Looking back through all my blogs this quarter, I think my favorite post was the first one I did this quarter, called "The Impact of Trayvon Martin." I did this blog over spring break when I was really just trying to relax and enjoy my time, but I was really intrigued by this Trayvon Martin story and took my time putting out a blog about it.
I think this blog is a great one because it is very well organized: I introduced the topic in an interesting way, provided historical facts and other's reactions to them, and then looked critically at what happened and how people reacted.
One thing in this blog I think I could've analyzed more was the picture. I simply just put it there since that picture was used in a lot of articles I read and used it to just show people what George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin looked like. Looking at this picture again, it is obvious I could've analyzed more, as this picture clearly tries to make people feel bad for Trayvon. They used a picture of Trayvon when he was a few years younger and innocently smiling as if this was a school yearbook photo. For Zimmerman however, there is a mug shot with him glaring at the camera, looking like a very unfriendly man. I think just by looking at this picture people subconsciously take Trayvon's side, and it could be a big reason he had so many supporters in this case because this picture was so commonly chosen to be in news articles.
I still think though that this blog was very powerful because I start with a specific example of a case that happened and then broaden my lens to look at America as a whole. So, while I believe so many of my blogs are worthy of being read, I would highly recommend you read "The Impact of Trayvon Martin."
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Just the Right Shade?
"You knew at some point, [Barack Obama] was supposed to win. He had all the right ingredients that came together at the right time: he's tall, good looking, articulate, highly intelligent, smooth under pressure, charismatic, and--most importantly--he was the right shade."
This is a quote from stand-up comedian Aries Spears that I came across and was struck by (here is the video, his Obama comments start 13 minutes in). He claims that Obama's perfect skin color allowed him to win, and when I though about it, I agreed with this notion because he was light enough to "make white people feel comfortable" but still "Black" so that Americans can feel like we have progressed enough to elect an African-American president.
If Obama was "Bernie Mac black," I truly don't think he could've been elected, but since he is 1/4 white and has lighter skin, the idea of him as president was a little less radical to people. To use Aries Spears' analogy, he's like "coffee with cream, it goes down easy" as opposed to "coffee black," which is "too strong."
On the other hand, I believe there is another group of Americans that wants to buy into this idea (myth?) that we are no longer a racist country. Therefore, the fact that he was African-American at all helped him.
Obama's skin color was "perfect" because it appealed to both these groups of people: he got every Black person's vote for simply being their skin color and didn't scare too many white people away since he is very light skinned for an African-American.
Is Aries Spears right? Was Obama just the right shade for being president? Would results have been different if he was much darker or lighter?
 |
| Is Obama's relatively light skin color a possible reason he won? |
If Obama was "Bernie Mac black," I truly don't think he could've been elected, but since he is 1/4 white and has lighter skin, the idea of him as president was a little less radical to people. To use Aries Spears' analogy, he's like "coffee with cream, it goes down easy" as opposed to "coffee black," which is "too strong."
On the other hand, I believe there is another group of Americans that wants to buy into this idea (myth?) that we are no longer a racist country. Therefore, the fact that he was African-American at all helped him.
Obama's skin color was "perfect" because it appealed to both these groups of people: he got every Black person's vote for simply being their skin color and didn't scare too many white people away since he is very light skinned for an African-American.
Is Aries Spears right? Was Obama just the right shade for being president? Would results have been different if he was much darker or lighter?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Need for Violence
A couple days ago, protestors came to Chicago because there was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conference taking place with a lot of the world's leaders. What I found particularly interesting was how the media covered this event. I flipped through multiple news channels during this time that were all covering the protestors, but not one mentioned what was taking place at the conference or what the protesters were protesting. The only thing that was ever covered was the violence, or lack of violence for that matter, that occurred. For example, take a look at this snapshot of the CNN coverage below:
Almost every other news station, like CNN, mentioned and tried to cover some sort of "clash" that took place between the police and the protesters, and then after is was all done and they realized there wasn't any violence to report, they'd all say, "Well the Chicago police did a very good job," seeming slightly disappointed that they couldn't make a big story out of it as they clearly planned to do.
This type of news coverage didn't just occur during this event, it always happens. All the time, the news reports violence only without ever really telling the reasons behind it like they did here. What was the NATO Conference for? What were these people protesting? To be honest, I still don't really fully understand despite looking and asking people, and nobody can tell me for sure what this is all about. All I've heard is that the police did a great job preventing violence because that's all the news will ever say.
Why is there this need for violence? Should news stations report the general information even if it's less exciting?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
America's Arc
One of the proposed titles for the film Citizen Kane, a film many critics claim to be the best film ever, was The American. Without question, the main character Charles Foster Kane is "the American" they were referring to because his life represents not the common American life, or even the ideal American life, but the country itself.
