Just Looking ...

Just Looking ...

Something that most people don't know about the aftermath of 9/11 is that there was increase in conversion to Islam almost 5 fold in the year after than occurred the year before. Kalmar was right, the Qur'an sure did sell. Interestingly, even before 9/11 it was the fastest growing religion in America and although some of it was definetly attributanle to immigrant migration, the majority was conversion, remarkeable since Islam is admittedly a non-missionary religion. Interesting is that one would never hear of such a thing in the media or through everyday discourse. It was quite fashionable for other faiths to be explored and celebrated, indeed, there has been a popluar incorporation of Hinduism, Buddhism and new age "spirituality" into popular culture. They have been re-fashioned and re-imagined into the symbolic order, yet Islam even though it outnumbers even Jews in the United States, remains hidden in the mainstream. There is another reason that Gandhi did not like theosphy, largely because he that it operated in simulacrum- an amalgamated counterfiet - to the authenticity he saw in all formal religous traditions. In other words what Gandhi's deist underpinnigs wanted was not a secularization of society, like Nehru then or us now re-interpret, but a sacralization. Even 'sufism' (the islamic science of tsawwuf) is re-imagined, extracted from its traditional form, and imagined as its own religion...."I'm not Muslim, I'm Sufi" -- can the flower and its scent exist without each other?

What is more fascinating is that the largest group of converts afterwards has been women, aged 18-35. Isn't Islam against women?! Interestingly it is women who are white, latino and black. Islam as gender and racial resistance?! Since 2001 conversion rates have continued to increase. Still you never hear about it, but you do hear about kids and confused individuals who, not Canadain but "Canadian grown", like a bacterial infection, are multiplying under 'our' skin. Those kids could'nt put together a battery pack from radio shack - but they pose a threat to us all. What about those women, are they threatening?

Some other thoughts... if indeed there is no alternative to the hegemonic symbolic order, except violence as Zizek suggested, does the "war on terrorism", a war on an abstract noun, mean that although we understand and withness a system that we know is constructed, how will the system overcome its flaws and inherenly self-destructive tendencies.. through a continued hyper-reality, through forever chasing our unfuliflable desires like Sisyphus of old hoping just once for jouissance? In other words, will savvy reflexivity and declaring war on the only forms of possible resistance and change, mean that we use the logic of our symbolic system to fix its own flaws? Einstein said the thinking that has gotten you into the problem is not the thinking that will get you out. Is a higher level symbolic order possible? Clearly those women think so.

Terrorism to Islam is what divorce is to marriage, in commiting the first you invalidate the other.

Peace and best regards to you all,

Fawad Ahmad

I recently came across a book by David Zurawik called "The Jews of Prime Time" and it caught my eye. Basically, in his book, Zurawak discusses the fact that in the past the largest television networks were run by Jewish men, and most television shows were written by jewish writers, yet there were VERY few Jewish elements or characters present in television. Jewish men founded CBS, NBC and ABC and ran the broadcasting companies from the 40's until the 80's when they were all sold. The thing that i found interesting about this book was that it wasn't until after the networks were being run by Jews that they began appearing plentifully in television. The funny thing about this is that the former jews who ran these networks seemed to be afraid to present Jewish culture in television. Zurawik argues that they were fearful, in the "post-Holocaust, pro-assimilation, red-baiting 1950s, that their shows not appear too Jewish". This anti-Jewish television seemed to last quite a while that in the 80's they were still only minimally including Jewish characters, and if they did they were simply only including characters with Jewish names, not their culture.

The fact that post-Jewish ownership Jewish culture became common in television shows the fact that the stereotypes made the Jews too hesitant to include their culture.

I think it is a real shame that stereotypes and anti-semitism and hatred/intollerance could play such a role in people's lives that even in one's own work they are afraid to express themselves to the fullest.


Have a great summer everyone!

Class is over.... but a final note on anti-semitism...

just wanted to say that it was a great year and i really enjoyed the course.

This has to do with my last blog on anti-semitism and how borat makes it a common topic on his shows- especially those in the united states.

This one is particularly interesting- borat sings a song about jews called 'throw the jews down the well'- and you can see how easy it is for these american people to join in on the song, although at the beginning some are shocked by his anti-jew lyrics--> at the end- everyone joins in!

this is just a thought about conformity in specific situations....

anyways,
thanks very much Prof. Kalmar, Jessica and Emma

Have a great summer everyone!

I recently saw Steven Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds'. At one point in the movie when Tom Cruise is telling his kids what the terror they're running from is, his son says: " Is it terrorists?" to which Tom replies: "No, these guys are from someplace else." His son asks: "What? Like Europe?!" What, like Europe...hmm. It made me think about Bush's "state of Emergency" and his declaration of "The War on Terror." It's obvious to me that the one creating terror for the American people is their dear president George W. - so who's the terrorist exactly? The American people don't want to say anything too loudly for fear of being deemed 'unpatriotic'. (Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks...) It's easier to recognize evil when it's 'foreign'. How terrifying would it be for the US people to collectively admit that they are being governed by a terrorist? The very thing they have been taught to fear the most. What to do when the enemy isn't some far away land whose constructed image bears no relation to the reality of the place? How would American's fully come to terms with the truth: the terrorist is not only among them - he is their president!
I wonder which ethnic group would fill the spot of 'terrorists' if there weren't Islamics? It would have to be people who the American people could tell apart from "them". It would have to be a place far enough away to avoid any truth to interfere with the construction...
A couple of weeks ago on the Colbert Report's 'Threat Down', Colbert lists the top 5 threats to American people. Check out this link. It's completely hilarious and totally successful in bringing out 'the exnominated'....
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/threatdown/threatdown_060806.jhtml
Too bad most of the people watching his show are those who already share his opinions. Like preaching to the choir...the question is, how to get the atheists to come into the church?...

