and just try getting any decent latin@ films streaming from netflix—they know we’re willing to pay, mm.
damn. this is so true, this is like, very much a huge pasttime in our family despite the lack of representation. i was excited just to take my great uncle benji to see After Earth and he was so happy to see little white centrality. his eyes lit up with intrigue the whole time, it was wonderful.
These statistics are very important:
Across the 100 top-grossing films of 2012, Latinos (who constitute 17 percent of the U.S.) are the most underrepresented group, with only 4.2 percent of speaking roles, according to the study.
The myth is that anyone can come from anywhere and achieve great success in Silicon Valley if they are skilled. It holds that those who “make it” do so due to their excellent ideas and ability, because the tech scene is a meritocracy where what you do, not who you are, matters…
I frequently heard variations of the saying “everyone wants to take the pretty girl to the dance,” which refers to the tendency venture capitalists have to cluster around popular deals. (The prevalence of this phrase is very revealing of who is in these meetings.) In reality, everyone wants to be in business with young, white, male entrepreneurs with connections to high-status people, a pedigree from certain companies, a well-known mentor. Sharon Vosmek, CEO of the nonprofit Astia that helps fund women entrepreneurs, identified “systematic and hidden biases” in technology funding:
VCs hold clear stereotypes of successful CEOs (they call it pattern recognition, but in other industries they call it profiling or stereotyping.) John Doerr publicly stated that his most successful investments — and the no-brainer pattern for future investments — were in founders who were white, male, under 30, nerds, with no social life who dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.
This formula certainly filters out enormous numbers of people who may be equally skilled…
The myth of meritocracy also ignores the level of privilege that participation in the tech scene involves, as i09 editor Annalee Newitz points out:
'Let’s say that most people can have access to computers sometimes but only some people can have access to computers all the time, and then an even smaller group can have access to the net while they’re just out wandering around doing Twitter, right? They’re like, I have my phone and I can say things while I’m walking around where somebody else has to actually go home, to their one computer that they own. So the more that you want to participate in this network of wealth and entrepreneurialism, the more stuff you have to have to participate in it. So there [are] these levels of participation that are enabled by either being wealthier or having the free time to participate.'
Certainly, a level of material wealth is necessary to participate in San Francisco tech culture. Very few pointed to the elephant in the room of assumed wealth: “People behave as if we all make kind of the same.” To forge the type of social connections necessary to move into the upper echelons of the tech scene requires being able to take part in group activities, travel to conferences, and work on personal projects. This requires middle- to upper-class wealth, which filters out most people.
‘There are levels of participation that are enabled by either being wealthier or having the free time to participate.’
The result of this mythology is that it denies the role of personal connections, wealth, background, gender, race, or education in an individual’s success. If, for example, women (or people of color, or gay people) are not getting venture-capital funding at the same rate as men, the myth maintains, it is due to their lack of ability rather than institutional sexism. It also justifies immense wealth as the worthy spoils of the smartest and best.
‟There’s a misconception that just because someone has Internet access, the digital divide,” the gap between those with Internet access and those without, “has been eliminated,” charges Ortega, who heads a chapter of the digital literacy group One Million New Internet Users.
The problem, Ortega argues, is that large swaths of the population, groups that are predominantly poor and non-white, are largely relying solely on smartphones for Internet access. It’s created a two-tiered system where the rich have access to expensive, high-speed broadband Internet at home and everyone else is relegated to slower connections on mobile devices that seriously limit users’ ability to contribute to the digital conversation.
Ortega views this emerging digital divide as one between “digital consumers” on one hand and “digital contributors” on the other.
“If you’re reading this, if there’s air in your lungs on this November day, then there is still hope for you. Your story is still going. And maybe some things are true for all of us. Perhaps we all relate to pain. Perhaps we all relate to fear and loss and questions. And perhaps we all deserve to be honest, all deserve whatever help we need. Our stories are all so many things: Heavy and light. Beautiful and difficult. Hopeful and uncertain. But our stories aren’t finished yet. There is still time, for things to heal and change and grow. There is still time to be surprised. We are still going, you and I. We are stories still going.”—Jamie Tworkowski (via the59thstreetbridge)
“There are so many exceptionally good books with strong female characters, but not nearly enough, and boys are not encouraged to immerse themselves in them. How many people would never consider buying Anne of Green Gables or Island of the Blue Dolphins for their 10-year old boy, but don’t pause before giving a daughter Treasure Island or Enders Game? Books featuring girls are, for the most part, understood to be books for girls. Which is interesting as well because, in addition to there not being enough, books featuring girls as protagonists are disproportionately among the most frequently banned children’s books. In a recent Buzzfeed list of 15 commonly banned books for kids, almost half were about girls. Girls who do things apparently scare a lot of people.”—Why Are Children’s Books Still About White Boys? (via geardrops)
“I am very proud of you waking up today. You are very brave. Existing can be hard sometimes and that is okay. I am proud of you even if all you did today was exist. I am proud of you for existing”—Anniken (via blindthoughts)
Perry’s dissenters write off her performance as offensive cultural appropriation; but what if, instead, we read it as an example of cultural pluralism – forming a “transnational America” where “various ethnic cultures would interact in a tolerant atmosphere to create an enriching variety of ideas, values, and lifestyles”. That’s a quote from political activist Randolph Bourne, and was later picked up by historian George M Fredrickson in his essay “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective”.
All I know is, we are moving towards the kind of culturally plural society where a white girl in Hollywood can dress up as a glorified Japanese prostitute and broadcast her way onto an outer-borough New York public college campus that has just decreed this academic calendar year as “The Year of Brazil”.
