The reading for today was entitled "Erasing @race: Going white in the (inter)face" written by Beth E. Kolko. The argument that Kolko is presenting in this article is that race seems to lose its face in cyberspace. This means that people's perception of race disappears when they enter the internet. For example, if it weren't for the picture on the main screen of this page, few people would ever know that I was a white male. There can be tell tale signs, such as written communication that I am a white male, or sometimes it can be as simple as a name. However, there is no way to be sure who the person on the other end is, making the internet a "protoutopian" environment.
As mentioned on page 218, users are subject to "representative norms and patterns, constructing a self replicating and exclusionary category of "ideal" user, one that, in some very particular instances of cyberspace, is a definitively white user". The author is mentioning that there are characteristics that can separate us in a cyber world, however, they are harder to find than visually categorizing individuals in day to day circumstances. Even in standard computer games such as solitaire, the computer does not have an understanding of age, race, ethnic background or any of the factors that could help it win. It is unable to judge, which makes it easier for the player to win than in real life.
A question that I would like to pose is why aren't computers, with all the technology present, more apt for for different types of people. There are features for young adults that make it easier for them to understand computers, as well as foreign language programs. However, would there be a way that a computer could be made to suit more of an individual's needs than a general public need? The home computer or laptop is more generic than it really should be, and customizing it for certain groups could make it easier for groups to understand. I'm not promoting the segregation of cyberspace by making classifications of computers for certain type of people, I am simply suggesting that it could be beneficial for some people to have computers more convenient for certain types of people.
I was intrigued when reading this article because it is a very valid point. The internet is a type of utopia, where people can't be judged or scrutinized. It is also an environment that enables people to meet others with similar likes and dislikes. For example, the article about racism in cyberspace. It shows that there can be a group for just about anything on the internet that may not be casually accepted in everyday life.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The assignment for today was to look at a page on facebook of someone who you loosely know and tell how it relates to things learned in Ethnic Studies. The individual, who will remain anonymous is a former teammate of mine on my high school soccer team. Things such as race, class, gender and sexuality are evident throughout his facebook web page. Though there is not a lot of information, the viewer can made generalizations about the page on their own.
First, the person is a male and according to his listing is attracted to women. It is also evident within the pictures that are on facebook that he prefers women. In addition to the pictures, while viewing them it can be seen that there are no people of color in any of the pictures. This could be simple coincidence or it could be very much a preference. the person who owns this profile is Italian American and is very proud of his ancestry because of the pictures of his tattoo's and the groups he joined. To relate to gender, he has chosen very masculine things such as working out to put into his profile. Of course, it is a generalization to say that putting ESPN as your first TV show is masculine but for the most part it applies in this situation.
One question that I have is why this person did not have a picture of at least one African American in his pictures? After graduating from a school where 25% of the population is African American, it seems almost unreal that he would not have at least one picture with an African American in it. Also, the profile in general is very sparse. It could be that it is a masculine way to keep things personal and inside.
I enjoyed this assignment because it showed a different aspect of how you can judge people's responses to questions. Noticing how people respond to questions such as music and other forms of entertainment can really speak volumes about the person you are studying.
First, the person is a male and according to his listing is attracted to women. It is also evident within the pictures that are on facebook that he prefers women. In addition to the pictures, while viewing them it can be seen that there are no people of color in any of the pictures. This could be simple coincidence or it could be very much a preference. the person who owns this profile is Italian American and is very proud of his ancestry because of the pictures of his tattoo's and the groups he joined. To relate to gender, he has chosen very masculine things such as working out to put into his profile. Of course, it is a generalization to say that putting ESPN as your first TV show is masculine but for the most part it applies in this situation.
One question that I have is why this person did not have a picture of at least one African American in his pictures? After graduating from a school where 25% of the population is African American, it seems almost unreal that he would not have at least one picture with an African American in it. Also, the profile in general is very sparse. It could be that it is a masculine way to keep things personal and inside.
