With such an expanding media and advertising empire, it's not surprising that companies have found new and improved ways to put advertisements into our everyday lives. Native advertisement is basically ads that have been strategically placed online and have been integrated into a normal online platform. For example, you could see "Sponsored by Forever 21" on a website that is designed for teens and people looking for clothes. These advertisements are placed in a website that targets their target audience. The above native advertisement is by Taco Bell and is placed in a BuzzFeed article. It is placed very naturally in an article that many people read for entertainment and looks like it's an unintentional part of the article. The audience that usually reads BuzzFeed is a young and new crowd that reads it for entertainment and has free time to sit in a computer. Taco Bell wants to target and new and fresh audience because most of their customers and young. The caption for the article reads, "Some things are meant to be kept for yourself, just like the new Taco Bell Loaded Grillers...". It seems so integrated in the article and like it's not even an advertisement. Because it's so naturally placed in the article, it becomes naturally placed in the readers mind and becomes a normal part of their life.The tone of it is very happy and friendly. It's almost as if the author is talking to the audience in a personal and friendly way, thus increasing the appeal of Taco Bell. The article is fun and entertaining, thus Taco Bell is fun and entertaining. Then it shows how the loaded grillers are 99 cents, also an appealing offer. It is all placed right above the article and so it is the first thing that people read and think about. This advertisement is clearly a native advertisement because not many people would consider it a "normal everyday advertisement" and would not ignore it like they would with any other advertisement.
How powerful is the connection between the effect of social media
and the structure of the Hunger Games?
The
Hunger Games is a rising movie about a Utopian world that has annual
games with children being placed in a giant stadium by adults and having
to fight to death for entertainment. While it may be incredibly twisted, it is
regarded as “normal” in their community. With such an extreme and violent
ideology, it is surprising that many people have compared the Hunger Games with
social media today. Firstly, just like the Hunger Games, social media is
basically a big stadium with kids that is meant for entertainment. Each of
these kids are competing for the most “fame” or the most “likes”. Each person
in the Hunger and Games and in social media is looking for sponsors and looking
for people to accept them. Most of these social media outlets are made by
adults and always have a board of adults working the magic in the back, similar
to the game makers in the Hunger Games. Similar to the Hunger Games, the point
of social media is entertaining. But we as a society have invested so much time
and energy in it that it has become a normal part of society. Because social
media is integrated into our everyday lives, it is not often thought of as a
competition till death. But when you sit back and examine each detail, it is
shocking to see how much social media resembles a movie about competition and
death. Every little aspect of the Hunger Games can be related to social media
and that is eye opening.
The new and upcoming star, Iggy Azalea, prides herself in the fact
that she came from a rough life and has made it big. In her song, “Work”, she
expresses the pride she has over her achievements in life. The song is filled
with powerful line such as “how many floors I had to scrub just to make it past
where I am from” or the reoccurring line of “no money, no family, 16 in the
middle of Miami”. The song is meant to show her struggles and to empower people
who are coming from several backgrounds to achieve their dreams. With such an
empowering message, it would be thought that the music video would put a tear
in your eye. The music video falls just shorts of that, seeing as Azalea
herself is wearing $2000 shoes and barely any clothing.
The opening scene begins with Azalea walking in a desert with
several objects on fire. The music video disappoints from the beginning considering
the fact that Azalea is barely dressed and wearing clothing that costs more
than most people’s homes, which is ironic considering the fact that she is
singing about the fact that she had nothing while growing up. The music video continues
to go downhill about 50 seconds in. Azalea is suddenly surrounded with backup
dancers who are shaking their butts in front of the camera while Azalea is
sexualizing herself because of the movements she is doing but also the clothing
she’s wearing. This lessens the value of the song and takes away from the
meaning. She is sexualizing and objectifying women, even though her song is
meant to be inspiring.
The real problem with the music video comes up about two minutes in
when Azalea begins dancing on a guy, steals his keys, and runs away. This is a
problem for two reasons. Firstly, it is disregarding the real message of the
song and making it seem like the only way she got to where she is is buy
seducing men and doing illegal things. Although her song is filled with lyrics
about her working hard, the music video makes it seem like the only way that
she becae successful was because of men and breaking the law. This brings up
the second problem: it marginalizes women everywhere because it shows that
women cannot be successful on their own and rather they have to seduce or trick
men in order to be up-and-coming.
Not only does this music video marginalizes women, it also goes on
to offend the impoverished people and their society. Azalea is seen riding in
her bike and walking around with clean clothing, full makeup, and nice hair in
neighborhoods with people who are wearing ripped and dirty clothes. She is
priding herself in coming from that background and yet in the music video, she
is walking around like she is better and more powerful than all of them. It
shows that she has clearly forgotten where she came from. It disrespects people
that are still living in impoverished situations and makes them seem like they
are worthless compared to people like her.
Although this song has a potential to be an empowering song, the
music video brings it back down to the norms of the music industry. Although
Azalea knows that she had a rough background, this music video proves that she
has succumbed to the lifestyle and the attitudes of the music industry.
