Cultural Appropriation and Cinco de Mayo

Ohh Cinco de Mayo, how us United Statesians* love you. We wear sombreros and mustaches and drink tequila all day to celebrate our southern neighbor, Mexico's Independence. But what most people don't realize is that dressing up in those costumes and celebrating how they do is actually cultural appropriation. If you think that this is not important and "cultural appropriation is bullshit" (literally one of the suggestions when you google cultural appropriation) then please see my previous post about color-blind racism and the four frames used to justify discrimination. It should prove to be enlightening.

May 5th is not Mexico's independence day. It's actually celebrated on September 15th and 16th to commemorate an uprising against Spanish rule in 1810. But many people think it celebrates a Mexican victory over the French on May 5th, 1862. It was a very important and profound victory so it was celebrated over the years in the Chicano community and eventually became a national holiday. But in the 1980's the alcohol companies started to capitalize on Chicano movements that used May 5th and it's rich history to rally. Ohh capitalism, profiting off of a culture like that is not okay.

Cultural appropriation is taking elements of another culture, often sacred and symbolic, and presenting it in a shallow manner. It turns someone's culture into a trend or commodity, and it is an act of privilege. The alcohol companies profit off of someone's culture, and it in no way gives back to the Mexican culture. If a Mexican identifying person were to walk down the street in the U.S. wearing a sombrero and traditional poncho, they would most likely be ridiculed or stigmatized in some way. The stigma doesn't stay when it's someone of the dominant culture, they can take it on and off when it's useful. There's the privilege. It simply displays the unequal power balance between cultures.

 As this poster suggests, using a culture as a costume is just not okay. This is also a problem around Halloween. Using someone's cultural symbols to satisfy a personal need for self-expression is also a privilege. And it comes with many historical and social implications. So just don't do it.

Cultural exchange is a mutual understanding that embodies equality and respect for another culture that is not your own. It is a respectful engagement by a humble and invited guest. Spend time immersed in the culture, truly try to understand the history of the people and who they are today, educate yourself, it's not the responsibility of someone in the culture to be your bridge and teach you everything. If you are really interested in cultural exchange, you will do the work.

So in a month when Cinco de Mayo comes around, instead of going out and buying a sombrero, think twice. Think about what that day really is and maybe go do some research for yourself, or spend some time getting to know someone that is Mexican instead of appropriating Mexican culture and exercising your privilege in vein.


*I use the term United Statesians because to use the term American is a privilege that only those in the U.S. can seem to claim, although North America is more that the U.S. So why aren't Canadians or Mexicans also Americans or why aren't we all just North Americans? Food for thought.

Television, ethnicity and color blind racism

There has been a recent shift in casting in prime television shows this season. Cristela, Black-ish, Fresh Off the Boat, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, are a few of these new shows that have been some of the best, most watched, and critically acclaimed in a long time. The best part is there are more roles with actors of color who portray actually complex, multidimensional characters, and some of these shows even actually address issues of class and racism. As with any good thing, there has also been some ignorant backlash.  

This piece by Sonia Saraiya discusses the backlash and why it is ridiculous. Sonia cites a specific article written by Nellie Andreeva in which Nellie complains bout the amount of ethnic roles calling it unfair, and stating, "Instead of opening the field for actors of any race to compete for any role in a color-blind manner, there has been a significant number of parts designated as ethnic this year, making them off-limits for Caucasian actors." 

First of all, many people think that being color-blind is a good thing, but it's not. It's another form of racism. Ignoring the differences among and between races minimizes parts of a person's identity. You can't simply not see that someone is black. They can't ignore it on a daily basis, with the presence of institutional racism, so doing so is a form of privilege. People of color experience the U.S. differently, so thinking that everyone is the same is a flawed notion.

Second, TV shows with all white casts have been around forever, there are hundreds. So it's not unfair that the few shows we have today are all casts of people of color, its great, and very much needed. 

There are four frames used to justify the continued discrimination in color-blind racism. 

1. Abstract Liberalism- a focus on economics, the idea that everyone has the same chance, the "bootstraps" theory.

2. Naturalization - the notion that it's natural for blacks and whites to segregate and be with people that look like yourself. 

