Just Looking ...

My favourite Sacha Baron Cohen character has got to be Ali G. I find his ignorance and play on words hilarious.
This is a video of him interviewing medical experts discussing euthanasia and confusing it with the 'youth in asia'.

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

Labels: Freeganism, Materialism, Sustainability

After watching the clip of Bamboozled in class, I thought of the film, Tropic Thunder. In this movie, Robert Downey Jr. plays Kirk Lazarus, an Oscar-winning actor who is cast to play Sgt. Osiris—a character that was originally written as black. Rather than recasting the role, Lazarus decides to dye his skin and play Sgt. Osiris. Many critics reacted negatively to Downey’s “blackface”, positing that it was racist. In addition, disability groups were outraged by the film's repeated use of the term “retarded” to refer to a character, Simple Jack, with a mental disability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3ws6OnGuE

I thought this was hilariously funny and sadly true...

Rusak's post reminded me of my own reservations with the concept. I don't know about you, but I know many people who can't pick out the different tastes of herbs in their food. I cook gourmet food for a variety of people and frequently there's a reaction of 'that something I can't put my finger on'. If the objet petit a is simply something that stands outside our symbolic system, there ought to be near-unlimited amounts of these objet. From fractals to different geological configurations on planets in different solar systems to... the emergent tastes of different herb combinations. While the concept may help us draw attention to the limits of our own symbolic systems, that seems to be all it is. Though I note that this may be an erroneous perception as I am no expert in Zizek/Lacan.

In class we discussed what is considered "ethnic" food and came up with a list of foods that, in Canada or Toronto, we considered to be termed "ethnic". Linking this to previous terms of cultural capital discussed in the first term, I venture to suggest that through our consumption of these ethnic foods (which were discussed as being Indian or Japanese on the North American context) we acquire cultural capital. Because every one on this planet eats food we use the different types we eat as a signifying system to communicate something about our tastes or cultural identity on what we choose to consume. This idea can also be connected with the idea learned in class of and imagined national identity where a persons "nationality" is based on their cultural differences such as the food they consume, which prof. Kalmar says to be based on a conception of a nation tied together by history. The idea of "ethnic" food as holding a cultural identity on the basis of how it is cooked and consumed (which creates the differences between different cultural foods) can be seen in this light as being purely symbolic and if we take the leap in connecting ethnic foods with the concept of an imagined national identity can be viewed as having no real basis in reality. So, is the idea of ethnic food purely imagined?

This post is kind of a flow up to the one posted on March 25 about the Fox News comedy show (Red Eye)...as I feel there is more to be discussed. 

I seriously doubt it. Can it ever really disappear? Of course, all around us we can see positive change in this area, because we are lucky enough to live in Toronto. It is easy to be optimistic here. But what about in places like Israel, Sri Lanka, or countless other nations, towns, streets and homes around the world where ancient tensions are continually renewed? Obviously it will take longer than a century for such a disappearance to occur, if it ever does. It is all we can do to make the individual choice to accept millennia of human vice and violence, put our differences aside and work for a good life together. This does not mean we are not racist. Racism runs deeper than what we say, think and do; it is inscribed in hegemony, and in our subconscious, collectively and individually. But this does mean that we have made the choice to improve, and for me, this is enough. Perhaps on the day that we have all made this choice an entire generation will be raised in an environment untainted by racist ideas and activities. Then we can begin to talk realistically of an end to racism.

After watching Bamboozled I began to find similarities between the fictional new millennium minstrel show and Dave Chappelle's Comedy Central show which ended after two seasons. The show is offensive to all. But the majority is based on black contrasted with white stereotypes in the United States. Having sketches based on a variety of different issues. The sketches always work with contrasting the (default) white against (coloured) non-white, often placing the colourful persona in the shoes of being default. This often is what makes the premises of the sketches and it worked. This was great until Chapelle began to have second thoughts about his creation like Pierre Delacroix does in Bamboozled. The masses love both shows and for Chapelle the appeal of his show did the opposite of what he envisioned. It was a way to critique the absurdity of racism but this was overshadowed by the acceptability of its characters and sketches as ok. Both shows became an uncontrollable monster for their creators.

