|
super_cruz
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Chris
Country: United States
Birthday: 7/14/1985
Gender: Male
Interests: Music,
Dancing,
Philosophy,
Reading,
Debating/arguing,
Reaching for god-like intellectualism (Diocentrism)
Expertise: I'm an AAAS (African and African American Studies) major and HWC (Humanities and Western Civilization) major at KU. I'm a devastating critical thinker. Which doesn't pay bills. My real expertise: LIFE
Occupation: Student
Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me
Member Since:
3/17/2005
|
|
| Racist Caricatures (under construction)It's taking way too long for me to find the kinds of images necessary to genuinely express what is wrong with the IMAGERY used in Memin Penguin. Hopefully some of this helps to get you there and if my internet is working, I'll fill in the gaps with the appropriate analysis tomorrow.
Black -- the Coon Stereotype
    
Native Americans -- the (Angry, Noble, or Happy) Savage
     
Japanese-come-Asian -- the first gives you a little history, and then add the "All Asians look alike" trope and BAM! suddenly a Japanese stereotype becomes a generic Asian stereotype. (Note: the Asian villian stereotype actually begins with Communist China propoganda...that's the birth of the Fu Man Chu character).
  
Arabs -- I don't think you need me to give you the history behind these. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to add the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad or not. I have a conflict of interest.
  
Mexicans -- Introducing the lazy Mexican and its clone, the Bandido
  
Now, for all of the white people who don't find anything racist about the prior caricatures, ask yourself: if the only images that existed of you in the media resembled the below redneck caricatures would you be okay with that?
 
Fact is, most white people wouldn't care that much. White people do--and other races try their hardest to--succeed in dividing their own race along class lines. Most white people don't care about redneck caricatures because the way they see it, they're not "White" they're "rednecks." Kinda like they don't care about "coon" imagery because they're also not "White," or "savage" imagery because they're also not "White," or Arab terrorist imagery because they're also not "White," etc. ad nauseum. (Note: I've heard a select few white people complain about redneck stereotypes. But that's usually only if they are being tauted by non-whites! And, more importantly, I'm going to use this moment to recognize the white people who do see what's wrong with these images.) The issue is the creation of an "other," or someone who is "not like you," who represents everything bad or negative. In some ways, these insulting carictures are tactics of social control: they are our way of forcing those who might act like these characters to assimilate. That especially applies to the "redneck" imagery. But, the caricature-as-social-critique method which exists today was not applied to non-white races when many of these stereotypes were created. For blacks, it began as a means of destroying the links between blacks and whites. For Native Americans, it was a means of locking into place the white image of Native Americans and their culture--as well as a means of perpetualizing white people's fear of Native Americans. For Mexicans, it was white people's way of otherizing the nearest to white people who were slowly migrating back into the US (I say back because it was usually in the Southwest, which was formally Mexican territory)--it's more or less anti-immigration propoganda that has been racialized. Japanese/Asians, Arabs, and the yet to be posted group, Jews, all are caricatured the way they are as fear tactics. As a means of propogandizing, not the actions of a few non-Whites, but the visual image of a all non-Whites. The fact is, when people try to cartoon white people, they tend to make them more realistic--i.e. more human. The caricatures which people are so quick to accept are methods of dehumanization and they undermine our ability to connect to those of other races. White people have trouble engaging with "rednecks" because they simply aren't "white" enough. The same thing goes with other stereotypes. STEREOTYPES ARE INHERENTLY RACIST! They are used to divide people, to simplify another group of people to the point that it is more difficult to understand them. Racist caricatures are an act of visual segregation, they are our among our last links to a period of time which America has tried damn hard to put behind it. Accepting them only keeps the racial dialog moving. Memin Penguin, as a comic, is not racist. The content appears to help unite. The IMAGERY however demeans black beauty, it perpetuates negative images of black people, it denigrates and degrades black people by encouraging non-blacks to see black people that way.
