Response to 10/29 Class

I found the discussion about the cross-cultural appeal of pop culture to be interesting. I would have liked to see something about the backlash against this phenomena, especially against Korean culture. The videos we watched made it seem like Korean culture was universally appealing in the rest of Asia, but there has been some hostility. I believe China made efforts to restrict the amount of Korean dramas playing on television so that they could support their own programming. As well, there was some comic released in Japan that was titled "Hating the Korean Wave". Even though South Korea is not a threat to either country, there is still lingering nationalism among people in Asia that will prevent Korean culture influencing other Asian countries to the same degree as American culture has influenced them. I also question the argument that this culture is an alternative to Western culture. Korea's industrialization has produced a society that isn't very different from the west. I also wonder if the "Korean wave" is sustainable. I was reminded of the "British invasion" in the 1960s where British musical acts became popular in America for a few years before losing popularity. Japanese culture used to have the position culturally that Korea has now, but its popularity has since waned. People in the rest of Asia may become interested in Korean culture because it is something new to them, but perhaps when it becomes familiar and ordinary to them, the wave will die down. This wouldn't mean the end of Korean culture abroad, but of where it is easily available but so mainstream that it becomes boring. We no longer think of Hong Kong kung fu movies as exciting anymore because Jackie Chan is in plenty of American films, for instance.

Response to Oct. 22 Class

Although it was discussed briefly, I would like to return to the Merskin reading and the points she made in that article because she made some strong claims that I disagreed with. The setup of how Arabs are portrayed in the media certainly is legitimate, as evidenced by the video we watched and how Arabs are unfairly portrayed as antagonists in film. But, my disagreement with her claims does not rest with this. It rests in how she attempts to paint President Bush as an individual who exploited these portrayals of Arabs in the media and attempted to use it for some sort of gain. It appears to me as though she wrote the title with the wrong word, instead of using Arabs because she should have used terrorists. President Bush clearly constructed terrorists as enemies of the United States. There is no denial of that fact. But, it is simply an unfair claim to suggest Bush constructed the entire Arab population as enemies of the U.S.
Merskin certainly went through all of the necessary procedures to make her claims appear as legitimate. First, she explained how the media perpetuates the negative image of Arabs. Then, she explained the different processes of how enemies are constructed in the minds of the public. Finally, she attempts to draw all of these together and tries to propose that the supposed "evil, war-monger" President Bush purposely used these negative portrayals of Arabs to his advantage. Of course, calling bin Laden "evil" and a "prime suspect" reflects his attitude toward the entire Arab population. Please, give me a break. Anyone who thinks otherwise is duping herself and, frankly, her motives should be examined.
I wholeheartedly agree President Bush constructed the Taliban and Al Qaeda as enemies, but to say that he did so for Arabs in general is foolish. It's unfortunate how something such as the continuing negative portrayal of Arabs in the media, which is a serious issue that should be addressed, can be construed to indict someone with an unfair claim.
-David Lindgren

Media

Hollywood/television has one purpose... to make money. There are of course agendas and clear bias expressed in movies and the news, as these industries are owned by other corporations, each with their own corporate interests. What we discussed in class from the news only reporting certain things and clear racial connotations of Hollywood are due to both the need to make money as well as protect the interest of corporations who own news stations and studios. These corporations that own various news stations and papers also have interests in the automobile industry as well as political interests. This is why come news stations have fairly clear slants one way or another. Some thinkers would argue that there is a collaboration with the government and these consolidated corporations with far reaching interests to control the information we as citizens receive in order to sway public opinion. Our own form of manipulative censor ship. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this however it can be seen that there are about 6 blanket corporations that own a majority of the media outlets, all with other far reaching interests...
Another thing is that yet Hollywood portrays the Arabic world as one of conflict, violence and ignorance. I don’t think this creates our ignorance but is merely a refection of it. Movies really haven’t historically been meant to educate the masses and give them worldly perspective. They are meant to make money, and the way to do that is not to insult their ignorance but to play it up and perpetuate it
An interesting example comes to mind with all of this. In old movies people were always shown as smoking and it being suave and cool. Now in movies its generally the bad guys, the Russians, the criminals who are the ones smoking in the movies, no longer the protagonist as it used to be. This is not some campaign to take down the cigarette companies but a reflection of popular opinion today, now that our awareness of smoking and its ill effects.

