The White Standard

Richard Dyer and bell hooks both discuss the impact of whites being in the dominant position of society. While Dyer looks at movies and their portrayal of blacks and whites, hooks looks more towards her real life as inspiration for her beliefs about race.

As history shows us, whites have generally been in the dominant role of society. Because of this, they have become the standard to which all other ethnic groups are measured. As a result, hooks notes in Black Looks that white students are surprised when black students give thought to whiteness because “most white people do not have to ‘see’ black people (constantly appearing on billboards, television, movies, in magazines, etc.) and they do not need to be ever on guard nor to observe black people to be safe, they can live as though black people are invisible, and they can imagine that they are also invisible to blacks” (168). I take from this chapter that she believes that because white people have never had to worry about what their race implies to others or whether or not they were represented, or represented correctly to society, whites do not understand the uncertainty and fear that a black person feels in a white dominated society. As a result, the relations between blacks and white are very complex. She later goes on to discuss the implications of an “institutionalized white supremacy” in her life (168). She talks about the fear and terror that blacks feel because they are living in a world that is dominated by another race.

I think that I would agree with her in that as a white person, I don’t understand what it’s like to be a black person in America. I don’t know what it’s like to live in a society which still has remnants of a culture that once considered people who look like me to be less than human. As a result, she notes and I would agree that the “inability to conceive that [her] terror… is a response to the legacy of white domination and the contemporary expressions of white supremacy is an indication of how little this culture really understands the profound psychological impact of white racist domination” (177).

After reading that, I thought of the many instances where black/white relations are a joke in the country, when, clearly, there are those who still are greatly and deeply affected by the racism that exists in America. One comedian, Daniel Tosh, holds nothing back. He makes light of almost every single taboo social issue, sometimes crossing the line. In his Comedy Central special, he jokes about racial issues in America and this one in particular stood out to me.

After jabbing Kobe Bryant, he makes a suggestion to change the scoring rules in college basketball to be based on race. Although an outlandish suggestion, I believe he does hit on a very real and underlying problem in America. First, he makes the age-old joke about blacks being better at sports than whites. But then, he takes it a step further to put whites above blacks in yet another area of society. He brings up the injustice that blacks and whites doing the same job are not paid the same. Although a serious issue, he brings it up in a humorous way showing us that race relations really aren’t, as hooks points out, as pressing of an issue as they should be in this country. If they were, they most likely wouldn’t be found in a stand up comedy act. This also implies that white is the standard, the better version, no matter how well the black athletes do. Why is it that whites are the standard? Is this remnants of the white dominated era that has preceded us? He goes on to make fun of whites who believe the injustice of unequal pay is acceptable to say “you reap the benefits, you just don’t like it thrown in your face? Uhhh I hate making more money for no reason.” If we really were working towards a better racial harmony in America would we really be able to laugh at these jokes or would be they hit as close to home as I assume these remarks would hit hooks?

Intercultural Hollywood

In a time when the world is growing more and more globally connected, how can American media be growing more and more selective of its images?

In Sanjukta Ghosh’s article “Con-fusing Exotica” the ideas of the selectivity of American advertising images towards Indian minorities is discussed. Ghosh explains how Indian culture has been completely morphed by the dominant white power structure by representing “Indians in contemporary advertising… through absence” (276). By removing them from the mainstream, this gives dominant white America the option to choose what elements of Indian culture will be shown, what will be considered acceptable, and what it will be known for. Everything else will become an otherness that is not well received. No matter the true image of an Indian American, the image that is selected as correct will be shown over and over again. Ghosh believes that this image shows the same mean again and again: “either an exoticized and commodified spiritual realm or the well-spring of primitivism” (277). This image will be shown even to the point where Indians are no longer needed to convey the ideas behind it. Ghosh notes that “in ad after ad, Indian products are appropriated, even robbed, and then represented as works of haute couture designers whereas Indians are airbrushed or erased out of the picture” (278). By completely taking the Indian out of its own culture, America is burdening its own people by continuing the ignorance and egocentrism that we have become known for.