Thanks to everybody who put up exciting and stimulating stuff on this blog; most of them went beyond the call of duty to satisfy a course requirement.
Those of you slackers who have not yet posted one, you can still do so today or tomorrow, and after that 3% off your final course mark is your just desserts.

If you're looking here it must be that you found this blog interesting, as did I. So consider posting here in the future as well. In fact, you're a member of the blog and you can put up your thoughts here on anything and anytime. Better still, it won't be required and won't have anything to do with your marks. The blog's theme - ordinary life, ordinary fantasies, ordinary culture - is broad enough to accommodate quite a range of topics. Feel free to question, vent, pontificate.

Have a good summer,

Our discussion of Muslim, Indian and Black stereotypes has reminded me of a particularly interesting exchange I once had with my friend’s boyfriend. The first time we meet he had his car radio tuned onto a station playing hip-hop music. As a rap song played in the background, he turned to me and asked, “So do you like hip-hop?”. After hearing me say that I did, he responded with enthusiasm, “So you down with the brown!”. This would be a good time for me to tell you that I am a third-generation Canadian Italian, and that this young man is a Muslim who immigrated to Canada when he was 13 years-old, from Pakistan. So what is going on here? To begin with, it reminds me of when professor Kalmar spoke about how Indians in Britain are referred to as ‘Black’. We all agreed that this was not a practice that can be seen in Canada; however I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that their no comparable cognitive connections drawn between South Asian Canadians and Black people. It appears that this young man feels as though what may be commonly thought of as ‘black’ music (particularly hip-hop and rap music performed by black artists) is in some way ‘brown’ (or South Asian?). Is he claiming ‘brown’ ownership or a kind of a joint-custody over this specific form of music? Or is he merely implying that this music is enjoyed by many ‘brown’ people, and therefore my enjoyment of it indicates that I understand or am in someway like ‘brown’ people? I think the bigger question is ‘Why is this young man identifying so strongly with black people? I would guess that this is largely based on the recognition that both ‘brown’ and ‘black’ people are often marginalized, discriminated against, feared, laughed at, and otherwise made to feel as ‘outsiders’ in Canada (as well as elsewhere). In this regard, it becomes particularly significant that he is a Muslim, and that this conversation took place after 911. Similar to the example given in the article about ‘thug realism’, the connection this man feels with African American music is likely to stem from a sense that he is left out (Tanzanian young men feel left out of development and my friend’s boyfriend likely feels, to some extent, left out of an imaged ‘white’ Canada). Do Canadians call Indians and other South Asian’s “Black”? No. But yet, in Canada, it appears as though some do see some kind of connection between “brown” people and ‘black’ people. What exactly constitutes this connection? I don’t know.
Mary Benedetti

Better late than never!

I was a little disappointed that we reviewed the basics of Freudian theory but never delved into that of his pupil (?) Carl Jung! I think his theories on synchronicity would tie in really well into our idea of the objet petit a (or erruption of the real) as it serves to explain the seemingly uncanny coincidences which I'm sure many of us have experienced in our day to day lives. Here's a link to a paper for those interested in learning more about this theory in particular:
http://www.parapsych.org/papers/15.pdf

One of my favorite it books is that written by Timothy Findley, entitled 'Pilgrim', whose main character certainly seems to embody our idea of the "uncanny" since despite repeated successful attempts to end his life, he consistantly is brought back to life! It blends fiction and non-fiction, and includes the character of Carl Jung! Actually alot of Timothy Findley's books would go well with what we've studied this term... Headhunter, The Wars... check him out!

The double consciousness of terror and Islam made itself apparent through a conversation I had with a co-worker. A friend of mine was born in an " Islamic Country" , but has been a Canadian citizen for the last fourteen years. He is not devoutly religious although he does strongly value the foundations of his faith - anyhow, my co-worker and friend have met many times and have known one another for the last year or so. My co-worker has lived in Toronto for most of his life and has friends from all sorts of backgrounds. He realizes and I believe knows inside that just because you are Muslim or from the "middle east" does not make you a terroist or involved in dangerous activities. However my friend was away at a meditative retreat the same time as the arrest of the alleged Canadian terroists,promting my coworker to ask me, "If I was sure he(my friend) was not up to something and if he was really meditating". He asked although masked in a joky voice, if I was sure he(friend) was not involved in some secret activities, meaning terroist activities. My point is that my coworker realizes my friend is just an ordinary guy, yet another level he sees him as a terrroist, conjured up by images from the media. I feel this is happening more and more. The media reports from a point that terroists represent only extreme Islamic fundamentalists, yet with the Canadian arrests they made sure to identify, although most were Canadian citizens, their Islamic roots.

