This is the conclusion of a series of three episodes. In this episode, the narrator starts by pointing out that race is all around us. It is one of the things we first perceive in early childhood, i.e. different color, eyes, hair, etc. even at an early stage, children are subjected to racial stereotypes which they reinforce as they grow up. Some people deny any existence of stereotypes, but according to this film, those who deny the stereotypes end up reciting them. There is somehow very limited room to escape these stereotypes because they surround us in everyday life.
One other issue that was raised in this episode is the construction of race and privilege. The narrator states that “being classified Black, Latino, means less privilege than being classified white” (ethnic notions). In this point, we see that there is some form of advantage that comes with being labeled white and this advantage is what Johnson calls ‘white privilege.’ In the film, it was also stated that what makes race are the laws and practices assorted to different physical features e.g. slavery of blacks, conquest of Native Indians affects immigration up to date.
Further, the film points out that immigrants in history times came seeking opportunity in America. Yet they were made to labor in dangerous jobs. They were made to stay in slums due to class difference. Again, the stereotypes were reinforced. Italians were seen as prostitutes, lazy. These poor conditions of immigrants led to disease out breaks among them. However, disease and poor conditions were explained as a result of the immigrants’ racial affiliation.
Laws in the courts were also race biased. For example, an African American man was hung for allegedly killing a white girl without proper investigation. The courts had to play a role in giving citizenship to the immigrants. But according to the courts, citizenship was based on whiteness. This led to a lot of debate of whether Jews were white. It was then ruled that Jews were not white as whiteness was what the white man said it was. In this case, only Caucasians were considered white. Whiteness also played a role in who acquired land. Land was apportioned according to race and citizenship. Only citizens could acquire land. And if only Caucasians were granted citizenship, then it meant that they were the only ones to be land owners. Hence by the way land was apportioned; white privilege was reinforced in the long run. Land was seized from all those who owned it but were not citizens.
Race was also seen in the allocation of houses by the housing administration. Houses were allocated according to different rates that were given colors. I.e. those houses given the color green were of high rate, color red was for the lowest rate houses. The green colored houses were allocated to whites while the red colored ones were allocated to people of color. Therefore, we see that color also played a role in public services.
At the end of the film, the narrator calls for us to be color blind and live as one.
As I watched this film, I was amazed at how the definition of whiteness was twisted around to always narrow it down to Caucasians.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The page I analyzed on facebook is of a Caucasian female who comes from Chicago. She is nineteen years of age and is in her sophomore year in college. She states that she is interested in men. When I looked at her photos, I picked some when she was in Florida for spring break with her friends. The pictures show her and friends having fun on the beach. All her friends on the pictures are Caucasian females showing that she usually is found around Caucasian friends hence restricting her friends to one particular race. This is one way in which race is constructed on facebook because it allows you to invite friends to your page thereby narrowing the people that can view your profile to only those you consider friends.
Other pictures on the same spring break trip shows her and friends in a hotel they used to live in. by looking at the nature of the hotel pictures, one can tell that this person and her friends are of an upper middle class social economic status. I reached at this conclusion by also analyzing the types of clothes that she wore with her friends. This is another way in which facebook encourages people of the same social economic status to be found together and share their pages. I say so because the pictures of friends you put on your facebook kind of tell what type of a person you are and so most people mind to put only pictures of people that are their true friends and those that give a correct representation of different aspects of their lives. Therefore, facebook constructs social economic status by restricting people’s invitations to mostly those that are at the same social economic status as that of the person inviting others.
Finally, my analysis of this page made me see how gender and sexuality is constructed on facebook. One of the things asked for on your profile is gender but it also asks for your interests. Even though this person indicates that she is interested in men, you can see from her pictures and friends that she is more oriented around her female friends. Again female that indicate to have interest in men are generally thought to eventually end up in a heterosexual relationships, while those that indicate that they are interested in people of their gender may be thought to eventually end up in either gay or lesbian relationships. I.e. a female interested in females may be thought to be lesbian while a male interested in males may be thought to be gay.