How
could the text be read and interpreted differently by two different readers?
Every
advertisement bases every single detail based on the target audience, yet some
advertisements can be multivocal and can give a different message to each
individual reader. American Apparel released an ad showing a pair of female
legs being held carelessly by a man. The only words that were placed were the company’s
logo in between the female’s legs. At first, because of the clear
objectification of the woman, the target audience may be blatantly assumed to
be men. In reality, though, this advert targets both men and women in very
different ways because it gives the men a very dominant and many vibe but it
also makes women feel as if their sole purpose is to please that man.
The
clear and unconcealed target audience of this ad are men. The advertisement
shows a man holding a woman by her feet as if they were toys. By showing only
one body part, it completely disregards the woman and focuses on the man in the
ad. The man is the dominant figure while the woman is the submissive figure. The
ad uses affect transfer because the men looking at this ad can get a very
dominant and manly vibe from the models and can transfer that vibe onto the
company and associate it with wearing their clothing. By having the woman being
held as if she was a toy, it shows the men looking at this advert that the main
purpose for women is to please men and that men can buy sex and women by buying
clothing from American Apparel. It gives men three things they want: women,
sex, and manliness. These are things that many men strive for and the company
has successfully been able to associate those three things with their company
in this one advertisement.
While
this advertisement seems to objectify, sexualize, and objectify women, women
can interpret this ad in one of two ways: either it offends them, or it
encourages them. Firstly, the logo of the company being placed in between the woman’s
legs further makes the woman look like a sex object. Because no other part of
her body is shown, the woman is objectified and made out to look worthless. Many
women will look at this ad and be offended because all women are made out to be
objectified as a result of this advert. On the other hand, this ad can directly
target women because it plays on many of their insecurities to sell. Just as it
shows the men that women are here to please them, it shows women the ways to
please men. Women will relate wearing American Apparel clothing with getting men’s
attention, something that many women strive for. They will relate beauty and
happiness with getting a man, which they will ultimately relate with the
company. This ad takes many women who feel negatively about themselves and
tries to portray this idea of being held by a man in a positive light. While
American Apparel is turning away many customers as a result of this
advertisement, it is also attracting and entire new audience. This
advertisement shows multivocality because it gives a dominant vibe to men but
also plays on many women’s insecurities. Although completely unacceptable and appalling,
this advert has a lot of potential for success. It captures attention and gets
people to talk, and that is ultimately the purpose of this advert and many
other American Apparel ads. American Apparel has not had a decline in their
sales as a result of their overly risqué marketing techniques. They have strategically designed this ad in a
way that reaches a variety of audiences and can be interpreted by each reader
in a different way.
For
the first Further Oral Presentation, the possibilities were virtually endless. My
FOA analyzed how American Apparel, a clothing company, continuously used the
sexualization, objectification, and exploitation of women as an advertising technique.
American Apparel has hundreds of ads that focus on specific body parts, shows girls
in provocative positions, and does not bother censoring most of their
advertisements. The message that I was trying to get across with all this was
that these advertisements hold many unintended effects such as exposing women
to more violence, showing that women are only here to please men, and holding up
stereotypes about a women’s worth that have been prominent for centuries. I
decided to take a different approach when answering the unit question of, “what
does advertising reveal to us about society?” I decided to show many ads that
would make it seem like society is going nowhere, but in fact I believe that these
ads are the ones that show social progress because of all the controversy they
constantly receive. The four criterion that this FOA was graded on was Knowledge
and understanding of the text, organization, language, and understanding how
language is used. The main thing that I struggled with was being able to find
pictures that analyzed language well and being able to link the language with
my main topic question. I believe that I was able to use the language well and understand
that every sentence has a hidden meaning and I was able to communicate that
well. I do think that I could have talked about the language in relation to the
persuasive techniques we learned in class more (Ex: shock factor, pathos,
logos, etc). The techniques that I did discuss were affect transfer,
commodification of intimacy, ethos, logos, and I used trigger words several
times. With that being said, there were many instances where I could have used
them more effectively. Another weakness that I had was staying formal
throughout the entire presentation. There were many instances where I did not
use appropriate language or I could have been more formal with my wording. I
picked a topic that was tricky because it was time consuming to find ads that
incorporated enough language to analyze but was also school appropriate. I do
believe that one of my strengths was taking a different approach when answering
the unit question. Overall, I feel as if I had the potential to do a much
better job on my presentation but I am happy with the overall result. I feel as
if I did not say everything that I had intended to say but I also found myself saying
more things than I had written down. The message that I was trying to convey
was that American Apparel uses this exploitation of women to sell but it is not
completely accepted in society. I think I communicated this message
efficiently. Next time, I will make practicing my speech the main priority. I
found myself nervously looking down at my paper several times even though I knew
what I was supposed to say. I will also be aware of time constraints and have everything
I need to say in the required time. Overall, although I will set the bar higher
next time, I am proud of my work and how hard I worked on it.
