MSNBC Cinco De Mayo Segment (Blog 3)

               On May 5, 2014, news channel MSNBC aired a segment on its morning “Way Too Early” that has drew criticism from the Hispanic community. The segment consisted of a news anchor informing the audience on the history of Cinco De Mayo- all while a co-anchor were a sombrero, drank “tequila” straight from a bottle, and acted as if he was intoxicated. The segment immediately drew outrage, with many seeing it as a perpetuation of a Hispanic stereotype. The president of the National Associations of Hispanic Journalist called the bit “abominable.”  MSNBC later apologized for the segment, claiming that the antics of the anchor were meant to mock how Americans perceive and celebrate the Mexican-American holiday, rather than labeling the Hispanic community.

                A few things come to mind when hearing about this story. For one, if the show’s true intentions were to portray the skewed ways that American culture perceives the Hispanic holiday, then why would they not take into account that by doing so, many viewers would not understand that it was a satirical piece? “Way Too Early” is a news program on a major news network. Without the proper framework of context, satire can often be seen as reality. Stephen Colbert’s show “The Colbert Report” would not work as well if it were marketed as an actual news show on an actual news network that didn’t have a host with improv/sketch comedy background. If the segment was indeed a comedic piece, it should be criticized for its hacky premise and poor performances from its usually non-comedic news anchors.

                Another thought that comes in mind is that the apology given by MSNBC was not genuine. One believes that the notion that news show was mocking the way Americans celebrate the holiday is a false cover-up in attempt to not get as much flack for their insensitivity. Major media outlets- particularly in the news department- have a rich history of irresponsibly perpetuating negative stereotypes of minorities. So why should/would viewers believe that such a thoughtless and unoriginal segment would not be just another example of doing so?

                One often speculates that the gatekeepers of media know well in advance whether or not something will be offensive or not. To be in the media industry in 2014, where virtually everyone is being called out as to whether they are being politically correct (including this blog post), one finds it impossible that no one behind the scenes has the moral or social compass to realize that a segment such as the Cinco De Mayo one will be widely be perceived as offensive to at least one major group of people. It goes back to the gatekeepers following through with actions that will receive the most public attention. If “Way Too Early” were to just note Cinco De Mayo with simple segment of the holiday’s history, hardly anybody but those that normally watch the show would be talking about it. But seeing as how they added buffoonery to the segment, it has gained national headlines with over a million views of the clip. One imagines that the show received a spike in ratings upon the next day’s episode.  

Double-Consciousness: Still Relevant? (Blog 4)

             While reading The Souls of Black Folk by W.E B. Du Bois, the thought of double-consciousness resonated with one. The dichotomy of being black and American is a social topic that had always fascinated me, so to see it written out through the experiences and wisdom of Du Bois in such an introspective and scholarly manner further intrigued me. Questions arose in conclusion to the reading: Did any of the writers of the constitution consider African Americans in 1787? Also, is double-consciousness as relevant in a modern society where racism isn’t as publically displayed- or on the contrary, does that make double-consciousness even more relevant?

                In Article IV, section 2 of the constitution, it states: the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Given the time that the constitution was written, slavery was still intact. Many African Americans weren’t regarded as citizens. In fact, it could be interpreted that some of the privileges that citizens shall be entitled to were owning an equal amount of slaves. Slavery is undoubtingly a major contribution to the concept of double-consciousness in African Americans. One would imagine it to be near impossible for a black slave to consider themselves as an American when their “fellow” American citizens scrutinized and oppressed them based off of their origins and race.

                The self-imposed question that fascinated me the most was the relevancy of double-consciousness in modern society. Du Bois writes about the high sense of pride he felt when he was able to outperform his white peers during mental examinations and feats of physicality. This would have taken place circa 1870’s when Du Bois was a child and racism was more publically acceptable. To out preform a fellow white citizen- particularly ones that ostracized him due to his race- gave Du Bois a window to see that he would be capable of achieving great accolades in America.

 In 2014, the lines of race have been blurred. Cities that were once occupied by racial segregations are now host to a melting pot of ethnicities with more ethnic backgrounds on the upper-terriers of the socioeconomic ladder. Does this mean that African Americans are less conscious of the idea of being both black and American? Although racial discrimination is largely frowned upon in today’s world, one would argue that double-consciousness is just as relevant as it was in 1903. Although it is easier to attain equality, there are still racial barriers that are prevalent in both a social and professional sense. Some may say that African Americans should be even more conscious of their race and where they stand as an American given that the racial barricades of society are not as visible as they once were. To dismiss the concept of double-consciousness is to dismiss the concept of affirmative action in work place environments; high arrest rates for the black youth; and media and entertainment coverage of black culture.

One would say that being black and American are not mutually exclusive social standpoints; however, it’s undeniable that being black in today’s (and yesterday’s) world can often give off the feeling of being sub-American.

