Tourism: the seed bed of all evil ;)

Ryan commented on a few conversations that he had regarding the idea that people who faced tragedy or poverty got what they deserved due to their lack of faith in God.

What We Deserve « Rumblings

Comments I made on that post elicited a few questions and I will try to support my comments here rather than derail Ryan’s thread.

Leisure travel is by nature a function of wealth and an exercise in subjugating a place and people. Poor people cannot afford to travel for purposes of leisure. Poor people also are locked into service ‘industry’ (that keeps them poor) through several capitalist mechanisms. The first of which is the system of transnational capital practiced by the IMF and WMF whereby local countries provide free trade zones where foreign companies can come and set up shop without having to pay much of any kind of tax back to the host country. These companies use cheap local labour to extract significant profits while putting very little back into the local economy. Most importantly they locate and fix the indigenous population in place – drawing them to employment in these FTZs. The wages people receive are not enough to support them and they often must work many jobs to survive and they remain in poverty.

Here is a recap of the questions presented in Ryan’s post…

are you suggesting that tourism is evil because it encourages people to migrate to coastal regions where they could be killed by a tsunami? should we perhaps move these hotels inland provided they are not near a fault line or a volcano? or is it evil and selfish because it removes them from their subsistence way of life? is it evil to travel because you might indirectly influence someone to change their current vocation from one of farming to one in the service industry? should we barricade western culture from other cultures in order not influence them?

Answer to the first question:

Tourism is not intrinsically evil but the practice of tourism has significantly subjugating consequences one of which is that due to tourism there were generally more people in the areas affected by the Tsunami than there would have been otherwise. We also know that in the aftermath of the Tsunami wealthy foreigners were significantly advantaged in accessing help – but this is just obvious. We know that the poor suffered more than the wealthy did in this tragedy…

Answer to question two:

As I have already stated the damaging effect of the leisure travel/tourism are evident without them being in the direct path of an impending disaster. Moving the location of the hotels only transplants the problems.

Answer to three and four:

Like I said earlier, the economic systems that drive the tourism industry lock people in place and reduce the options available to them in order to provide for their families. This is what is so insidious since on the surface it seems that people are making a decision between subsistence and service industry employment. But let us not forget that it was not the locals decision to have foreigners come and lounge on their beaches and traipse around on their ancient ruins. And local peoples do not have the power to kick transnationals out of the country.

Answer to last question:

There are aspects of western culture and values that have created significant problems globally. There are other aspects that have the potential to provide significant opportunity to improve the well-being of people around the world. Barricading western culture from the rest of the world is not only impossible but just silly. Cultural exchange is valuable when reciprocity is mutually available and balanced. But when the cultural values of one dominate another problems exist (Unless it is somehow possible to prove that Western culture is just that much more superior to other cultures – in which case subjugate all you want!). Western cultural values hold a place of privilege and authority in the world. As such it is important to address aspects that might be damaging.

Finally, (to try to connect this back to Ryan’s post) when western ideological perspectives and consequences are endorsed through faulty logic couched as Christian values – then repentance is needed. If western Christians think that their advantaged position is somehow an endorsement by the Almighty - they are getting it wrong. If they think that poor heathen people get what they deserve when disaster strikes – they are getting it wrong. If westerners can’t recognize that their practices bear significantly harmful consequences, both overtly and covertly, they are getting it wrong.

I think that there are ways to enjoy the marvels of God’s creation in different countries. I’d be glad to entertain ideas from any of you who bother to read this as to how this might be possible…

Poker and Indigeneity

Here are a couple of clips you might have seen in the last while advertising Party Poker:

and this one…

how are the representations of these individuals given credibility? Indigenous people plus technology is what is able to produce the comic tension needed to make these commercials ‘work’.

then this…

So if as Beth A. Conklin suggests in “Body Paint, Feathers, and VCRs: Aesthetics and Authenticity in Amazonian Activism” that indigeneity is subject to the forces of external representations of authenticity then the image of the native is essentially reflected back to the observer as their own construction. Indigeneity then is strategic for the performer (the indian) to gain access to the benefits afforded by the exercise of power which is once again (seems like a broken record already) held in Western ideological structures. To suggest then that a naked body painted native is somehow more authentic than one that is dressed in western clothes is actually only a judgement on our western idea not on the natives themselves. That it should seem funny to us that an indigenous person could use technology successfully enough to vanquish the most lucrative indulgences (poker) of our western capitalist frame should really give us pause. What we are actually suggesting is that the very (visual) types that we expect natives to demonstrate to prove their authenticity is exactly what allows them to remain disengaged from advantages of our own cultural paradigms.

