White is right!!! Right?

The video shows how children in our society see race and how they view the adults around them relating people to skin colour.

While the video may be a limited study that might not be fair and accurate, it still resonates with me and probably many others who watch it because of the way that this type of inherent and immediate racism exists within society. The images given to the children are completely identical and have no information other than skin colour, they are able to make judgements and decisions about what they believe their character traits are. This then, presents notions of how a person is immediately judged based on their skin colour and outer appearance. In such plain terms of asking a child who is good or bad, or who is the smart one and so on, it becomes clear that there is a major problem of holding such prejudices in a wider context. As this isn’t only white children who believe that the white person will be nicer, but the black children are also more likely to pick the white over the black for the more positive attributes. So not only do we see common prejudice against other races but see a self-prejudice.

Socially, mentally and in terms of careers and economics these ideologies prove for a different start point for each race and one which, in today’s world, people are afraid to admit.

Racist beliefs probably first stem from white privilege, eurocentrism and colonisation and the notions of the other that are so ever-present in society. Terms such as naturalisation and universalisation are appropriate for such a topic, where systematically and institutionally society are told and constantly reminded that white is the norm or the default. These types of ideologies come from all different aspects of society: media, socialisation, education and the legal system. As it even in the way language is structured towards normalising whiteness and othering other races. Thus, we understand the world a prejudiced way, even if we are the marginalised race.

If we are continually told that white is the norm then we will continually believe that everything else can firstly be grouped into one big category of “other”, and secondly, that this other is abnormal. The repercussions of firstly ignoring it means that the privilege that the white race goes unrecognised, and secondly, that other races are undermined on an everyday basis. For example: white people get offered better jobs, are believed to be innocent rather than guilty, have better opportunities in life and so on.

It embeds in both white and black (and other non-white races) that the the white race is superior. Society continue to learn to these ideologies in throughout everyday actions in their lives, and it goes on without recognition. Once it starts being recognised and called up on there can begin a conversation about it. However, colour-blindness and notions of a “post-racist” world don’t allow for these types of dialogues. Racism, although not overt, openly exists as society continually merits the individual for their socio-economic positions, however, ignore the structures and systems that keeps people below one another due to race.

Alternative Media: Afrofutrism

Science Fiction has an annoying tendency to make claims on race and racisms without having to use, or give voice to, actual people of colour. For example, District 9 (2009) make assertions on South African Apartheid by using Aliens (and the depictions of actual Black people are problematic to say the least), and films such as Gattaca (1997) choose to explore a future world where a white, heterosexual man is discriminated against.

It wasn’t until fairly recently that I learnt of a whole different wave of science fiction media, one that embraced and embodied the voices of those who are erased from so much of our mainstream films. Afrofuturism describes an epistemology that explores African-American history and social issues through the media of modern techno culture and Science Fiction. 

So what is the importance of Afrofuturism? And what does it offer? Ytasha Womack, author of Afrofuturism: the World of Black Sci-Fi Fantasy and Fantasy Culture, says that the lack of Black people within Hollywood and Science Fiction makes as though Black people are “erased from the past, erased from the future, and you’re hovering in the here and now, waiting for someone to write a story with our complexion in it” (Thrasher, 2015). Already through the content we have experienced and analysed throughout this course can be seen as evidence of this erasure.

Debates on what makes a text Afrofuturist text, as opposed to simply having Black representation are complex. For example, Afrofuturism often depicts Black people as alien, to represent the abduction of African people. However, when Hollywood giant Star War’s cast award winning black actress Lupita Nyong’o and only used her voice for a CGI’d alien this is not necessarily Afrofuturism. Though Nyong’o’s character bears semblance to an Afrofuturist technique, the thought processes, understanding and ultimately the control and agency of Black artists over that decision is what separates it from being a constructive and meaningful decision, into the erasure of another Black face on the big screen.

Want to know more about Afrofuturism? Read the rest of the article with Ytasha Womack here.

