This webpage shows the Cleveland Indians masocot, and then 16 other illustrations that use the same face but wearing different things. Every illustration portrays a different stereotype that a race could be labled as. The aurthor's main point is that the if it wasn't the Cleveland Indians, then could could probably be one of these other illustrations. We have been so used to Chief Wahoo and became so a customed to the way he looks, that we haven't even thought of what a different races stereotype would look like with the same face. The author is trying to show his audience that it is very easy to just through a hat on the face or color it black, and then the whole image and stereotype would change. It shows that stereotypes are just made up by what other people think that race wears or looks like. It also shows how racial the Cleveland Indians mascot really is because that isn't what every Indian looks like at all. So if it was the Cleveland Gansta's then it would have a stereotypical black man with chains on and a ball cap, because that is the stereotype of them.
There is a stereotypical illustration of Indains, Japanese, French, Negroes, Latinos, Irsih, Italians, Africans, Germans, Polish, Jews, Chinese, Skinheads, Spanish, Gansta's, White Folks, Catholics. They are all very racial and stereotypical; for example the white folks have a hood on hinting that he is part of the KKK. The Polish person has a dunce cap on, and the Africans have a tribal bone through there nose. The Germans have a Nazi symbol around the neck and a Hitler mustache. Every head though has the same smile, nose, and almost the same eyes. The Japanese and Chinese faces have smaller eyes, hinting the stereotype that they havee slanted eyes. The Gansta's are the only one that it doens't show there eyes, it is just solid black.
What would the Middle East face look like now since 9/11 as occurred?
Do you think any of these illustrations depict the race wrong(not just the fact that they are all stereotypes and awful depictions)?
I feel that the middle east person would have a turbon on his head and some sort of beard on his face. I always see illustrations that depict people from that region that way. I also think some of these racial stereotypes are wrong. The Germans one kinda gets to me because it represents someone like Adolf Hitler, but when he was doing his big thing around WWII. HIs big thing was to have the average german be blonde with blues eyes, but this illutration is ironic because it is the exact opposite of what he wanted. I just think that these illustrations are atleast the old stereotypes of the races that they are portraying, becasue i don't see people of that heritage or region like that at all. I did like how the author portrayed them all on the same face though because it really shows how similar people really are. I thought this was an interesting subject and liked discussing it in class.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Somerville Ch. 1 "Queering the Color Line"
This chapter goes into detail about how people in the early 18th century and beyond started to racialize sex. It shows the simularities of how race became what it is today and how being homosexual is following the same progression. The authors main purpose for this chapter is to show how old scientist tried to show how people where inferior or disabled if they liked the same sex. The author tells his readers that "My focus here is on how these writers and thinkers conceptualized sexuality through a reliance on, and deployment of, racial ideologies, that is, the cultural assumptions and systems of representation about race through which individuals understood their relationships within the world" (17). So he just tells his readers that he is using all of the believed methods that were once thought true, to show how people then thought of homosexuals.
The chapter begins with Siobhan explaining some of the early thoughts of sexuality and the people that created them. Havelock Ellis played a vital role studying sex and hinted that the studyn of race is closely related to the study of sex. It was thought that problems in a persons sexuality created the thoughts of homosexuals and were shaped be race as well. Sexology in the US began in the 1880's and then, homosexuality, was considered very abnormal. People like Ellis wrought many book on the study of sexuality and how it was natural, which made many people question there sex. Homosexuals began to be called a discrete group of people, thus just like black people did. But it was medicine that would decide what would be done with these people and not government or anything else. In the Nineteenth Century race was decribe was based on "geography, religion, class, or color" (21). There were two basic ways to understand how race became to be, Monogeny and polygeny. But it was polygeny that thought "blacks were permanently inferior to whites and that racial mixture would have dangerous. . .consequences" (22-23). So the body then became the main focus on determining the difference in race and sexuality. "scientific assertions about racial differences were often articulated through gender"(25). Early scientist tried to make points that the female black woman had a bigger buttocks than a white women (26). That a normal person would be considered a white person. This goes the same for people being homosexual, they were not considered normal and they had physical differences that proved it. It was said that they would be a threat to white people and purity (30). Many people think Homosexual is a bad word to call people. It was said that they were a third sex and hald breeds of what other people were. Then the thought that they were pervesed came along. It was connected that black men were perversed to white women. That lesbians were perversed to have feelings for other women being of the same race or being even worse if it was a different race.
Do you see the simularities of Race and Sex, and do you think they are both very important?
Do you think that race is connected to sex and sex is connected to race, inadvertinatly?
I thought this was an interesting chapter to read. I personally found it to be dry and boring though at the same time. I felt that it was very deep and almost hard to understand in some points but the ones i could see, i thought they were interesting. I do think that race and sexuality are very important in today's society. I feel that being homosexual is a choice in many ways but that is a whole different and long subject. I also can see that race and sex are related but i don't think that they are closely related enough to affect one when the other is affected. I find it a good subject for this class and can't wait to really understand it better after our discussion.