Canada's tolerance misplaced?

I mourn the passing of Pierre Elliot Trudeau when I read material like this: Canada's tolerance misplaced. The author constructs an impassioned argument for a return to Diefenbaker’s notion of unhyphenated-Canadianism. Canadian multiculturalism has led to a pluralistic society that most conservative right leaning individuals see as being problematic. Mr. Kanwar intones some of the typical perspectives:

It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands…

In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to to-tally amalgamate with the majority. They can practise some of their cultural traditions within their homes --their backstage behaviour. However, when outside of their homes, their front stage behaviour should resemble mainstream Canadian behaviour.

The Mount Royal professor is drawing on Goffman’s dramaturgical social theory of the self to construct his arguments about how his view of multiculturalism is to be expressed. His comments seem to suggest that there is an essential Canadian identity: one that is definitive enough to bring ‘cultural’ distinctions like female circumcision, or religious customs that contravene these essential characteristics. The question is whether such a unified identity is actually available or useful. Certainly some could point to a few general characteristics of being Canadian – but save the commodified stereotypes of the ubiquitous beer commercials – they often seem too broad or ambiguous. Mr. Kanwar himself fails to outline what the contours of his unhyphenated identity except that in some general sense it is different in public than in private. He manages to outline several things that being Canadian is NOT!

He also misses an important observation. Freedom of expression is precisely the elevating of minority and opposing points of view to equal status in the face of the reality that the dominant majority already has access and validity in the views they express. If freedom of expression is a value we would advocate in our society it must apply uniformly. Certainly freedom of expression exists within certain limits since we know that certain language is designed to damage peaceful and respectful relationship within a society. But any limits exercised must be done so uniformly.

Fredrick Barth suggests that ethnicity is produced and maintained not as some essentialized notion in isolation from other ethnicities. Instead he advocates that it is produced and maintained at the boundaries between ethnicities. Distinction is a productive choice of the interaction between ethnic types. If Barth is right then Mr. Kanwar’s position is a most interesting one.  In his view being Canadian is not:

• a place where female circumcision is practiced
• a place where marriage is conducted on the dowry basis
• a place where female fetus are aborted based on their sex
• a place where national loyalty can follow religious conviction

The question is then – what kind of boundary do these statements actually contest or define? In any event it seems distinct and important enough for Mr Kanwar to suggest that…

Those who come here of their own volition and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.

Calgary: Aryan Hotbed?

No doubt many of you readers will be aware of this story. Anti-racist and a neo-Nazi, Aryan groups clashed on the streets of Calgary. The wild west, frontier cowboy town image is certainly not lost in Calgary. Perhaps it is muted by the fact that the combatants used cans of vegetables and placards in what one police officer labelled an obviously premeditated attack.

A survey of the news reports from different corners is very telling in terms of how they have constructed the issue with reference to race. The Calgary Herald seems particularly concerned with Calgary's reputation. Interestingly they seem to lay blame at the feet of the Aryan group for starting the violence citing one observer who suggests, "That's precisely why these groups are so prone to resort to violence, because they are frustrated their message has no popular resonance." In this piece one MP is quoted as saying he would rather have these racist groups out in the open than have their operations turn to more clandestine methods.

The Globe and Mail seems to lay the blame for the violence on the anti-racist group. ""We can be thankful; we did well," said Insp. Williams, who chiefly blamed members of the anti-racism group, comprising in total around 450 people, for the trouble."

The CBC News story reveals claims by the anti-racist group that police officers were protecting the Aryan group.

The Toronto Star tries to give a balanced approach? First it quotes an anti-racist who suggests that the demonstration and clash was a blow to the racists and then it quote two teenage girls in the racist group who don't see themselves as racist at all – just misunderstood.

Media representations are critical in the development of public rhetoric on race. The source of your news obviously affects the perspective you will get. Does anyone else find the above photo interesting and ironic?