Two Wongs don't make a White

                      "Two Wongs don't make a White"

Question one: why would the Asian descendant 'Wongs' necessarily WANT to be white.  Two Wongs don't make a black either or a purple, but the jokes funny because.... why - there's alliteration. No you're right - alliteration makes everything acceptable and funny - just look at newspaper and electronic headlines.


The ancient old nugget of wisdom heard in kindergarten, households and sometimes even boardrooms, has nothing to do with 'Wongs' or 'Whites', rather it protested that
                                                                 
                                                        "Two wrongs don't make a right".

A few blog binges ago, another FTVMS 210/325 post got me thinking about the racist content of many memes, headlines, comedy gags, TV shows even. Naturally my day was filed with Facebook, but now with thorn of distaste as i noticed more and more racially controversial memes. In fact a few key pillars of racism or comedy, were seen in who posted or commented what. As my previous blog talked about, the word "Nigga" and the meaning, text, connect etc. I wonder if demographics enjoy laughing at themselves, but are not prepared to be laughed at. I know it naturally works that way. Personally. i believe that you cant laugh at someone else if you can laugh at yourself first....
                                                                       HOWEVER
the issue arises when there are societal, social, long term institutional and legal repercussions for the regeneration of stereotypes, negative press, lines being crosses, respect being lost and diluted reverence for cultural or religious differences. The examples below are  what i couldn't scroll past last week over Facebook and i am curious to see how they sit with other people. Are we overreacting, is there realistic short/long term damage being produced, is comedy providing a release for the tension involved in multiculturalism, biculturalism, hybrid cultures and a media platform connecting them all? 

There are 5 screen shots in total, with the top left from an Instagram that received overwhelming backlash over being 'offensive' and 'racist' by Blake Lively captioning her Instagram post "L.A. face with an Oakland boody".

Any other photos or posts, i have no rights to - or ownership over. 

Finally I ask the question, how many Wong jokes will be made before we get the balance White?

 Happy Blogging, 

“Most Racist Chinese Laundry Detergent Commercial”

Watching this video titled "most racist" Chinese commercial, it’s hard not to laugh at the commercial itself, but I do see why this commercial is so controversial.

Having a “dirty” black man (stains on his shirt and the contrasting white paint on his dark skin) be seduced by the female. That first few seconds of the commercial already shows a stereotype of Black men being of the working class. If not for knowing Chinese, the next seconds of the commercial where the women ‘pops’ something into the man’s mouth (which is laundry tablets- what the commercial is advertising), I would have seen it as drugs; another bad combination with Black people and consumed “substances” that leads to a bad connotation. The next scene is (I think) the most disturbing part of the commercial; a violent shove from the women, forcing the Black man into the washing machine- screaming and kicking as he is being “washed”; first comes the question: why it is Black man that is tortured? And the idea of actually throwing a live human into a washing machine, does not send a nice message to children watching the commercial. The ending and the most controversial/ racist scene, with the Black man emerging out of the washing machine “cleaned” and Asian... The whitfication of the Black man is the main fuel that is growing the “racist flame”; the implication that lighter skin is more “refined”/ clean and attractive than the previous dark-skinned “self”, reiterating the old rule “white is more beautiful”.

As a Chinese-born-Raised-in-NZ-der, I see both sides of the coin. I understand how some people see it as offensive, the throwing of a live human being into a washing machine and the nonchalant/ cutesy atmosphere along with that scene is so wrong and evil. But from a Chinese perspective this commercial is not “racist”, racism is not really a word or ‘problem’ in China, instead China has more stereotypes of foreigners than racist discrimination of a race; thus is why such a commercial was allowed to be screened to people in China. A historical view as to (maybe) why China is less aware of racism: 1. China was not fully colonised by a Western country (Japan, Britian, and France occupied Shanghai for some time, but that was only one city), 2. China was very secluded, blocking much import and travellers that carried knowledge of the outside world, 3. The late 1970s, TV became popular in households that allowed knowledge of the “outside world” to be available in the comfort of their homes. I think these 3 elements reason for China being less aware of racism: Not colonised, (was a) closed off country, and secondary sources of knowledge leads to Chinese creating stereotypes of others because of these lack of interaction with foreigners.