Let's put it this way: I don't think that I have "big" lips, or "big" eyes, or "dark" skin, or a "big" butt. White people said that standardized European features (i.e. the Statue of David) is what is normal, and anything larger is "big." The complexion of a European painting of Jesus is "normal" and anything darker is "dark." These are illusions and delusions which help to make white people more secure in their bodies--the unfortunate result is to make non-white people insecure in theirs. That's what is racist. That's why it is wrong. My body is none of the things which Memin Penguin resembles. A monkey is. For everyone who sees Memin Penguin and sees a monkey first and a child second, ask yourself: why is it acceptable to make any child look like a monkey.
If they made you, your baby pictures, your brother or sister, mother or father, your child look like they were anything less than a beautiful human being, would you accept it? Are you ugly? Would you accept being represented as ugly? Is your disagreement sufficient to effect the minds of the millions of people who see the caricture and associate YOU? I doubt it. And I'll bet fewer people understand.
Tomorrow, I'll focus this rant into a legitimate argument. Until then, I hope you get it.
And sorry white people, HISTORY is all your (ancestors) fault. Hate to have you bear the burden, but I can't put it any other way when discussing group conflicts and insensitivities between races. I sincerely apologize. | | |
| Countdown to Kansas pt. 1...Quick re-cap of my day...because it's funnier if I don't put it in a narrative form:
- Went to the library to print my plane ticket and pick up books:
- Haruki Murakami's Norwegian Wood
- Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray
- Caught the bus downtown--shopped. Almost bought shoes...didn't have my size, thank God! Inevitably bought nothing.
- Bought a very expensive--from a South African perspective--bottle of Pinot Noir.
- Went to Medi-spa:
- Spent one hour in the "floatation" (aka "isolation") tank.
- Received a one hour massage.
- Booked myself for a two hour "float" session on Saturday...will probably go for a one hour reflexology session.
- Walked to the city center, in the rain, to hear a South African icon, Mamphela Ramphele, speak. Bought her book, got it signed.
- Ran into a friend who happens to have a friend who has a friend who works for a local publishing company--Chimurenga--and have suddenly increased the likelihood that I might get published soon.
- Walked to the Mesopatamian restaurant, again in the rain, where we ate:
- I had Kinder (Keen-dur)--Pumpkin, Tahini, and Garlic.
- My friend bought the best Hummus I've tasted since I've been here...it even out matched my own hummus. And I make good hummus.
- Danced with a belly dancer. I was "really good" and "respectful" (quote from another friend). The belly dancer even clapped for me. The other guys were kinda tools when they danced with her. They were hilarious to watch.
This is how I spent my first day as an (unofficial) college graduate. I only wish the real world were more like this.
Tomorrow: to be announced...
| | |
| A Love PolemicI wrote a blog a year or two ago entitled "Love in the Profound," it was an exploration of the idea of love as it has transferred through history into our contemporary notions of what love is. The complaint was that as we have modernized our world and our society, our ideas of love have remained static (stagnant?) and they became an open, festering, sore which only serves to breed dissatisfaction (as it is manifested in divorce or break-ups).
What I realized is that I spent more talking about what love IS NOT than what it actually IS. So that is the goal in this post. I think that the idea is pretty topical because lately, whenever I actually get around to surfing the blogosphere, I find myself stumbling across people lamenting the state of their relationships. If your relationship is failing, I encourage you to take a look at "Love in the Profound" and see if anything in that resonates with your problem--it very well may not. If you are beginning a relationship, hoping to start a relationship, or simply in a relationship and feel like you've found that special someone, perhaps I can give you reason to love more with this post...I don't know. I haven't written it yet.
Love very well might be the most elusive of emotions; a key concept in personal and social development that easily lends itself to self-definition. It is a term that is perpetually raped and bastardized, if for no other reason than because some people find themselves experiencing something that feels so incredible, and so good, that when they are hurt, they choose to proliferate their pain through a viral concept of love.
I can honestly say that I have never experienced such "passion" that, at its end, my faith in the idea of love was eroded--nor have I experienced such pain that my concept of love was ever made hollow. That said, I imagine that anyone who has experienced those things is so thoroughly embittered that my lofty articulation of love will appear either naive or, at least, inapplicable to their own experiences. But love is, I think, one of the few universals that actually exist in this world, and though your ability to navigate this chief emotion might be weighed down by your experiences, actually experiencing love in any proper sense should relieve you of your burden.
