to avoid the issues mentioned previously, but that's another conversation for another time. What is key is that it simply isn't about color, gender or ethnicity: it boils down to socioeconomic status. That is how people are racked and stacked (of all colors). Yet, there is always a chance through hard work and ingenuity to rise above where you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
What Milton Friedman just said is so simple, many won't allow it. They may very well be called Liberals. So, while we lauded the election of our first black president this past November, did we really help the people who are down in the dumps (as I've stated, color isn't involved)? By creating bigger government, aren't we providing a patchwork solution? I digress, but it is fitting!
Socially, I feel that each generation is becoming more accepting of the "other", as there is no real way of secluding oneself away from these different cultures anymore. As was stated in class, by 2050, Caucasians will be the minority in America for the first time ever. The Internet and other media outlets allow for the observation of other cultures at any time of the day. Therefore, it is important we purvey the true nature of these people. How can we do that? It is obvious that people of diverse ethnicity, as well as women, need to be involved in the process of media production. Not only this, but based on merit (something everything should be based on), more people of these backgrounds should be considered and granted positions within the ranks of the decision makers. It will provide a broader perspective, and this doesn't mean it has to change the content. Maybe these other individuals will devise a new way of packaging the same message? Show other ways of going about delivering content in a more responsible manner that still generates capital and no one would take issue, I can guarantee that.
An anecdote comes to mind that I think sums up the natural progress we are making simply by losing places to run from people who are different. One of my professors was discussing race in a class, and he brought up his son. His son had a new friend named Kwame, and when he was dropping him off at high school, my professor said, "which one is Kwame, buddy?". His son looked at the group of kids standing together and said, "The one in the blue and yellow striped polo". It was a black guy. My professor relayed the difference in mindset from his generation to his sons. Whereas someone older would have said, "The black kid", his son pointed him out not by the color of his skin, but by his apparel. This is a clear example of not seeing race as a factor of differentiation. I find this to be more and more the case these days, barring poor influence from parental figures.
Heading into the media field, it is as simple as the rule I have been taught to live by since day one. Treat others as you would want to be treated. In this regard, that means using my abilities as a journalist to cover all people in same way, and judge everyone by the same criteria.
First off, I would like to state that I found this course on Race, Gender and the Media to be thought provoking, if, at times, redundant. It was a great concern of mine that the recurring themes of the class, or the repetitive mention of inequality and the need for enlightened perspectives, would leave some students in the class jaded, having the opposite affect intended, planting cynical seeds. I don't think this happened upon visiting with classmates. Being slightly older than the other individuals enrolled in the course, it was interesting to observe the way younger members of my generation view race and gender. The subject matter is mercurial and at times explosive, but it was rarely combative, with members of different races and genders having intense but open discussions on the state of our world and the media that covers it.
As for the media, I think the above quote hits the nail on the head. The media, whether it be papers, web-sites, advertisements (especially), or television programming, is out to generate revenue. It goes hand in hand with our capitalist roots. Of course, the fourth estate's job is to keep an eye on the government and other agencies that serve the general public, but it wouldn't be able to do so without making that ever important dollar (look at all the papers closing down recently). If it would make a company more money to advertise a product in a particular way, they would most certainly do it and not think twice about it. The system of free enterprise we subscribe to may be grounded in greed (which has recently provided some nice setbacks in the form of asshole Wall Street types), but it has allowed more people of lower class to raise up and gain wealth and success than any other system yet enacted in the history of the world. Some minor government regulation is necessary to avoid the issues mentioned previously, but that's another conversation for another time. What is key is that it simply isn't about color, gender or ethnicity: it boils down to socioeconomic status. That is how people are racked and stacked (of all colors). Yet, there is always a chance through hard work and ingenuity to rise above where you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
What Milton Friedman just said is so simple, many won't allow it. They may very well be called Liberals. So, while we lauded the election of our first black president this past November, did we really help the people who are down in the dumps (as I've stated, color isn't involved)? By creating bigger government, aren't we providing a patchwork solution? I digress, but it is fitting!
Socially, I feel that each generation is becoming more accepting of the "other", as there is no real way of secluding oneself away from these different cultures anymore. As was stated in class, by 2050, Caucasians will be the minority in America for the first time ever. The Internet and other media outlets allow for the observation of other cultures at any time of the day. Therefore, it is important we purvey the true nature of these people. How can we do that? It is obvious that people of diverse ethnicity, as well as women, need to be involved in the process of media production. Not only this, but based on merit (something everything should be based on), more people of these backgrounds should be considered and granted positions within the ranks of the decision makers. It will provide a broader perspective, and this doesn't mean it has to change the content. Maybe these other individuals will devise a new way of packaging the same message? Show other ways of going about delivering content in a more responsible manner that still generates capital and no one would take issue, I can guarantee that.
An anecdote comes to mind that I think sums up the natural progress we are making simply by losing places to run from people who are different. One of my professors was discussing race in a class, and he brought up his son. His son had a new friend named Kwame, and when he was dropping him off at high school, my professor said, "which one is Kwame, buddy?". His son looked at the group of kids standing together and said, "The one in the blue and yellow striped polo". It was a black guy. My professor relayed the difference in mindset from his generation to his sons. Whereas someone older would have said, "The black kid", his son pointed him out not by the color of his skin, but by his apparel. This is a clear example of not seeing race as a factor of differentiation. I find this to be more and more the case these days, barring poor influence from parental figures.
Heading into the media field, it is as simple as the rule I have been taught to live by since day one. Treat others as you would want to be treated. In this regard, that means using my abilities as a journalist to cover all people in same way, and judge everyone by the same criteria.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Hip-Hop Media Assignment
Hip-hop is a type of music, but also a cultural movement. Much like folk rock was a vehicle for the attitudes and contentions of another earlier generation, hip-hop has given a voice to a portion of society that, many times, feels disenfranchised. Yet, to pigeon hole this type of music as a solely niche related voice is myopic. Hip-hop can be scathing, fun-loving, ghetto, old-school, etc. The list goes on and on. The cultural element comes into play involving the heavier side of hip-hop. Many groups through the 80's (hip-hop began in the 70's) began to use their art form as a way to discuss social issues and perceived inadequacies amongst those living in close quarters. It is a multi-faceted, now firmly entrenched, form of expression within American culture. It is a part of the tapestry, for all colors and nationalities. It doesn't respect the bounds of country lines. There is rap in every country. It is far from a fad, as many speculated it was in its infancy (like disco), and it has become a powerful force in the pop-culture forum. Put simply: hip-hop is prevalent and powerful, and it still has the ability to do so while making you shake your ass. What began as expression due to a lack of representation has now become mainstream, and it is growing because of it, even with the cries that hip-hop has "sold out".
FIVE GROUPS I HAVE NOT LISTENED TO BEFORE (hard to find for the music nut I am):
1) Rick Ross - "Maybach Music 2"
2) STARSTRUKK - "3OH!3"
3) K'naan - "Wavin' Flag"
4) Asher Roth - "Lark On My Go-Kart"
5) Labcologne - "Fatality"
FIVE HIP-HOP VIDEOS I HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY SEEN (NOTE: these videos were seen on numerous TV channels and through the music service "Rhapsody", but linked to YouTube as a way of letting others view the images I am discussing):
1) Nas - "Hero"
The theme of this video seems to be that Nas, an outspoken member of the hip-hop community on numerous topics, is calling fr a "hero". From his positioning in the video, it very well may be him. Notice the images though. In a genre dominated by masculinity and violence, how is a man like Nas, who preaches change, helping the movement when he is perpetrating hip-hop stereotypes? Ski masks, dark me coming from dark alleys, bling bling, fast cars? There are themes in these videos that are predominant across the board (rare exceptions).
2) Del tha Funkee Homosapien - "Mistadobilina"
An early entry in the annuls of hip-hop, this song maintains a light and upbeat tone. Yet, when listening to the lyrics (and seeing the video), it seems Del is making a statement about the differences between him and this Mr. Dobilina, if you will. White men in suits acting like robots in office environments prevail in the video. A social statement that, once again, gets 'em up off da couch. Yo.
3) Common - "Universal Mind Control"
What would one expect from a stalwart in groundbreaking hip-hop? Common expands the genre. Pushes envelopes. Every time you hear something generic that sounds like everything else, go find someone like Common. He talks about important things. There aren't any big bootied hoes in this video. In these latter years of hip-hops existence, much like rock and roll, growth is inevitable. For all the Soulja Boys out there, there are a few of these guys that make listening to this music worthwhile.
