The Bluest Eye & Listick Jihad-Self-Identity

One's self-identity comes largely from the society that they are in. For most, they see themselves in a way that others see them. Men and woman both experience this, men should be strong, and muscular. In this society, girls are more under the influence of this, if you are not fit like the girls in magazines, commercials, movies, and just about anything else the mass media produces, your fat. You should lose weight, you should be more like these girls-that's the message we are sending to our society. Other societies send different messages to women, and to men.

In "The Bluest Eye" everybody told Pecola Breedlove that she was ugly. She knew she was black, and black people were treated badly in 1941. She knew she was poor, and she didn't really have any opportunities to make herself better. She was basically the first step in a staircase. Everybody looked at her, and felt better about themselves. Like the saying goes "there's always somebody that has it worse than you" and that was Pecola. All of her flaws, ugliness, poverty-stricken, and being black worked against her. It didn't literally hurt her, it was society constantly looking down on her, and using her to "climb up the ladder." She began to see herself the way everybody else saw her. Eventually, she developed a coping mechanism to relieve her, and bring her some hope in her life. The coping mechanism was an imaginary friend who told her that she was beautiful, and that she needed blue eyes, and she was to get these blue eyes, she would be beautiful and basically, she would be accepted by society.

In "Lipstick Jihad" it wasn't society looking down on one person with many flaws like in "The Bluest Eye." It was the government of Iran looking down on woman as a whole. This caused many problems is their society. The girls felt the urge to be as beautiful and desired as possible. Without being able to interact in public with men, without being able to show you hair, and with having so many young people in the country it was a "jihad" or struggle for them. The women became very interested in plastic surgery. There was a huge craze in Iran, with only being able to show your face, they wanted perfection. This shows how the women thought they had to be perfect for men, because the government had made it obvious to women that they were so much lesser than the men in the country were. There was an extreme amount of tension and frustration over not being able to interact with the other sex, that they threw underground parties so they could meet and talk. Once the men and women arrived they had no idea how to act around each other. Women are not the only people repressed, it is human nature to want to interact with the opposite sex, which nobody is really allowed through, unless an arranged marriage is present. How do you act around men, the one repressing you? How do you act around women who is so much beneath you?

Regarding the Pain of Others

“One can feel obliged to look at photographs that record great cruelties and crimes. One should feel obliged to think about what it means to look at them…” (95). This quote explains that pictures should not just inflict a feeling. Photographs should be looked at and thought of as a learning experience. For example, a photograph taken of a Jewish person who has been shot in the head and is falling to the ground. If taken at face value, for most people they would think that is a terrible and what not. While taking Sontag's advice you see more. You see what is really happening, or happened in Germany during the second world war. The photographer had to just stand by as a person was being killed. Is that photographer being immoral while he just stands there watching this atrocity? He may have had a few options, intervene and be killed as well, stand there and watch without taking a picture, or a take a picture, but not just to have a picture of a person being killed. With this picture you can educate others in the world of how life in Germany is for those that are Jewish, and once the war was over the memory of what happened is instilled in the photographs taken during the war.

“The images say: This is what human beings are capable of doing—may volunteer to do, enthusiastically, self-righteously. Don’t forget” (115). By taking pictures, it obviously shows the things that have happened in the past. By looking at the pictures on blackboard of the napalm, we know humans are capable of making napalm, but they are also capable of actually using this napalm on another country, and not just military. In that particular photograph, it shows children running and screaming with this terrified look in their eyes, which is why the photograph inflicts such emotion. The napalm has already been used, we know the effects, but now when we go to war more people will most likely less willing to jump to the napalm. Not many people in this country want children, no matter what children, to be hurt by our military forces. "Don't forget" in this quote is exactly what photographs do. They make it so we cannot easily forget, and we shouldn't forget. It is part of humanism to be educated about the past, and to learn from not only our mistakes, but our successes and others successes.

