Jell-O Commercial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCKxWQCs3f0&feature=related

This is a Jell-O ad that was produced in the 1960’s. It starts out by an Asian voice introducing a Chinese baby who is waiting to be served his desert. The Chinese mother comes out with a plate of Jell-O and gives it to the baby who has a set of chopsticks. The baby tries to eat the Jell-O with the chopsticks, but is unable to accomplish this task using them. The mother then brings out “a great western invention”, which is seen as a spoon. The baby is then able to eat the Jell-O and becomes happy, which ends the commercial.

I found this commercial online on the You Tube website. Even though it was not a current commercial, I picked it because I thought that it showed a lot of stereotypes of both the Chinese culture and the American culture. In the essay Framework Essay: Constructing Categories of Difference by Karen Rosenblum and Toni-Michelle Travis, they talk about all the master statuses are broken down into two or more different groups. One master status mentioned as race. People are often grouped into a white “American” category or a non-white category, which usually consists of Africans, Asians, and other people of color. There are various stereotypes that go along with both categories. The idea that the baby tries to use a utensil that he could not eat Jell-O with shows that the idea of chopsticks are an unintelligence invention. The narrator states “Chinese mother brings Chinese baby great Western invention. Spoon!”. The narrator is giving the white race credit for the idea of a spoon. By doing this, the commercial is implying that the white western culture has a higher level of intelligence.

Another noticeable stereotype that could be seen in the commercial was the use of the narrator’s accent and use of language. A viewer could tell that it was a white man doing an impression of a Chinese accent. “Chinese baby very happy!”. The voice heard talked childlike in broken English. The speech did not include the words like the or is throughout sentences, which are essential to correct English grammar. This was also another way for the writers of the commercial to show that the Chinese are not as intelligent as “white Americans”. This commercial definitely got across the idea that two different racial groups are not equal with one group being superiorly intelligent to the other one.

I was very surprised at how much it was focused around the Chinese race and how an eating utensil that they commonly used what shown as a useless object; almost as if it was not a good enough invention. Also, I did not like how often the word Chinese used. Almost every time the words mother and baby were used, the word Chinese was put in front of it. I felt that it was overemphasizing the already obvious ethnicity of the mother and baby. I thought it was weird that Asians were portrayed as less intelligent than white people since now they are usually stereotyped as more intelligent. It was different to see a different stereotype of the Asian culture shown.

Aunt Jemima Products

Aunt Jemima is known as a common, popular pancake mix and syrup brand in the United States. On the covers of the boxes is a picture of a heavyset woman who has a large broad smile on her face. On the current images of her, she is seen wearing pearl earrings and a shirt with a lace collar. But according to www.auntjemima.com, it wasn't until 1989 that she was shown wearing such attire. Before that, she wore a headscarf. I picked Aunt Jemima products as a piece of racial media, because the image of the black women was a stereotype of the mammy image and is still there even though the appearance of her has changed.

By her old image, she was seen as a mammy figure that was a large black woman that cooked and cleaned for the white Southern plantation owners and their families. What better way for the Aunt Jemima Company to put a picture of a person who devotes their life to cooking, not by choice, on the fronts of the pancake mix boxes and syrup containers. According to the movie Ethnic Notions, “the mammy emerged as a defense of slavery”. She was to show the joy that one could receive from being a slave. She was shown as loving to perform all of the cooking and cleaning tasks in her white owners' home.

Every single mammy had her head were covered with a bandanna to hide her hair. Also, the original style of Aunt Jemima showed an overweight black lady, which was essential to being a media representation of a mammy. The image was to be useful but unattractive. According to the movie, a mammy was supposed to look unattractive so as to not cause marital problems in the house. But in reality having an ugly mammy was not always the case. It was known that some mammies were slim and attractive in which allured the white husbands of the houses. Now on current boxes, it appears that Aunt Jemima has been slimmed down along with her knew form of dressing, which included the removal of the bandana. These slight changes have made her more attractive and less like the stereotypical mammy.

However, I believe that these slight changes both do and do not help the stereotypes that go along with the woman Aunt Jemima. I think that by making her skinnier and giving her more of a classy clothing style helps to give her a sense of importance about her. Also, it helps with showing her as an established woman that could both support the black race, as well as the women sex. I do not believe that this cures the negative stereotype that went along with her being seen as a mammy. She didn’t get a makeover until 1989, which is quite recent. The name Aunt Jemima sounds like that of a Southern housewife. The history of the mammy image of Aunt Jemima cannot be erased by a slight alteration in her appearance, but it is one step closer to acknowledging racist images seen everyday in media items.

