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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)