I enjoyed this assignment because it showed a different aspect of how you can judge people's responses to questions. Noticing how people respond to questions such as music and other forms of entertainment can really speak volumes about the person you are studying.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Dixie-net
The reading for class this week was entitled "I'll take my stand in Dixie-net" by Tara McPherson. It is apart of a larger book entitled "Race in Cyberspace", a compilation of many authors. The main concept of this article is the neo-racism that is taking place on the internet, and why the current standpoint still exists in the south. The websites are designed to protect their "Southern heritage" and their icons, such as flags, that keep them alive today. It is a problem that these thoughts continue in American culture, and that 150 years after the Civil War, we are still divided.
One of the problems that the author discusses is the writer's registers of place. The author feels that because the south has been stereotypically called "redneck and racist" that they inherently act in such a way. Also, the author describes the websites as not racist, but supplying racist information, such as links to other websites for confederate or rebel on-line activity. Her depiction of the "Cultural genocide of the Confederacy" furthermore proves that there is a social uprising of southern men and women that believe the former Confederate States of America should be upheld.
One question that I have, and something that I found as interesting was the fact that there was a Confederate States building in Washington D.C. that is still fully functioning. It doesn't make sense to have a building in operation for something that has been abolished since 1865. Also, if the taxpayers are paying for this building, it would raise quite an uproar from many people as to why it is so important to hold on to this building.
I enjoyed reading this article because it was something that few people ever realize is still exists. It is a mindset by a few individuals that live in the past because it is the only way they can feel important. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this ever changing.
One of the problems that the author discusses is the writer's registers of place. The author feels that because the south has been stereotypically called "redneck and racist" that they inherently act in such a way. Also, the author describes the websites as not racist, but supplying racist information, such as links to other websites for confederate or rebel on-line activity. Her depiction of the "Cultural genocide of the Confederacy" furthermore proves that there is a social uprising of southern men and women that believe the former Confederate States of America should be upheld.
One question that I have, and something that I found as interesting was the fact that there was a Confederate States building in Washington D.C. that is still fully functioning. It doesn't make sense to have a building in operation for something that has been abolished since 1865. Also, if the taxpayers are paying for this building, it would raise quite an uproar from many people as to why it is so important to hold on to this building.
I enjoyed reading this article because it was something that few people ever realize is still exists. It is a mindset by a few individuals that live in the past because it is the only way they can feel important. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this ever changing.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Why I hate Abercrombie
The reading is for McBride's article "Why I hate Abercrombie" and it gives much insight to the companies practice in advertisement and their main target audience. The author sites the fact that he has seen many gay men wearing Abercrombie & Fitch at a gay bar that he visited. He sites facts that advertising of men and women wearing next to nothing poses a problem in society and what we perceive as acceptable behavior. After giving a brief history of A&F and its roots in outdoor clothing, he goes on to talk about advertisement and the "celebration of whiteness" (pg. 68).
The main concept of the article is that the advertising for Abercrombie and Fitch is biased towards the white male and female population, and the models of this clothing have to have a certain type of look that would identify them as A&F. In one part, it shows that "Dreadlocks are unacceptable for men and women". The only race that hairstyle would be natural to would be the African American race, which makes it blatant racism. In a book for brand representatives, it shows a picture of an African American male and it shows that he must have a short Afro cut in order to appear natural and classic.
This article begs the question that why won't people shop at other store comparable to A&F such as American Eagle Outfitters where it is not as biased? When a person buys the product, they are buying the image and everything that goes along with it. In my opinion, it should be boycotted if it is not acceptable to people of other races.
My opinion of the product is not skewed since I don't purchase items at the store. However, I don't believe that it is appropriate for companies to only market products to a certain race or ethnicity. To do so gives a bad representation not only to the owners of that store but the people that own the product as well.