I know we didn't get to cover the Orientalism- the Arab and the Jew this year, but I couldn't resist sharing a couple youtube clips I found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS4v_kj9rw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw4uUTlutto
The first video is a MADtv Parody on Al Jazeera- and its obvious the one thing all Arabs/Muslims have in common is there insidious hatred for the west- more specifically America.
The Last video is combination of images used to portray Arabs in Hollywood movies and T.V shows-which also demonstrate some of the key characteristic we used in class to identify and represent the Other as - "belonging to a different time, and inhabit lands which are fixed/ or stuck in the past..."
Have look at the videos!

In our recent discussions of Borat, I couldn't help but think of Flight of the Conchords

Flight of the Conchords is an HBO show about a folk-comedy musical duo from New Zealand trying to make it big in New York City. Though Borat and Conchords are different in tone and narrative, they both rely on the use of absurd stereotypes in their comedy.

Stereotypes about New Zealand are not as widespread as those of Eastern Europe, but Conchords relies on the same principle as Borat in assuming that most viewers really have no idea what the 'culture' or 'identity' of its characters might actually be like.

Through its references to Lord of the Rings, sheep, and sheep lawyers, Conchords makes us laugh while also reminding us how little we know about New Zealand (but also possibly reinforcing those stereotypes that do exist). One hilarious example is when the characters mention New Zealand's national sheep, Gary. They speak of Gary as if he’s a national hero, and make a bigger deal about him attending the opening of 'New Zealandtown' than of New Zealand's Prime Minister. The funny thing is that while it seems obvious to me that the idea of a 'national sheep' is a joke, it wouldn't really surprise me if New Zealand has such a thing, and that's the point.

Another example of Conchords playing on our ignorance is its depiction of the characters from New Zealand as being relatively simple-minded and naïve. The duo's band manager, Murray, suggests that they wear reflector vests and hats with a map of the U.S. embedded, so as to be safe and also 'fit in' in Manhattan. The notion is obviously quite silly, but it also draws on certain stereotypes of New Zealand and its people as being simple-minded, rural people in a foreign, urban setting, just like Borat. Conchords is certainly not as provocative, and doesn’t pretend to demonize anyone as Borat does (except maybe Australians – who the main characters insist have an ‘evil version’ of the New Zealand accent), but its certainly worth a comparison, and is definitely good for a laugh.

I've been repeatedly encountering this image on Toronto walls for the past few weeks, at first completely oblivious to it.

Now, I can't help but wonder who the infamous "Running Shoe" artist is, and why they felt compelled to cover the city walls with their message (whatever that message may be).

In fact, I've been encountering more and more street art like this one that make me stop and think, when I'm usually prone to ignoring graffiti altogether.
I will be the first to admit, this post, in terms of class topics is incredibly belated, but Spring has me out exploring the city again and I keep encountering more and more of these.

I'm happy to see more "art" like this emerging on Toronto streets. If anything, I'm happy it's engaging me with the city. Images like this one are characteristic of the emergent "street art" scene that has become increasingly popular over the past decade, originating in cities such as London and Berlin. Not only has street art taken over city walls worldwide, it is also being exhibited in galleries, or the outside of galleries as was the case for the Tate Modern Gallery in London this summer.

Though in this case, I think their outside exhibition is highly appropriate.

It is difficult for me to imagine now that when these images started to appear, executed by artists such as London-based Banksy (who is now internationally famous), they were still often negatively connected in people's imaginations with crime, gangs, territorial graffiti, etc. Which is perhaps why the Tate chose this decidedly controversial image of a black man holding a gun to exhibit as an example of street art for the side of it's building.

