America is an extremely unique country in that nearly every single inhabitant, citizen or not, has their roots in another country. During the colonial period, the indigenous native peoples were all but wiped out and are now reduced to almost meager populations. What ensued over the next three centuries were wave after wave after wave of immigrations, starting with Northern and Western Europeans, moving furthermore to Southern and Eastern Europeans, East Asians, and Latin Americans. Immigration has continued to intensify as time has gone on, motivated my the promise (or rather, premise) of a "better life" that comes with enhanced economic opportunity as well as political, social, and religious freedoms.
However, it is quite obvious that the many millions of people who emigrated to this country did not leave their respective cultures behind. Rather, they brought their cultures with them in full-force and projected it onto as large a scale as possible. This is tremendously evident in all aspects of our lives today. The most prevalent example that comes to mind is when going out for a meal. A common question asked is "What do you feel like eating?". More often than not, the response would be "Mexican" or "Italian" or "Chinese". Rarely ever do you hear someone say "American". Also, the traditional ways in which people celebrate their holidays has carried over immensely. While, for many people, "home" is thousands of miles away (and often generations away), their home culture is very close and tangible.
-Dylan Parker
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Films: A key to the subconscious
Look at almost any major motion picture released in the past century, and you will undoubtedly come across numerous stereotypes and generalizations. These can be evident in the forms of characters, events, or settings written into the plot that, subtle or not, often represent a greater mentality. Hollywood films have long been an outlet for mass forms of expression, often going so far as to characterize a group or a generation. Another, more harmful thing that films have tended to characterize are a world of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Nowhere is this more evident than the role that Arab characters so often play. In nearly every film, an Arab character is portrayed as a savage, brutal, almost inhumane individual who lacks the necessary social grace to even communicate with sophisticated Western counterparts. This is both offensive and demeaning to Arabs everywhere and has actually increased in recent years, despite the fact that communication between the Arab and Western worlds is at an all-time high.
Where does this come from, however? In my opinion, it all stems from a lack of understanding. For centuries, the Arab world was extremely mysterious and even exotic to the average Westerner. Since geographical, political, and cultural factors prevented a true cultural exchange between the two worlds, an air of uncertainty existed. This uncertainty soon grew into animosity and outright rejection of Arab people, and they came to be viewed as lesser individuals. An instance such as this shows that while technology and communication mediums have made the world far smaller, certain prejudices die hard.
-Dylan Parker
Where does this come from, however? In my opinion, it all stems from a lack of understanding. For centuries, the Arab world was extremely mysterious and even exotic to the average Westerner. Since geographical, political, and cultural factors prevented a true cultural exchange between the two worlds, an air of uncertainty existed. This uncertainty soon grew into animosity and outright rejection of Arab people, and they came to be viewed as lesser individuals. An instance such as this shows that while technology and communication mediums have made the world far smaller, certain prejudices die hard.
-Dylan Parker
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Rebranding Arab Society
We spent a good deal of time in Thursday’s class pondering why the popular portrayal of Arabs in film and television appears to be overwhelmingly negative. As was made evident to us, films and televisions shows produced since the inception of the medium have predominantly featured Arab characters in violent, barbaric roles. In earlier cinema, the typical Arab character was a wealthy, exotic, short-tempered man in possession of a host of women. They would either help or hurt the (usually white) main character, depending on their fickle attitudes.
Today, such images have largely been discredited and discarded. Though classical portrayals are nevertheless heralded as classic masterpieces of cinema, to re-imagine that stereotype in the present day would be terribly distasteful. Yet, the modern image of Arab characters is perhaps even more on the antagonist side. They appear more often than not in the role of a terrorist or other form of militant, usually rebelling against Western culture in general. Though several attempts have been made to balance the spectrum with heroic Arab characters, the efforts usually appear forced and fall flat.
What causes such a continual negative portrayal? Are Hollywood and the entertainment industry guilty of holding such base racist beliefs? Aren’t they aware that elements of the public have caught on to this trend?
