I was reading an article in TIME Magazine that was part of the cover story (Ten Big Ideas for the Next Ten Years). The article is entitled "The White Anxiety Crisis", and discusses how whites will be the minority in America by 2050.
By that time, we may not be here because of 2012 (hey I'm excited, no loans to pay off), or dialogue and ideas about race and stereotypes might heavily progress. But by that time we also might have aliens to worry about, like in District 9.
Think about it though, what would be so bad about a white minority? If I read the article correctly, there will be no demographic over 50% in the country by that time either. It might make for a very interesting country.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"Not to be racist, but..."
I went home to Berks County this past weekend only to be rudely reminded of why I like Philadelphia so much better, at least where race is concerned. Not everyone in Berks County, PA is like this, but unfortunately I've met enough people that are to make a stereotype of white suburbia mentality, and for that I apologize in advance.
I was speaking to a parent about March Madness and Temple's basketball team. (For those of you that don't know, Temple lost to Cornell in the first round of this year's NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.) This parent asked me how school was going, and I said it was absolutely great, I was just bummed because Temple had lost so early in the tournament. So we begin to talk a bit about college basketball (of which I know next to nothing, nor do I really pay attention until March), and he says "Not to be racist, but..." And I'm thinking oh boy, can't wait to see where this is going. Then he continues to say how every team has great players but it's the white ones that seem to have a great combination of point-guard, and something else I forget what positions he listed. He said that those were the teams that really do the best and have the most team work. Slightly infuriated, I had to make the decision to just nod my head and smile or politely say something.
I chose to nod and smile. Now, had this been a friend, I probably would have politely gone ape-shit. (Apologies, politely would have said that 1- they were wrong if you look at previous championship winners, 2- race is a social construction blah blah blah and the whole speal the usually hear from me anyway). This is the issue I see myself running into in the future...do I correct those people or say something? Or do I let it go? My intention isn't to intentionally begin a conflict, but I find it more and more difficult to keep my mouth shut because I believe that there's no reason for dialogue or assumptions like that.
UNC, 2009 Champs...looks pretty white to me...
Kansas, 2008 Champs...hey look everyone's white...
Florida, 2007 Champs...seeing a pattern here?
I was speaking to a parent about March Madness and Temple's basketball team. (For those of you that don't know, Temple lost to Cornell in the first round of this year's NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.) This parent asked me how school was going, and I said it was absolutely great, I was just bummed because Temple had lost so early in the tournament. So we begin to talk a bit about college basketball (of which I know next to nothing, nor do I really pay attention until March), and he says "Not to be racist, but..." And I'm thinking oh boy, can't wait to see where this is going. Then he continues to say how every team has great players but it's the white ones that seem to have a great combination of point-guard, and something else I forget what positions he listed. He said that those were the teams that really do the best and have the most team work. Slightly infuriated, I had to make the decision to just nod my head and smile or politely say something.
I chose to nod and smile. Now, had this been a friend, I probably would have politely gone ape-shit. (Apologies, politely would have said that 1- they were wrong if you look at previous championship winners, 2- race is a social construction blah blah blah and the whole speal the usually hear from me anyway). This is the issue I see myself running into in the future...do I correct those people or say something? Or do I let it go? My intention isn't to intentionally begin a conflict, but I find it more and more difficult to keep my mouth shut because I believe that there's no reason for dialogue or assumptions like that.
UNC, 2009 Champs...looks pretty white to me...
Kansas, 2008 Champs...hey look everyone's white...
Florida, 2007 Champs...seeing a pattern here?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Italian Job
I'm not going to lie, I love being Italian. Being Italian, along with any other group of people also has its stereotypes. Do I get offended by them? No. Do some people? Yes. Do I think, contrary to the anti-stereotyping I'm trying to establish on this page, that sometimes views of Italians are just downright hilarious?
...Absolutely.
Time to get a little more serious. As an Italian-American, I do not find MTV's new show Jersey Shore to be offensive. I find it to be highly entertaining not in the fact that I watch the show but just how stupid some of the people on it are, and how ridiculously over the top it is. What is interesting though is that there are many Italian- Americans who find this portrayal offensive, understandably. The difference is that "white" ethnicities are usually not portrayed in umbrella stereotypes on TV in a negative way. Here, they are. Maybe it's a wake up call for those that might have stereotyped against other ethnicities in the past? What do you think?
