Representations of Whiteness in the Black Imagination

This article was fascinating to read. While I am aware and acknowledge that there has been racism in this country for years, I never thought about it from the viewpoint of an African American, about how they must feel or how they view whites. Is the reason I don't really see it as overly prevalent because I would not be affected by the racism? In our INST 150 class, we have the freshman read an article titled "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" which talks about the somewhat ignorant bliss whites live in because they are never affected by their race. This article lists all the privileges whites hold and they are broad, covering issues of politics down to not worrying about bandaid colors matching our skin. The link online is here: http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Hooks discusses the terror blacks have felt in response to white supremacy for years. Even though times have changed, that terror is still prevalent. "In contemporary society, white and black people alike believe that racism no longer exists. The eagerness with which contemporary society does away with racism, replacing this recognition with evocations of pluralism and diversity that further mask reality, is a response to the terror. It also has become a way to perpetuate the terror by providing a cover, a hiding place. Black people still feel the terror, still associate with whiteness, but are rarely able to articulate the varied ways we are terrorized because it is easy to silence by accusations of reverse racism or by suggesting that black folks who talk about the ways we are terrorized by whites are merely evoking victimization to demand special treatment" (176). She talks about an experience she had going to a cultural studies conference where she felt white domination within the conference itself, down to even the way the speakers were arranged on stage. Upon feeling the all too familiar terror, she overhead some white women mocking her terror and attributed that to their ignorance: "Their inability to conceive that my terror is a response to the legacy of white domination and the contemporary expressions of white supremacy is an indication of how little this culture really understands the profound impact of white racist domination" (176). Am I guilty of not understanding the terror African Americans feel because I happen to be white and therefore ignorant of this?

Hooks specifically cites the book by Toni Morrison, Beloved, talking about the impact black terror has on the individuals because it is so deeply wounding. She cites a specific incident within the book, where "the memory of terror is so deeply inscribed on the body of Sethe and in her conciousness, and the association of terror with whiteness is so intense that she kills her young so that they will never know the terror" (176). This entire concept both fascinated and embarrassed me. Have I been like those ignorant women making light of feelings some people have had? Have I just overlooked them? Since I am not in the "minority" group, does that mean I only see white ways? Definitely gave me something to think about.

Confusing Exotica

Ghosh opens this chapter talking once again about mass media being a major contender in determining and establishing stereotypes of racial groups. She also mentioned the danger if a group is not included within mass media because that only reinforces opinions about the group's values. Citing the Indian group specifically, Ghosh talks about the images that the media portrays of this group tends to be "narrow and cliche" because they point out that these minority groups are not seen within the dominant culture so its not important to overly represent them within the media. She calls the Indians "soujourners rather than immigrants and people needed for their labor, not for their lives" (275). She goes on to say that the most frequent representation of Indians in the media is their absence (276), "reinforcing their position in the power structure, establishing an us versus them concept, and code them in negative terms". Ghosh talks about the "exotic-ness" of India and their culture, especially within the fashion industry. Our culture paints India as a nation and culture so far removed from our own but one we love to imitate within fashion, but using American models. Ghosh ends the chapter saying American culture has " constructed India soley as mythological, sanskrited India" and the importance of moving from that view to one that sees India as "an identity that is continuously in flux, changing as the political and economic climate changes. They need to move away from pictures of a Hindu India to a more complex, complicated version of what India truly is" (280).

Obviously India is all over the news because of the terror attacks just a couple days ago. This nation that tends to be absent from American media is now all over every TV, website and newspaper. What kinds of images are getting conjured up in the minds of Americans about the Indian people? Will the fact that we have now been affected by a terrorist attack bring us together or just continue to enforce the us versus them distinction? I know many Americans get confused about the many religions and will they be able to sense the difference between the Islamic terrorists and Hindus of India? Ghosh mentioned that we need to begin to seeing India as the diverse nation it is, but will this major world event affect that from happening?

