2) Social Significance of Cultural Imagery
The mass media contribute to the “latent factors that have a subtle yet profound influence on the construction of social policy” regarding Af-Am women in the U.S.
The stereotypical mammy is easily identifiable in the mush of our conceptions. She’s fat, black, humming tunes, hair in a do-rag, caring, aggressive, caretaker, good advice, attitude, cooking in kitchen or making beds. Therefore, low wages and domestic jobs were seen as acceptable for Af Am women. We felt they were unable to perform at other jobs, and that they loved working for families, and not having one of their own. (Gone with the wind) In evolving into the American standard, they didn’t look the same. They looked whiter. Light skin, long hair, thin. My stereotypes have been formed by these media standards. It always seemed to me that the way Gone w/ the wind mammy was portrayed, that she loved her job. And I have always seen pretty blacks more acceptable than ugly blacks. Vanessa Williams appeals to me more than Hattie McDaniels.
Author’s thesis – there are individuals in the U.S. who have a monopoly on societal resources, and included in the resources and systems over which they have control are the mass media. This is becoming less and less so w/ Af Ams, more and more so with other minorities. Now there are quotas and affirmative action that give more resources to a more demographically representative range of people.
Mass media have portrayed the materially privileged more favorably, while those with access to and in possession of, meager resources experience relative devaluation based on images projected by the mass media. (19). This corresponds to America’s culture of success and making money. And the widely held belief that the disadvantaged are in their situation due to their own fault. “Cultural images related to social class reflect the presumed values, beliefs, and behaviors of individuals who occupy diverse strata. While there are those who question the appropriateness of assessing the value of these images, there is consensus among members of society that certain images are more positive than others.” (p. 28). I couldn’t agree more. It isn’t fair to assess the values and beliefs of one group and only present them to society in the way that you’ve interpreted. You should let that group do it for themselves. Establish and present their own identity.
Social significance: ways of thinking about people that result in us taking social, political action against these people. EX: We did this during 9-11 (quick to tighten security against those who looked afghani) Yes, tell story of Eddie Zayas-Bazan at airport. He’s Cuban, nothing else. It doesn’t matter what he is, we still stereotyped.
We perpetuated the image of welfare queens. It ends up that welfare isn’t even where the biggest chunk of our money is spent. (lazy women of color ripping of society) (p.27). I used to think this until you made the statement that not much money was spent on welfare. I read a book about a fence and his mother who was addicted to heroine, on welfare, had to get heroine injections at the methadone clinic.
People in the real world become defined by these images.
Look at the Colored Museum by Richard Wright.
The Cosby Show – pg. 30 – blacks shown more like standard European Americans in a middle/upper class lifestyle. Pg. 32 – Claire is a lawyer but is rarely seen that way- usually shows her as the mother. One of the only shows I liked about blacks. It made me angry to realize that I probably only liked it cuz they were upper class.
The looking-glass self – seeing oneself as viewed by others pg. 33. Totally agree. There are four ways of self-concept: how u really are, how others see you, how you want to be, and how you think you actually are.

3) Seiter
Beware of the stereotypes of “socially powerful groups.” – I think maybe she says beware because they are not always true, although they are based on a kernel of truth. Like the hero – depicted as tall, strong, broadshouldered, hot. That is a false image. They were really dirty, chewed tobacco, scraggly, straw-chewin’, teeth missing, short. There may have been one sort-of handsome one. This also pertains to Columbus’ depiction of Native Americans. He basically had a bunch of descriptions for all Indians that he encountered, so as a result we applied it to a single Indian, or all Indians. Ex: feathers, leather skin, tom-tom, wigwam, teepee, cannibalistic, drug-using, long, black braided hair, furs, yelling, chanting, skin loin-cloths. I think only one type of Native American actually lived in a teepee. To be honest, I can’t even differentiate between the stereotype of the upper-class and the European male. Both are white, middle-aged males, in a suit, with a family, they are aggressive, positive, hard-working, presidents of companies, politicians, powerful, and educated.