It was really interesting to look at people’s pages and not only look at them for the sake of doing so. But looking at the pages in an analytical way made me see things that I would ordinarily not see. This was a wonderful exercise.
Other pictures on the same spring break trip shows her and friends in a hotel they used to live in. by looking at the nature of the hotel pictures, one can tell that this person and her friends are of an upper middle class social economic status. I reached at this conclusion by also analyzing the types of clothes that she wore with her friends. This is another way in which facebook encourages people of the same social economic status to be found together and share their pages. I say so because the pictures of friends you put on your facebook kind of tell what type of a person you are and so most people mind to put only pictures of people that are their true friends and those that give a correct representation of different aspects of their lives. Therefore, facebook constructs social economic status by restricting people’s invitations to mostly those that are at the same social economic status as that of the person inviting others.
Finally, my analysis of this page made me see how gender and sexuality is constructed on facebook. One of the things asked for on your profile is gender but it also asks for your interests. Even though this person indicates that she is interested in men, you can see from her pictures and friends that she is more oriented around her female friends. Again female that indicate to have interest in men are generally thought to eventually end up in a heterosexual relationships, while those that indicate that they are interested in people of their gender may be thought to eventually end up in either gay or lesbian relationships. I.e. a female interested in females may be thought to be lesbian while a male interested in males may be thought to be gay.
It was really interesting to look at people’s pages and not only look at them for the sake of doing so. But looking at the pages in an analytical way made me see things that I would ordinarily not see. This was a wonderful exercise.
Monday, April 2, 2007
RACE IN CYBERSPACE
RACE IN CYBERSPACE
This is an article by Tara McPherson where she writes about race in cyberspace. She highlights how “cyberwhitening” takes place via the creation of new regional identities that refigure white southern masculinity by borrowing from the language of the civil rights struggle” (120). She starts by stating that she ended up with many outposts of Dixie in cyberspace one summer when she opened up the site of the Confederate Embassy in Washington, D.C. while working on a manuscript about race and Southern femininity. She writes that there are new media theories which cannot be reconciled to old theories. “Such theories often maintain that cyberspace functions as a kind of public theater, ‘a base for the cybog’ [who rewrite] the standard of bounded, embodied individual” (118). This shows that “prosthetic communication enables computer users to overcome the self/body binary” (118). Hence the conclusion thus far is that “prolonged exposure to cyberspace irrevocably produces multiple selves, or at least more selves than one entered the Net with” (118). Then she addresses what happens to this transformed embodied identity. She quotes Turkle who states that “life on the screen is also without origins and foundation” (118). Most especially uprooted is one’s rootedness to place. Though it may be seen as a positive part of internet on the other hand, this loss of rootedness to place is as a result of the “internet’s ability to overcome geographical boundaries, envisioning it as a kind of yellow brick road leading to a harmonious global village” (118). McPherson states that the neo-Confederates guarding the portals of the Confederate embassy in cyberspace seem to pay no much attention to the prosthetic nature of cyberspace. They do not pay attention to the internet’s capability to “many selves too inhabit one body” (119). She further states that the work of the neo-confederate in cyberspace reveals a very sincere attempt to make self in the world and to articulate a very particular and racially naturalized presence. This she calls “a very serious battle over the demands of place, race, and identity [in which] the cyber-rebels are reconstructing Dixie and its citizens. Then she states how cyber communities, like those of neo- confederates invoke a specific register of place which “evade precise discussion about race or racism” (119). Race is one of the focal points through which public discourse has turned on in this nation, especially in the south. She cites historical images of the first half twentieth century which insisted upon racial differences. Some of these differences included labeling “whiteness as independent and separate from blackness” (119).To illustrate these differences, she uses the ‘Overt’ versus ‘covert' labels. The difference between the two is that the overt “brings together figurations of racial difference in order to fix the categories while the [covert] enacts a separation that nonetheless achieves a similar end” (119). She further states that “this separation is very much in evidence in the neo-Dixie of cyberspace, a place which is nothing if not white” (119). The sole purpose of Dixie cyberspace is to preserve the Southern heritage. To preserve southern heritage however, “means one must be racist” even though this is denied by those that uphold the purpose. They abandon any overt imaging of blackness or explicit expression of racism, therefore, denying any labels on them as racist.