3. Cultural Racism - believing that the way people behave is attributed to their culture, creating a deficit. 

4. Minimization - believing that people talk about race too much, that the conversation is not important. 

Many people think that because we have a black president that we are in a post-racial society, but it's simply not true. People like Oprah and Obama are exceptional figures. Just because Oprah can do it doesn't mean any black person can just work hard and "make it". There is more to it that just pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. There is still racism today. It may not be necessarily as overt as it has been historically, but it is certainly still there, in our institutions, ingrained in our society and our structures. The only way you can ignore it is because you are privileged to not be faced with it on a daily basis, and in that case, you're too ignorant to see how important the conversation around racism is. 

Framing, Rolling Stone, and the Boston Bomber

According to Robert Entman, to frame "is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." So in other words, when something is framed a certain way it defines a problem, diagnoses a cause, makes moral judgements, and offers suggestions to remedy the problem.

Framing in journalism can be intentional or unintentional but it is most likely intentional. For example when Rolling Stone magazine put the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Many people were outraged by this decision, and stores even refused to carry the issue. The media had been overflowing with images of victims who had been hurt in the blast, and they were graphic. This was a huge upset as any act of terrorism would be, across the nation, so people said that Rolling Stone was glorifying the bomber and the act.

It may seem as though it was a terrible decision for the editors to make. Why would they do that, when they could focus on the victims instead? But the editors did this purposefully. As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is always a conversation in the newsroom about what is covered and how.

The editors of Rolling Stone wanted to put Jahar on the cover because he is "young and in the same age group as many of [their] readers," which "makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens." They wanted to point out that this could have been anyone.

In the article  the writer had interviews from those who knew him as well as outlining his arrest. His friends said he was 'just a normal American kid," and his high school wrestling coach who 'loved [him] like a son' was completely shocked.  Multiple interviews from friends framed him as a kind, normal kid who was a Muslim but also American.

The framed problem in this article is that Jahar committed this act. The cause is that he was probably influenced by his older brother who had recently found religion, become passionate about it, and completely changed his life. Jahar had also recently started college and was having issues of fitting in, as well as coping with his parent's divorce, so he was perhaps trying to find himself like his brother had.

The moral evaluation in this article is that the writer wants us to understand more about where Jahar came from and what could have influenced him. Readers can understand from his friends that he seemed like a normal kid but you never really know what someone is thinking. Don't get me wrong, the article in no way glorifies him or makes him out as a hero at all. The writer just wants us to see that it wasn't a simple story. As far as remedies for the problem, there aren't really any offered. The author just points out from professional interviews about how isolation can affect someone.

This is a good example of the media purposefully using framing to get a point across. The author took a different angle on the story in order to show that you never know what's going on with someone, and anyone can commit such violent acts.

Boko Haram, Journalism, Agenda Setting and Gatekeeping

Journalists are the gatekeepers of the media, meaning that they are the ones who filter all the information that is broadcast to the public. They are also the agenda setters, which means that they have the ability, as the media, to decide what is important enough to be pushed to the public. If a particular topic is covered more often and more notable in the media, then the viewers will begin to think that it is more important. 

Take for example the lack of news coverage of the terrorist group Boko Haram's attack that killed 2,000 people in Nigeria. It was about the same time as the Paris terrorist attack at a French magazine, but the Boko Haram attack received much less media attention from the states as well as in Africa. Simon Allison, a journalist for the Daily Maverick who covers African news wrote an article about the attack and stated that, "It may be the 21st century, but African lives are still deemed less newsworthy - and, by implication, less valuable - than western lives."

12,000 Nigerians flee to Chad after Boko Haram attacks in January 2015.  - Credit: Turkish Weekly

There are discussions in the newsroom about what is newsworthy and what should or shouldn’t be covered. If the personal biases of people get in the way of that line of thinking, then the news is skewed. Another example of this is the fact that Black bodies are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to issues of welfare and crime. I briefly mentioned this in a previous post about the show "Shameless". We always see black faces juxtaposed with those stories, and that leads to people thinking that all crime is done by people of color and that the only people on welfare are people of color. But that’s completely incorrect. We hardly see white people portrayed as poor or working class, but there certainly are white people in such situations. There are more white drug dealers than black, and yet we rarely see that represented. The lack of wide media coverage misleads the public and therefore when people shape their ideologies, they are again skewed. A study done by Travis Dixon showed that there are harmful psychological effects of overrepresenting white victims and black perpetrators in the TV news.