All of it though does call into question that ultimate divide between high and low culture. Although the Tate Gallery is known for showing avante garde and controversial work, it is above all, an art gallery. Yet, street art seemed to and does seem to have a place in it - despite it's origins in graffiti and often people's reluctance to qualify it as "art". Afterall, officials in London for example still continue to remove works of famous street artists from the city walls, claiming they are acts of vandalism.

The works are still "offensive" images to a degree, a "high" image (art) presented in a "low" way (that is, on the streets). For many people, the great difficulty in their mind lies in distinguishing street "art" from graffiti. Whether not this distinction should even be made is another matter altogether; the questions are nothing new to the art world - what is art? who decides what is art? - Where do we draw the line, if anywhere?

In Berlin this summer, the streets were covered with street art and after living there for 6 weeks I began to realize the street art and graffiti was part of the city. It told stories and mapped the city's history (as cliche as that may sound), or grabbed out at you from an alleyway engaging you with every corner of the city. It was creative and beautiful, and for that I have no reluctance in qualifying it as art.

However, I can at the same time understand people's reluctance. Like my own reluctance to accept "ready-made" art such as Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" - ie urinal.
Hopefully in the time being more street artists will start filling Toronto's walls with images like the "Running Shoe" (as silly as comical as it may seem).

Until then....




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tate_Modern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

** After posting this blog, I clicked on the Toronto link on our blog page which brought me to the Torontoist website. Coincidentally enough they have an article on Toronto street artist "Anser", which is interesting and reflects some of the things I've been saying. The reader's comments on the article in response to Anser are also interesting, reflecting just how controversial street art can be.

http://torontoist.com/2009/02/tall_poppy_interview_anser.php

Recently in the news there has been a lot of discussion over the comments that were made on Fox news about the Canadian military. The especially appalling comment "I didnt even know they were in the war. I though [Canada] is where you go when you dont want to fight" brought back some of the ideas that were discussed in our lecture about Canadian identity. Although there have been many different opinions on the incident - from its insensitive nature to 'who gives a damn about fox' news, the general idea of the controversy reveals some of the ways that Canadian identity is structured by 'our difference from the US'. If you want to read more you can check out : http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadians+proud+their+military+history/1429829/story.html

There hasn't been much talk about the objet petit a in class in the last bunch of weeks, but previous to that I was finding it a little troubling how easily applied the concept could be. It seemed as though anything we're typically attracted to or afraid of or interested in could be labeled an objet petit a. But if the application of the concept really is that unconstrained, then it's not a very useful concept at all; it can't possibly be telling you very much (beyond that the thing is something we fear/want/are interested in).

I feel like the concept picks out a really interesting and important sort of existential/psychological issue—but left as loosely specified as it is, it seems too unconstrained to really tell you much about the world. My biggest problem with theorists like Zizek is that they paint a very pretty picture and do lots of engaging interpretation, but it's never made clear how their notions could be disproved, or what the limits on their theoretical scheme are. If Zizek could use his theory to provide an artful explanation for the fact that X occurred, but could provide an equally artful explanation of ~X, then his theory is too unconstrained in that case to tell you anything about X, or perhaps is better looked at as a sort of literary device. (In our reading, at least, he seems to dither indecisively between trying to show how reality itself reflects his scheme, and showing that our perceptions of reality fit into it.)

This would only not be a problem (and I'm in no position to say if it really is or isn't for Zizek) if the theoretical scheme was, under the surface, very precise about how exactly the Real behaves, how to show something isn't a manifestation of it, etc.

My feeling is that human psychology must unavoidably be more complex than one single overarching conceptual scheme like this could capture, however appealing the general scheme is on the broad scale.