The United States of America began when the castaways from Europe rose up to defeat the great British army to gain their independence. They began as a country of people who didn't know much about being in power, but knew that they wanted to have certain ideals that they illustrated in the Declaration of Independence.
Charles Foster Kane was very similar. He didn't fight for his fortune, but he did come from nothing but was then somehow selected to inherit a great fortune. At a young age, he took over a newspaper company, and on his first day, he created his "Declaration of Principles", which were promises that he would not be corrupt and deliver unbiased news, which the public deserved. However, when he signs this declaration, he is in a shadow, showing that he is "in the dark" about what is to come.
Much like Charles Foster Kane, America rose and became among the most powerful forces in the world because that's what they desired and felt they deserved. However, Kane begins to lose everybody's support when he refuses to make amends for others. For example, when his opponent in the race for governor threatens to expose his affair to the public, he stays in the race despite not having much of a chance rather than backing out to protect his image and his family. He does this because he is convinced that he is the best and nobody can do anything to him.
I find this to be the mindset of America as a country as well. America has plenty of power in the world, so they believe their way is the only way and refuse to make amends for others because of their ego, much like Kane. One example of this in American history is the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII because they felt risking 30,000 American lives in an invasion (which nobody denies would have been successful) was not worth it when they could just kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people. America did this because they truly believed they were better and that their lives meant more.
America's narrative arc thus has been identical to Kane's through his early years: start from nothing, but then gain power but promise to retain ideals, which are later tossed aside as they are corrupted by having too much power and by things they couldn't see coming. America has not yet encountered the complete downfall Kane did at the end of his life with no real relationships, but perhaps this movie was predicting it?
Charles Foster Kane was very similar. He didn't fight for his fortune, but he did come from nothing but was then somehow selected to inherit a great fortune. At a young age, he took over a newspaper company, and on his first day, he created his "Declaration of Principles", which were promises that he would not be corrupt and deliver unbiased news, which the public deserved. However, when he signs this declaration, he is in a shadow, showing that he is "in the dark" about what is to come.
Much like Charles Foster Kane, America rose and became among the most powerful forces in the world because that's what they desired and felt they deserved. However, Kane begins to lose everybody's support when he refuses to make amends for others. For example, when his opponent in the race for governor threatens to expose his affair to the public, he stays in the race despite not having much of a chance rather than backing out to protect his image and his family. He does this because he is convinced that he is the best and nobody can do anything to him.
I find this to be the mindset of America as a country as well. America has plenty of power in the world, so they believe their way is the only way and refuse to make amends for others because of their ego, much like Kane. One example of this in American history is the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII because they felt risking 30,000 American lives in an invasion (which nobody denies would have been successful) was not worth it when they could just kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people. America did this because they truly believed they were better and that their lives meant more.
America's narrative arc thus has been identical to Kane's through his early years: start from nothing, but then gain power but promise to retain ideals, which are later tossed aside as they are corrupted by having too much power and by things they couldn't see coming. America has not yet encountered the complete downfall Kane did at the end of his life with no real relationships, but perhaps this movie was predicting it?
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Are we still racist in voter registration?
Many people have heard of specific laws and literacy tests that prevented southern African-Americans from voting before the Civil Rights Movement, but most people are unaware of what Andrew Hacker calls the subtle laws that prevent minorities from voting today.
Hacker argues that by requiring formal photo identification such as a driver's license or passport to vote (as states have recently began to do), they are preventing African-Americans and other minorities, who are much less likely to have one of these government-issued documents, from voting.
Hacker specifically studies the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where over 53% of the black population is unlicensed, compared to only 15% of whites who don't have a license. These numbers are similar across the country, he claims. It is technically possible for unlicensed people to still get another permitted form of identification, but oftentimes African-Americans and other minorities, who are typically much more disadvantaged, do not have the resources to retrieve one of these pieces of identification.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is another way African-Americans are being prevented the right to vote. This act requires states to keep track of their voters, and to do that they would send out letters to all their voters, and cross off the people they could not find. The people that were crossed out lived in "mostly urban and minority areas" because these people tend to move more often or not have a permanent address, and thus preventing people in these areas from voting.
Of course, all these laws are justified by the fact that it prevents fraud, which it does, but it also prevents a lot of people, especially minorities, from voting.
Why does the government make these laws? Are they really that interested in preventing fraud which could help them or are they trying to eliminate a group of voters like Hacker suggests? Are these laws fair? Are there any alternative solutions?
Hacker argues that by requiring formal photo identification such as a driver's license or passport to vote (as states have recently began to do), they are preventing African-Americans and other minorities, who are much less likely to have one of these government-issued documents, from voting.