The main concept of the article is that the advertising for Abercrombie and Fitch is biased towards the white male and female population, and the models of this clothing have to have a certain type of look that would identify them as A&F. In one part, it shows that "Dreadlocks are unacceptable for men and women". The only race that hairstyle would be natural to would be the African American race, which makes it blatant racism. In a book for brand representatives, it shows a picture of an African American male and it shows that he must have a short Afro cut in order to appear natural and classic.
This article begs the question that why won't people shop at other store comparable to A&F such as American Eagle Outfitters where it is not as biased? When a person buys the product, they are buying the image and everything that goes along with it. In my opinion, it should be boycotted if it is not acceptable to people of other races.
My opinion of the product is not skewed since I don't purchase items at the store. However, I don't believe that it is appropriate for companies to only market products to a certain race or ethnicity. To do so gives a bad representation not only to the owners of that store but the people that own the product as well.
Cybertypes
Todays reading was for Nakamura entitled "Identity Tourism" describing the commercials and the companies of technology companies. Commercials are a risky business because in the attempt to find something attractive to get the audience to buy the good or service being presented, the company may alienate or isolate a certain type of people. This often happens with race or gender and can have devastating effects on the sale of that particular item. One of the main commercials that Nakamura is describing is a MCI commercial that is the "largest internet network in the world", saying that the company is very worldly and accepted by most people. However, as Nakamura describes, it is paradoxical because it shows many different people and the aim is to show that they are not different and their minds should only be viewed.
One of the key concepts of this article is that fact that it is very much a fantasy and is not a true representation of real world activities. Stated on page 94, describing advertisements about travel, Nakamura writes " Including these 'real life' images in the advertisement would disrupt the picture it presents us of an other whose 'unspoiled' qualities are so highly valued by tourists". By showing real life, it may make things less desirable for the consumer and the product or service may not sell. What is good for one set of consumers is not for another.
A question I pose towards this article is that in some aspects, the truth may be better than lying about the product being sold. In one particular instance in my past, my family took a trip to Belize City. In the description it sounded like a tropical paradise, but when we arrived there was a bus strike and it was the equivalent of a 3rd world country. In that case, it would be better to have described some problems because the customers view of that product is now permanently scarred from that experience.
For myself being a business major, I found this article to be very eye opening in the sense that sometimes lying about a product in order to make it sound better and less discriminatory is not always the best policy.
One of the key concepts of this article is that fact that it is very much a fantasy and is not a true representation of real world activities. Stated on page 94, describing advertisements about travel, Nakamura writes " Including these 'real life' images in the advertisement would disrupt the picture it presents us of an other whose 'unspoiled' qualities are so highly valued by tourists". By showing real life, it may make things less desirable for the consumer and the product or service may not sell. What is good for one set of consumers is not for another.
A question I pose towards this article is that in some aspects, the truth may be better than lying about the product being sold. In one particular instance in my past, my family took a trip to Belize City. In the description it sounded like a tropical paradise, but when we arrived there was a bus strike and it was the equivalent of a 3rd world country. In that case, it would be better to have described some problems because the customers view of that product is now permanently scarred from that experience.
For myself being a business major, I found this article to be very eye opening in the sense that sometimes lying about a product in order to make it sound better and less discriminatory is not always the best policy.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Reading for March 14th, 2007
The reading for today's class was entitled "How Jews became white folks: and what that says about race in America" written by Karen Brodkin. The chapter outlines some of the concepts of why Jews were not considered white during the pre- World War II days and how they likened themselves to African-Americans. She describes how her parents struggled when they came to America to find somewhere they belonged and could live and how it was for her own struggles. It depicts some of the worst times in American history in regards to racism, ethnic superiority and anti-antisemitism.
One of the key factors in this reading was World War II and its effects on the lives of Jews and "lower class" minorities. Things such as the GI bill prohibited the lower class people such as African Americans and Jews from collecting the money owed to them, including women. This was the reality of those times but as the author describes, it becomes better around the 1960's. Upstart suburbia's like Leavittown were no longer allowed to discriminate against blacks or Jews and equality was on the rise.
