Magazine Cover Promotes Age Old Stereotypes

Today I found an article that exemplifies many of the issues that we have been discussing in class about race. The article was actually a response to a magazine cover that many people found to be racist. The cover (right) belongs to a highly acclaimed financial magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek. This cover art depicts a home overflowing with money and four people sitting inside the house. The four people all appear to be minorities, either Latino or African American. When the drawing is viewed in relation to the title, "The Great American Housing Rebound", it still doesn't quite make sense. I would expect that the article would be talking about how minorities are helping to improve the housing market but instead the article talks about the housing market in Phoenix which I would assume readers are supposed to contextualize is a city filled with minorities. Other than this, the cover of the magazine seems very irrelevant.

What stood out to me when I first saw the cover was the expression of the African American man in the lower right hand corner. His exaggerated features and crazed look eerily reminded me of the 20th century cartoon clips and posters that we viewed in class a few weeks ago. Dedrick Muhammad, a senior director of economics at the NAACP said that,"[the drawing] still puts forth a historically racist depiction that minorities are out grabbing money and benefiting from it". Muhammad seems to illuminate an unspoken fear that the white majority seems to hold against many minorities in America. There always seems to be a new (minority) group to blame for the problems in the country.

In order to combat the criticism, the magazine's editor wrote an apology that said, "Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions,which we regret. Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again, we'd do it differently"(Politico). Obviously, the magazine did not intend to be present a racist imagine but their apology could not seem any less heartless to me. The editor never outright says that the magazine regretted publishing the image but rather that they regret the "strong reactions" that will now taint the name of their magazine. Instances like these make me wonder how far our society has come from the racist beliefs of the past. I am confident that racism still exists but with little "mistakes" like this one, the hope of progression may never be fulfilled in our lifetimes.

The Best Picture Goes To...Michelle Obama?

Last night, my family and I, like millions of Americans tuned in to the Acadamy Awards. By 10:30, our patience had dwindled down to almost nothing while waiting for the biggest award, Best Picture, to be revealed. We were quite surprised to see the screen turn to our first lady Michelle Obama in a beautiful gown in the White House with the envelope. I was confused at first as to why SHE was presenting the award considering that it is usually some famous actor. By this time, we had put it together that she would undoubtedly be mixing in politics into the Oscars. I found an article from the Washington Post that talked about the backlash that she received from her surprise appearance  Obama's message was about how important the arts are. This message seemed to tie in perfectly with the overall theme of the Oscars.

Her controversial guest appearance could not go without criticism. Many critics said that it was not her place to be; that The First Lady should not have been in Hollywood at all. Also, it was interesting that the video with Michelle Obama at the White House also included military personell standing behind her. If she had just been talking about the arts and there were no military personell in the background, there still would have been backlash but I don't think that some people would have had such an intense reaction to her seemingly harmless presence. This whole incident seemed to remark on the idea of separation  Some Americans did not feel comfortable with mixing politics and their entertainment. I would argue that even the television and movies that we see everyday may in fact contain commentary about our society and can relate to politics. Do you think that Michelle's appearance at the Oscars was out of line?

NRA Aiming at a Surprisingly Young Audience

Recently there has been even more attention on the issue of gun laws because of tragedies that have swept the nation like the Sandy Hook School shooting. The most well known proponents of keeping gun rights is the NRA (National Rifle Association). According to this article, the NRA has released an iPhone app that is targeted at a younger audience. This app called "Practice Range" it is quite self explanatory considering that the app consists of virtual shooting ranges. What is even more remarkable is that the app is rated for ages 4+ in the App Store. Of course there are countless shooting games that exist primarily in video game form and many of these are rated mature( ages 17 and up). The difference is though that the shooting video games are often very gory and brutal whereas the purpose of the app is,"[to] instill safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic situations. It strikes the right balance of gaming and safety education, allowing you to enjoy the most authentic experience possible"according to an NRA spokesperson. The use of the word "authentic" already does not sit well in my mind. Even if the game does not include shooting people, it is supposed to simulate shooting a target. Does the NRA really believe this content is alright for 4 year olds? I do have to adress that in my community, I feel like people are very close minded and may not understand when it comes to gun rights. Many people around here do not practice shooting as a sport and only see the negatives. By putting this app in the market, the NRA is not promoting violence rather a sport or a hobby. Do you think the NRA was out of line by releasing this app?

A Muslim As Your "Average" American?

Recently in class we have been discussing the massive influence that Superbowl commercials have. These commercials themselves are watched almost as closely as the game. This whole conversation got me thinking about the power of TV advertising. I read this article from the New York Times that described a (non-superbowl) commercial that had a unique "twist". The Prudential advertisement was for its retirement plan in the "Day One" campaign. The campaign follows real people on "day one" of their retirement. The commercial featured a normal American man who was embarking on his first day of retirement after his career of 19 years. This man is seen enjoying "normal"American pastimes such as fishing with his grandchildren and sitting down to a wholesome family meal. The name of the man is Mujahid Abdul-Rashid; and yes he is Muslim.
The commerical is presenting this Muslim-American in a way that nearly every American of his age could relate to. Instead of being seen as a "threat to national security" as, we hate to believe it but, many stereotypes make him out to be, he is in a position that allows for him to be seen as a "normal" American. Mr. Abdul Rashid commented on the fact that being Muslim got him the commercial by saying, "I'd never thought about the ad in those terms, because the thrust of the commercial had nothing to do with my religion whatsoever"(New York Times). Can this really be true? I feel like the American people are trying to become more accepting of Muslims and seeing a commercial with a Muslim categorized as a "normal" American would only enhance this process. In other words, this commercial seems like a way of sending a message about the way American society should be. The commercial presented a strong man who was not afraid of his identity. Does this not sound like a definition of American to you?

