A Final Note

The past few months I have been taking this class have been interesting. With all the points that have been presented, not all which I agree with, some are nonetheless legitimate. Jour 4250 has encouraged me not to accept these ideas but to research and strengthen my ideas, which run along as conservative. Now I want to revisit some of the more interesting points of the class.

I first would like to point out the need to critically analyze the teacher. In a class where media is the target of debate, the teacher of a college class needs to be analyzed exactly like one would a news show, magazine or newspaper. Teacher, like all of us, have a collections of experiences from which they have formed their opinions. No person can completely remove themselves from their experiences and those experiences' impact.

Second, while this class presented many points to think about the media, it boils down to personal responsibility. If you want you daughter to think of herself as more than just an object of beauty, them turn of the TV and take some time to relate to your child those values. No media can force its way into your life. You have to option to choose which media one consume's.

One of the topics I will revisit again was the debate over the Native American mascot. Let it be known that I am for the use of indian mascots because the way they are using the mascot is in a past, historical context. Yes, Native Americans are still around but not in the historical context as we commonly think of.

As someone who has personally visited a Native American reservation in North Dakota, I can say that it is not filled with tepees and huts. It has many houses and businesses which are exactly the same as cities off the reservation. The Native Americans that lived on the plains like the Comanche, Apache, or Cheyenne do not go about life like the used. Just like people from Scandinavia do not act like Vikings. You might say well that's not fair because they were suppressed. The Spartans were eventually suppressed by the Romans. Does that make the Spartans an insensitive mascot? No.  If we decided that every historical mascot was insensitive, then all we would have is animal mascots.

Overall, the class was very controversial. One positive aspect is that if you happen to be in the minority that doesn't agree, you are taught to do your research and know your facts. This is a valuable life lesson for everyone and it's the biggest lesson I've taken away from this class.

When Politics and Sports Collide

In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, and the scandal at Syracuse involving long time assistant coach Bernie Fine, the sports world has been left in shock. Not only are we left to wonder how these programs will recover and where do we go from here, but more importantly, how did we get to this point? How did we get to the point that the prestige of a sports program outweighs the rights of a human, especially a child? Does big money from T.V. contracts, alumni, and bowl championships drive the force under which any one opposing such institutions are crushed?

Unfortunately, this has been a long time coming in a culture such as ours. A place where professionals athletes like Albert Pujols are given millions of dollars to play a game. (He just signed today a 10-year, $250 million dollar contract.) We are a sports-obsessed, winning-obsessed culture in which we live vicariously through our athletes achievements, and scorn them when they take big money to go to another team.

Put yourself in their shoes because I know I would want to secure both my children's and grand-children's financial future with a simple contract. Further more, I do not condemn athletes for taking large contracts. This is America and we live in a capitalist economy. Business is business and in every day life, you have employers willing to cut you from employment at the drop of a dime. So why not take all the money you can get out of the system.

No, I'm not condemning the money behind the business. But I do condemn the business when it simultaneously crushes the rights and freedom of those get caught in the politics of sports. While I am horrified at the events at Penn State, I can't say that I'm entirely surprised. We as a society have emphasized winning at all costs. Winners, not losers, get the parade. They get to go on the Late Show. They get the interviews and the banner-raising ceremonies. We thirst for winning from our sports teams because we feel that in some way, we are winners too.

So it's no surprise that our culture has produced monsters such as Jerry Sandusk whose ability to carry out such crimes is hidden by the fact that he is a winner. Such was the reason that Tiger Woods was able to carry out his extra-marital affairs. The arena of sports is becoming more and more a place where child abuse occurs because of the lure of money. Parents who think that a coach can get them into a school or make them into a professional athlete have made themselves vulnerable to others taking advantage of their children.

Furthermore, like I have stated in previous blogs, we are a country unwilling to accept blame. It's not Penn State alone who should carry the blame, although they are largely responsible. Sports fans as a whole are responsible, myself included. We put so much emphasis of the need to win that we make sports authorities think twice when they are confronted with an issue that might damage their reputation. And it will only get worse.

Someone to Blame

In Miss Representation, we were presented with ideas about how the media can warp the minds of young teenage girls and boys. As a nation, we consume massive amounts of tv, magazines and movies which can change our view of the world.

Many statistics were startling, including the rise in depression and eating disorders. When or if I had a daughter, I would be sure to instill in her a sense of self confidence that does not depend upon her looks.

