About Me

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the United States has seen a steady increase in the prominence and pervasiveness of the media in all aspects of American life. From film to television to novels, the omnipresence of the media is an undeniable influence in our lives. As race has become a common theme to write about and demonstrate on screen, it is imperative to analyze the ways in which various racial identities are portrayed. Our goal is to explore the way race is portrayed in multimedia outlets, and examine the ways in which these illustrations contribute to our understanding of the multiculturalworld we live in. Through specific works we've come across in our daily lives, we hope to reveal what you may not readily notice upon consuming products of the media; that is, the ubiquity of race representations and how these undoubtedly shape and influence our notions of the diverse population that exists within and around us. by pointing out faults or positive representations of race relations in these arenas, we have the aim of becoming more active, analytical, and critical consumers of popular media as it portrays race.

Monday, December 13, 2010

MakeMeBabies.com: Humoring and Minimizing Mixed Race

For this entry I will be analyzing the website Make Me Babies (www.makemebabies.com). The point of the website is for a user to upload photos of two different people, which the website then uses to generate what a child of those two people would look like, should they procreate. In society today, the internet is a large media and entertainment outlet for people, introducing a vast amount of knowledge and ideas to a wide population.
The first issue with this website is the fact that it makes racial mixing an entertainment outlet on the internet. By making a joke about “testing out” what your mixed race baby would look like, it may minimize the experiences of people who are mixed race. Additionally, it exoticizes the idea of biracial children and it encourages people to desire children that are different and “fashionable”.[1] As Shohat and Stam explain, even though someone may say something that is a compliment, it could still have racist undertones[2]. An example of how this may happen with “Make Me Babies” would be if someone were to say a certain combination of races is “weird but cute”, highlighting differences and non-normalcy.
Another problem with the website is that it makes broad generalizations about races. If a white person and a black person were to upload their photos to the website, the child that is generated is almost always visibly black. I tested this with other minorities and the same thing happened:  each time there was a photo of a person with non-white skin, the generator created a baby that didn’t have white skin.  Pictured is an example that I used with my picture and my friend Mike, who is half Asian. Though the baby in question would only be a quarter Asian, it created a baby that is visibly of Asian descent. By doing this, the site is utilizing a type of one-drop rule. The idea that if you have just one part of a race, automatically places you into the minority category is something that has been institutionalized and now is a cultural trend that you must fit into certain categories based on your DNA make up. The website’s one drop rule reinforces this trend and has the opportunity to strengthen this “one-drop common sense” about mixed race people.[3] 
Finally, the idea that you can test out what your child will look like creates a situation where people end up somewhat “shopping” for their children. Much like the critics of transnational adoption, it makes people wonder what will make a “cute or not cute” baby and commodifies it.[4]
I realize that this website isn’t extremely well- circulated, and for some people it may just be a way to humor themselves about what their child will look like with a friend or significant other. I don’t see Make Me Babies having huge implications on race relations in our country, but that is not my point. Even if there aren’t huge consequences, I believe that it is very important to be aware of the way that certain media outlets can portray race, and it is essential to closely look at these portrayals to better our knowledge and race consciousness. Too often people disregard instances of racism or ignorance with regard to race. Scrutinizing a website such as MakeMeBabies.com is just one way to be more aware of race in the media, and hopefully other people will look at situations and examine them with a keener eye in the future. 


Works Cited

[1]Alsultany, Evelyn. "Mixed Race and Popular Culture." Classroom, Ann Arbor. 17 Nov 2010. Lecture.
[2] Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism in the Media. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
[3] Lull, James. "Hegemony." Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Gail Dines. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 63.
[4]Nelson, Kim Park. "Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace." Outsiders Within: Writing on Transnational Adoption. Ed. Jane Jeong Trenka. Cambridge: South End Press, 2006. Print

