What's next?

Eki’s post led me to an article posted on The Washington Post’s blog, “The Monkey Cage” entitled “How the Obama presidency may be changing young people’s views on race.” The article discusses new research that suggests that people who “came of age politically” during Obama’s rise to the presidency, and most notably those born between 1982-1992, are less likely to show signs of racial prejudice.

In this new research, University of Massachusetts political scientist Tatishe Nteta and Brandeis political scientist Jill Greenlee compared the racial attitudes of the “Obama generation” to the attitudes of six previous generations, and found that those in the “Obama generation” show less overt and covert signs of racism.

The author of the article, John Sides, weighed in on what this new research means: “To be sure, it is difficult to prove that Obama’s ascendance caused (author’s emphasis) these generational differences in racial attitudes.  But Nteta and Greenlee’s findings dovetail with other research that documented a decline in racial prejudice during the 2008 presidential campaign — suggesting that Obama’s rise may really affect how people perceive African Americans.” Sides went on to say that while it’s too soon to predict whether or not these new views will continue into future generations, in terms of the near future, things are looking up.

Will these changes in ideas concerning race make way for changes in ideas of gender as well? It seems like the current political situation would be ripe for a woman in the White House, but that is not necessarily the case. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for even longer than Obama, first as the First Lady, then as a senator and then as Secretary of State. Does that mean that younger voters especially would support her in the next election? Will Bill Clinton be the first, “First Gentleman”?

Sides, John. “How the Obama presidency may be changing young people’s views of race.” The Washington Post: The Monkey Cage. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct 2013.

Where is the line?

Last October, a sorority group at Penn State generated huge a controversy by celebrating Halloween with a Mexican-themed party wearing sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches. Two members held signs that wrote: “Will mow lawn for weed + beer” and “I don’t cut grass. I smoke it” The picture went viral and sparking debate over the line between fun and offensive. 

Frankly, Halloween was, well, possible still is, one of my favorite "festivities" in the U.S. It is a fun night to dress up, get some candies, and maybe go out to a Halloween party. Many people, including me, normally might not think about playing dress up for a fun holiday could reduce a culture to a caricature, but sadly, sometimes it does. 

After circling around the Halloween store and seeing several inappropriate costumes– mental patient, terrorist (I just saw a Bin Laden costume at Walmart), indian, geisha, "white trash"– I started to think where is the line between an appropriate costume for a fun night, and an inappropriate costume that may offend others. 

So what is wrong with dressing up as Mexicans with sombreros and offensive signs? What is wrong with dressing up as a geisha with sexual clothing? What’s wrong with dressing up as an African American with black face? Those are all caricatures of someone’s culture or ethnicity. The offensive stereotypes and insensitive acts are conveying a lack of awareness and sensitivity to one’s feeling, experience, heritage and histories.

Last winter in Margie's class, we had a class discussion on the Ohio University STARS campaign "We're a Culture, Not a Costume" -- an awareness campaign launched by the Ohio University with an aim to create a better sense of a respectful and inclusive community for all cultures. This year, several universities, including University of Colorado Boulder, have suggested students to avoid wearing "offensive" costumes, such as "over-sexualised" costumes and themes including "ghetto" or "hillbilly".

So, to answer my own question, I believe the line falls into whether the costume portrays negative and derogatory stereotypes of an ostracized culture, as well as the intention. Stereotypes do not just happen in one specific incident. It appears in our daily life. The “We’re not a Costume” campaign may not stop racism, but it has certainly generated awareness of derogatory stereotypes used as costumes for Halloween, and how the inaccurate stereotypes really affect those who are victimized. If these incorrect prejudices are offensive to many and people get hurt from them, regardless of whether it is just some light-hearted fun or not, we should always respect how different ethnic groups want to be identified and act accordingly.

As I was writing the blog, this Halloween picture popped on my Instagram... touché. 

“World Series,” Really?

Sports provide an interesting lens to look at the world, because, well, things a sports fan can do or say, or an athlete can do or say in the spirit of competition varies drastically from what they can do or say in “real life.”

See http://www.buzzfeed.com/video/tlo27/things-sports-fans-do-that-would-be-weird-in-everyday-life

Tonight the World Series officially begins and I think it’s only fair that someone mentions it. The two teams facing off in the first game of the series have ten international players listed on their rosters between them, and three of those players are from another North American country, namely Canada. How can it be called the World Series? Well, because of the position of power it’s in, the U.S. can call it whatever it wants.

