For anyone who's interested...

My friend was texting me earlier today about how band-aids were raciest because there all TAN bandaids. SO, naturally, I came across this, which I thought was....Mildly humorous.

Band-Aids for every shade

For those who are too lazy to check the link, It's an add for skin-tone appropriate band-aids.

Then, I kept looking, and found this link to a blog that I thought was very interesting, and the main point of this entry was to share this...other...blog...with...you.

Band-aid blog

particularly this bit:

"Yes, we have a black president, no the KKK aren’t marching around anymore, however the phenomenon of “White privilege” still exists. Why is it that phrases like Latino / Hispanic-American (btw the concept of being “Hispanic” “Latino” is a creation of the United States Government) and African-American are the norm while the term European-American is never used? The pre-hyphen term essentially sends a message that this person is different. The cultural default is still “white”. “Nude” colored stalkings are the pigment of white people’s skin. In essence, being white overlaps with what it means to be an American (at least as far as consumerism is concerned)."

So, if it's true that ignoring race is more racist than admitting to it, wouldn't the Clearly marked Tiana band-aids be LESS so because it admits to having race? Or more so because It's saying African Americans need there own type of band-aids?

Last asignment of my high school career.

1. Blog about what we've covered about race so far.
a. Explain the difference between a sociological definition of race and a biological one.
The main difference is that there is a sociological definition of race, and there is NOT a biological one. Biological race doesn't really exist. It is completely a sociological aspect. It's a way for people to group others by a set of visual factors, but, biologically, there isn't a definition because race is not biological.
b. What do you believe is the purpose of using the IAT test? Were you surprised by your results? Do you believe this test is measuring what it is trying to measure?
To be honest, I wasn't surprised, but I disagree with some of my results. The purpose was, to measure if you have an automatic preference to something to another. And while some of it is valid, I feel like it's flawed. I feel like I must say I don't actually know HOW they were measuring this. But, for instance, I got a slight preference to lighter skin than darker skin. I won't necessarily deny that, I just am more attracted to lighter skin tones. However, that doesn't mean I would like the people IN that skin any less or judge them any differently. At least, for me, there are A LOT more factors into aesthetic preferences than skin color. I would probably have an automatic preference for an attractive African American than an ugly European American. I only bring attraction into it because as humans, we like things more that we think are pretty, no one will deny that. So, I also then, think it's flawed to say I prefer European people to African people when, obviously, If I am more attracted to lighter skin tones, I would get that result, because of skin tone. It doesn't mean I have a preference to the PEOPLE though. I think it more measures your aesthetic attraction to someone of a skin color rather than a preference towards an entire group of people.
c. Did you believe that African Americans were biologically superior athletes? Do you still believe that they are? Why are why not?
I wouldn't necessarily say that I believed African Americans were biologically superior athletes, although I did believe that people from Africa, living there did have a biological advantage of height and lung capacity. And I still believe that to some degree as well as people from different areas of the world. That's not to say that ALL Africans are biologically superior, or that there is a vast difference in our make up.But there are differences in people from different areas in the world that have been there a long time. For instance, the indigenous people in Peru have "high lung capacity and development of the chest, hold 2 liters more blood than the average high content of red blood cells, which gives them great physical endurance". Or that the typical Russian has a larger liver. It's not that EVERYONE in an entire ethnic grouping is physically better than EVERYONE else in a different one, and, for the most part, we are all the same, no extra muscles, or thicker bones, but, I still believe that, a strong blood line in a place were people have lived for a very long time, can create people on average who have a slight advantage in some things than people elsewhere.

2.
I have always felt I have maintained a sense of fairly adequate cultural relativism. I've traveled to places like sub Saharan Africa, and Rural Peru and tried to understand that, just because *I* think something is weird, doesn't mean it is. Like eating guinea pig, and having soup for breakfast, like in Peru. It's really good, but it won't be, and you lock yourselves up to experiencing so many wonderful things. I think, more than me gaining a better sense of world wide cultural relativism, I think I gained a sense of national cultural awareness.I think, I more understand how culture and society effects us in this country, and how important society is to how we live our lives. It's like how I view sound design: it's subtle, and most people don't notice it, but it completely dictates how we view things. It's total manipulation of feelings, without being noticed. For instance, referring to the poverty stricken people in Appalachia, and how, part of the reason they don't get out of that area is because it's considered disrespectful to your roots to leave. As someone not part of that aspect to our society, you don't think about it. I also now realize how BIG society is, in terms of how many sub-society's there are and how many things they all effect and how it all ties in together. I think I would have liked to talk about food more, but besides that, I felt like the syllabus was an antiquate overview of sociological functions. 