Watching an episode of the “X-Files” recently, I became interested when it involved the Golem, a Jewish mythological creature. In the episode, some anti-Semitic teenagers killed a Jewish man named Isaac, who was then apparently summoned back to life as a Golem by his widow to seek revenge and kill the teenagers. It turns out, as a user pointed out on TV.com, that the show did not accurately portray the Golem outside of the fact that a Golem does indeed traditionally seek revenge. The episode review notes the error in having Isaac, a deceased human, as a Golem since, in fact, a Golem is traditionally composed of inanimate material such as mud or clay. Other miscues the review identifies are how the Golem was defeated by erasing the Hebrew word for truth from its hand instead of its forehead, and that the Golem was summoned by the widow instead of a Rabbi. I found this all very interesting.

The “X-Files” usually features stories of the extraterrestrial or aliens. Countless other movies and media do this as well. Perhaps aliens can be a candidate for “the prime fantasy of our time”. There seems to a distinct culture and way of talking among “believers” and “abductees” Prof. Kalmar had suggested time travel as “the prime fantasy of our time”. Interestingly, alien abduction is often said to involve time loss. Just something to consider.

Wikipedia Entry on the Golem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

TV.com review of the "X-Files" episode "Kaddish":
http://www.tv.com/the-x-files/kaddish/episode/578/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;ep_title;14

Labels: extraterrestrial, fantasy, golem

Flipping through this month's issue of Vogue UK, I was struck by Aquascutum's advertisement for their spring 2009 campaign, The Blue Collection. The image really jumped out at me, and after searching online for other reactions it seems to be that the general consensus is that the campaign is highly effective despite its simplicity.
I really began to question exactly what it was about this image that resonated, and what came to mind was Prof. Kalmar's lecture on the universal and particular. In this lecture we discussed how in ordinary thought, white is the default race; it is rational and predictable. We extended this default theory to Hollywood movies, noting that romantic comedies are overwhelmingly about white couples, because otherwise it is no longer just a romantic comedy, it is a romantic comedy about a black couple, or latino couple, etc. Whiteness in Hollywood is the default race, for it does not detract or distract from ordinary plot lines.
I find this notion of whiteness as the default to be an even more useful conept in fashion advertisements. Of course advertisements are reflecting socially constructed values of beauty, what beauty looks like, and how to achieve beauty. However, it is crucial to remember that fashion is ultimately an industry and so what is of utmost importance - of commercial importance - is the product. The clothing must stand out above all in a fashion shoot, and Aquascutum's depiction of heteronormative romantic love between white couples is testament to this reality.

Though the cessation of racism is an admirable goal, I find that I'm fairly pessimistic that it is attainable in the 21st century, or perhaps ever. Ultimately, tacit forms of racism that I observe, and sometimes unthinkingly subscribe to myself, are too productive to be simply ceded. As long as race/ethnicity function as meaningful axes of social identity, it is unhelpful, or even detrimental to suggest that we have entered an era free of racism.

I am wary of claims that race is, or should be a non-issue. We have discussed in class and tutorial the consequences of depoliticizing issues such as gender/sex or ethnicity/race; in rendering them as merely cultural differences indexing primordial natural categories, they become reified and incontestable, power dynamics and historicity are obfuscated, and everyone is assumed to have equal opportunity. At a family gathering this past Christmas, one of the members of my extended family expressed contempt for those Blacks who "just buy beer and Nikes with their welfare cheques." Her general feeling was that since white people have historically been able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so too should black people, and any inability to do so now is construed as simple laziness or irresponsible behaviour on their part. "Black culture" is here positioned as inferior to "normative Western(white) culture," and judged as somehow uncivilized/immature/irrational. Regardless, the fault lies squarely on the individual who refuses to enact a bourgeois neoliberal subjectivity, eliding any contextual factors that may exist as a result of social inequality.