In
the early 2000’s, Olay came out with an ad that highlighted the important roles
of a woman: “wife”, “mother”, and “shoe aficionado”. These words were strategically placed next to
a seemingly glowing and happy woman who held up her wedding band in pride. The
close up shot of the woman allows the audience to place emphasis on her face
and to really feel like Olay has had a significant impact in her life, along
with shoes, of course. While the ad may be seemingly effective, it draws on
stereotypes that are prevalent in society today. According to this
advertisement, the only things that women value in life are the roles of being
a wife and a mother and meaningless things such as shoes. It indirectly states
that women do not have greater ambitions in life than being those things. It
places very low standards on women. At first, I assumed that this ad was in the
late 1950’s because that was a time where being a wife and a mother were the only important things for a
woman and they did not hold stable jobs or aspire to be something greater than
that. It was shocking to find out that it was actually from 2002 because that
proves that those sexist and stereotypical thoughts have carried on in society
today. Although it would be assumed that this ad aims to empower women, I would
argue that women are actually ignored and marginalized. The target audience is
the woman who is a housewife and who has free time to take care of herself. In
that sense, it ignores all the women who are not those things. It places a
generalization on women everywhere and actually insults the women who hold
stable careers and aspire to be more things. By placing the wedding band in the
picture, it shows that the woman values the fact that she is a wife. In my
opinion, that is empowering men because it shows that a women values a man in
her life and that men are one of the “important roles” that a woman plays.
Overall, this ad seems effective and friendly when someone first looks at it.
But right as you look closely and examine it more, it is clear that this ad
takes all of those existing stereotypes of women and plugs it into their in
order to sell more.
Robert
Downy Jr, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, and many other
celebrities have served time in jail due to things such as drunk driving or
drug possession. It is not unusual to hear that a famous person has spent time in
jail, and then got out the next day. Many people start questioning the justice
system and accuse it of giving special treatment to celebrities and people in
high positions. In Pitkin County, Colorado, inmates are comfortable with a gym,
a dayroom, and balanced meals. When people celebrities read this, they automatically
assume that Charlie Sheen spends time in this jail because it is “comfortable”.
The reality is that, there are many inmates in that jail who are not. When it
comes to the justice system, the fancy and expensive attorneys cannot do much
when it comes to the actual jail stay. Celebrities do in fact get special
treatment, but special does not necessarily mean better.
To
begin, it is crucial to distinguish between a jail and a prison. A jail is
usually an open space where the inmates have activities and can interact with
one another. A prison is a closed off cell and the inmate has little
interaction with others. Prisons are usually for more serious crimes such as
murder and jails are for less serious crimes such as drunk driving, which is
where most of these celebrities fall into. Steve Whitmore of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department states, “So if celebrities seem to have it easy in
jail, it's partly because the jail system is intended for nonviolent offenders
-- and celebrities usually fall into that class”. In a jail, it is the guard’s
jobs to reassure the prisoner’s safety. In the case of celebrities, there is a
very large chance that they could be harassed or even physically abused by
other prisoners. That is the reason that many celebrities end up having their
own cell isolated away from the rest of the prison, they are called “keepaways”.
When people look at one side of the story, they automatically assume that the
reason celebrities get their own cells is because they are being wrongfully
favored. In reality, these celebrities are constantly bombarded by the media
and do not get more privileges than many other people. Although some
celebrities get less time than they should, that is not a generalization that
can be made on all of them. Although Lindsay Lohan spent about 84 minutes in
jail in 2007, Robert Mitchum served his full sentence of 60 days, Robert Downy
Jr. and Lil Wayne spent a year in jail, and T.I. spent 10 months in jail. It is
so often that the experiences of certain celebrities such as Lindsay Lohan are
taken and then placed on other stars that had completely different experiences,
thus altering the views of society on the subject.
Today,
there are about 2.4 million people held in jails in the United States. Yet out
of those 2.4 million, it is only the incarcerated celebrities that attract
attention. Because of their lavish and upscale lifestyles, these celebrities
must also get lavish and upscale jail treatment, right? The answer is no. It is
generally assumed that these celebrities get special treatment because stories
like Lindsay Lohan’s infamous 84 minutes of Paris Hiltons 82 minutes in jail
surface the internet. The matter of the fact is that these celebrities do not
represent what actually happens to celebrities in jail. The “special”
privileges that they receive are not a matter of favoritism; they are a matter
of safety. The justice system will target anyone who has done wrongful acts, no
matter the size of their bank account. At the end of the day, jail is jail. These
celebrities will end up sleeping in the same bed that any other prisoner sleeps
in and they will eat the same food that any other prisoner will eat. With such
a growing media empire, it is vital to understand the entire picture and not
place generalizations on an entire group of people.
This
excerpt from the autobiography, “The Wonderful Adventures of Mary Seacole”
follows the conventions of a memoir. Although not all autobiographies are
memoirs, this text is a memoir because it is a reflection of her life. It
offers her voice, it includes dialogue, it reflects on her past and so there
are instances of which she offers hindsight wisdom, and it is a retelling of
several larger anecdotes. As a result of this being memoir, it does not aim to
persuade or influence a specific audience. It is more of a personal narrative
and aims to retell events.