When discussing Indian culture and images, I thought of actor Kal Penn. Most recently seen as Kutner on House, Penn has been emerging throughout Hollywood. He has been seen in movies such as the Harold and Kumar series as well as Van Wilder and its spin-off The Rise of Taj. What I found most interesting was that when I looked on imdb.com at his filmography, many of his characters have a stereotypically Indian name. Whether or not these characters fit into the caricature that American media has accepted, I wonder how often he is chosen to play a character because of his descent or how many times a character’s name is changed based on Penn’s appearance. Does this further the belief that people from the Middle East need to have names that don’t look the same as the American John or Joe that we’re used to in this country?

However, Kal Penn is currently playing Kutner on House where he is seen as equal to the other members of the diagnostic team. The cool young kid, Kutner is not seen as an outsider to the team, but rather one who contributes fully. Is this progress towards an intercultural Hollywood?

Lost In The Shuffle

With the hustle and bustle of our day to day lives and the rush to get only the most important and pertinent news what do we sacrifice? What gets lost in the shuffle?

Stephanie Larson discusses in her book Media and Minorities the coverage or lack thereof of social movements of racial minorities as well as its effects on society. Did the media coverage change peoples’ views? Did the coverage reflect existing views? Larson critically examines the Civil Rights Movement as well as the Native American, Chicano, and Asian American Movements.

She begins by examining the nature of social movements and their dependency on media coverage. Without media coverage, the movement practically doesn’t exist. On page 146, she says that “the idea here is that even if politicians are willing to ignore an intense minority of people, they will not dismiss the will of the majority” so if the minority protesting can create enough stir to be put on national news, gain supporters, and become the majority, then how could those with political power to create change ignore the pressing need? However, many times the only way a social movement can get coverage in a national attention is if there is “conflict, violence, familiarity, and novelty” (147). Otherwise, the news may not even cover the story, and if it is covered, it may not get the attention it necessarily deserves.

Larson continues by examining the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the Native American, Chicano, and Asian American Movements. As I was reading, I was not as shocked in the Civil Rights Movement section, as I felt I generally knew a lot of the events about which she spoke; however, in the chapter regarding the other movements, I felt so ignorant because in many of them, I did not recognize the events let alone their effects on society. While it was interesting to learn about the effects of the events in the Civil Rights Movement, I felt like I couldn’t even begin to understand the effects of the other Movements because I had never even heard of some of the events. I believe this furthers her point that the Civil Rights Movement is the main and central movement remembered not only in American classrooms but also in society as marked by a specific holiday (178).

I believe that although Larson brings light to the issues that have been lost in the shuffle, society and the mass media are definitely not pushing for more coverage of these issues. For example, the issues in Africa, especially in the Darfur region took years to hit the mainstream media and, while the name is now, hopefully, recognizable, the full extent of what is going on in that area may never be known. While injustices occur all throughout the world, our media still does not cover the issues unless someone dies in the riots around it. Larson explains that in order for an event to be covered it needs to have “drama, tension, and the ever present whiff of real and threatened violence, all concentrated into a manageable geographic area and relatively brief time frame” (164). Too bad for all those other social movements. If you don’t fit the criteria, good luck making it into Americans’ priority list.

Ax or Ask?

So I found this video online after we discussed ebonics in class. It's an interview about a book called "Ax or Ask? The African American Guide to Better English" by Garrard McClendon. There's a lot which I agree with and definiately some things I disagree with. I thought I'd post it and let everyone see for themselves. There are rather racist and discriminatory comments writen all over the page which I definately don't agree with. I just thought McClendon raises some interesting points.

Click on the book, watch the clip, and let me know what you think!

Native Americans Without a Voice

I think it’s safe to say that the media definitely does not do an amazing job of presenting minorities in the appropriate way. However, the Native American image is a huge problem.