Culture and religion are also frequently invoked in place of race as a means of critiquing the Other. A common theme that I have seen in various municipal and national magazines (Toronto Life, Mark Steyn in Macleans) is the overly tolerant nature of Canadian multiculturalism. However, culture is frequently essentialized in these contexts, and portrayed as immutable. In particular, Muslim culture in all its variety and ambiguity is condensed into a unified whole; thoroughly misogynistic, uncritical, emotionally volatile, and pathological. To me, this is essentially racism in the form of "ethnicism." Thusly, "Islamo-fascist"(as opposed to brown-skinned) hordes are pouring onto our pristine shores, where they are breeding like rabbits, with the express desire to take over our governmental apparatus, replacing our "civilization" with their own base "culture." Please hear the sarcasm in that last sentence! Here, cultural difference is polarized and made irreconcilable, and so Muslims are seen as something less than full citizens. Perhaps as less than fully human as well - if they are unthinking zealots, then it is that much easier to "neutralize" them.

Ultimately, I hear lip service paid to the mitigation of racism, but for the so-called Western world, we have far too much staked on structural or global inequality to actually work to end it. As long as race/ethnicity and socio-economic class are so intricately confounded with one another, maintenance of the status quo necessitates ideologies that hierarchize and stigmatize on the basis of culture, at least covertly.

Ugh! I didn't intend to make this post so depressing. Maybe I just read too much trashy fear-mongering tripe to know how people actually feel about these issues.

Japan is the second largest market for popular music consumption in the world. The proliferation of music has been accelerated throughout the last two decades by globalization and the transnational flow of ideas, people and commodities. The 1980s in Japan was a time of economic growth and was labeled the “decade of internationalization (kokusaika)” . Theories of “Japaneseness” (Nihonjinron) throughout the post-war period have characterized Japan as having the unique ability to soak up and assimilate other cultures while remaining unchanged and distinctly Japanese. This nationalist construction of a superior and unchanging Japanese identity affects the way culture is negotiated across borders. The flow of culture from one locality to another entails negotiation of meanings in the construction of Japanese identities.

What parts of Hip Hop culture are shared and what is redefined, altered or erased? Japan’s domestication and indigenization of Hip Hop culture must be critically examined in terms of what aspects of culture are shifted when they are brought into the Japanese context. This is not to say that an essentialized category of what constitutes “Hip Hop culture”, “American culture” or “Japanese culture” may be clearly defined and then used to analyze how the three relate to one another; But in examining the historical context we may identify different ways parts of that culture are diffused domesticated, assimilated and indigenized, and what this process entails for the construction of Japanese identities relating to class, ethnicity and race.

For example, during the 1990’s Japanese kids began heading to the salon to dread their hair and tan their skin, physically imitating African American hip hoppers:

“a friend who was visiting Japan entered a dance hall which to his surprise appeared to be peopled almost exclusively by black youths. Upon closer scrutiny he realized that the “black” young men were Asian: Japanese with darkened faces, some with dreadlocks and some with fades, performing hip hop dance steps and breaking to rap music” (Cornyetz 1994:113).

This “blackening” of Japanese bodies became so popular that many salons in downtown Tokyo began to specialize in “dreading” straight Japanese hair (doreddo hea) and tanning light Japanese bodies until they were brown. The signs in salons may be even more telling: in Japanese the construction “to tan” can be glossed “to become black” (kuroku naru).

In my view, by physically turning themselves "black", Japanese youths may be creating a new identity for themselves that is not so much trying to imitate African Americans as it is trying to resist the Japanese homogeneous racial identities (Nihonjinron)that the heavy-handed nation-state has forced upon them.

By Juliana Vegh

Labels: blackening, dreading, globalization, hip hop, japan, tanning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKlFT58Zwc


This short clip from Red Eye with Greg Gufeld offends me in so many ways I don’t even know where to start… I’m not even going to go into the blatant American-centric arrogance and the embarrassingly one-sidedness of the debate. (To be fair, the panel never claimed to be credible – made up of mostly comedians and a late night host appealing to a 3am audience). I focus on the clear image of “Canada” that emerges out of their discussion. They set the tone immediately by mocking the effeminate nature of the Canadian Lieutenant General’s name: “Andrew Leslie… an unusual name for a man…” (chuckle)

“So the Canadian military wants to take a breather… to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants…get manicures and pedicures” – allusions to homosexuality, nature…

There are numerable phrases which illuminate the American attitude towards Canada as a non-entity, not worthy of respect: “Doug… this is a very important question, I want you to take it seriously” – as in, ‘Even though we’re talking about Canada which is not to be taken seriously’ Further: “Isn’t this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country?”

