1. The artist's main idea for this piece of art is to show the offensiveness of the Cleveland Indian's logo, and how it is racially stereotypical. By using the same face and simply changing minor details to it such as facial hair, clothing, skin color and hair the artist is trying to give people a taste of what it would be like if their stereotypical image was used as a mascot or sports symbol.
2. There are many different images that the artist uses, so he is directing his work towards people of many different cultures and races, wanting to put them in the Native Americans shoes. His image of the Gangsta shows a very dark skinned male, with a grill on his teeth, a bandanna and hat on his head, along with very large lips. The Chinese image of the man with a hat, facial hair, and a large smile on his face is supposed to represent the Chinese people as being pushovers and non aggressive, much like how they are described in Wu's writing "Yellow". The stereotype for Germans is shown as a guy that resembles Hitler, and is wearing a swastika around his neck, making the German people look like they are all Nazi's and heartless people. The Irish is shown as a drunken man wearing a hat with a shamrock on it and missing teeth, making the Irish appear to be ones who do a lot of fighting and drinking. In all of these examples the images that are used to represent each group of people are very negative images, and ones that when people would see them without the label written under them people would still know what group it is supposed to represent. The reason for the Indian as the emblem for the Cleveland baseball team is because Native Americans are thought to be strong people and fighters. They are looked at as people who take no prisoners and can act savagely. This image is used to make the team itself look strong, unlike how they would look if their mascot were something like a squirrel.
3. Why did the Indians change from the spiders? Who picked out the mascot/image of the Indian to represent the Cleveland team? Are there any other offensive sports logos that people have somewhat overlooked like this one?
4. It's not right for people to use stereotypical images of a specific group of people to represent all people. In many cases the representation is really only a justified representation of for a handful of these group members. I never saw the Indians symbol as being potentially offensive to Native Americans, and have never even heard anyone mention it. It would be weird to see a different mascot and to hear a different name for the Cleveland Indians team. I do not think that it is chosen to be offensive, but rather in respect to the Indians for being a strong group of people, a group that the team owners may even admire for their fight and drive without giving up.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Norviel's Scientific Racism Review
1. The author states at the end of the chapter that "This chapter has focused on the various ways in which late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century scientific discourses on race provided a logic through which sexologists and other medical 'experts' articulated emerging models of homosexuality in the United States." In other words, it is about the different reasons and theories as to how homosexuality came about, and also the impact race may have on it according to past writers.
2. This piece starts out with explaining how sexology even came about. Since there were people who were acting out of their gender norms, and having relations with same sex partners, people were interested in why this was happening and started conducting studies and tests to try and find the reason being homosexuality. Throughout this reading the author explains many different views that different sexologists have on the development of homosexuals in our society. One reason given was based on race. He discussed the terms monogeny and polygeny. Monogeny is the theory that all races originated from the same species and descended from common ancestors, while polygeny means that different races came from different species and are biologically different from one another. There were said to be visible differences in black and white people's genitalia. African American males were found to have larger genitals that white males. Males were not the main focus of study though, women were. The sexologist said that white women's genitalia was "normal" and that black, and homosexual womens were not because they were much larger and had different shape. They described the abnormal genitalia as being a smaller version of a males, and that could be the reason for homosexuals, having somewhat bisexual body parts. The author describes a piece of writing from "Cult of True Womanhood" saying that "racial ideologies of the nineteenth century explicitly privileged white women's sexual purity while implicitly suggesting African American women's sexual accessibility; basically saying that black women were "loose" (for lack of a better term), or more willing to have sexual relations. Somerville also explains the idea of "butch-femme" which he describes to be "as a particular construction of lesbian desire", talking about a lesbians desire for another woman, rather than for a man.
3. Are there more black homosexuals or white homosexuals in the U.S. today? Could homosexuals be classified as being "another species" or from another species, like they say that people of different race are?
