"Dude, thats racist!"

Today in advisory we talked about halloween costumes that are and are not acceptable.  The usual inappropriate costume ideas were mentioned, the gangster, the nun, the indian and so on.  Our advisor telling us the facts and rules really brought about a very interesting debate about racism.  When our advisor had gotten through a few of the pictures of inappropriate costumes, on kid stood up and asked, "wait what is racist about these costumes?"  "Well, they depict another race, of course they are racist!"  His response really got me thinking, I feel like racism is like walking on thin ice constantly watching where you step so that you don't fall through.  The word is completely overused to the point where even mentioning a person of another race immediately makes listeners think "that's racist."  The definition of the word racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."  Thus simply portraying or referencing another race isn't racist, it becomes racist when you portray that race in an unequal and negative light.  Yet the school has simply declared and reference to another race to be racist.  The school refuses to recognize that there is a major difference between portraying someone of another race and portraying someone of another race based on stereotype.  For example, I have a friend who wanted to be Barrack Obama for Halloween.  He proposed to wear an Obama mask, and his advisors response was that he couldn't because he was portraying another race.  That seemed absurd to me, he isn't portraying another race in a negative light, he's simply dressing as another human being.  Thus the school makes no distinction between for example, the costume shown in the costume shown in the top left and the costume shown in the bottom left, even though one is a stereotype and the other is simply a mask that is meant to look like the president of the United States.  Furthermore, I wonder how the school would react if I came to school dressed in the costume shown to the right.  As you can see the costume doesn't portray another race, the costume means to portray someone of my race, yet it is clearly racist.  It takes the stereotypes of a race and accentuates them to portray that race in a negative light.  But by the school rules that were presented to us in advisory, this is not racist at all and a totally fine costume to wear on Halloween. 


Please comment and share your opinion!

Setting Limits?

Last weekend, for a friend's birthday we all watched a movie we had been dying to see since we saw the ridiculous looking trailer On Demand.  The movie was entitled "Hobo with a Shotgun".  The film exceeded our expectations of absurdity.  Because of the inappropriate nature of basically any video giving you the idea of the plot I will write a brief summary.  Basically a Hobo comes to a crime ridden, no lawed and corrupt city that is run by a sick murderer and drug dealer named Drake and his two sons Slick and Ivan.  The city lives in constant fear due to Drakes monthly shows where he demonstrates his dominance by savagely killing a random citizen and threatening to do the same to anybody who refuses to watch.  The hobo takes it upon himself to clean up the streets with a shotgun and kills anyone who does anything wrong.  After I watched the movie, I started thinking.  I remembered some scenes that just seemed wrong to me.  I think the rating system of movies is a great step to limit what  film makers publish, but after seeing that film, I think there should be a line that is not allowed to be crossed.  In the film, there was a scene where the two sons burned a school bus full of toddlers to send a message to the community.  This scene was clearly meant to only stir up a shock value that sells tickets.  There are several other scenes that I could describe in all the bloody, gory detail.  But to me, they seem too unethical to even describe for the purpose of this post.  I think there are certain things that just shouldn't be allowed to be published and this movie was full of those things.  This was an especially interesting idea to me since we have been talking about limiting civil liberties in class.  I understand that this is protected under the first amendment, but I have trouble understanding why.  Much of this movie was simply for shock value.  There was no artistic point to it.  It got so over the top violent that it just felt unethical to watch.  

What do you think?  Do you think there should be a limit to what moviemakers can publish?

An "Educated" Mind

As the thought of college approaches, my parents and I have been in an ongoing debate about the idea of going to a conservatory versus a liberal arts college.  They have agreed to let me study music in college but only if I get good academic education along side it.  My problem is most of my top choices are conservatory's where it is difficult to get a good education.  My parents say they think an academic education is important even if I want to be a musician because they want me to be an actively thinking member of society no matter what I become.  This is my question: why do you need a formal liberal arts education to develop your mind and be a critically thinking person.  I believe that an active mind can be achieved independently.  In my opinion, an active mind comes from reading, communicating and zealous an involved thinking if you are motivated enough.  It seems to be an American assumption that you need a college education and a liberal arts degree to have a truly educated mind.  I wonder what you really get out of college that you can't achieve on your own other than a piece of paper that label you and allow hirers to gauge your intelligence and qualification.

Please comment and let me know what you think!

Jazz and Drugs

Something that makes me very angry when thinking about Jazz history is the use of drugs and how not only, the irresponsible use of them ruined the lives of some of jazz's most influential artists but also how they have come to affect how people think about jazz today.  Two members Wynton Marsalis' Jazz at Lincoln Center orchestra share there thoughts in the video below.

**Due to publising issues, the video cannot be cropped or displayed on my blog, please click here and skip to 5:11, watch until 5:42.

When I think Jazz and drugs, the first name that comes to mind is Charlie Parker.  Charlie Parker, or "Bird" made Jazz what it is today.  He was one of the most influential Jazz musicians of all time.  But his contributions came with a severe price.  Bird was and in many cases, still is, the pinnacle of what a Jazz musician should be.  He was just lightyears ahead of everyone else, and Wynton Marsalis himself once said at a masterclass that no one has done what he did as well as him since and described himself as a "Bird imitator".  Parker also had a severe heroin addiction.  So he created a legacy of Jazz musicians who were all searching for Parker's secret.  Many became convinced that heroin was that secret.  From that point on, drugs, specifically heroin use was of epidemic proportions.  They caused the death many of the music's most prominent artists such as Chet Baker, and ruined other's such as Miles Davis.  Modern jazz has for the most part grown out of that era.  However, the stereotypes remain strong.  I hope that people can recognize the growth in responsibility jazz has experienced and move beyond old stereotypes.

If you ain't first, you're last

Saturday night I was driving in the city.  As a new driver this was a nightmare.  I cant tell you how many times people laid on their horns for me not doing something that would save them a second at most.  For example, in drivers ed I learned that at an intersection, even after the light turns green, I should give about 3 seconds before going to allow any other cars to exit the intersection.  Well, the young lady doing her make up in her audi, in the car behind me didn't like this safety maneuver too much, seeing as she loudly honked her horn and screamed out the window "Move A-hole!" despite the obvious New Driver Bumper sticker on the back of my car.  This really got me thinking about the American desire for speed and constant motion.  There is always a place to be, a person to see or a thing to do for Americans.  I remembered our conversation in class where Mr. O'Connor talked about his European friend who talked "But there must be time to dream, no?"  It's part of American culture to always be moving.  It is looked down upon to simply do nothing and think for an extended period of time.  I wondered why this is, because from class discussions and my foreign experiences, this seems to be an exclusively American phenomenon.  I believe this has to do with competition.  Americans strive to beat out others and get ahead of the game, because that is what you need to do to get what you want.  We believe that every second counts, thus if time is not being used efficiently then it is time wasted.