As gatekeepers, the editors and journalists have the power to change the way groups of people are represented in the media and the way stories are shaped. Many of those editors and those in the power positions are white and are affected by stereotypes so they may not realize the harm they are doing. They subconsciously portray people of color as criminals because they are the "other", outside of their privileged group. There needs to be more diversity in the newsroom and more discussion of how crime stories are presented and how not to racialize them.

Overall, I believe the bias lies in the individual, whether they are in the audience, the journalist, editor, or whatever they may be, it all comes down to each individual and their perspective that shapes their ideologies. As a journalist, you still have the duty to do your best at being impartial. And as consumers of the media we have to be critical of what we read and recognize our own biases.

Miss Universe Japan, stereotypes, perception and schemas

There is a three step process that makes up perceptions. The first step is selection. The countless stimuli we are exposed to daily, like advertisements, people you see on the street or on television, the news you read, etc. are subconsciously turned into decisions of importance. Step two is organization. Those stimuli that subconsciously affect us are organized in a meaningful way. Our mind categorizes what we see and creates a language. The third step is interpretation. The things we see are subconsciously organized in our minds are interpreted to attach meaning to people, situations, and objects, which allows us to interpret cultures. The way that we see these things presented, our upbringing, personal beliefs, and education can all affect our perception and knowledge about a group of people.

A schema is a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about objects, people, or situations. They organize knowledge, guide behavior and predict behavior of others according to our perceptions. They are active when cognitive load is high and mental resources are low. So if you don't have exposure to or education in different cultures, but you see them without a critical eye all the time as we do in media and on the street etc., then you may fall into believing the wildly held beliefs, or stereotypes about a group. A stereotype is a schema for understanding a group of people. It hinders communication by linking overarching beliefs about a group to an individual who many times will not fit into that stereotype.

Stereotypes function like habits. They are so ingrained in us from all the things we see in the media and the lack of knowledge of a lived reality. They can be unintentional and spontaneous, but these associations develop over time. After a while, without paying attention and being intentional in our experiences and how we perceive them, our stereotypes turn into prejudices. We can change our prejudices but it takes time, intentional effort and attention to gaining knowledge of different groups.  

Recently, Ariana Miyamoto, 20, from Nagasaki, was crowned Japan's first bi-racial Miss Universe. Her mother is Japanese and her father is African American. She's simply gorgeous just as a beauty queen would be, but she had received a lot of backlash since being crowned, with comments that she is not "Japanese" enough.
What does that even mean? How can you define what it means to be Japanese and whether someone is too much or too little of it? This is a loose example of ethnocentrism - negatively judging aspects of another culture by the standards of one's own culture. The Japanese community which is mostly japanese and not mixed race, think that she is not Japanese enough because she is hafu - the term for someone ethnically half Japanese or mixed, and they are judging her based on the fact that she is part of more than one culture. Not to say that every Japanese person feels that way, but the people criticizing her certainly do, with comments stating that it's a no-no to choose a Miss Universe Japan that is a hafu. People have let their personal beliefs, perceptions and stereotypes get in the way of seeing how great it actually is that a mixed race woman was chosen.

This is an important issue in Japan, one that is even the subject of a film titled, "Hafu: The Mixed-Race Experience in Japan". Huffington Post talked to the directors and producers of the film and they agreed that the choice to crown Ariana is changing the perceptions of beauty in Japan. The conversation needs to continue on these issues and people need to pay attention and work to change their prejudices, but this is a very good start.