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Movie director Spike Lee is very aware that Hollywood has historically been run by White men and this fact has lead to misrepresentations, under-representations, or stereotypical portrayals of minorities and women. The lack of leadership and control over such a dominant and influential industry by minorities has perpetuated this discrimination and stereotyping. He is an important film-maker who set out to change the landscape of Hollywood films and was successful in doing so. Spike Lee has put out controversial films since the late 1980s that challenge the representations of minorities - particularly African Americans - that had been so prevalent before.
Lee has produced many films that challenge popular portrayals of African Americans, but one salient film is particularly important to analyze in this blog for two reasons: 1) the movie was arguably his most successful film commercially and thus reached a more mainstream audience than some of his other work has. Since this blog addresses popular media, it is important to choose one of his films that have had broad reception, and 2) the film addresses race relations in America directly and explicitly, making it important to recognize and analyze how exactly these representations were made and what argument it makes. The film is Do the Right Thing that came out in 1989 and much of Lee’s work since has been compared to it.
                  The biggest issue the film addresses is our hegemonic society where white Americans have dominance over other groups, particularly in matters of businesses and the economy. Lee presents an argument that there is a sort of institutionalized racism inherent in American capitalism. The movie demonstrates how American capitalism and its basis in meritocracy and individualism are problematic to the African American community. The plot revolves around Sal’s Pizzeria owned by an Italian man and his two sons. It is located in a prominently black urban neighborhood. Although nearly all of the restaurant’s clientele is African American, the ‘Wall of Fame’ inside only has pictures of Italian-Americans. This sparks an argument between the owner Sal and a customer named Buggin’ Out. Buggin’ Out becomes so outraged when Sal does not agree to put any “brothers” up on the wall that he tries to start a boycott of the pizzeria.
                  Metaphorically, Lee uses Sal’s Pizzeria to represent Hollywood. The boycott did not work because the pizzeria was very popular with the people in the neighborhood. They said things like: “We grew up on Sal’s!” “I was raised on this pizza! Why would we ever want to boycott Sal’s?!” Even if the owner is racist (he and his two sons make racist remarks repeatedly throughout the movie) and will not hang up pictures of African Americans in his store, no one is willing to boycott the pizzeria because they ‘grew up on it’ – the people, then, have come to depend on Sal’s. They grew up depending on this business located in a black community and owned by a white man who does not take part in that community. Sal and his business take on the role of a provider to the black community in a very patriarchal sense.
When the pizzeria is seen as representing Hollywood, it is inferred that the black community has been ‘raised’ by a white-owned industry and that because they have become dependent on it, there is little hope for change. Lee thus argues that the individualistic ideals of American capitalism are not applicable to minorities. This is because there are huge, influential industries already owned and operated by the white community. These owners have little engagement or participation in black communities, making participation in them and upward social mobility nearly impossible for those people.
Do the Right Thing is a very influential and monumental film. It addresses issues in race-relations of the United States that most directors would shy away from due to the controversy of the topic. Spike Lee changed the movie industry by producing films with black protagonists and storylines that counter the normal discourse of Hollywood. DTRT was a clever analysis of Hollywood, American capitalism, and current issues relevant to the black community. Making a film such as this commercially successful was a significant accomplishment because it allowed a mainstream audience to see this argument and give a new perspective in thinking about race as it pertains to businesses and industries.