I would make the case that such stereotypes are not perpetuated consciously today. In fact, films that make honest and intelligent attempts to portray current troubles in the Arab world can have exactly the same effect. While I cannot speak for earlier films, whose portrayal of Arabs may have been based on uninformed assumptions, I posit that the image of the Arab world as a violent place comes not from fiction, but from real events. In the American film market, viewers are more likely to make a connection with a film if they identify with its main characters, and American viewers, like viewers of any nationality, are best able to understand their own culture and perspective. For this reason, the great majority of American films feature American protagonists. However, in order to attract an audience, a film must also hold the viewer’s attention, and this is often done through portrayal of violent conflict. Nowadays, the Arab world provides an ever-fresh medium for non-fiction violence, so it easily acts as a viable setting for politically-contextual fiction.
However, when the Arab world is so ubiquitously used as a violent setting, it can create the impression in the minds of the viewers that whatever actions are transpiring on the screen are representative of everyday life in that setting. Without appropriate balancing forces, the only image Americans receive of the region and its people is overwhelmingly negative. Such a balance does not exist because films showing the positive side of Arab society would likely not appeal to American viewers, as they would likely be thrown off by the cultural and linguistic differences. The only entertaining way of presenting Arab society nowadays is to filter it through a current events context, making the problems there seem far more pervasive than they actually are.
So, what to do in order to alleviate this problem? To be honest, I don’t know. I’m sure Hollywood would love to hear an alternative, but the idea simply hasn’t been formulated as of yet. I suppose a good example of filmmakers attempting to cross cultural barriers would be the recently-produced Slumdog Millionaire. In that case, a foreign culture was shown for both its benefits and drawbacks, but in a believable and humanist sense. Unlike the violent Middle East, the India portrayed in the film featured social hierarchy and competition that was understandable to Americans, yet retained Indian cultural symbols. If only one such film could be made about the Arab world, it may help dispel the inaccurate perceptions that are currently being transmitted.
Perry Landesberg
Today, such images have largely been discredited and discarded. Though classical portrayals are nevertheless heralded as classic masterpieces of cinema, to re-imagine that stereotype in the present day would be terribly distasteful. Yet, the modern image of Arab characters is perhaps even more on the antagonist side. They appear more often than not in the role of a terrorist or other form of militant, usually rebelling against Western culture in general. Though several attempts have been made to balance the spectrum with heroic Arab characters, the efforts usually appear forced and fall flat.
What causes such a continual negative portrayal? Are Hollywood and the entertainment industry guilty of holding such base racist beliefs? Aren’t they aware that elements of the public have caught on to this trend?
I would make the case that such stereotypes are not perpetuated consciously today. In fact, films that make honest and intelligent attempts to portray current troubles in the Arab world can have exactly the same effect. While I cannot speak for earlier films, whose portrayal of Arabs may have been based on uninformed assumptions, I posit that the image of the Arab world as a violent place comes not from fiction, but from real events. In the American film market, viewers are more likely to make a connection with a film if they identify with its main characters, and American viewers, like viewers of any nationality, are best able to understand their own culture and perspective. For this reason, the great majority of American films feature American protagonists. However, in order to attract an audience, a film must also hold the viewer’s attention, and this is often done through portrayal of violent conflict. Nowadays, the Arab world provides an ever-fresh medium for non-fiction violence, so it easily acts as a viable setting for politically-contextual fiction.
However, when the Arab world is so ubiquitously used as a violent setting, it can create the impression in the minds of the viewers that whatever actions are transpiring on the screen are representative of everyday life in that setting. Without appropriate balancing forces, the only image Americans receive of the region and its people is overwhelmingly negative. Such a balance does not exist because films showing the positive side of Arab society would likely not appeal to American viewers, as they would likely be thrown off by the cultural and linguistic differences. The only entertaining way of presenting Arab society nowadays is to filter it through a current events context, making the problems there seem far more pervasive than they actually are.