Resistance…

For some of you, regular readers, this artist will be hard to stomach because he uses foul language in his material. Or you may not really dig hip hop music. And there may be a number of other visceral reactions that produce disdain for this artist. However, K'naan (for some background on his life check this out) receives a high endorsement from me. And his music and career trigger some nagging questions regarding racism and resistance.

You should listen to his music even though you will struggle to get past his use of the f-word. His music has an authentic quality that is rare these days. His popular acclaim is a compelling testament that people can resonate and engage with thoughtful and provocative music (even if it does carry a parental advisory). In the lyrics of his latest work Troubadour K'naan takes on his own genre with a blazing furry (some might even say it is overkill). Essentially he says, "Hey you rappers think that you have street cred but you don't know the hard core life until you have grown up with an automatic riffle in your hands!" K'naan should know a little about conflict. His lyrics are sharp and they describe the reality of living in a third world country riddled with war and poverty. He infuses hope into the darkness of these situations. He also sees his own success in a significantly divergent light than most in the music business. He repeatedly acknowledges the extreme privilege of his position and his address the disparity between the pleasure of his success and the harsh reality of countrymates in Somalia. This is where the real honest seems most evident. Not only that – it is impossible to listen to his music and feel the indictment (even condemnation) that rests on the shoulders of western culture and political ventures.

On a larger scale his music provokes the question that has been haunting me lately. How is meaningful resistance to racial oppression enacted? More specifically, is it necessary to engage with the dominant systems (in this case the western music industry) that reproduce privilege in order to affect a meaningful counterpoint or resistance? In K'naan case, it seems clear that his success as a musical artist means that he has successfully negotiated the disadvantages of his national (and perhaps even racial) background. This in itself might signal some form of resistance. On top of that, through his music he is able to highlight the plight of his fellow Somalis. This is resistance as well since this type of discourse lies well beyond the scope of most hip hop music (sex, guns, and the 'hood). But does the fact that he has engaged with the system mean complicity with a western system of domination that keeps on subjugating people and leaving certain groups privileged and more importantly underprivileged? There is no doubt a homogenizing effect that the 'music industry' has on artists that sanitizes and sterilizes the music itself. This is as I have mentioned earlier a product of the fact that in order to be a recording artist one must sell records to people. So the whim of the people rules the day. What must haunt K'naan and does me is that his music, as honest and provocative as it is, could be seen as a prostitution of a people and situation at the expense of record sales. What I mean is that there is a danger that the horrible plight of the Somali people could become merely a tool to advance what is essentially a tool of western hegemony. I think this is what produces the ultimate conundrum of effective resistance. ::Participation in the system in order to enable a resistance or avoidance of the system to produce a different sort of resistance:: Hmmm…

Until then check out this guys music. I am going to recommend "Wavin' Flag" as a starter for those of you queasy with the lyric stuff. But here is another song that captures the tone of his message and I think for the most part it is clean (clean hmmm it strikes me that even that term is a highly racialized term…more on that later perhaps).

Make three wishes…

What does a dictator wish for on his birthday? Well if you are Robert Mugabe it seems you only have one. Get more farms and businesses out of white control and into the hands of the country's blacks. Of course Mugabe dare not close his eyes when he goes to blow out the candles on his 85 kilo birthday cake (one of for every year of his age). And far from taking on the typical repose of the senior citizen that he is, Mugabe seems to be hard at work defending his regime and the causes that sparked his initial political involvement as far back as 1970's. This BBC article reveals that Mugabe intends to strip ownership from more white and foreign land and business owners.

Mr. Mugabe said the new government would continue to push for a majority stake in companies operating in Zimbabwe. "We would want to see a greater participation of our people in them, not less than 51%, in certain companies we would have designated," he said.

Mugabe has mainly been touted as a tyrant and critics point to failing economic policies, staggering unemployment and inflations rates (2007: 2 million yr to yr). His involvement in the return of farm land back to black ownership has been criticized, citing the dramatic reduction in agricultural production and general chaos. But if this course (in Anthropology) has suggested anything it is that nothing is as clear cut as it might seem.

Zimbabwe seems like a desperate situation. Cholera and AIDS ravage the country. Political instability has led to untold violence. Are these the costs of the struggle against colonial repression as recent as the 1950's or is are these struggles the result of an egotistical despot bent on fulfilling his own agenda and personal gain. Although, I am inclined to bend toward the later perspective the former is not easily dismissed. It seems abundantly clear that the difficulties that Zimbabwe faces are the result of oppressive colonial racism. It is a tragedy to see a desperate situation such as this haunted by these colonial ghosts.

