“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?

Ed Young of Fellowship Church on Steve Colbert - 7 Days of Sex -

Of course the copyright people were going to pull down the youtube version of this video but you can still get to the Colbert Report piece through this link or read this interesting CBS piece as well on the same topic.

"...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.

Bald tires and bad memories

Problem: What happens when your recollection of the past lies in sharp contrast with that of another individual regarding the same experience? Whose recollection of the events of that experience is more reliable in the absence of either empirical data or third party verification? How do we factor in past experiences or the bias of personal pride? What factors (both physiological and psychological) determine how perception of experience imprints on memory?

Example: A gouge on the inside of the passenger side front tire of the ASTRO has been discovered revealing its metal guts. OK! So how did it get there? This is the question that I posed to my wife: "Do you remember hitting anything with the van recently?" "Nope!" she says, "but you hit the curb all the time turning into the cul-de-sac." (I had not yet revealed to her that there was a gouge on the tire.) "Really!" I said in disbelief, "how many times have I done so in the last while?" "3 or 4," she informed me.

So here are all the factors that I am considering. A.) I have no recollection of hitting the curb even once in the last 6 months. B.) Char is not given to lying (in fact it may well be beyond her cognitive ability to do so) C.) I am well aware of my lousy reputation as a poor driver in spite of my shining driving record in the last 20 years. D.) I have not driven van regularly – in fact Char has (this can be verified by the countless people who have commented on our van being parked at the local liquor store which is across from her work). E.) I am sharply aware of my own pride in protecting against another accusation of my poor driving record. F.) There may in fact be almost no way of verifying Char's report or mine by some external method.

Anybody heard of good deal on tires recently?

How Ant Subterrain Structure's Looks Like??

wow if this is the real deal it really is incredible...

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…

Hallucinate

See Trevor was right not only are we snobs but we see dead people. Why I just saw God in the humour of my youngest boy last night – I better start cutting back…

Pictures are flat

Pictures are these tricky things that are actually a flat object and yet we can make normal judgments about the position of objects in the picture as though it were a 3 dimensional objects. What is fascinating to me is that a television screen image can be used – in the case of video-scopic surgery – to make correct judgements about where certain objects are in the three dimensional world that the tools are actually operating in.

Size constancy and depth perception

As the article Visual Illusions by Richard Gregory points out the problems of size constancy obviously provide a huge challenge when the observer is in motion. If the an object like this Charlie Chaplin mask can create this type of illusion while the observer is standing still how much more will these types of illusions (and really they are visual mistakes) occur when the movement can only shorten the ability of the individual to give adequate attention to the object to make a proper judgement about depth. As the article points out this could have disastrous affects on air travel (landing), driving cars (negotiating parking space), or what about fighter pilots – yikes. But what I wonder is if there are physiological characteristics (either in the eye or the visual cortex) that can compensate for these illusions/mistakes?

PS: There must be dysfunctions of the brain or eye that impair normal depth perception and if so why do we not develop standardized tests that could prevent people with depth impariment from - oh lets say operating a motor vehicle...