“Transforming is what art does, but photography that bears witness to the calamitous and the reprehensible is much criticized if it seems “aesthetic”; that is, too much like art” (76). What I took from this that Sontag believes that photographs are criticized if they are taken of things like war, but they look beautiful like art. In my opinion having an open mind is part of learning and taking in different ways to look at things. Perhaps it may be wrong to take photos of the people who lost their lives in war, but the fact is that photos are taken to educate, to remember, and as an art itself.

Walmart, Inc.

I plan to write my mid-term research paper on Walmart, Inc. Walmart is known to have numerous lawsuits, and "mishaps." For example the day after Thanksgiving, also known as Black Friday, there was a stampede of people who busted down the Walmart doors for bargain prices killing a man in his thirties. Through this English class, I have also heard of a film called Walmart: The Movie. I would like to view this movie and learn more about the oversea factories, the sweatshops, and the working conditions. Through word of mouth, I have also heard that this film is very informative, and brings about many arguments against Walmart, Inc. I would like to further investigate, learn about this corporations lawsuits, "mishaps," and what really happens behind Walmart's closed doors.

I will support my arguments based on the reliable sources I plan to obtain. Walmart, Inc. would be a hard topic to look up through a basic search engine because Walmart being the giant business it is, there would mostly adds and shop online information. So as discussed in class, I plan to use google-scholar, and a variety of the schools databases, which I have not used before. Although I am not positive, I would like to believe that my main source will be Walmart: The Movie, but by no means, limited to that.

The overall points that I would like to make, are not yet decided. I have not currently done enough research on Walmart, Inc. to know the specific points I would like to make. I can guess that most of my points will not be for this corporation, but I do plan to look at this from two points of view. I chose to write about Walmart, Inc. because it is such a frequently talked about corporation. Not only does Walmart have astounding low prices, they also have sweatshops, lawsuit, and movies being made about them. The goal I have for writing this paper would be for me to form an opinion strong enough to convince my audience if Walmart, Inc. is good for this society, and other societies around the world. In addition, does the good of Walmart outweigh the downsides? I plan to find out.

Sontag's "On Photography"

In the first section of Susan Sontag's "On Photography," she explains how photographs are all around the us. Our culture uses photographs with most of the things that we do. Sontag states "newspapers and magazines feature them; cops alphabetize them; and publishers compile them." She also explains that photographs aren't always maintained exactly how they were taken, but they can be retouched, made smaller, blown up, or be cropped among other things. According to Sontag, which our culture knows well, that some photographs can become valuable. For example, in the recent news, magazines, and even Dr.Phil have addressed the "octuplets scandal." The mother of these eight newborns sold the first pictures to People Magazine for an astounding amount of money, which she is able to buy a million dollar mansion with. This simply proves Sontag's point even further. Sontag explains how writings and art work are basically interpretations of the world, while photographs "miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire."

In the second section of "On Photography" Sontag's explains that "photographs furnish evidence." Over time, photographs have really helped in police work, because Sontag believe that photographs incriminate, and although the photo could be distorted, it still leaves a presumption that "something happened." I agree with this, our society knows that pictures can be deceiving but after looking at a picture, it is easier to make assumptions about the photograph you have seen. During the third section of the text Sontag explains how photographs are a part of tourism and to show history. When you open any history book, you will see photographs of the past, whether it be the ruins in Greece, or the pyramids in Egypt, it is something amazing that we ourselves cannot easily go and see, so photographs help us view these in book, where according to Sontag, photographs can maintain longevity, if not immortality. Sontag also tells of how photographs are a way to keep your past. In America and Japan it is hard to let go of the past, and photographs allow the memories to be kept around, for people to remember the happy, sad, and confusing times of their life.

Sontag also explains of films (moving picture) to be less memorable than simple pictures. Perhaps that is because it is one simple slice of time and not a flow of time, according to Sontag. This may wear old though, as Sontag has explained, when you first see a photograph of horror like the Vietnam war, the twin towers falling to the ground, a murder. These are all things that would shock you, initially, but after viewing them so many times it wears off eventually. This is the the same for "the sense of taboo" with pornography. After seeing the same porn over and over again, it no longer feels taboo, or shocking. Basically, in my opinion Americans are espically more prone to become this way because of the media and the over exposure. It seems we can be flipping through a magazine and see the starving kids in Africa, and go home, and see the starving kids of Africa on the TV, and go through our lives without truely caring or thinking about things further than the face value.