This text follows Seacole as she is surrounded by victims of yellow
fever, a highly fatal disease. In the 1850’s, yellow fever was an epidemic that
victimized the people of the island of Jamaica. Seacole was taking care of the
people who were struck by the disease. She retells the story of how the island
was dreadful and negatively impacted. Along the several stories mentioned, one
discusses the journey of a young man who passed away as a result of the
disease. Seacole found herself highly attached to the, ”light hearted and good
young man”. She found her relationship with him reminiscent of a mother- son
relationship. She discusses the grief that comes along with loss after attachment.
Through her hindsight wisdom, she delivers the message that no one should be
ashamed of the fear of death. She tries to convey the message that one’s
perspective on death and life is only based on how afraid they are.
The author establishes a sad and sorrowful tone through her choice
of language and content. Her discussion of loss and death conveys a mournful
tone and an intense mood. The atmosphere is heavy and leaves the reader with a
sense of loss. The text starts off with the line, “I stayed in Jamaica 8 months
out of the year 1853, still remembered in the island for its suffering and
gloom”. Automatically, Seacole has set the mood. It is clear that the rest of
the text will not be happy and that the atmosphere is dark.
The story is from a bias point of view. It is not objective because
she is retelling her own story and stating her own thoughts and experiences.
Although it is not meant to be persuasive, it focuses specifically on one person’s
perspective rather than allowing the reader to have their own perspective. The story
does use pronouns because it is a retelling of her life events. She is using “I”
and “You” in order to make the story seem more personal and allow the reader to
engage with it more. Using pronouns is a way the author uses to hook the
reader. Because it is deeply personal and sad and is written as a sad conversation,
the reader feels engaged with it. There is a lot of direct speech used, again,
in order to make it seem like a personal conversation. The story also uses a
lot of imagery. This helps set the atmosphere and the mood.
This interview with musical duo, Calle 13, explores the vulgar and
politically targeted language and theme of their music. I will be using the
question and answer format because it allows me to pick which things get asked
and be able to construct the responses in a way that allows the reader to
understand the overall message. Using an interview with Calle 13 and “Democracy
Now” and secondary sources such as, “Calle 13, On Being Loved And Hated In
Latin America” By Jasmine Garsd, I have been able to compile a list of
questions and answers that allow the reader to step into the shoes of Calle 13
and understand the purpose behind their music. This written task will explore
the correlation between language and cultural/societal context while also
touching up on how the specific language and context of the music have made a
both negative and positive impact in their society.
This interview will be conducted by “Foreign Affairs Magazine”
because they cover stories about international affairs and political issues
worldwide, without taking a stance on the subjects. The interview will neither
be completely formal or completely casual, seeing as Calle 13 does not sing in
formal language but they also have a serious undertone. Because the interview
is in a political magazine, the targeted audience is meant to be an older
audience who is more interested in the message of their music rather than an
audience who just “enjoys” the music. The interview will build on itself by
starting with questions about the music and content specifically and then will
go on to explore the language and overall impact in society.
---
Foreign Affairs Magazine
Calle 13- Latin America’s Most Controversial Artists
Calle 13 (Street 13) was formed by stepbrothers René Pérez Joglar
and Eduardo José Cabra Martínez. Originally from San Juan, Puerto Rico, the two
siblings decided to chase their dreams by traveling around Latin America and
performing. What started off as two siblings rapping about raunchy and vulgar
music evolved into an international phenomenon whose message extends far beyond
the Latin world.
You began your career with raunchy and unfiltered music and then
you shifted to a more politically targeted genre. Why did you have such a
sudden change?
From the beginning, our music has always had a small political
streak in it. Our music did not completely shift but rather the political
stances we had continued to grow. Back when we began our career, our political
positions were not strong. We began going around Latin America and we began
seeing all the problems that people face daily. One of our fans began asking us
to talk about our thoughts on certain topics. Soon enough, it was two fans that
were asking us. Eventually, we had thousands of people that began wanting us to
publically discuss these issues. We began breaking certain barriers and
eventually, we paved our status as a socially mindful band.
Who would you say your target audience is and why? Does your
language affect who your audience is?
Frankly, our target audience is anyone who has ever been oppressed,
denied rights, or unjustly treated. We aim to educate and empower the society
that has been blinded by the higher powers. We try to educate the youth of our
society on how to grow up and understand the world around them and not be
brainwashed by the threats of society. The fact that our language is not
filtered has limited our audience because not every parent wants their child
listening to raunchy music. But this language is necessary to effectively
communicate our message.
‘
Many of your songs refer to society as “brainwashed”, such as in
the song, “Multiviral” where you say, “The one who dictates/ Wants to get you
sick to sell you drugs/ And we take those pills”. How does this change people’s
views of your songs?
That is a very tough subject because many people have a hard time
understanding what is around them and seeing the truth. Because we are very
blunt about certain topics, society is a bit taken back when they see that we
are directly stating that they are brainwashed. At the end of the day, there
are two types of people. The people that shut their computer and never listen
to us again, and the people that open their eyes and understand what we are
saying.