Academic Freedom

I recently read an article that reminded me a lot of a topic that we discussed in the beginning of the year relating to Civil Liberties. In this discussion, we debated if reciting "The Pledge of Allegiance" (that mentions God) was obstructing the American ideal of Separation of Church and State. The article that I read talked about how four states are considering new legislation about teaching the theory of evolution in science classes and also bringing up God in the creation story. What initially struck me was that, according to the article, "the proposed laws were framed around the concept of "academic freedom". The phrase "academic freedom" seems so vague. Is this insinuating that in order to have "academic freedom" some religious explanation is required?

The main root of this argument is that teachers are struggling to find enough scientific evidence of Evolution and Creation so in an attempt to clarify these concepts with the students, they will teach from a religious perspective. This is  understandable reasoning but many critics think that this would be going outside of the boundaries of the basic public school institutions that can only exist if there is no clash between Church and State. Many critics also fear that this legislation could lead to a rise in the Creationist form of teaching in schools. In case you do not know the term, Creationism is the religious belief that the world was created by a supernatural being. The Public Education System has had a difficult time drawing the line between religious beliefs and scientific evidence when dealing with controversial topics such as Evolution or Creation. The Public Education System would like to keep it's purely science based curriculum but it is a challenge to remain purely base on evidence when teachers feel like their students are not grasping these certain concepts and have a lot of unanswerable questions. Do you think that these laws, if passed, could impact the future of the Public Education System?

Final Exam: Voting in the Dark

Natural Disasters have always rattled our nation. I remember the devastation of Hurricane Katrina when I was younger and much more recently, Hurricane Sandy. When searching for my artifact, I came across this image that I think represents the media’s view on the superstorm. I believe that this photograph is an important contemporary American artifact because it portrays the theme of resilience. 

This picture shows a woman in New York preparing to vote but there is no power so the Election Official is using a headlamp to see the ballots. It is important to note that the woman is elderly in the picture because oftentimes, the elderly are seen as weak. Instead, this woman is coming out to vote even though she may face hardships because of the storm. Another interesting detail is the light that only appears to shine on the emergency ballots. To me, this represents the true importance of having a voice even in times of disaster. I think the caption below is also worth examining. It says, “Election Official Christina Fox uses a headlamp to illuminate emergency ballots and check voters in while shivering in the dark on Nov. 6, 2012 in Yorktown, N.Y.” The use of the word “shivering” makes the viewer feel pain for these people and also shows that they are pushing through.

This image reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut's explanation of the redemptive arc in his short story titled “Here is a Lesson in Creative Writing”. He explains, “[The story]: Somebody gets into trouble, gets out of it again. It’s not accidental that the line ends up higher than where it began”(Vonnegut 349). In the case of Hurricane Sandy, I believe this can be used as a model to understand the reaction of the American public. This story would go:People on the East Coast were affected, there were power outages, damage, and death but the media is portraying the positive end by showing that the people are resilient by coming out to vote. In other words, their voices are not being silenced by the storm. In the picture, the elderly woman provides an “encouraging ending” to the public because of her perseverance.

Another connection I saw was to William James story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omalas”. In the story, the main question is if a society should give up the happiness of one for the happiness of others. Of the one unhappiness, “They all know it is there, all the people of Omalas. Some of them have come to see it,others are content merely to know it is there(James 282). To me, this can be interpreted as the American public (happiness) and those affected by Sandy(unhappiness). Many people donated money to aid them yet what more could have been done? Americans may think this is not my problem. The woman sitting at the table checking in voters exemplifies the idea of helping out and she has walked away from Omalas.

This image can be further explained by Molly Klare’s blogpost titled “The Nation by Storm” She writes,” I would say an American value is to tough things out…Americans in general are hardheaded. Ever since people came to America and had to make it on their own, they have been making it anyway they could”.The people who continued to go out to vote in areas affected by Sandy are “toughing things out” and want to show that they are resilient. The media goes out of its way to show positive problem solving through this picture rather than continuing to focus on pictures of the wreckage that is usually associated with the storm.

Helicopter Parents

A literal interpretation of Helicopter Parents

As second semester of Junior year rapidly approaches, myself and many of my peers are beginning to feel the pressure of the college search. As cheesy as this may sound, for many of us, college will be a time where we can embark on a new chapter of our lives (away from our parents at last!) But what would you do if you felt like your parents were interfering too much on your "new life"?

A few days ago, my dad showed me an article that he wanted to hear my take on. The article described how a college student, Aubrey Ireland, felt that her parents were too involved in her life that she actually won a court case that put a restraining order on her parents. According to the article, Aubrey's parents set up tracking software on her phone and computer to see who she had been talking to and what sites she was visiting. Already, this seems a little bit ridiculous. The student is an adult, living away from home so why should her parents feel the need to monitor her every action? If this isn't enough, her parents would also drive nearly 600 miles from their home to arrive unannounced at the college and go to some of their daughters theater performances. The parents justified their actions by saying that they were worried that Aubrey was using illegal drugs,was being promiscuous, and was having mental issues. Aubrey denied these allegations and said that everything was under control. She wanted to experience life on her own and if she were to make the wrong decisions, then the consequences would fall on her.

As Americans, I feel like our society puts a large emphasis on privacy. Everyone has the right to keep information or parts of their lives hidden, This case is especially interesting because it deals with the relationship between parents and child. These helicopter parents seem to have good intentions but where should the line be drawn?