The Corporation

The film The Corporation touches on many issues with corporations and how it affects not only Americans, but how corporations affect third world countries as well. To begin, The Corporation explains that a corporation is considered to be a "legal person" and can buy and sell property. For example, corporations, like Nike, buy property in third world countries, such as Indonesia, and bring work to many people in the area. These corporation are looked at as a godsend by all the citizens desperate for work, sadly many of these citizens are children no older than thirteen years. They are paid anywhere from two cents to ten cents an hour. Once there are no longer as many desperate workers, the corporation sells the property and buys another property somewhere else, so they can continue to pay workers the absolute minimum.

Corporations are also shown in this film to have a lack of concern for others. One example can be seen in the chemicals corporations sell in aerosol, which caused cancer and far more toxins. Corporations try to make these causes sound trivial. If that example is not enough to prove their lack of concern, Monsanto produced agent orange, which caused over 50 million birth defects. They settled out of court for a measly 80 million dollars, never admitted guilt, and the deformed children of Vietnam were thrown a few dollars to shut up.

Posilac is a growth hormone, also made by Monsanto, that is injected into cows for the milking process to be more abundant. Even though milk is overproduced in America, Monsanto found this necessary, and that all farmers should be using it. Posilac gave these cows painful injections. Not only is this inhumane, but because of infection during the milking process puss is also released in the utters of the cows and this makes the bacteria go up in the milk, but using Posilac is suppose to be completely beneficial. If you do not see this as completely beneficial, you are not alone. Canada refused to allow Posilac on Canadian cows.

Moving into the advertising part of this film, it highlighted some things discussed in Klein's No Logo, and Ohman's Selling Culture. Through reading these texts, it is well-known now that corporations advertise to make people believe that they need their product, and their product will make their life better in some sense. The Corporation however, also addresses how corporations are now advertising directly to children. The commercials are especially more manipulative than they have ever been before. These toy corporations play on the undeveloped, and still developing parts of children's brains to help sell their product, and even show the children how to nag their parents. In a study that The Corporation shows, nagging raised their sells up to 40 percent.

Advertising with manipulation to children may be new, but manipulation by corporations is surely not. The fascism in Europe is a great example of this. Fanta Orange was made out to be "the Nazi drink" so Coca-Cola could continue to sell their products, regardless of the innocent people being killed. IBM was another corporation which profited off the genocide in Germany. Everyone in Germany had a punch card with codes one through six on them. This determined what the Nazi's were to do with them, such as one being released or six being the gas chamber or shot. All of these punch cards were supplied by IBM, which collected their profits shortly after the war. The Corporation shows what corporations would not like to be seen, but seeing the atrocities, and just the forms of advertisement definitely makes anyone who watches this film to be more cautious and aware of what corporations do to make their profit.

No Logo

Throughout the beginning of No Logo Naomi Klein discuses capitalism focusing on the brand names. Not only does Klein discuss brand names in general, but the rise and fall of the brands. Klein shows statistics, and specific examples of this. Throughout her introduction A Web of Brands she explains how brands have influenced the city she was currently living in, Toronto. Specifically, "All around me, the old factory buildings are being rezoned and converted into "loft-living" complexes with names like "The Candy Factory." The hand-me-downs of industrialization have already been mined for witty fashion ideas-discarded factory workers' uniforms, Diesel's Labor brand jeans and Caterpillar boots." This quote shows that North America profits on anything, even others misfortune. Klein does not seem to be accepting of the idea of brand names, but she certainly makes clear points and shows how others are not always accepting of changes going on, "The shmata guys still selling coats in the office next door look terribly dismayed when they see Marilyn Manson clones stomping down the hall in chains and thigh-high leather boots to the communal washroom, clutching tubes of toothpaste, but what can they do?" This reminds me of Adorno's statement of buying products although we see through them. Klein shows that throughout economic globalization, people don't, and really cannot change the situation, whether they want to or not.