There is great power in names. Kathy Charmaz of Sonoma State University wrote an article advocating just that. In her words, “Names carry weight, whether light or heavy. Names provide ways of knowing—and being. Names construct and reify human bonds and social divisions.” How much does it affect other countries’ ideas and thoughts about the U.S. when it calls one of its national pastimes the same name as an internationally recognized sport? Probably not much. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what other countries think. The U.S. has positioned itself, at least in the hearts and minds of its citizens, especially in sport, as a country on its own, above all the rest.

The strange thing is that baseball used to be "America’s pastime," but now American football has far surpassed baseball in terms of popularity and revenue potential. Some researchers have said this is because baseball has more athletes participating from other countries and U.S. citizens in general want to see “Americans” playing “American” sports.

As a caveat, I will say that I pretty much will watch any sport. I watch baseball because some of my earliest memories are of going to the Oakland Coliseum (now O.co) with my dad. I am affected more than most, and less than some, when the A’s lose and when I talk about the team I usually refer to myself as a part of the team, as evidenced in my use of “we.” I am glued to the television during the Summer Olympics and have found myself watching everything from synchronized diving to beach volleyball. I want “us,” meaning the U.S. to win as many medals as possible.

How do you feel about the perceived superiority of the U.S. in its naming of sports competitions, and sports in general? If you are a sports fan, which sports or teams do you follow and why? Is it because you associate a team with a particular place or memory?

References:

Brown, S. F. (2005). Exceptionalist America: American Sports Fans' Reaction to Internationalization. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 22(6), 1106-1135.

Charmaz, Kathy. (2006). "The power of names." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,   35.4, 396-399

Jason Aldean's Fly Over States

At the risk of being judged, I have to admit that I am a country music fan. Our class discussion about Massey's reading last Wednesday reminded me of a particularly corny country song called "Fly Over States" by Jason Aldean. Check it out:

If you can't stand country or simply don't feel like watching the video, basically, Aldean is singing about two wealthy men who are flying first class from New York to L.A. (two major cosmopolitan cities with inhabitants that have a good amount of control in relation to global communication and mobility) and how they see the "Fly Over States" or many of the states between the costal centers of NYC and LA as irrelevant. Aldean then goes into detail about the value that the people in these overlooked states have and tries to tell their story in a sentimental way.

The quote from Massey's article really made me think of this song-- (Massey is quoting another researcher, Birkett here): "And Boeing has brought these people together. But what about those they fly over, on their islands five miles below? How has the mighty 747 brought them greater communion with those whose shores are washed by the same water? It hasn't of course" (pg. 148).

This song is undoubtedly an interesting cultural text that directly references some of the issues that we have addressed in class. Here, Aldean is trying to bring value and identity back to the localities and regions that are essentially "left out" of the power structure that is ultimately influencing globalization and global communication.

So how should we interpret Aldean's song? I would certainly say that it is a reaction to the "insecurity and unsettling impact" and "feelings of vulnerability" that globalization can produce. To Aldean, the value and distinctly special characteristics of midwestern states are being overlooked as the focus is on larger, cosmopolitan cities.  That said, Massey may say that Aldean's emphasis on the value of the local culture is a reactionary notion of place. An almost backward-looking emphasis on a physical locale to help anchor people in those states to a place of security and tradition. Massey says this idea of place is problematic.

However, Bude and Durrschmidt might disagree. I really liked their emphasis on the existential struggle that many human beings face in light of globalization. While Massey addresses that struggle (see his explanations of insecurity and feelings of vulnerability), he would likely see a nostalgic song like this as problematic. Bude and Durrschmidt, however, may see this song as an example of "homesickness" not "nostalgia." Here, Aldean could be interpreted as a "homecomer" -- someone who, in the midst of "global opportunity" gets his bearings in a local context of meaning and existential value. In other words, Aldean may not nostalgically yearn for the local lifestyle that he describes, but he may find existential and life-long value in the traditions of the "Fly Over States."

What do you think? Is it valuable to look at a real life, pop culture example of a person's reaction to globalization? Does it make a difference that Aldean is, in fact, a musical celebrity who may be more out of touch with local traditions than he portrays? Does his position as a major player in the media industry compromise his ability to speak on behalf of the "Fly Over States" he sings about?