...The Double Consciousness of terror
The double consciousness of terror and Islam made itself apparent through a conversation I had with a co-worker. A friend of mine was born in an " Islamic Country" , but has been a Canadian citizen for the last fourteen years. He is not devoutly religious although he does strongly value the foundations of his faith - anyhow, my co-worker and friend have met many times and have known one another for the last year or so. My co-worker has lived in Toronto for most of his life and has friends from all sorts of backgrounds. He realizes and I believe knows inside that just because you are Muslim or from the "middle east" does not make you a terroist or involved in dangerous activities. However my friend was away at a meditative retreat the same time as the arrest of the alleged Canadian terroists,promting my coworker to ask me, "If I was sure he(my friend) was not up to something and if he was really meditating". He asked although masked in a joky voice, if I was sure he(friend) was not involved in some secret activities, meaning terroist activities. My point is that my coworker realizes my friend is just an ordinary guy, yet another level he sees him as a terrroist, conjured up by images from the media. I feel this is happening more and more. The media reports from a point that terroists represent only extreme Islamic fundamentalists, yet with the Canadian arrests they made sure to identify, although most were Canadian citizens, their Islamic roots.

Whereas Apu seems to be an example of the "ridiculous" Indian on American television, this is not always the portrayal. I watch Coronation Street, a British soap that plays here on the CBC, and they have a character who is an Indian shop owner. That is the only similarity he has with Apu - he owns not one but I believe it is 7 shops around the city and he also has his hands in other business ventures. He is also educated, and speaks with a British accent - perhaps it would be different if he had the typical 'Indian' accent. He is also set apart from the rest of the characters who are working class, as he is much wealthier, living in a posh apartment and driving a nice car. This seems to illustrate the paradox of the stereotypes - the wise vs. the ridiculous, the primitive vs. the noble.

On another note, I find it interesting that in North America when people say "Asian" they usually refer to China, etc. But in England, the term refers to people of Indian descent.

I don't usually read Esquire magazine, but Sunday evening as I
puruzed the magazine section of Loblaws the title of an article in the current July issue caught my eye: "Innocent: Can America and Islam and Coexist?" In this article Tom Junod profiles the life a man you might remember named John Walker Lindh, an American citizen U.S. Forces caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Pictures of him blindfolded naked and bound in ducktape on a stretcher appeared on television news around the globe. After U.S. Forces captured him, he was interrogated and eventually returned to the U.S. where he stood trial for treason and conspiring to kill Americans. The government eventually dropped eight of the ten charges against him and he is currently serving a twenty-five year sentence at a medium security federal prison in Northern California. Junod argues that Hamza ( a name he adopted once he began his prison term) has come to embody the challenge of Islam to America, and that the challenge is this: "In response to what America has done to him, Hamza has become more Islamic-more himself, and a better Muslim. And in response to what Hamza has done to it, America has become less properly Christian, and ever less democratic, and ever so much less than itself. " Junod provides a very interesting narrative and exploration of the life of John Walker Lindh from the time he was a teenager to his current life in prison, and while he discusses, briefly, the challenge Hamza poses to the United States, he does not explore the significance of the image of John Walker Lindh.

I think that the image of John Walker Lindh is a paticularly threatening one to the U.S. because he is a white American from a fairly wealthy upper middle class family who probably had every opportunity to pursue the' American dream,' yet he choose to convert to Islam, learn Arabic, and fight with the Taliban in the Afghan civil war. In Mitchell's terms one could ask what is it that the image of Hamza wants from the U.S. ? Perhaps the image of Hamza wants to explore why America and Islam are seeming so diametrically opposed to one another. I suppose one could say he is us and our enemy in the same person and for this reason incredibly troubling to the American psyche. When his story first broke, many commentators speculated that he was just a stary eyed American kid, almost a Lawrence of Arabia type figure, who had 'become enchanted with Islam and 'just gotten in over his head.' They thought once he returned to the States he would 'straighten out.' However, the portrait of Hamza that emerged during his trial was one of a rational, intelligent, studious, and devout young man, who spoke Arabic fluently, had memorized the Koran, and refused to renounce his Islamic faith. He was not a brainwashed fanatic or a terrorist, but an exceptionally pious Muslim, who knew suicide bombing to be against the true tenants of his faith. Unlike the many Muslim terrorist Zizek argues are anti-Western, but not necessarily pro- Islamic, Hamza is not a terrorist and is an incredibly pious Muslim. Junod describes Hamza as 'a better human person than you or I...[and] if you happen to be a Muslim:Well, he's a better Muslim than you are too.' Ultimately the case of the United States government did not hold up, but he was still committed to twenty five years in prison. Is this because he is a Muslim? I would contend this is because he is a figure whose image is so incompatible with the contruction and perception of Islam in the United States, and the political agendas that construction serves, that the only way for the U.S. to deal with him is to "exnominate" him, as it were, to federal prison until this whole War on Terror thing passes over.

I think that Junod is going a little too far to say that the answer to whether Islam and the U.S. can co-exist or not lies in the person of Hamza Walker Lindh; nevertheless, I think the image of Hamza raises important questions about the way Islam is treated in the U.S. and certainly leaves much to ponder about the creation of any sort of alternative to get us out of this terribly poloarized mess.

I will ponder this while I study for the exam. If you are interested in the reading the article in its entirety it is available on the Esquire website.

Anti-Semitism

In my opinion, Anti-Semitism / Zionism / America are not the same, however most of the time they are linked together because of the US's support for Israel. On CNN and other news broadcasts, we frequently see both anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism uprisings or riots together -when both the American flag and Israeli flag are set on fire. Why they are doing this- I'm not so sure- but perhaps they are trying to send a message to America- as long as they support Israel politically- they will be hated. Or maybe- America is the ultimate symbol for Western countries? Any other thoughts?