So, what to do in order to alleviate this problem? To be honest, I don’t know. I’m sure Hollywood would love to hear an alternative, but the idea simply hasn’t been formulated as of yet. I suppose a good example of filmmakers attempting to cross cultural barriers would be the recently-produced Slumdog Millionaire. In that case, a foreign culture was shown for both its benefits and drawbacks, but in a believable and humanist sense. Unlike the violent Middle East, the India portrayed in the film featured social hierarchy and competition that was understandable to Americans, yet retained Indian cultural symbols. If only one such film could be made about the Arab world, it may help dispel the inaccurate perceptions that are currently being transmitted.
Perry Landesberg
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Joys of Language
In last week's readings we learned about the use of language to construe Arabs as enemies in Bush's speech. While much of the class felt that the arguments the author made didn't hold water, the basic idea is important to address. I've learned about this concept first hand because I both write op-eds and work in the intelligence department for two different non-profits.
Both of my endeavors have heavily involved how to use language to attempt to both prove and reinforce certain points. I've realized that a single word can dramatically change how one's ideas are viewed. For a basic example, liberty and freedom generally mean the same thing, but have entirely different connotations. Experience has shown that "freedom" is a far more polarizing term when used in political discussion. It tends to group someone with conservatism more than any other group. It also has a less positive connotation.
On the other hand, the word "liberty" has a more positive connotation. It tends be less polarizing with audiences. Also, liberals and libertarians are more associated with the term as opposed to conservatives.
One can see this association by looking at websites associated with libertarianism and conservatism. There is a reason that the primary moderate-conservative group is entitled Young Americans for Freedom and the primary libertarian groups are Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty. These examples are a great case in point of how certain groups specifically use language to help portray their political messages.
Both of my endeavors have heavily involved how to use language to attempt to both prove and reinforce certain points. I've realized that a single word can dramatically change how one's ideas are viewed. For a basic example, liberty and freedom generally mean the same thing, but have entirely different connotations. Experience has shown that "freedom" is a far more polarizing term when used in political discussion. It tends to group someone with conservatism more than any other group. It also has a less positive connotation.
On the other hand, the word "liberty" has a more positive connotation. It tends be less polarizing with audiences. Also, liberals and libertarians are more associated with the term as opposed to conservatives.
One can see this association by looking at websites associated with libertarianism and conservatism. There is a reason that the primary moderate-conservative group is entitled Young Americans for Freedom and the primary libertarian groups are Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty. These examples are a great case in point of how certain groups specifically use language to help portray their political messages.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Can you blame the Average Person?
After our class discussion on the issues of representation especially in relation to the Arab world, there seemed no better explanation that Edward Said (who was mentioned breifly). The concept of having a 'set' or fixed meaning associated with a certain group of people is certainly a slant that we should a least recognize (if not reverse). I find the role that the writing of history plays into current stereotypes fascinating mostly because it is so underscored. How can we learn from history if it is incorrectly communicated to us? Is the average human to be blamed for wrongly representing a group merely consuming slanted media/history?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Put it in "r"
“What would a universal society be like which would have no particular country, which would be neither French nor English, nor German, nor Spanish, nor Portuguese, nor Italian, nor Russian, nor Tartar, nor Turkish, nor Persian, nor Indian, nor Chinese, nor American, or rather which would be all of these societies at the same time? What would be the consequence for its customs, its sciences, its arts, its poetry? How would people express emotions that are felt at the same time, but in different ways by different nations in different climates? How would the language incorporate this confusion of needs and images? . . . And what would that language be? Would the fusion of societies result in a universal idiom, or would there be a dialect of transactions serving daily usage, while each nation spoke its own language, or would different languages rather be understood by everyone? Under what similar rule, under what single law would this society exist? How is one to find a place in a world which is made larger by the power of ubiquitousness; and made smaller by the little proportions of a globe which is everywhere polluted? All that will be left will be to demand that science find a way of changing planets."
The author of this passage was the French writer and diplomat Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand, writing in 1841.