Hacker specifically studies the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where over 53% of the black population is unlicensed, compared to only 15% of whites who don't have a license. These numbers are similar across the country, he claims. It is technically possible for unlicensed people to still get another permitted form of identification, but oftentimes African-Americans and other minorities, who are typically much more disadvantaged, do not have the resources to retrieve one of these pieces of identification.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is another way African-Americans are being prevented the right to vote. This act requires states to keep track of their voters, and to do that they would send out letters to all their voters, and cross off the people they could not find. The people that were crossed out lived in "mostly urban and minority areas" because these people tend to move more often or not have a permanent address, and thus preventing people in these areas from voting.
Of course, all these laws are justified by the fact that it prevents fraud, which it does, but it also prevents a lot of people, especially minorities, from voting.
Why does the government make these laws? Are they really that interested in preventing fraud which could help them or are they trying to eliminate a group of voters like Hacker suggests? Are these laws fair? Are there any alternative solutions?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Influence of Gangsta Rap
Since the 1960's, gang involvement throughout the nation has been a major problem in nearly every city, and John Hagedorn, gang expert, believes this could be attributed to the rising popularity of what he calls "gangsta rap" music, which is "offensive mixes of misogyny, materialism, and glorified violence." He argues that because gangsta rap promotes violence, it encourages kids to join gangs, so when it became popular, it influenced a lot of kids into committing crimes and joining gangs. But could this type of music and culture really have this much of a negative influence?
Looking at the history of gangs and comparing that to the times when gangsta rap was most mainstream, there is definitely a correlation between the two, but this correlation contradicts Hagedorn's viewpoint that the rise gangsta rap caused the rise of gang activity. Instead, it suggests the exact opposite: that gangsta rap music must have stemmed from, not caused, high gang activity.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gangsta rap started in about 1985, during the height of gang violence, and became most prominent in the mid 1990's, after gang activity began to decline due to law enforcement changes in the early 1990's (according to Sudhir Venkatesh in Gang Leader for a Day). Therefore, since gangsta rap's popularity peaked slightly after gang crime did, it must be a result of gang activity and not a cause.
An explanation for this is that rappers, who come primarily from inner-city poor neighborhoods, are exposed to a high level of violence, and then rap about it. The time it takes for them to write and produce the songs and then have them circulate may take a few years, which explains why gangsta rap was still rising in popularity even as gang activity began to decline in the early 1990's.
Another problem I have with Hagedorn's (among others) viewpoint that gangsta rap music is a major cause of violence is that this type of music actually appeals just as much to suburban, upper class teens (who are drawn in by the rebellious nature of the music) than it does to inner-city, lower class teens who are actually exposed to this lifestyle. So, given this information, according to Hagedorn's viewpoint, we would see a rise in crime and gang activity in the suburbs as well, which is just straight up not the case.
I do understand that this gangsta rap music doesn't promote the right ideals and it could have an effect on some people's behavior, but I doubt that it can be an accurate reason for gang activity. Kids in these inner-city neighborhoods are exposed to so many other things, such as high unemployment rates, poor education, high crime rates, etc., that even without gangsta rap, gangs would still exist as prevalent as they are today.
Looking at the history of gangs and comparing that to the times when gangsta rap was most mainstream, there is definitely a correlation between the two, but this correlation contradicts Hagedorn's viewpoint that the rise gangsta rap caused the rise of gang activity. Instead, it suggests the exact opposite: that gangsta rap music must have stemmed from, not caused, high gang activity.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gangsta rap started in about 1985, during the height of gang violence, and became most prominent in the mid 1990's, after gang activity began to decline due to law enforcement changes in the early 1990's (according to Sudhir Venkatesh in Gang Leader for a Day). Therefore, since gangsta rap's popularity peaked slightly after gang crime did, it must be a result of gang activity and not a cause.
An explanation for this is that rappers, who come primarily from inner-city poor neighborhoods, are exposed to a high level of violence, and then rap about it. The time it takes for them to write and produce the songs and then have them circulate may take a few years, which explains why gangsta rap was still rising in popularity even as gang activity began to decline in the early 1990's.
Another problem I have with Hagedorn's (among others) viewpoint that gangsta rap music is a major cause of violence is that this type of music actually appeals just as much to suburban, upper class teens (who are drawn in by the rebellious nature of the music) than it does to inner-city, lower class teens who are actually exposed to this lifestyle. So, given this information, according to Hagedorn's viewpoint, we would see a rise in crime and gang activity in the suburbs as well, which is just straight up not the case.
I do understand that this gangsta rap music doesn't promote the right ideals and it could have an effect on some people's behavior, but I doubt that it can be an accurate reason for gang activity. Kids in these inner-city neighborhoods are exposed to so many other things, such as high unemployment rates, poor education, high crime rates, etc., that even without gangsta rap, gangs would still exist as prevalent as they are today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)