One thing i am unclear about is the reasons for why a Jewish person would not be considered white. Most Jewish people have white complexion but are not considered white because of religious premise. It makes very little sense to base skin color blindly on religion nearly 1900 years after the original conflict started.
I found this reading to be informative because I did not know the struggles of the Jewish person quite that far in depth. I knew of antisemitism but I didn't know it ran so deep into America's past.
One of the key factors in this reading was World War II and its effects on the lives of Jews and "lower class" minorities. Things such as the GI bill prohibited the lower class people such as African Americans and Jews from collecting the money owed to them, including women. This was the reality of those times but as the author describes, it becomes better around the 1960's. Upstart suburbia's like Leavittown were no longer allowed to discriminate against blacks or Jews and equality was on the rise.
One thing i am unclear about is the reasons for why a Jewish person would not be considered white. Most Jewish people have white complexion but are not considered white because of religious premise. It makes very little sense to base skin color blindly on religion nearly 1900 years after the original conflict started.
I found this reading to be informative because I did not know the struggles of the Jewish person quite that far in depth. I knew of antisemitism but I didn't know it ran so deep into America's past.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Reading for March 12th, 2007
The reading for today is Chapter 12 out of Zinn entitled "El Norte: the borderland of Chicano America". It describes the move north of many Mexican and Latin American people to America and its effects on Mexico and the United States. It changed the Mexican infrastructure by forcing farmers to the cities to work factory jobs and shortly after the big move made the Mexican Revolution, pitting rival factions in a brutal war against each other.
Among other things, he talks about the railroad that entered Mexico and its effects on migration. Mainly, the idea that Mexicans began working a vast array of jobs was a main point. They had spread across the southern states and even to portions of Michigan and Illinois. Quoted from the text, Zinn describes the Mexican labor force as "usually assigned to the worst jobs and received the lowest wages" during the great immigration boom of the early 1900's. They often worked "contract to contract" so that opportunities were limited to them and could basically become slave labor.
The idea of the Mexican immigrant being poor is not a surprise to me during the early 1900's. What is interesting to me, however, that during the 2000's, this really hasn't changed. Mexican Americans pride themselves on how much work they can accomplish and how efficiently it is done. In the same token, the average American puts in very little work into their work. It would seem more reasonable to pay the hardest worker the most money to do their work efficiently. It is more profitable to capitalize off of the hard work of someone than to pay more money for less work. My question would be why are Mexicans paid very little even in this century?
This article basically solidified everything I thought about the treatment of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. I believe they are treated unfairly in the American culture. Where I do believe that there should be restriction on immigration, I believe that the Mexican natives that are present in the states right now should be treated better and given better jobs.
Among other things, he talks about the railroad that entered Mexico and its effects on migration. Mainly, the idea that Mexicans began working a vast array of jobs was a main point. They had spread across the southern states and even to portions of Michigan and Illinois. Quoted from the text, Zinn describes the Mexican labor force as "usually assigned to the worst jobs and received the lowest wages" during the great immigration boom of the early 1900's. They often worked "contract to contract" so that opportunities were limited to them and could basically become slave labor.
The idea of the Mexican immigrant being poor is not a surprise to me during the early 1900's. What is interesting to me, however, that during the 2000's, this really hasn't changed. Mexican Americans pride themselves on how much work they can accomplish and how efficiently it is done. In the same token, the average American puts in very little work into their work. It would seem more reasonable to pay the hardest worker the most money to do their work efficiently. It is more profitable to capitalize off of the hard work of someone than to pay more money for less work. My question would be why are Mexicans paid very little even in this century?
This article basically solidified everything I thought about the treatment of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. I believe they are treated unfairly in the American culture. Where I do believe that there should be restriction on immigration, I believe that the Mexican natives that are present in the states right now should be treated better and given better jobs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