4) Lil Jon - "Get Low"
Awful. Just awful. It's not even a good beat. The words are demeaning to not only females, but to any male with any form of cognisant thought. I love how the video is edited to not say, "Til the sweat drips off my balls", but they let the lyrics "Skeet Skeet Skeet" stay in there. That means to ejaculate. It was also humorous to watch 20-year-old girls walking around saying that phrase not even knowing what it meant. A truly enriching addition to any music catalogue. NOT. The video is like bad dental work (Lil Jon may know something about that).
5) 2 Pac - "I Ain't Mad At Cha"
After a terrible entry into the hip-hop genre, here is the master. Poet. Telling you a story of loss and love. Like any art, there has to be passion. It just isn't made like this anymore. It's so rare. He made hundreds of these tracks. The video is a narrative of a man's journey, finished in heaven, giving forgiveness to those he left behind. I don't see any asses shaking. It's more than that. More artists need to strive for this. Bottom line. I can even get my old white parents to give these songs nods of legitimization.
The influence of these voices, plus so many, many more, are numerous. Unfortunately, these influences have often been negative. The rap stigma is one dominated by violence and chauvinist attitudes. At this point in time, there are many who have grown past these stringent barriers and explored more deeply rooted human issues concerning our existence. Sadly, the majority are happy to make a buck and talk about alcohol, sex, and "skeeting" on people. Words like "trines" (derogatory term for women) and "crunk" (getting wild) have become a part of all races and socioeconomic groups' vernaculars. This type of music is mainstream. It angers some traditionalists who pine for the good old days, but like anything that draws publicity, for whatever reason, it gains notoriety. It loses its novel status. Just look at advertising. Companies are trying to move a product, and they aren't opposed to using popular music to do so. Vitamin Water, Ciroc Vodka, Castrol Motor Oil, Old Spice and numerous others have all used hip-hop music and figures to move their products. It is an accepted form of expression. It will be used as such.
The state of hip-hop is...what it is. It is a strong condition, filled with multiple geniuses and hacks alike, just as in any genre. Some have something important to say, others simply want to continue turning out the same old stereotypical rap crap. Like with anything, the burden is on the listener to seek out material of worth. Some don't have the capacity for it, and want simple tunes with simple themes. Others grasp for complex creations that make them think and question aspects of their lives and surroundings. Hip-hop has both. Just like rock. Just like country. Just like all forms of music. The idea that this is still a cultural movement is moot to me. It's not. Too many years have passed. That would be like me saying Buffalo Springfield still led a cultural movement. Nope. Hip-hop has evolved. And transgressed. But it's amazing how new it can be when it's done right.
FIVE GROUPS I HAVE NOT LISTENED TO BEFORE (hard to find for the music nut I am):
1) Rick Ross - "Maybach Music 2"
2) STARSTRUKK - "3OH!3"
3) K'naan - "Wavin' Flag"
4) Asher Roth - "Lark On My Go-Kart"
5) Labcologne - "Fatality"
FIVE HIP-HOP VIDEOS I HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY SEEN (NOTE: these videos were seen on numerous TV channels and through the music service "Rhapsody", but linked to YouTube as a way of letting others view the images I am discussing):
1) Nas - "Hero"
The theme of this video seems to be that Nas, an outspoken member of the hip-hop community on numerous topics, is calling fr a "hero". From his positioning in the video, it very well may be him. Notice the images though. In a genre dominated by masculinity and violence, how is a man like Nas, who preaches change, helping the movement when he is perpetrating hip-hop stereotypes? Ski masks, dark me coming from dark alleys, bling bling, fast cars? There are themes in these videos that are predominant across the board (rare exceptions).
2) Del tha Funkee Homosapien - "Mistadobilina"
An early entry in the annuls of hip-hop, this song maintains a light and upbeat tone. Yet, when listening to the lyrics (and seeing the video), it seems Del is making a statement about the differences between him and this Mr. Dobilina, if you will. White men in suits acting like robots in office environments prevail in the video. A social statement that, once again, gets 'em up off da couch. Yo.
3) Common - "Universal Mind Control"
What would one expect from a stalwart in groundbreaking hip-hop? Common expands the genre. Pushes envelopes. Every time you hear something generic that sounds like everything else, go find someone like Common. He talks about important things. There aren't any big bootied hoes in this video. In these latter years of hip-hops existence, much like rock and roll, growth is inevitable. For all the Soulja Boys out there, there are a few of these guys that make listening to this music worthwhile.
4) Lil Jon - "Get Low"
Awful. Just awful. It's not even a good beat. The words are demeaning to not only females, but to any male with any form of cognisant thought. I love how the video is edited to not say, "Til the sweat drips off my balls", but they let the lyrics "Skeet Skeet Skeet" stay in there. That means to ejaculate. It was also humorous to watch 20-year-old girls walking around saying that phrase not even knowing what it meant. A truly enriching addition to any music catalogue. NOT. The video is like bad dental work (Lil Jon may know something about that).
5) 2 Pac - "I Ain't Mad At Cha"
After a terrible entry into the hip-hop genre, here is the master. Poet. Telling you a story of loss and love. Like any art, there has to be passion. It just isn't made like this anymore. It's so rare. He made hundreds of these tracks. The video is a narrative of a man's journey, finished in heaven, giving forgiveness to those he left behind. I don't see any asses shaking. It's more than that. More artists need to strive for this. Bottom line. I can even get my old white parents to give these songs nods of legitimization.
The influence of these voices, plus so many, many more, are numerous. Unfortunately, these influences have often been negative. The rap stigma is one dominated by violence and chauvinist attitudes. At this point in time, there are many who have grown past these stringent barriers and explored more deeply rooted human issues concerning our existence. Sadly, the majority are happy to make a buck and talk about alcohol, sex, and "skeeting" on people. Words like "trines" (derogatory term for women) and "crunk" (getting wild) have become a part of all races and socioeconomic groups' vernaculars. This type of music is mainstream. It angers some traditionalists who pine for the good old days, but like anything that draws publicity, for whatever reason, it gains notoriety. It loses its novel status. Just look at advertising. Companies are trying to move a product, and they aren't opposed to using popular music to do so. Vitamin Water, Ciroc Vodka, Castrol Motor Oil, Old Spice and numerous others have all used hip-hop music and figures to move their products. It is an accepted form of expression. It will be used as such.
The state of hip-hop is...what it is. It is a strong condition, filled with multiple geniuses and hacks alike, just as in any genre. Some have something important to say, others simply want to continue turning out the same old stereotypical rap crap. Like with anything, the burden is on the listener to seek out material of worth. Some don't have the capacity for it, and want simple tunes with simple themes. Others grasp for complex creations that make them think and question aspects of their lives and surroundings. Hip-hop has both. Just like rock. Just like country. Just like all forms of music. The idea that this is still a cultural movement is moot to me. It's not. Too many years have passed. That would be like me saying Buffalo Springfield still led a cultural movement. Nope. Hip-hop has evolved. And transgressed. But it's amazing how new it can be when it's done right.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Who decides what news is?
There's always someone behind a story. Regardless of how hard one tries, it is impossible for anyone to totally remove them self from a report and make it totally objective. It is easier to more closely reach this impossibility when a subject is vanilla, but on subjects such as war, which Moyer confronts in his essay, it becomes exceedingly difficult. In the video, Moyer does not make a direct statement that the Iraq War is like the previous conflict in Vietnam, but he juxtaposes the two and the American public's reactions to both. He is trying to make a correlation. In my opinion, there has been less public outrage and demonstration concerning the Iraq War because of the times. During the Vietnam years, the fabric of our country was changing. There were movements on many fronts. This stimulated a sub-culture of "radicals" that took to the streets, confronting authority and acting out on their perceived trampled rights. As a country, we have settled in, it seems. As many changes have been made, we hit the 80's and 90's and put the proverbial car on cruise control. Many people simply got comfortable, and members of my generation were raised in a climate that has created a general sense of malaise towards any sort of cause. It took the candidacy of a black man to get us to vote. We needed a reason to roll out and exercise our most basic democratic right. Though I find the line drawn between Iraq and Vietnam to be quite thin indeed, I believe sheer laziness to be the causation for less public displays of opposition. People got comfy, and raised their kids that way.
Now, whether the media covers what does occur is another issue. The news is owned by someone. Its job is to report truth, but can it do this completely if a story conflicts with the ownerships interests? In the case of the Iraq War, the coverage of the push towards Baghdad was so rah-rah you'd have thought you were watching the liberation of Paris circa 1944. Why was no one discussing the potential pratfalls of this conflict? Even as someone who supported the war, I would have welcomed more opposing views. An important role of the media is not only to accurately report information, but to discuss its merits and downsides (commentary). One of the negatives of 9/11 was its affect on the media. Just like the public, the media jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and lost view of its duties. How can this be avoided? What caused it? I do not think the ownership of many of our major media outlets helped. One example is GE. They manufacture weapons for the government, but they also own NBC. Does this not seem like a slight conflict of interest? Would their coverage of the war change because of this? Interesting points to discuss.