Newswatch Article

Disney's Carib Indian cannibals deserve boycott
Indian Country Today. Oneida, N.Y.: Apr 20, 2005. Vol. 24, Iss. 45; pg. A2

Walt Disney Pictures is premising its sequel to its film "Pirates of the Caribbean" on the supposed cannibalism of Carib Indians. This is disgusting. It is a bit beyond the time when the present-day children of the Carib people of the Antilles need to be hit in the face, one more time, with the wanton and highly-disputed idea that they descend from cannibals.
Leaders from at least three communities of Caribs - Salybia in Dominica, Santa Rosa in Trinidad and a community in St. Vincent have registered their strong objections to Disney executives, who have not responded in any positive way to the critique. Scholars and others are adding their voices to the challenge.
While the controversy over the Caribs' alleged cannibalism is as old as the conquest of the Americas, most observers agree that the Disney movie, slated for worldwide audiences, is beyond the pale as a vehicle to inculcate the historical stereotype upon even more generations of Carib and Caribbean children.
Filming of the sequel is scheduled to begin this month in Dominica. Its predecessor, the first production in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, was a 2003 blockbuster that grossed $653 million worldwide. Some 3,000 Caribs live in the Carib territory on the island of Dominica, which has a population of 70,000. Tens of thousands of Carib descendants, now known as Garifuna, live on the coasts of Belize, Honduras and Guatemala, as well as in the North American diaspora.
Chief Charles Williams of the Carib community in Dominica has denounced the concept of his people being depicted as cannibals. This stereotype has "stigmatized" Caribs for 500 years and is still used both as a form of personal insult and as justification for mistreating his people, Williams said; the movie will further "popularize" the historical insult against his people.
Among other Native leaders, the chief of the Carib community at Arima in Trinidad, Ricardo Bharath, also strongly condemned the planned movie. He was joined by Adonis Christo, the community's shaman or medicine man. The oral tradition among their people doesn't support cannibalism as a historical fact, they asserted.
"Do you want to know who the real cannibals are?" Bharath asked the Inter Press Service. "They are the ones in modern-day society who are eating down our mountains, raping the environment, polluting the waters," he said. Stated Christo: "Our people defended their families and friends. They defended their homes. They defended their lands."
There are early references by Europeans to ritual cannibalism among the first encounters with the Caribs. But Brinsley Samaroo, head of the History department of the St. Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies, is among those who believe the claim is largely a European invention of "manufactured history."
In the historical record, one finds a letter from a Dr. Chanca, who accompanied Christopher Columbus during his second voyage to the Caribbean. Chanca speculated that some young men held prisoners by a Carib group were being fattened to the slaughter for feasting.
Neither the wanton killing and rape by Spanish colonists of the first group of Caribs encountered - recorded during the same trip by others on the ship nor the Caribs' fierce, valiant defense of their territories and people are apparently proper subjects for a Disney movie.
The St. Vincent and the Grenadines Historical and Archaeological Society has called for a boycott of the sequel by moviegoers if Disney does not modify the script. Paul Lewis, the society secretary, charged that perpetuating the image of Caribs as cannibals sets back a serious effort in the region to provide a more "honest share of [Caribbean] history" to the indigenous people.
The governments of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica, who will benefit somewhat from the production activities in their countries, have not objected. In fact, the tourism minister of Dominica has defended the proposed film, which would bring some economic benefits to people on the island and which is, as he put it, only a "work of fiction."
Some Caribs, as can be expected, have applied for work as extras in the movie, a fact that has made some crow that this somehow exonerates Disney for its production. But that is all just public relations. Reality is that a huge company like Disney should know better in 2005 than to besmirch a living people with its most negative historical stereotype.
Clearly, Disney moviemakers need to consider the negative impacts of the dramatic storylines they choose to project to such a huge audience. It is not acceptable to create and recreate villains out of Native people while exulting and romanticizing the lives of pirates who in real life were murderers and thieves without regard for anyone. Call it what you may, "fiction" or dramatic or poetic license, it smacks of racism to us.
Article copyright Indian Country Today.

The article Disney’s Carib Indian cannibals deserve boycott talked about the sequel to the movie “The Pirates of the Caribbean”. The movie will be showing the stereotype that the Carib Indians were historically cannibals during the time of Christopher Columbus. When Disney was confronted by various Carib communities about their dislike of the Caribbeans being shown as cannibals, it was said that no positive responses were made. For centuries, this stereotype has been an insult on the people, as well as a reason for their mistreatment. The Caribbeans do not believe that their ancestors were at one time cannibals. There was only one historic record of such a speculated event happening even though the Caribbeans came into contact with various other cultures. A boycott of the movie is being called in order to give the native people a say in their own history. The only benefit would be that Caribs would be hired to play extras in the film, which would help their financial needs.