Why do you think your music makes a large portion of Latin America
uncomfortable? One of your most famous songs repeats the line, “Let’s behave
badly”. Don’t you believe this could have a negative impact on society?
Many will say that our music is “rude and disrespectful” and that
it is not something that they will allow their children to listen to. It is
obvious that people have developed deep hatred and disgust for us. The matter
of the fact is that the reason that many people have hatred towards our music
is because we have exposed the ugly truth of societies such as Puerto Rico. We
uncover things that the people of Puerto Rico certainly would not want the rest
of the world to know. In a society like Puerto Rico where people discuss the
issues of corruption, the high unemployment rate, or the poor and dirty
neighborhoods over a cup of tea, we bring these issues to light. We are hated
not because we are raunchy or wrong, we are hated because we are right.
How do you think the actual language of your songs and your choice
of words have an impact on the theme and the message of your music? Do you
think your language can negatively impact your message?
It is clear that we use vulgar and angry words to express our messages.
We break many sexual, political, and social barriers and we do not do so with
formal wording. That would never get our message across. We use Puerto Rico’s
street lingo in order for people to listen and understand something they would
not otherwise. Because we use curse words and slang, we are able to reach a
wider audience and include everyone from the lowest class to the richest. No
one would listen to us talk about police brutality if it were worded in a way
that is meant for students in school to read. It is not unusual that our
language has turned away a large amount of people. If we lose some people
because of the use of our language, we also gain an entire new audience because
of it. We use such vulgar and angry sounding words because we are angry. We
have learned that it is not only the content that is vital to delivering our
message, it is also the language.
What impact would you like your music to have in the long run?
That’s a very simple question. We want our music to empower and
educate. We want to empower the people who feel like they do not have a say in
society and who feel like they are constantly targeted by higher powers. We
want to show them that we are all Latin America and Latin America sticks
together. We want to educate the youth of our society to grow up and not hide
and do something about the problems. Although we are just standing on stage and
singing, we believe our music can have a lasting influence. We do not only
speak about our political stances, we are the voice for millions of people who
are too afraid to voice their opinions.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Works
Cited
"Calle 13's René "Residente" Pérez on
Revolutionary Music." Interview. Democracy
Now. Democracy Now, 15 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
Garsd, Jasmine. "Calle 13, On Being Loved And
Hated In Latin America." NPR.
NPR, 5 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
Llorente,
Elizabeth. "The Accidental
Activist: Calle 13's Residente Says His Fiery Politics Are Just 'Social
Causes'" Fox News Latino. FOX
News Network, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
I got my first phone when I was 10 years old. It had about four numbers on them: my mom, my dad, my home, and 911. Yet the one thing that I was excited about was that I could finally start texting like all of my friends have been doing for the last year or so. I must admit that when I started texting, I texted like I had no idea about any basic grammar rules. I used abbreviations and no punctuation constantly. Did it make me seem cool at the time? Yes. Do I still use it now? No. I constantly hear that "texting makes you dumb" or it is an "international phenomenon that has deteriorated the youth mind". I like to think I'm not so dumb now. I don't use "luv" instead of "love" or "u" instead of "you" in school. It might shock some adults that, yes, I know how to properly spell. If you read my texts from about 5th to 9th grade, you would probably think that I had zero knowledge about basic English and that me using that language made me dumb. I understand how nauseating it is to hear adults constantly bashing on the fact that teenagers are texting too much and hurting their minds. It is a relief to hear people like David Crystal and John McWhorter have some faith in the youth today. They both have very strong positions on why texting and technology does not have a negative impact on society today, yet they both do so with different arguments.
David Crystal argues that texting and technology actually improves writing and spelling. He believes that "textspeak" is actually language evolving positively. He believes that the whole point of the style is to "suit a particular technology where space is at a premium". It is not like people use textspeak as a reason of laziness or low vocabulary, it is only because they have adapted the language to fit their specific needs. Crystal has developed several arguments of why textspeak is not negative. Firstly, there are not as many abbreviations in texts as people think. It is not every word that is spelled differently and abbreviated. Secondly, kids did not make up these abbreviations, thus they cannot be blamed for using lower vocabulary. It is not a modern invention. Lastly, he claims that the more you text, the higher your literacy scores. just because someone uses text language constantly, does not mean they don't know the proper spelling. His main point is: children are not as dumb as you may think.
John McWhorter also believes that technology has a had a positive impact on society, but in a different light. He states that just as in formal speech where we can speak what we write, we also write as we speak. For example, if I were to write a speech for English class, I would use formal language. But when we speak to other people, we speak casually. So in that way, we write casually when texting. It is not so much that texting and technology abuses language, it is just that we are simply writing what we are thinking in our head. His second point addresses the fact that people think that technology lessens people academic abilities. He argues with that statement by stating that people have always had problems with spelling and punctuation and teachers have always been complaining about it, even before texting was developed. So texting has not "made peoples vocabulary and grammar skills less", because that has always existed, even dating back to 63 B.C.
