I don't really understand why Castell's feels the need to be so biased in his introduction when he states his goal is to not create biases. This goes beyond just "unconscious bias" that can be found in many objective works of non-fiction. Take the phrase the "state's monopoly of the capacity to exercise violence." Castell uses this construction of state to explain to use the inherent unfairness of society, but I think he makes a rather short-sighted assessment of society in that statement. A state is not put in place simply for the purpose of imposing terror and violence. What of law and order? What of well-being? I understand he is trying to forge an argument about the "elites" in power who hold the whole world in the palm of their gargantuan hands, but I believe he oversteps the bounds of what could be a good critique of CERTAIN societies. This "monopoly of violence" does not and cannot apply to many states around the world, but can be used as a paradigm for others such as those under authoritarian or military rule.
Take Egypt, for example, the terms "monopoly of violence" apply quite readily to this society. Egypt has a history of military coups that often result in the ousting of current presidents with their own chosen candidates. In the process, the military exercises their violent power in suppressing civilian revolts and the like. However, even this state is not quite built on fear as Castell states so many are. To find a state built on fear, you would be more well off studying the military dictatorships of the second half of the 20th century in Chile and Argentina. This period in both of those countries was built off of state violence on the rights of individuals. These states actively oppressed the population using said "monopoly of violence." That monopoly cannot apply to many states today such as (to take an example from my previous paragraph) Chile today. Chile today has a strong tradition of democracy that was only strengthened after the the ousting of Pinochet in the early 90s. Chile today is very much a stable country with a strong economy, small violence rates, and a well respected judiciary system. The police force is considered one of the best in the world, and the state exists as an organization representative of their own people. Someplace such as Chile cannot apply to Castells mold of "modern society." I feel Castell unfairly generalizes today's societies as puppets of the elite and as violent monsters holding power through the fear they oppress the people with. If societies were truly these sort of institutions, we would see more authoritarian structures world wide and much more controlled and limited networks of outrage and hope.
0 Comments
My final project will have to do with Weed and the war on drugs. I want to explore the drug culture in America asking question such as what are the effects of weed on the body? How is marijuana usage portrayed in pop culture? Is weed harmful? What is the war on drugs? Where do these drugs come from? Using the states of Colorado and California as case studies as well as taking a look at legislation in a more conservative state like Georgia, I will explore the extent to which states are beginning to think about legalization of weed. I want to explore the profits associated with such a business and what the state would have to gain from making weed legal. Colorado serves as an interesting study as they have certain restrictions that would be interesting to investigate.
On the subject of design, I would like to format my website much like my previous project on comic books. First, I will have an introductory page with a brief description of the project followed by a hub page with 8 links to different pages on different topics. The goal is to make these separate pages as stand alone as possible so the user need not have gone to a different page to understand another one. In this way I hope to make the website as simple as possible to navigate in a non-linear fashion while still retaining an aesthetically pleasing look. It seems as if the rest of the world is moving by. The end of an era of American dominance in economic power has passed. We may still be a military power, but we can no longer consider ourselves the best in any one category--other places do it better--albeit maybe they don't do as much well. With the turn of the century have come a host of problems tied to the increasing amount of globalization introduced into the world via the internet in channels such as politics and media. No system is perfect, and, in America, we remain in stagnation do to a gridlocked bi-partisan democracy in which neither party is willing to yield simply leading to a lock down on change--the very thing which drove us to greatness in the first place.