“Scumbag Millionaire”

My wife referred to the movie Slumdog Millionaire using this term (the title of the post) completely unintentionally. I chuckled at the Freudian-esque slip of the tongue. I'm wondering if the term might be a more suitable moniker than it might seem. The production of the movie used two children who make the slums of Mumbai their home. These children received an eye-popping trip to L.A. for an appearance at the Oscars where the movie swept the awards show. As this article points out the children's families are being awarded new homes as a compensation for their work as actors in the movie. The children were scooped up from the slums and elevated to superstar status in a surreal life-imitating-art scenario.

What intrigued me about the movie are the deeper racial undertones that inform the discourse around this movie. First, it is clear that not everyone in the slums of Mumbai is all that thrilled at being labelled 'slumdogs' (a term that denotes laziness).

While everyone in the area was proud of their local stars, some objected to the film - and its title - that made them famous. "I'm poor, but no one can call me a dog," said Fakrunissa Sheikh, 40, who lives in a lean-to next to Azhar's. "I work very hard."

There seems to be a sense that the depiction of life in the slums, even though it drew starlight attention ("as television lights and camera flashbulbs lit up the slum.") and national pride, produced a marginalizing effect on the people the movie portrayed. So that even in drawing the most spectacular attention to their life – they are reduced to an invisibility caused by hypervisibility (a la Gordon in Ghostly Matters).

Second, a new kind of colonialism seems to have emerged in the way we entertain ourselves. Entertainment is the new (or not so new) imperial frontier. The world we live in is dictated to by the rhetoric contained in the entertainment consumed as music, television, movies, etc. Companies with imperial strength have dominated the world in terms of what content is consumed and the way (style) that content is produced. Hollywood dominates this entertain-olonialism. So that the stories and lyrics and pictures we get to see and hear are qualitatively homogenous. This homogeneity is inevitable since even the emerging Bollywood sets its sights on producing movies to rival those of its American cousin. This type of hegemony inevitably leads to certain ideas being privileged but also the way those ideas are being presented being privileged.

Consider for a moment the television station Al Jazeera. Even though, its perspective is decidedly different (and often opposing) than that of many American News Organizations (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), it can be easily argued that the method and style of its presentation is unequivocally imitative of the American 'standard'. This stylistic concern shows that a certain form of perspective is privileged over another.

The question that remains unanswered then is this: Does conforming to the entertain-olonialistic standard allow for meaningful contestation of underprivileged discourse or does it subvert this perspective even more?

In the case of Slumdog Millionaire the TV lights and microphones will soon be gone and the slums will once again not only be returned to their darkness but to new invisibility in that darkness due in part to it new found fame.

An Intolerance Boom?

A provocative article here from columnist, Doug Saunders, in the Globe and Mail. He suggests and I am inclined to agree that the climate of the global economic woes foster intolerance – even racism. He suggests that expressions of anger over failed policies and inadequate safety net programs are to be expected as thousands of people face job loss and protracted unemployment.

The ugliness, however, manifested itself when the anger suddenly turned against outsiders. Phrases like "Buy American" and "British jobs for British workers," which gained popularity because they seem to reflect a deeper sentiment, are chillingly redolent of earlier moments, in 1873 and 1930, when economic depressions morphed into fierce moments of nationalist self-defence and attacks on outsiders, leading to isolationism, racism and war.

Protectionist strategies seem to be gathering incredible momentum these days and it is not hard to see how these ideological perspectives inform essentially racist sentiment. And protectionism itself, I would argue, is a not so distant cousin to the mercantilism of the late colonial period.

In times of relative prosperity the race to the top of the socio-economic status heap seems an endless tunnel of hope. Consumerism flourishes. Everybody is richer than they were and they all feel pretty good about it. In these conditions, those people who have conventionally held the power in racial distinctions (most typically whites), can easily be distracted into acknowledging that minorities and otherwise oppressed groups can achieve even similar economic success as they are achieving. After all the white man says to himself look that the awesome conditions I have created that allow other 'underprivileged' people to flourish. This benevolence is strangely lacking when the risk of economic collapse is looming on the horizon. When the effort being expended is directed at NOT becoming poor the attitudes change.

