themediamademecrazy.com

I just finished reading an article in Time magazine entitled, “Liking What White People Like,” which is a commentary on the blog  “Stuff White People Like.” The author goes on to talk about the benefit of having White people critique/mock/endorse White culture. However, as an individual of mixed heritage (Black and Chinese), the author finds herself in a quandary; she likes things that White people like!

She comes to grips with this racial divide over the course of the article, but her final conclusions leave much lacking. I truly enjoyed her postulation of what Mixed people like (“Having people guess their background… Pulling rank during conversations… Having ‘such good features’… Filling out applications”), especially since she admits, “these are things that mixed people say they hate… but secretly like.”

My qualm comes with the creation of Stuff That Mixed People Like; I think that it denies exactly what makes Multiethnic individuals interesting: the fact that no two multi-ethnics are alike. Not only is the community comprised of mixed ethnicity members, regardless of blend, but also their upbringing creates drastic differences between individuals, making group descriptions even more difficult. For example, how different would Barak Obama (everyone’s current favorite multiethnic) if his parents were switched and he was raised by a single Kenyan mother? How different would his upbringing or chances have been then? There is no single definition of multi-ethnics, or what they like, just the fact that they are multi-ethnic.

PS: Barak Obama is not #1 on my Stuff That Mixed People Like, its Prince.

obama supporter, texas state senator kirk watson was unable to state ANY of obama’s accomplishments in the senate on ‘hardball with chris matthews.” it’s a remarkable piece of footage, right down to the studio laughter in the end. somewhat painful to watch, but necessary…

however, i would also like to post the question: when did “white voters” become a significant demographic? weren’t they always just referred to as “voters”? i love progress.

i’ve put a lot of thought into this one and i find it terribly frustrating that the term “urban” is equated with “black.” i understand the desperate need for political correctness in the white male dominated field of advertising, but this connection has since drifted into the black community and is used in self definitions. i keep getting invitations from the LA Urban League Young Professionals, where ‘urban’ is synonymous with black. unfortunately, i do not generally identify as black and i definitely do not need to put myself in a situation where i have to describe my ethnic background in order to achieve some level of acceptance. furthermore, i cannot bring friends of mine who i would define as ‘urban young professionals’ who are not black for fear of their discomfort.

it seems that ‘urban’ should be synonymous with a multiracial community as the most amazing component of city life (as i see it) is people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living in such close proximity. this leads to knowledge, tolerance, and above all, diversity; but i suppose this perspective is inherently NY, while LA stands in direct opposition: people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living distally and without any interaction, leading to ignorance, racism, and even greater disengagement from the larger community.

’saved by the bell’ (1989-1993) was one of the best integrations of race, class and gender that i’ve seen on television and decades ahead of its time. granted, children’s programs tend to integrate race effortlessly, because children will be children. however, after living in LA, i realize that it is not as simple as SBTB would lead one to believe. allow me to elaborate…

the main cast is multi ethnic: of the 6 main characters, half are white (zach, kelly, screech) while the other half are ‘of color’ (slater, jesse, lisa). although this may seem evident to the viewer, the narratives never highlighted their races or made that part of the discussion (despite living in southern california in the late 80s). the text tended to focus more on class and the trials and tribulations that come from teens dealing with these all-too-real differences: lisa is a shop-aholic, which clashes with her best friend kelly’s large family and spendthrift demands. for the other characters, class is less of an issue, although zach never sees his father because he is working and it takes a car accident to bring them together.

the characters are intended to be a slice of the american high school system (a classic tool of TV and film): the cool guy, the geek, the jock, the american sweetheart, the spoiled daddy’s girl, and the nerd/smart chick. this last category is also what draws me to the program. the smart chick, jesse spano, is both of questionable ethnicity (which is also never mentioned in the program) and remarkably attractive. she even lands the jock! it gives hope to all of us sexy smart chicks who question our own attractiveness. as for the gender reading, jesse was clearly a feminist, a label that many place on women who are too smart, too strong, or too driven. however, jesse was all of these things AND feminine. she was a feminine feminist, an elusive moniker that i try to advocate.

in short, i think that i am better off for watching ’saved by the bell’ at a key point in my development, as compared to other programs that were popular at the time, like baywatch, or melrose place.

should hilary run? obama? mccain?

all of these seem like very reasonable, educated choices. however, i find them all to be second to the one woman who could take, recuperate, and permenantly change the white house, our political system, and our culture.

oprah for president in 2008

although she has already claimed that she will not run, i am touched by the movement that is quickly gaining ground. check out one of the websites here:

Oprah for President - 2008
Michael Moore’s Draft Petition

and you can buy t-shirts here:

T-shirts by Patrick Crowe

for part 2, click here

i’ve been struck by some amazing epiphanies lately. the most recent came while reading TIME (october 23, 2006) which featured an analysis of america at 300 million. the graphs were amazing. here are my two favorites:

topographical population

race/ethnic demographics

the former made me want to move to a spot somewhere in the middle of the country where no one lives. it seems so simple and ripe for my own happy little community of one (maybe two [smile]). the image also gives a pictoral representation of the empty expanse of the land. i’ve never made it off the coasts (aside from a week in denver, phoenix, and vegas) and it makes me want to take a journey across the country…

but it was the latter that really changed the way i look at media. for some reason i was upset with the culture-via-TV that perpetuated the demographics that “i” did not exist. that is to say, i rarely see someone that looks like me on television, specifically multi-ethnic individuals. but looking at the demographic map, i realize that we are less than 2% of the population. of course you never see asians on television, they comprise 4.4% of the population. in fact, their presence on television is equivalent to the national average!

that’s when i realized that my problem was not with television or its statements on race and the ethnographic breakdown of the nation. but rather the collapse of local television. national networks must create programming for a nationwide audience. 80% of which is white. this simply never occurred to me as i have only lived in densely populated, diverse, urban areas (i.e. new york N>18m; boston N>5m, los angeles N>12m). the interactions i have are drastically different from the larger national body. worse yet, when an nationwide network attempts to recreate “my” lifestyle for a nationwide audience, it comes out strangely warped (e.g. friends).

i would like to see more local programming, not just news and commercials, but rather programs of all genres. unfortunately i do not have access to public access channels due to my building’s agreement with sbc. i think i need a set of rabbit ears.

a conversation that occured on wednesday night…

TJ: you know that black folks shouldn’t call other black folks ‘nigga’ right?
ME: well, unless they fuck you over…
TJ: true. niggas will fuck you over.

i was watching a home improvement show on TLC* and the head of the project was wearing a shirt that read:

“F is for FOSHIZZLE”

i was appaled. nevermind the fact that he was a late-thirties white dude desperate to be hip wearing a shirt that was too tight but showed off the muscles that he tried to maintain as his body slowly faded. rather i was appaled at the strange bastardization of black american lexicon. by including the actual “for” in the line, the inherent poor grammar of the term is somehow corrected, te slang becomes proper and standardized.

i don’t care if S is fo’Shizzle… F is Foshizzle.

i am currently in new zealand, a county rich in maori culture. maori means ‘of the same race’ that is to say that the polynesians who occupied the land centuries ago may have come from different nations and different cultures, but they are now of one culture in NZ. evidently, with the european settlers, NZ became one of the first major tourists spots, with maori opening their homes and the culture to travelers from distant lands.

200 years later, as globalization and capitalism have ransacked the world, the maori maintain a strong connection to their cultural heritage and continue performing for tourists. which then begs the question, what is the meaning of exploitation? if these people willingly open their homes for tourists, can it be considered exploitation?

the lets go guide warns the backpacker to avoid exploitative performances, but how do you know which is which? the first night in lake rotorua, we visited mitai, a cultural experience hosted by one of the tribes in the region. their land (12 acres, down from almost 200,000) features a sacred spring, a eating house and a hangi pit, where the food is cooked underground for hours before the feast. i was excited to visit this one as the guide said that this was one of the best cultural shows. while i sat there marveling at the haka and poi, i did not feel like i was exploiting the people. the tribe organized the show and were the only ones to profit from it. the performers were teenagers from the tribe and i really felt like i was simply watching an important part of the people, passing tradition from one generation to another. everyone looked like they were truly enjoying themselves, and it wasn’t work, just an opportunity to share what they knew with others.

the next night, we caught a “cultural show” at the hotel. the entire set was drastically different; while the mitai show featured (what i can only assume to be traditional) huts and weapons, the show at the hotel was performed in front of a poorly painted mural of the lake and a plexiglass hut that was half the size of the smallest performer. the performers seemed to go through the motions, rarely did they smile (save one young boy) or really seem to get into the affair. i felt bad watching from my comfortable seat drinking a glass of wine. i simply could not get into the experience. whereas we went to the tribal grounds to immerse ourselves in the mitai culture, the hotel simply pulled the maori out of their “natural environment” and dropped them into a hotel, demanding that they perform the same way that they would if they were at home.

in the end, i highly recommend the mitai show. at least i know that there isn’t some white man making a hefty profit off of my ticket.