I decided to post the video of Borat (Mischa Baron Cohen- a Jew) when he is speaking to an American (southern) who hunts extinct animals. If you watch the video- you will note that Borat engages in a Anti-Semitic conversation about the Jewish people. Cohen (or borat) is doing a great service for the world, he is showing, by raising the issue of how anti-Semitism still exists- even in the United States!

First of all, I want to say that I enjoyed learning about how social theorists argue and interpret the relationship between popular culture and symbolic system. The symbolic system definitely governs us and affects our everyday life. How about stereotypes? Is it popular culture to make stereotypes? Does symbolic order want us to make stereotypes? Stereotypes are socially constructed ideas and they are passed down from one generation to the next. The social system often incorporates stereotypes to serve political-economic purpose. They are fixed, shallow and closed view of looking at things. It is absolutely silly to make any decision with oversimplified conception. Sadly, people have stereotypes about everything. We learned a lot about ethnic stereotypes in the past week. We looked at how stereotypes have historical background and how they function to maintain cultural boundaries. Stereotypes do occur at micro level as well, for instance, among family members and friends. I feel that we incorporate stereotypes to express what we stand for and what we do not stand for. For example, you get stereotyped on your characteristics or lifestyles based on being skinny vs. fat, pretty vs. ugly, flat chest vs. DD, short vs. tall, smoker vs. non-smoker, wine drinker vs. beer drinker, soccer fans vs. hockey fans, dog lover vs. cat lover… The list goes on and on. It will be nice to stop making boundaries and judgments. It will be great to acknowledge our differences and individualities. Yet, it is not happening. So I guess it is popular culture to be stereotypical……

I've had a couple of questions about the mysterious numbers on the front of your test, so I thought I'd explain it here.

The green number is your percentage. That is the important one.

There are two other numbers in pencil. The first one is your total points on the short answer. The second is the number of matching questions you answered correctly.

So, if you want to check that your percentage is correct, first make sure those two pencil numbers are correct. Then add the first one to 1.5 times the second one. Then divide by 114 (the total number of points in the test). Sorry for all the math...

If you think I've added incorrectly (it happens) or if you have questions about the marking/answers/etc., I'm having an office hour about the test on Wednesday after class (12pm) in my office SS566.

Jessica

The explosive popularity of web communities such as myspace, facebook, as well as youtube, which promise a "taking back" of the internet, and a way to make it your own ("MYspace","YOUtube") is something I have yet to fully understand. Mind you, I'm not denying that I've been swept up by the trend.

All of the videos posted on this blog have been sourced from youtube, which demonstrates the pervasiveness of the site as a resource.The The services are free for users, and also provide actual benefits ( mostly entertainment value), which is in some ways similar to consumer savings programs like airmiles. As Emma brought up in class, myspace profiles (and undoubtedly every other like website) provides corporate agendas with valuable information.
Browsing on youtube, there really is something for everyone, including (in my view) an enormous number of homemade videos which are very boring. However, it promises fame--the everyman can become a myspace or youtube celebrity of the week if their amateur video catches the eye of enough people.
Of course, real celebrities are featured on these sites as well. Big name bands were quick to jump on the myspace bandwagon (the beastie boys have a myspace).
It's almost to the point of developing as its own subculture, and I can see a divide between the myspace user's knowledge of various items of internet "cultural capital", that my less internet savvy friends are unaware of, and largely uninterested in (" did you see that new myspace prank....Oh I forgot you don't have a myspace, what else can we talk about?").

These sites are also a location for people to post false information, creating profiles which don't represent who they are
(for whatever reason) , as well as places for people to express their individuality and authentic selves.

Any thoughts?

I was thinking about the wrestling lecture and the theatre of suffering when I realised that people are truly sadistic. Let’s take the TV series Jackass that aired on MTV from April 2000 to February 2002 for example. For those who don’t know it, it was a series that showed men doing various dangerous and ridiculous stunts. It had a full-length movie called Jackass: The Movie. According to www.imbd.com, the movie was filmed on a budget of just $5 million, and went on to gross over $60 million in the United States alone, finishing in the number 1 spot at the box office during its debut weekend. It just goes to show that people find a lot of enjoyment in a show that features people swallowing and regurgitating live gold fish and being flipped upside down in a public portable toilet. It’s sick, but, you can’t believe there are people out there that will do this stuff so you just keep watching.

I came across this video the other day that also shows our love of watching people suffer. The link is below. The girl in the video said she would eat a live preying mantis if these guys promised her that they would go to church for four Sundays. Now I started thinking to myself, okay, maybe they REALLY don’t like going church but is it necessary to put this girl through that kind of torture? They would get no other enjoyment out of watching that grotesque act other than watching her suffer and satisfying their curiosity of whether or not she would really eat it. Looking at her disgusted expression, I truly believed she really, really, wanted those boys to attend church. People do some strange things in this world, but it is entertaining, lol.