I recently spoke to a friend of mine working in HR in a local assembly plant. His company has recruited many workers from Central America and the Philippines. One of the stipulations of the agreements that employers enter with the government organizations is the requirement to terminate employment of these workers before any other layoffs occur. Without work these individuals are then required to return to their country of origin. On the surface it seems to make sense that this type of policy should be in place. After all people who are citizens of this country ought to be able to benefit from that status in some way.

What is morally questionable is how these companies can bring over these workers who perform jobs that the general population does not want to do. Let's remember that the pay scale for these employees is typically significantly lower than other comparable jobs. Then these companies can turn around and dismiss these people to fend for themselves.

It will be interesting to see how these sentiments play out in Canada compared to places like the U.S. where racial tensions over employment opportunities has been contentious for some time.

“Conflict” as a racial term

I found this article on a curious website after a search sparked by a radio interview a few weeks ago. Heather Mallick, a Guardian columnist, argued that using the term conflict to describe the bloodshed in the Gaza strip was an inadequate term to describe the horror of what was occurring in that region. That got me thinking about semantics influence the racial overtones of media representations of these types of horrific events. This article points out BBC's operating procedure in using certain terminology to describe what has been occurring in the Gaza strip over the last few months. It is intriguing to see how careful this organization is to convey a position of objective neutrality in their coverage of these events.

That a neutral position is actually possible is an interesting point of debate in itself but the fact that the BBC (and I would suggest most other North American news media) is pursuing this position is intriguing. Weismantel and Eisenman (authors we studied in my anthropology course) suggest that ignoring racist constructions and categories seems to actually reinforce the power of racism. In effect they might argue that attempting to fashion public discourse in a concerted attempt to neutralize the reality of racial frameworks evident in the region can only serve to advantage one side over the other.

It could be argued that the term conflict used to describe what has happened in the Gaza strip advantages Israel's agenda in the region. What is more difficult to parse from this use of terms is whether or not the neutralization of the term can carry racial significance.

I, as many university students here, use the BBC as a source for objective news but is that news really objective if in the attempt to provide neutral coverage it actually advantages one group over another?

"...our way of life..." II

Wow tell me there aren't some racial overtones with this product!

ht: Marko

“…our way of life…”

First: Barack Obama is good for the U.S.A. and very likely for the rest of the world.

Second: I am convinced that even if the climate and context into which Obama stepped as president would not have been as difficult, there still would have been incredible expectations on his time in office due largely to the fact that he is the first African American president. The scrutiny that he will face is certainly daunting to contemplate.

In our Anthro of Race and Ethnicity class we have been looking at the fluidity and ambiguity of racial boundaries. We have seen that what began in colonial times as essentialized biological distinctions soon evolved to include categories of race that really did not apply to color of skin or other biological referents. Instead distinctions were made on basis of economic standing, occupation, dress, cleanliness and proper education and upbringing. This was as a result of the fact that the colonial enterprise produced a new racial category through miscegenation – primarily Métis/Mestizo. We have studied how this category has produced fluidity in the definition of racial categories due to how this 'mixed race' attempted to attain either indigenous or 'white' status within society. So the racial boundaries are no longer distinct or essentialized but are open to various cultural factors and these factors can be negotiated to enhance one's standing in the social order.

Mr. Obama is a prime example of this as a person of mixed origin. Much has been made of what his ascendancy to the White House (hmmm interesting term) means for the racial struggle that has marked U.S. history. The inauguration has largely been lauded as positive step against the injustices of racism. (see New York Times; the Examiner ) Most commentaries and editorials have also been quick to point out that racism is far from vanquished. For the most part I agree…

Allow me to center on Obama's inaugural address. Whether you liked it or not there did seem to be some substantive shifts marked by the rhetoric he used. Suggesting the need to curb reliance on foreign oil, working towards peace and stability across the globe – even with former foes, addressing climate change, and addressing the economic woes of his country all seemed to mark a shift toward some promising change.