I find some of the stereotypes hilarious. Here's the other thing though. If you had to name three "ethnic groups" associated most with crime, they would probably be Hispanics, African Americans, and Italians. Why don't as many Italians seem to be offended as other "races" would if they were in the same situation? Or do they? What do you think?
...Absolutely.
Time to get a little more serious. As an Italian-American, I do not find MTV's new show Jersey Shore to be offensive. I find it to be highly entertaining not in the fact that I watch the show but just how stupid some of the people on it are, and how ridiculously over the top it is. What is interesting though is that there are many Italian- Americans who find this portrayal offensive, understandably. The difference is that "white" ethnicities are usually not portrayed in umbrella stereotypes on TV in a negative way. Here, they are. Maybe it's a wake up call for those that might have stereotyped against other ethnicities in the past? What do you think?
I find some of the stereotypes hilarious. Here's the other thing though. If you had to name three "ethnic groups" associated most with crime, they would probably be Hispanics, African Americans, and Italians. Why don't as many Italians seem to be offended as other "races" would if they were in the same situation? Or do they? What do you think?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Suburbia
My interest in social sciences was limited to none until my spring term at Drexel last year. I had no idea what Anthropology or Sociology were, but I took intros in both just to see what they would be like. Loved em both. As of this point in time I'm hoping to declare a minor in Anthropology from Temple University. Do I want to be an anthropologist? No, but I find it fascinating and it is my strong belief that people should know more about it than they do.
I come from a hugely white suburbia population in Berks County, Pa. I went to a very good public school (the same as Chad Henne, Kristy Kowal, and many other cool people), with great teachers. Taxes are low and the economic/financial standing of those living in the school district is a wide range, but almost every student lives in a suburb to rural area.
I grew up in Danbury, Connecticut, a more urban sort of area with another good school district. But it was much more "mixed" in terms of race and ethnicity. And it was fantastic. That's the one thing I miss from elementary school and the only thing I don't like about Berks county.
Do I have a problem with living in a predominantly white suburb? No, but I have a problem with people living in such areas that stereotype and have never been outside their shell. Don't get me wrong, no one's perfect and I think it's safe to say everyone thinks in some sort of subconscious stereotypes, including myself.
I have made amazing friends in Berks County. I see them as people first before I see them as a socially constructed color. That's how little children see people. They recognize a smile before they recognize that someone has a different shade of skin.
Sometimes, though, I challenge my best friends, and they challenge me when it comes to anthropology and stereotyping. Some of them are very receptive to the knowledge I try to share with them from my classes and experiences, but some of them don't want to hear it. It's disheartening. Am I asking you to agree with me on this blog? Absolutely not, then there's no room for progressive conversation, it's just a bunch of one sided arguing on my part.
My friends (and you) are completely entitled to their(your) opinion, but I believe that anyone who forms opinions about race needs to be further informed about it. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but lack of race/gender/human behavior education and the environment in which people are brought up play a huge part in the misunderstanding.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar Formula
WARNING LADIES AND GENTS: CONTAINS SPOILERS OF AVATAR
So Avatar was...pretty damn good. Despite the anticipation by some that it would be a $300 million dollar flop, Director James Cameron (Titanic, The Terminator, and Aliens) and his team pulled it off. I could go on and on about the superb graphics and creation of a completely new environment, but this blog is about race, and so that is what I will discuss.
Has the formula plot/story been seen somewhere else? Of course, but not in this way. This is the first film I have seen that takes a repetitious theme (Imperialism/Colonization) in American and Global History set in a completely fictional environment. If you've seen Disney's Pocahontas, you know the plot of this movie. Try watching Disney's Atlantis and you'll get the same thing (this is pretty close to fictional but is also legendary and mythical). Spin: told from John Smith's perspective.
Summary-in-seconds
Setting: Pandora (moon), 2154 (145 years away, about 4-5ish generations from now)
Americans troops and scientists go to planet in order to get a mineral that sells for $20 million per kilogram.