Epitomizing the American-invented stereotypical “Canadian” the panel goes on…“Does this surprise any of us? We have police officers and they have Mounties. Our cops ride heavily armored cars, they ride horses. We have bullet-proof vests, they have wonderful little red jackets that can be seen a mile away… This is not a smart culture, Greg”

At one point the one woman chimes in. I’m hopeful she’ll provide some kind of sanity in this egregious discussion of Canada, but she only adds insult to injury: “Yes, but to be fair to the Canadians, they’re up there where it’s frigid, very cold, they’re a hearty people…”

It’s hard to be too offended when we Canadians use virtually the same features in our long history of Canadian identity – constructed in the shadow of the United States. We just don’t like it when they point it out. (…or when they present their information via a one-way medium claiming to be a credible news source)

The objectification of women, more specifically, of the female body, is a prominent feature prevalent in today’s media. Ads, television, movies, and commercials are all mediums that are highly saturated with sexually explicit images, innuendos, and connotations. Is it merely a marketing strategy, or is there more to it?
The phrase, “Sex Sells” is something that we often hear from our experts in the media. It is a phrase that we do not put much thought into, but simply accepting it as inevitable due to the high content of sexually explicit images that are portrayed through the media. Is it simply a marketing scheme? And if so, what are the detriments that women face in being hyper-sexualized in the media?According to Laura Mulvey and her theory on “The (Male) Gaze,” she asserts that it is the fixing, the objectification, and the aestheticization of females, where the viewer is put into the male, heteronormative lens. She notes that here are two distinctive features in this argument: The Voyeuristic Gaze (a way of seeing women as whores or highly sexualized), and The Fetishistic Gaze (seeing women as “Madonnas” or goddesses).
Depictions of women in the media attempt to simultaneously elevate women, and degrade them. But in doing so, the result or the effect of this is the latter. Are women subconsciously aware of this “Male Gaze” and conforming to patriarchal ideals of feminine beauty, and are therefore subservient to the viewers? Or are women aware of this “Gaze,” and are using it to their advantage to attain power and/or agency? I’ll leave that up to you.
Personally, I believe that there is no definitive answer to this question. There is a definite interplay between the two positions, where men create this “gaze”, and women fulfill it either to conform to this male, heteronormative perspective, and/or in order to claim power over men. Either way, women are being subjects of objectification. Whether their intents are to attain power over the men through the performance of their bodies, the simple fact that men are the “watchers” or the “voyeurs” of such sexually explicit images and acts, the “seer” is in fact the
holder of the power, not the “doer.”

Check out this link: http://perezhilton.com/2009-03-23-sexy-steamy-sizzlin

Labels: Laura Mulvey, objectification, offensive images, sexualization, the male gaze, women

