The Blog of Nick

I disagree with Parenti’s view regarding the portrayal of working class people on television. I thought of a television example that contradicts both aspects of Parenti’s thesis: Prison Break
In Prison Break, Michael Scott overcomes adversity, and shows more virtue than the upper-class, white-collar characters on the show. Michael Scott, and his brother Lincoln went from one foster home to the next after their mother died, and their father abandoned him. However, Michael was able to overcome his horrible childhood by attending college, and becoming a successful, civil engineer. In fact, Michael is actually described by many of the other characters on the show as a genius. Michael’s virtue is further emphasized by the fact that he intentionally went to prison in order to free his brother who was falsely convicted. Michael Scott is portrayed as not only hard working, and intelligent, but also as brave, and loyal to his family.
In contrast to Michael, the upper-class characters on the show are vile, and greedy people; traits that are hardly virtuous. A majority of these people work for a political organization known as The Company. The Company was responsible for the framing of Lincoln Burrows, countless murders, black mail, and countless other horrible deeds. The Company represents the upper-class citizens of the show; it is comprised of white-collar, government workers, who wear suits, and drive expensive cars. Even the female vice-president on the show is a member of The Company, and she basically runs it. The Company, a symbol of wealth, and power on the show is far from virtuous, and greatly contradicts Parenti’s argument that the wealthy are presented as so.
Parenti’s argument may have been viable when he wrote it 15 years ago, but now, shows like Prison Break contradict both aspects of his thesis.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 1:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Honestly, the essay by Archana Mehta didn’t do much for me. I thought that she jumped around a lot, and after I finished reading it, I still didn’t know what kind of point she was trying to make. Maybe I just suck at reading. However, I thought that her inclusion of “queer theory� in the article was truly intriguing because I had never heard of “queer theory� before. I had always thought that queer was a derogatory term for homosexuals. I didn’t know that it was a theory that essentially encompasses all different types of sexualities, and I think that it’s a brilliant idea. Referring to all sexualities as queer would probably eliminate all stereotypes, and the world would be a much more accepting, and loving place. Nonetheless, queer theory seems idealistic, and utopian to me. American’s love labels; we literally label everything. We even have a term for straight men who dress fashionably: metro-sexual. I can’t fathom as to how people could accept a single, universal label after hundreds of years of using terms like homosexual, and heterosexual.
I thought that Kate Nelson’s article was largely ineffective because I was immediately offended by her audacity, and arrogance. What gives her the right to call everyone who reads her article a racist? Is she some all-knowing, omnipotent being? Anyways, I did agree with some of the points that she made. I definitely agree that everyone has prejudices; I know I do, and all of my friends do. I also agree that racism can’t be erased because color is so deeply engrained in our minds, and racism is conveyed through many mediums such as television, movies, and even books: the bell curve. I don’t even know if that’s the actually name of the book, but I know that it’s completely unfounded. Also, I felt like this lady was trying to hypnotize me, or guide me through a meditation: “We can, however, acknowledge that those thoughts cross our minds and control the ways we act on them.� Okay, Buddha.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There were two things that intrigued me about the article that our class recently read. The first is the theory of deracialization, and the second is actually something that we discussed in class regarding the article.
I was interested in deracialization because I had never heard, or though about the concept before. In my opinion, deracialization is basically just tip-toeing around racism. I can’t believe that CLEAT had the audacity to target a song that they’d never heard, but, instead of attacking the artist directly, they attacked the company that he was affiliated with. I think that this method of avoiding racism is ridiculous because it makes the attackers seem more racist in the long-run. Obviously, their “beef� was never with Time/Warner because Time/Warner represents everything that rich, white people love. From the beginning, their problem was with Ice-T, his lyrics, and the fact that he was a black man trying to express himself.
Deracialization also contradicts what the opponents of “Cop Killer� did. In the essay, it was mentioned that the attackers labeled “Cop Killer� as rap, when, in fact, the song was some sort of thrash metal hybrid. The rap label immediately connotes young, black, angry youths. In my opinion, this was racist.
I’d also like to comment on the Vh1 show “White Rapper.� It was mentioned in class that upon elimination, the white rappers have to throw their shows over a telephone wire. I can’t believe that Vh1 is ignorant enough to take something that, for many people, symbolizes fear/violence, and make a complete mockery out of it. Yeah Vh1, gangs, and crack dens are really hilarious. On Vh1’s next reality show, if one is eliminated from competition, then one will probably be sent to a concentration camp, or maybe they’ll be shackled, and forced to work on a plantation or something. The possibilities are endless.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)