How English Sounds to Non-English Speakers

As anyone knows who has watched a kitschy foreign film or even tried to learn another language, there's this cloud of hazy articulations, tambers and tones that fill your ears instead of comprehensible patterns when you first struggle to understand.  The funny thing is, we often get used to the sound of a language and it's characteristics before we even start to make sense of it's grammar and verbiage.  For example, most Americans can typically tell the difference if someone is speaking Spanish or French, or German or Russian, even if they never actually studied these languages.

Although I've always found this phenomenon fascinating, my interest has been re-piqued through our discussions of globalization media and the "like us" effect in world coverage.  Having watched foreign television with no subtitles, you become dependent on relying on gestures and tonal ques from characters in shows to try and extrapolate the meaning and plot of the story.  Overall, it's not too difficult to figure out what's going on, and you even start to pick up on certain words that get repeated often and different gestures and signs that are utilized in that culture.

I've come across two examples of what English sounds like to Non-English speakers.  They are designed to use the phonal qualities of English pronunciation and pitch of expression.  This first one is a clip from an Italian skit show from the 70's, much like Monty Python.  In it, the teacher is telling the students how to B.S. their way to make it sound like they know English through a Dance/Funk song routine, particularly reminiscent of U.S. Television pop-music performances at that time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZXcRqFmFa8

A little strange, I know, because your mind wants to make sense out of what they're saying.  The second one is a more recent creation revolving around a dramatic dinner scene with a couple, titled "Skwerl".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY




The interesting thing about the second video, is the usage of English profanity.  This stuck out to me as many foreigners I met who knew very little English, could at the very least spout out a few swear words.  I don't know many other languages where the profanity is the more accessible or understandable aspect of the language.  When you ask an English speaker (who has not studied a language) what they know in French, German, Spanish, etc., people usually know "Hello", "Yes", "No" and "I love you."

I remember being in Germany once, waiting for the bus to go shopping, and the group of teenagers next to me in heated discussion would once every 5 or 10 words say "sh!#," "mother f@$&er" and "damn".  My students in Istanbul had similar habits, which they quickly learned to remedy during my class hour.  The most iconic memory I have, though, is walking along a village road in rural Turkey, and a few boys playing soccer stopped, started smiling and waving at me and my friends, yelling "Hello!  F@$k you! Hello!"

Anyway, what do you guys think these video's have to say about Anglo culture and how foreign audiences might perceive Americans/English?  What might they say about the effects of our "foreign" media on other cultures?  Does anyone have any other stories or experiences that might relate to this?

Christina Aguilera's new PSA

I was watching TV this weekend and a new Public Service Announcement came on during the commercials. It instantly reminded me of our reading and discussion on the "We Are the World" videos. Take a look:

Aguilera recently visited Rwanda to raise awareness as global spokesperson for Yum! Brands World hunger Relief effort. Her video has started airing in the states and Yum! has also partnered with KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell -- which serve as donation sites for the project. Posters in these restaurants read "Together, we have the power to save lives and move from hunger to hope." (Sounds a lot like our reading on "the other").

Look at some of the imagery and words that are displayed on screen throughout the PSA. "1 in every 8 people go to bed hungry every night," "there's something you can do about it""join the movement to end world hunger." These words on screen combine with the song (somber at first but a move to uplifting) and imagery (children in slums and then a transition to Christina helping feed them) to culminate in a celebratory shot of happy children and a white celebrity right in the middle -- she is clearly the difference maker. Is that problematic?

Guiltily, I have to say that the PSA gets to me. I feel almost uplifted by even watching it -- I have not donated to the project but in a way I feel that (as we discussed in class) Americans, like me, feel a sense of helping "the other" by acknowledging them as one of us. It is uplifting but it certainly does not address some of the structural, cultural, political or technological issues that are truly hindering these groups from securing enough food on a day-to-day basis. Instead of donating food, shouldn't we be trying to identify, hi-light and remedy the underlying causes of these serious issues?

On the flip side -- this ad did catch my attention which, in today's media environment, is hard to do. While I think that the PSA overlooks many important issues it is important to ask: what kind of ad is likely to get you to donate -- one like this that makes the viewer feel warm and fuzzy, or a more graphic, less visually appealing, but information-packed advertisement about some of the serious issues that have caused these famines? I don't know.

What do you guys think? Is this PSA exactly like the "We are the World" videos? How is it maybe a change from these videos? Does it matter that these PSA's are only 30 seconds versus a whole 3-5 minute music video? What are your thoughts on the food restaurants partaking in this -- is this just a campaign to get their brand out there or does this feel more like an authentic effort to the cause? I would love to hear your responses!