While reading this book, I am struck by how pervasive racism still is in the media, but also by how far we have come just to arrive at the (still) prejudiced place that we are today. Apparently racism in film and television have just become more subversive so that people no longer notice anymore, and sexism is much the same way.

I recently had a conversation on Facebook with a (white) man that I have known well my entire life, who grew up in a loving, middle class home and seems to be a well rounded, kind person. He told me that he doesn't know anyone who believes that minorities and women are inferior, and that everyone in then United States  has an equal opportunity to be successful if they just work hard enough. I'm sure that he truly believes this is reality for most people, he doesn't realize that racism and sexism are so normalized that he no longer notices them, and neither do most people. While I tried to make a convincing case within the limited confines of a Facebook comment thread, I doubt he was convinced. After reading this book (and the other readings from this class) I can easily see why. I feel like I am a fairly intelligent person with critical thinking skills that might be above average, if for no other reason than my educational background. Yet, I didn't notice many of the racist stereotypes presented in the opening chapters of "Media & Minorities."

I grew up with shows like "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" and "The Cosby Show." I watched western movies and TV shows with my parents all the time. I grew up thinking ""La Bamba" was a great movie and the men in "Mississippi Burning" represented the civil rights movement. I've seen the first two "Karate Kid" movies more times than I am willing to admit publicly. And now I realize that whether I like it or not, despite my belief that I was raised to believe in equality and stand up to prejudice, I was still indoctrinated into a culture of racism. We all were. Does this make us all prejudiced by default? Can we, and the rest of society for that matter, be reprogrammed to not accept racism and sexism?

We can at least become more aware of and stand up to prejudice, an idea that Larson reiterates in each chapter with sections that discuss ways that people are already fighting against prejudice and can continue to in the future. I like that she includes these ideas rather than simply stating problems that she has observed. The only thing I find objectionable is that she uses language that is exclusionary when she makes statements like "By protesting at the studios or movie theaters, leading boycotts of films, and releasing critical reports, racial-minority groups draw attention to offensive content." (19) While I agree 100% with this sentiment, why is this call to action only extended to "racial-minority groups" rather than "people who want to end prejudice" in general? Does one have to be part of a minority group in order to stand up to racism? Of course not, and I think it is important for white people to stand up to racism, just like it is important for men to stand up to sexism. Despite this minor criticism, I really like this book and find it refreshing after reading the sexist, judgmental rhetoric of "she who shall not be named"in the last book. I appreciate Larson's objective viewpoint.

Is it possible to consider minority groups in an equal way?

So far, I’m really enjoying Larson’s book.  I think her words, “entertainment does serious ideological work by avoiding or hiding social issues and problems” sums up what the book is going to entail.  I really liked that she used specific instances of her discussion about the treatment of minorities in entertainment when she discussed The Apprentice and liked that included multiple examples in each of the sections, mentioning multiple movies that represented what she was discussing.  

“By including minorities but treating them as undifferentiated members of a unified group (such as Americans or women), the entertainment media deny both racial discrimination and diversity” (7).   

While I do agree, that they should be not treated as undifferentiated members of a unified group, I think the use of “women” as a unified group is a little off base.  I don’t think that people should only be classified in terms of gender, but I also think that gender does play a role in exclusion as well as experience, and shouldn’t be tossed off to the side.   However, I do think it is important to consider race, and go beyond gender because feminism is not the same for white women as it is for women of color.  

While I also enjoyed the fact she covered a lot of different minority groups, including Asian Americans and Native Americans, two groups that we have covered very little overall, I do think that while trying to be inclusive, this practice in many ways was also exclusive.  There were many groups of people that she left out of her discussion including Arab or Middle Eastern Americans, Indian Americans, as well as many other groups.  Maybe it is because many of these groups see little air time in entertainment media, or at least less time than some of the other groups talked about.  But I think that discussing the stereotyping of Arab Americans would have been something worth looking at, especially in the context of American news media post-9/11 and the negative framing surrounding the stories of Arab Americans as well as anyone they suspect could be of Arab or Middle Eastern descent.  All of the minorities who do not fall under her categorization are sort of just, lumped in.