I say that because love is an antithesis of pain--certainly not a synthesis. Anyone who is experiencing pain but labeling the emotion associated with it as "love" is experiencing a particularly intense form of lust. "Lust" is addictive, much like any drug is addictive. The "passion" that people experience in "lust" stimulates the same kinds of chemicals in your brain as, perhaps, a bar of chocolate, coffee, tobacco, opium--a sudden and massive release of endorphins or, when it is highly threatening, an extended release of dopamine which can embed a feeling of dependency in spite of the bitter pain associated with the relationship itself.
I sincerely believe that love is a soft-dialectical process: it is a temporal competition between the forces of lust and angst. It is an emotion that cannot exist in the beginning of a relationship. There is no such thing as "love at first sight," but you can see someone only once and sense in that person that you could love that person for the rest of your life. However, such sensations are intangible--can be easily confused from lust--and must be responded to with caution, because, if one reduces such intense feelings to lust, then the opportunity to develop the relationship into one of love could be lost. Love, through the soft-dialectical process, slowly releases feelings of pleasure (dopamine) so that it can simultaneously reinforce the methods of exchange--which I will talk about in a moment--which allow for permanence despite one's mind, and perpetuate one's emotions towards that person at the same time.
Love is exchange until equilibrium; which, as I've said in the past, equilibrium is discovery of a state of empathy and respect. The exchange is one of differences. A couple, by virtue of their status, must engage one another's differences. As they come into contact with the differences between the other, they are expected to evaluate the significance of those differences: can I love this person despite this difference, is it something they are capable of changing, if they change it, are they the same person, is asking them to change this difference ethical. Love is experienced in growth, and the ultimate question will inevitably be--though it doesn't necessarily need to be expressed--can we continue? However, what I've expressed is a negative interpretation of love, and perhaps I should go back to explain why the problems in the relationship could (should?) be handled in this way.
Love takes time. Which is why it can't exist in the immediate. Love exists only after a couple knows enough about one another to affirm that the passion they feel towards one another will not be eroded by their differences.
Inherent in the words "I love you" is a declaration, it is a pronouncement that one promises to dedicate themself to their significant other--to struggle through their differences until they can cease to care about them. The words "I love you" are not blind declarations, which infer that despite the level of abuse levied against you, that you will still feel the same way about them. From the first "strike," love has been either altered or wholly discredited. The first experience which associates pain WITH love, inevitably infers that the love is not mutual. Which leads me to another important principle which I nearly forgot:
Love is mutual. Love cannot be one-sided, it must be shared. A one-sided "love" is the equivalent of the Christian-Greek "agape," it is the type of love that you have towards strangers. It is the love of unfamiliarity. Love, romantic love is inherently one of familiarity. It infers that two people know one another well enough to state, in as absolute a manner as a mortal being can, that the feeling that they have towards that person is entirely permanent. "Hurting" the one you love has only room to be incidental. Any purposeful action which happens to hurt your "be-LOVEd" is a disaffirmation of your own love. It essentially is saying that "my love is preconditioned upon 'x'" and your inability to be 'x' demands that I forgo my feelings and abuse you into submission. Such a "love" is fleeting, therefore, it is not love, but rather that all-inclusive intense "lust" I mentioned earlier. Point being, that a dissociative love is one that doesn't belong to a relationship. If you inflict pain upon your significant other, you have to feel it as well--otherwise you have made them a stranger and are not experiencing a love of mutuality, but one of estrangement. Estranged love cycles the process of lust so that the experience of "passion" is renewed in the pain (which apparently can also release the aforementioned biochemical stimuli). Such "lust" might feel good after the fact, but it is merely cathartic--it is a "good enough" feeling one might carry when elevation is not possible. There is a slow death in lustful reconciliation.
Hence, love is something that can only be discovered after discussion. In all likelihood, love will be experienced as an epiphany--rather than a hard-hitting emotion. It is likely to be something that you come to realize in the arms of your beloved, when it occurs to you that, the feeling that you feel, in that moment, has been and probably will always be the way that you will feel about them. In my perspective, love is an emotion that you forget to think about until the moment that it arises. Love doesn't have to be affirmed and confirmed verbally, it is affirmed and confirmed internally. Love is something that you know, it is knowledge, it is epistemic. But, like all knowledge, it has to be developed. You must create the schema, and for it to be healthy and enduring, you have to develop a thorough understanding of how it is and how to negotiate and maintain it.
