TV Tokenisim

 

This show is called Undercovers and is a network drama that aired 11 episodes on NBC at 8/7 Central. The main characters in the show are Steven and Samantha, pictured top left. They were ex CIA agents who were recruited back into the agency because they are good spies. Along with their friend Hoyt, (token white guy), they travel the world getting the bad guys and saving the day. Both have many secrets from their past which spill out throughout the season. Their friend however receives under half as much screen time as they do, and is usually in the back of the car fiddling on computers or hiding while Steven and Samantha get the job done.


Source 1: http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP01264338/undercovers-5.jpg
Source 2: http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/ 3046781.jpg

A Short Post About A Short Month

"I liken having a black history month in February and concentrating study on that to milk that's just about to go sour. You can still drink it but it just doesn't taste right" said Phillip Roth in his novel The Human Stain. I most definitely believe that he is onto something- it seems forced to me to have a whole month dedicated to blacks. A few initial questions I had were how did black history month start, who created it, and will it ever end?

Although this article about the history of this month is a bit dated, it is still true. To summarize: in 1926 a man named Dr. Carter G Woodson originally created Black History week in February in the week that was the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass, a former black slave and abolitionist, and President Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclomation. He was appalled by the lack of information the public had about their heritage. This later turned into an entire month in 1976 simply because the public began celebrating it earlier and finishing celebrating it later. (Here is a little point of irony: blacks are given the shortest month to celebrate their history.)

Now it is 86 years later and people are still unsure of whether or not blacks are being left out of the picture. I mean that both figuratively and literally. This past week in my American Studies class we have been discussing TV Tokenism. My teacher defined the token as a supporting character added to the show as a minority. Whether or not you have heard of TV Tokenism, this phenomenon most likely sounds familiar now. Just think about the black best friend, the boss never seen without a tie and suit, or the loving nanny. Many people have been upset by the fact that blacks are still never seen as the main characters in tv shows and only ever as figures of minorities to satisfy minority activist groups and members of minority groups. These characters are very forced in my opinion. However, I would be more upset if these characters did not exist and we saw a solely white cast.

Now I am curious, is it better to have these forced characters in these shows, or should we just accept the fact that blacks do not earn the same starring roles on tv shows that whites do? And in a time of political correctness, can we expect these tokens to ever disappear along with Black History Month? Are these symbols still even needed?

Damn Movie Theater Candy

So good, but so not worth it!

I just got back from seeing a movie tonight with a couple friends. The movie was hilarious, the company was good, and yet I'm angry. Why? Because all I wanted was a box of Raisinets to accompany my "cinema experience", but I am too stingy to pay the $4    for a 3.5 oz. box of candy. I have been boycotting movie theater candy for about two years now, and with little success. Perhaps boycott is not the correct word, but I am still part of a large movement to not by the ridiculously overpriced candy. Here is the secret on how I have not caved in: I bring my own candy from home- GASP!

Some people say that sneaking in your own food is wrong. However, there are no rules of the matter from the movie theater, it is just considered morally wrong so to speak. I disagree- as a consumer in America, I am given choices, not only between brands or Raisinets v. Milk Duds, but between buying and not buying. Although the right to boycott is not in the constitution, consumers may still buy what they want from the existing options.

I chose to research why exactly the candy at a movie theater is so expensive. It turns out that this information has been out in the open for almost 10 years now since CNN did a story on it. To sum it all up, the studios who make the movies take between 70 and 80 percent of the profits from ticket sales, leaving the theater with the leftovers. The only way the theaters can survive is on sales from concession stands, which is why they hike up the prices. CNN quoted one theater owner saying "'We have movies just to get people in to buy popcorn and candy, where we make our money'".


My research made me wonder, if I and everyone else who is not buying the candy at the concession stands continue our boycott, will theaters have to begin to charge more to see movies? After all, the two movie theaters in my area have both raised their ticket prices in the last year. And if they continue to raise their prices, then how much freedom do we really have as consumers?

Grammy Grub

The Prized Grammy Award

I am sad to be missing  the Grammy Awards, a joyful celebration of music, which are playing on television at this very moment.  But what may seem like an ode to all the winners of the music industry, (which it kind of is), has a history that contradicts that idea- the Grammy Awards began as a celebration of all those people who did not win.

Let me back up for a moment. The Hollywood Walk of Fame, which honors top musicians with stars on Hollywood Boulevard was in the midst of being created in the 1950s. It took a while to actually build those first stars and figure out all the legal stuff, but the first stars were placed in 1960. Somewhere between 2 to 4 years before that, the concept of the Grammy Awards was created. The people in charge of choosing who would win the stars on the Walk Of Fame wanted to honor everyone that could not be given a star. So now we have the Grammys, or a celebration of second place.

This concept of honoring people who are not good enough seems quite unAmerican to me. The United States is full of competition everywhere, from politics, to our capitalist economy, to our higher education system. I find it very refreshing to see an American tradition that honors not just the winners. But where else in America are the runners up looked up to and applauded? And why don't we appreciate everyone's success, not just the number 1s?