Frankly, Perry’s performance could have been a lot worse. There was no eyelid tugging. There were no grating fake accents and cries of ching-chong. And there have been far more egregious “yellowfaced” attempts such as this law firm commercial.
Are we there yet? No. But it’s a lot better than it used to be. And for this, you might say we should be grateful.
I’m sorry, but what the actual fuck?
"Frankly, Perry’s performance could have been a lot worse. There was no eyelid tugging. There were no grating fake accents and cries of ching-chong."
Are you fucking kidding me?! THAT’S the standard we’re holding public figures and those that teenagers idolize to? I mean, no shit, we’re not past racism by any means, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t call bullshit on racist, appropriationist crap like this when it’s the opening act of the AMAs.
The funny thing is, the article does link out to and reference some of the many critiques of her performance…
“Jeff Yang of the Wall Street Journal decried Perry’s “whiteface/yellowface performance” as “a harsh reminder of how deeply anchored the archetype of the exotic, self-sacrificing ‘lotus blossom’ is in the Western imagination”. Nolan Feeney wrote in The Atlantic that “it’s these kinds of stereotypical visuals that play into white fetishization of Asian women – something Perry doesn’t have to deal with when she takes off her costume”. Ravi Chandra of Psychology Today claimed Perry’s performance was the racist equivalent of performing in blackface.”
…but then dismisses those critiques because well, at least, she didn’t pull a Miley Cyrus on us and send out an alarm for slut shaming and obvious racism. Apparently when it’s racist but fits into cultural ideals of what being “feminine” should be like, it’s suddenly more okay.
“In the world of texting and IMing … the default is to end just by stopping, with no punctuation mark at all,” Liberman wrote me. “In that situation, choosing to add a period also adds meaning because the reader(s) need to figure out why you did it. And what they infer, plausibly enough, is something like ‘This is final, this is the end of the discussion or at least the end of what I have to contribute to it.’”
It’s a remarkable innovation. The period was one of the first punctuation marks to enter written language as a way to indicate a pause, back when writing was used primarily as a record of (and script for) speech. Over time, as the written word gained autonomy from the spoken word, punctuation became a way to structure a text according to its own unique hierarchy and logic. While punctuation could still be used to create or suggest the rhythms of speech, only the exclamation point and question mark indicated anything like what an orator would call “tone.”
“In the instances when POC say shit like ‘Oh I can’t stand white folk’ or ‘Damn white people’, they aren’t saying ‘Oh I think they are inferior, I want to humiliate them, abuse them, enslave them and wipe out their people!’, they’re saying ‘Damn, after a couple hundred years of white people thinking I’m inferior, humiliating me, abusing me, enslaving me, and trying to wipe out my people, I don’t wanna deal with them.’ The context is completely different.”—
“The sense of being between cultures has been very, very strong for me. I would say that’s the single strongest strand running through my life: the fact that I’m always in and out of things, and never really of anything for very long.”—Edward W. Said, Power, Politics and Culture. (via warzonetourism)
“The fact that Racism 2.0 is subtle, rather than blatant, and institutional, rather than individual, makes it all the more insidiously oppressive and effective as a system that maintains unequal access to social and economic resources.
As we have shown, the policing of language is a fake-out, an excuse for preventing marginalized groups from accessing power, property, and influence. It ain’t ever really about ‘your verbs agreeing’ or ‘enunciating the ends of your words.’ Because of the strong links between language and identity, linguistic discrimination is often nothing more than racial and ethnic discrimination by proxy.”—
H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman, Articulate While Black (via socio-logic)
[great quote and “Articulate While Black” is such a good title *saving for future book/show title]
Being inexperienced means you’re not shackled with decades of service in a narrow vertical and the accompanying entrenched biases and relationships. You have natural qualities to offer that companies spend millions of dollars per year in training budgets trying to replicate in their most senior executives. You question long-held assumptions, cross-pollinating your projects with outside ideas. You don’t have to pander to the person who did you a favor all those years ago, and more generally, you don’t have social capital within your organization to protect. This means you’re pretty free from some huge barriers to innovation: sunk costs, self-interest, and bias. That sense of freedom and independence leads you to think that hitting that stretch goal is possible, which makes achieving it more likely. You tend to think of new solutions quickly, refuse to compromise yourself out of existence, and are a native end-user of technologies that could blow existing business models to bits. All this amounts to at least two things: 1) The best organizations should wage wars for people like you, and 2) you can stop looking for opportunities to appear to be adding value. Instead, you can actually add value.
If those nagging self-doubts return, don’t look up to role models for inspiration; look around at your peers for evidence. Writing Passion & Purpose showed me how countless young people have impacted the world in incredible ways, and how they’re doing this in public, private, and nonprofit sectors, across industries, within established organizations and in their own companies. Most importantly, they’re making a difference in industries that they haven’t spent the better part of their lives in. You can join them.
Inexperience doesn’t equal ineptitude, and we need to stop treating young professionals like second-class citizens. To those of you who think that your inexperience is a chronic disadvantage, stop. Don’t let anyone confuse your inexperience in performing a task with an inability to perform it. Instead, be encouraged and seize the opportunity to remain humble, play to your advantages, and show the world you can do better.
“So, transform yourself first…Because you are young and have dreams and want to do something meaningful, that in itself, makes you our future and our hope. Keep expanding your horizon, decolonize your mind, and cross borders.”—Yuri Kochiyama (via conversationpeace)