Taste the rainbow

This is a Starburst commercial I like:




This is a Starburst commercial (that I saw for the first time today,) that I don't like:



I probably don't have to tell most of you why I don't like the second one. But if this is your first time reading this blog, I'll give you a quick explanation. A contradiction is something that is "logically incongruous." Being Korean and Scottish is not logically incongrous. It is the belief that it is that leads to instances like the one I describe here. Things like this make my life more annoying.

If you thought the first commercial was hilarious, we should be friends.

Leave me a comment!

DJ Pauly D on the 1's and 2's...

So, I watched the season finale and the Reunion show for Jersey Shore last week.

One of the first questions that the host of the Reunion show asked the cast was if they felt like the show portrayed Italian-Americans in a derogatory light. My man Pauly D had what I thought was a very good response. He said something to the effect of, "I was not on the show to represent all Italians, I was representing myself." His co-stars also reiterated a point that they'd made previously, that if you didn't like the show then change the channel and watch something else.

I agree with Pauly, he is not (nor should he be) responsible for carrying the reputation of the entire Italian-American community on his shoulders. But it was his answer to a related question that made me a little confused. The host Julissa asked if the word "guido" was a derogatory term. He said, "Oh no no no--it's not."

I think what he should have said was, "Well, speaking only for myself and not all Italian Americans--I don't find that term offensive." It's like, you can't have it both ways, bud. You can't on the one hand say that you speak only for yourself, and on the other think that you can give the people watching permission to use a word that many people do find offensive. Because I can guarantee you that thousands of people saw that show, and have now incorporated guido into their vocabularies primarily because Pauly D said that it was okay.

I said the last time I talked about this show, that I had a lot more to say, but Sweet Tomatoes was calling my name. I really appreciated the insightful comments that I got on that post, and I wanted to incorporate some of them here to help guide this post along. It's like Follow Up Fridays, except it's Saturday and I'm not really following up, I'm adding on.

Here is part of what my white friend Carema had this to say about stereotypes:

I am not in as much agreement that the stereotypes that are probably presented in Jersey Shore are harmless as they may seem. Stereotyping, no matter how seemingly inane, leads to prejudice, that leads to discrimination.

I can see how it could seem like I was saying that the stereotypes that the cast of Jersey Shore reinforced were "not that bad." I agree that stereotypes are harmful, or at the very least, not helpful ( you can read more about my thoughts on this subject here.)

What I was trying to say has more to do with the second sentence of the excerpt. Why does someone fitting into a stereotype have to equal discriminating against them? Why does someone doing things differently from you automatically make their way inferior? Like I have said before, I fit some stereotypes...so what? It doesn't mean that anything else is automatically true about me.

And here is some of what my white friend JOHNFERGUSON had to say about stereotyping:

Like all jokes and humor about subordinated group identity and cultural difference, it is funny because we can all say, “Yeah that is so true.” But like you noted about the use of pejorative naming words, it is mostly OK when we perceive that the teller of the joke is on our side. When we feel some suspicion that they are taking some attitude of superiority, we are offended.

This is such a critical point. Jersey Shore is only "harmless fun" if everyone is laughing with the cast and not at them. But sadly, we know that is probably not the case.

One of my friends on Facebook posted a Jersey Shore related link on her wall only to have one of her other friends comment, "It's ridiculous they don't realize that they're actually being made fun of."

Now, I don't know this other person. So I can't say if he was speaking as a person who actually does the making fun of, or simply as a concerned citizen.

But I think we can all agree if people are watching the show and treating Italian-Americans worse as a result...that's a bad thing. I watch the show and like the show because I know that I am watching it with a critical eye, and am not looking down on the people I'm seeing on the screen.

But the problem is that there are probably lots of other people who say they feel the same way as I do, but are more inclined to do or say something racish to the next Italian-American they see because that show has been introduced to their brains.

So, where does that leave us? I don't know. I know that Mtv is running a Jersey Shore marathon before the Super Bowl, and that the show is more than likely going to be picked up for a second season. As a reality show connoisseur, I can tell you that the next season won't be as good. They caught lightning in a bottle this time around, and whatever they do next time is sure to be more manufactured and artificial. But this show made Mtv a lot of money, and you can bet they will milk it for all it's worth. I just wonder what that means for all of us.

Comments? I'd love to hear them.

Dear Abby,

Did you know Dear Abby and Ann Landers were twins? 'Tis true.

I wanted to get to a comment left by my white friend Steven, in my post asking for questions. He wasn't asking for advice, which makes the title of the post somewhat irrelevant--but let's just go with it.

Steven wrote:

i don't know how it's done now, but when i taught at overland high school, we had "equity" meetings in which we were supposed to talk about the achievement gap between different races. but one of the "agreements" that were thrust upon us on these meeting was that we would focus solely on race. other factors like gender, socio-economic background, etc, could not be brought into the discussion. i found it incredibly narrow and meaningless to isolate race. what do you think, my black friend?

Yes Steven, I also think is incredibly narrow and meaningless to isolate race in the situation that you described. What do you think that was about? Whose idea was it? What were the perceived advantages of doing it this way?

One thing that came into my head as I read that: do y'all know how the whole concept of "white" came about? Like, "a white person"? Let me give you a brief, fairly accurate rundown.

During the beginnings of this country you had white people who were here who worked as indentured servants, one step up from slaves. At some point (I'm not sure if it was around the time of the Revolutionary War or right after the Civil War,) these poor white people started aligning themselves with poor black people.

The rich white people saw this and were like, "This isn't good, what can we do to divide these two groups of people? We know! We'll invent this concept of "white" and tell the poor, lighter skinned people that while they may not have any money or property like we do, we'll tell them that they're special and better than those dark skinned people because like us, they're... white (cue chorus of angels.)

After the Civil War when black people were freed, white people invented the minstrel show (you know, where white people paint their faces black and "act black"?) While these shows provided hours of entertainment for their white audiences, they served another very important purpose. By supposedly showing these audiences how black people acted, they were reinforcing the ideas about how white people were supposed to act. Teaching these people what it meant to be white.

Like, did you know back in the day if a white person did something nice for another white person, the first white person would say, "Thank you, that's mighty white of you." (I'm guessing that some white people still say this, but I choose to live in ignorant bliss.) I can't think of a much more obvious example of the idea that white = everything great than this one. And let's not forget what happens to you when you fail to live up to this ideal.

Ok, but what does all this have to do with Steven's comment? I'm guessing if the school staff and administration started looking at some other factors in these equity meetings (particularly socioeconomic status) they'd find some very interesting correlations. Like, why are a disproportionate number of the broke students not getting good grades? And why are a disproportionate number of the broke students black and brown?

These are just guesses, since I wasn't sitting in on the meetings. But by keeping the focus solely on race, they can't really do much else than attribute the lackluster performance to the students' race--which just serves to reinforce the white/good black/bad setup.

I'm curious to hear what you think, readers. Leave me a comment.