Dear Larson, I have a Question...

There are some concerns for this text, Media & Minorities: The Politics of Race In News and Entertainment. The primary issue that I have acknowledged with this book is the types of examples or statements she uses to convey her message of racism in the media. I am not necessarily arguing against her examples, they are valid and relatively good points of reference that do depict instances of racism. However I keep finding myself arguing against some of them. For instance, she writes,” For years, television avoided racially political themes to avoid offending white Southerners” (Larson. 23). I find it hard to believe that the media was trying to avoid racially political issues ONLY for the sake of White Southerners.  Also in the same chapter, the discussion about the subservient “mammie” was informative, but left me to question other examples of characters that seemed to straddle types of stereotypical roles. Characters, such as Butterfly McQueen in Mildred Pierce, who obviously portrayed the Negro nanny but also showed qualities that embodied the childish, ignorant but lovable “coon” were not mentioned, or should I say classified in Larson’s text. Where would these multidimensional characters fit into the racist realm of media and politics? Also I thought about how other minorities were being depicted as the “mammie” such as the nameless nanny in Little Women, who was Irish. I understand that the text based primarily ethnicity and segregation, but it is interesting how Larson uses some historical context to justify her angle but leaves out the harsh treatment of other immigrants during the 1800’s and 1900’s.

Another comment about the text I want to make is the reoccurring theme of how minorities represent for their entire race. Larson separates the minorities into types of stereotypes the media uses. This does help us as readers identify the on goings in Hollywood, but it also perpetuates the notion that any minority, individual or collective, is seen as a representative for their whole race because Larson is making the stereotype dependant on the dominant culture’s perceptions. Now I’m not sure there is a way to fix how one minority does not equate to an entire culture, but when reflecting on ethnic groups in the media, you see that minorities are more often categorized and the ones in power are more likely to be address as such. We are more acceptable of the fluid motion of language that goes back and forth between identifying Caucasian characters as individuals and being a representative of their race (stereotypes vs. white ally/savior).       

"Give us a black Superman!"

I have certainly enjoyed the first 80 pages of this text. There is a little bit of reiteration of the items we've spoken about in class up to this point, but it's nice to solidify my understanding of the critical lens and dominant discourses.

I couldn't help but think of my love of the comic book world and how authors and artists are always trying to "reboot" a series or a popular comic book icon. In "reboots" they try to stray from the past discourses and, instead, employ today's conventions and discourses on a character that has only known the 1940s American ideal for example. What's cool about these reboots is that, when they are done right, they show how it doesn't actually matter what gender or race or background a hero has, the outcome is the same—they're just a symbolic representation of the heroic journey philosophy that so many of us participate in, knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm not trying to say that the comic book world has it figured out, because they most obviously don't (an evaluation of even the present-day hyper-sexualization of comics is a prime example). But, the characters we see in media are just hollow characters that actors come and fill. Yes, they have important backstories and the plot is dependent upon them and so on. But, the cast of a film is just a hollow turnstile that actors move in and out of. Take any American film and "reboot it" in Africa or Asia and you'll likely see the same discourses we see in America, just adjusted and turned to fit the prevailing worldviews of that culture.

Notes:

• It might be nice if this book had "American" written into the title somewhere because it is predominantly about American media. But, maybe that is a "for granted" fact for its audience.

• I hope I'm not the only one who asked over and over again "How would [insert another country/race/ethnicity here] portray their leading and supporting actors in film and television?" 
• This question is especially intriguing because the dominant discourses of a place are probably likely to represent its people's worldview much like the discourses outlined in the opening chapters of this text. It's obviously not within Larson's scope to discuss the portrayal of media and minorities in other places, nor is it her prerogative. That doesn't mean it's not an interesting question to ask.
• My familiarity with both Hong Kong-produced Kung Fu movies and animated Japanese movies is admittedly greater than it should be—I spent a heap of my adolescent Alaskan years avoiding the frozen terrors of the tundra and seeking solace in the hyper-action of Hong Kong kung fu and Japanime. Occasionally, in both genres, you'll find an American (almost always male, and almost always white—which says something in and of itself, I suppose) represented in a sort of American reduction of stupidity and wealth or brashness and overbearance. 
• This is just to emphasize that 1) stereotyping or discrimination of minorities seems to happen to minorities in other places where white isn't at the top of the media hierarchy and 2) media everywhere is exactly what the word implies: the medium through which a certain person/people distributes a portrayal of their own (often a subconscious worldview) artistic perspective.