The Power of Television Coverage

Stephanie Greco Larson opens this section with a chapter on social movements and the media, saying "social movements try to use the mass media to broaden the scope of conflict" (145). She goes on to discuss the different ways social movements are executed and the impact media has on its success. Larson mentions that social movements are not important news coverage She then makes an interesting point saying that "an ideological explanation for why social movements do not get the kind of coverage they seek is that their goals are critical of the values held by the mainstream media" (147). She also mentions the "issue attention cycle" which she says helps explain the changes in coverage. "There is an inevitable cycle of attention paid to issues in the media and by the public....the public's interest is stimulated by the media's alarmed discovery of a problem. Enthusiasm in the public and the press for finding a solution to the problem is intense and short lived, lasting until they grow discouraged and bored and move on to another problem. When social movements organize events that are considered newsworthy (during the discovery and euphoria phases), they have a better chance of getting coverage" (150).


In the next chapter, she moves into the impact of the media on the civil rights movement."Research into news coverage of particular civil rights events reveals a messier version of the media-civil rights movement relationship than which has been mythologized. Systemic content analysis of national and local media illustrates that actions seen today as unambigiously right or wrong were not presented that way at the time. While some coverage promoted black activists' goals and actions, much of the news ignored, criticized or even demonized them...Not only did the parallel and mainstream press differ, but so did national and local coverage. At times, the three major national news magazines, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and the World Report interpreted events differently" (152). Larson talks about the importance media held in the civil rights movement because TV was able to put faces and pictures to the stories heard round the nation and got the word out about the injustices experienced by African Americans. She said that with these images "it forced Congress to act".


In the chapter entitled "Native Americans, Chicanos, and Asian Americans", Larson claims that "media coverage of other racial minority groups movements is not remembered according to a particular conventional wisdom" (178). She makes an interesting point that other than the civil rights movement, Americans don't realize there were other social movements involving minorities. Discussing the Native American movement, Larson talks about the stereotypes that played into news coverage, as news depicted Native Americans as "militant"and how they also typically avoided any events that took place on reservations (179). The biggest event in the movement was the Battle at Wounded Knee. This event had the most coverage, Larson saying that "it received more coverage during the first week than Indian activism had received in a decade" (182).The media portrayed the Indians as violent, categorizing the group into one blanket stereotype. Larson mentions next that not much is known about the Chicano movement, because there was not enough coverage of the event. And the same was said of the hispanic movement, that little coverage was given. She wraps up talking about the dramatic love of the media and how they will focus on the events that bring more drama or put some twist on them to make them more dramatic.

I just found this news article entitled "Huxtable Effect Key to Obama Win?"

http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20081112/TV.Bill.Cosby/

Thats the link. Check it out, its pretty interesting and completely relevant to what we are talking about.

Representations of Racial-Minority Mass Publics in the News

Stephanie Greco Larson opens this chapter with a quote that agrees with everything we have learned in this class:

"All news that includes minorities (or gender) conveys messages to readers and viewers that help them develop, reinforce or challenge assumptions about race"(82).

So media is highly responsible for the views we have of certain races and the ways we respond to them. Larson talks about the inclusion of whites within American newspapers, and the exclusion of minorities. "This exclusion reinforced their low status and "signified exlusion from the American society, because the function of news is to reflect social reality"(82). The exclusion of minorities caused problems, but the inclusion of them also causes problems. Typically, if a minority is mentioned on the news, it is for negative reasons. 'Hard news that treats racial minroeis as the main subject focuses on their threat to the social structure and their opposition to whites" (82). She goes on to mention that even when minorities are acting within the law, the media portrays them as threatning, such as the "prescence of Native Americans was seen as thwarting Western expanison. Chinese laborers in the late 1800's were percieved as threatning whites' employment oppurtunities, as have Mexican immigrants been more recently" (82). Another interesting quote she has is that "when news includes racial issues, coverage emphasizes confrontation and uses an us-versus-them frame, with the assumed us being white" (82).