Both McWhorter and Crystal make compelling arguments on this issue and we can see both differences and similarities. The first similarity is that textspeak does not affect academic abilities because youth today did not invent textspeak and complaints about poor language has existed long before technology arised. This completely cancels out the popular argument that "technology makes you dumb". Another similarity is that children as not as dumb and uneducated as many people think. It is common to use common language for all age and that people that use a lot of technology can differentiate between academic and casual language. A difference that these two have is that McWhorter does not mention anything about how technology is evolving language positively. Although he does touch up on how some words have changed meaning, Crystal is mostly the one that shows that language is constantly evolving through technology. Another difference is that Crystal backs a lot of his theories on statistics and studies that he has conducted. McWhorter mostly backs his ideas up with a social context rather than numbers and statistics. Overall, as a student who has grown up in the era where texting and technology have exploded, I have heard arguments about this topic so many times. I have read so many articles on how adults think we text and speak. Believe it or not, I do not talk like that and neither do any of my friends. I don't believe that textspeak has negatively influenced my academic skills. It is truly refreshing to hear people like McWhorter and Crystal share such compelling arguments on this topic.
“5
things white people need to learn about cultural appropriation”
Amirah
Abualeez
October
6, 2014
Dear
Editor,
I would like to start off with stating that although there are some
points in your article that I agree with, I have found some issues that have
raised several questions. It is no doubt that culture appropriation becomes a
problem especially when the culture being appropriated is a minority. I agree
with the fact “Cultural appropriation is not okay. In fact, it comes with
strains of prejudice and, within a larger system of colonial whiteness, racism.”
With that being said, that very sentence has a problem of its own. You have
specifically targeted the white population and have stated that cultural
appropriation roots from white prejudice. When in reality, all cultures are
equally guilty of appropriating other cultures. To add on to that, you have
specifically based your article off of the media and show business industry,
targeting stars such as “Katy Perry”. You then continue to list five things that
these stars should follow in order to “appreciate culture rather than
appropriate it”. I believe that although your article had a good message behind
it, it was poorly executed and showed hints of racism and ignorance on the
authors side.
To start off, you begin your article by stating, “If you’re Katy
Perry, for example, you believe it’s A-OK to don corn rows and gel down your
baby hair, put on some long fingernails and so-called sassy mannerisms with a ‘blaccent’
and slang to portray how you believe certain black women behave and speak.”
Firstly, I did not hear the so called “blaccent” that Katy Perry attempted. I
also don’t believe that Katy Perry incorporating watermelon in her music video
is a racist appropriation of black culture. Katy Perry likes watermelon. I like
watermelon. It is small comments like these that make it seem like you did not
know what you were writing about and instead you were targeting these acts “just
for fun”. Cultural appropriation is a serious topic but you have twisted it
into something that is silly and that people will not take seriously. The music
and media industry is a large industry and artists do not portray other
cultures in a racist persona. They portray other cultures in order to reach a
wider variety of audience. Iggy Azalea does not change her Australian accent
for interviews because she is racist. She changes her accent because that is
what the business requires. Please do your research next time and open your
mind to other ideas and points of views before stating yours publically.
In conclusion, I have found both good and bad things in your
article. I do agree with the fact that in order for artists and other cultures
to be able to “appreciate instead of appropriate other cultures”, one must have
solid knowledge on that culture through research and personal experience so
their acts cannot be misconstrued as racist or disrespectful. With that being
said, I also believe that you need to do your research too. Just because a
culture or an individual may seem like they are appropriating a different
culture, does not mean that they don’t appreciate or respect that culture. Culture
appropriation becomes an issue when there is racism, disrespect, and prejudice
involved. I believe your article has some good intentions behind it, but it
needs to be better executed.
Thank you,
Amirah Abualeez
Raha
International School References: Clifton, Derrick. "5 Things White People Need to Learn about Cultural Appropriation." The Daily Dot. N.p., 5 Aug. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.
Calle 13- Latin America’s Most Controversial Artists
Calle 13 (Street 13) was formed by stepbrothers René Pérez Joglar
and Eduardo José Cabra Martínez. Originally from San Juan, Puerto Rico, the two
siblings decided to chase their dreams by traveling around Latin America and
performing. What started off as two siblings rapping about raunchy and vulgar music
evolved into an international phenomenon whose message extends far beyond the
Latin world. Today, their music is considered either empowering or outright demeaning.
Give us a little background on yourselves.
We began our career in the early 2000’s but we did not gain notoriety
until we released our song “Querido F.B.I” in 2008 as that generated both
controversy and popularity. Clearly, we are strong supporters of the Puerto
Rican independence movement. Because we show that stance clearly in our music,
we have been called the “Most hated and most loved musical group in Latin
America”. We have won ten Latin Grammy Awards and two Grammy Awards.
You began your career with raunchy and unfiltered music and then
you shifted to a more politically targeted genre. Why did you have such a
sudden change?