I have been very interested in Mitchell’s theory of images and have been more aware of how and why images appear in during ordinary, daily life. I recently came across a powerful article written by Rosemary Garland-Thomas who explores the “politics of staring” in popular culture. More specifically, Garland Thomas gives an historical overview and analysis of “visual rhetoric of disability in Popular Photography” and discusses the images of disabled and differently bodied people who worked in carnival side shows. According to the author, our visual fascination with people considered to be ‘freaks and monsters’ is more complex than based on mere curiosity but, is in fact what Garland Thomas labels “a choreographed relation between spectator and spectacle.” With the rise of bourgeois culture, side shows and displays of deformity became an affront to ‘middle class decorum’ and the non-normative were removed from the realm of the carnivalesque and interned in medical institutions and long term sanitoriums. According to Garland Thomas, however, the spectacle of the image continued under a new guise of the medical examination and scientific investigation. The author discusses the re-emergence of the monstrous and the power diad between norm-normative and mainstream society in popular culture, and the way that corporations now utilize sentimentalized images . More specifically, Garland Thomas discusses the use of the ‘disabled’ in advertising campaigns and public relations publications that are designed to communicate that companies such as Bennetton (which features an image of a developmentally delayed child in material that highlights the company’s ‘gift of ‘ love’…otherwise known as financial support the company donates to a school for ‘mentally challenged children.” According to Garland Thomas, this is meant to communicate the obvious message of ‘benevolence’ but, concomitantly (and more subtly) communicates a power relationship between the corporation, viewer, and the object of interest, (in this case, the image of the fashionably dressed young boy with Down’s syndrome) that is featured on the cover brochure. Garland Thomas provides compelling images and examples of how the image of the monstrous continues to fascinate viewers, and thus, be exploited for profit by powerful corporations. An especially striking example is of the sports star, model and double amputee Aimee Mullins who is featured in a high-fashion magazine layout dressed in a metal-cage skirt that is shot from below, thereby highlighting her prosthetic legs as a stylish accessory. I encourage you to check out Garland Thomas’s writing-she is a Disability Studies scholar and an astute analyst of visual culture and the powerful complexities of the image in popular culture.

As a child, I loved Barbie and I had a huge collection of them. I liked how she looked and how I can change her clothing and I had just about everything else associated with Barbie -- her cars, her house, her kids, and of course, Ken.

Chinese Barbie

Black Barbie

old Barbie

In the early 1990s, a number of Korean hiphop groups and rappers debuted in South Korea, and hiphop music and its culture quickly gained popularity amongst the young generations in Korea. Deux and Seo Taiji and Boys were the two groups known to have initiated this hiphop movement in Korean contemporary popular music. The picture on the left is the hiphop duo Deux (pronounced 'Deuce') in the early 90s. Here is one of the music videos of them from 1995 (I apologize for the bad quality of the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUfJyX1ejpI

Soon, not only hiphop music but also its fashion as well as that of "Ghetto Culture" became extremely popular in Korea.

Here are some other classic examples that represent the hiphop music of Korea in the 1990s.

*hiphop duo Jinusean's music video (late 1990s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPChIFTopRY

*hiphop duo Drunken Tiger's song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMD79xu-CA&feature=PlayList&p=E91964BBC2348B7F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6

*Group Roo'Ra's Album cover in 1996:

Here's the Hip Hop artist, Brother Ali, that I mentioned in class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Ali

Favorite song by him:
Forest Whitaker

In following up with our discussion on race and ethnicity, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8C5ZnQA08c&feature=PlayList&p=B1D294AC97A3AAFE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37

Societies today in general have more or less moved away from racist ideologies of past times. This is not to say that racial issues have been resolved, but rather, we are now more open-minded to the acceptance of all races, and ethnicities, for their culture and physical appearance, and the like. It must be very liberating indeed for all ethnicities and all races.
Black Power. Asian Pride. All people indulge in the food and music of non-white cultures. Ahh, liberating.
Why then, do some Asian women feel they would be more attractive to have larger looking eyes? Why do some women of colour bleach their skin in order to be “lighter”? (Another Tyra segment. Find it on YouTube). Tyra herself in the video admits to wearing a weave. I myself have seen many proud-to-be- Asian women with bleach blond hair, and wearing blue coloured contacts.
It seems society is conflicted. On the one hand, our ethnic differences are celebrated. On the other hand, the celebrations stop when you begin to look less and less … white..(?) Or perhaps, what is celebrated in society is not articulated by popular film and TV, so that every time we watch The Hills, we take a couple of cultural steps back (?) Or maybe regardless of social movements, individual psychologies will always be in a state of conflict with Eurocentric ideologies (?)