4. I thought the topic was an interesting one; however I did not fully understand this reading and was lost at times. Some of the terms and language I am not familiar with so it was hard to follow sometimes. It had convincing evidence for it's points, and many references. All of the references made it somewhat hard to tell if that is the author's belief or someone else's. In many lesbian couples there is still a "man" and a "woman" role in the relationship, where one may act like a guy while the other acts much like any other girl; this confuses me. If this were going to be the case in a relationship, then why does the lesbian that plays the 'female' part not just date a man?
2. This piece starts out with explaining how sexology even came about. Since there were people who were acting out of their gender norms, and having relations with same sex partners, people were interested in why this was happening and started conducting studies and tests to try and find the reason being homosexuality. Throughout this reading the author explains many different views that different sexologists have on the development of homosexuals in our society. One reason given was based on race. He discussed the terms monogeny and polygeny. Monogeny is the theory that all races originated from the same species and descended from common ancestors, while polygeny means that different races came from different species and are biologically different from one another. There were said to be visible differences in black and white people's genitalia. African American males were found to have larger genitals that white males. Males were not the main focus of study though, women were. The sexologist said that white women's genitalia was "normal" and that black, and homosexual womens were not because they were much larger and had different shape. They described the abnormal genitalia as being a smaller version of a males, and that could be the reason for homosexuals, having somewhat bisexual body parts. The author describes a piece of writing from "Cult of True Womanhood" saying that "racial ideologies of the nineteenth century explicitly privileged white women's sexual purity while implicitly suggesting African American women's sexual accessibility; basically saying that black women were "loose" (for lack of a better term), or more willing to have sexual relations. Somerville also explains the idea of "butch-femme" which he describes to be "as a particular construction of lesbian desire", talking about a lesbians desire for another woman, rather than for a man.
3. Are there more black homosexuals or white homosexuals in the U.S. today? Could homosexuals be classified as being "another species" or from another species, like they say that people of different race are?
4. I thought the topic was an interesting one; however I did not fully understand this reading and was lost at times. Some of the terms and language I am not familiar with so it was hard to follow sometimes. It had convincing evidence for it's points, and many references. All of the references made it somewhat hard to tell if that is the author's belief or someone else's. In many lesbian couples there is still a "man" and a "woman" role in the relationship, where one may act like a guy while the other acts much like any other girl; this confuses me. If this were going to be the case in a relationship, then why does the lesbian that plays the 'female' part not just date a man?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Norviel's Challenge to Democracy
1. In this video the main idea is to show the lives that were set up by the U.S. Government for the Japanese in America. It shows what they did, and what the living conditions were like for them.
2. "A Challenge to Democracy" was about the Japanese people, whether American born or their ancestors that migrated to America, and how the U.S. government set up relocation centers for them to live in during the time of the war. Most of the evacuees were American born. They lived with their families in blocks; there were about 300 people per block. They had food provided for them in mess halls, which had both American and Japanese dishes to please those who were either American born or born in Japan. The government set up land for the people in the centers to farm. The crops that they grew were used in the center, or sent to other centers who were out of season for a specific crop; but their crops were not put out on the market. Different centers needed different tasks done, such as logging and road work. Jobs were provided for people in the centers doing these types of jobs and were paid to do the work. The centers were made very "homey" for the evacuees. There were even schools and barber shops set up for them. In the high schools, the students were taught different jobs such as welding and farming, so when getting out of the center they would have an easier time finding jobs. Church services were available to the people in the centers also. Many of the aliens were booted out, but most of the native born Japanese had a type of religion. There was also voting that they could participate in, they had their own democracy within their centers. There was a need for workers in sugar beet fields, so many people in the center volunteered to work in the fields, so they were the first people to get to leave the center; although it was usually a temporary leave then they would return to the center. Loyal Americans were free to leave whenever, while some people were not eligible to leave. Those where weren't eligible were placed in one center for the remainder of the war. After being released from the center many of the Japanese people went out and got regular jobs all over the country. Many of the Japanese who were were not evacuated joined the U.S. Army, fighting against militarism and repression of Japan and Germany. They were fighting for American ideas and ways, which was their upbringing.