The Made In America Push

In my American Studies class, we have recently been learning about all of the products we buy which are not made here in America. When you look at the label of your shirt in says Made In China, Indonesia, India, or some other poor and underdeveloped country. ABC has been running a series called "Made In America" which talks about the origins of different products and the push to by more products Made In America. The most recent clip was on the Superbowl. To give you an idea of how an American sport has been outsourced consider this fact: you have to dig back about 50 years to find a football jersey that was made in the U.S. (Superbowl Made In America video).

On a more refreshing note, most of the footballs, helmets, coins, and trophies used in the NFL are made in the U.S. These products give Americans jobs as opposed to foreign laborers. The products also keep the money in America instead of outsourcing it. As a concerned humanitarian, the most important thing the Made In America push does, is takes a stand against the cruelties against foreign laborers. Workers here are paid properly, get breaks during work, and are not abused. 

In case you are still doubtful of switching to buying American made products, consider this example from the video. Tom Brady's jersey is made in Wisconsin, and the company there that makes copies of it has the copies down to the exact centimeter. The souvenir of it which was made in Korea is significantly larger and less precise. On top of American products helping the economy, they are simply better products. Consider that next time you are deciding on whether you should or should not spend the extra few dollars.

The Shared Experience of Absurdity

This past Tuesday President Obama gave a State of The Union Address. The basic feeling he was attempting to convey was optimism and hope for the country. He mentioned various people as examples of "normal" Americans, meaning that any of his examples could have been you. Obama used these examples to try and bring together both the nation, and Congress and the House of Representatives in the hopes of overlooking labels like Democrat and Republican and passing bills for the good of America. Obama commented in his address on the irony of the situation saying, "Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year." Everything he was preaching sounded good, a unified and happy America, who would not want that? But I questioned the realism of his ideas. Is it possible to bring together many random Americans with opposing viewpoints and accomplish a shared goal? 

 

A little while ago, my sister showed me a TED talk about a man named Charlie Todd who created something called Improv Everywhere in New York City. I am aware that it is long, but it is a truly hilarious video worth watching for at least a few minutes. In the video, Todd shares stories of how "his group, Improv Everywhere, uses these scenes to bring people together" (Ted.com). Specifically in the video Todd mentions my two favorites the No Pants Subway Ride, which is exactly what it sounds like, and the Best Buy improvisation where 80 people showed up at Best Buy in a blue polo shirt and khaki pants. Not only are these outrageous scenes successful in bringing together different random Americans with most likely opposing views to create the scenes, but they also make strangers interact and laugh together.

I believe the meaning behind this video is that once we look beyond our differences, we are all Americans and that collaboration makes the world a better and in this case funnier place. Clearly, it is possible to have different people work together and create something. If all of these ordinary Americans can, then why can Congress and the House of Representatives which are supposed to be full of intelligent people not pass a bill? Is America not a place where unity, teamwork, and collaboration are appreciated?

Meta Blog Post: Blogging About Blogging

As I look from my older blog posts to my newer ones, I definitely notice the themes of hard work and opportunity. I would probably categorize my posts into three sections: the beginning of the year until first quarter where we received comments on our favorite posts from the teachers, then until the day before New Year's, and the day before New Years until now.

In my first section, I was writing for my own enjoyment, about whatever floated across my mind. For example, my very first post, Yoga On the Rise, is about one of my favorite hobbies- yoga. This post and most of the others were not rooted in many texts, had simple and casual language, and had almost no correlation to America or American Studies. However, my speaking voice was well echoed in it, and was most definitely fun to read because I was writing about topics that interested me and I was passionate about.

After receiving comments about our blogs at first quarter, some of the good qualities from the first section were lost, but the problems from then were fixed. Many posts seem generic in the way that anyone could have written them- there is no clear voice. At times, they feel slightly like a checklist of requirements to accomplish. Nevertheless, previous problems like rooting posts in texts, American Studies, and America as a whole were no longer issues. One post that exemplifies these ideas very well is my post titled Is All Art Propaganda? Right off the bat, I say "In my American Studies class". This introduction makes it seem like I am trying to hard to accomplish the set goal of connecting the post to class. As the piece progresses though, I begin to ask more thought provoking questions like  "is propaganda in the form of art a bad thing?" One of my favorite parts about this question is that it makes the reader question their philosophy on art by asking is it. This was a good post because it was truly an extension of the discussions we have in class, despite the fact that it lacked an authentic voice. 

This last section from New Years until now is only just beginning. In all honesty, I am not positive about the origin of this change, but if I had to guess, I suppose I would attribute it to the New Year and the general feeling of opportunity like my first post of the section says. In that post I take it a step further by connecting ideas we learn in class like American values, connecting it to a relevant topic- New Years, and then I connect it back to the novel A Narrative In the Life Of Frederick Douglass. Not only do I bring it back to Douglass, but I cite specific evidence from the text: "Mr. Covey, 'succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit'". I then go on to explain the quote in the context of my blog post and do not just ignore it. Certainly this is only a beginning of the next section, but I believe that I am finally beginning to put together all of the good pieces from all the sections and leaving out the bad ones. My posts now are relevant, relate to class, have an authentic voice, are rooted in text, and are interesting. I think that I am starting to find the balance between taking what we learn in class and writing about the ideas from class that interest me the most.