The dangers: stereotypes are used when a word is a false description, or just implies something false w/o further clarification, out of sheer laziness. For the most part, we don’t know if these generalizations are true or false (pg. 5). People just accept these stereotypes, and don’t ever experience the actual person, society, or subject on their own. They take what perhaps, one other person has said about a person, place, thing, or idea, and believe it to be true. Like all old people are slow, senile, old-fashioned, crazy, incapable of learning. I’ve never really hung out with old people, b/c I never had grandparents, but I truly believed these things were true of all older persons. I placed this image on all elderly in my mind. The older people I have met have all been completely different. One was extremely friendly, one was a soccer coach, one was insane, one wrote poetry, one complained about her aches and pains all the time, one swam faster and longer than me. All very different, and only a few followed the lines of the stereotype I had prior to meeting them. On page 6- tv. Is dominated by white males. This may give the overall impression that white males really do dominate society. The scarier part is that whoever controls the media controls the wealth and the resources. That would be white males. That would also mean that they control and dominate society. Aggression of men towards women – This is shown all the time in the media. Not only do we put major focus on this in our newspapers, magazines, and books, telling stories of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, but we also put it on t.v. all the time. An example of this would be the Mexican Bandido of pulp fiction. You can recognize him even by his name – he’s villainous, dirty, greasy, rapist, thieve, knives, unshaven. And the Ranchero. Because he was a lot hotter, we let him get away with practically raping women who would just fall in the end. This false, unacceptable reality probably came from its one kernel of truth: Mexican/Latino machismo. This makes people more comfortable watching it, more likely to accept it as the truth and as reality, and allow it to happen more frequently in real life. Men are portrayed as aggressive, strong, powerful, head of household. They feel they must act this way as a result. It has evolved as the male standard. Men must feel macho. Women, on the other hand, are portrayed as weak, dependent, meaningless, evaluated by looks, beautiful, great bodies, sexual, described in terms of personal relationships with men. Therefore, women are continually treated this way, based on this, as if it is okay. When Erskine Bowles called Elizabeth Dole, Mrs. Dole, she got pissed. She didn’t want to be labeled as the wife of Bob Dole. Good for her. Anyway, since t.v. and media are dominated by these images, society see them as truthful and acceptable. Female standard, standard of beauty. Women feel they must be petite, beautiful, dainty, perfect. The new reality shows that are coming out are Are You Hot? And America’s Next Top Model. Yeah, that sets a great standard.

4) Gillespie – Regulators of media have the ability to censor and outlaw violence and violating content, and they may be frustrated doing so. Are they frustrated doing so? Why do I agree or disagree with that? How does this argument stand up to Jewell’s argument in #2?
Gillespie basically says that politicians are the ones who argue about what we should or shouldn’t be watching. That they preach that t.v. should be the equivalent to Sunday School. Well, that wouldn’t be right either b/c not everyone is religious.
Actors and producers in the industry turn the argument around so that the government should be in charge of regulating what gets media attention and what is allowed to be viewed by society. “best dealt with by broadcasters and bureaucrats” (pg. 2). In saying this, I don’t believe he realizes what that would do to his career as the actor. It also says he doesn’t give a shit about what we see, interpret, and conceptualize. He just wants his money. Actors have the choice on what kind of storyline they act with. It’s not like they are forced to act in a film with blood and guts, or sex w/o attachment.
We as viewers are assumed to be passive when receiving messages that are popular in our society. If these messages are a part of popular culture, then wouldn’t u say viewers made it that way? If we didn’t like it, or didn’t see it as acceptable or true, we wouldn’t watch it and it wouldn’t be on the air. I think, overall, we as viewers decide what stays on the air. This would be based on Nielsen ratings.
But let’s assume we are passive. They say the government or the producers should interfere with what we watch, since we are unable to make the decision on our own. It would probably work something like this. Government would set the standards for moral, ethical, etc. plots for media. There would be some sort of framework set aside for producers and directors. Directors would have to abide by it and it would suck. That would be stifling their creativity. In our country, media is our biggest money-maker in our economy. It is also our biggest export to other countries. I don’t think it would be good for our economy—if the gov. would feel better thinking about it that way.
Pop culture regulators assume that if immoral concepts are presented within a “moral” framework, viewer will absorb that and act accordingly (pg. 2). Either way, viewers do not absorb things the way that creators expect. No two people will gain the same opinion or idea about a program. “The most relevant interpretive context is not the producer’s but the consumers” (pg. 3).