For the Love of stawberries

This whole week, we have been discussing and watching a video about Class in America, which, as I believe it should, has made me start thinking about my own class in relationship to the rest of american society. And I realized: I don't know where I fit in. I think this is because, though all we've talked about is class, the video this week has failed to actually explain what class is. What makes someone in a different class? Is it money? Is it truly solely determined by what you say and how you act? Because of my own personal struggle with my place in a society where class is important, I've talked to several other people about how they define class, and what they think about it. The topic is so confusing, and difficult, I believe, because it's NOT a caste system. There is no definitive one thing that sticks you in a class. One of the people I talked to, was my mother. She is a priest and is very invested and interested in social class. When I told her about my own struggle with where I fit, she said, "Well, one of my friends once said, 'class is contacts.' It's who you know." Meaning,  If you are a peasant that saves the kings daughter, and befriend the royal family, It will seriously raise your class status, regardless of personal merit. I think that this is fairly accurate. You can be poor and loved and kind and know the right people and because of who you know be invited to the right parties and know the right people: or, you can be rich and hated and no one will return your phone calls. Personally, I think It's a combination of this, and comfort. Even if you know the right people, are fabulously wealthy, and well liked, but feel more comfortable living in a small house and going to block parties rather than a mansion in the hamptons, your not exactly in the class with those that are the opposite. You can't "fit in" with people you are uncomfortable and anxious being around. I believe class is more about who YOU FEEL you belong with, and having a way to get in to that group of people more than it is just having or working your way to financial success. And I think this is what confuses me.

Let me explain.

When I was young, I went to Pungo Virginia every week. This is it's one stoplight. For the entire town.

And every summer, The highlight was going strawberry picking and the Strawberry festival that accompanied strawberry season.

I listened to Country music, and have a distinct memory of feeding watermelon rinds to horses and square dancing. I had baggy clothes and short hair, and rode around on the kids vision of ATVs up and down the street. While watching the movie this week, I realized, I could still fit in to that rural, almost lower class life style of the rednecks and people living in rural areas down south. I still feel comfortable there, and still slip into a slight southern accent every now and then. I didn't live ever in a lower class style of life economically, but I was around it enough that I'm comfortable there.

Then I lived in Boston, where there were Projects (the government funded housing developments) that a lot of my classmates lived in. I lived in a 900 sq. foot apartment, and was a honest, city girl, and blended right in with the middle to upper middle class mixed with working class radical liberal city life.

And now I live in Barrington: the upper crust. One of the wealthiest cities in America. And I'm still in my comfort zone. I can "compete" socially with my significantly wealthier counterparts.

So, where do I fit? Perhaps, it is possible to transcend class based on your own personality. Perhaps it truly is more who you are than what you have. All you need is a way to get there.

We can't ALL be the middle class.

We can't ALL be middle class. That defeats the purpose of being *middle* class. Yet almost all americans when asked will say they are middle class, weather they are the upper crust of american society or below the poverty line. And truth be told, a true middle class is shrinking, almost out of existence.

The saying "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer" has never been more true. So why is it that everyone believes that they can transcend class lines? How is it that we believe that our place in society is given to us by our own efforts?

Because it is possible.

When, in class, we did an activity to give context to the breakdown of land and wealth in our country (via cookies) I was in the lowest of the lower class group: the ones with the least. yet, I stood firmly with both feet in my place, and actually ended up with 4 cookies to myself. Through grabbing at every opportunity possible, biding my time, and thinking, I got more than...a good portion of my other classmates. So, theoretically, the same principle can be extended to the real world: with patience, eagerness, and intelligence, you can rise the classes, or, with out these, fall down. This is not a caste system, where we are born into a place and are just...there, forever. It is possible to move up or down depending on your own merit.

But that's all. It's possible. But not likely.