Sorry this blog is a bit late since the lecture on Canadian multiculturalism was at the beginning of the week but like many of you I was busy with the essay. So here we go, in the lecture we touched a sensitive part of Canadian history: the French situation in this English speaking country. Being from Quebec myself, I am always a bit curious to see how the rest of Canada understand the situation. Everytime this subject comes up in a class Im always edgy because I cant stand the people who dont understand the situation or the separatist point of view. Im not here to play a political game and say that spearation is right, Im just saying that often people just dont look at why Quebec want to separate, if it still wants too. So dont get me wrong here please, I already had enough fights about this subject with my girlfriend haha. What I really wanted to point out is that yes in Quebec we learned to see Canada as a two nations country. Why? Well I think it is just because by doing so we keep the French aspect special and make sure that French people keeps on being seen as "founders" of this country. Quebeckers dont want to be seen as just another culture in Canada because they were here a long time ago so they considered that they have some advantages over other "new cultures" that have been here for lesser period of time. Is it right to think that way?? I dont know really Im split when I think about it. I mean everyone probably think that if they were their before they should have something more. Its like standing in line to buy tickets, you dont want to people behind you to get the seats you are supposed to get. Thus, multiculturalism is seen by some as something that can damaged the situation of the French. A majority of French people see themselves as differents from the rest of Canada and the two nations concept give them the assurance that they are. I heard many time that Quebeckers were racists because they wanted to separate. But just think about all the conflict in the world between nations that fight for land or for more rights. When the term nation come into play there is pretty much no chance that a struggle wont be fought. Im sure that using this idea of two nations keeps feeding the fire in Quebec. To me nation implies more that saying you are a minority or an ethnic group because with nation comes the right to the land. Who knows maybe just changing the use of terms during the learning process of the kids can help diffuse the situation or maybe it would make it worse since Quebeckers will think they are losing they special status and the fear of assimilation would come back haunting them haha. Anyway what do you think?

I am not a racist but..., I have nothing against... but... Who never heard those in their surroundings? Isn't it the perfect examples that stereotypes make people think that a certain culture act in a specific way only. Mitchell, in his chapter 14, talks a bit about these expressions and notes that the stereotype is confirmed through those however, it is often followed by a disclaimer. But why do people disclaim? I think people used those expressions to hide the fact that they are racists in a way and that they dont want people to think they are bad person who cant live in a multicultural country. Racism is really taboo, which is a good thing in a way, but by hiding it through these two faced sentences makes the struggle against it way harder. Even if you say to someone that what they just say was racist they will completely disagree with you because they dont want to look bad even if deep inside they know they are. Nobody want to be thought as a radical when it comes to racism because our society linked racism with the most violent actions that happened in history like pogroms, apartheid, facism, etc. However, the whole denial thing just make racism harder to fight because people wont listen to a speech on racism because they dont see themselves as racist. That way the stereotypes just stay alive longer and th other cultures keep on being seen as weird, or being understood. Anyway, I think we are all racist in a way in different degree and the first battle that need to be fought is against yourself and the stereotypes you believe in. There is no doubt that this course will help us to grow a bit more as human being.

I came across this picture on the FIFA website and thought it was interesting because of the way these fans are dressed. Could this be carnivaleque because of make up, apparel and hairdo doesn't look normal and stand out from all the the other people around them. I think its would be a good example of carnivaleque because it relates to the wrestlers who wear costumes or hockey players with masks. I' am not too sure what's the significance of their outfit. Are they just punks or part of a gang? Does anyone know? Anyways, heres something to look at and please feel free to comment.

As I was getting ready for the lecture on Indians I came across this article on how Indians in Calcutta are rooting for Brazil in the World Cup. And a few days ago I read about how Israelis and Palestinians are united, for once - in their enthusiasm for the Brazilian soccer team.
Should we have a lecture on the "Brazilian stereotype"? And if so, what would be in it?

As Professor was saying in the class, Hiphop culture is very different.
Japanese hiphop is mainly "party hiphop", including RIP SLYME
(you can listen to their songs from above site)
It is very different, more melodic, peaceful and happier.
Some rappers do sing about oppressed background and anger etc.
Zeebra is probably the most famous among them.
One of his song was about descrimination against Japanese (Never Enuff)
I think it would be better to create categories to differenciate them,
However, most of these rappers including Zeebra sings party-tunes, too.

For a country that prides itself on multiculturalism, this is very disappointing:

From 1885-1947, the Canadian government legislated racism under the Head Tax and Exclusion Acts. In 1885, the government put a head tax of an initial $50 on each Chinese immigrant in hopes of discouraging them from entering Canada. By 1903, the head tax went up to $500 (2 years pay). The government collected about $23 million from this tax. On JULY 1, 1923, the government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which stopped Chinese immigration altogether. The act was in effect until 1947.

What I find rather disturbing is that although the Canadian government found Chinese unfit to become Canadian, they were good enough to help build the most dangerous parts of the Canadian Pacific Railway and work in coal mines.

What I also find the most disturbing is the fact that the Canadian government has yet to compensate families for the money they forked over as Head Tax AND has only just promised a formal apology in Parliament.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax_(Canada)

As a couple of you have already noted, the World Cup has been notorious for bringing out the racist side of some fans. I was watching the news about 2 weeks ago and caught an interview with the President of FIFA. According to him, and this article http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1951184,00.html, new rules have been implemented to make sure that the racism stays out of the game:
"The rules, approved by FIFA last month, went into effect on Thursday and dictate that an "official or spectator behaving in a discriminatory or contemptuous manner (that) can be attributed to a certain team" could cost the team three points for a first offense, six for a second and relegation for further violations. For matches in which points are not awarded, such as in the World Cup's knock-out rounds and other international tournaments, the offending team could be disqualified and member associations excluded for up to two years."
I think these rules are necessary but risky to implement. Like the article goes on to say, how can the FIFA ensure that fans don't intentionally try to make opposing teams break the rules, or even worse, dress up as the opposing team and break the rules?

Just Looking ...