While I studied in Nigeria, I took a class entitled ‘Globalization’. As you can imagine, globalization is an elaborate complex that would take years of study to fully understand, but that one semester forever shaped the way in which I view globalization. But from an economic standpoint, the current period of globalization that we are experiencing is not nearly as drastic as in previous epochs. Not one single Nigerian thought that globalization was a good thing, it was simply a part of life.
While increased technology has allowed for increased communication across oceans, I can’t help but wonder if we have forever ruined what ‘community’ means. No longer are we dependent on our neighbors for conversation, we can just call up our friends in Turkey for a chat. But what happens when WWIII breaks out, and we manage to reverse globalization (which is in fact a huge possibility)? Is that ‘nature’ proving the cycle?
*quote taken from Emma Rothschild's "Globalization and the Return of History"
The author of this passage was the French writer and diplomat Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand, writing in 1841.
While I studied in Nigeria, I took a class entitled ‘Globalization’. As you can imagine, globalization is an elaborate complex that would take years of study to fully understand, but that one semester forever shaped the way in which I view globalization. But from an economic standpoint, the current period of globalization that we are experiencing is not nearly as drastic as in previous epochs. Not one single Nigerian thought that globalization was a good thing, it was simply a part of life.
While increased technology has allowed for increased communication across oceans, I can’t help but wonder if we have forever ruined what ‘community’ means. No longer are we dependent on our neighbors for conversation, we can just call up our friends in Turkey for a chat. But what happens when WWIII breaks out, and we manage to reverse globalization (which is in fact a huge possibility)? Is that ‘nature’ proving the cycle?
*quote taken from Emma Rothschild's "Globalization and the Return of History"
Surfin the U-Curve
We talked a bit about U and W curves in the last class. These ideas are very important to young college students, so much so that the ideas are talked about in freshman orientation. I remember going through both during my freshman year. From my experiences the U-curve is truly a great predictor of how a person will react to a changed environment.
I'll likely be spending my next summer, fall and the following spring away from home. Within this time period is approximately one year in London. I've come to acknowledge that this time abroad will be like going back to that U-curve I experienced as a freshman. I'll be in a new land, separated by thousands of miles of water from anywhere I've ever seen. This time next year I should be hitting the low point in the U-curve.
Since this realization I've wondered how I can minimize the effects of the U-curve without making my life significantly worse in other aspects. I've realized that it's pretty much inescapable. The only ways I've seen to minimize the effects would be to ease the transition by spending the majority of my time with other Americans. This would negate many of the benefits of studying abroad, since the point of going over there is to learn a new culture. The other way would be to spend more time with people from that culture before leaving the country. The downside to that is the high time cost of finding the people, then befriending them and learning their culture.
So after much thought I've determined one thing: You just have to roll with the curve and acknowledge it exists. Surf it, know you're going to slide, get homesick, have a bad week. Since you know it's going to happen you can enjoy the highs of the beginning and end while understanding that the low is inevitable. Looks like that's t he only real way to beat the curve.
I'll likely be spending my next summer, fall and the following spring away from home. Within this time period is approximately one year in London. I've come to acknowledge that this time abroad will be like going back to that U-curve I experienced as a freshman. I'll be in a new land, separated by thousands of miles of water from anywhere I've ever seen. This time next year I should be hitting the low point in the U-curve.
Since this realization I've wondered how I can minimize the effects of the U-curve without making my life significantly worse in other aspects. I've realized that it's pretty much inescapable. The only ways I've seen to minimize the effects would be to ease the transition by spending the majority of my time with other Americans. This would negate many of the benefits of studying abroad, since the point of going over there is to learn a new culture. The other way would be to spend more time with people from that culture before leaving the country. The downside to that is the high time cost of finding the people, then befriending them and learning their culture.
So after much thought I've determined one thing: You just have to roll with the curve and acknowledge it exists. Surf it, know you're going to slide, get homesick, have a bad week. Since you know it's going to happen you can enjoy the highs of the beginning and end while understanding that the low is inevitable. Looks like that's t he only real way to beat the curve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