Reading the comments below the video, surprisingly majority of people don’t find it “very” racist, one comment (which I cannot re-find) wrote how ‘American’s are too overdramatic when it comes to the issue of race and racism’, which got me thinking… there is some truth in that comment; countries like America and New Zealand who have been colonised and how Africa was forced into slavery; these countries have suffered major social, cultural and historical damage due to colonisation (and to some extent, still suffer today)… what do others think of this comment? 

Dora during dinner time?

Lectures and classroom discussions about Maori Television had be interested. A channel that I was of course aware of existed, a channel that even was often on casually at home in the background, but not a channel I had ever sat down and invested much time in watching. However, after throwing these ideas of decolonization, white privilege and indigenous people.. I was intrigued, and excited to go home and compare content between mainstream news outlets and minority news, such as Maori channel.

Okay, so I was absolutely shocked. I had decided that 6pm would be prime time television throughout the country, judging from News channel competitors; TV1, TV3 and Prime (as well as the traditional time for dinner/home time etc). I turned on the television, ready to take some notes for my blog about the comparing of news content, framework, subjects and perspectives.. but to my surprise - no news. Not only was there no news, but DORA was on. Dora the explorer was on 6pm, prime time television.

I believe it removed a sense of political importance or worthiness from the Maori Channel. A sense of inferiority to the mainstream broadcasters was instantly surfaced, as well as a disheartened and disappointing sense of inequality between white dominated mainstream media, and Maori indeginious media. I wasn't really sure what to think of it. I was genuinely shocked. Not even a programme based around the Maori community being exposed with positive coverage, or Maori events throughout society revealing the beauty and raw authenticity of a the Maori culture. Nope.. instead Dora The Explorer. No suprises it have 0.3% of the New Zealand viewers when a childrens cartoon is claiming the prime time.

Considering the burden of representation that Maori's are given within mainstream news, and the negative coverage throughout the media in general, I personally thought that having a Maori news channel operating at the same time to the rest of the country's broadcasters would be hugely beneficial to the futhering processes around positive changes and decolonization. I also believe it are these flaws within New Zealand media that are letting themselves down, and not only the media organizations but the huge portions of the positively influencing Maori New Zealanders that are burdened by the mainstream stereotypes unfairly, and continuously being reinforced.

Postcolonialism, Post-colonialism and the Migrant Crisis

Using the term ‘Postcolonialism’ instead of ‘Post-colonialism’ couldn’t be more vital when looking at the ‘migrant crisis’. With so much of conflict and instability in so many parts of the once colonized world, that single dash is the only difference between the assumption that the age of colonization is over and its ideological motivators erased, and the acknowledgement of the patterns of cultural control which have continued despite the formal end of colonization.

A link refuses to be made between the destabilizing effects of colonial activities and the endless conflicts of the 21^st century, and most of all how many millions have been killed and forced to flee from their homes to places which represent safety and prosperity. In this way, centuries of Eurocentrism have become, in the view of our politicians, mildly problematic; the West doesn’t quite see the benefits of this discourse now that millions are arriving at the doorstep. Suddenly it’s ‘us’ who are the victims because, to paraphrase politicians, ‘we don’t know what to do with these people.’ The media has amplified this discourse into a not-so-silent plea:

“Why can’t you go back to where you came from?”

With my dark sense of humour, the irony of this is beyond measure; the answer is obvious; if ‘we’, the colonizers, had gone back to where we came from (as we were politely and not so politely asked) would this current crisis be dominating the media and further perpetuating the ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality that colonization has given us?