In fact, there are only six entities that own all of our news. Does this seem right? All seem to be dominated by the presence of white males. Is this indicative of our countries racial composition? Not at all. Is it fair? Absolutely. No one has done anything wrong to gain these positions. They have played the game and become successful. Right or wrong do not come into this discussion. Is this a good thing? That can be broken down. The simple answer: NO. In a country where the majority/minority coin will be flipped by 2050, it seems that the news is still very centralized on only certain people and places. Though certain issues are not important to everyone, they are important to someone. Are we alienating people by not acknowledging them? I personally think stories on minority issues concern me just as much as anything else. If America is a quilt, they're a chunk and every bit as important as I am. Coverage of these different cultures would illuminate their struggles and successes, but most importantly, it would promote understanding. One of the lesser focused upon aspects of the media is to educate. This is a key area where they could certainly do some good.
Somewhat in the same vein, you have how the media portrayed the Civil Rights Movement. Even though they shot many of the stories from the point of view of the white law enforcement, and no doubt showed their bias in doing so, the images coming through people's TV screens did all the talking needed for many to understand the brutality of the struggle for equality. Seeing with their own eyes the fire hoses spraying women and children, and dogs viciously attacking people simply standing in the street helped many make up their minds around the country. It really did not matter what the broadcaster said, or the tone of the report. Images hold great power, and those were some of the most powerful.
It is time to use the media as a tool to promote knowledge of all the types of people we have in our country, and the place to start are the controlling interests. This is one of the biggest issues facing the media today. Who is pulling the strings?
Now, whether the media covers what does occur is another issue. The news is owned by someone. Its job is to report truth, but can it do this completely if a story conflicts with the ownerships interests? In the case of the Iraq War, the coverage of the push towards Baghdad was so rah-rah you'd have thought you were watching the liberation of Paris circa 1944. Why was no one discussing the potential pratfalls of this conflict? Even as someone who supported the war, I would have welcomed more opposing views. An important role of the media is not only to accurately report information, but to discuss its merits and downsides (commentary). One of the negatives of 9/11 was its affect on the media. Just like the public, the media jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and lost view of its duties. How can this be avoided? What caused it? I do not think the ownership of many of our major media outlets helped. One example is GE. They manufacture weapons for the government, but they also own NBC. Does this not seem like a slight conflict of interest? Would their coverage of the war change because of this? Interesting points to discuss.
In fact, there are only six entities that own all of our news. Does this seem right? All seem to be dominated by the presence of white males. Is this indicative of our countries racial composition? Not at all. Is it fair? Absolutely. No one has done anything wrong to gain these positions. They have played the game and become successful. Right or wrong do not come into this discussion. Is this a good thing? That can be broken down. The simple answer: NO. In a country where the majority/minority coin will be flipped by 2050, it seems that the news is still very centralized on only certain people and places. Though certain issues are not important to everyone, they are important to someone. Are we alienating people by not acknowledging them? I personally think stories on minority issues concern me just as much as anything else. If America is a quilt, they're a chunk and every bit as important as I am. Coverage of these different cultures would illuminate their struggles and successes, but most importantly, it would promote understanding. One of the lesser focused upon aspects of the media is to educate. This is a key area where they could certainly do some good.
Somewhat in the same vein, you have how the media portrayed the Civil Rights Movement. Even though they shot many of the stories from the point of view of the white law enforcement, and no doubt showed their bias in doing so, the images coming through people's TV screens did all the talking needed for many to understand the brutality of the struggle for equality. Seeing with their own eyes the fire hoses spraying women and children, and dogs viciously attacking people simply standing in the street helped many make up their minds around the country. It really did not matter what the broadcaster said, or the tone of the report. Images hold great power, and those were some of the most powerful.
It is time to use the media as a tool to promote knowledge of all the types of people we have in our country, and the place to start are the controlling interests. This is one of the biggest issues facing the media today. Who is pulling the strings?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Another way to look at it...
Here's another perspective on White Privilege. It's damn funny. If you're a minority, just wait for what he says about the future. Possible outcome.
This is socially tinted commentary carried via humor that says roughly the same thing that Tim Wise did.
"If you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole". Basically states that we have an advantage, and if we don't admit it, we're being ridiculous.
Like Prior, Chappelle, or Rock, this guy is every bit as illuminating. A distinct voice.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Funniest man alive...
Louis C.K.
We're all spoiled. Everyone's privileged:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc
"New York to L.A. in five hours. That used to take 30 years". Know what this reminds me of? Anyone play "Oregon Trail" back in school? One of my kids always died of Typhoid.
The guy just made me laugh more in 4 minutes and 12 seconds than Dane Cook has in his entire career.
The government should subsidize his comedy. He should be in the stimulus package. It's more important than Pelosi's pet mice. What a joke. 30 million?
Louis makes me wonder though:
Do you think when a member of the "greatest generation's" car broke down trying to get their kids to school, an old timer born a couple decades after the Civil War would pop out of nowhere and say, "Not fast enough for ya? You're being drawn by a horseless carriage for crimminy sakes! Spoiled, the lot of ya!"?
Most probably. Things are speedier, but it's all relative.
"When you ran out of money, you said, 'I can't do any more things now'..."
I need to pay heed to that.
We're all spoiled. Everyone's privileged:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc
"New York to L.A. in five hours. That used to take 30 years". Know what this reminds me of? Anyone play "Oregon Trail" back in school? One of my kids always died of Typhoid.
The guy just made me laugh more in 4 minutes and 12 seconds than Dane Cook has in his entire career.
The government should subsidize his comedy. He should be in the stimulus package. It's more important than Pelosi's pet mice. What a joke. 30 million?
Louis makes me wonder though:
Do you think when a member of the "greatest generation's" car broke down trying to get their kids to school, an old timer born a couple decades after the Civil War would pop out of nowhere and say, "Not fast enough for ya? You're being drawn by a horseless carriage for crimminy sakes! Spoiled, the lot of ya!"?
Most probably. Things are speedier, but it's all relative.
"When you ran out of money, you said, 'I can't do any more things now'..."
I need to pay heed to that.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Must be chilly at the Gore household...
Ahhh, global warming.
Looks like the "inconvenient truth" may be more convenient than first surmised.
Yet another of the far-left liberals' causes looks to be somewhere in the middle:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html
Just another prime example that things tend to be grey, not black and white. Are we doing things that cause damage to the atmosphere? Yes. Are greenhouse gasses building up and becoming an issue? Yes. Is it human hubris to believe that we are the only cause for a slight change (yes, slight, in terms of the earth's lifetime to this point) in the earth's climate? HELL YES.
Then again, Al Gore invented the Internet...and slacks (OK, he never said that last one. He might as well, though. Ever hear the term "windbag"?).
I leave you with this video of a man who usually says it better than I can think it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f21LmwI8MPk
Though hilarious, very spot on Dennis.
It's almost like some people need a catastrophe to worry about in their lives. I have no problem cutting the water when I brush my teeth, making sure the lights are off when I leave the house or even carpooling, but when I look at these people acting like the sun is going to become a red giant and kill us all in the next 100 years because we use fossil fuels...well, I got some land to sell you in Oklahoma with an ocean view, you got me?
How about these issues instead:
1) Militant religious nuts trying to kill me because I eat Big Mac's and take girls on dates in short skirts
2) The world economy (yes, WORLD) so far in the dumps we let our government pass a stimulus package no one even read for enough money to give Bill Gates a nocturnal emission
3) Two wars in the Middle East that need closure (Roman style)
4) The muzzling of Hollywood stars pontificating on politics and world matters when they have less than a high school education (OK...this is a personal beef)
Some of the things the far left and far right do just amazes me. I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular (except maybe Gore).
Looks like the "inconvenient truth" may be more convenient than first surmised.
Yet another of the far-left liberals' causes looks to be somewhere in the middle:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html
Just another prime example that things tend to be grey, not black and white. Are we doing things that cause damage to the atmosphere? Yes. Are greenhouse gasses building up and becoming an issue? Yes. Is it human hubris to believe that we are the only cause for a slight change (yes, slight, in terms of the earth's lifetime to this point) in the earth's climate? HELL YES.