*It is also important to note that double-consciousness is not exclusive to African Americans. Other ethnicities, such as Hispanics and Native Americans can also face similar struggles while  living in America*                

Racially-Themed Sorority Party

     A sorority at Colombia University is facing criticism after organizing an Olympic-themed party in which members of the organization- Kappa Alpha Theta- represented various racial groups by wearing racially stereotypical costumes. When “representing” Mexico, members of the sorority dawned sombrous, fake mustaches, sets of maracas, and in one case, a bottle of tequila. The party made headlines after pictures of the event were posted on various social media outlets by the partygoers themselves.

     The party held by the Kappa Alpha Theta marks one of many racially-themed parties held by predominantly upper-class Caucasians Greek life organizations on US college campuses. While reading this story, a few questions came to mind: What is the driving motivation behind hosting/attending a party that seemingly has the sole purpose of offending a marginalized group of people? Do the attendees post the pictures online in hopes that it will bring attention to their organization based off of shock value? Also, would these kinds of stories be news worthy headlines had the attendees not been predominantly Caucasian?

     The latter question makes one think of the 2002 comedy film “How High,” in which one of the supporting characters is an Asian exchange student that befriends the two African American protagonists due to his liking for hip-hop music, baggy wardrobe, and usage of Ebonics. The movie was a nation-wide hit, yet many seemed to ignore that an Asian character used stereotypical tropes in order to be accepted into the black culture. The simple reasoning to this could be attributed to lack of political correctness being placed on a comedy- but if so, why isn’t the same logic applied to the Caucasian students in the Kappa Alpha Theta case? How High has been syndicated on cable channels for over 10 years without having to be edited for its racial insensitivity. Kappa Alpha Theta has released photos of their racially-themed parties for less than a week and many are already calling for the sorority to be suspended.

     That’s one side of the argument. On the flip side, many can note that Caucasians generally have had (and arguably still do) an upper hand in the socioeconomic sense. Seeing privileged Caucasian college students at an Ivy League school mock racial groups that face disadvantages in the United States (with an addition to being historically oppressed by Caucasians) can be seen as social insensitivity, rather than humorous.

     As a minority, an incident such as this instinctively irritates me. Not just from a racial standpoint, but also in terms of what people find amusing. There’s been countless of incidents of racially-themed parties that were intended to be funny. At this point, for me at least, it’s less offensive and more just incidents of hacky humor. Perhaps certain critics (including myself) would be less inclined to condemn these types of parties if the means of portraying a group of people aren’t the exact same lackluster renditions of played-out stereotypes that have been seen/done in incalculable amount of times. Then again, if the party goers had the comedic wits to think outside of the racial box, they probably wouldn’t be attending these parties to begin with.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/columbia-sorority-party-offensive-olympics_n_4847827.html?utm_hp_ref=college

The Westboro Baptist Church and The First Amendment

                The first amendment of the United States constitution protects one’s rights to peacefully assemble and freedom of speech.  With that, US citizens have the right to take vocal stances for or against issues- ranging from the mundane to controversial- via public avenues. The first amendment is one the founding staples of the United States, many citing it as one of the most significant asset to living in the United States.    

                The Westboro Baptist Church is an organization that opposes any form- whether it be another organization, music, military etc. - that “tolerates” or promotes homosexuality. The WBC are known (and heavily critiqued) for their relatively radical tactics taken in spreading the organizations message. Such tactics include protesting funerals of US soldiers with signs that contain eye-grabbing messages such as “God hates fags,” “America is going to hell,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The name of the organization’s website is GodHatesFags.com.

                In 2011, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church after the organization protested Snyder’s son’s funeral. His son- Matthew Snyder- was a member of the US marines.  Albert Snyder sued the WBC on claims that they inflicted emotional distress. Although court officials sympathized with Snyder, the lawsuit resulted in a 8-1 ruling for the WBC; over the protection for the organizations right to freedom of speech. Being as how the Westboro Baptist Church protested within a 1,000 feet from the actual funeral and did not cause any physical harm to the mourners, the court deemed their demonstration as a peaceful assembly protected by the first amendment.  Although Matthew Snyder was not a homosexual, the WBC believes that God is punishing America in killing US soldiers for the country’s progressing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals.

                Although the first amendment gives people the right to freedom of speech, there are (often blurred) boundaries. For example, if what’s being said is unequivocally a false statement, it can fall under slander. In terms of intellectual property, one can copyright infringement can have an effect on whether not someone’s freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, many have argued that public protest that contains anti-gay signs can fall under a hate crime. Some would even say that the demonstrations can be considered as “fighting words.” Although one does not necessarily agree with either of those claims, it is clear that these protests are meant to provoke shock and are aimed to spread intolerance.

                When I read stories such as this, it makes me question whether or not alternations should be made towards the constitution. On one side, the amount of emotional/psychological damages that the actions of the WBC leave on families of the victims- along with society as a whole- are repulsive and having stronger regulations on what they can and can’t do can be beneficial in promoting tolerance. That said, one recognizes that doing so would breach their freedom of speech. As tasteless as their message may be, taking away their rights would be almost as unethical as their organization. Would tweaking the constitution result in making modern society a better place or would it mean that arbitrary rules being set for particularity group of people (aka, discrimination)?