Larson goes on to explain the power of stereotypes saying that they create a general image that is applied to every member of the group. She also says that stereotypes are so powerful, it can cause people within the group to conform to that expected image.

Examining strategies of new coverage, Larson mentions that news shows want to cater to the dominant group, which is often assumed to be white. So as such, the stations, news, advertisments and all, they talk to the whites. She also says that when talking to a source who are seen as "credible, important and accessible, most of them are white" (85).

Obviously, if we continously hear news stories of murder, theft, and other crimes as committed by black men, we will start to associate crime with African American men. "Coverage of crime that prominently displays black men makes them convenient and convincing scapegoats for other people's crimes" (91). She even cites an example where a white woman killed her children and blamed it on a "fictitious black man" (93).

So what do these minority groups think of the images and messages that get said that target the whole group, each night on the evening news? "Black viewers, for example, have become very skeptical of crime news; studies show that seeing black suspects on TV actually leads them to 'lower their support for punitive criminal justice policies and reduce their willingness to accept negative characterizations of their group" (92). So why don't more groups fight back? Why don't minority groups as a whole join together and overcome this? Because they are just as susceptible of believing stereotypes they hear about other racial group and are less likely to join with them. Larson also mentions that if the group begins to believe what is said about them, they might begin to blame themselves for being discriminated against.

Since they are not being depicted correctly or are even being left out of mainstream news, many minorities have made their own publications to "construct their own communication infastructures, rituals and media in an attempt to build community and to influence mainstream social discourse" (93).

Its so sad that this is the condition our world is in. That we have to have an us-versus-them mentality. That groups of people are discriminated against because of one bad move by a member of their racial group. Its so easy to think that we have overcome all our racist attitudes, but then you read chapters like this and see just how far we have to go.

I know this was mentioned the other day, but I think the Office episode "Diversity Day" shows clearly the effect media has on our minds about race. The show each week portrays this ignorance and capitalizes on stereotypes present in America, I think mainly to make those of us who have these attitudes feel uncomfortable. In this clip, Micheal, in an effort to celebrate the ethnicities in the office, tapes a piece of paper to each person's head listing an ethnicity or race. Then the co-workers are instructed to treat each other according to the race listed on their head. And as usual, the activity doesn't work and everyone is offended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrjxlDfAFzI

But if they weren't offended, would it be Micheal Scott?

News Coverage of Racial Minority Candidates and Politicians

This section could not have come at a better time, just as election season is finally closing. Stephanie Greco Larson opens the chapter discussing how news reporters choose to cover candiates and the results from their decisions. She claims that "the focus is one the candidates as personalities, rather than potential leaders with issue agendas, ideologies and party identifications" (196). She also mentions the truth of the more popular you are, the better coverage you will get. In this election 9and every election), the majority of the attention went to Obama and McCain. Larson claims that the lack of attention to any other delegates not in the Democratic or Republican party can "doom their campagins by preventing them from getting enough support to change their poll results and subsequently earn more coverage. Essentially, candiates argue that by not giving them coverage, the mediap prevent them from suceeding. Reporters agree that candidates who do not do well in polls are not viable enough to cover" (196). Media coverage of the candiates is important, that is the biggest way the parties get their message out and obviously, how sad would this election have been without SNL's weekly coverage of news from the trail? :) Larson also goes on to say that once a candidate is elected, its still important that the media continues to cover them, "they are in effort running a permanent campaign in which they are selling themselves and their ideas to the public, other politicians and the press" (197). So clearly, media coverage is vital to politicians but sometimes news reporters spin on the politicians can get them into trouble.