All that being said, I feel like the movie lacked any sort of personal responsible for individuals. It emphasized that the media presented all these messages, which I agree with. Yet last time I checked, no one is forcing you to watch a show or read a certain book. A U.S. citizen has full reign to choose whatever media the what to receive or not receive.

The fact that was probably most disregarded is how much tv we watch on average. Instead of reading a book or doing something constructive, they choose to look at images, which are stronger than the written word.  We expect to be able to watch tv and have no consequences. Yet, besides the obvious affect on health, there is an affect on our psychological health. And yet we expect nothing to come from that.

It continues a long story of how we are irresponsible and unable to take blame. It's the same reason people want to blame banks for their financial woes. No one forces you to take out a credit card and buy on credit. If you look at the majority of problems in our country, they are because people refuse to accept personal responsibility.

The women in the movie continually blamed the "media" and "the man agenda" for the reason why a large amount of women have problems with their self image. Again, no woman in the U.S. has someone holding a gun to their head telling them to watch MTV, or other sitcoms, shows, etc. They are completely empowered to take control of their lives, they are just ignorant to the fact that they  have options.

The Disney Phobia

It's been long debated whether Disney, the beloved creator of characters which children have grown up with, is providing a hidden message wrapped in its stories. As Naomi Rockler-Gladen argues in Race, Hierarchy, and Hyenaphobia in The Lion King, she states that in just this animated film alone, Disney is promoting the idea of segregation and class hierarchy through how certain animals interact with each other. What Rockler-Gladen fails to realize is the context from which the story was written.

The Lion King is based on Shakespeare's play Hamlet, in which the protagonist, Hamlet, is confronted by the ghost of his father, who tells him he has been murdered by Hamlet's uncle in order to lay claim to the throne of Denmark. Like many plays written by Shakespeare, there is no recognizably surface level of good and evil in many plays. For example, in Caesar, the audience is left to debate whether the assassination of Julius Caesar was for the greater good of Rome, or whether Brutus and the other conspirators should be charged as murderers. Children as such a young age are still grasping the concept of right and wrong, so to present a story such as this would only create confusion on their part.

It was for this reason that the Lion King, in order to be adopted into a children's film, must be presented in more drastic terms. For this reason, the protagonist must be drastically portrayed as right and the antagonist is shown to be wrong. This is the reason that the Lions are the kings of the the Pride Land and the Hyenas are subjected to life in the Elephant Graveyard. Segregation and class hierarchy is not the point of the film and any perception that it is is due strictly to how it's interpreted.

The article further makes two outlandish claims. 

"In addition, "Be Prepared," the musical sequence in which Scar invites the hyenas to support his coup, alludes visually to Hitler's propaganda film Triumph of the Will."

What? Last time I checked, Hitler was in power when he put out such propaganda films, not suppressed, as Rockler-Gladen the hyenas were in the Lion King. It further discredits the article because at this point, it becomes contradicting. But the quote that really gets me is this one.

"At no time in The Lion King do we learn that segregation is not a good thing and that lions ought to learn to overcome their "hyenaphobia" and create a more multicultural society."

If the article did not already destroy its credibility, this statement just put it in the ground. It is a pompous, arrogant statement to make because it is trying to make The Lion King into something it's not, a civil rights message. It's neither a civil rights message nor a message to promote segregation. It is simply exactly what it is, a dramatic display of right and wrong, good and evil necessary for children to be able to grasp the concept. 

The Native American Question

The United States, founded upon the rights and liberties of all men, has a historical backdrop that leaves us in confusion and question of our moral principles. The Native American Holocaust, as few regard it in history, is the ugly side of U.S. colonialism and expansionism that many Americans are quick to sweep under the rug. However, the history is there. Broken treaties, expanding white society and blatant disregard for life are common themes in the sad untold history of the Native American.

It's not wonder, then, why much opposition has been made against sports teams that bare the Indian icon. The Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, to name a few, are all professional teams that use the Indian image as mascots for their teams. Often used to show signs of bravery, strength, and honor, the Indian mascot for many professional, college and high school teams is something they hold with great pride, whether for the honor of Native Americans or just the unity in their community of fans.

Since the 1970s, moves have been made to do away with the Native American mascot. At both the high school and college level, it has actually been quite successful. However, the professional level remains untouched and unwilling to move, with too much already at stake. Many Native American activists argue that the Indian symbol is offensive simply because Native Americans are not getting the fair chance to represent themselves. Many of the "Rain Dances", Tomahawk chops, and logos with the Native American image use no historical context. Not every Native American wore feathers in their hair or rode on horses shooting bow and arrows. In fact, the horse, not native to North America, wasn't even introduced to Native American culture until much later in their existence.