ACLJ Ardently Opposed to Mosque at Ground Zero

            In the wake of reports regarding a mosque to be built at Ground Zero, the American Center for Law and Justice is imploring American citizens via their website to sign an online petition against the mosque’s construction. The cover of the website indicates that 46,729 people and counting have already signed this petition, supporting the ACLJ’s belief that the plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero are both “troubling and deeply offensive.” Their website indicates that the organization is taking the issue to court in order to prevent the Islamic place of worship from being built.  
Protesters against the Ground Zero mosque
The American Center for Law and Justice asserts, “We are deeply disturbed by the decision to build an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero—the sacred site where Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.” The website provides alleged information regarding the investor that is financially backing the project, who has “reported ties to terrorism” and was “one of the key financiers of the Gaza-bound flotilla that recently carried terrorists determined to attack Israel!” The Center concludes their cover page of the website with a question that aims to make the debate clear: “As radical Islam continues its bold and deadly march to erase freedom from the face of the earth—we must determine who we will honor: America’s fallen 9/11 victims or the terrorists who attacked them?”
It is clear from this message on their website that the ACLJ is performing ideological work in order to frame their opposing stance on the controversial debate for the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero. By polarizing the debate—either you’re honoring the 9/11 victims or supporting terrorism—they are creating a binary that forces people to oppose the construction of the mosque, lest they be considered a terrorist. The message from the ACLJ seems to be applying essentialist notions to the Islamic community as a whole by inextricably linking Islam with terrorism. While it is true that the attacks on 9/11 were the result of radical believers of the Islamic faith, does that then make all Islamic people terrorists? It seems that they are also invoking ideas of American patriotism in order to enlist petitioners. The juxtaposition of the “Islamic terrorists” who “destroyed the World Trade Center” and the “thousands of innocent Americans” who died on 9/11 seem to present not just the terrorists, but also the Islamic community as a whole, as holding radical viewpoints that are the opposite of American beliefs and values. 
Mosque in NYC
I would argue that the message conveyed on the ACLJ’s website demonstrates a covert form of racism whereby they are denying the Islamic community the right to build a mosque for allegedly honorable reasons regarding the sensitive issue of 9/11.  In addition, the ACLJ seems to be relying on racial essentialism in order to make their ideological work most effective, as they are inadvertently holding the entire Islamic community responsible for a tragic event that resulted from only a few radical people. The message seems to imply that all those who practice Islam are inherently capable of atrocities such as the terrorist attacks on 9/11, or at the very least that they are not qualified to honor the American victims. The website refers to Ground Zero as a “sacred site” and we can infer from what the website does not say that a mosque being built there would potentially desecrate the memory of all those who died. But what about those Arab-Americans who have lived all their lives here and also lost family and friends on that tragic day? Do they not deserve the right to pray for their loved ones the same way everyone else does? The racial formation of Arabs as terrorists is clearly present in this cover page, as the denial for the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero inherently suggests that the entire Islamic community should be punished and ostracized for the work of a few radical individuals.



Sources:
https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3612&ac=1&r=gzmg&s=google&gclid=CKCSnMC35aUCFUVqKgodRVLt3Q

Octavia Butler’s Kindred: Just How Distant is the Past?

      Octavia Butler’s Kindred came into my life one afternoon on one of my weekly trips to Barnes and Noble, and from the second I started reading it I could not put it down. Set partly in the decade succeeding the Civil Rights Movement, and partly in the antebellum south during the early nineteenth century, Octavia Butler’s Kindred is a haunting tribute to a past that finds itself erupting in the present. In a story that seeks to demonstrate the deceptive proximity of the past to present-day life, Dana, an African-American writer, is involuntarily transported back in time to her worst nightmare: the height of slavery in Maryland, the year 1815. Drawn back to the past by forces entirely out of her control, Dana is inextricably linked to this time in history by her many times great ancestor, the white son of a wealthy landowner, Rufus Weylin.