Look at those people living in the mountains of Kentucky. The boy who played football had a chance to come out based solely on merit. But because of where he lived, and what he had, he couldn't. The people there are not there because they chose it, it is because that is where they were born, and where they stayed. While people in America are not socially obliged to stay in there classes like those in caste systems, they usually do because of the limited options available to them.

That is the problem with our sociological system, and most social hierarchies like ours. It in theory works, and therefore people says it works, but in actuality, it only rarely works. Those who are on the top believe they have gotten there from their own doing, when, usually, it's because they were born with privilege,  and those on the bottom have accepted their fate, like the untouchables in India, and believe that no matter how hard they try they can't get out of it, and so many don't try.

I think, like most things in this world, compromise is necessary. We have the right idea, but we are not there yet. The top need humbling, the bottom need hope, because the people in the middle, are probably one or the other.

Time Warp

Lets go back in time. Long ago, when I was but a young girl, staying home from school sick. I didn't get to watch T.V. unless I was sick, or movies, except for one on Sunday, or, again, if i was sick. But like all the other little girls, I loved Disney movies. I remember I would climb on the backs of the chairs in the living room and pretend to be rafiki from the Lion king. I never thought of the movies I watched as something that effected my views of myself: There was a girl on TV who was skinny and blond and that's great for her, because she ended up finding true love. That's what it was all about: Finding true love, even though you don't realize it.
Since then, I have realized a lot of parallels in the way Disney portrays it's heroes and heroines, and several of the blogs we read were about the potential connection between the "messages" in these disney movies and the way girls view themselves (and men) in today's society. They pointed out that many of the princesses were perceived as sexual idols and completely defenseless. That the messages these movies portray were that woman should just ride off with the first prince charming that fancies her, and that their salvation rested in there sexuality. They talked about how some of the themes were...let's say, not quite on point. "Advice from Disney Princesses: He's only lying about who he is because he thinks you're shallow and superficial. love him for it!" And this blog makes a point. There are some negative messages in some disney movies.

however. I think this is an extremely cynical way to look at these movies.
What about Mulan? Let's be honest, she was my favorite, and much more my role model than sleeping beauty.

And Mulan? Was anything but what society views a woman to be. She was strong, powerful, stood up to for what she believed in, and things she cared about (her family and it's honor). She Defied the law of the land to protect things she felt were important. Defiant, strong minded, passionate. And she looked beautiful while doing it. I think that's a pretty darned good role model. Not to mention how it portrays the male lead.

                                                                   This guy.

Yes, he is Big, strong, and manly. And he get's his butt saved by this chick.

Or what about Pocahontas?

Again, she defies what society tells her is appropriate (Marrying Kocomo), and ends up saving this guy, just by standing up and speaking out. She teaches the man (John Smith) all this really cool stuff about connection to nature, and not being so materialistic, and love, and changes his life. She is connected to all that's around her and respects all things. Again, I think that's a pretty good role model. Not to mention, is ACTUALLY a princess.

I don't know anyone who didn't like Mulan, or Pochahontas. And I personally thought that the girls in other disney movies were boring, and I didn't really like them that much.

The point of all this.

Media is blamed constantly for onslaughting young girls of what they should be and what they should look like.That advertisement agencies and movie stars should be blamed for all these young girls self image problems. And some of that is true. Being shown "perfect" people probably does have some impact on the way we view ourselves. But It's not there fault girls feel self contentious. Girls have had body image problems for long before the advertisement industry was even started. Remember corsets so tight they made people pass out? or the Chinese shoes that made feet smaller and led to lots of leg and feet problems. And young girls, at least from my perspective, I never looked at Disney stereotypes or billboard ads and thought "Wow, that must be how all girls should look. I should try and emulate that! I want to be just like her!" Girls like powerful woman: That's why they like Mom. I think people are blaming Disney and advertisements for things that would happen with or without there influence. Yes, they have some negative messaging.  But that self esteem issue comes from girls - being girls.

Secret Country Music Fan

It surprises many people at first when I tell them this, but I was born and raised in the south. Not the deep south, but deep enough that growing up, I listened to country music. Not everyone did, but enough so that it wasn't uncommon. Like everyone else in the US at the time, most of the people I talked to listened to Backstreet Boys or N'Sync, but most people had at least some understanding of country as well. And it is fair to say that the music someone listens to tells a lot about who they are. So, to start this blog off, I want to see how much you, the reader, knows about the country genre. 