In chapter one of Naomi Klein's book entitled New Branded World she begins to go in depth with the beginning of the brand names, their fall, and how they bounced back into action. According to Klein, "The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multinational corporations over the last fifteen years can arguably be traced back to a single, innocuous idea developed by management theorists in the mid-1980's: that successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products." Klein explains that advertising was only a part of the branding process. The beginning of the brand has changed over the years, but in the beginning mass-marketing campaigns wanted to show people that if they buy their product, their life would be better from it. For example, light bulbs vs. oil lamps. Since these inventions were big news, advertising did not have to go to the extent they have to go now. After the invention of the factory competitive branding became necessary. Advertising and branding were soaring upward until the nineties. The so-called bargain craze "shook" the brands. Everyone seemed to want a bargain, and no longer cared as much about the brand names, and when it came to food, people said they could not even tell the difference. It seems as though Klein wanted to show that people did need to buy cheaper, and that it was a good thing people were not "brand-crazy." Indeed brands did bounce back. Brands began to almost announce enemies, such as Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi Co.

By reading Naomi Klein's introduction and personal experiences with brands and factories she seemed to be against the branding industry. On the other hand, Klein gave many facts, reasons, and the history of advertising and brands from, and for the most part, an unbiased view. It certainly was not as biased as Adorno's and Horkheimer's The Culture Industry. I found Ohman and Klein to be somewhat similar, although Klein's book did not seem to be as dry. Also, No Logo was more focused on brands than Selling Culture. Selling Culture appeared to really focus on advertising. In total, Naomi Klein's No Logo gave a lot of useful background, but in the end it seems as though as good or bad capitalism and advertising are, our culture will never be free from it.

Adono and Horkheimer vs. Ohman

Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer's essay "The Culture Industry" and Ohman's "Selling Culture" have a vast amount of differences. Despite their differences, they both relate back to the same topics, our culture, advertising, and capitalism. These authors have different views on capitalism. Ohman seems to be more open to the idea of capitalism, and Adorno and Horkheimer seem to reject capitalism as a whole. Throughout reading these texts, it becomes obvious that advertising has a strong impact on society, capitalism has flaws, and our culture is shaped by both of these.

Adorno and Horkheimer project a negative attitude towards capitalism. They believed that the producers ran capitalism and our culture, which turned everybody in the society into a group which strives for perfection, and has a lack of emotion. He clearly states "The most intimate reactions of human beings have been so thoroughly reified that the idea of anything specific to themselves now persists only as an utterly abstract notion: personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions. The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them." In this quote they not only state what they believe humans have become, but also they we buy products we know we don't need, just because they are being advertised. Throughout their essay, they did not give examples of how to do things differently. They showed so many problems, but no solutions. Adorno and Horkheimer were raising awareness of the situation the society was in because of capitalism. There is no doubt that capitalism has flaws, but unlike Adorno and Horkheimer, Ohman sees the flaws, and the positive things capitalism can bring too.

In Ohman's "Selling Culture", he much more accepting of capitalism then Adorno and Horkheimer. Although all the authors seem to agree capitalism is a huge money making process through advertising, Ohman doesn't see capitalism as completely negative. Ohman believed there were many influences which shaped into capitalism, and that it gave opportunity.

Throughout reading both Ohman's "Selling Culture" and Adorno's and Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry" it showed two different aspects, that are both useful. By reading "The Culture Industry" one can basically infer that capitalism is a flawed system, that makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. "Selling Culture" gives a much better perspective, especially since it gives the good and the bad at once. Instead of completely blaming the government and advertising, Ohman gives a reader more to think about, like how capitalism was shaped. No matter which stance you agree with, our culture was undoubtedly shaped by advertising and capitalism.