Soccer is one of my favourite sports, both to watch and play. In previous years, I haven't really been interested in the world cup as much as I am now, and to be honest I'm not sure why. I watched the Trinidad and Tobago vs Sweden game and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. I was rooting for Trinidad just because they were the underdogs this year and everyone expected them to lose, terribly. So, as you might guess, I was really happy when they tied the game with Sweden! And no, I'm not Trinidadian, nor am I West-indian, but I guess my point is, that the World Cup really does bring people together and it establishes respect for countries that people may have previously dismissed like Trinidad! I also thought the message in the beginning"A time to make friends" was quite appropriate! Go Soca Warriors!

Did anyone watch the Caroline vs Edmonton game yesterday?
If you did, did you notice someone in the audience towards the end of the 3rd period holding up a banner/poster that said “Hockey is Canada’s game”. I found it quite funny and a coincidence how earlier that day in lecture we were talking about hockey being Canada’s national sport.

A lot of my friends are rooting for Edmonton, including my boyfriend. For the heck of it I am cheering for Carolina. A friend of mine started calling me a “yankee”, but I corrected him I told him I’m Chinese, even though I'm a Chinese born Canadian. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Canada I just prefer to be called Chinese. I'm proud to be a Chinese born Canadian and a Maple Leafs fan as well. Too bad they didn’t do too well this season. I keep telling my boyfriend that next year will be the year for the Leafs to win the Stanley cup. My boyfriend just laughs “that’s what you say every year”…

From Joyce’s blog: "..."us versus them”...if they're not on our side, then they're our enemies..."

It made me want to share something with you about the previous world cup.

In the 2002 World Cup “knock out rounds” Korea won Italy 2-1, which resulted in Italy being knocked out and Korea advancing to the quarterfinals. The person that made the winning goal was Ahn Jung-Hwan of Korea. For those that don’t know, Ahn Jung-Hwan plays professionally for an Italian team. The owner of the Italian team criticized Ahn Jung-Hwan for making the winning goal: “I am not going to pay the salary of a guy who has been the ruin of Italian soccer”. I believe the Italian team apologized and offered Ahn Jung-Hwan a contract but he refused.

I guess winning the Fifa Cup means a lot more to some people than others, and a whole lot more to the owner of that Italian team. He is a sore loser and he sure knows how to show it too...

I am not familiar with the book Kalmar mentioned at the conclusion of his lecture today, Epic Encounters by Melani McAristen, but I find the premise of the book, according to Kalmar, both intriguing and questionable. As an American, I think her propositions, that the multi-culturalism of the American army is a model for the rest of the world, a vehicle for cultivating American values, like, liberty, democracy, freedom, and justice abroad, and , allowing America to do all these things while not looking like a European occupation force, are interesting and quite thought provoking. However (again, I am not familiar with her work myself), I feel she fails to address the more pernicious reasons as to why the American army is as diverse as it appears. I would argue that these reasons actually point to failures in American multi-culturalism, in paticular , institutional and systematic discrimination that prevents the full economic integration of recent immigrants and other ethnic/racial minorities. Unfortunately, for many black and Hispanic, two of the largest ethnic minority groups in the States, youths, who have grown up in impoverished urban environments with poor public education and few opportunities for job training, joining the military is one of the only options available to them " to get out." I guarantee that the U.S. military does more far recruiting in the strip malls of Detroit than it does on the campuses of Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. Michael Moore addresses this issue quite poignantly at end of his film, Fahrenheit 9-11, when he says, and I am paraphrasing, the real war is not the war that U.S. wages in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the war that the power block wages against its own people. While the American military may not look like a European occupation force, once young men and women, who have experienced little power in their own society, have the opportunity to walk the streets of Baghdad with a semi-automatic weapon, they often perpetrate violence against the Iraqi people similar to the violence perpetrated against them by the American state. The mechanisms through which state power is distributed are brutal and injust. Although the American military, superficially, may not look like a typical European occupier, the behavior of the young men and women once they arrive in Iraq or Afghanistan is not very different from the behavior of, say, French troops in Syria or Algeria circa 1925. This is all to say I think McAristen is off when she says the U.S. military does not look like a traditional European occupation force, sure it may not look like one, but I don't think anyone is really fooled. Alas, I have digressed. What I am really trying to hit on here is that even though Canada may have an official policy of multi-culturalism and the United States anti-discrimination laws, for instance, the degree to which ethnic minorities and recent immigrants are economically integrated, meaning they experience the same opportunities for economic advancement as their WASP peers, leaves much to be desired. In the case of the United States, I cited the example of military service above. In the case of Canada, I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that would seem to suggest recent immigrants, especially, are not economically well integrated. For example, I know a man who recently immigrated to Canada from Malaysia where he was a leading civil engineer with a P.h.d. from that country's top university and cannot find work in Canada as a civil engineer because his credentials are not recognized here. He is now thinking of moving to the U.S. where his credentials are recognized. Other instances of this type of discrimination include: the Iranian doctor, the Russian physicist, the Tunisian lawyer, the Indian financial analysis all under employed because their credentials are not recognized in the multi-cultural mecca called Canada.