Then again, Al Gore invented the Internet...and slacks (OK, he never said that last one. He might as well, though. Ever hear the term "windbag"?).
I leave you with this video of a man who usually says it better than I can think it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f21LmwI8MPk
Though hilarious, very spot on Dennis.
It's almost like some people need a catastrophe to worry about in their lives. I have no problem cutting the water when I brush my teeth, making sure the lights are off when I leave the house or even carpooling, but when I look at these people acting like the sun is going to become a red giant and kill us all in the next 100 years because we use fossil fuels...well, I got some land to sell you in Oklahoma with an ocean view, you got me?
How about these issues instead:
1) Militant religious nuts trying to kill me because I eat Big Mac's and take girls on dates in short skirts
2) The world economy (yes, WORLD) so far in the dumps we let our government pass a stimulus package no one even read for enough money to give Bill Gates a nocturnal emission
3) Two wars in the Middle East that need closure (Roman style)
4) The muzzling of Hollywood stars pontificating on politics and world matters when they have less than a high school education (OK...this is a personal beef)
Some of the things the far left and far right do just amazes me. I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular (except maybe Gore).
Forgetful little nation, we are...
Isn't it amazing that the collective memory of our country can be so myopic?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Last time I heard, this was all Bush's fault.
What administration did the article, and the notoriously liberal NY Times, state was pushing expansion of mortgage loans to poor people who had no business having loan payments?
The now golden Clinton administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHTzi6nRUE
This makes me think that the Bush administraion will be remembered more fondly in a decade, especially after we realize the weight this stimulus package places on all of our shoulders.
Damn it. At least try and blame the current credit crisis on the Republican majority in the House and Senate at that time.
We see what we want to, don't we?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Last time I heard, this was all Bush's fault.
What administration did the article, and the notoriously liberal NY Times, state was pushing expansion of mortgage loans to poor people who had no business having loan payments?
The now golden Clinton administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHTzi6nRUE
This makes me think that the Bush administraion will be remembered more fondly in a decade, especially after we realize the weight this stimulus package places on all of our shoulders.
Damn it. At least try and blame the current credit crisis on the Republican majority in the House and Senate at that time.
We see what we want to, don't we?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Gender and Racial Stereotypes in Media
NOTE: The links in this post are to two episodes of popular TV sitcoms that have stereotypes in them. And, yes, they are absolutely hilarious and critically acclaimed.
NOTE #2: Upon watching the episode of "30 Rock", I realized that the show is jam packed with racial and cultural stereotypes, and, yes, it is hilarious. Read on for my reasoning. It applies.
1/26/09 (date published) - People magazine
Magazine advertisement
USA TV show "Burn Notice"
Shows the protagonist and his attractive female counterpart with the line, "burned man, smoking woman" between them. He's aggressively holding a gun while she is unarmed and walking in a sexy manner towards the reader
Gender stereotypes/assumptions
2/22/09 (date purchased) - Don Miguel's beef and cheese mini dumplings
Logo for product
The logo for this food product is a Mexican man with a mustache dressed in a sombrero, serape, and white shirt and pants riding a donkey. The company who produces the food is located in Anaheim, CA
Racial stereotype
2/23/09 - CBS - Network. 8:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"Worst Week"
When arguing over whether they even need a sofa, Angela says to her husband, who insinuated it wasn't important, "Well, we certainly do. We're not Japanese, Dick"
Racial stereotype
2/25/09 - ABC - Network. 9pm
TV show/sitcom
"Life on Mars"
All the police officers in the 125 precinct call Anne Norris, a female officer, "No Nuts Norris", among other disparaging comments
Offensive remarks concerning gender
2/26/09 - NBC -Network. 8:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"30 Rock"
Taxi driver is Arab for no other reason than for comedic effect
Racial stereotype
2/28/09 - espn.com
Web advertisement
Castrol Edge Motor Oil
"Think with your dipstick" ad campaign shows men (no women) being whipped by an angry Scotsman when they allude to the fact that all engine oil is the same
Gender stereotype
2/28/09 (date watched) - DVD
Film
"Blue Streak"
Synopsis: Dopish white cops are fooled into believing that a black criminal is a cop because he knows more about crime than they ever could.
Racial stereotypes abound
3/1/09 (date read) - Esquire magazine
Magazine article
Subject of article: Natalie Gulbis and rebirth of LPGA
Article discusses the new direction of the LPGA based, for the most part, on younger players' looks, not ability (though it notes that the girls aren't at all bad).
Gender stereotypes
3/1/09 - ESPN - Network. 9:45 pm
Television advertisement
Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue
A classic: half nude women in bathing suits shown in the pages of a sports publication, if, for no other reason, to sell magazines to the male majority targeted by the magazine
Gender stereotypes
3/1/09 - HBO - Network. 9:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"Eastbound & Down"
When looking for steroids, Kenny Powers asks his deadbeat friend if "that black guy who sold him all that Cialis" would have any, signifying that this man was a drug dealer
Racial stereotype
ANALYSIS OF EXERCISE:
I would assume (not brashly, I hope) that most of the people who partook in this exercise knew that the media was chock full of stereotypes. We digest them daily. Yet, having been a part of this, it was amazing how, when forced to take note, the stereotypical material jumps off of the page/screen. Having started this late due to a trip, it didn't take me long to pinpoint numerous accounts of racial/gender driven commentary in the media I personally consume. Though eye opening to a degree, I want to state my opinion on what I observed.
Many of the instances occurred in comedic forums. I laughed. I found them funny. But this does not mean I believe the references to be altruistic. For example, the character of the taxi driver in the episode of "30 Rock" did not have to be an Arab (hell, Arab may be insensitive. I tried to Google it). I have had numerous cabies in NYC that were not Arabs. A good many were. Yet, the character, in this instance, was funny (the actor is a notorious humorist). And, though presumptive, I took little away that would hinder my opinion of any type of people (Sidebar: I did find it somewhat ironic that "30 Rock", known for its trail blazing creator Tina Fey, who is painted as a powerful and liberated woman by many outlets, had this blatantly stereotypical image).
Here's why I didn't have a problem with it: I am media savvy. I don't take everything tossed at me from a magazine or the idiot box at face value (which is a deceptive nickname since I got Discovery HD theatre and the Science Network HD). I find stereotypical humor can be funny. If stereotypes are grounded in truth, however small, why can't we laugh at the outliers in our society? They can be somewhat absurd, no?
Let's draw a line in the sand now that we have this out in the open. I don't condone abusive or mean spirited commentary on anyone. If, using the same example from above, the character of the cab driver would have been an outright caricature with no purpose but to insult someone, then that is not acceptable. That has no value, whereas this option playfully exposed an eccentric truth nestled into a cultural tapestry, of sorts. His character also advanced the plot in ways other than just being an Arab taxi driver.
This idea goes for the episode of "Worst Week", as well. The joke itself is pointed as much at a stereotype that Japanese people don't have sofas as it is at Angela herself, for being so obtuse to not realize modern Japan has, indeed, grasped the useful nature of furniture. As one digests the humor, one realizes that Angela has a picture of traditional, feudal Japan in her head, not the modern nation we see today.
The images I found most confronting, and I would have never uttered this prior to the experience, were those of gender. The use of women as sexual objects to illicit a persuasive reaction in men, or even women themselves, was dramatic. The advertisement for the TV show "Burn Notice" could have been a part of the curriculum in a gender roles class. The man, angry, volatile and armed, while the woman is sleek, gliding towards the reader with a "come hither" look on her features. In between the two: "burned man, smoking woman". Just very low brow now that I ponder it. It's actually a great show...so...
Back to my previous line of thought. I can read that and know how silly the ad is, but still feel fine watching the show because I' not doing it because I was persuaded by some silly ad. Not only that, but the content of the show is going to be scrutinized much like the ad to decided if I like the show or not. In this case, I do. It's not simply T&A laid over a terrible plot (insert any show with Pam Anderson in it). How did I do this? I was taught how to analyze books and film and media through education, but also in the home.
Our media is oft maligned for the images it produces, and, yes, many are irresponsible. If I could wiggle my nose like a stereotypical witch of TV past and make the executives and employees realize that there is a better way (within reason), I would. I like women as much as the next guy, but I don't need to be bombarded with pornographic imagery (classy, sexy is fine with me). Where can we make the dent then? On our end. If we taught our children that the Castrol commercial, though an initial roll on the floor, is violent and stupid (don't women change their oil? Wouldn't they want their cars to last longer? They do own cars Castrol...), and we did this for everything we watched with them, they'd grown into conscientious and wise consumers of this land-mine filled media landscape we live in.