I think that a huge part of the frustration regulators would experience would come from the battle b/t providing entertainment that people want and holding back what people supposedly shouldn’t get to see. I think that stereotypes should be avoided at all costs mainly b/c they promote untruthful ideas that people easily accept. Violence and sex are things that can be more easily regulated. You can pay for ways to block bad content from your screen. You can understand the rating system that has been created. You can simply choose to not watch something. Many would probably say that the same could be done to avoid watching stereotypes, but it really isn’t that easy. Take the Disney classic Pochohantas. I doubt any parent would consider this a program to fear and to prevent their children from watching it. But in reality, it prevents a story that spreads a false reality of how Native Americans felt about white America. It is an easily believed storyline.
Another argument might lay in the fact that almost all media is labeled as fiction, a story, that people are not asked to believe. They are asked to be captivated for the 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or two hours that the program lasts. That is all that is required. The problem exists when a story becomes a template, told over and over, a little bit different each time, but continues in time to stick in peoples’ minds and seem like the truth. Some clichés and stereotypes become so popular that newspapers use them and books, and magazines.
According to Jewell’s way of thinking, those in charge create current stereotypes and cultural and societal beliefs. If we were to put politicians or directors in charge of what was delivered to society by way of media, society would only see what those in charge wanted us to see. Those in charge are usually white, educated, upper-class males. They definitely aren’t minorities, including women. My sister is currently working her way in L.A. as a producer. She really wants to be a director. There are no available jobs as female directors. VIP in L.A. hire an inexperienced white male gladly before a female, minority or not. So, “the ability of those in power to maintain their power advantage by gaining the masses acceptance of why society is stratified” (pg. 25 Jewell). If the majority dominated and chose what we watched, then our perceptions of the nation would be even more false and less diversified.

5) Seiter – What is the concept of a genre? A class of artistic endeavor having a characteristic form or technique. A certain style of self-expression that takes on a recognizable form. When I think of a genre I think of comedy, westerns, drama, non-fiction, fiction, science-fiction, romance, children’s, cartoons, comics, documentary, pornography, mystery, fantasy, reality tv, news, informative, etc.
In order to critique films, tv shows and fiction, some sort of base is necessary. It would be impossible to compare such an extensive, vast sea of works w/o a way in which to categorize. There are no similarities b/t an independent foreign film and a musical comedy. When you compare two foreign films, you can critique w/ the previous knowledge that they will be in a foreign language, or their context will focus on a different culture. If you were to compare a comedy and a drama, which belong to two different genres, your critique of them would be off because you’d probably say, “well, the first one really lacked a serious plot.” That would be giving the drama an unfair advantage. With books, one might read a non-fiction bibliography and then a comic book. They would conclude that the bibliography was a lot more factual and not very colorful. There needs to be a common basis for comparison. Actors/characters, script or screenplay, quality of acting, tone of acting, dress/costume, music, lighting, set, setting, movement, quality of production, mood and interpretation all depend on the genre of the work.
I guess, in Seiter’s opinion, classifying works of art is just like classifying peoples into types. Out of laziness we long for an easier description. It takes out uniqueness, individuality, and may even be defined in disagreement w/ its creator.
Also, certain types of characters/actors are constantly defined by such genres. These stereotypical characters are continually given roles as such. For example, Richard Gere is always seen as the tall, handsome, upper-class white male. He’s educated, wealthy, desirable, good-looking, and a kind-hearted person. Al Pacino is another perfect example. He’s always the God-father type. He’s somewhat evil, conniving, mysterious, respectable in a harsh way, intimidating, serious, and frightening.
Also, since writing usually follows these genres, the characters within them usually follow the same cookie-cutter image. According to Seiter, real characters involve “particularity, interest, autonomy, roundness, development, interiority, motivation, discrete identity, and consistency (pg. 8). The characters portrayed in fiction are predominately one-dimensional, undeveloped, and not true-to-life. Siskel and Ebert, famous t.v. critics, use the term sterotype to describe films they dislike. On a positive note, it is possible to achieve realism and durability when uniqueness and individuality are added to a stereotype. I guess if you can disguise a stereotype enough w/ character, it can come to life.