The media’s response to the migrant crisis it is not only a sign of the continuing power imbalance, but also a clear threat to Western superiority. The sad truth is that nobody wants to acknowledge the long-lasting damage that colonization has done; whilst the ‘settler’ colonized countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States have made apologies over recent years in regard to the treatment of the indigenous people, have we seen any apologies for the many issues caused by generations of so-called ‘dependency’’ colonies? How Europe’s imperial powers have responsibility for the ever-lasting Israel-Palestine conflict? How Belgium’s enforcement of racial divisions in Rwanda caused a genocide which killed almost 1 million people?  How the lines slapped on the map which divided India and Pakistan have caused countless deaths and tensions, all because of a lack of care given to the ethnic and cultural differences of these areas? Nope.

The crisis is indeed a sign that the residual effects of colonization no longer benefit the West. This intensified flow of people into Europe and to a lesser extent other Western countries like the US and Canada is quite simply the reaping of what centuries of colonial discourse as sown; as a result of these conceptualizations of ‘short history’ which are no less minimized today, we are finally seeing the results of the long-running colonial amnesia which has totally minimized the violence, conflict and oppression of colonized countries. It is only now that the world has been forced to reflect on WHY these areas as the way they are. Aside from a few enlightened commentators the responses are classical of this historical amnesia:

“These places have always been violent.”

“Democracy just doesn’t work there.”

Or even:

“If colonialism had carried on, the world would be more stable.”

You only have to look at news coverage to know that this is the case; the threatening portrayal in the media of the ‘others’ has become increasingly marked. As the world becomes more and more globalized, the countries and cultures which have been traditionally side-lined are edging away from the periphery. One cannot look at the constant images of overloaded boats arriving on the shores of Greece without seeing the symbolic representation of the Western panic of a ‘reverse colonization’. ‘They’ are the unknown, the foreign, the strange, arriving at our shores without invitation to live among us.

Oh, the irony.

What the migrant crisis has created is a mirror which is allowing the West to look back on itself and its past actions, and it’s clear that many don’t like the reflection. I don’t deny that Germany’s enthusiastic welcoming of refugees is an example of the goodness humanity is capable of, but at the same time I refuse to believe that there is no notion of guilt within this; maybe I am too cynical, but it seems impossible that such a decision was not borne in part from a wanting to make amends for the past. Yet this is a better response that simply turning our backs; Britain has made it clear that it won’t participate in the EU refugee quotas. Thus the very label ‘migrant’ can be read as a subverted form of strategic essentialism; every individual on those boats has their own story, their own identity and culture which they have been forced to leave behind, but the media forces on this label as an umbrella to crowd everyone underneath in the mission to form an inherently negative unity. These people are refugees fleeing persecution, but this protection is stripped from them by their homogenization into needy, opportunistic people who will take jobs from ‘us’.

The bottom line is that despite the remains of colonial discourse in media representation and the actions of world leaders, the migrant crisis shows that the lines drawn between the colonizer and the colonized are no longer so clean cut in practice; colonialism has blurred this divide and created what Homi Bhabka stresses as ‘interdependence’ – this fixed separation is no longer possible as people move across the globe, whether as refugees or genuine migrants. This ‘hybrid’ identity is something which the media refuses to acknowledge in its perpetuation of the Saidian binary. No matter how much the media’s visual and linguistic imagery expresses this desire, we cannot return to such a strict separation where the two will never ideologically meet. Clearly this is a huge source of postcolonial anxiety because the authority of the colonizer can no longer be assumed; the gaze in no longer upon the actions of the colonized, but on the actions of the colonists. Under this gaze, the essentialism of the West as the invisible authority is under question. The real question is: where will we go from here?