Throughout the novel, the past is seemingly catching up to the present, the realities of the two time periods becoming blurred and unclear, until ultimately the two fatally collide. As a result of this, Dana and her husband, a white Kevin, find themselves wondering what is real and wondering where to call “home”. By manipulating and confounding time, Butler demonstrates the fragility of progress in the present, the striking similarities between a horrific past and an illusive present, and the way in which the two inevitably inform and determine each other. We are reminded that the past is not so distant from the present, as what seems like a faraway nightmare is actually a very pressing reality. As demonstrated by Dana and Kevin’s relative ease in adjusting themselves to the antebellum south, it becomes clear that perhaps not much has changed from the time we wish most to forget.
            Throughout the novel, Dana is pulled back to the past in order to save her troublesome great ancestor Rufus from death. As Dana’s very life in the present could be threatened by the sudden death of a relative from the past, she is forced out of indifference to what happened a century before. Through this symbolic interdependence of the past and the present as exemplified through Rufus and Dana’s codependence, we are reminded that we are directly affected in the present by what happened in the past. As a result, history is not an irrelevant entity to be ignored, but is something that we must contend with in order to better understand our present.
            Even though this is obviously a work of science fiction, it is unbelievable how invested you become as a reader in Dana’s experiences of going back to the period of slavery preceding America’s Civil War. As with each trip back to this era, Dana becomes frighteningly more accustomed to slave life. As Dana is far removed from this era of slavery in her 1970s world, it is amazing to see how easily one can accept the common sense that was produced by the white, racist hegemony of the time. This is the result of an ongoing process of racial formation, whereby “human bodies and social structures are represented and organized” in accordance with the hegemony of the time (Omi and Winant, 55). Thus, African Americans were posited as biologically inferior, primitive, and sub-human, and such racial ideologies were at work in order to accommodate racial projects like slavery.
 In the novel, Dana begins as merely acting the “role” of slave, as she says she wasn’t “really in” but instead was an “observer watching a show…watching history happen” around her (Butler, 98). However, this begins to change as Dana’s trips to the past become longer and more frequent. Because of this, she is forced to “act” the part so much that it becomes her reality. At one point, she receives a brutal whipping from the white wealthy plantation owner she works for and when she ultimately returns back to the present, the scars are still very much present. These kind of physical changes become more pronounced throughout the book, until ultimately Dana begins to feel like the past is more real than her present.
The novel also discusses life in the present day 1970s in between Dana’s trips to the past, and we see that while the institutional racism of the past through slavery is over, it is still prevalent in other ways. This is demonstrated in the reactions people have to Dana and Kevin’s relationship, as the idea of interracial marriage was not yet widely accepted in the 1970s. Dana and Kevin’s boss at the labor agency often harasses the couple with overtly racist remarks, yelling out obscenities like, “chocolate and vanilla porn” (Butler, 56) when he sees the two of them together. This idea is further reiterated by both Dana’s and Kevin’s families, who stand in staunch opposition to their interracial marriage. Furthermore, as Dana visits the past more and more frequently, she begins to see Kevin differently because he is white. She is no longer able to be colorblind and is so affected by the white racist monsters she faces in the past that she can no longer tell the difference between them and her loving husband. Kevin also accidentally travels back to the past with Dana a few times and assumes the role of her slave owner.  This creates tension as well since Kevin also acclimates to his part and as a white man faces a very different experience in the slaveholding past than Dana does. The effect of this juxtaposition of the past and present demonstrates that while times have changed, it is questionable by how much. 