.... and i think the most pressing question: do we all have a little bit of M.J. in us??

I would like to raise a question about the racism we talked about in class. It is so easily to find racism in many cultural products: Lord of the Ring, King Kong, Crusoe, Tintin...I knew that racism in history have caused holocaust and genocide, so racism is dangerous and has to be get rid of people's mind. However, for those mild and subtle racist residues, what attitude should I have? Is the racism critique going to far?

To clarify, by mild racism, I mean the subtle implication of the superiority of the West and the inferiority of others, as indicated in the films we mentioned in class.

It is very often that those being racialized are unaware of racialization. My elder sister told me that Tintin was quite popular in China as cartoon books in the 1980s, although there are some chapters about Tibet and China, the readers did not protest against it. Instead they liked it very much. According to Fiske, people make meaning for themselves about popular culture. They did not interpret the way the Western audience did. Actually, the Chinese readers easily identified themselves as Tintin, or any other good people in the film. therefore, no problem at all. Another example, I have never heard Chinese or Mongol saying Tolkein's a racist against the Mongol. Or anyone question why the elves all look white instead of yellow.

It is interesting that while the West is self-criticizing racism but those "victims" did not care. Maybe one of the reasons is that they are not sensitive or "educated" enough, and too obsorbed in the plot of the movies. But honestly, who cares? I found out that despite the racist criticism, Robinson Crusoe is still being made into movie in 1997 (Germany) and TV show in 2008 (NBC). I did not watch the whole thing, but I scanned the video on youtube, I did see the portrayal of the primitive Friday.

Many country authorities are wary of imported Hollywood movies because they are seen as cultural imperialism, promoting American value and lifestyle to the world. However, in the individual level, many believe that the supriority of the America over those countries is a fact, especially technologically, and audience naturally gravitate towards the more advanced. Take China as an example again (I grew up in China), the Chinese audience do not think anything wrong about the Hollywood films. Why bother to think about racism since the movies are more pleasurable to watch and more imaginative? If the non-West do not care (I assume), why would the West care about it?

When we discussed the message behind plots where people travel back in time to fix the present but don’t succeed, I got the impression that we settled on an attitude of pessimism as the message. As a class, we seemed to agree that this pessimism stemmed from our recognition that our human race is able to commit extreme atrocities, such as those committed in wars, and hence hope for the future seems bleak. On further thought, I came to an alternate explanation for the message behind such seemingly pessimistic time travel plots. I’m not sure if this is a very psychological take on the issue, but I believe that the notion of “hindsight bias” is responsible for such plots.

Hindsight bias as was defined by Baruch Fischhoff is “an unjustified increase in the perceived probability of an event due to outcome knowledge”. The rationale behind the occurrence of this bias is that once we are aware of an outcome, we settle on causal routes that led to that outcome rather than actively explore alternate routes. In the case of atrocities committed during wars, it is advantageous to our psychological well-being to endorse this bias because it is easier to look back on an unpleasant past thinking it was inevitable rather than thinking we could have done something to prevent it. On the other hand, the creeping in of the hindsight bias may prevent us from recognizing our mistakes (since we perceive the outcome as having been inevitable) and thus lead to the repetition of such mistakes in the future. Therefore, it is wise to be aware of our susceptibility to the hindsight bias to be able to prevent it. The plot lines of many time travel movies seemed to have endorsed this bias. It makes sense given that this line of thinking is appealing to the masses.

As I was sitting in class today I couldn't help but recall an article that I read in November in the National Post (spare me - I can remember a newspaper article from 4 months ago and yet I can't remember what my chemistry prof was saying tonight in lecture....). Anyways, it's pretty interesting in relation to what we were talking about i.e. what is multiculturalism etc. The author of this article is arguing that multiculturalism is effectively dead in Canada thanks to *drum roll* President Obama of all people.
It's a really quick read and quite thought provoking....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/11/noah-richler-look-to-first-nations-for-canada-s-obama.aspx