From the beginning, our music has always had a small political streak
in it. Our music did not completely shift but rather the political stances we
had continued to grow in our music. Back when we began our career, our
political positions were not strong and we did not think about them much. We
began going around Latin America and we began seeing all the problems that people
face daily. One of our fans began asking us to talk about our thoughts on
certain topics. Soon enough, it was two fans that were asking us. Eventually, we
had thousands of people that began wanting us to publically discuss these
issues. We began breaking certain barriers and eventually, we paved our status
as a socially mindful band.
Who would you say your target audience is and why?
We are not going to sit here and discuss how our target audience is
“aged 16-25” middle class society. Rather, our target audience is anyone who
has ever been oppressed, denied rights, or unjustly treated. We aim to educate
and empower the society that has been blinded by the higher powers. We aim to
educate the youth of our society about how to grow up and understand the world around
them and not be brainwashed by the threats of society.
Why do you think your music makes a large portion of Latin America
uncomfortable?
Many will say that our music is “rude and disrespectful” and that
it is not something that they will allow their children to listen to. We get a
lot of negative criticism and even death threats. It is obvious that people
have developed deep hatred and disgust for us. The matter of the fact is that
the reason that many people have hatred towards our music is because we have
exposed the ugly truth of societies such as Puerto Rico. We uncover things that
the people of Puerto Rico certainly would not want the rest of the world to
know. We say the truth about tyrants and oppressors who have brainwashed their
society in not speaking out. In a society like Puerto Rico where people discuss
the issues of corruption, the high unemployment rate, or the poor and dirty
neighborhoods over a cup of tea, we bring these issues to light. We are so
hated not because we are raunchy or wrong, we are hated because we are right.
How do you think the actual language of your songs and your choice
of words have an impact on the theme and the message of your music?
It is clear that we use vulgar and angry words to express our
messages. We break many sexual, political, and social barriers and we do not do
so with formal wording. That would never get our message across. We use Puerto
Rico’s street lingo in order for people to listen and understand something they
would not otherwise. Because we use curse words and slang, we are able to reach
a wider audience and include everyone from the lowest class to the richest. No
one would listen to us talk about police brutality if it were worded in a way
that is meant for students in school to read. We use such vulgar and angry
sounding words because we are angry. We are angry about the oppression and the
corruption. We have learned that it is not only the content that is vital to
delivering our message, it is also the language.
What impact would you like your music to have?
That’s a very simple question. We want our music to empower and
educate. We want to empower the people who feel like they do not have a say in
society and who feel like they are constantly targeted by higher powers. We
want to show them that we are all Latin America and Latin America sticks
together. We want to educate the youth of our society to grow up and not hide
and do something about the issues in society. Although we are just standing on
stage and singing, we believe our music can have a lasting influence.
Finally, what
successes or accomplishments has your music earned you?
As stated
before, we have won 10 Latin Grammy Awards and two Grammy Awards. We are
joining forces with UNICEF to raise awareness about violence in Latin America.
We just released our new song, “La Bala” (The Bullet) in order to speak up
about rising violence. The most
important thing for us is that we are the voice of Latin America’s oppressed.
We do not speak about our political positions, we are simple the face of millions
of people who do not have a voice. That would have to be our greatest
accomplishment.
Here is a part of one of Calle 13’s songs, "Vamos a Portarnos Mal" (Let's Behave Badly) translated in English.
Suban el
telón, abran las cortinas,
enciendan
las turbinas con nitroglicerina.
El desorden
es tu penicilina
brincando
curas los dolores sin aspirina.
Vamos a
provocar un cortocircuito,
antes de que
en el 2012 caiga un meteorito.
A portarnos
mal, a cometer delitos,
a comernos a
Caperucita con los tres cerditos.
Esto no se
trata de rebeldía,
esto se
trata de ser indisciplinado por un día.
Los
incomprendidos del nuevo testamento,
tenemos
nuestras reglas, nuestro propio mandamiento.
Como no
comprenden nuestro comportamiento,
a todos los
psicólogos les damos tratamiento.
Pa' romper
con la rutina repetitiva,
que el sol
salga de noche y que llueva para arriba.
Nos quieren
controlar, como a control remoto,
pero la
autoridad, no puede con nosotros.
Nos gusta el
desorden
rompemos con
las reglas
somos
indisciplinados
todos los
malcriados...
vamo' a
portarnos mal,
vamo' a
portarnos mal,
vamo' a portarnos
mal.
English
Raise the curtain, open the curtains,
Light the turbines with nitroglycerin.
The disorder is your penicillin.
Jumping cures your pains without aspirin.
Let's cause a short circuit
Before a meteor falls in 2012
We'll misbehave, commit crimes,
We'll eat Little Red Riding Hood with the three little pigs.
Many people
today grow up with several cultures and languages in their home. More than half
of the world’s population is bilingual (Grosjean). About 20.8% of the American population
speaks a different language than English in their homes (Badger). The
percentage of people who “don’t speak English very well” is constantly growing
in the United States. Yet these people hold everyday jobs and are able to live
in a country where the language is foreign to them, possibly facing
discrimination as a result. In “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan, Tan discusses the
issue of people associating “broken” English with low intelligence.