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41273996?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.coldwarstudies.com/2013/01/11/history-of-colonization-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-mena-precursor-to-cold-war-conflict/

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-pm-cameron-confirms-uk-staying-out-of-eu-refugee-quotas-2015-9/?r=AU&IR=T

The importance of Hamilton as an inherently non-white piece of media

Diversity and representation of people of colour is significant in the casting of all pieces of media including television, movies, and extremely popular broadway musicals such as Hamilton.  If you have been living under a rock, Hamilton is a musical about Alexander Hamilton, created by (and starring) Hispanic composer, lyricist, rapper and actor, Lin-Manuel Miranda. Hamilton is significant in the fact that it casts people of colour in roles that would be seen as “traditionally” white, and therefore, in the hands of someone else, these roles (like most roles) would largely be given to white people.

Recently, as Hamilton looked to expand its shows to other cities in the U.S, a casting notice was put up that called for “NON-WHITE men and women, ages 20s to 30s.” This sparked a significant amount of controversy, particularly coming from Actors’ Equity Association, the union that represents more than 50,000 professional actors and stage managers across America. Civil rights attorney Randolph McLaughlin, went as far as to say that this casting notice was a violation of human rights, stating, “What if they put an ad out that said, ‘whites only need apply’? Why, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians would be outraged.”  What McLaughlin fails to realize is that “whites only need apply” is basically the norm for the casting of most forms of media, even if it is not explicitly stated.

For example, this casting notice for Steve Martin and Edie Brickell’s musical, Bright Star clearly states “all characters are Caucasian” – which, according to the previous quote from Civil Rights attorney McLaughlin, is exactly the same as calling for “non-white men and women.” 

Except it’s not. It’s not the same because white people are not marginalized or underrepresented in mainstream society. It’s not the same because of the Actors’ Equity Association’s 50,000 plus members, 68% are white. It’s not the same because Bright Star is one of many musicals that hires either exclusively or mostly white people, where as Hamilton is one musical, standing alone in doing the opposite; providing roles and representation for the people who are excluded by shows such as Bright Star.

Additionally, even if it is not explicitly stated in the casting notice that “whites only need apply”, an on-going tendency for musicals to only hire white people to play lead parts is so significant that it is internalized by performers such as Isabelle Ohlmeyer. In her article for the San Francisco Chronice, Ohlmeyer wrote, “I have had years of experience in theater, yet casting directors can’t seem to look past the color of my olive skin. I have auditioned for Millie in “Thoroughly Modern Millie” and Wendy in “Peter Pan.” I can sing, act and dance. The casting directors selected white people to play Wendy and Millie. This has been a repeating pattern. As I enter (any) audition room, I know I won’t be cast as a lead female character." She then went on to highlight the importance of what Lin-Manuel Miranda and the producers of Hamilton are doing with this casting process, they are creating a space (one space, within a system, within a world that contradicts it), where “whites (are) the minority and diverse people (are) the majority”. I think this is something that we should be celebrating, and encouraging for the casting of other musicals, television shows and movies, not trying to fight.

It is also emphasised by Zeba Blay of Huffington Post that by implying that the roles of Hamilton should be as available to white actors as they are to actors of colour undermines the very thing that makes this musical so unique: “its inherent, unapologetic blackness." She explains that Hamilton is a negotiation of the past within the context of the present and future. That this is, at its very heart, a hip-hop musical – something that is inherent to the story, and therefore it is important to have a diverse cast, to have black leads. Blay concludes by writing ““Hamilton” is most definitely an inclusive show, an inclusive experience. But the fact of the matter is, quite frankly, not everything is about white people.” I think this quote sums up the situation nicely. White people, or people who buy into the dominant ideology presented in society (which is white), are very quick to reprimand people for being “politically correct” or “making it about race” when someone tries to address actually racist issues (in any context, including the racial politics of casting). But as soon as white people are excluded from the casting of one musical, the exception to the rule in an institution where white people get most lead roles, that is a violation of human rights?

Not everything is about white people. Get over it.