Next Thought: In the introduction to her book, Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation, and the Commodification of Difference, Deborah Roots argues that multi-culturalism in Canada, as in the United States, is the consequence of a colonial history many people would rather not discuss, yet continues to play out. She states, "If culture remains the site of contestation, then the colonial histories that have informed the way cultural difference was taken up in the West will continue to be an issue. People sometimes speak of "postcolonial" as if something has been decided, as if the mixing and fragmentation of culture and history such as occur in the Dufferin Mall are neutral and not themselves a function of imperial agendas put into play long ago." Root proceeds to contend some of the issues multi-culturalism and diversity raise are issues of colonialism that 'we' have not yet thought through and until we can address the violence and brutality of the power that created these conditions there is little we can do to address the issues raised. I wonder in Canada to what extent the official emphasis on multi-culturalism is a way rewriting an otherwise pretty grim national history, as I think was mentioned both in the reading and in class. What I am attempting to address here are possible connections between power, multi-culturalism, and alternative post-colonial, although maybe not really post after all, discourses. I would refer back to what I said earlier about America's multi-cultural military. We think that multi-culturalism is a good thing, I generally agree, but at the same time, what nasty histories and realities does the guise of multi-culturalism mask?

Finally: Before I moved to Toronto from Denver, I had heard a lot about what a diverse city Toronto is. When I started at U of T I expected, rather mistakenly, that I would quickly make a fantastically diverse and multi-cultural circle of friends. Sadly, that was not the case and for the most part the only other students that have even been willing to talk with me have been other American students. Toronto is a very multi-cultural place, in the sense that there are people from all over the world who now call this city home, but at the same time it is very ghettoized and it is my observation that people from different backgrounds do not interact much with each other. I agree with Harles that instead of encouraging exchange and interaction, official policies of multi-culturalism can be self-defeating and ultimately lead to segregation. The other topic of discussion in today's class was Canadian national identity , of which multi-culturalism is one component . As an American who came to Canada for university, I found the discussion interesting in terms of what I have experience as the discrepancy between what a country projects as its national identity and what the reality of that national identity actual is.

Thank-you for taking the time to read my entry. I welcome any comments, questions, or discussion you might have on the material I have posted.

Im not quite sure if the video would work, this is my first time blogging so hopefully it works anyway...if the video does not work here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNnvr-4qF1Ehtml

Regarding the code of ethics for commercials, I found this advertisement for mastercard which is banned from television. I wanted to know how you guys feel about this ad? I think it's hilarious.



Here's another one this one is the banned axe commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLTNtCVBw4c

enjoy and let me know what you think.
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLTNtCVBw4c">

Hi folks,

Just a reminder that I'll be in my office (SS566 - in the basement) Monday from 12 until 2 if you want to talk to me about Test 1 (or your essay -- the time is now...).

Jessica

1. See your current marks online anytime!
Get course announcements by email!
To register on CCNet: follow the link from the main course web site.

2. Make up Test 2 As announced in class this will take place in the classroom on Friday at noon. Please note that there will not be a make up of the make up test; if you missed Test 1 and then also miss the make up test then you should make arrangements to drop the course or get special arrangements for a course extension as obviously your handicap is not just of a temporary nature. Please make sure that before taking Test 2 you have provided Emma with the required documentation.

I remember when I used to watch wrestling as a kid. The wrestlers that seem to be hated the most were often flabby. Bam Bam Bigelow was probably the one I despised the most. He was the complete opposite of what the ideal body, according to the bourgeois view of course, should look. Tattoos on his arms and on his head, he could have frightened anobody out there. I hated him, not because he was a bad wrestler or because he was playing the evil man because in fact I prefer those ones, but maybe because what he represented what the opposite of what I thought was an athlete. For me an athlete had to be more like Hulk Hogan. Fit, tall, and strong as hell.

Now looking back in time I realize that all the flabby wrestler I could remember of were the hated one. Yokozuna, Andre the Giant, the Big Show and some others I cant remember are part of this. There is no doubt in my mind that the WWF back then now WWE adopted the bourgeois view of the body and that they were able to maintain this perception by making sure that the flabby men would always be an evil character. One of the bug moment in the history of the WWE was when Hulk Hogan won at Wrestle Mania Andre the Giant, who until then dominated the other wrestlers. It was the ultimate consecration of the sculpted body over the fleshy one.

On the other hand, I was wondering if we can consider bodies like the one of Vince McMahon or Rick Flair, so older wrestlers whose flesh is not as fit as it used to be because of the age, as being part of this flabby body thing. I mean they are without anydoubt working out in order to get a fit body but their age limit the results. So can we consider someone who is trying to get a fit body but cant because of certains factors which he cant control, as a person with undisciplined flesh?

David

I thought I'd share this with you to cheer you up while you're studying (or not). It might be a link between the part of the course we have done, and the part that is coming up. In the past part we saw a lot of Paris Hilton and in the next part we'll see a lot of Borat / Ali G. Just signifiers, no signified - especially the Borat one. The Paris Hilton one acctually has a message: her facial expression never changes. Click on the links.

i can see how the sex tape relates to phallocentrism- but i am a bit confused about how it relates to andrejevic's savvy reflexivity......

does anyone know? it would be really helpful and i'm glad to answer any other questions....
thanks
Morane

I have to return to my other duties and won't be answering any posts any more. You might still want to post stuff here or send a message on the student email loop (accessible from the course home page), and get feedback from classmates.
Good luck with the test!

we mentioned that images are not about unconcious or unconcious or true or false, but rather they are on a level of persuasion that brings out an immediate reaction from you.

we also mentioned- that is the imaginary of the lacanian stages- that unconcious is more close to real, and that the concious isthe symbolic order....

can u confirm that this is a correct link? or am i confused?
thanks
Morane

i am not sure what the point is of the statement "the imaginary is not at the concious or the unconscious level"

My notes seem to be a little contradictory!

if you could explain this again it would be very helpful!
Thank you very much
Morane

I'm having trouble with your question:

What is the purpose of the rule like "watch but don't touch"? Or the rules embodied in broadcasters' and advertisers' code of ethics?