Many people are unsatisfied with the state of the nation, yet all they do is complain. Yes, there are protest movements here and there, but none have been national movements. Protests such as those surrounding Furgeson and Trayvon Martin have gained national attention, but neither really gained any foothold as a national movement. Protest online was huge, but simply saying something does not translate to action--and here is where the problem lies in an American culture afraid to take responsibility for its own actions. This article from the New York Times details the spreading protests for democracy in Hong Kong which was in recent years taken back under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. What causes these people to be able to rally against the mainland Chinese government? Many of the protesters are young students--the same demographic behind protests against Vietnam in America. What happened to the mobilization of the young? More and more young people talk about politics, but I feel as if less and less actually take action--voting, writing, getting involved. Recently, there were elections across the country for congress and other state positions. Yet, it seems as if voter turnout amongst the educated youth was rather low when compared with the turnout of the older demographics and this is quite dismaying. These officials are the ones shaping the country we will some day lead. Should we not cast our vote for our future? This seems to tie into a modern 'pacifism' where the youth is complacent. We just allow things to happen and move on. We don't care why or how they happened, after all, this is a national or global scale--I'm just a college student in Atlanta, Georgia struggling with time, biology, and business economics. Why does the rest of the nation matter? It is this complacency that has ultimately led to the downfall of protest culture in America. Safe behind the screens of our computers, we sit and complain and complain, yet we take no action. What are the reasons behind this? I attribute it to safety among other things. No one can hurt us behind a screen. We feel more anonymous and are more willing to put ourselves out there. We do not want to take responsibility for any actions that may have repercussions. Another factor may be geography. Protests can gain traction locally in America, but few these days can capture national excitement for an extended period of time and actually lead to some tangible change. Part of this is due to the partisanship existent in American life. We are a highly divided people these days. Few people are willing to change or compromise for the sake of movement. I also feel as if geography plays a key role. In a concentrated situation such as Hong Kong, a protest movement can be sustained quite easily. But, in a large country like the United States, a protest movement on the other side of the country can seem like a world apart. People don't want to leave their comfort zones. I don't know how to capture national movement, but the internet seems like an obvious choice in such a large place such as American and, further, the world. The internet is the key to globalization, but the key to success will be the conversion of virtual activism into real, tangible result. Literally, what have I just read? This author is trying to make connection so far fetched I had to turn to my room mate and explain to him what was going on because I was laughing--out loud. Where do I even begin with this theoretical mess of an article?
Ok, let me start with the good. Curtis Marez starts with some good points focusing on labor injustice in Silicon Valley in Cesar Chavez, the UFW, and Star Wars, and then gives us a a few more good points on agrarian labor disputes before getting into the "danger" zone (more aptly put as the what am I reading zone). I wish Marez had continued to talk about the labor disputes he brings up instead of try to craft a pointless narrative based on George Lucas and Star Wars. Sure, there may have been one or two points of similarity, but when the author tries to tie the movie directly to racial issues and a "white" classicist view of the world I began to lose what the author's point was. Cesar Chavez to Star Wars to THX1138 to... I really lost the connections here. The author is organized in small section of writing, but as a whole, this article is a complete mess of ideas thrown into an article that goes from workers in the "white room" to janitors. Let me just enumerate a few points that really stuck out:
SPIDER WOAH-MAN: ART VERSUS GENDER REPRESENTATION My first hyper essay will focus on the issue of gender representation in comic books. Recently, an optional cover of Spider Woman by famed Italian artist Milo Manara created massive controversy when several media outlets took the image as a way to argue women are unfairly represented in media. These articles noted how ridiculous and idealized Spider Woman's form is in the image and how her position unnecessarily sexualizes her for a male audience. The response to these articles was at first positive; however, responses changed with time as more and more articles began arguing with this particular example of misrepresentation. They argued that men, as well as women, are sexualized in comic books as that is the nature of the art form. I want to discuss these points of view (as well as my own), and compile them into a comprehensive hyper-essay discussing issues of representation, art and why it matters.
SPIDER WOAH-MAN: ART VERSUS GENDER REPRESENTATION My first hyper essay will focus on the issue of gender representation in comic books. Recently, an optional cover of an issue of Spider Woman by famed Italian artist Milo Manara created massive controversy when several media outlets took the story and complained about the representation of women in comic books. The response to these articles was at first positive; however, they changed with time as more and more articles began arguing with the media outlets over the issue of a woman's representation in comic books. I want to discuss these points of view (as well as my own), and compile them into a comprehensive website discussing issues of representation versus art and why it matters.