We don't need help from anyone else, just those near us.
P.S. Why could Mel Brooks get away with making "Blazing Saddles"? Because he was Jewish? I think so. And, yes, it's one of the funniest movies ever made. I know it's not based in total truth. Why? I'm media savvyyyyyyyy....
NOTE #2: Upon watching the episode of "30 Rock", I realized that the show is jam packed with racial and cultural stereotypes, and, yes, it is hilarious. Read on for my reasoning. It applies.
1/26/09 (date published) - People magazine
Magazine advertisement
USA TV show "Burn Notice"
Shows the protagonist and his attractive female counterpart with the line, "burned man, smoking woman" between them. He's aggressively holding a gun while she is unarmed and walking in a sexy manner towards the reader
Gender stereotypes/assumptions
2/22/09 (date purchased) - Don Miguel's beef and cheese mini dumplings
Logo for product
The logo for this food product is a Mexican man with a mustache dressed in a sombrero, serape, and white shirt and pants riding a donkey. The company who produces the food is located in Anaheim, CA
Racial stereotype
2/23/09 - CBS - Network. 8:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"Worst Week"
When arguing over whether they even need a sofa, Angela says to her husband, who insinuated it wasn't important, "Well, we certainly do. We're not Japanese, Dick"
Racial stereotype
2/25/09 - ABC - Network. 9pm
TV show/sitcom
"Life on Mars"
All the police officers in the 125 precinct call Anne Norris, a female officer, "No Nuts Norris", among other disparaging comments
Offensive remarks concerning gender
2/26/09 - NBC -Network. 8:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"30 Rock"
Taxi driver is Arab for no other reason than for comedic effect
Racial stereotype
2/28/09 - espn.com
Web advertisement
Castrol Edge Motor Oil
"Think with your dipstick" ad campaign shows men (no women) being whipped by an angry Scotsman when they allude to the fact that all engine oil is the same
Gender stereotype
2/28/09 (date watched) - DVD
Film
"Blue Streak"
Synopsis: Dopish white cops are fooled into believing that a black criminal is a cop because he knows more about crime than they ever could.
Racial stereotypes abound
3/1/09 (date read) - Esquire magazine
Magazine article
Subject of article: Natalie Gulbis and rebirth of LPGA
Article discusses the new direction of the LPGA based, for the most part, on younger players' looks, not ability (though it notes that the girls aren't at all bad).
Gender stereotypes
3/1/09 - ESPN - Network. 9:45 pm
Television advertisement
Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue
A classic: half nude women in bathing suits shown in the pages of a sports publication, if, for no other reason, to sell magazines to the male majority targeted by the magazine
Gender stereotypes
3/1/09 - HBO - Network. 9:30 pm
TV show/sitcom
"Eastbound & Down"
When looking for steroids, Kenny Powers asks his deadbeat friend if "that black guy who sold him all that Cialis" would have any, signifying that this man was a drug dealer
Racial stereotype
ANALYSIS OF EXERCISE:
I would assume (not brashly, I hope) that most of the people who partook in this exercise knew that the media was chock full of stereotypes. We digest them daily. Yet, having been a part of this, it was amazing how, when forced to take note, the stereotypical material jumps off of the page/screen. Having started this late due to a trip, it didn't take me long to pinpoint numerous accounts of racial/gender driven commentary in the media I personally consume. Though eye opening to a degree, I want to state my opinion on what I observed.
Many of the instances occurred in comedic forums. I laughed. I found them funny. But this does not mean I believe the references to be altruistic. For example, the character of the taxi driver in the episode of "30 Rock" did not have to be an Arab (hell, Arab may be insensitive. I tried to Google it). I have had numerous cabies in NYC that were not Arabs. A good many were. Yet, the character, in this instance, was funny (the actor is a notorious humorist). And, though presumptive, I took little away that would hinder my opinion of any type of people (Sidebar: I did find it somewhat ironic that "30 Rock", known for its trail blazing creator Tina Fey, who is painted as a powerful and liberated woman by many outlets, had this blatantly stereotypical image).
Here's why I didn't have a problem with it: I am media savvy. I don't take everything tossed at me from a magazine or the idiot box at face value (which is a deceptive nickname since I got Discovery HD theatre and the Science Network HD). I find stereotypical humor can be funny. If stereotypes are grounded in truth, however small, why can't we laugh at the outliers in our society? They can be somewhat absurd, no?
Let's draw a line in the sand now that we have this out in the open. I don't condone abusive or mean spirited commentary on anyone. If, using the same example from above, the character of the cab driver would have been an outright caricature with no purpose but to insult someone, then that is not acceptable. That has no value, whereas this option playfully exposed an eccentric truth nestled into a cultural tapestry, of sorts. His character also advanced the plot in ways other than just being an Arab taxi driver.
This idea goes for the episode of "Worst Week", as well. The joke itself is pointed as much at a stereotype that Japanese people don't have sofas as it is at Angela herself, for being so obtuse to not realize modern Japan has, indeed, grasped the useful nature of furniture. As one digests the humor, one realizes that Angela has a picture of traditional, feudal Japan in her head, not the modern nation we see today.
The images I found most confronting, and I would have never uttered this prior to the experience, were those of gender. The use of women as sexual objects to illicit a persuasive reaction in men, or even women themselves, was dramatic. The advertisement for the TV show "Burn Notice" could have been a part of the curriculum in a gender roles class. The man, angry, volatile and armed, while the woman is sleek, gliding towards the reader with a "come hither" look on her features. In between the two: "burned man, smoking woman". Just very low brow now that I ponder it. It's actually a great show...so...
Back to my previous line of thought. I can read that and know how silly the ad is, but still feel fine watching the show because I' not doing it because I was persuaded by some silly ad. Not only that, but the content of the show is going to be scrutinized much like the ad to decided if I like the show or not. In this case, I do. It's not simply T&A laid over a terrible plot (insert any show with Pam Anderson in it). How did I do this? I was taught how to analyze books and film and media through education, but also in the home.
Our media is oft maligned for the images it produces, and, yes, many are irresponsible. If I could wiggle my nose like a stereotypical witch of TV past and make the executives and employees realize that there is a better way (within reason), I would. I like women as much as the next guy, but I don't need to be bombarded with pornographic imagery (classy, sexy is fine with me). Where can we make the dent then? On our end. If we taught our children that the Castrol commercial, though an initial roll on the floor, is violent and stupid (don't women change their oil? Wouldn't they want their cars to last longer? They do own cars Castrol...), and we did this for everything we watched with them, they'd grown into conscientious and wise consumers of this land-mine filled media landscape we live in.
We don't need help from anyone else, just those near us.
P.S. Why could Mel Brooks get away with making "Blazing Saddles"? Because he was Jewish? I think so. And, yes, it's one of the funniest movies ever made. I know it's not based in total truth. Why? I'm media savvyyyyyyyy....
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
White Privilege (updated)
For those of you who have not had the chance to watch Tim Wise speak, I'll tell you this: I don't agree with everything he says, but if you can view or read his thoughts without looking at yourself and asking questions, you're probably a lost cause anyway. Here's an update on the concept of White Privilege that he wrote during the race for the Oval Office:
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
In retrospect (and exceedingly in the moment as I watched it unfold), it makes me cringe that McCain even made the decision to bring on Palin. What was a calculated move to pick up votes backfired epically. I do think McCain would have made a good President. As a registered Republican who is moving away from any party and more and more frequently referring to himself as a "conservative", I am more closely tied to McCain's policy than Obama's. Let's just say one thing: Stimulus Package. Ugghhhh.
And another thing: I'm so sick and tired of people acting like George W. Bush is clinically retarded. The ultimate omission? The perception cultivated by the media that Kerry was in some way smarter than Bush. Admittedly (and certainly observed over his 8 years in office), he is not a great public speaker, and suffers from a slight case of the malady known as "social awkwardness". He did some goofy stuff. But does anyone remember Clinton basically saying he thought a female mummy was attractive? Knowing what we know now about the man, doesn't that just make you're skin crawl? Pick your poison. Smooth slimeball, or awkward Samaritan? I digress.
Back to White Privilege. I was reading and found this article. Respond with your thoughts on how this applies:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090209
If Phelps had been dogfighting, do you think he would have incurred the same wrath of Mr. Vick? A more severe circumstance than getting caught with a water bong to your mouth, but...eh? Food for thought? I think this may apply more to our fixation with celebrity than anything. I bet there are many people out there who would have written it off quickly and simply called him a thug if he were black.
Changing a day at a time. It's all we can do.