Problem: The mineral's largest deposit is located directly under the home of an indigenous population called the Na'vi.
Americans troops send a guy in to learn about the Na'vi from the inside. In order to do this he becomes an Avatar. Boy falls in love with girl, battle ensues.
Time for analysis
Here's something for those that compared the Na'vi to Native Americans. Generally speaking, there are two widely-held perceptions of the first people that lived here. These are the the idea of the "noble savage" and the "bloodthirsty savage." Native Americans are usually stereotyped as either warriors with loud battle cries (which can often be heard in Avatar, or primitive beings that are very connected to nature. In Cameron's film they are displayed as both, more so as the spiritual-nature-loving people than as the warriors. Only at a few moments of the film were the Na'vi displayed as individuals. There wasn't much room for character development on that side of the battle. Yes, it was told from the "John Smith" perspective, but the population was still very generalized and represented/explained through one character. How many indigenous characters can you name from Pocahontas, Atlantis, and Avatar in comparison to the colonials or settlers?
Despite some of these setbacks, the movie was still incredible and had a great deal of substance to it beyond the visual effects. By adhering to the "spiritual" and "nature" stereotypes, Cameron was able to really convey a sense of loss from the perspective of the Na'vi in terms of the odds they were set against. The film was also hugely successful in sending out messages of conserving the environment and really slowing down and paying close attention to the gifts that nature has to bring. Some thought that the message of imperialism was overkill, but they really had to just think more outside the box.
Imperialism is all in perspective. It doesn't stop at the human race. What about the Na'vi moving into the territory of all the animals that were already there and had established lifestyles? What about the vegetation that gets trampled or eaten by those animals? Anthropologists generally argue against Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. But how many of those anthropologists think it's unfair that humans kill animals to survive? Isn't that survival of the fittest? Many vegetarians and vegans argue that killing animals is cruel. But how many of those vegetarians think it is unfair that we rip corn off of stalks or that we repeatedly stab and gut pumpkins for Halloween? Who is right and who is wrong and where do we draw the line. Race, imperialism, colonization, and even some of our morals are all in perspective.
So Avatar was...pretty damn good. Despite the anticipation by some that it would be a $300 million dollar flop, Director James Cameron (Titanic, The Terminator, and Aliens) and his team pulled it off. I could go on and on about the superb graphics and creation of a completely new environment, but this blog is about race, and so that is what I will discuss.
Has the formula plot/story been seen somewhere else? Of course, but not in this way. This is the first film I have seen that takes a repetitious theme (Imperialism/Colonization) in American and Global History set in a completely fictional environment. If you've seen Disney's Pocahontas, you know the plot of this movie. Try watching Disney's Atlantis and you'll get the same thing (this is pretty close to fictional but is also legendary and mythical). Spin: told from John Smith's perspective.
Summary-in-seconds
Setting: Pandora (moon), 2154 (145 years away, about 4-5ish generations from now)
Americans troops and scientists go to planet in order to get a mineral that sells for $20 million per kilogram.
Problem: The mineral's largest deposit is located directly under the home of an indigenous population called the Na'vi.
Americans troops send a guy in to learn about the Na'vi from the inside. In order to do this he becomes an Avatar. Boy falls in love with girl, battle ensues.
Time for analysis
Here's something for those that compared the Na'vi to Native Americans. Generally speaking, there are two widely-held perceptions of the first people that lived here. These are the the idea of the "noble savage" and the "bloodthirsty savage." Native Americans are usually stereotyped as either warriors with loud battle cries (which can often be heard in Avatar, or primitive beings that are very connected to nature. In Cameron's film they are displayed as both, more so as the spiritual-nature-loving people than as the warriors. Only at a few moments of the film were the Na'vi displayed as individuals. There wasn't much room for character development on that side of the battle. Yes, it was told from the "John Smith" perspective, but the population was still very generalized and represented/explained through one character. How many indigenous characters can you name from Pocahontas, Atlantis, and Avatar in comparison to the colonials or settlers?