• The portrayal of Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans heretofore in media is undeniably shameful. I've seen so many of the examples mentioned within the text. Interestingly, so many of the films and shows mentioned in those three chapters serve as sort of time capsules for evaluating how Americans inwardly (and sometimes outwardly) felt about minority races. I say "interestingly" because there are still problems with the prevailing American media discourse, but the same people who can look back upon past eras as distinct dioramas are often not capable of taking a lens to the current state of media. Also, and most importantly, it is a lot harder to distinguish racism in today's era when compared to the treatment of minorities in American media of the past. Today, it is often subtle.Which leads me to my next point...

• Much of the criticism I've read about gender, media, and minorities approaches the overall argument in such a way that it sets up a lose-lose situation for anyone who wants to argue against it or offer any kind of defense (even for the sake of discussion). Though, activists and proponents of minority representation in media argue that the discriminations in the discourse are glaringly obvious, some arguments that I have read are drastically overreaching in their assessment of films or shows just to make a point. I say "lose-lose situation" because our last author, Karen Ross, would argue that any type of defense for the way someone talks or acts that is contrary to how that CDA analyst perceives a situation is just resorting to a "reactionary discourse"  (an example would be a person trying to defend their situation with phrases such as "I grew up in the hood, and all my friends are black. Why would I be racist?" or "I am the only boy in a home of six sisters and I value women profusely, so don't call me sexist").  While I invariably agree with Larson's approach to media and minorities in our text so far, there is still a part of me that is trying to work out the offensive notion that CDA has to be primarily about what media is doing WRONG instead of an occasional evaluation of how minority, gender, et al. has been treated fairly or maybe even "honestly"in a film or other form of media. 
• That word, "honestly", is dangerous because even when a minority (or, hell, even a majority) artist or director seeks to represent a particular societal situation as honestly and "true-to-life" as possible, there is inevitably room to make the argument that they are just projecting or perpetuating a prevailing discourse; that, if they are a minority, they are just trying to please the majority and are subdued by the discourse. What other options are there? When someone has set out to make a production that is true to life, they're not trying to depict a utopia, an idea, or the paradisiacal—they're trying to show things as they are. That doesn't mean they are intentionally or overtly making an argument that things should stay that way. 

• The reality is that there are real issues in America (and, as I noted, in other places I'm sure) with regard to representative discourses. But, if much of our media is a litmus test for the status quo, should we be trying to change the media discourse, or should we be trying to change something bigger than that?  I suppose that is the niche for CDA though. It's viable to argue that a certain discourse is recycled and perpetuated through media consumption; that we can't make bigger changes when media is always undermining those changes with "-ist" discourses. 

In the least, I have come to appreciate the lenses of CDA because it is most definitely dangerous to only know one point of view your whole life, incapable of understanding another angle. 

Moving Forward or Stepping Back?

Media and Minorities:

After reading these six chapters, I am aware of some issues that I hadn’t thought about before. In chapter one: The authors discuss a lot about the racial stereotypes and wrongness portrayed in the Apprentice. How even though the show was hit, the show portrayed the “whiteness” or the dominant culture and where only the white people would win. Where others could only be seen as helpers, hinders, dramatists, and stereotypes of their racial statuses. The show never really portrayed and racial minority other than African Americans, which I find really sad because there are so many other people whose identities and cultures should be a part of this show. It might have helped to connect to more people and made the show even popular. But sadly, the show only lasted six seasons (not including the celebrity versions).

In chapter two: The authors discuss exclusion and selective exclusion. Now, I’ve known the idea behind these terms were going on with previous media studies classes, but the term “selective exclusion” was new to me. They way in which they authors used this term applied to what they consider to adhere to the dominant ideology. “When outsider communications are co-opted by the mainstream, their messages tend to be neutralized and domesticated. This is one way in which the dominant ideology is maintained. The dominant culture can appropriate the contributions of racial minorities without fully understanding or respecting them” (20). This statement applies to the remaining four chapters and is discussed by showing how mainstream media reinstates this ideology.