One thing that seemed a little odd was this line in his speech,

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents…"

This comment is stuck in the middle of a focus on terrorism in his speech. Why will America not apologize for its way of life? When Obama refers to "our way of life" he no doubt means those qualities like peaceful and generous and benevolent. When terrorists think of the American "way of life" they no doubt see the greed and arrogance of a consumeristic nation that has exploited foreign people. What Obama is presumably unwaveringly going to defend are qualities that America has yet to demonstrate to it neighbours. Could some apology be warranted? I think so. Could it be that in the days when we celebrate a significant victory over racism we might actually be blind to the far more illusive and insidious ways that our extravagant wealth might be an expression of a type of nationalistic racism? Was it not after all the protection of the European 'way of life' that informed so many of the pegorative attitudes toward indigenous peoples.? This particular aspect of Obama's address does not seem to have gotten much attention (except that John Stewart was able to make comparisons to Bush's speeches that seemed all too familiar). Taken on the whole the speech is able to convey that the new American spirit will be one for which Americans can be proud and will not need to apologize. So we wait and see how the new guy will do. No pressure.

Harried Remarks

Here's an intriguing commentary by Evan Wright on the release of video incriminating Prince Harry of the British Royal Family of racist remarks. (begin listening at 24:35 on the audio feed listed at the bottom of the page as "Listen to Part Three:") Wright's basic contention is that perhaps the Prince's comments should not be considered as the offensive racial slurs that they appear to be from the video.

Wright suggests that a closer perusal of the entire video reveals that the video was intended to be a mockery of a number of things including the pointless order given by his (Harry's) commanders, the queen – his grandmother, and even himself. Wright contends that the military 'culture' affords soldiers the ability to use otherwise derogatory terms even as terms of endearment or as ways of accommodating bravado and camaraderie. What is interesting is how Prince Harry's rank has both subjected him to a more intense scrutiny over a subject that seems to be common practice in the military (if Wright and others are to be believed). Obviously the juiciness of this story is quite irresistible for the media in general. The other interesting aspect of this story is how racism is being countered as normative (and largely acceptable) in a military context instead of seeing this behaviour as problematic especially if it is widespread in the military. One argument/story is definitely being privileged over another…

Burris appointment to the senate

(Daily Show with John Stewart Clip missing: the clip higlighted the seeming audacity of the claim by Bobby Rush that controversy over Roland Burris' appointment to the senate was equal in racist implications as earlier segregation events) Here is a replacement clip that shows some of Rush's comments but does not give Stewart's perspective.

This story provides some curious relief to the current race issues of the U.S. political realm. Burris appointed by the now impeached Governor Rob Blogojevich was not allowed to be seated with the other Senators. Appointing an African-American to the Senate in the face of his questionable conduct seems a crafty play on Blogojevich’s part since, as John Stewart (The Daily Show) identifies in his piece, the governor’s choice undoubtedly will be rejected. Yet as is also pointed out some members of the black community are claiming that Burris’ rejection is a racially motivated decision on the part of the sitting Senators (going so far as to claim that the incident could be compared to the infamous “dogs-being-sicked-on-children-in-Burmingham-Alabama”). Several things stand out here:
1. The way the ‘race card’ has become enigmatic phenomenon of the political discourse in the last few years. Obama seemed to steer clear of explicit references to race yet was able to invoke the dynamics of racism throughout his campaign. His ‘high road’ approach seemed to deflect a certain intangible criticism of his campaign and garnered deep respect. On the other hand explicit references to race like the one Bobby Rush used seem cheap and overly utilitarian in political scheming.
2. John Stewart’s responding question, “Are you a crazy person?” brings its own tension to the fore. Stewart is able to pronounce a sharp criticism of Rush’s comment and do so at the risk of seeming racist. While Stewart’s program and this piece is hardly ‘serious’ news. He does seem to provide an important commentary about how race is leveraged in political games.

An Excuse to Blog

And a chance for you to follow along with some of what I am learning. In particular, I am asked to develop journals for two of my courses this semester.

In Psychology I have to keep an Idea Journal where I will record my thoughts and questions about perception and cognition. In Anthropology I have to develop a Media Portfolio where I collect articles and news that relates to race and ethnicity. The idea is to track media representations of race and ethnicity in the news. I have decided to keep both of these journals online on my blog.

If you are interested in tracking a specific journal you can follow these links:

For the Psychology Ideas Journal click here
For the Anthropology Media Portfolio click here

Also check out the links on the Sidebar