In Media and Minorities, Stephanie Larson talks about how the news portrays Native Americans. One of her most profound arguments is that “stories about Indians rarely include their voices. They are talked about, rather than talked to” (108). By not including the voice of the Native American, the news media portrays the image that they are an other group that have nothing valuable to add to society. Also, this gives all the power to the white mainstream media. By completely excluding voice, it continues to allow white culture to dominate in America. While in the past Larson notes that the media gave Native Americans two options good Indians and bad Indians, and “who was ‘good’ and who was ‘bad’ depends on how much trouble particular Indians were giving whites in power at particular times,” (109) she says that now, there are “some more varied representations are joining the stereotypical ones even in the national press” (112). Progress is being made, although it is not perfect.

For example, the show Family Guy did an episode featuring Native Americans and they sarcastically looked at the image of the Native American in mainstream media. This is the only clip I could find and it doesn't really illustrate all of what I'm talking about, but it does give some examples of how the show uses stereotypes. It’s titled “The Son Also Draws” and basically this is what happens (although I’m a little fuzzy on some of the details, so forgive me): While taking a road trip, the main characters, the Griffins, end up on an Indian reservation where there is a casino. For one reason or another the Griffins find themselves in trouble with the heads of the casino, who are also supposed to be heads of the tribe. In order to get out of trouble, Peter, the husband, pretends he is also Native American. To prove it, the men in charge of the casino send Peter out for a spiritual journey of some sort which is a true Native American custom, although the men are portrayed as simply trying to come up with a daunting task that Peter will never complete so they can keep the car they towed from the Griffins. They say that they themselves have never completed this task and hardly know anything about it; they just want the car. Anyway, Peter is sent on a spiritual journey where the Native American is sent out into the wilderness to fend for himself until his spiritual guide, an animal or other such element of nature, speaks to him. The Native Americans who whole-heartedly believe in this tradition believe that the spiritual guide will speak to the person on the spiritual journey and that is the moment he becomes a man. The heads of the casino send Peter out on this journey and he takes his son with him and the two fend for themselves in the wilderness for several days. After a while they don’t return and it comes out that the heads of the casino really didn’t know what they were doing and someone has to go in search of the two. As all episodes go, it ends with a happy ending: the family being reunited, the ‘terrible’ bad guys getting what they deserve, and the family driving away into the sunset (or something equally as cheesy).

However the point is that the Native Americans are being portrayed as greedy casino owners who have forgotten their own traditions in exchange for the white man’s beliefs. All the while, the Native Americans are using their heritage as a way to maintain the casino and make money. These stereotypical images are constantly seen on television today and are generally the only image we have of Native Americans in our culture. Because they are not even interviewed when we talk about them in the mainstream, I think it is safe to say that the Native American has been one of the worst cases of symbolic annihilation by the mainstream mass media today.

Dann Cuellar

Every night before I go to bed, my dad and I look to see what story Dann Cuellar will report on. The headline reporter for channel 6 ABC news, Dann always gives the most intense look at the hot issue of the night. After watching so many of his stories, my dad and I refer to him as if we know him personally. No matter what, we always look to see what Dann has to say.

In Media and Minorities, Stephanie Larson discusses the effects of having minority personnel as journalists. She says that “to succeed and advance in predominately white organizations, minority journalists must conform to norms and perspectives” (86). In doing this, the minority can lose touch with its original culture, Larson fears. She explains that to add to this separation between the cultures most “tend to be college educated and middle class. Thus, their familiarity with new immigrants, non-English speakers, and the lower class may be similar to that of white middle-class journalists” (87). By not being able to completely identify with their culture, having minority journalists may not be as profound it may have once seemed.

After reading this and watching Dann Cuellar, I wonder how true this really is. How much did Dann really have to give up in order to become the headlining reporter in the field? I then began to wonder how much of his presentation style affected my interest in watching him. If he would have presented the story differently, in a style I wasn’t used to seeing, would I not enjoy his reporting? My dad and I joke about how he uses the stereotypical reporter voice. Did he do this because that was the only way he felt he could get ahead in the industry?