Media

Hollywood/television has one purpose... to make money. There are of course agendas and clear bias expressed in movies and the news, as these industries are owned by other corporations, each with their own corporate interests. What we discussed in class from the news only reporting certain things and clear racial connotations of Hollywood are due to both the need to make money as well as protect the interest of corporations who own news stations and studios. These corporations that own various news stations and papers also have interests in the automobile industry as well as political interests. This is why come news stations have fairly clear slants one way or another. Some thinkers would argue that there is a collaboration with the government and these consolidated corporations with far reaching interests to control the information we as citizens receive in order to sway public opinion. Our own form of manipulative censor ship. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this however it can be seen that there are about 6 blanket corporations that own a majority of the media outlets, all with other far reaching interests...

Another thing is that yet Hollywood portrays the Arabic world as one of conflict, violence and ignorance. I don’t think this creates our ignorance but is merely a refection of it. Movies really haven’t historically been meant to educate the masses and give them worldly perspective. They are meant to make money, and the way to do that is not to insult their ignorance but to play it up and perpetuate it

An interesting example comes to mind with all of this. In old movies people were always shown as smoking and it being suave and cool. Now in movies its generally the bad guys, the Russians, the criminals who are the ones smoking in the movies, no longer the protagonist as it used to be. This is not some campaign to take down the cigarette companies but a reflection of popular opinion today, now that our awareness of smoking and its ill effects.

Reaction to 10/22/09 Class

Being from the Middle-East, I felt I had a different perspective on the videos about the stereotypes of Arabs in the class. The video we watched had some very good points, but I can't say for sure that the Hollywood stereotypes have affected the European-Americans I've met. I felt as if most of my friends weren't stupid enough to think that I was a terrorist, and that my other classmates weren't particularly racist against Muslims, at least not openly. I feel as if the problem was more that they were just ignorant of Islam and of Arabic culture. For example, they would think that people from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were all Arabs, which have very different cultures despite being Muslim. I feel as if more education about Islam to these students would ease the problem and prevent stereotypes from reaching them. At American University, the people here seem to be very informed and I haven't had any problems. The stereotypes in Hollywood are a concern, but as the video said, because of the War on Terror these stereotypes are being re-evaluated, and people are becoming less ignorant.

Globalization

One of the more interesting and controversial topics concerning globalization is that of world systems theory. This is the idea that the world economy is set up in such a way that through neocolonial practices and an interdependent economy, fully initiated at the end of WWII with the development and the world bank and the gold standard, that western nations maintain economic dominance through the abuse of these developing nations and their resources. These neocolonial practices can be said to have been furthered during the cold war where the US and USSR vied for world economic hegemony by gaining economic and political control in developing nations throughout the world using institutions such as the IMF (US) to use the states for their own political desires while gaining economic advantage in benefiting from the developing nations resources. This idea however implies that the western world, intentionally keeps third world countries in their “developing” state in order to benefit financial and/or politically. This is not necessarily the case. With the example of the Congo, we loaned to them irresponsibly allowing a dictator to rise, the consequences of which still ravage the Congo today. However this wasn’t to keep them in their place so that we could benefit, i think it comes more from a lack of foresight of the effects of our actions as well as a placement of our own political agendas over those of developing countries. The justification for these loans in the Congo’s as well as the allowance of the rise of this dictator is was to make sure the USSR did not gain resources, overthrowing a previous “socialist friendly” leader as well as having another strategic point in Africa for deployment etc, yet the effects that last today and our benefit from their resources would imply different intentions.

However at the same time these countries real issues stem from colonialism and the manner and state in which the colonial powers left these nations. Ultimately globalization in economic terms is the only way in which some of these states can be helped at all. Only through increased infrastructure, FDI and a place in the world economy can these developing states really have a chance of maintaining any level of stability. The world economy is just that, when the US has economic crisis so does the rest of the world. This does not seem to be able to be changed. Our economies are so interdependent at this point that instead of blaming the west for keeping the developing world down we need to figure out how to use the world economy to bring investors to these states and give them a stronger role in the economy.

Video Response

I actually really connected with the video from our last class. I guess, when I was young, I was in a hurry to grow up. I went to a private all girl school and was one of the most active members at my church, but I felt that was all too conservative for me. So, I turned to the internet. My parents never sat down with me to have a "sex" talk and maybe that is the reason...but I felt like I was so sheltered and I wanted to learn more so that when my friends were talking about something, I could at least understand what they were talking about. I am sure my parents tried to give me the talk, but I wanted to avoid that conversation so much, that I most likely ignored them or got mad at them before they could really start the discussion. I was in a hurry to grow up no matter what they said.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't create a new identity for myself online or get myself into trouble. BUT, I did use the internet as means to learn the things about sex and boys that I wasn't really taught. I would log on to my screen name and get into a chat room and mainly just watch the discussion going on. The topics were far beyond my maturity level but I was intrigued. People would try and start private chats with me and I would play along...always acting like i was older but never really saying much. Mainly letting them say what they wanted to say. I would eventually get creeped out and log off.

