They're Just Like Magic

In class this week, we have talked a lot about the idea of TV Tokenism, the inclusion of minorities in TV shows or movies which falsely depict real life.  In other words, it's when TV shows or movies are starting put in minority actors, often in high authority roles, just to give people the idea that they're not racist because in the past, as OC writes, minorities were often shown in less respected roles that only increase stereotypes.  Now, however, I fear that the ball has turned far in the opposite direction with unrealistic depictions of minorities so that filmmakers can avoid being labeled racist.

One small example of this is in shot of the show How I Met Your Mother, which airs on CBS, shown below.

This one shot from How I Met Your Mother is an example of a common TV show scene with minority characters shown in back to create the false illusion of diversity.

The characters in front are the main characters (this show is not normal because none of the major characters are minorities), but I want to talk about the idea of "token faces", so let's look at the people in the background.  Out of the limited people in the background, I can make out for sure a black man and a hispanic woman.  I know this is just one shot from one show, but this happens all the time.  If you ever stop and look at the faces in the background of a movie or TV show, you'll notice minorities appear--like magic--in what seems to be a utopia of racial relations, which is far from reality.

So if this isn't realistic, why is it done?

It's simply a reaction to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People's (NAACP) criticism of the system.  In the early 2000's, the NAACP complained that black people were always portrayed as criminals and thieves, which advances the stereotypes against them.  Since then, networks feared being labeled racist by viewers, so an easy way to trick viewers into thinking they are including minorities is by just putting them in the background, so that they are visible without playing an actual role.

Another way many TV shows and movies use tokenism to avoid being labeled racist is by creating the "authority minority" character.  This character usually plays a big role with a respected title (such as "Dr." or "boss") and is often the best dressed man to reverse stereotypes, but isn't very central to the plot and doesn't receive much screen time.

For example, in the movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, black actor Morgan Freeman plays the role of God.  Could there be a more prominent role than God?  No, of course not.  Interestingly though, neither of those two casts (Bruce Almighty or Evan Almighty) feature another minority.  What Morgan Freeman allows the filmmakers to do in these movies is say, "Our cast is almost entirely white, but no, we're not racist because we have a black man playing God.  How could you possibly call us racist?"-And this is essentially what the "authority minority" character does: eliminate racist ideals by putting minorities in respect roles, even though they are not central to the plot.

I understand that how television portrays people can have a major effect, but why we have to do this,why we filmmakers have to even think about race when selecting a cast still puzzles me.  Americans are very sensitive on the issue of race.  In this scenario, if you don't feature privileged minorities in your film, you're racist, and this is ridiculous.  I'm not saying I think we should have all white casts, but simply that I believe race shouldn't matter (even though it clearly does) because this is all fake.

Have Americans become too sensitive on the issue of race?  How should casts be chosen?

Forgotten Goals

Can you think of a time you told yourself you were going to definitely do something but never actually did?  My guess is almost everyone can because everybody does this.

For example, think of your New Years Resolution.  It's just over a month into the year now, and statistics show that by this time 36% of these resolutions have already failed, and much more than half will be failed by the end of the year.  Why is this number so alarmingly high?  Are Americans really that bad at sticking to what they say?

The reason is simply because people have the false idea that change or action will be easy in the future even though it isn't in the present, and therefore they don't make it a priority.

It's easy to say, "I will go on a diet next week, so I can eat this cake," or "I did bad last semester but I wasn't really trying as hard as I could have, so I'll start trying, and I'll doing much better," or even "I'm working too hard.  I will take a vacation soon."  However, unless you actually make it a priority to make the effort to carry out these plans, you will never get them done because if you can't start a diet now, or start working harder now, or find the time to take a break, you won't be able to in two weeks.

In the book we're reading in class, White Noise by Don DeLillo, the narrator in his stream of thoughts says that his wife "plans ski trips that we never take" (15), and then he quickly moves on to some other thought.  After reading that, I wanted him to go back and answer why they never actually go on trips, but then I realized I knew the answer: their everyday life like work and children got in the way.