6) Elias Boudinot as an example of “double consciousness”? After blacks rise to personal achievement or leadership, they then feel like they’re always criticized for bearing their race. It all happens at the same time. Blacks just want to be themselves, but constantly feel the pressure to conform to the white standard and prove themselves to the dominant sector. Blacks are born w/ a veil, a second-sight in a world where he gains no true self-consciousness. “This sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. (pg.2)” an American, a Negro. Two warring ideals in one dark body.
“Some even believed that Boudinot was only a front for a white man who was the true editor of the Phoenix” (Trahant 7). Boudinot even stated numerous times that the intentions of the paper never included being influenced by White man or Missionaries. But the reality was that missionaries were responsible for teaching Native Americans English. So while Boudinot denied his connections to the White man, he also allowed himself and his tribe to learn the language of White man and to use newspapers as a medium just like the White man. It also must have been in disagreement to remain living the Cherokee way of life versus learning the laws of the White Man, and knowing that the only way to survive in the U.S. was to live by such laws and become civilized, as defined by the White Man. “I claim nothing but what I have a right to claim as a man—I complain of nothing of which a privileged white editor would not complain” (Trahant 8).
It seems to me that there is a double-consciousness in living two lives—one as a Cherokee Indian and the other as a U.S. citizen in the state of Georgia. It may have been hard for whites to understand that the Cherokees not only wanted to keep their rights to their culture, history, heritage, and bloodline, but they also wanted access to the same exact rights as whites (what was not of their culture).
Then Boudinot resigned as editor. He couldn’t handle putting himself in charge of dealing with the paper, which belonged to the nation. Although he realized freedom of the press, he and his chief knew that the paper was truly on free “until its writings infringed on the feeling s of the people or those of the leadership” (Trahant 10). He joined the political opposition, to provide relief for the tribe, known as the Treaty party. The Treaty Party left for Oklahoma. They had committed treason for agreeing to removal. Ross’s supporters became the Ross Party who agreed w/ public authorities and their capacity to abide by the will of the people. Almost 4 years after the Boudinots left Georgia, Boudinot was murdered one night by a group of Cherokees.
Riley’s article points out the hierarchy of race. Once one group feels that it gains a little power, the group will begin to make a less powerful group feel just as inferior as they had previously. By discriminating against them and making laws that are prejudiced Boudinot’s Cherokees used their power to their advantage.
Boudinot and others believed in slavery (Riley 2). They believed that the ability to own Negroes was a duty held by all citizens. That in itself coincides with the idea of a hierarchy of race. As long a whites are on top and blacks are at the bottom, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans can fall anywhere in between.
Cherokee laws included those regulating slave contracts, spirituous liquors, intermarriage b/t slaves and Indians, and slaves ownership of animals. Black-speak was even used within the pages of the Phoenix (Riley 2).
A sort of funny trend I’ve noticed is that whatever racial group is in charge continually talks about other, less dominant racial groups in their media. For example, white America is very comfortable with printing articles on Hispanics or African Americans, etc. I think the tendency is to focus on other groups once in a while, so as to present one’s own group as not so dominant, when in reality they are. A type of prejudice is shown when you describe an outstanding black that has risen to the top, like it was an extraordinary feat that defines him as more than human. That goes to say that normal blacks are incapable of such accomplishments, and we should praise those who are. The Phoenix also follows the same trend. The particular group of Cherokees that were writing “to serve its community by printing discourse” (Trahant 12) were at the time, dominant to other racial groups. Thus, they felt maybe that they owed it to the blacks to write about them. The Phoenix “delivered many a gentle protest against slavery and ran at least some copy that showed blacks in a favorable light” (Riley 2). A later piece introduced an extraordinary slave and poet. I just seem to recognize a trend. It is prejudice when you write stories in that context. It is the same as praising a blind man for being able to run a mile, based solely on the fact that he is blind.
The Phoenix also presented the Creeks as drunkards and the Chippewas as alcoholics, the Oneidas as rude, the Winnebagos as naked dancers, and hoped for an improvement in the Wyandots, Mississaughs, and the Mohawks, w/ missionary help. (2).