It is easy to get sucked in to the internet world that is out there. I wasn't a dumb kid, I would never meet up with anyone or anything close, HOWEVER, with the advancing technology out there, who is to say that the person you are chatting with couldn't find a way to find your address and stalk you or anything of the sort.

Reponse to Oct. 8 Class- Frontline Video discussion

I certainly found the Frontline video interesting, but I would like to expand upon a comment I made in response to jdoucette's post. The video, in my opinion, not only showed the story of how the internet is a powerful and sometimes dangerous tool in the lives of individuals, but touched upon this whole culture of predator/prey, aggressor/victim in our society. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to mitigate the crimes of online predators; simply, I would like to shed some light on this whole notion of victim hood in the context of online sexual abuse/harassment and the offline, real-world harm it creates.

For some reason, victims almost always seem to be completely absolved of any guilt they may have had in contributing to these crimes. The idea of the victim appears to overcome any feeling or thought that the victim somehow actively and willingly engaged in some activity to lead to the crime. Frankly, a 14 year old girl should know well enough to not go on sex chat rooms or other sites where predators loom. And, if she does and continues to converse with an unknown, offline 40 year old man, she should not be completely freed of any guilt. Yes, it's despicable a 40 year old man is trying to secretly and anonymously solicit sex from a young girl, but that girl has the power to end a conversation or any uncomfortable online situation with the click of a mouse.

I can see how my argument here can be taken down a slippery slope, but I stress that my argument should be considered in the context of online predators and their prey. I'm not advocating the whole line of thought of "If you wore a longer dress, you wouldn't have been raped." But, as individuals who use the internet, we all know the basic functions of operating in cyberspace. If an AIM screen pops up with a message "look at my pix!" or "hey cutie, wanna meet?" the person with common sense hopefully would know to simply close the dialogue box instead of engaging in a conversation with a complete and utter stranger. Unfortunately, the mother in the Frontline video placed too little faith in her children and their abilities to recognize a threat and avoid it with a simple movement of the hand-pointer over the "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the screen. She bought too much into this idea of the overwhelming power of the faceless online predator, without realizing her children had as much power in neutralizing in any threat. If she raised her children well, they probably are as or more wary of online threats as she is and they know how to deal with them.

The online victim needs to be removed from the sacrosanct pedestal it's placed upon, and the actions of both parties should be evaluated in this ever-increasing culture of online use where the power to start an online dialogue is equal to the power to end it.

-David Lindgren

Response to 10/8 Class

I didn't think that the frontline video was representative of the majority of young people who use the internet. While it was interesting to watch, and I do know people that are very similar to those on the video, most of the people do not use the internet in the same extreme way. For example the girl who created a new identity on myspace...while there are many people like her who use the internet as a personal escape from reality, they are such a small percentage of the whole population on the internet. Also, I couldn't believe the actions of the PTA mom. She tried to hard to shelter her children-I can understand monitoring their behavior online if they had been significantly younger but one of her kids was about to be in college, and the other two were high school age. The mom was worried about internet predators, but her kids were old enough so that they should be able to be experienced enough on the internet to avoid any possible bad situations...I feel like that is only a problem for younger kids or people who actively go looking to meet people online, not so much a problem for the average internet user.

Response to 10/8/09 Class

I found the debate about the changing identities of teenagers through the internet to be an interesting. I liked the Frontline video, but it seemed a bit too extreme and exaggerated. I didn't like the use of just one town's high school to be applied to all high schools in America. While I can see why they did that, to make the whole video a single narrative, I personally didn't like the limited setting. I don't think that looking at the impact of the internet at one high school is enough, I feel it could have been more cross-cultural by looking at other high schools across the country within different socioeconomic classes as well; or look at the impact of the internet on youth worldwide, to compare the rise of the internet in America with the situation in Europe or China. It might have worked better as a series of videos about different cultures or socioeconomic groups as opposed to a single town.
- Jon Raouf