The chapter begins with Siobhan explaining some of the early thoughts of sexuality and the people that created them. Havelock Ellis played a vital role studying sex and hinted that the studyn of race is closely related to the study of sex. It was thought that problems in a persons sexuality created the thoughts of homosexuals and were shaped be race as well. Sexology in the US began in the 1880's and then, homosexuality, was considered very abnormal. People like Ellis wrought many book on the study of sexuality and how it was natural, which made many people question there sex. Homosexuals began to be called a discrete group of people, thus just like black people did. But it was medicine that would decide what would be done with these people and not government or anything else. In the Nineteenth Century race was decribe was based on "geography, religion, class, or color" (21). There were two basic ways to understand how race became to be, Monogeny and polygeny. But it was polygeny that thought "blacks were permanently inferior to whites and that racial mixture would have dangerous. . .consequences" (22-23). So the body then became the main focus on determining the difference in race and sexuality. "scientific assertions about racial differences were often articulated through gender"(25). Early scientist tried to make points that the female black woman had a bigger buttocks than a white women (26). That a normal person would be considered a white person. This goes the same for people being homosexual, they were not considered normal and they had physical differences that proved it. It was said that they would be a threat to white people and purity (30). Many people think Homosexual is a bad word to call people. It was said that they were a third sex and hald breeds of what other people were. Then the thought that they were pervesed came along. It was connected that black men were perversed to white women. That lesbians were perversed to have feelings for other women being of the same race or being even worse if it was a different race.
Do you see the simularities of Race and Sex, and do you think they are both very important?
Do you think that race is connected to sex and sex is connected to race, inadvertinatly?
I thought this was an interesting chapter to read. I personally found it to be dry and boring though at the same time. I felt that it was very deep and almost hard to understand in some points but the ones i could see, i thought they were interesting. I do think that race and sexuality are very important in today's society. I feel that being homosexual is a choice in many ways but that is a whole different and long subject. I also can see that race and sex are related but i don't think that they are closely related enough to affect one when the other is affected. I find it a good subject for this class and can't wait to really understand it better after our discussion.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
A Challenge to Democracy
This video was about how the United States made every Japanese family and every family that even looked Japanese evaculated out of their homes. The video shows how the UNited States moved them out there and how they did in their new homes. It is an older film and shows more of the happy side of the relocation centers than what was really happening.
They were taken mostly from the west coast and put into "relocation centers" across the mid-United States. The government called them a deslocated people, so the word prisoner wasn't used. Even though that is what they were. Each relocation center carried anywhere from 7,000-18,000 people. Inside the camps, people were split into blocks, around 300 people lived in them. The whole place was bounded by barb wired fence and guarded by army officals. The Japanese people were provided very little in their new homes, and many of the people had to leave all their belongings behind. They ate at in large places called mess halls, where it costed them money. Most of the camps were located in the desert so japanese people had to irrigate the land to grow food. It was said that they grew vegitables where it was thought to be unproductive. They built that civiliation from the ground up, building roads, sewage, farms, and many other things. Many Japanese people had to draw from their saving to live decently in the camps. The relocation centers were used to train many young men and women to do variuos professional jobs. They even had voting and a governmental system. They did say living was tough there and it was said that the main goal was to get them all back out into the UNted States and to their homes.
Did you think we trained the Japanese people in the camps on purpose, so we had people to replace the one we lost in the war?
Do you think we placed the Japanese people back over the United States on purpose in certain places, like we were worried?
I think this video is very biased. It shows all the positive things the Japanese people did in their relocation center. Which equal containment camps in my mind and many other peoples. I couldn't get how they showed so many people doing things and making them out to be positive. They farm, built roads, and sewage because if they didn't, it'd be like living in the olden age. The government provided so very little hat it is shocking. I agree with both my questions and think we did this all because there was a background meaning behind it all. I think it was a very sad thing we did to and can compare almost to slavery.
They were taken mostly from the west coast and put into "relocation centers" across the mid-United States. The government called them a deslocated people, so the word prisoner wasn't used. Even though that is what they were. Each relocation center carried anywhere from 7,000-18,000 people. Inside the camps, people were split into blocks, around 300 people lived in them. The whole place was bounded by barb wired fence and guarded by army officals. The Japanese people were provided very little in their new homes, and many of the people had to leave all their belongings behind. They ate at in large places called mess halls, where it costed them money. Most of the camps were located in the desert so japanese people had to irrigate the land to grow food. It was said that they grew vegitables where it was thought to be unproductive. They built that civiliation from the ground up, building roads, sewage, farms, and many other things. Many Japanese people had to draw from their saving to live decently in the camps. The relocation centers were used to train many young men and women to do variuos professional jobs. They even had voting and a governmental system. They did say living was tough there and it was said that the main goal was to get them all back out into the UNted States and to their homes.
Did you think we trained the Japanese people in the camps on purpose, so we had people to replace the one we lost in the war?
Do you think we placed the Japanese people back over the United States on purpose in certain places, like we were worried?
I think this video is very biased. It shows all the positive things the Japanese people did in their relocation center. Which equal containment camps in my mind and many other peoples. I couldn't get how they showed so many people doing things and making them out to be positive. They farm, built roads, and sewage because if they didn't, it'd be like living in the olden age. The government provided so very little hat it is shocking. I agree with both my questions and think we did this all because there was a background meaning behind it all. I think it was a very sad thing we did to and can compare almost to slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)