Kindred is a fast, riveting, and sobering read about the limited sense of progress experienced following the Civil Rights Movement. Compared to the everyday atrocities and injustices that occurred in a time like the antebellum south, the progress of the present appears to be disproportionate and ineffective in its goal to cure the disease of racism. As a result, it behooves us to take a good look at history, lest it should be repeated. After all, Dana isn’t the only one with ancestors who suffered in the past, and isn’t it to them that we owe remembrance at the very least? By employing the first person, Butler is able to transport us back to the evils of our collective history, and we are all invited to take a good look at what we don’t want to see. Unfortunately, as Butler articulates in so many ways, attempts to escape the past are futile at best, as it doesn’t take a trip back in time to see that things are still not how they should be. 


Works Cited:
Butler, Octavia E. Kindred. Boston: Beacon Press, 1979.

Racial Identity in Gish Jen’s Mona in the Promised Land: Who says a Chinese Girl can’t be Jewish?

I stumbled upon Gish Jen’s 1996 novel, Mona in the Promised Land, one afternoon at Barnes and Noble. With only a cursory look at the summary of the back cover of the book, I knew I had to read it. The brief synopsis introduced Mona Chang, a second-generation immigrant of Chinese descent, growing up in a 1960s affluent suburb in New York, with a desperation to shed her ethnic ties and become Jewish. I thought at the very least that it would be an interesting read, but I hadn’t the slightest notion of how important this work would reveal itself to be.
Mona’s parents, Ralph and Helen, are first generation immigrants who escaped the Revolution in China and moved to America after World War II. In the vein of the traditional immigrant narrative, Ralph and Helen are immigrants who “made it”—that is, made it not only to America but also made it to the prestigious, notoriously white suburbs. The 1960s—the dawn of multiculturalism and the death of the old melting pot theory of the days of yore—became a fertile ground for discovering and asserting your racial and ethnic identity. However, Mona perceives her parents old world traditions as inherently “un-American” and resents their thinly veiled attempts to perform their American identities through material items and an obsession with Harvard (which comes to represent the quintessential American experience.).  In a desire to disassociate herself from her parents’ “backward” values, Mona decides to become “Jewish”—which she calls a “model minority” for their ability to assimilate and “Americanize” themselves so well. However, when Mona begins to amerce herself in Jewish associations and traditions, she becomes even more aware of her “otherness”.  The Jewish friends around her accept her into the community open-armed, however it is unclear whether they simply gain some amusement out of seeing a Chinese girl “become” Jewish, as they begin to refer to her as “Changowitz” (Jen, 56). Mona then feels the need to perform her Jewishness by involving herself in temple-affiliated activities, working for a Jewish hotline, employing Yiddish in conversation, and dating a Jewish boy, Seth.  Her authenticity is questioned, however, as she is missing a key ingredient—what the book wryly calls, “what-the-mother-is-the-child-is theory” (Jen, 56). This raises the age-old question: how do we determine one’s racial and ethnic identity? Is it a choice? Biological? Or is it simply what others decide for you?
Thus, identity is a paradoxical idea in Mona in the Promised Land, as the characters change their identities like they change their underwear. The flippant and colloquial tone of the book suggests that ethnicity is both performed and is not a permanent state, but that it is also based on descent and somewhat fixed no matter what. For even though Mona is completely ignorant to what it means to be Chinese because of her parents’ desire to downplay it in favor of a more “American” identity, Mona is still exoticized by others. In a scene where Mona is out for dinner with a wealthy “wasp” family at a fancy country club, her friend’s stepmother begins to ask her all sorts of questions about China which she just assumes Mona knows the answer to simply because she’s Chinese. In the same vein, her own boyfriend, Seth, assumes that just because she’s Chinese and wants to be Jewish that she’s some kind of radical individual with a political and social agenda. Seth is disappointed when he realizes that this isn’t the case; that Mona’s choice to become Jewish had nothing to do with anything other than her desire to assert her agency in choosing her own ethnicity. These kinds of false assumptions based on superficial observations demonstrate a common type of ignorance that is exhibited in even the most well-intentioned individuals.
            The novel also fulfills its duties as a tribute to the vast quilt of identity and the desire to belong through Alfred, the African American cook that works for Mona’s parents at their pancake restaurant. When Alfred’s wife kicks him out of his house for cheating on her with another woman, he seeks refuge at Barbara Gugelstein’s, a friend of Mona’s. As Barbara’s parents are away for the summer and her cousin Evie is staying there as a resident for the season, Barbara attempts to hide Alfred from her cousin in order to keep him a secret from her parents. For if Barbara’s parents knew a black man was staying at their house while they were away, there would be hell to pay for Barbara and who knows what consequences would be in store for Alfred. As a result, Barbara, with the help of her friends, discovers an underground tunnel through which Alfred can enter and exit the house.  The room Alfred is offered at first was originally used as a servant’s quarters. In order to keep Alfred a secret from her cousin, Barbara imposes rules on him whereby he can only be seen in common rooms and use the television at certain times. The result, of course, is Alfred’s resentment towards Barbara, Mona, and Seth, whose misguided attempts to “save” Alfred from being homeless actually result in a kind of imprisonment. Through this incident, Gish Jen demonstrates how the white adolescents use Alfred, an African American man, as an instrument for their social experiment, which stems from their own liberal guilt.
 Alfred is an interesting character as well because he expresses racist, essentialist notions of race and ethnicity, while at the same time fighting for the equality and rights of African Americans. Alfred often refers to Barbara’s father as a “Jew Daddy” and criticizes Mona by telling her she’ll never be any more Jewish than he will; that unless she figures out a way to grow her nose, it’ll never happen. Alfred’s notions of race speak to the hierarchy he sees that exist between various minority groups, as even though Mona is Chinese, she can still pass for white the way Alfred cannot. In addition, Alfred’s friends are also extremely race conscious, as “Luther the Race Man” makes fun of Alfred’s wife, Charlene, for being a light-skinned black woman. He teases her light skin—“you could see the veins in her arms right through her skin”—suggesting she is less black because her skin is lighter (Jen, 142). We also know that Charlene is from Jamaica where, according to Luther, “Negroes didn’t always realize they were Negroes” (Jen, 142). This suggests a different racial enculturation in places outside the U.S. where the color of your skin is ascribed different meanings than they are here. Furthermore, the fact that Charlene’s father is a doctor also makes her a less authentic African American, according to Alfred and his friends, because their internalized racism prevents them from transcending the stereotypes that have been so well ingrained in their minds. As a result, Charlene is left feeling like she must cover her light skin with a “high-neck long-sleeve shirt even in the summertime” (Jen, 142) in an attempt to be accepted and feel a sense of belonging within the black community.