Analysis Question Number 2

First of all,
I would suggest that the State Department do their research. If each person simply googles information about Iran, they will be able to hold their own in any conversation that might come up. Also, it takes a very little amount of time to look up business etiquette online. You should always veer to the conservative side of the rules. If they are more casual, they will tell you that you may take your jacket off or that you do not need to bring all material in both languages.
General Info
Some points that I pulled out from this information that would help them conduct business are:
-Business attire is formal and conservative
-Women should cover their hair
- Be sure to address the Iranian business associates by their title and their surname
"agha" (sir)
"khanoom" (madam)
-spend time cultivating a personal relationship before business is conducted
-Appointments are necessary and should be made 4 to 6 weeks in advance
-Written materials should be available in both Farsi and English
Other than the rules that you can find online, go with the flow, watch what the Iranian business people are doing, it is safe to assume that you are allowed to act in the manner that they are conducting themselves. Let them lead the meetings, then follow.

Non Verbal Communication

Nonverbal communication is actually something I notice a lot...especially in the girl world called sororities. I am definitely guilty of it myself. My friend used to always notice it even if I did not know I was doing it. A girl would walk by and apparently, I would look her up and down and he would immediately ask me what I did or did not like about that girls outfit. He was always right...whether I thought she looked cute in her vest or wondered why she was wearing a bag as a dress, I always had something to say about her. Now, this might make me look quite judgemental, but I know everyone is guilty of it at least a little bit. People watching has become practically a sport. In fact, I was talking to an 80 year old man (you can quote me on that, he told me he had just had his 80th birthday) on the metro bus the other day and he was telling me that he had just gotten back from Paris. I asked him how it was and what all he did. He proceeded to tell me that he had already been to Paris quite a few times and this time, merely spent his time people watching. Anyways..back to my point, nonverbal communication can be quite obvious to the people around you. So, next time a girl walks by in something you just do not like, pay attention to your facial expression- try not to show it.

Analysis Question #2

The exact way that American diplomats will have to communicate with their Iranian counterparts depends on the exact message that America wishes to convey. America can either try for a hard or soft diplomatic approach to solving the situation, and both must take Iranian culture into account. One can look at the diplomatic efforts during the First Gulf War, where our diplomats made calm statements wishing for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and we were very willing to go to war, whereas Saddam Hussein's statements were hostile and harshly worded, but he was actually unwilling to go to war. Saddam saw our statements as being evidence that we were unwilling to fight, as his culture took our statements as something not very serious because of our different style of diplomacy. The same thing will be the case here. We must convey a strong message using the right nonverbal signals and setting to get an effect. This could mean the meeting with the Iranians may not be within a conference room like in other diplomatic settings, but where you would take a person in Iranian culture when you wanted to give him a strong message. Nonverbal cues could be the use of certain hand gestures or etiquette, and we would also need to word our statements in the correct way, if Iranian culture is similar to Iraqi culture, then we would have to send harshly worded statements to the diplomats instead of calm ones. The choice of language will be an issue, it is possible that the Iranian diplomats have English knowledge and that the American diplomats may know Farsi, but there may also be a care where both sides are dependent on translators, and one slip-up in the translation could make the crisis larger. Our diplomats are still Americans, and even with guidelines on how to behave like an Iranian, they have been brought up with American traditions unconsciously and those may interfere with their diplomatic efforts. There is also the issue of overcompensation, if the Americans are acting like Iranians and talking in Farsi, the other side's reaction could possibly be negative. Confusion might occur if the Americans try to behave within Iranian culture while the Iranians may have gotten their own guidelines to behave within American culture. In short, the Americans need to be briefed on the behaviors of Iranian culture, but must be able to change their approach during the negotiations depending on the direction they go in.

- Jon Raouf

Response to Chapter 7: Nonverbal Communication

The chapter's topic of nonverbal communication brought up some interesting ideas. While I understood the fact that one is sending a signal based on how their body language or way of talking is, I didn't entirely realize the extent that it affects other people. When I have encountered people who have grown up in other cultures, I immediately judge their nonverbal behavior on American standards, which is the wrong thing to do, as I see now. I now realize that when I have had awkward encounters with people from another country, it may have been because of my manner of talking, clothing, or making eye contact that made them uncomfortable and in turn made me uncomfortable as got the feeling that I was doing something wrong. I also was not aware that different cultures perceive time differently. While I have noticed individual people who have different ideas of lateness, I haven't been within different cultures enough to see polychrometic attitudes toward time. Overall, the whole chapter made me see differently nonverbal communication.

- Jon Raouf