Love has its roots in passionate lust. At that point, it is fine ceramics, unadorned and raw--but fragile. Over time, the walls of the--we'll say vase--grow thicker, you adorn it with truth, understanding and reconciliation. In time, the art of love becomes such a craft, and you personally become so skilled in it, that it can be done without any extra intense effort. Lust is not love, but love cannot be created without the original framework of passion.
You design your own love, but, experiences of pain are cracks, it is destruction in the seams, it is eroded material which cannot be recovered or plastered over effectively. The responsibility of a couple is to master the art of their own construction of love so that, on one hand it is never complete, and on the other, it will remain consistent, solid and beautiful for a lifetime (beyond?).
I won't discuss the role of sex in relation to love. Sex is a part of that personal construction of love which can only be decided through discussion. That said. I think my polemic is finished. I'll read it in a few days and see what I think of it. It will probably receive some edits and revisions and in a week or so, I'll be done with it. I'll be rethinking the idea of love for the rest of my life, and hopefully, towards the end, my polemic will instead be a genuine manifesto--something rich enough to express a lifetime of love and desire and touch upon a part of the human spirit which I can't seem to grasp today. They say that wisdom comes with age, I certainly hope so.
| | |
| I Don't Regret Sh**So, within only a few minutes, I've found myself engaging with two negatives: regret and dwelling--both experienced vicariously through blogs of other people.
One friend was lamenting her tendency to dwell on problems, and, though I find myself second guessing the decision to do so, I think I would like to post part of my response to her blog post:
"...sometimes, the problem isn't the fact that you dwell, or what you dwell
on, but how you handle the information you are dwelling on. It's like
playdough (to use a lighthearted example) you can pull on it for a long
time--which would be dwelling aimlessly--but eventually it will tear
and then you have to put it back together--reassembling your heart; on
the other hand, you can mold it into something, imagine it, give it
form and give it a function, understand it completely--and suddenly,
whatever the object of your distraction might be, you have a solution.
To me, there is no use dwelling on a problem that you don't intend to
solve by your dwelling. Make your preoccupation count, share the
problems of the heart with your mind and discover how "adequate" you
really are."
I think that is probably the most concise way that I can sum up my attitude towards dwelling on problems. However, the idea of "regret" is fairly closely related. Though I didn't respond to "The Quiet Before the Storm"--largely because my response would have been long and have the potential to sound pretentious--I decided to do it here. Maybe she'll find me, maybe she won't. Whatever the case may be, regret is not an issue that I tend to deal with:
I generally don't regret anything, mainly because, I view life as a serious of lessons. If I miss out on an opportunity (positive), as soon as I realize I missed out, it is my responsibility to remember not to miss another similar responsibility. If I miss out on an opportunity (negative) and there are extremely dire consequences, then I have to accept that the event has passed. As much as I might like to return to the source of my regret, generally, it is too late--and a negative opportunity missed is never anything which you can blame yourself for. Hindsight is always clearer than foresight, so I chalk it up to I have a new prescription on my old foresight glasses--to use a goofy metaphor.
There are things which I wish I could change about my life: there are people I wish I could apologize to, stupid things I've done that I can't seem to erase from my head, people I wish I'd never known but probably couldn't avoid having met, and there are people I wish I'd known better. I often find myself wishing that I had the kind of perspective that I have today when I was younger--a strange statement coming from someone as young as myself. However, none of these desires amounts to regret because I refuse to allow these fantasies--because that is all any "wish" really amounts to--to interrupt the happiness in my life.
I am a future oriented person. Damn the past, and I move too quickly to be negative in the present. My life is moving forward--as everyone's life is--so, the only value that the past or the present will ever have is in there ability to educate me--to prepare me--for the future.