            Mona and the Promised Land presents a fresh view of race through the eyes of a flippant teenager whose observations and chronicling of her quest to find herself inadvertently give way to broader issues concerning race, ethnicity and identity. Gish Jen’s novel demonstrates ideas of performativity, alienation, and belonging for a second-generation immigrant Chinese-American girl growing up in the 1960s, and seems to champion the right for us all to self-define by acknowledging the various selves within. Jen also illustrates a world where everyone has prejudices—from white people to African Americans to the Chinese—but suggests that these notions can be transcended if we would only accept one another for who we are--and that’s whoever we choose to be. While the ending of the novel may seem a bit too neatly tied up for some or perhaps enforcing a kind of colorblind sensibility about race, the novel is definitely worth reading for its demonstrations of how race is performed, questioned, assumed, and portrayed in the various episodes of Mona’s life. Jen’s wry sense of humor and flippant narrative voice provide a nuanced account of race in the 1960s, and allow for a bit of comic relief on subjects we are seldom able to laugh about.

Works Cited:
Jen, Gish. Mona in the Promised Land. New York: Random House, Inc., 1996.

Glee and Race: A Little Off Key

The new television show Glee debuted to rave reviews and extremely positive audience feedback. Not only was it a completely new genre of TV, a scripted musical comedy, but they also introduced a band of misfits and their fearless leader as the main characters. The glee club’s members cross racial, ethnic, and sexual-orientation boundaries. Many people tuned into the show for its musical talent, but also for its diversity in genre and characters. Glee even managed to nab an astounding 19 Emmy nominations in its first season on the air
Glee showcases these minorities every week, something that other popular TV shows cannot take credit for. If you look at shows like Gossip Girl or Desperate Housewives there are very few minority characters in lead roles- or roles at all. It is important that Glee represents a variety of races and ethnicities because there are many people who are constantly misrepresented in the media. If they can see someone like themselves in the show, it is progressive. Additionally, the minorities are shown in a positive light and accepting light. The glee club is a group that works together, and they do not get divided along racial lines. But simply because Glee has Blacks, Latinas, and Asians does not mean they are they are portrayed the best way.
            Glee has not done a good job when it comes to addressing interracial relationships. Many times the relationships that are depicted are the show do not cross racial boundaries. In season one episode, “Mash Up”, football bully Noah Puckerman is watching a movie about the Holocaust with his family while wearing a yarmulke and decides that he wants to date Rachel Berry, the only other Jewish character on the show.  Firstly this is very stereotypical of how a Jewish family would act, which enforces a common sense about how Jewish people act .The plot revolves around Noah, also known as Puck, convincing himself that he is being a “good Jew” because he is dating Rachel. Another example is with Tina, who is Asian. She briefly dated Artie who is white but it was very short-lived. Soon after she stopped seeing Artie, she went to “Asian Camp” and became Mike Chang’s girlfriend. This gives the impression that Asians must go to Asian Camps, and that Asians are more attracted to each other because it is biological. The only Black character, Mercedes, rarely has love interests on the show. In one episode she thinks she likes Kurt, who is Gay,  which made that relationship short-lived and superficial. The only other time there is someone for Mercedes is when Kurt tries to set her up with one of the only other Black students at school. This portrayal of interracial relationships is not conducive to positive attitudes about race relations in the media. As Bonilla Silva concludes, many feel this romantic segregation and do not see it as a racial problem, when it is.  Minorities have been isolated from whites with romantic involvement and Glee’s continuation of this trend does not help anything. There are a few situations in which Glee addresses racial stereotypes in a respectable manner, by breaking them down and opposing them. Tina and Mike not being the typical hyper smart Asians is one example.  But in most cases they take the generalizations about race too far. Let’s take Mercedes as an example. She is Black, fat, sassy, and always ends up belting the gospel-style note in the songs, but is very rarely the soloist. The show also has her dress in typically Black clothes which further emphasizes the fac that she is completely stereotyped as "the Black girl". Additionally, many of the white characters play the normative, white roles (quarterback, cheerleaders, star-singer) other than Kurt and Artie who are gay and disabled, respectively. These characterizations only reinforce the ideas of how society believes certain races or ethnicities should act.
For a young Black girl watching on TV, she may see Mercedes and think that she is supposed to act the same way. Though Mercedes isn’t a bad role model, a TV show shouldn’t be depicting characters on stereotypical racial lines.
I am not arguing that Glee is a bad show or that is racially intolerant. My claim is that even though, yes, the show has displayed these underrepresented minorities, there is a lot of progress to be made. In the following episodes, I advocate for increased disintegration of these racial stereotypes and an effort to put more of the minorities at the forefront of the plot. Glee has the opportunity to use the racial diversity already in place for great use.