Which one of these sets of lyrics is from a country song?


A. Looking back on the memory of
The dance we shared beneath the stars above
For a moment all the world was right
How could I have known you'd ever say goodbye
And now I'm glad I didn't know
The way it all would end the way it all would go
Our lives are better left to chance
I could have missed the pain
But I'd of had to miss the dance.


B. Grandpappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys
Hang them high in the street
for all the people to see that
Justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we'll sing a victory tune
We'll all meet back at the local saloon
We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!


Well, stereotypically, one would say B. Which is a fair assumption, because it is. However, so is A. A is a song called "The Dance" by Garth Brooks, and B is "Beer for my Horses" by Toby Keith, both very VERY well known names in country music. However, they are written completely differently, and have almost conflicting musical style.


The Dance, Garth Brooks


Beer for my Horses, Toby Keith


Growing up, I would listen to both these songs, so much that I can still sing every word to both of them. People stereotype people from the south, and their music, as all rednecks who like guns, beer, slavery, and fried chicken. (I do realize this is a bit exaggerated, but you know what I mean.) When people picture the south, they picture "REDNECK". And because of this assumption that people from the south are all rednecks, they assume people with southern accents are uneducated or unintelligent, because they never learned to speak "Proper English".And this assumption is true of many groups of people with specific accents. People stereotype and are prejudiced against accents. However, " a dream is like a river Ever changin' as it flows And a dreamer's just a vessel That must follow where it goes Trying to learn from what's behind you And never knowing what's in store Makes each day a constant battle Just to stay between the shores" (The river, Garth Brooks) Does not sound particularly inarticulate to me. 
Now look at the line "Seems like you lost sight of what's important with depositin' them checks into the bank account and you up out of poverty your values is in disarray, prioritizing horribly, unhappy with the riches cause your piss poor morally." Technically, this is not "Proper English". However, not only is the message relatively insightful and intelligent, but the form of english used here *IS* proper english for the demographic TI is appealing to, with it's own sets of grammatical rules. 


Basically, what I'm saying, is that groups of people are stereotyped based off of the way they speak. However, the way they speak is not indicative of anything in particular besides the way they were raised. A person with a southern accent is not necessarily unintelligent, and a person using habitual Be's are still using a form of english, just not an english we are used to. Speech is not telling of a persons intelligence. Not saying that everyone from the south or uses a Habitual Be is a genius, but they are no less of an intelligent person because of it.


And to prove it, here are some very UN intelligent people that talk all different sorts of ways.


Americans are NOT stupid!!

Debating Bottled Water

Debates have become a regular part of our society. We debate among friends over what we should do about a cute guy,we debate with our parents about curfew, and, well, we debate with anyone over politics. However, often times, we are so involved with our own perspective that we loose sight of the perspective of the other person.

We become so intent on convincing the other person that we are right, that we don't realize that we might not be, and that PERHAPS the other side does have a valid point.This leads to ego (and ethno) centrism.
However, without this debating process, the ones that keep an open mind learn a lot about other people within their own culture and people that come from different cultures and upbringings. We can learn a lot from someone who was simply brought up differently, and who has different values and morals. Not only can respectful debating help us learn more about each other and learn to respect our differences, but it could potentially change the way you see things. And this is that counteracts ego and etho centrism. Once we learn to understand and appreciate the different ways of looking at things, we can gain a better respect for different people and cultures. It can also make you think about things you believe that you may have never thought about before. A healthy debate can challenge your beliefs by making you explain them.


My best friend is extremely political.She reads the New York Times like crazy, and goes to rallies and is very strongly opinionated on everything political.So am I. And we do not always have the same opinions on things. And so naturally, we debate on a lot of things. For instance, she believes that bottled water is a crime against humanity, that we should not privatize an essential aspect to life, should be completely irradiated, and have us use tap water. I believe that bottled water is a great way to provide clean water to countries that do not have access, and are a great way for those that do to have an easy portable way to stay hydrated.But because we have debated over this, we both have a better understanding of why bottled water is both good and bad. She admitted that it is good sometimes, and I admitted that I, who do have access to clean water, should not drink it as much as I do. Debating can be very useful in understanding differences, and learning to accept different ways of thinking- if you keep an open mind.