Shameless and the working class

Showtime's "Shameless" follows a financially and emotionally struggling South Chicago family of 7. The father, Frank Gallagher (William H. Macy), is a drunk who spends all their money on booze and crazy schemes he gets himself into, while he leaves all the caring, literally all the caring, to his eldest daughter, Fiona (Emmy Rossum). She takes care of all her younger siblings, the house, the bills, and manages more than one job. The two older boys also have jobs, Lip "tutors" for money, but also receives sexual favors, as well as selling marijuana out of an ice cream truck. All the kids fend for themselves but help out by scrounging money any way they can, including stealing, conning and babysitting. No matter what, the kids can always pull together, because Frank is constantly off on a bender, so they have adapted, because that's all they've ever known. People of color, often black people are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to poverty and crime. The Gallagher family, all except for Liam, the baby, are white. It's nice to see that, for once, the portrayal of poverty and crime is without an overrepresentation of black bodies on welfare. What's refreshing about this show, is it's portrayal of the working class. The writers show the Gallagher's poverty-stricken and destitute environment and they're not afraid to actually talk about the nitty gritty details of it. We see the Gallagher residence, a nice looking house, but on the inside it's almost always dingy looking, with dirty dishes and clothes strewn about, and plenty of clutter. But that's expected when there are 6 kids in a house including a baby.

When Frank takes all their money and they can't pay the bills, their electricity is turned off, so the kids band together to find money wherever they can. Debbie starts a babysitting business, carl steals things to pawn, Lip starts taking fellow students' ACT's for them in exchange for money. The kids don't fit the stereotypical portrayal of the working class as being unintelligent and uninterested in education. Lip is basically a genius, Ian is hardworking and focused on school and Carl and Debbie are constantly coming up with complex little schemes.

It's a pretty dysfunctional family, but they are loyal to each other. When Lip finds gay porn under Ian's bed, he doesn't freak out, he accepts his brother. Fiona works her ass off all day every day for the other kids, with little to no time for herself. She takes on the mother role, and even takes care of Frank when he comes home and passes out on the floor. Frank even cashed the pension checks of a dead family member, and tried to cash on social security for little Liam, putting all his kids at risk for inordinate amounts of debt.

The show is hilarious with all the crazy antics but also very moving. We see the real struggle and emotional toll their lives take on them, and the humiliation of the kids from their father's inability to be a mature, responsible adult.

Zendaya and the Oscar Locs Controversy

So last weekend was the Oscar's. It was great. Awards were won, statements were made, fancy people did fancy stuff and the whole world watched. Actually, there were a lot of awesome and powerful movements promoted this year, even calls to action, which was refreshing. But on the red carpet, a controversy was sparked. Zendaya, 18-year-old, actress, singer, and dancer from the U.S., was stunning as she walked down the red carpet in a white flowy gown and luscious locs.

But as usual, we can always count on Fashion Police for some crap entertainment. In their Oscar recap, the host, Giulianna Rancic, made an offensive and racist comment about Zendaya's hair, saying that someone her age with locs must "smell of patchouli or maybe weed". Now, let me explain why this is problematic. She is associating weed and patchouli oil with a hair style prominently worn by, and meant to uplift and inspire Black people while society told them everything about them was unacceptable. Locs became more popular with the Rastafari and reggae movements, and especially after Bob Marley became popular. But wearing locs was never about looking cool and being hip. So Rancic's comment, whether she knew it or not was perpetuating a historically racist view.
Well after that, the twittersphere blew up. People were lashing out at Rancic attacking her body image, and even some death-like threats. But Zendaya also replied. She said in her statement that she doesn't feel the need to comment on every negative thing said about her, but some things can't go unchecked. She listed highly educated and accomplished people who also have locs, and then went on to say that none of them smell like marijuana.

                "There is already harsh criticism of African American hair in society without the help of ignorant people who choose to judge others based on the curl of their hair."

Her response was perfect, and the whole thing was all over the news. Then Rancic issued an on-air apology.

The way the media handled it was pretty straight forward, just showing the tweets and the interactions. But then the big story became, the fact that Kelly Osbourne was so upset by the whole thing that she threatened to leave the show, and ended up doing so. When I googled Zendaya in the news tab, most of the headlines were about Kelly Osbourne, rather than the actual news about the controversy. It's unfortunate that that is what the big conversation shifted to, but at least if someone was really interested, they could still get the whole story since there were recaps and links. I do think the way it has blown up is good because it opens up a very much needed dialogue. It also shows that people are holding the gatekeepers of media accountable, which wasn't as easy to do even ten years ago. Which shows that our society cares enough to know what kind of coverage they do and don't want, even if it is Fashion Police.