Yet these arguments aren't made from Native Americans themselves. As a 2002 Sports Illustrated poll revealed, 81% of polled Native Americans had no opposition to the use of the Indian image as a mascot. The support was even stronger for professional sports team, with 83% having no opposition. The numbers clearly show a difference in opinion between Native Americans and those fighting for the rights or image of Native Americans. But why?

The disconnect is because activists are telling  Native Americans how the should feel about these images and how they should react to them. The opinions of activists do not align with the actual feelings of the Native Americans and when this does not occur, it is time for the activists to fade into the background and resume some other sort of cause. It is both insulting and dehumanizing to tell someone else how they should feel. One might argue that it's because the self-esteem of the Native American is low, as Suzan Harjo is quoted saying in the article. However, if an individual does not feel an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a "racist" symbol, then the symbol is no longer racist and has simply become just a symbol of a sports team and nothing else.

Music Videos and Common Sense

Music videos have always created a controversy for as long as they have been in existence. From Lil Jon to Lady Gaga to Eminem, there a numerous music videos out there that have caused a stir for one reason or another. If you've never seen Call on Me, it is just another video some have said objectifies women and is semi-pornographic. It leads to the debate on what effect music videos have on people and whether it promotes violence, especially against women. It is important to distinguish between the video and the music or lyrics. If you listen to Call on Me, the only lyrics are exactly that: call on me. If you were to hear this, you would have no idea that women are dancing in tight spandex. Music videos are often used to create a shock factor that is not attained with listening alone. 

So should the music videos be allowed to show acts of violence and discrimination against minority groups? Yes because it is covered by the First Amendment. But in a practical sense, no. These videos might be described as art but are more likely just attempts to create publicity for the artist via controversy. A good amount of judgment is needed in creating a music video, which Hollywood seems to lack. Unfortunately a lack of judgment can lead to a lack of reality for the audience, mostly comprised of children and young teenagers.

What is needed more than good judgment the production of a music video is the need for parents to talk with their children regarding the topics addressed in today's music industry. For examples, rappers such as Jay-Z and Lil Wayne often portraying women as objects to be used and disposed of. If a child grows up and watches how their parents behave toward each other, nothing sends a stronger message. Not only do they see the proper way a relationship should function, but they see it in real life. Nothing is more powerful than a positive life message relayed by adults present and active in the lives of children.

Diversity or anti white?

We have learned thus far in our class how to be aware of certain stereotypes that we as the white majority media  put out there. I will be the first to admit that they are there. I'll also be the first to admit that you can find whatever message you want if you look hard enough at anything, so interpreting media messages is subjective and nowhere near an exact science.
However, I'm surprised (but not really) at the lack of leniency for white people versus the leeway given to minorities in the media. There is not a more perfect example than this story about Torii Hunter, an outfielder for the Los Angeles Angels. The article written in 2008 was about a panel discussion with USA Today in which Hunter was asked about his opinion on why there aren't more African-Americans in professional baseball. (The percentage of black players on opening day was 10.2%, up from 8.2% the year before.) Hunter responded saying that black Latin American players were "impostors" and not "real" black people. (In case you didn't know, Torii, black slaves were brought in to Latin America just like the British Colonies that later became the United States.) He went on insult black Latin American players even more saying, "Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?' ... I'm telling you, it's sad," he said."


 Hunter has no room whether to decide who is black and who is not. The majority of African-Americans haven't stepped foot on African soil nor will they ever. So what room does someone have to decide? Are they culturally different? Yes. But so are white people. You have Russians, English French, Irish, Spanish, and the list goes on. But are they put into different racial groups. NO. They are all labeled as white because their skin is white. Same rule applies here. We are not discussing ethnic groups or cultural differences. Black is black. And the people who do these statistics need to rework how the categorize because it's giving people more reason to whine than they should. Is the NBA representative of the U.S. populations? No. There are 18% of the players that are white versus 77% black percentage of players. Should the NBA really get an "A" in diversity? *&!% no! That's not diverse by any means. If you are looking for what diversity really means according to the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, it's how many white men can we kick out of the work place. So what if there are only 10.2% African-American players in the MLB? It's because they play football and basketball! I'll listen to the argument when people are concerned with the lack of white players in the NBA.