As I read through this chapter, my eyes were opened to see the internet in a different way. I have never thought much about it being used as a race media because so much racism is hidden in it that you cannot easily see it. This leads me to ask whether racism has truly ended. Most people say there is no more racism because they do not see such things as slavery that directly depicted racism. However, through reading such articles, I have seen that racism is still there though it is in what I would call a ‘diplomatic form.’ I say it is diplomatic in the sense that it cannot be easily seen unless you dig deeper for the diplomacy that was used behind the scenes. Therefore, we should all take it as a challenge upon us to educate others of the knowledge we have acquired in this class.
This is an article by Tara McPherson where she writes about race in cyberspace. She highlights how “cyberwhitening” takes place via the creation of new regional identities that refigure white southern masculinity by borrowing from the language of the civil rights struggle” (120). She starts by stating that she ended up with many outposts of Dixie in cyberspace one summer when she opened up the site of the Confederate Embassy in Washington, D.C. while working on a manuscript about race and Southern femininity. She writes that there are new media theories which cannot be reconciled to old theories. “Such theories often maintain that cyberspace functions as a kind of public theater, ‘a base for the cybog’ [who rewrite] the standard of bounded, embodied individual” (118). This shows that “prosthetic communication enables computer users to overcome the self/body binary” (118). Hence the conclusion thus far is that “prolonged exposure to cyberspace irrevocably produces multiple selves, or at least more selves than one entered the Net with” (118). Then she addresses what happens to this transformed embodied identity. She quotes Turkle who states that “life on the screen is also without origins and foundation” (118). Most especially uprooted is one’s rootedness to place. Though it may be seen as a positive part of internet on the other hand, this loss of rootedness to place is as a result of the “internet’s ability to overcome geographical boundaries, envisioning it as a kind of yellow brick road leading to a harmonious global village” (118). McPherson states that the neo-Confederates guarding the portals of the Confederate embassy in cyberspace seem to pay no much attention to the prosthetic nature of cyberspace. They do not pay attention to the internet’s capability to “many selves too inhabit one body” (119). She further states that the work of the neo-confederate in cyberspace reveals a very sincere attempt to make self in the world and to articulate a very particular and racially naturalized presence. This she calls “a very serious battle over the demands of place, race, and identity [in which] the cyber-rebels are reconstructing Dixie and its citizens. Then she states how cyber communities, like those of neo- confederates invoke a specific register of place which “evade precise discussion about race or racism” (119). Race is one of the focal points through which public discourse has turned on in this nation, especially in the south. She cites historical images of the first half twentieth century which insisted upon racial differences. Some of these differences included labeling “whiteness as independent and separate from blackness” (119).To illustrate these differences, she uses the ‘Overt’ versus ‘covert' labels. The difference between the two is that the overt “brings together figurations of racial difference in order to fix the categories while the [covert] enacts a separation that nonetheless achieves a similar end” (119). She further states that “this separation is very much in evidence in the neo-Dixie of cyberspace, a place which is nothing if not white” (119). The sole purpose of Dixie cyberspace is to preserve the Southern heritage. To preserve southern heritage however, “means one must be racist” even though this is denied by those that uphold the purpose. They abandon any overt imaging of blackness or explicit expression of racism, therefore, denying any labels on them as racist.
As I read through this chapter, my eyes were opened to see the internet in a different way. I have never thought much about it being used as a race media because so much racism is hidden in it that you cannot easily see it. This leads me to ask whether racism has truly ended. Most people say there is no more racism because they do not see such things as slavery that directly depicted racism. However, through reading such articles, I have seen that racism is still there though it is in what I would call a ‘diplomatic form.’ I say it is diplomatic in the sense that it cannot be easily seen unless you dig deeper for the diplomacy that was used behind the scenes. Therefore, we should all take it as a challenge upon us to educate others of the knowledge we have acquired in this class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)