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
In retrospect (and exceedingly in the moment as I watched it unfold), it makes me cringe that McCain even made the decision to bring on Palin. What was a calculated move to pick up votes backfired epically. I do think McCain would have made a good President. As a registered Republican who is moving away from any party and more and more frequently referring to himself as a "conservative", I am more closely tied to McCain's policy than Obama's. Let's just say one thing: Stimulus Package. Ugghhhh.
And another thing: I'm so sick and tired of people acting like George W. Bush is clinically retarded. The ultimate omission? The perception cultivated by the media that Kerry was in some way smarter than Bush. Admittedly (and certainly observed over his 8 years in office), he is not a great public speaker, and suffers from a slight case of the malady known as "social awkwardness". He did some goofy stuff. But does anyone remember Clinton basically saying he thought a female mummy was attractive? Knowing what we know now about the man, doesn't that just make you're skin crawl? Pick your poison. Smooth slimeball, or awkward Samaritan? I digress.
Back to White Privilege. I was reading and found this article. Respond with your thoughts on how this applies:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090209
If Phelps had been dogfighting, do you think he would have incurred the same wrath of Mr. Vick? A more severe circumstance than getting caught with a water bong to your mouth, but...eh? Food for thought? I think this may apply more to our fixation with celebrity than anything. I bet there are many people out there who would have written it off quickly and simply called him a thug if he were black.
Changing a day at a time. It's all we can do.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Privilege and Media
White privilege is never something I thought about as a white man. Why would I? Unless you have problems with the items discussed in McIntosh's white privilege list, how would you know those issues existed? It requires education and being taken outside of one's comfort zone to face these inevitable truths. Sadly, people of color have more trouble doing many things than I do. I do not perpetrate this, and I hope there are more and more people daily who provide equal opportunity for all races, but there are deeply entrenched institutional and cultural practices that work against minorities. The Constitution clearly states that all are equal and should get a fair shake, but take a look at the Founding Fathers. They owned slaves. There are so many double standards regarding equality it would take a long time to go over them all. But let's take a look at the opposite side of this situation. White privilege leads to white guilt, which leads to the forced deed of giving to those who are classified as "disadvantaged". This leads to entitlement, and can, in certain situations, develop into a general malaise in the "disadvantaged" communities. It can have the opposite affect of the intended. By giving these people handouts, are we really helping them? In the most immediate sense, yes, but does this action tell them something? Does it imply, "You're not good enough to support yourself, so we feel sorry for you"? Is there another way to help that isn't charity?
Conservative scholar Shelby Steele believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated. He states that there are certain black privilege's brought on by the advent of white guilt. If you are a black student, he states, you are coveted by schools who almost all have diversity committees. He denotes the hunger in our country today to not be racist as the motivation. This may stem from the want to not get in trouble with the PC police. But whatever the cause, isn't the outcome sufficient? I portend that the acceptance of anyone for anything based on something other than their merit is wrong. If everyone thought this way, we wouldn't have this issue.
Unfortunately, not enough white people accept, let alone think about, how advantaged they are because they are surrounded by images of whiteness. The media is pervasively white. Disregarding stereotypes and simply looking at the glut of media imagery, there are multitudes of programs if not aimed at white people, speaking to their interests or needs. Many people say, "Why don't we have 'WET' if they have 'BET'?". It's simple. Most all of TV is produced by, for, and with white people in it. Question: have you ever had trouble finding white people on TV? I haven't. I see lots of black people too, but not quite in the same ballpark. We are so insulated by whiteness, it becomes hard to see the other side. This is why so many people don't even acknowledge the existence, or simply the concept, of white privilege. We live in Candy Land and can't see the outside because of the Gumdrop Forrest. The media certainly aids and abets this insulation. I believe it boils down to getting more people of color involved in the media, as well as taking those whites who are and forcing them out of their comfort zone. Have them cover something that is totally alien.
It is a very difficult topic to slice and dice with many positions. It's not two sided, black and white (is this a bad pun? you decide). There are numerous stances to be taken. Personally, I think that white privilege is alive and well. But white guilt driving the need to throw money at disadvantaged people of color is not the solution. It's degrading. The image of Barbara Bush saying that the Katrina victims should be happy they are in the Astrodome instead of their homes comes to mind. Though they be poor, to assume that they would prefer a crowded stadium over their own, though they be meager, domiciles and lives is preposterous. It's white ignorance. People are proud, and their lives are still important to them, regardless of the quality of material items involved. This handout culture has led numerous communities to expect their well being to come from someone else. To take the responsibility of support from the individual to the surrounding community. The solution doesn't lie in currency or anything material: it resides in the changing of attitudes and perspectives on the concept of race. Most notably its eradication as we know it and seeing others based on their qualities, not their skin color.
I see examples of white privilege all the time, no doubt, but until I was told to look for them, I never noticed. I noticed that the night shift at CVS is predominately African American, while the day shift is mostly white. Do whites get preferential treatment when choosing shifts? What's the managers race? I noticed that, when talking with a black friend, I asked a question requiring him to respond with an answer that would represent his whole race. I've never had to do that (How do white people generally feel about...?). I noticed that I'm not assumed to be something just because of my race. I was in a group of people when a white guy asked a black friend what he did at OU (insinuating, after I thought about it a bit, that he couldn't just be a student, he must be an athlete). I noticed that it's hard for me to stereotype whites, but I can think of hundreds for other races. I noticed that I rarely ever feel uncomfortable going anywhere, except a bit when I am surrounded by people of other races. Then I thought, "that must be what they feel like all the time". And I felt bad assuming so. I noticed that most all packaging on things I bought, which were products people of all colors would purchase, provided images dominated by white people. Then I thought of the Pine-Sol woman and laughed (I like her). I noticed that, at a convenience store, I was allowed to open my drink and walk around and not be reprimanded, but on my way out, the clerk asked a black girl to pay for her candy bar before opening it at the front of the store. I have no idea if the clerk didn't see me or this was racially charged. But I thought about it. I noticed that, even though I get nervous around cops (who doesn't), my black friends are way more concerned. I can tell by their mannerisms. It's crazy what is there if you take a look.
The one drop rule is somewhat arbitrary to me, personally. I don't classify anyone as anything they don't want to be classified as. I may look at someone who is of a darker skin tone and process in my brain, "that person is black/latino/asian", but I don't make decisions based on race. Therefore, what would it matter if they have one drop or a million? They are a person. It's up to their parents to classify them as something on the paperwork, and for them to tell me if they want (which would be a fairly awkward conversation, by the way). I think this stance stems from the way I was raised, but also from my continued development and education. I'm different than I was when I was living with my parents. I've known and seen things that involve race that I've made my own decisions on. I think our behavior change can be either positive or negative when continuing our development. Tatum suggests we have a responsibility to grow from new information, but this statement insinuates that we are going to move in a positive direction. What if the stimulus is negative? What needs to be understood is that everyone is not the same, within and without racial parameters. If we respect everyone's God given right to be alive, then we won't have any issues. It's a lifestyle choice that doesn't require development once you have attained it.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Only God Can Judge Me...
After class yesterday, I think the main issue we will run into is not the act of opening up to each other about race, but clinging to frivolous and arbitrary points of view derived solely from the places in which we are comfortable. We don't want to feel that the places where we are coming from are in some way flawed. They are what we know as home base. Wise talked (or yelled) about white guilt and privilege. Valid points to discuss, though in some ways highly detrimental. Entitlement kills ambition. This can work on both sides of the proverbial fence. It involves all colors. And though the point can be made that it was whites who have constructed the social structure, leading to institutional inequality, it is an issue that grips all of us (though, I, as a white person, can only feel "guilty").
In all reality, I don't feel guilty. I haven't done anything. I understand that I am entitled luxuries that people of color may not be afforded. That angers me. But the way I combat that is to treat all people as I would want to be treated. I read it in a book somewhere. Some billboard on the highway said it was a bestseller or something...oh, yeah, the Bible. And regardless of faith or morals or whatever you live by, if it's worth anything, this principle should be front and center.
There's no easy fix. It requires patience and a willingness to be bombarded with negative images of the ignorant acting out, still knowing that what you are doing, in your diminutive space, is the greater good. Simple things, like holding your tongue when it might be easy to make a joke at someone else's expense.
It falls on ALL OF US. There's no exclusions. There is always someone to blame.
I leave it to the Rose That Grew From Concrete, warrior poet, beautiful human, regardless of color, to spell it out.
This song should not be taken lightly. A telling excerpt:
Tupac makes a clear statement here. Though there be inequality from the start, he can't help but observe that it's mostly other black men doing the killing in his neighborhood. And he is told to blame the white man. He's uneasy about the other side, he states, as he observes hatred there too. Yet, this defines a clear cut theme.