3. Were the Japanese evacuated because the Americans did not fully trust the Japanese, so they put them in centers so that the government could keep their eyes on them? Were the Japanese people fine with being put in these centers?
4. I found the video interesting. I had know idea that there were relocation centers set up during the war for Japanese people. I also thought it was a good thing the government did by having so many things for them to do in the centers to make their lives feel as normal as possible; also preparing them for when the war was over and they were allowed to leave the centers. I did not catch on to why exactly the Japanese were evacuated from their homes, or why only ones in certain areas were evacuated.
2. "A Challenge to Democracy" was about the Japanese people, whether American born or their ancestors that migrated to America, and how the U.S. government set up relocation centers for them to live in during the time of the war. Most of the evacuees were American born. They lived with their families in blocks; there were about 300 people per block. They had food provided for them in mess halls, which had both American and Japanese dishes to please those who were either American born or born in Japan. The government set up land for the people in the centers to farm. The crops that they grew were used in the center, or sent to other centers who were out of season for a specific crop; but their crops were not put out on the market. Different centers needed different tasks done, such as logging and road work. Jobs were provided for people in the centers doing these types of jobs and were paid to do the work. The centers were made very "homey" for the evacuees. There were even schools and barber shops set up for them. In the high schools, the students were taught different jobs such as welding and farming, so when getting out of the center they would have an easier time finding jobs. Church services were available to the people in the centers also. Many of the aliens were booted out, but most of the native born Japanese had a type of religion. There was also voting that they could participate in, they had their own democracy within their centers. There was a need for workers in sugar beet fields, so many people in the center volunteered to work in the fields, so they were the first people to get to leave the center; although it was usually a temporary leave then they would return to the center. Loyal Americans were free to leave whenever, while some people were not eligible to leave. Those where weren't eligible were placed in one center for the remainder of the war. After being released from the center many of the Japanese people went out and got regular jobs all over the country. Many of the Japanese who were were not evacuated joined the U.S. Army, fighting against militarism and repression of Japan and Germany. They were fighting for American ideas and ways, which was their upbringing.
3. Were the Japanese evacuated because the Americans did not fully trust the Japanese, so they put them in centers so that the government could keep their eyes on them? Were the Japanese people fine with being put in these centers?
4. I found the video interesting. I had know idea that there were relocation centers set up during the war for Japanese people. I also thought it was a good thing the government did by having so many things for them to do in the centers to make their lives feel as normal as possible; also preparing them for when the war was over and they were allowed to leave the centers. I did not catch on to why exactly the Japanese were evacuated from their homes, or why only ones in certain areas were evacuated.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Norviel's Pacific Crossings
1. The author is talking about the want and eagerness the Japanese people had to be a part of the New World, America. Even though they were not treated the best they still wanted the chance to be a part of something great, something up-and-coming.
2. Takaki writes about the experiences the Japanese people had when leaving their home country to come to America. They were excited to see this new way of life, a way to make money and live more prosperously. The Japanese migrants were leaving their homes and families, to which they would probably never see again. He talked about the "picture brides", which were women who were sent from their home country to America to be with an arranged husband whom they have never even met. The young girls were usually very excited about their journey to the "new world", not because they necessarily wanted to be with their husband, but because they were eager to see this new and better way of life. Many of these new workers had similar jobs in America, that they had back home. They worked hard, long hours out in the fields. Under the sun, with no breeze, Takaki described the undesirable conditions that these people worked under. Much like the blacks, these foreigners were discriminated against as well. They were enslaved and made to do hard manual labor as well. Unlike the blacks, at least this group of people were normally kept with their families, because the owners thought that men with families were more valuable workers so their living conditions were somewhat better than what the blacks had to live in. Later on, even though the Japanese were free and were allowed to own land and property, in many cases they were discriminated against and were denied certain homes in certain neighborhoods.