Chapter three, four, five, and six: This chapter discusses the many different roles and stereotypes that African Americans, Native American, Hispanics, and Asian Americans played in films and television throughout the years. They were selectively excluded to play roles that would show them as weak, bad, or other the other hand they assimilated to the white ideology and were accepted only as sidekicks, friends, and helpers but never as equals or heroes. The authors give many great film examples that I have seen, yet when they discuss the positive images in films they exclude so many great films that cherish and validate minority races. The only film mentioned that truly was a great example was Smoke Signals, this film “demonstrates the beauty of the reservation and breaks down stereotypes by showing ‘the kind of powerful Indian I’ve known all my life’” (55). Other films they left out were Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I know this is not a Hollywood film but it was widely seen and accepted in America for its beauty of the Japanese culture.

I agree with much of what the authors say about the film industry controlling what we see in the media, and I know that there is much stereotyping and selective exclusion, but there are also more and more independent film companies now a days trying to break through this stronghold. There have been so many movies that I have seen that beautify and celebrate minorities and at the same time making them the majority within films. I think that since this book was written in 2006, they are missing some of the changing films in today’s society. Even though these things are occurring, I am not dismissing the fact that the film industry is predominantly white and would like to continue to show assimilation to feed their dominant ideology. Ugh. I get sick to my stomach every time I think about this.

Response Media and Minorities 1-5

These were my favorite readings that we have done all semester. I really appreciate getting such an expansive overview of America’s history of racist portrayals in the media. Too often, things we read about negative depictions of stereotypes or what the book called “controlling images” deal with negative portrayals. I like that this book also spent a lot of time discussing how supposedly “positive” portrayals can also be problematic. For example, Sidney Poitier’s roles in the 50’s and 60’s aren’t negative stereotypes. Then again, they portray a version of African-Americans that supports the popular narratives of the “American Dream” and are not truly representative of many African Americans’ experience. I also agreed with the book’s contention regarding some of Whoopi Goldberg’s roles, in which she appears to be a “tan” character, but even “tan” is somehow put into the background. I know that in my life, family members and friends always are willing to point out that such portrayals aren’t truly negative, because they’re not “making fun” of a group; positive stereotypes can be just as harmful, and I’m glad this book covered that topic in detail.

I was quite impressed that the book devoted entire chapters to depictions of Asians and Native-Americans. When most people think of “racism” or “stereotypes,” these groups are not ones that come to mind. In fact, I think I have already referenced several times on this blog that negative depictions of Asians are something rarely talked about. I think the book was correct in saying that the most common role for an Asian woman in films and television is the “nameless prostitute.” These characters are often hypersexualized, a trope that continues in Hollywood even today. I can even recall seeing this a couple of weeks ago in the Ben Stiller movie The Watch where this stereotype is brought in for seemingly comedic reasons, yet is totally irrelevant to the plot. Most audiences tend to not even realize this undercurrent. I recall listening to a hip-hop radio show in Miami where the host, in discussing the football player Tiki Barber divorcing his then eight-month pregnant Asian wife said “maybe he just got sick of eating all that rice.” It seems to me that if he had made this statement about almost any other group, he could get fired or fined. After this incident, I looked up to see whether the host had gotten any time of reprimand about it; as far as I know, none occurred. I’m glad that the book brings awareness to the issue of stereotypes and jokes about Asians; the smart/nerdy “Model Minority” Asian stereotype is another that I’ve seen again and again in the media. When I bring this stuff up with people, they tend to deny that these things are problematic, because they either deny that the problem exists across eras and mediums (they view each incident as unique), or they refuse to believe these stereotypes are negative. It’s important to read through these types of things, because it helps remind us that these media portrayals are ubiquitous and harmful.