Growing up with
her mother who didn't speak English fluently, Tan has been able to see how her mother’s
language skills have had certain limitations in life such as low respect from
others. For example, the doctors did not take Tan’s mother seriously as a
result of the fact that she did not speak “proper English” (Tan, 78). Because
the doctors heard her limited English, they thought they would be able to brush
her off without any consequences, probably because they believed that she couldn't comprehend the situation. Tan goes on to explain that her, “mothers
expressive command of English belies how much she actually understands. She
reads the Forbes report, listens to Wall Street Week, converses daily with her
stockbroker…” (Tan 77). This clearly shows in the text that Tan’s mothers
limited English does not actually reflect her level of intelligence – a misconception
made by many people. Some people may hear that someone does not speak their
language fluently, thus believing that they are not capable of any intelligent
or complex thoughts. This could result in the manifestation of discrimination
and racism, consequently leaving an ill-informed society behind.
My particular opinions
on this topic root from personal experiences. When I was younger, I remember
limiting my own English when talking to people who actually have limited English.
I had a certain belief that they would not understand what I was saying if I
spoke fluently. Although I may not have admitted it then, I now see that the
thoughts actually going on in my head were that the person had a lower intelligence than I did. And then I moved to the United States, with my dad who speaks no
English whatsoever. My father is a man with a high ego and believes that what
people think is significant to shaping who you are as a person. My father used
to make me or my mother speak on the phone on behalf of him because he didn't want
people to hear his limited English, and judge him based on that. There were
events where cashiers or bank accountants would purposefully avoid big words or
complex ideas when communicating with him. It was apparent that my dad’s accent
and broken English gave them a perception that his intellect was as limited as
his language skills. Because this went on for a long time, my mindset about this issue
quickly evolved. I got into the habit of seeing everyone with “limited English” just as intelligent as my father, who I believe is very intelligent. I began
to understand that comparing someone’s aptitude with their language skills is
ignorant, but also basic human nature. It is an issue that goes on today in every
country. Believing that someone is lesser than you can promote all sorts of judgment
and discrimination. It is vital to remember
that people come with all sorts of thoughts and ideas, in all sorts of
languages. I've come to learn that even if someone cannot communicate their
thoughts with my language, it doesn't mean that they do not think these
thoughts at all. When speaking with someone who doesn't have wide language
abilities, remember that even these people have had all sorts of life
experiences, and successes, and failures, and anything else that can be
significant in any language or culture.
References:
Badger, Emily.
"Where 60 Million People in the U.S. Don't Speak English at Home."
CityLab. Edgecast Networks, 6 Aug. 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2014.
Grosjean,
Francois. "Bilingualism's Best Kept Secret." Psychology Today.
Harvard University Press, 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Sept. 2014.
Tan, Amy. “Mother
Tongue”. Originally published as “Under Western Eyes” in The Threepenny
Review, 1990, pp. 315-320. Reprinted by permission.
In order to fully be able to explain myself and the
situations I have been in, it’s necessary to have full background disclosure. I
love swimming, baking, yoga, and anything that fills my empty time. I was born
in Jordan and I lived there until I was 7. I then moved to the United States in
order for my parents to further their education. Education is something that
has powered my family through everything. Many of the decisions that my parents
have made have been for the sake of my education and I feel like that is the
one thing that will help me achieve what I want. I’ve gone to the best schools
and I’ve traveled and seen parts of the world that I would have never imagined.
I love traveling and I believe that being ignorant about the world is something
that I never want to be. With that being said, moving to the United States was
by far one of the most challenging things we have had to do. Although we spoke
English (and I later learned to speak Spanish), we needed time to adjust to the
culture. I remember having to translate for my dad at the store or at school
sometimes. I had to learn how to make friends with people that have grown in a
different situation than I was. Because I was a kid, it was a quick adjustment.
Although I consider my culture and beliefs are more Arab than western, living
in the United States has shaped my mindset and taught me valuable lessons about
history and human rights and the world as a whole. I have seen people from different places of the
world and the poor and the rich and that has helped me shape who I am and what
I believe in. Seeing so many different people shows me what my priorities in
life are, which are my family and my education. Although I don’t believe my
culture has changed from what my parents have taught me, I am grateful that I
got to change my mindset. This summer, I changed countries yet again in order
to come to the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi was a definite shock of culture
because the locals are much more different than any people from the United
States or Jordan. The clothing, food, and habits are far from what I am used
to. It’s been really fascinating to see how different people live and how I
have found ways to adapt. Starting at Raha is such an interesting experience because
I’ve never been surrounded by so many different cultures and people. The only
thing that really bonds everyone together is the fact that we all know how to
speak English, and that’s pretty cool. Many
of the people that I’ve met are bilingual and I get to see how that shapes who
they are. I personally define culture as everything that shapes who you are as
a person. Everyone in this school has found their own little culture and use
that to dictate what they want to do and who they want to be. I am eternally grateful
for being able to see so many different parts of the world and hearing so many
different languages and experiencing so many different cultures because that
shapes who I am and drives me to push for a bright future. I am nowhere near
done with my travels and experiences and I hope that I am only at the beginning
of my adventures.