3. Why would these people continue to come to America if their lives really were not made as easy as they thought? Were these people thankful for their new opportunities that they were given; since they could have been denied or turned away from this new world and way of life?
4. I didn't really like this reading that much. It is really long and drawn out, as well as somewhat boring, making you lose interest in the reading. It was somewhat confusing also because one minute he would talk about how the Japanese were so excited to go and make money and have new and better opportunities, and then the next minute he made it seem like their lives were not so great, and they were treated as slaves. Then it would go back to them being free and being able to purchase land and work. I did like the fact that it was about a different minority group rather than just African Americans, because that can get kind of redundant.
2. Takaki writes about the experiences the Japanese people had when leaving their home country to come to America. They were excited to see this new way of life, a way to make money and live more prosperously. The Japanese migrants were leaving their homes and families, to which they would probably never see again. He talked about the "picture brides", which were women who were sent from their home country to America to be with an arranged husband whom they have never even met. The young girls were usually very excited about their journey to the "new world", not because they necessarily wanted to be with their husband, but because they were eager to see this new and better way of life. Many of these new workers had similar jobs in America, that they had back home. They worked hard, long hours out in the fields. Under the sun, with no breeze, Takaki described the undesirable conditions that these people worked under. Much like the blacks, these foreigners were discriminated against as well. They were enslaved and made to do hard manual labor as well. Unlike the blacks, at least this group of people were normally kept with their families, because the owners thought that men with families were more valuable workers so their living conditions were somewhat better than what the blacks had to live in. Later on, even though the Japanese were free and were allowed to own land and property, in many cases they were discriminated against and were denied certain homes in certain neighborhoods.
3. Why would these people continue to come to America if their lives really were not made as easy as they thought? Were these people thankful for their new opportunities that they were given; since they could have been denied or turned away from this new world and way of life?
4. I didn't really like this reading that much. It is really long and drawn out, as well as somewhat boring, making you lose interest in the reading. It was somewhat confusing also because one minute he would talk about how the Japanese were so excited to go and make money and have new and better opportunities, and then the next minute he made it seem like their lives were not so great, and they were treated as slaves. Then it would go back to them being free and being able to purchase land and work. I did like the fact that it was about a different minority group rather than just African Americans, because that can get kind of redundant.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Norviel's A&F Analysis
1. The author's main idea of this piece of writing is to make people aware of the hidden meaning and discrimination that Abercrombie and Fitch is based on. He is saying that A&F is a racially discriminating clothing line, and only directs its advertising to a very specific group of people. For the reasons that I will explain later, is the reasons as to why McBride claims to hate A&F.
2. McBride starts off by talking about how the company of Abercrombie and Fitch was started. He explains that from the beginning A&F was where the wealthier group of people would go for their clothing. Because of this early trend, Abercrombie and Fitch clothing still is used to represent people who come from money, based solely on the name that is displayed on their shirts. McBride says later that people are not buying clothes, but are buying a membership into a lifestyle; an expensive lifestyle. McBride talks about the Abercrombie "look" that people who work for and model for this company must have. There are many rules that must be followed to be an Abercrombie and Fitch employee, that seem to be very unnecessary. A&F is thought to be solely for white, straight, wealthy, good-looking people. He states examples of different instances when black, and/or gay people were not hired or were treated worse than those employees who were not gay or black.
3. If A&F were represented more by only blacks, or gays would it be as big of a deal and analyzed as much? If McBride were really wealthy would he wear this clothing brand also? Or its equivalents such as Hollister or Banana Republic? When A&F was first established, was the criteria that managers looked for in potential employees as strict as now? Was Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Fitch racists?
4. I have always found it odd that in the catalog for this CLOTHING company, none of the models are even wearing the clothes that they are attempting to sell. This obviously shows that they are basically just selling the image of sex and attractiveness, somehow persuading people to buy their clothes. Even though it seems a little silly that there is such a critique that must be followed when working for A&F, if that is what the owners of the company want then why should it be changed? I have seen plenty of black people wearing A&F clothing, so I have never even given the issue of racial discrimination as a part of this clothing style a thought.