“Accessibility is not a one-size-fits-all” (Does That Face-“Book” Come in Braille?). DING DING DING: Correct. The author finally got it right. The author just solved the problems she complained about for the entirety of the chapter. Look, I believe accessibility for disabled people is a great cause and one worth pursuing. In an internet where openness is becoming more and more of a focus, all people should be able to use and access such a place; however, the authors of this particular chapter focus heavily on picking apart the systems already in place—designed and created by non-disabled people for those who are not disabled. Does this mean they should completely ignore that population? No! But tearing apart a website designed from the ground up using the already in place JavaScript and what not seems contrary to the point. In many cases, changing the underlying code without altering the experience for those who are not disabled would be nigh impossible. I don’t believe websites should change their base layout for a small portion of the population. BUT (big but) these companies SHOULD invest in alternative ways of accessing their core content. I believe a much more constructive discussion from the authors would have been to discuss the specific needs of the disabled on the web and to propose solutions other than to complain and make Facebook change their general layout. Instead, I think Facebook and other web developers should look into coding tools for disabled people to access their website from a completely different “portal” or looking glass. This looking glass would feature a toolset for those with disability from which they could access and use sites such as Facebook. This would not only allow normal users to access Facebook in its intended way, but it would also allow the disabled to have a web browsing experience catered to their specific needs—needs which I feel need to be expanded upon as not all disabled people have the same disabilities. Some may need a different way of access than others. The need for different modes of access is a topic covered by the chapter, but I feel the chapter is terrible in its focus on CAPTCHA specifically. The authors drone on and on about the same issue when there are other issues around accessibility, such as the size of text, that received much more cursory looks. Furthermore, the article partially places the blame on the culture of helpers and the helped with regards to disability for the way society deals with issues of disability. The authors argue disabled people should be allowed measures of independence which I feel is fair—to an extent. What is the extent of our power to create a world accessible by the independent disabled person? A new way of understanding disability must also be created as there are many different ‘levels’ of disability—some cannot see, some cannot hear, some cannot type, some can’t do any of that. Is there a point at which it is impossible to interface a disabled person with the web? I think it is currently impossible for the disabled person to interface with the web as a ‘normal’ person does and to interact with it in the same way you or I do; nevertheless, the future holds many mysteries, and I hope that someday it will be possible for a disabled person to interface with the web using their own innate power we all possess—that of thought. Can you imagine the possibilities of neurologically enabling a disabled person to use the internet from inside their own mind? Perhaps this is just a fantasy, but in the crazy world of ours, it seems anything is possible. BACK TO CLASS PAGE
Below I have a tentative map for my tentative topic (subject to change) on race in the movies focusing in on a couple examples. UPDATE: Topic has changed from movies to Gender Issues and Sexuality in Comics BACK TO CLASS PAGE
Biologically, we either survive or adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. In the “Indigenous” article, the Native Americans seem to adapt to an environment thrust upon them by the spread of American society of which they could not assimilate—not that assimilation should or was ever their duty or that it was even an option. With the system of oppression the American government enforced upon the Native Americans throughout the 19th and 20th century, it is no wonder that they are isolated, misunderstood, mistreated, and forgotten to this day. In the article it is evident that the progress of technology was one that excluded those people living in the wilderness. They were never part of the agenda. A small user base spread over a large territory sounds exactly like a large money sink no business would want to approach. Perhaps one of the companies could have gotten some sort of publicity from bringing internet to the most remote sections of the United States, but from a purely business perspective, where does that plan cease to make fiscal sense? To giants like AT&T, it made no sense. Their user base is centered in the cities and suburbs—their infrastructure never needed to reach those few outliers. The harsh environment the Native Americans lived in lacked the modern amenities of the rapidly advancing world. It wasn’t that the technology existed it is that the people in charge of it did not seem to need to take the effort to bring the internet to those remote areas. Without internet, the Native Americans had a choice—either adapt or simply let the technological revolutions of the 21st century pass them by. Thus, the TVA was the only move they could make to continue to make themselves current and relevant