I found this article online using Ethnic Newswatch. I choose this article because it talks about a current movie that has just come out in the last couple of years. These movies were very popular and I never would have thought of them to be racist in any way.

“…the claim is largely a European invention of manufactured history” was stated in the article. This means that the idea that the Caribbean people were cannibals is a lie that was made by the Europeans that had some of the first interaction with them like Christopher Columbus. In chapter 2 “The ‘Tempest’ in the Wilderness” of A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki, one main focus talked about is how the native people of North and South America were termed as savages. By Europeans, Indians were viewed as “being most furious in their rage and merciless…not being content only to kill and take away life, but delight in torment men in the most bloody manner […] eating the collops of their flesh in their sight whilst they live”, which agrees with the idea of that they did in fact eat humans. However, Columbus was known to have captured Caribs in order to bring them to Europe to be viewed. 550 that were captured and taken to Europe, but 200 of them died on the voyage.

The article said that is was only someone who had accompanied Christopher Columbus that wrote that they were cannibals, and no one else had. Columbus was set on getting power and money. With seeing that Columbus was out to capture them like they were rock on ground, it is easy to see that by terming the Indians as savages and cannibals that it would help him to get what he wanted.

I truly enjoyed reading this article. It showed me a form of racism that I never would have noticed. Also, I think that it is sad to think that Disney would continue on with the movie like that when it is racist. Disney is seen as a family oriented company, but this has made me think twice. They could be just like Columbus with money as their only main objective.

Betty Boop Cartoon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3gNrPqxs8

This particular Betty Boop cartoon starts out by her giving an introduction with a song and dance performance about the entertainment stars of the future, which are talented infants from various ethnic backgrounds. The first performer is a Caucasian male infant that plays the drums on baby walker, as well as on items sitting on it. The second baby to perform is a little Russian girl who does a well-known Russian dance. Following the Russian, three African babies come out sing a sad song while crying. In order from them to stop crying a watermelon was brought out. After this performance, there happened to be only black women in the audience who also had a baby in her arms. The baby then started to cry out for watermelon as well. When the mother tried quieting the baby, it started signing the sad song that was just sang by the three on stage. Finally, the mother gave into the baby’s wishes and gave him some watermelon. The infant quickly ate it and spit the seeds out on the back of a white man’s head that was sitting in front of them. The cartoon then focused again on the performers, the next one being an Asian boy who did a talent with a top that spun on his body. The infant then ended his act by shooting a pretend gun at toy soldiers who appeared white. Finally, the last infant performers were five Hispanics who played various instruments, with one dancing.

The Betty Boop cartoon that I found online deals with five different ethnic groups and common stereotypes about them, which is why I picked it as one of my pieces in my portfolio. It is obvious that there are a lot of ethnic issues throughout it that can be easily related to the subjects covered in class. It is said that this cartoon was banned, and I could only assume because of the strong racial issues that were presented. The most significantly racial part of the cartoon revolved around the three African-American babies and their relationship to watermelon.

During the movie Ethnic Notions, there were various cartoon images of an African American. How these cartoons acted were thought of as how real black people acted. The mammy figure, the large, overbearing black women, was introduced in the early 1900s as to represent a woman who was the protector of Caucasian household. Also, as stated in the movie ”She is a controller of her own people, of the males in her own um society, uh, when the female should be dependent and subordinate”. She was supposed to be seen as the head-of-the-house in a black family. In that time period, men were supposed to rule the house. By showing a black woman being the dominant figure in the family was supposed to imply that African men were weak and inferior to women, which was seen as an insult. The mammy in the cartoon was to bring to light that the husband figure was unable to fulfill his duty of being a spectator.

The movie also talked about how the media showed black people as being easy to pleasure by the simple things in life such as food, song and dance. The crying babies were easily calmed when shown a watermelon, which is ironic because that is not something a baby would normally be given. The other babies in the film were given infant like things such as a bottle.

I had never before seen a Betty Boop cartoon, but I had always assumed that she mostly just sang songs and danced. After seeing this, I lost a lot of respect towards cartoons produced during that time. The other children of different races were stereotyped as well, but the Caucasian baby was shown drumming an American song. To me that was implying that by white was the only way to be an American, which disgusted me. There were too many racial implications throughout the cartoon that shocked me.