2. McBride starts off by talking about how the company of Abercrombie and Fitch was started. He explains that from the beginning A&F was where the wealthier group of people would go for their clothing. Because of this early trend, Abercrombie and Fitch clothing still is used to represent people who come from money, based solely on the name that is displayed on their shirts. McBride says later that people are not buying clothes, but are buying a membership into a lifestyle; an expensive lifestyle. McBride talks about the Abercrombie "look" that people who work for and model for this company must have. There are many rules that must be followed to be an Abercrombie and Fitch employee, that seem to be very unnecessary. A&F is thought to be solely for white, straight, wealthy, good-looking people. He states examples of different instances when black, and/or gay people were not hired or were treated worse than those employees who were not gay or black.
3. If A&F were represented more by only blacks, or gays would it be as big of a deal and analyzed as much? If McBride were really wealthy would he wear this clothing brand also? Or its equivalents such as Hollister or Banana Republic? When A&F was first established, was the criteria that managers looked for in potential employees as strict as now? Was Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Fitch racists?
4. I have always found it odd that in the catalog for this CLOTHING company, none of the models are even wearing the clothes that they are attempting to sell. This obviously shows that they are basically just selling the image of sex and attractiveness, somehow persuading people to buy their clothes. Even though it seems a little silly that there is such a critique that must be followed when working for A&F, if that is what the owners of the company want then why should it be changed? I have seen plenty of black people wearing A&F clothing, so I have never even given the issue of racial discrimination as a part of this clothing style a thought.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Norviel's Kindred Association
I really enjoyed reading the novel Kindred. I was an easy read and was an interesting story and way of explaining slavery. This book related to many other readings/videos that we did in class. In the Richard Wright reading "Race, Class, and Gender in the United States" it relates to Kindred because the boy in Wright's writing learned how he was to act towards and around whites, much like Dana in Kindred. Dana had to learn the Jim Crow laws, much like the young boy. They were expected to address whites as master, Mrs., Mr, etc. They were neither one allowed to stand up for themselves against whites. When Dana tried to stand up for herself she got whipped, while the young boy was threatened and ended up quitting his job instead of telling the boss about his white co-workers' behavior.
In The Race Part II, it talks about how blacks were used to do work, replacing indentured servants. They decided to use blacks because if they were to run away they would be easier to identify. This goes along with the Kindred reading because there were patrol men who would ride around and look for blacks, slaves. The patrol men would assume that any black person they saw unattended was a potential runaway slave.
In the video "Eyes on the Prize" it relates to Kindred in the aspect of learning. In the movie 19 black kids were enrolled in high school. The white people did not like this and would riot outside of the schools, and threaten the blacks. Much like the movie, in Kindred, the slave owners did not want the blacks learning either. In both cases, if the blacks were to learn like the whites then the white people would not longer be as superior; the white people feared this.
Kindred also relates to the reading "Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance". Much like my previous example about the learning. In Johnson's writing he has a section called Blame the Victim, in this section he talks about how maybe if the slaves were capable of learning then their lives would be better; basically saying that the whites are doing the blacks a favor by enslaving them, because without the whites help in this way then the blacks would not be able to survive. As I said before, this relates to Kindred in the way that the slave owners would not let the blacks learn.
In The Race Part II, it talks about how blacks were used to do work, replacing indentured servants. They decided to use blacks because if they were to run away they would be easier to identify. This goes along with the Kindred reading because there were patrol men who would ride around and look for blacks, slaves. The patrol men would assume that any black person they saw unattended was a potential runaway slave.
In the video "Eyes on the Prize" it relates to Kindred in the aspect of learning. In the movie 19 black kids were enrolled in high school. The white people did not like this and would riot outside of the schools, and threaten the blacks. Much like the movie, in Kindred, the slave owners did not want the blacks learning either. In both cases, if the blacks were to learn like the whites then the white people would not longer be as superior; the white people feared this.
