Group 7 Response (Jill Shah)

The biggest issue according to me is the unequal distribution of wealth. That according to me is the most important factors that lead to this protest. If the wealth was distributed evenly between the rich and the poor  then this type of a problem would not have taken place in the first place. 65% of the nation's wealth is given to the top 1% of the people and the rest distributed to the 99%. Hence we get the 99% and 1% slogan for the Occupy protests. This unjust and unequal treatment of government has gotten to the nerves of the people which is but obvious and expected. One cannot keep pushing another around for much long without expecting a reaction. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction, hence proven.
I honestly don't think that celebrities participation in this protest doesnt do much because the celebrities basically are looking for exposure for their own interest and publicity. If this would not have been on the news this much, no celebrity would have even cared enough to pay attention to it or even get involved.














9

Group 7 'Occupy Wall Street' Response

I think the most important issue here is the distribution of wealth.  The rich become richer and the poor become poorer and this is an issue that shouldn't be ignored.  The fact that republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy and increase taxes for the middle class makes absolutely NO sense.  Who in their right mind would support this?  I think the wealthy need to get taxed because they have the resources to pay.  Give the lower and middle classes opportunities for learning, earning and becoming educated.  Instead of state budget cuts on public education, the government need to stop funneling money into the pockets of wall street millionaires. 

I think the participation of celebrities does nothing to bridge the gap between the statistical numbers.  Celebrities seek publicity and what's better than showing support for what your fans care about?  Because it might bring more public and governmental attention to the issue, I don't necessarily stand against it.

Group 7's 'Occupy Wall Street' Repsonse

The issue that I believe to be of most importance is the coalition of the majority making their voices be heard and fighting for the cause through social movements. I personally believe that social movements, slowly but surely, will affect and alter the modes of privatization as well as the unequal distribution of wealth. So long as people come together and make a concerted effort, change will occur.

Just because celebrities are participating in or showing their "support" at occupy movements does not mean that they truly care. Celebrities just may be promoting themselves so that people can support their business ventures. After all, celebrities such as Kanye and Russel Simmons are in the music business to make profits. However, I may be wrong and they just may earnestly be interested in the people's welfare. Nevertheless, celebrities' appearances at Occupy movements will not close the gap between the 99% and the 1% because they are not distributing their wealth but are merely showing up.

Group 6 Presentation: Female Soldiers

          It has only been about a little over six decades that women were officially allowed and permitted to contribute to our nation’s security. After a very long struggle for women to be allowed to contribute and aid in times of war, finally on June 12, 1948 President Truman signed a bill passed by congress. That bill would soon be the Women’s Armed Services Integration. With great effort and triumph the women of our nation had finally made it possible to serve in moments of war and aid by enrolling in the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

         Unfortunately, for our brave women, serving our country has cost them more than just leaving their families behind, but being at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted. Sadly according to the statistics in the year 2010 there were about three thousand reports of sexual assaults reported. Alarming right? Now imagine how many crimes of sexual assaults were not reported. How is it possible that in these times women are still being the target for men! It has been two years since the last estimate of assaults, for in the beginning of 2012 statistics say that only 15% of women make up the armed forces, yet 95% of sexual assault victims are women. Unbelievably, breathe taking at such alarming numbers!

            Those courageously women who speak up against sexual assault, unfortunately are diagnosed with psychological problems. As mentioned in the power point by Annice, Stephanie Schroeder, one of the many victims, after sharing her assault experience was diagnosed and discharged of her benefits as a veteran. Not only those has this affected the victims financially, but emotionally and mentally as well. Only those who speak are sometimes treated. What about those who make it a secret? Who and how are they treated to overcome this awful experience?  Not only are the women being left untreated and exposed to psychological problems but so are the abusers. They return back home free of charge and ready to assault someone another women, or even children. Crimes like these need to be stopped. Women in the military must be protected by all means in return of their services!

            One last thing to touch on, equal treatment! By no means are women in the armed forces of lesser value than men. Therefore, the same treatment and benefits that wounded/hurt men would receive should also be imposed in the women. Just alone after returning home many soldiers are diagnosed with psychological issue due to the violent scene they have experienced. Imagine being a woman having to live and survive such violent scenes, and then trying to cope and overcome sexual assault! Assaulted women most definitely need to be treated and help, not just stripped off their benefits and ignored.

            This has been and will continue to be a growing problem until it is taken care of and resolved! Although,  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta promises to work effortlessly to protect women and everyone equally from sexual assault, this problem such not have been let alone to escalate to such high numbers, after all we are supposed to be treated and served equally, which apparently in the armed forces it is not the issue!