It was also rather interesting to read about how these different groups protested or exerted political influence to attempt to change these media representations. While many such attempts were ineffective, I was surprised to learn that the NAACP had successfully campaigned to stop films shown in the 1920’s-30’s. It reminds me that being critical of these portrayals is extremely important. While we might not be able to change the way media works, eventually critically examining media in this way will, I hope, lead to some changes in industry practices.

I was reminded of the marginalization of racial minorities in the media while Logan and I were watching a commercial for Virgin Mobile the other day. When the commercial was over, he asked me, "Did you notice that everyone in that commercial was white?" We watched it again, noting the possibility of a black man's hand at 0:19 as well as one very white-looking Asian woman and one very white-looking, possibly Hispanic woman. We then discussed how, while not every commercial needs to fulfill some sort of race quota, it is particularly odd that a commercial that is essentially a montage with (I counted) fifteen different actors and actresses (those who are at least visible enough to discern their race) cannot include at least one racial minority. The very few who are not discernibly Caucasian, the Asian woman in particular, appear white-washed; it looked like her hair had blonde highlights. Then we discussed the implications of our discovery--everyone is throwing their phones off balconies or dropping them in drinks or leaving them in taxis. Their phones are disposable; they are eager to go out and buy this new one from Virgin mobile. There is obviously the implication of wealth here, and it just so happens that everyone doing this is white. Interesting.

I'll admit that CDA, while interesting and enlightening and pro-social justice, all of which I can get behind, makes me feel a bit like I'm simply playing devil's advocate. I felt like this even more as I was reading  Larson's intro about The Apprentice. I've never seen the show, but I was a little skeptical about the way she wrote with such confidence that Kwame plays the role of the white man's sidekick while Omarosa plays the angry black woman. It's not that I don't agree that those stereotypes exist, but something about the way she wrote made me feel like she was simply plugging the show into a pre-existing formula for a racist television show--it just all seemed too convenient. I think what I couldn't get past was the fact that none of these typecasting scenarios are deliberate, which she later cleared up in Chapter One: "The politics of representation does not result from a conspiracy between producers/writers and politicians. There is no meeting in which these people plan how they are going to tell system-supportive stories in films in order to safe-guard their power and wealth" (14). (Which, as I found out the hard way, is why it's so hard to perform a CDA on a film that is consciously addresses issues of racial or some other social injustice; you need one that, like The Apprentice, is oblivious to its racism because it is simply following the narrative that society has already written.) "Instead, the producers and writers are telling stories that make sense to them from the position they occupy in society" (14). If someone is upper-class and white and has been taught, however consciously or unconsciously, that ethnic minorities are below them in some way, then their stories will reflect that. This cycle will continue because no one knows any other way to tell stories. I am reminded of working in Hollister where we would be especially suspicious of young black shoppers because the majority of our caught shoplifters were black--that's just how it was, we told ourselves in some attempt to make ourselves feel like we weren't being racist. We never stopped to ask ourselves why the majority of our shoplifters were black though--what about the racial narrative our society has written has put black youngsters in that position?

So this got all rambly and there was a point I was supposed to be making in regards to the reading. Going back to the Virgin Mobile commercial, Logan and I discussed how the producers of the commercial probably did not not sit down and decide the commercial would not feature any ethnic minorities because ethnic minorities don't have the money to throw their phone in the trash--they probably just cast people they knew who all happened to be white, just like them. When a person's individual life is filled with other white people, that becomes the norm for them. Unfortunately some of these people are involved in the media and so their very white lives are reflected in what we see on television, resulting in the marginalization of ethnic minorities. In Miss Representation (I know, I can't go a blog post without referencing that movie), they refer to this concept as "symbolic annihilation," which is basically when society's representation of a group is so minimally to non-existent that that group's relevance to society is questionable. When we don't include minorities in the media, it looks as though they are not valued or considered to be important, and they might ask themselves what role they even play in society if they are not important enough to be represented. Watching the Virgin Mobile commercial reminded me of being at the apartment of two of our friends, a married couple from Nigeria. They had the TV on and I was once again reminded of how very white the media is in our country, from the shampoo commercials to the soap operas. It made me wonder how they feel watching TV here, or how I would feel watching TV if not a single person on it looked like me. It would probably make me feel very foreign.