Kindred also relates to the reading "Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance". Much like my previous example about the learning. In Johnson's writing he has a section called Blame the Victim, in this section he talks about how maybe if the slaves were capable of learning then their lives would be better; basically saying that the whites are doing the blacks a favor by enslaving them, because without the whites help in this way then the blacks would not be able to survive. As I said before, this relates to Kindred in the way that the slave owners would not let the blacks learn.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Norviel's Asian Attitude
1. The main thesis to the writing "Yellow" by Frank Wu is that he is saying that when it comes to race people only think of blacks and whites. There is no talk about Asians (those with yellow skin) and they are pretty much over-looked by society. Although a person's skin color should not matter, it still somewhat plays a part in our world today. Wu is saying that being classified as a minority, like those who are African American, is better than having no class or social standing at all.
2. Wu starts off his writing by saying that people want to believe that each individual is just as important as the next, no matter what their skin color is; but Wu is not fooled by this and says that even though people want to think this is so, it really is not how things are. He talks about how "Americans believe in a heroic myth from the nineteenth century, whereby moving to the frontier gives a person a new identity", meaning that at that time things had changed and that everyone was considered equal, even though they were not all treated the same. He talks about some of his person experiences of not knowing his place in society being an Asian and not a black or white person. One of his experiences was when he was going to ride the bus and did now know where he should sit. The front was filled with whites, while the back was occupied by the blacks. Knowing that he did not really belong to either group he was confused as to what he should do. He says that people who are not like them are not acknowledged, and are oblivious to them. Meaning that Whites acknowledge Whites, Blacks acknowledge Blacks, and Asians acknowledge Asians. Although race is thought to be only Black and White, there is a gray area there too that people do not think of, those with yellow skin.
3. Where would Asians like to be classified? Maybe by not being put into a black or white group is better, since they still get minority benefits but are not thought to be over-privileged.
4. I like the examples that Wu used in his writing, such as the one about the motorcyclists in his oblivious example. His writing was simple but still made you think, and got his point across. He almost seems to be complaining too much and in a way makes him seem like he thinks he wants to be classified in a group, after saying that race shouldn't be the reason of how people are treated but rather by their individual characteristics. Overall the reading was not too bad, and with being short it was much easier to pay attention, but I believe I was still able to understand the issue he was addressing.
2. Wu starts off his writing by saying that people want to believe that each individual is just as important as the next, no matter what their skin color is; but Wu is not fooled by this and says that even though people want to think this is so, it really is not how things are. He talks about how "Americans believe in a heroic myth from the nineteenth century, whereby moving to the frontier gives a person a new identity", meaning that at that time things had changed and that everyone was considered equal, even though they were not all treated the same. He talks about some of his person experiences of not knowing his place in society being an Asian and not a black or white person. One of his experiences was when he was going to ride the bus and did now know where he should sit. The front was filled with whites, while the back was occupied by the blacks. Knowing that he did not really belong to either group he was confused as to what he should do. He says that people who are not like them are not acknowledged, and are oblivious to them. Meaning that Whites acknowledge Whites, Blacks acknowledge Blacks, and Asians acknowledge Asians. Although race is thought to be only Black and White, there is a gray area there too that people do not think of, those with yellow skin.
3. Where would Asians like to be classified? Maybe by not being put into a black or white group is better, since they still get minority benefits but are not thought to be over-privileged.
4. I like the examples that Wu used in his writing, such as the one about the motorcyclists in his oblivious example. His writing was simple but still made you think, and got his point across. He almost seems to be complaining too much and in a way makes him seem like he thinks he wants to be classified in a group, after saying that race shouldn't be the reason of how people are treated but rather by their individual characteristics. Overall the reading was not too bad, and with being short it was much easier to pay attention, but I believe I was still able to understand the issue he was addressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)