We're not getting anywhere without everyone taking responsibility and dropping the finger pointing at the door. That's when we will make progress.
In all reality, I don't feel guilty. I haven't done anything. I understand that I am entitled luxuries that people of color may not be afforded. That angers me. But the way I combat that is to treat all people as I would want to be treated. I read it in a book somewhere. Some billboard on the highway said it was a bestseller or something...oh, yeah, the Bible. And regardless of faith or morals or whatever you live by, if it's worth anything, this principle should be front and center.
There's no easy fix. It requires patience and a willingness to be bombarded with negative images of the ignorant acting out, still knowing that what you are doing, in your diminutive space, is the greater good. Simple things, like holding your tongue when it might be easy to make a joke at someone else's expense.
It falls on ALL OF US. There's no exclusions. There is always someone to blame.
I leave it to the Rose That Grew From Concrete, warrior poet, beautiful human, regardless of color, to spell it out.
This song should not be taken lightly. A telling excerpt:
Perhaps, I was blind to tha facts
Stabbed in tha back
I Couldn't trust my own homies
just a bunch a dirty rats
Will I, succeed
paranoid from the weed
And hocus pocus try to focus
But I can't see
And in my mind
I'm a, blind man doin' time
Look to my future
cause my past is all behind me
Is it a crime
to fight for what is mine
Everybodies dyin'
Tell me, Whats the use of tryin'
I've been trapped since birth
Cautious, cause I'm cursed
and fantansies of my family
in a hurse
And they say
It's the white man
I should fear
But, it's my own kind
Doin' all the killin' here
I can't lie
Ain't no love, for the other side
Jealousy inside
Make 'em wish I died
Oh my lord
Tell me what I'm livin' for
Everybodies droppin'
got me knockin' on heaven's door
And all my memories
is seeing brothas bleed
And everybody grieves
But still nobody sees
regulate your thoughts
Don't get caught up in tha mix
cause the media is full of dirty tricks
Only God can Judge me....
Stabbed in tha back
I Couldn't trust my own homies
just a bunch a dirty rats
Will I, succeed
paranoid from the weed
And hocus pocus try to focus
But I can't see
And in my mind
I'm a, blind man doin' time
Look to my future
cause my past is all behind me
Is it a crime
to fight for what is mine
Everybodies dyin'
Tell me, Whats the use of tryin'
I've been trapped since birth
Cautious, cause I'm cursed
and fantansies of my family
in a hurse
And they say
It's the white man
I should fear
But, it's my own kind
Doin' all the killin' here
I can't lie
Ain't no love, for the other side
Jealousy inside
Make 'em wish I died
Oh my lord
Tell me what I'm livin' for
Everybodies droppin'
got me knockin' on heaven's door
And all my memories
is seeing brothas bleed
And everybody grieves
But still nobody sees
regulate your thoughts
Don't get caught up in tha mix
cause the media is full of dirty tricks
Only God can Judge me....
Tupac makes a clear statement here. Though there be inequality from the start, he can't help but observe that it's mostly other black men doing the killing in his neighborhood. And he is told to blame the white man. He's uneasy about the other side, he states, as he observes hatred there too. Yet, this defines a clear cut theme.
We're not getting anywhere without everyone taking responsibility and dropping the finger pointing at the door. That's when we will make progress.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Racial Profiling. Wrong but effective?
This subject is damn tricky. There's no getting past that simple fact. Racial profiling is a hot button issue, especially since its catapult into the national consciousness after the 9/11 attacks. I have been taught, as have most people of any quality, that to make judgements about someone on their external appearance is wrong. These deductions are based off stereotypical evidence that pigeon holes the subject in question. Political Correctness 101. It's on the syllabus.
Yet, in a situation dealing with Islamic extremists, is there something more important than an individuals feelings on the collective bus? Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with these extremists that seem to have many of the same qualities over and over again.
I think the question that begs to be answered is this: would I, as a white male, mind being searched more often than other individuals if it meant saving lives? I can't totally place myself in the shoes of someone of another race, but if I saw, continually, people of my nationality or region perpetrating these jihadist acts of terror, I might be angered but I would have to look at the bigger picture.
Quick relevant sidebar: If a police officer came up to me and said, "You fit the profile of a drug dealer", What would my options be? Well, let's think this through. If I was a drug dealer, I might be nervous because I was doing something wrong. If all the drugs were in my car or apartment, I'd be really nervous if the cops wanted to search the vehicle/premises. If I wasn't, why would I stop them from going about their business? I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lose but my time (an inconvenience, no doubt). This is obviously an oversimplification, and one that will garner rebuttal, but it goes towards my point.
Islamic extremism is not based off of hatred or misunderstanding of another person because of their skin color. Last time I checked, the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with all colors of people inside. It is a religious fanaticism that contains scripture calling for the death of any person not willing to convert. Talk about your ultimate stage of intolerance. Boy. A little bit more extreme than a racial slur, indeed.
Many agents of our government have been called out for searching mosques for links to terrorist groups. Where are they supposed to look? Quaker neighborhoods? Elks Lodge meetings? My mom's garden club? There are some realities that cannot be ignored.
To clarify: I don't walk around daily avoiding people of Middle Eastern decent. It's not in my makeup. I have to hope that humanity is good (regardless of all of the evidence on my TV screen pointing at the opposite). Yet for me to sit back and disregard bold trends would denote grave irresponsibility to the millions of Americans I would like to say I am united.
As we grow together more as a whole (which I hope understanding and tolerance will cultivate), I think this dangerous world that the few ruin for the many requires almost thicker skin. Though this may be perceived conflicting, or an oxymoron to some, it makes sense. Most people aren't bad, but there are those who are, and they match certain criteria. Therefore, for the safety of all, it might require discomfort for a few.
I may be called out for being insensitive. But I'd rather be insensitive than dead. I'll drink a cold one with all of my friends now. Of all colors, shapes, and sizes.
On a somewhat related note: looks like some of the "finer citizens" of Guantanamo picked up a hankering to be in the movies while in jail. Or they were actually bad people. You decide. I'm just glad they're free! Click below for more on this new star!
And to brighten everybody's day! Look at what the new numb skull in the White House did! Did anyone make fun of him viciously and with no remorse for this blatant act of stupidity? Nope. Oh well. The honeymoon continues...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4387606/Barack-Obama-mistakes-window-for-door-at-White-House.html
Yet, in a situation dealing with Islamic extremists, is there something more important than an individuals feelings on the collective bus? Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with these extremists that seem to have many of the same qualities over and over again.
I think the question that begs to be answered is this: would I, as a white male, mind being searched more often than other individuals if it meant saving lives? I can't totally place myself in the shoes of someone of another race, but if I saw, continually, people of my nationality or region perpetrating these jihadist acts of terror, I might be angered but I would have to look at the bigger picture.
Quick relevant sidebar: If a police officer came up to me and said, "You fit the profile of a drug dealer", What would my options be? Well, let's think this through. If I was a drug dealer, I might be nervous because I was doing something wrong. If all the drugs were in my car or apartment, I'd be really nervous if the cops wanted to search the vehicle/premises. If I wasn't, why would I stop them from going about their business? I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lose but my time (an inconvenience, no doubt). This is obviously an oversimplification, and one that will garner rebuttal, but it goes towards my point.
Islamic extremism is not based off of hatred or misunderstanding of another person because of their skin color. Last time I checked, the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with all colors of people inside. It is a religious fanaticism that contains scripture calling for the death of any person not willing to convert. Talk about your ultimate stage of intolerance. Boy. A little bit more extreme than a racial slur, indeed.
Many agents of our government have been called out for searching mosques for links to terrorist groups. Where are they supposed to look? Quaker neighborhoods? Elks Lodge meetings? My mom's garden club? There are some realities that cannot be ignored.
To clarify: I don't walk around daily avoiding people of Middle Eastern decent. It's not in my makeup. I have to hope that humanity is good (regardless of all of the evidence on my TV screen pointing at the opposite). Yet for me to sit back and disregard bold trends would denote grave irresponsibility to the millions of Americans I would like to say I am united.
As we grow together more as a whole (which I hope understanding and tolerance will cultivate), I think this dangerous world that the few ruin for the many requires almost thicker skin. Though this may be perceived conflicting, or an oxymoron to some, it makes sense. Most people aren't bad, but there are those who are, and they match certain criteria. Therefore, for the safety of all, it might require discomfort for a few.
I may be called out for being insensitive. But I'd rather be insensitive than dead. I'll drink a cold one with all of my friends now. Of all colors, shapes, and sizes.