Thank you

1) Can you explain a bit more the equivalent reporduction and give some examples of how to use it, I don't understand the expression well.

2) I also have so difficulties understanding why the watcher is more powerful than the watched.

3) Can you develop a bit more on why Lacan said that the gaze is objet petit a?

4) Concerning wrestling as the Theatre of Suffering are you talking about their physical expressions ilustrating the pain or the fatc that the person who suffer is the most important character? For the carnivalesque part is it because of the excess because I cant relate it to the temporary trangression?

Just Looking ...

Test Questions:

1)You asked for 3 different feminist critiques for the romance novels and I only have 2 in my notes: New (liberating) and Traditional (patriarchal), what was the 3rd one?

2) Are animals used in romance novels because they are considered untamed beasts and the taming of them are analogous to the taming of the men in the romance novels?

3)Could you please explain this quote: "God is to King as People are to Celebrity"?

Thank you
Vanitha Krishnan

I'd like to take the liberty to comment on Jee Hyun Kim's very interesting post on Host Clubs in Japan, below.
"Phallocentric" is not necessarily just something where men lead and women follow. "Phallus" has many meanings of which the two that are perhaps the most important are: 1) the penis and 2) the active creative principle dubbed "male" as opposed to the passively creative one dubbed "female" (in sex the "female" arouses the "male" so his phallus becomes serviceable for sex and procreation). The videos shown in class were phallocentric in the sense that by their very structure they privileged the penis. They were phallocentric even though the video shown during the break had been described as "feminist pornography" because the woman in it takes active charge of the sexual activity. The reason that video was still phallocentric is that it focused on the penis in exactly the same ways as other "non-feminist" porn videos. So with the Host Clubs if we stay at the purely sexual level the question would be if the relative focus on female vs. male bodies is reversed in them. My bet would be not. Now when we look at the second meaning of "phallus" then "phallocentric" is that which focuses on the active creative principle. On this count, too, the Host Club likely remains phallocentric. Here the women play exactly the same role, it seems, as men play in "Hostess Clubs." It is an active, i.e. phallic role. The difference is that here the phallic role is played by women. In fact the ability of women to play a phallic role is the whole point here. It does not speak against phallocentrism though it does against male privilege at another level.
Host Clubs may be liberating or not, but they're still phallocentric, it seems to me.

Just to repeat in case you missed it in class that the essays are due, in hard copy, in class on June 16. It's the original date but for a little while I had put June 19 on the web. It turns out that that date is not practicable in terms of our ability to mark the essays on time. Please hand in the essay at 12, after my make-up lecture on "virtual sex and offensive images."
Don't forget that there is no class this Thursday and that the test is on Friday.
If you think you have to miss the test please look at what documentation is required.
Jessica Taylor, who marked all the Tests 1, will be available after class on Monday to answer all your questions about that test.

In and outside Japan, the Japanese women are still portrayed (in the Japanese pop culture i.e. mangas, tv variety shows etc,) to be passive, obedient and docile (not all the time, but women tend to have roles of assisting/supporting men and there is an expectation from Japanese men for women to fulfill this role). In the western pop culture, Japanese women (or Asian women in general) have been portrayed as the oriental exotics i.e. Geishas- who entertain men with their artistic skills i.e. music, poetry, traditional dance and has a patron (danna) who will support her financially.

Since the 90s, some Japanese women have sought to fulfill and control their own sexual fantasies and escape from gender roles ascribed by the phallocentric society by going to host clubs. Host clubs now exist in large numbers in Kabuki-cho district in Tokyo. Some host clubs have websites where they post profiles of the hosts i.e. height, weight, contact info. with the picture. (An example of a host club profile, Host Club Nude )Upon entering the host club, female customers choose their hosts and flirt with them while buying expensive drinks (Price of drinks can range from 5,000 yen to 3 million yen (15,000 USD) for a bottle of champagne).

The cost and the number of expensive drinks determine how long the male hosts will serve the female customer i.e. flirting, lighting a cigarette, giving advice and may develop into amorous relationship. Hosts earn a lot of money. The male hosts are often in late teens-in 20s where as the female customers tend to be older women (single or married) who have the money or can even be female hostesses who do the same job as the male hosts but for men. In addition, strip clubs (where males (mostly foreign men who are not Asian) striptease) also exist. This web article notes that sometimes women may fall into prostitution to pay off the tabs but I think host clubs and strip clubs in Japan is be an example of places where phallocentric sex can be rejected and where female sexual fantasies can be fulfilled if the female has the sufficient power of money to purchase the service of the host.

A good article about hosts:
http://www.pripix.com/features/hosts.htm
Other sites:
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_club
Chicago Scholarly Review http://csr.uchicago.edu/content/1-3-rupcic.html
International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) http://www.iias.nl/iias/show/id=56141/framenoid=42832

When we talked about romance novels, it reminded me of recent expansion on "chick-lit" market.
"Shopaholic" series definately falls in this category
I've read newspaper article on "how to write the chick lits",
stating that ...
it must happen in somewhere exotic because all big cities are taken,
the girl must be someone the readers can relate to,
there must be love relationship(s),
must include well studied back ground... etc.
"The Devil wears Prada", which is made into movie and is coming out soon, follows similar model.
Perhaps these books are romance novels for younger readers?

(I'm not against these books or anything. I don't mean to offend anyone. I like them, too.)