People are always allowing their everyday busy life to push aside their goals they set and fail to realize what's happening.  Therefore, they continuously set new goals thinking that in the future they will magically be better than they are now, so they will be able to do them.

What is the best way to make sure the goals you set don't get forgotten?

The Effects of Linsanity

Just a week ago, Jeremy Lin was nobody.  Now, he is the most talked about athlete in all of sports and America's man of the hour.  Who really is this man and how did he come to be at the center of the sports world?

Jeremy Lin has burst out on the scene by leading
the underperforming Knicks to five straight wins.

For those of you who still don't know, Lin is an Asian-American professional basketball player who attended Harvard University, and after going undrafted and being cut by two teams, he has landed on the NBA's biggest stage with the New York Knicks where he was thrust into the starting job last week.  Since then, he has taken the NBA by storm by winning five consecutive games for the disappointing Knicks team playing without their two "stars" (Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire) and setting the all-time NBA record for points in his first four starts.  He truly is living the American Dream.

Lin's play, however, is not only translating into wins for his team, he is generating mass revenue and excitement for the league.  He has gotten the nation's largest city to become ecstatic about basketball, and in turn, his jersey is in higher demand than anybody else and ticket prices have skyrocketed up 27% for the Knicks.  How has one man had such a tremendous effect?

The answer in my opinion is simply because he's Asian.  There is no doubt that people have preconceived notions of what an NBA basketball player is supposed to look like, and there is no doubt that a 6'3 Asian-American man who graduated Harvard with a 3.1 GPA and is devoutly Christian does not fit the standard profile.  He is simply breaking every stereotype, and that is exactly what makes Lin's story so incredible and inspirational.

One fan turns his Carmelo Anthony jersey in a Lin one.

His story will have a tremendous effect on Asian-Americans as it gives them a true hero that is making a real impact in American culture.  Yao Ming couldn't be this heroic figure to Asians for two reasons: he was from mainland China, and he was 7'5, which automatically qualifies him as a lock to be in the NBA.  Lin, on the other hand, is much more relatable to, as he resembles many Asian-Americans who have never before had an iconic figure so similar to them.

He is as meaningful to the Asians in America as Jackie Robinson was to Blacks because he is being that "trailblazer" who sets the way for many to follow.  I'm not predicting Lin to continue his dominance or be a legendary figure as Jackie Robinson was, but culturally, his impact will be very similar, as I believe he has generated hope and inspiration for Asian-American basketball players to continue.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Lin's glory dies out and he returns to being a below average basketball player.  His story has been blown up by the Internet and has reached everywhere, so his impact on the next generation has already been made.

The Construction of America

In the closing lines of his most recent State of the Union Address, Barack Obama says, "This nation is great because we built it together."

Obama is emphasizing the teamwork that America has had that has allowed it to be great, but is he right?  Did we really build this nation together?  Or a better question: who really did "build" America?

Obama argued America is great we have always worked as a team.  However, when looking at the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War, which we are currently studying, it is obvious decisions were not made together because there was much disagreement on every issue.  Therefore, Lincoln (in the short time before he was assassinated) needed to take charge and tell the country how things were going to happen rather than telling them to get together and decide.  One example of this is that he passed the Ten Percent Plan on his own, which said that to be readmitted in to the Union, a southern state must have only 10% of it's citizens take an oath, and he pocket vetoed the more radical Wade-Davis Bill, that would've made it more difficult to reunite the Union.

This is just one example of us not building the nation as a team, and there are many more.  That's not to say that no decisions have been made together--because many have--but in the history of America, there has been and always will be disagreements.  Therefore, we have been unable to work as a team to solve all of our problems, and that will most likely continue.

I'm not saying Obama was wrong about our nation being "great" (that's a whole new debate), but his reasons were wrong.  In the history of America, decisions have been made by individuals, so I believe it is those certain individuals that have constructed our nation.  A more accurate line, I believe, would have been, "This nation is great because the individuals who have built it were dedicated to helping the entire 'team'."