in an ever changing world. These days, it seems I do not even go a day without using the internet. It is all around us. How could someone get by in the American society without the use of such a powerful tool? The author brings up the internet and computers as a vessel of entertainment, and yes, the internet is a vast repository for that sort of content, but the great change in the way we communicate has come about in the last decade due to the widespread use of the internet. The ever-changing melting pot of American culture finds itself embedded not only in real life but also in the web these days. To not be a part of such a system would mean to fall completely to the way side. Furthermore, the internet is an incredible force for social change and awareness. Recently the ALS ice bucket challenge raised an incredible amount of awareness for a disease few people knew about. Perhaps the Native Americans could use such a tool for their own good. I think their creation of their own internet system is an incredible feat, but the article brings up a good point that they would have rather had the same thing as everyone else. Perhaps in this ever-changing technological landscape, such a thing would be possible from a company such as Google, who do have the ambitious goal of creating a global wifi system in the future. Can you imagine the implications for even more isolated people stuck in the harshest of environments? But how long will this project take? Can it even be done? I believe the eventual step in our society’s evolution is the coming of Globalization, and I believe the internet is the vessel by which we can bring the entire world into a global community of human beings. The challenges are immense, but we still have the rest of humanities existence to overcome them. BACK TO CLASS PAGE
Jonathan Sterne is a writer with a very strong if not inflammatory voice in his article “The Computer Race Goes to Class” seems to attempt to be very matter-of-fact (even in a topic he admits is somewhat of a grey area). Not to say Mr. Sterne does not bring up any good points because he brings up many, many great points on the distribution of technology to the greater United States. I think at the time the article was published, the relationship between America’s corporate interests in the distribution of technology as well as its actual (or perceived effects). I did feel he strayed a little far from the point of the technological aspect of the article when he discussed the race as found in the Time news articles. I feel he is far too critical when analyzing some of the Time authors: “The message here is clear: even dumb black kids can master a computer” (198). I felt this conclusion was a stretch. I don’t think it was ever the intention of the author of the article to implicate black kids as “dumb” as he was reporting on a specific instance of a minority child having access to computers. Furthermore, when Sterne mentions “the unspoken assumption here is that computers are for white people,” I believe he is once again overstepping some sort of logical boundary. This author may have simply been reporting on a certain community that was enriched by the introduction of the computer. The statement may have been one of fact that now has been racialized by Mr. Sterne. While I think some of Sterne’s points are a stretch, I think his points may be interpreted better as a social commentary rather than a racial one. It seems, to me, many of the points he mentions have a social undertone he seem to be attaching racial meaning to. The distribution of computers seems more closely tied to the economic disparity between the rich and the poor, many of whom happen to belong to minority groups. I feel knowing why certain groups find themselves in a different echelon of society is an important question, but I feel it isn’t one that necessarily has everything to do with technology and the way it has found its way into different people’s hands. I think this article is in for a re-write. With the proliferation of technology now, it seems difficult to imagine people living without access to the internet. Yet, in America, there is a very corporate interest involved with the internet that I feel the author picked up on in his article that has vast repercussions today. There is a fight online for the open web. ISP’s such as Verizon and ATT are afraid of the competition—fiber services, free wifi—internet that works without a hitch and without ridiculous payments. For example, Chattanooga implemented a locally based fiber service and is now the forerunner in competing with the ISP’s. They offer a cheaper, faster, and more reliable service than any of the ISP’s could muster. The ISP’s simply hold onto their money rather than investing in infrastructure often leaving certain areas of the country they have claimed internet-less crushing all local competition attempting to bring internet to those areas. It’s despicable. With the transparency of the web today, it no longer seems as if one’s online persona is truly anonymous today. We are all products of who we are in real life online and as such our identities are portrayed on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus. If race is part of who we are online and in real life, it will be an on-going issue—there is no avoiding that. Our eyes are powerful in the differences they see; however, we must realize that those differences make us different and we should respect what we see outside and inside others, as well as what we see inside and outside ourselves. BACK TO CLASS PAGE
|