Isabelle Ohlmeyer’s article: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Hamilton-casting-call-for-nonwhite-actors-7232978.php

Zeba Blay’s article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-the-hamilton-casting-call-for-non-white-actors-is-not-reverse-racism_us_56fd2c83e4b0daf53aeed9b9

All Hail Queen B! ...Right?

Well, she's certainly garnered the attention of the media recently, with the release of her album Lemonade. A powerhouse in the music industry, Beyonce Knowles-Carter serves as a role to model to young women and men around the globe. She has mastered her craft and proved herself to be a versatile artist - musically, choreographically, cinematically, and let's face it - she SLAYS onstage.

But what about socially? Politically? Hailed as a feminist icon, is she really what she represents to so many people?

Take the "Formation" video for example. A powerful statement about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Beyonce sends chills down our spine with her pose on the sinking police car and the young boy standing in front of a line of armed police officers. Watching the super bowl, we see her striking presentation of "Formation" with lines of black women behind her, representing a new take on the Black Power movement. Our instinct is to recognize that Beyonce is a strong, black woman and she is spearheading the #BlackLivesMatter campaign as well as the feminist struggle. At face value, this is what the media portrays her to be. And why wouldn't we believe it? She is an accomplished black woman who deserves praise.

But let's take a step back. Beyonce has been in the spotlight since she was a teenager. Thriving in the music industry beginning with Destiny's Child, then later moving into her own light, Beyonce can do no wrong in the eyes of the general public. She has flown up the celebrity ladder past her peers, living a lush lifestyle the majority of her life. This isn't to say she hasn't struggled - being a black woman in the American music industry is demanding, tiring and debilitating. Yet, she has succeeded on a global scale. This should be praised. But does her time in the spotlight distance her from the plight of the average black woman?

As a white woman, I can only scratch the surface of what I see. I can't dig into the depths of understanding the struggle that my peers face. That's why I broached the topic of Beyonce's image with my good friend, Dayna. Dayna is a black woman who studies African-American Diaspora and Women's Studies at Loyola University - in New Orleans. While she of course does not "stand in" as a spokesperson for the African-American struggle, I know that she is passionate about social justice and would know obviously far more than I on the daily life of being a black woman. I asked her about her views on the "Formation" video, since I had heard only overwhelmingly positive feedback. She responded that she didn't necessarily agree with the video. When I asked her why, she in turn asked me to consider the lyrics towards the beginning of the song: "My daddy Alabama, momma Louisiana/You mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bama." Yes, Beyonce's mother is from Louisiana, but Beyonce is from Texas. She cannot truly identify with the New Orleans struggle because she herself did not have to go through it. Certainly, she provided a platform on which to discuss the issues surrounding the horrible situation of Katrina and lack of police response. But Beyonce's wealth and position in society distances her from identifying with the financially devastating results of Hurricane Katrina and those affected by the neglect of New Orleans politicians.

Beyonce also identifies herself as a feminist. She writes empowering songs for black women, as well as for women of all ethnicities. But this doesn't necessarily make her the face of the feminist struggle, nor the face of the African-American struggle. A woman living in the lap of luxury, she is not to blame for not being able to relate to the lifestyle of those directly above, on and below the poverty line. She has been criticized, however, for the "lightness of her skin." Although a proud black woman is presented to us through the media, the same media has lightened her skin tone for the cover of magazines. Does this suggest that Beyonce addresses the topic of race and feminism only when it benefits her socially? Until this point, she has not stepped out and confronted racial issues, and does little activism in the realm of feminism as well. Some believe that it is simply too little, too late.

When all is said and done, however, one fact about Beyonce remains: she serves as an empowering figure to so many of her fans. Even if she doesn't identify with the little guy (girl), there is no argument when it comes to questioning her power in the media. If she is recognizing her social responsibility to further these causes, praise certainly is in order for her accomplishments. But the question is posed - is it for the benefit of the general population to become aware of the struggle of black women and in turn urging us all to do something about it, or is it self-serving to attract more media attention?