December 2nd, 2011

Who is allowed to wear what? That is the question! 

Fashion is an interesting conversation in America. The globalization of the world, defiantly encourages the appropriation of different fashions from around the world. Cultural Appropriation does not discriminate against the fashion industry. However, is it exploitation when we adapt certain cultural artifacts and then “americanize” them in way. For example, in the reblogged picture featuring Tyra Banks, there is defiantly evidence of converting patterns and colors from African culture into more American styles. The picture shows a sexified version of a traditional idea from a different culture. Is that ok for peope to do? Is it within our right to use other cultures as “inspiration”?

At the same time, I wonder why the idea of cultural exploitation does not go both ways. However, in other countries, who have adapted “American” clothing such as jeans and T-shirts, they are not looked at as exploiting a culture. Actually, some people still would view them as the exploited culture and claim that the Western world is forcing their culture upon others. This viewpoint is also valid. At the same time, other cultures do adapt and blend American cultural artifacts, and they are rarely looked upon as exploiting a culture.

The ability ,however, to look upon the exploitation of culture seems to privilege which is reserved for the dominant culture. America is defiantly seen as a dominate culture throughout the world, for the Western world is seen as a dominant culture. With this being said, is it only a dominant culture which can exploit the cultural artifacts of another culture?

This may be the reason why when Americans exploit clothing from their own historical culture, such as Skinny Jeans or Blazers with Shoulder Pads, it is not looked upon as exploitation but rather appreciation. Once, again, I ask the question what is the line between exploitation and appreciation, and is there a line. Maybe, both concepts are essentially the same thing, but have a different connotation attached to them.       

This brings me to the question of who is allowed to wear what. Can anyone really wear anything? Can an American wear a Sari? Can an African-American male wear super Skinny Jeans? Can a White Female wear Nike Sneakers? Fashion also seems to be dictated along racial lines. Certain fashion artifacts are attached to certain cultures. For example, super Skinny Jeans seem to be reserved for the Punk or Hipster culture in American, and the Punk or Hipster culture seems to be connected to predominately White people. On the other hand, the Nike and Jordan Sneaker culture seems to be connected highly with African-Americans. Is it also “cultural appropriation”, where people from different cultural groups chose to wear clothing which is stereotyped as belonging to other social groups.  

All of this, brings me to the question of why is fashion divided along racial or ethnic lines in the first place. Shouldn’t people have the freedom to wear whatever they feel like wearing without being stereotyped, without being looked at as exploiting, with being looked at at “crossing racial boundries”. Then again, is this an example of how racialized American culture is? Or is this simply an example, of how not everything should be racialized? These lines are simply social constructs created by people. Right? 

Is this style ok for just anyone to wear? Are there racial boundaries? 

Is this an example of cultural appropriation through fashion? Wearing Ethnocentric colors in an interesting creation of American fashion? Is this a problem? 

November 29th, 2011

Why is Race and Color so important?  

                I found a cover of the National Geographic which featured a story on finding the “Real Cleopatra”. I believe that this whole debate originates from the discrepancies surrounding the color of Cleopatra’s skin. Some people believe that she was a dark-skinned African, and Hollywood simply insists on portraying her with women of lighter complexions. I find this article very interesting. What I find most interesting is the fact that it is probably impossible to tell the amount of pigment which was actually in Cleopatra’s skin. I further this claim by asking, does it really matter the color of Cleopatra’s skin.  Does not her actions as a human being speak louder than the color of her skin.

                I know that part of the concern rises from the issues that Europeans are known for erasing the history of Africans. So for many people, they think that this is just another example of this. Personally, I think that this issue is being focused on a bit too much. What is the line between authorial voice/creative freedom, and historical accuracy? When does this portrayal of Cleopatra become racist? Or is it ever racist?   

The search for “the real Cleopatra” is due to the discrepancies in the skin color of the actresses who have portrayed her in American Hollywood films. But, does the actual skin color of Cleopatra really matter? Is America simply choosing to put this emphasis upon race? Or is this emphasis necessary, especially in a country so historically divided by skin color?   

November 27th, 2011

What is the line between racism and over-analysis? 

                Sometimes I ask myself the question of whether or not anything can be racialized. If you want to, you can create racism out of any situation. You can over-analyze someone saying that the milk in the fridge is White or that there are Black holes in the atmosphere. The background and learned thinking of the receiver of these artifacts ,situations, and language defiantly creates their interpretation. However, what is the line between something being racist and something simply being over-analyzed. For example, I view all of the Vogue covers which have been posted on the G-Café. I re-blogged some of these Vogue covers, which I found on the G-Cafe. I noticed that there is diversity between ethnicities; however, there seems to be a similar palette of skin colors which exist. All of the women posted on the covers are light, and pale. The cover of Angelina Jolie appears to make Jolie lighter and paler than she actually is.

                However, is my own background as an African-American woman playing a role in my interpretation. Is this a simple over-analysis of artistic choice. Maybe there is a certain lighting which is typical for Vogue magazines, and while this lighting may make the skin of the actresses lighter, it is not a negative effect. One could look at this and say that Vogue only portrays women with light skin on their covers or that Vogue normally only portrays women with light skin. One could argue that Vogue also lightens the skin of its Models. This action of light or lighter skin is one which creates the message that darker skin is a flaw.  This magazine could be sending messages about what is beautiful in the world. While, I personally believe that mass culture is created to support the dominant culture, which is White, Christian, Males, I also am open to the idea that I may simply be viewing everything through a racialized lens. Therefore, I create these issues with race and the skin color of the models of the magazine.

                However, how does one view the difference between creating racism, and interpreting racism? I find that that line is tricky. Race is not anything but a social construction anyway. 

Is it a Big Deal that the majority of the Vogue covers feature light skin women? Is this racist? Or is it just a coincidence? 

November 25th, 2011 

On The G-Café, I found an article entitled, “Media Bias and the Case of Colombiana” (I was reading this article, originally, because I am highly interested in the media’s portrayal of non-western cultures, and people of color. In a way, people could claim that Hollywood is the “right way” to produce and create films. Hollywood is like the epitome of the film industry. Hollywood, a lot of times, creates films about non-western societies, in the case of Colombiana, the movie was about Columbia. However, Hollywood creates these films, most of the time, with the biases of Western society. The producers of Colombiana, created a film, and assumed that everyone who would be watching their movie would be of their same societal background. The producers of Colombiana, portrayed the stereotypes which run rampant amongst Americans. In this article, a native Columbian viewed Colombiana as ““another of those movies that shows Colombia as a constant fight of bullets…when the cities (and people) are actually nice”.  Also, if this movie was created with the normal standards of Hollywood films, then the producer was probably a White Male from a Western Society. There is the idea that assumptions and stereotypes of a sub-group of society are being displayed or taught as the standards for the masses in society, but the dominant culture of America. 

The writer of this critic is clearly in support of the enthocentricism of the movie’s creators. At the same time, however, is a Western interpretation of a culture such a bad thing. This film could also be viewed as simply being a good film. If the movie was not created with mal intentions, maybe we, as an audience are trying to analyze and interpret race and racism in a situation where it does not belong.