Works Cited:

“Glee Scores 19 Primetime Emmys.” IMDB. 8 July 2010. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <http://www.imdb.com/news/ni3212408/>.should perform in society.
Lull, James. "Hegemony." Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Gail Dines. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 63.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. "Peeking Inside the (White) House of Colorblindness: The Significance of Whites' Segregation." Racism Without Racists: Color Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United states. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006.
 Kennedy, Randall. "How Are We Doing With Loving?: Race, Law and Intermarriage." Mixed Race America and the Law: A Reader. Ed. Kevin R. Johnson. New York: New York University Press, 2003. Print.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Race and Mixed Race in Advertising

Flipping through the most recent issue of a popular magazine, I came across two advertisements, one of Beyonce promoting the fragrance “Heat,” and the other of Kim Kardashian for her fragrance “Kim Kardashian.” Both of these ads stood out as using race and sexualizing race to market a product. Beyonce’s ad demonstrates exoticism and “Othering” while the Kardashian ad displays the fetishization of mixed race, with both adds as examples of the sexualization of race and mixed race.
            The “Heat” ad, for the fragrance of the same name, exemplifies the complimentary racism that Shohat and Stam term “exocticism.” As they write, “Exoticism solipsizes its object for the exoticist’s pleasure, using the colonized “other” as an erotic fiction in order to reenchant the world (Shohat and Stam 21).” In the ad, Beyonce is wearing a low-cut and short satin gown, visibly showing most of her chest and much of her legs, against a dark backdrop. She is clearly sexualized, demonstrated by her facial expression, clothes, and bed-head hair. Indeed, she is given an almost animalistic quality, which was a common stereotype of blacks as uncivilized, and also of black women as overly sexual.
            Beyonce’s ad thus serves as an example of how blacks are viewed as “Other.” As Shohat and Stam assert, “in a later period, White European-American workers came to construct the African-American population as “otherized” incarnations of a permissive, erotic, pre-industrial past that Whites themselves both scorned and desired (Shohat and Stam 20). By being portrayed as an animalistic, sexualized woman in the ad, Beyonce is being contrasted as “Other” to notions of white female sexual restraint and respectability.
            The second ad, with Kim Kardashian promoting her fragrance “Kim Kardashian,” is an example of how mixed race is displayed as hip, cool, and is fetishized. As Danzy Senna writes, “Pure breeds (at least the black ones) are out and hybridity is in…not too long ago, Newsweek officially declared it “hip” to be multiracial (Senna 2,5).” Kim Kardashian, a famous celebrity with a mixed Dutch, Armenian, and Scottish background, exemplifies how mixed race is commodified and used in marketing.
            In addition, Kardashian’s ad is also an example of how, related to the commodification of mixed race individuals, mixed race women are often sexualized. In the ad, Kardashian is wearing a light pink bikini-like top and bottom, with a fringe jacket, appearing as a circus performer. Her face, specifically her lips and eyes, also are heavily made-up, contributing to her sexualized appearance. In portraying Kardashian as a circus performer, she is further presented as an object, beyond the objectification she receives as a female and as a mixed race individual. The ad also shows how mixed race persons are identified as “Other;” just as the circus performer is seen as strange and entertaining, so are mixed race individuals seen as different and not quite fitting into one category or another.
            These two ads, circulated widely in magazines, serve as examples of the way race and mixed race are exoticized, presented as “Other,” sexualized, and fetishized. One could argue that these women celebrities are also empowered by these ads in reaching a wide audience and perhaps gaining a sense of sexually empowerment. However, because of the sexualized nature of the media, and the stereotypes that come with these representations, overall these ads are limiting for women of color and mixed race.

Works Cited
1. Senna, Danzy. “The Mulatto Millenium.” Race Studies: A Reader. Print: 2,5.

2. Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. “Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media.” Routledge. Print: 20-21.