The Blog of Nick

Suburbs have replaced vast areas of forest in hundreds of large cities. They are completely devoid of any character, and their main purpose is to help people maintain a safe distance from the city. A suburb consists of hundreds of identical houses in neat rows, and it is usually racially and financially segregated. The interiors of the houses are pretty much identical with the exception of marble or granite countertops. I think that the number of bathrooms can also vary. All of the houses have perfectly manicured lawns, and large backyards. Also, there is usually an SUV or a hummer in the driveway. A suburb only consists of houses and grass. There aren’t any parks, restaurants, or office buildings.

My suburb description is derived from an experience that I had at my aunt and uncle’s house. They live in Highland’s Ranch, which is a large suburb of Greeley, Colorado. There house was really nice, but it didn’t have any character, and it looked exactly like all of the other houses in the suburb. It didn’t feel like a home. Personally, I didn’t used to live in a suburb, but I didn’t really live in the city or the country either. My city was too small to have any suburbs, so I basically lived in a residential neighborhood. My house was close to a school, and in a racially and financially diverse neighborhood. Honestly, I don’t think that suburbs are as horrible as my description may entail, but I wouldn’t want to live in one. I think that the best place to live would be in the country. I house sat a farm once, and I truly enjoyed living in the country. It was a lot of work, but, at the same time rewarding and beautiful. The country allows one to find oneself while not resulting in complete isolation.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In regards to the end of Monday’s discussion, I do not think that I have become numb to stereotypes and racism in the media because of an experience that I recently had with a commercial. I was watching TV, and the Gatorade AM commercial came on. In this commercial, Kevin Garnett, a black basketball player for the Minnesota Timberwolves, is depicted as a milk man delivering Gatorade AM to white athletes. When I saw this, the first thing that I thought was of course the black man has to play the part of the milk man catering to the needs of white America. However, I don’t think that I would have had this same thought before taking this class. This class, and our recent reading have truly opened my eyes to the subtle racism and stereotypes that exist all around me.
The article also made me think of Aunt Jemima. I’m pretty sure that Aunt Jemima is still around today, and that is somewhat confusing for me because she is still portrayed in the same manner: a “Black Mammy.� I’m surprised that black people continue to tolerate her, but not that other guy who was serving little white kids oatmeal.
Another thing that I found interesting about this article was how the advertising industry reacted in the face of outrage from minorities. I think that it’s funny that the industry completely reversed their advertising policies in order to appease minorities. For instance, the article mentioned that the industry went from portraying Mexicans as lazy and dirty to portraying them as wealthy and affluent in society. In my opinion, the advertising agency greatly overcompensated, and the result was just as bad, and it still separated Mexicans from white Americans. In commercials, whites are almost always portrayed as middle class, and that’s how minorities should probably be shown as well. Although this article seemed kind of dated, it really inspired me to think about racism.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I enjoyed the irony in the article that we read for Monday. The authors took Disney, a symbol of happiness and magic, and portrayed it as an evil empire that attempts to oppress another generation of young girls every seven years. I also thought it was interesting how they pointed out that during the Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty Years, all of the writers at Disney were male. This brought an interesting picture to mind: a group of old, womanizing men sitting in an underground lair, smoking cigars, drinking gin, wearing suits, and discussing how to not only oppress women through cartoons, but how to reinforce the patriarchal way of life through cartoons about princesses.
For these reasons, I think that the article was a little on the dramatic side, and also little bias considering it was written by three women. I wonder what it would have been like if a man had been involved with it. I honestly don’t think that Disney cartoons have a huge impact on the way women act. I know girls that have seen Cinderella a thousand times, and they don’t care about being pretty, or courteous, or polite. Also, I know girls who have seen Pocahontas a thousand times, and they don’t care about having dreams, or being free-spirited, or what is just around the river-bend. In my opinion, this article is just looking for a scapegoat, and ironically, they decided to pick Disney.
People don’t act the way they do because they saw some trite cartoon a few dozen times. They act the way they do because of how their parents raised them, and who their friends are, and what kind of experiences they’ve had during their lifetimes. It’s absurd to blame a cartoon for spreading patriarchy, and oppressing women.

Posted by Nickolas Olmanson at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)