Despite some of these setbacks, the movie was still incredible and had a great deal of substance to it beyond the visual effects. By adhering to the "spiritual" and "nature" stereotypes, Cameron was able to really convey a sense of loss from the perspective of the Na'vi in terms of the odds they were set against. The film was also hugely successful in sending out messages of conserving the environment and really slowing down and paying close attention to the gifts that nature has to bring. Some thought that the message of imperialism was overkill, but they really had to just think more outside the box.
Imperialism is all in perspective. It doesn't stop at the human race. What about the Na'vi moving into the territory of all the animals that were already there and had established lifestyles? What about the vegetation that gets trampled or eaten by those animals? Anthropologists generally argue against Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. But how many of those anthropologists think it's unfair that humans kill animals to survive? Isn't that survival of the fittest? Many vegetarians and vegans argue that killing animals is cruel. But how many of those vegetarians think it is unfair that we rip corn off of stalks or that we repeatedly stab and gut pumpkins for Halloween? Who is right and who is wrong and where do we draw the line. Race, imperialism, colonization, and even some of our morals are all in perspective.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Textbooks, Colors, and Slaves
United States History textbooks have taught us that blacks were taken from African and enslaved in colonial times, emancipated after the Civil War, segregated from the Reconstruction through WWII, righted in 1964, and are now equal.
But are they? Don't stereotypes, including those of whites, still exist in our country today?
What is race? One flaw in the US education system is that it does not educate children enough on the development of diversity, race and stereotypes with which they are surrounded. It's getting there, but still has a long ways to go. Children are taught that slavery and racism are bad, and that's pretty much it. What many don't know is that race is a social construction, not a biological determinant. For example, while we have the categories of Caucasian, African American, Asian American, Native American and Latin American here, other countries base race upon eye color and hair color.
What is it with our categories, anyway? Don't we live in an overly political correct society? Shouldn't Caucasians technically be titled European Americans? It seems as if we are pretty much just broken up into our mother continents. History and even some modern language has shown us that race in the United States can be broken down into color.
White = European American
Yellow = Asian American
Black = African American
Brown = Latin American or Hispanic American
Red = Native American
Sometimes it is really remarkable to think that skin color has been the cause of so much war over the history of human kind. That and religion, both social constructions, by the way. Still in existence, of course, but biological to a minuscule degree. Many do not know that 99% of human genetics are the same. Skin color and pigmentation simply come from the migration of people farther away from the equator. Why do you think the Irish are so pale? (sorry, lads, I have a bit o' the pale skin m'self). Within that remaining 1% are phenotypes (pieces of our makeup like nose shape, lip shape, and eye shape). Unfortunately, many stereotypes exist today because of the lack of knowledge about race.
So where do we go from here? Do we need reform and further education or are we fine the way we are? What do you think? This blog will serve as a forum for dialogue about race in the United States.
But are they? Don't stereotypes, including those of whites, still exist in our country today?
What is race? One flaw in the US education system is that it does not educate children enough on the development of diversity, race and stereotypes with which they are surrounded. It's getting there, but still has a long ways to go. Children are taught that slavery and racism are bad, and that's pretty much it. What many don't know is that race is a social construction, not a biological determinant. For example, while we have the categories of Caucasian, African American, Asian American, Native American and Latin American here, other countries base race upon eye color and hair color.
What is it with our categories, anyway? Don't we live in an overly political correct society? Shouldn't Caucasians technically be titled European Americans? It seems as if we are pretty much just broken up into our mother continents. History and even some modern language has shown us that race in the United States can be broken down into color.
White = European American
Yellow = Asian American
Black = African American
Brown = Latin American or Hispanic American
Red = Native American
Sometimes it is really remarkable to think that skin color has been the cause of so much war over the history of human kind. That and religion, both social constructions, by the way. Still in existence, of course, but biological to a minuscule degree. Many do not know that 99% of human genetics are the same. Skin color and pigmentation simply come from the migration of people farther away from the equator. Why do you think the Irish are so pale? (sorry, lads, I have a bit o' the pale skin m'self). Within that remaining 1% are phenotypes (pieces of our makeup like nose shape, lip shape, and eye shape). Unfortunately, many stereotypes exist today because of the lack of knowledge about race.
So where do we go from here? Do we need reform and further education or are we fine the way we are? What do you think? This blog will serve as a forum for dialogue about race in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