I believe that Larson presents some very interesting questions. Do we look at a person’s race when they subscribe to the our cultural ideas? Does race even matter as long as the person acts in accordance with what we believe to be the best course of action? Does race supersede all of these questions and continue to dominate our society?

A Sample of Dann's work can be found here:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6513450

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6507359

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=6505370

Is the future a one way street?

Can one race ever be culturally aware enough to be able to speak on behalf of another race? Can we ever have a politician that can work for the benefit of the majority and the minority? Does his/her race matter in that ability?

In my hometown of Reading, Pennsylvania, the city is set up in a way very similar to other cities in that one way streets are everywhere. Unlike the suburban and rural areas where two-way streets are the standard and it almost shocking to find a one way street anywhere, city streets tend to be one way, at least in Reading. This can be really frustrating whenever I try and travel through the city because I get confused and lose my sense of direction when I have to continually use one way streets. It’s so much more work making three left turns in order to make that right turn. And if I miss the left I was supposed to make in order to turn right, then I have to wait until the next one way street going left is available in order to turn around again because the every other road is a one way in the opposite direction. This may seem unnecessary and highly confusing, which it is, but its reasoning is not as much. When Reading was a booming town in the early days of railroads, there was much more delivery activity for the thriving businesses. Although this does, in part, remain true today, it is not as prevalent. However, when delivery trucks would have to stop in front of a store to unload product, the effects on traffic could have been detrimental. If a two lane road had a delivery truck double parked on the right hand side, the entire street would have been cut off to any drivers who needed to get past. So the streets were made two lanes wide, but going one way. This way, when a delivery truck would stop, cars could easily pass this truck and continue using the road. Therefore, the majority of the roads were set up in this fashion. As a result, the majority of the city is set up with one way streets.

When I was reading in Stephanie Larson’s Media & Minorities: the Politics of Race in News and Entertainment, I began thinking about these one way streets. While she critically looks at the news media’s portrayal of race in political elections, the point that stuck out the most to me was in the section where she discusses the ideas that are presented as to whether a minority candidate can have the interests of the majority white. Larson talks about how using the “race card” in an election can have pros and cons to it. However, she says that “by focusing on black candidates’ and politicians’ positions on racial issues, the media serve some white candidates’ strategy of suggesting that their black opponents will only represent blacks to the exclusion and detriment of whites” (213). In other words, she is saying that if the black candidate makes a point of discussing race, he is immediately questioned as to whether he can understand the white perspective simply because he understands the black perspective. However, I cannot remember the last time a white candidate was questioned as to whether or not he could appropriately lead a country filled with minorities. Apparently it’s a one way street for minorities; they can only see in one direction.

Along those same lines, I began to question how black leaders are looked at in the mass media. When Martin Luther King, Jr. began to speak about issues other than the suffrage of blacks, he was called out for speaking where he didn’t belong. The media boxed him into a label “black civil rights leader” and apparently that meant that he couldn’t have an opinion on anything else. When Jesse Jackson was running for president 20 years later, he was constantly portrayed as “the black presidential candidate” which, as Larson says “may have enforced an impression among whites that Jackson was a candidate only for blacks” (213). It almost feels as though we have simply covered up the idea of racism to show that it doesn’t exist, but ideas like these and questions like “Are you a black man who happens to be an American running for the presidency, or are you an American who happens to be a black man running for the presidency?” being asked of then presidential candidate Jackson, make me feel that we may have covered it up, but when we try to begin writing the American story on this paper we’ve used to cover up racism, we come to find that the racism appears again, but simply in a different form. Like the leaf rubbings, I used to make in my elementary school art classes, the shape and the outline of the leaf would appear on the paper I colored because of a leaf underneath. If we continue to see racism as a thing of the past and pretend that by covering it up we’ve actually fixed it, then we will continue to see race as a one way street where people of the opposite race could never begin to understand the culture of the other, and we will never be able to have reconciliation as a nation.