On a somewhat related note: looks like some of the "finer citizens" of Guantanamo picked up a hankering to be in the movies while in jail. Or they were actually bad people. You decide. I'm just glad they're free! Click below for more on this new star!
And to brighten everybody's day! Look at what the new numb skull in the White House did! Did anyone make fun of him viciously and with no remorse for this blatant act of stupidity? Nope. Oh well. The honeymoon continues...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4387606/Barack-Obama-mistakes-window-for-door-at-White-House.html
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Powerful Women in Cinema
Being an avid fan of all things film from Casablanca to Evil Dead, the blog example in class of bad mamma jamma's on the silver screen got my creative juices flowing. It is often discussed how leading roles are difficult for actors and actresses to access due to their race, but this also rings true regarding the oft underplayed aspect of gender itself. This is not to say that women do not get leading roles. They certainly do. The type of part is the focus here. It's obvious Ingrid Bergman was a leading lady in the aforementioned Casablanca, and quite a dynamic and lovely one at that. Her character garnered respect for her stance against the Nazi party, as well as her desire to fight her emotions and stay with her husband. This concept of commitment stands in line with the traditional values we associate with the fairer sex: all attributes feminine and docile. Yet, roles for females as the star of the film, and especially action films, are limited to this day. It is very rare for us to see a woman on screen blowing things up and oozing the "I am woman, hear me roar" sentiment. This no doubt stems from a lack of roles utilizing this archetype of individual. Having documented the shortage, there are a few. And the ones that are available offer up some of the most original and pleasurable cinematic experiences out there. Let's get started:
1) Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection): Is there any other actress that was this kick ass yet maintained her maternal instincts? She's not a caricature. It would have been easy to make her a cardboard cutout of a butch woman blowing things up. Instead, in the deft hands of Ridley Scott (Alien) then James Cameron (Aliens), she comes to represent the human race as our queen bee. I'm not sure it gets any better than the end of Aliens. Overpowered by her instincts to regain the little girl Newt, she treks into the hive of the aliens with a grenade launcher taped to a flame thrower, dropping flares like bread crumbs along the way. In the center of the hive, she encounters the queen alien, and the moment is electric. Here we have the two matriarchs of their species, in an intergalactic stare down. Ripley torches the eggs, grabbing the little girl and hauling tail back into the space station to escape. The queen is not so happy, and follows in close pursuit, leading to a final fight sequence for the ages. Ripley dons a mechanical suit that, for most intensive purposes, looks like an advanced fork lift. Spewing a line like, "Get off her, you bitch!"towards the queen only adds to the intensity. What most people don't realize is that they are watching two females fighting over the survival and propagation of their species. Downright amazing and the best example of a woman showing her action mettle. Please don't watch the last two in the series. Trust me.
2) Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor (Terminator and Terminator 2): If anyone comes close to Ellen Ripley, it is Sarah Connor. Both Terminator movies were directed by James Cameron, who also helmed Aliens. One might say Mr. Cameron has a thing for tough chicas, but that shouldn't be too hard to deduce. He married Linda Hamilton! Yes, that's right: Sarah Connor. In the first film, we see Sarah as a mid-twenties everygirl, working a 9 to 5 and going out on the town to dance to some new wave 80's junk at the local club. By T2, when she understands her fate as the sole protector of John Connor, her son (and by the way the savior of the human race), that girl is long gone. What we are left with as the viewer is a woman who has vivid dreams of her flesh being torn off in a nuclear explosion while her skeleton dangles by her fingertips from a chain link fence. Quite a jarring scene. When she's shooting at the T2000 robot out of the back of a moving truck with her legs both shot up, you realize this lady is raw. Understanding Sarah's stance on life in general in the second film is summed up clearly in this quote from T2: "How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...". Hard as a rock.
3) Uma Thurman as Beatrix Kiddo, aka, "The Bride" (Kill Bill Vol. I-II): Quentin Tarrantino loves quirky genres of cinema, such as kung fu and 70's B-movies, and in these two off the wall offerings he combines elements of them both. That's not all. He adds the narrative style of a western (very simlar to japanese samurai films/kung fu), and puts a woman in the lead. Not just any woman. We meet her as only "The Bride", her name bleeped over whenever uttered in the first film in classic B-movie fashion. We eventually find out, after enough deaths to make Robocop blush, that we are looking at the assassin Beatrix Kiddo. She's on the ultimate mission for revenge after the brutal loss of her daughter at the hands of a beating while pregnant. Can you figure out who she wants to knock off? Simply look at the title: Kill Bill. Her mentor and father of said little girl. There's no doubt that Ms. Kiddo's skills with a samurai sword (taught to her in a classic training segment straight out of a kung fu film starring famous Chinese actor Chia Hui Liu) are prolific beyond anyone she encounters. Are they enough to take out the other queens of cinema referenced here? Watch and question that yourself!
Honorable Mention: Lori Petty as Rebecca (Tank Girl), Geena Davis as Charlie Baltimore (The Long Kiss Goodnight), Carrie Fischer as Princess Leia (The Star Wars Trilogy)
1) Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley (Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection): Is there any other actress that was this kick ass yet maintained her maternal instincts? She's not a caricature. It would have been easy to make her a cardboard cutout of a butch woman blowing things up. Instead, in the deft hands of Ridley Scott (Alien) then James Cameron (Aliens), she comes to represent the human race as our queen bee. I'm not sure it gets any better than the end of Aliens. Overpowered by her instincts to regain the little girl Newt, she treks into the hive of the aliens with a grenade launcher taped to a flame thrower, dropping flares like bread crumbs along the way. In the center of the hive, she encounters the queen alien, and the moment is electric. Here we have the two matriarchs of their species, in an intergalactic stare down. Ripley torches the eggs, grabbing the little girl and hauling tail back into the space station to escape. The queen is not so happy, and follows in close pursuit, leading to a final fight sequence for the ages. Ripley dons a mechanical suit that, for most intensive purposes, looks like an advanced fork lift. Spewing a line like, "Get off her, you bitch!"towards the queen only adds to the intensity. What most people don't realize is that they are watching two females fighting over the survival and propagation of their species. Downright amazing and the best example of a woman showing her action mettle. Please don't watch the last two in the series. Trust me.
2) Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor (Terminator and Terminator 2): If anyone comes close to Ellen Ripley, it is Sarah Connor. Both Terminator movies were directed by James Cameron, who also helmed Aliens. One might say Mr. Cameron has a thing for tough chicas, but that shouldn't be too hard to deduce. He married Linda Hamilton! Yes, that's right: Sarah Connor. In the first film, we see Sarah as a mid-twenties everygirl, working a 9 to 5 and going out on the town to dance to some new wave 80's junk at the local club. By T2, when she understands her fate as the sole protector of John Connor, her son (and by the way the savior of the human race), that girl is long gone. What we are left with as the viewer is a woman who has vivid dreams of her flesh being torn off in a nuclear explosion while her skeleton dangles by her fingertips from a chain link fence. Quite a jarring scene. When she's shooting at the T2000 robot out of the back of a moving truck with her legs both shot up, you realize this lady is raw. Understanding Sarah's stance on life in general in the second film is summed up clearly in this quote from T2: "How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...". Hard as a rock.
3) Uma Thurman as Beatrix Kiddo, aka, "The Bride" (Kill Bill Vol. I-II): Quentin Tarrantino loves quirky genres of cinema, such as kung fu and 70's B-movies, and in these two off the wall offerings he combines elements of them both. That's not all. He adds the narrative style of a western (very simlar to japanese samurai films/kung fu), and puts a woman in the lead. Not just any woman. We meet her as only "The Bride", her name bleeped over whenever uttered in the first film in classic B-movie fashion. We eventually find out, after enough deaths to make Robocop blush, that we are looking at the assassin Beatrix Kiddo. She's on the ultimate mission for revenge after the brutal loss of her daughter at the hands of a beating while pregnant. Can you figure out who she wants to knock off? Simply look at the title: Kill Bill. Her mentor and father of said little girl. There's no doubt that Ms. Kiddo's skills with a samurai sword (taught to her in a classic training segment straight out of a kung fu film starring famous Chinese actor Chia Hui Liu) are prolific beyond anyone she encounters. Are they enough to take out the other queens of cinema referenced here? Watch and question that yourself!Honorable Mention: Lori Petty as Rebecca (Tank Girl), Geena Davis as Charlie Baltimore (The Long Kiss Goodnight), Carrie Fischer as Princess Leia (The Star Wars Trilogy)
Please comment and add any leading lady roles that incur bad ass status!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)