Now think about…

1)       Are women really being treated equally (regarding health care, mental care, financial care) after being in combat such as men?

2)      What reason might assaulted women fear that hold down them from speaking up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOeQoAOhWIs&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jrLGrJFMDic

Skin Lightening Debate 1 Response

Indian men are frequently becoming the targets of the skin lightening cream industry because of the notion of colorism. A man’s worth is primarily valued by his career; therefore, the idea that lighter complexions allow them to have more privileges or opportunities is appealing, especially in a competitive job market. Men may want to have an advantage over their co-workers because they want to improve their employment positions and their social economic statuses, even if it means being exposed to hazardous toxins. I believe that Indian men’s perception of skin color is predominantly affected by hegemonic Western imagery and media. In all reality, Western corporations do not want to adopt the beliefs of others but merely want to sell them their products. Western corporations influence and control consumer trends by inexplicitly stating that “light-skinned men are more intelligent and martial as opposed to darker-skinned men who lack intelligence and masculinity”. Thus, globalization does have a direct impact on Indian men by altering their self-perceptions and making them believe that “white is better” or in this case, “light is better”.

Week 7, Module 3 Assignment 1: Skin Lightening Debate 1 (Indian Men)

Debate #1: Skin Lightening for Indian Men (Racism or Realism?)

In 2010, Vaseline launched a skin lightening cream for Indian men that promised "Visible fairness in just two weeks." As we learned in lecture and Evelyn Nakano Glenn's reading, the origins of colorism in India are obscure and may be traced as far back to the migrations of Aryans into India during the Vedic period. Furthermore, they are certainly linked to an associated of darker skin with labor and lighter skin with the types of intellectual and/or domestic labor associated with higher castes within ancient caste order in the Vedic system. Nevertheless, as Nakano Glenn demonstrates, it was during the era of British rule (roughly 1757-1947) that colorism was consolidated and institutionalized and fair skin was turned into a structural privilege. After the fall of the British Empire, the social stigma of darker skin still remained, but more so for women rather than men, since women often few means than marriage to determine social position.

So then why are Indian men now emerging as a market for skin lightening cream in the era of economic liberalization in India under globalization? Do you believe this is the cynical manipulation of racist ideologies by multinational corporations like Unilever (the corporation that owns Vaseline, and that by the way is responsible for some of the racist colonial soap ads we studied from the 19th century) OR is it simply an an acknowledgement of an aesthetic preference in a globalized world dominated by Western media and in which socially mobile Indian men are going to have to move?

Click here to read more about Vaseline's Indian Skin Lightening App for Men

Then read some of the reader comments on the following:
http://jezebel.com/5585906/vaseline-crowdsources-racism-with-new-skin+whitening-app
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/16/facebook_apps_gone_rogue

Week 7, Module 3 Assignment 1: Skin Lightening Debate #2 (Skin Bleaching in Jamaica)

In "Yearning for Lightness: Transnational Circuits in the Marketing and Consumption of Skin Lighteners," Nakano Glenn argues that "colorism is just one of the negative inheritances of European colonialism. As we studied in lecture by looking at 19th-c. soap advertisements, "European colonists... associate[d] Blackness with primitiveness, lack of civilization, unrestrained sexuality, pollution, and dirt" (167). In the slave societies of the colonial Caribbean, colonialists used detailed gradations of skin color to divide and control populations of African and mixed-race slaves, free peoples, indentured servants, Creoles, and Europeans. The institutionalization of racialism into the everday life of colonial society, as a method of rule as well as the signposts of seemingly mundane social relations, had broad and deep implications. As the famous postcolonial thinker, Frantz Fanon argued (speaking of the experience of living under French rule on the island of Martinique), "cultural values are internalized, or 'epidermalized' into consciousness, creating a fundamental disjuncture between the black man's consciousness and his body" (Deepika Bahri).

Nakano Glenn discusses in detail the use of skin lighteners in contemporary Africa today. Some of the same dynamics are at play in the contemporary Caribbean. Watch the following video and then comment on the questions below:

1) Nakano Glenn argues that in the African contexts, the use of skin lighteners has been increasing among "modernized and cosmopolitan African women" (169). Which groups does this film argue are the primary consumers for skin lightening creams? Why do you think modern and cosmopolitan young people are emerging as the primary consumers for skin lightening creams in this globalized era? Reread p. 169 before offering your thoughts. 

2) The comments from youtube users seems to emphasize the need for "self love" as a corrective to the "skin bleaching epidemic." Do you agree that teaching a discourse of self love is the answer or is this a more entrenched problematic that needs a more complicated solution on a number of fronts? What fronts would those be and would might some of these solutions look like?