Larson then goes on to explore the coverage of black candidates in the media. She mentioned the typical issues, such as the fact that white candidates or politicans tend to get more coverage, over a black opponets but only when whites were running against whites. If there was a white candidate and a black candidate, there was no change in amount of coverage. There is also the issue mentioned that even when a black candidate is elected, they do not feel that the media takes them as seriously as white politicians. Larson then mentions an issue that was explored in detail during this election season, stating that "when campaigns are biracical, debate about ideology shifts to accusations of racism or reverse discrimination. Compaints also come from white candidates who say that the press applies a double standard that favors black candidates. The logic behind this allegation is that reporters do not want to appear racist so they resist critisizing blacks" (206). Is that true? Did Obama not get critisized for anything because he is African American? Or was he not as "bust-able" as Sarah Palin was?

She concludes by discussing the use of stereotypes in news coverage, even of politicians. She lists the stereotypes as dishonest and immoral(which I think is a stereotype of most politicans), dangerous and threatning (one particular stereotype used a great deal by some extreme conservatives in this election), and novel and different, making them the exception, not the norm.

As I read through this article, so many moments of "Decision 2008" ran through my mind. We made history by electing the first African American president in the United States. All through the campaign, the issue of race was so heavily embeded in the news coverage that sometimes it was hard to get past that and simply look at the issues Obama stands for. We may have come a long way since the days of slavery, but we would be stupid to say America is completely beyond its racist paths. Some serious racism came out through the election process, even one attempt at assisination. I think that so many people got so wrapped up in Obama being a black man and being in favor or opposed to it that they forgot to examine the issues. Since he was a front runner in this election, naturally news coverage of him and his family was at a great high, matching the coverage of his opponet, Senator John McCain. While I don't know of any news stations that held biases toward either candidate, the attitudes expressed by this chapter were definitely present within the people of America during this whole process. Larson concludes with a statement that I hope and pray is not true for our new President, whether we agree with him or not: "Even after they are elected, blacks are more likely to be presented as outsiders, lacking independance and power" (210). Obama did the camaign thing, he won the votes of America to hold the most powerful position in the country, but will he still be treated as an outsider, just because of the color of his skin? Is this going to be the change we've been waiting for, or is it going to reinforce some extreme racists attitudes contained in the country?

All through election season, my friends and I watched SNL to see what new thing Tina Fey would come up with or watch a spoof of the latest debate. On November 3, 2008, one night before the election, SNL held a Presidential Bash. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin appeared on the show, as well as countless parodies of their campaign trail. They also had both appeared on the show during the regular season. Barack Obama was not a guest throughout the weeks leading up, nor at the Bash. While there were a couple skits in which he was portrayed, there were a great deal fewer than any with McCain or Palin. Was SNL doing exactly what Larson talked about in this chapter, not giving as much coverage to the black candidate as they did to the white? Were they avoiding Obama as much as possible, as to not appear racist by poking fun at him and instead focused entirely on the Mavericks? There was even more spoofs about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. that there was of our new President. Why? Its certainly something to think about.

Check out the link below, there are a bunch of skits listed...check them out for yourself!
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/categories/newest/p/2/

Show and Tell-Ethnicity and Race

Barack Obama elected 44th president

I was really trying to find some cool advertisement or episode of a show to represent contemporary ethnicity and race when it was in front of me the whole time. I think these pictures and words are a great example of a contemporary view of African Americans in the media. Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States last night, the first African American to ever hold this office. Throughout the past 2 years, we have heard about Obama, read his views, listened to his debates and closely followed his progress. Many said this couldn't be done. But history was made last night. I realize that a great share of the reasons he won was because of his political stance on the issues and his ability to lead this country. But like I said, this has never happened before. Blacks have suffered through many years of racism and struggle. But last night, a black man won the votes of so many Americans that he now holds one of the most powerful positions in this world. This is a great step in American history for all of us, especially African Americans, and I think the best contemporary (very up to date) representation of this present and continuing change.

Borrowing from Obama's speech last night:

“If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where anything is possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama declared.
“Young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states,” he said. “We have been and always will be the United States of America.
“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America,” he said to a long roar. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27531033/)