That said, I don't regret sh*t. | | |
| Sex...a responseI posted this on Girl Smilley's Xanga post "Love Before Lust." I have a constantly developing view of love and sex, largely because I've been dating my girlfriend for nearly 4 years. A lot of my views of sex are a combination of Christianity and Hindu sex books (Tantra, Kama Sutra, Ananga Ranga), plus my own frequent reflections upon my rather diverse sexual history (of which I will probably never detail) and a blanket acceptance of biological reality--we're biologically designed to have sex, not having sex is kinda unnatural. Hence, I'm in the process of developing a philosophy of sex, which isn't original, but is getting increasingly comprehensive. If only I reach the point when I can fully articulate my views on the subject, I might write a book that people will actually read.
"I think that the way she constructed her opinion "love before lust"
speaks to her perception of sex. I have a difficult time imagining sex
as some cursory thing--a post-marital footnote which bears no relevance
on the relationship, while simultaneously serving as a spiritual act.
Sex is tempestuous, it is fueled by emotion--even within the context of
marriage--and can never really be emotionless; the "emotion" can be
directed towards someone outside of the bedroom (I think Freud said
that there are always three people in the bedroom, but he also wanted
to **** his mother.)
Sex can act as a threat in a relationship, and it can act as an
adhesive (which can still be a threat); I have personally used sex to
rebuild AND destroy. Which makes the idea that sex should come after
marriage kind of presumptuous in an era when divorce is nearly as
common as marriage. If sex is a relational "force to be reckoned with,"
an act of God within the context of a relationship, it is incredibly
risky to engage in it only after the ring is on. If it is risky before
the wedding, it will be no less risky afterwards.
For those that believe that sex only serves to complicate a developing
relationship, it equally has the potential to complicate a relationship
which was not forced to gain its strength through sexual turbulence.
Sex oscillates emotions in a unique way, and a relationship that
endures that oscillation in addition to the standard struggles
(hypothetically) is more likely to survive...however, empirical
evidence says that's not what happens.
Many people who have sex prior to marriage use it like elmer's glue on
priceless ceramics--they use it as cheap patchwork. (needless to say,
the whole "having sex when you're mad" thing confounds me) They fail to
finish the job of fixing their problems because, before long, lust
rises and the discussion falls.
Many people who save themselves for marriage marry before the necessary
framework of the relationship is fully set and before they have the
strength to endure the emotional rollercoaster that is sex. In some
cases, I've seen couples come together who seemed wrong for one another
from the beginning, but it appeared that their hormones were driving
them into an engagement far earlier than reason dictated. Some of those
couples survive, largely by their dedication to the idea of marriage
rather than what I would call a genuine "love" for their spouse. Hence
the idea of the "ball and chain."
The existence, absence, or nature of sex has the potential to be a
litmus test for the status of the relationship, which allows it to be
an invaluable tool in the long-term struggle to hold on to love--which
is quite possibly the only emotion that people approve of carrying for
a lifetime, and is equally as difficult to maintain.
There's a difference between edifying and satisfying and satiating:
whichever one you seek out will wind up determining the type of
relationship you have with sex and will eventually influence the
durability of your relationship in general. I respect sex like a person
respects a large body of water: it's beautiful, but I engage it with
caution.
Nevertheless, I'm actually an optimist and I view sex as an inherently
emotional act which has the potential to be spiritually transcendent.
Anyone is capable of engaging in sex as an activity, and pleasure can
be derived from even the most meaningless sex, however, the greatest
joys in sex tend to be psychological (even the best sex can be less
than satisfying in a few days time) in addition to the physical; so I
genuinely believe that sex is
best within the context of a loving relationship--marriage or no.
Viewing sex holistically is the only way to view it. If you are able to
put sex in context, then marriage isn't an imperative for a sexual
relationship. (unless you happen to be treating sex as a necessary
element in the "sanctity" of marriage, which makes sex a discussion of
morality rather than functionality, but treating it exclusively as a
moral issue demeans the act of sex itself) However, sex has to be
perceived virtually the same way for both participants (lovers), if it
isn't, then it is impossible for it to be given the kind of respect it
deserves.
So, what I've been getting at in the most roundabout manner possible
is: they never would've worked anyway. And I'm not sure she's gonna
find the kind of love she desires, but she will get the kind of "love"
she needs. But hey, I probably sound like a cynic right now anyway.
Live and let live.
And....I kinda wish I had my people with me--5 months in relative isolation is a long time."
| | |
|
|
