Ethnic stereotypes in American media: Difference between revisions

Media and Ethnicity is a subject which is heavily centered around the observations concerning the predominantly American influenced global mass media's structured racist practices (from classical overt racism to modern covert racism) that involve the constant use of White people in important roles within storylines for films, fashion, commercials, computer games, comic books, porn, theatre, etc. while limiting the involvement of Non-Whites to secondary backdrop roles. Such a subject may also pertain to politics, economics, science, the news industry, the music industry, the sports industry, and the sports entertainment industries as well. For instance, there is current public speculation concerning the new dress code policy in the NBA and its possible connection to the suspected covert intentions relating to White standards (also see: Covert racism in the NFL - This source has a report on the scientific statistics concerning sports commentators' unconscious tendencies to rate White athletes positively and Non-White athletes negatively).

There is a significant amount of information throughout the internet that may indicate that White people are continually being cast as protagonists in the majority of storylines in every film genre, while Non-White people continue to be limited to the supporting roles (even when those films' storylines are centered around Non-White characters). A group of professors from the University of Florida have conducted a report on this observation by stating that even though Non-Whites are gaining more leading roles in films, Whites still continue to play the central and most progressive elements in most storylines: News.ufl.edu. There is also public concern that such an ongoing behavior by the media for limiting the roles of Non-Whites in films is directly (or indirectly) influenced by many early social ideologies, beliefs and attitudes derived from Colonialism and Imperialism in the early history of Western society. Furthermore, such beliefs are said to be interconnected with each other and are historically linked in the subjects of Whiteness, Manifest_destiny, Cultural_imperialism, Eugenics, White Man's Burden, etc.

Anti-media sentiments have been generated throughout many decades of social movements fueled by the increasing amount of public awareness into the affairs of the mainstream media's repetitive tactics of downcasting Non-Whites onscreen while simultaneously elevating Whites through protagonist roles. The effects of the repetitive nature of the media may have had a profound impact on how past, present, and perhaps even future generations subconsciously perceive Non-Whites as being secondary to Whites in society. Henceforth, the false and deceptively covert social standard identified as White normalcy, White racelessness, White ideals, White superiority, or "Whiteness" (see Whiteness) would be considered long established and deeply rooted (subconscious level) in western culture (including the cultures and nations around the world that have been heavily influenced by, exposed to, and adhere to American / British / Christian / modern-Zionist mass media, mass politics, and mass corporatism).

Also see:

http://www.arasite.org/whites.html

Taking a stand against racism in the media

Harbour.sfu.ca

Academic.Udayton.edu

Upress.umn.edu

Emmerich1.com/Eugenics

For the chronology on the history of slavery and racism in America go to:

Innercity.org

Non-White People and the Mainstream Media

Consistent reports concerning the mainstream media's attempts to limit the roles of Non-Whites are archived by many growing sources throughout the internet. Such arguments report that the media's repetitive actions for limiting the roles of Non-Whites have directly affected the public's perception in general. This in turn creates contagious negative stereotypes in modern society. Many critics have consistently pointed out that the mainstream media has very rarely considered Non-White male actors in romantic leads in movies, and that the media has even portrayed their sexuality as non-existent or negative. Unfortunately of course, the fall-off of such a mainstream impact could eventually affect and influence the consensus of future generations as well. These arguments and their sources are listed in the sub-categories below.

The media's portrayal of Asians

From Model Minority

• In "Daughter of the Dragon," the daughter of Fu Manchu lays her eyes on a British detective and instantly falls in love with him. "The Bounty" and "Come See the Paradise" also contain scenes where an Asian woman falls in love with a white man at first sight. The repetition of this conceit sends the signal that Asian women are romantically attracted to white men because they are white . It insinuates that whiteness is inherently more important than any other romantic quality and inherently more appealing than any other skin color.

• Hollywood typically restricts its portrayals of Asians to a limited range of clichéd stock characters. And this has affected how Asian Americans are perceived and treated in the broader society.

• Asians and Asian Americans make their living in a wide array of professions, but too often, Asian American professionals are depicted in a limited and predictable range of jobs: restaurant workers, Korean grocers, Japanese businessmen, Indian cab drivers, TV anchorwomen, martial artists, gangsters, faith healers, laundry workers, and prostitutes. This misrepresents the diversity of the Asian American work force.

• Because distinctive Asian characteristics are less common in the United States, movies and TV shows often fall back on them for quick and easy gags or gasps. For example, the thick accent of the goofy Chinese exchange student in "Sixteen Candles"--who is given the sophomoric name "Long Duk Dong"--is used for cheap laughs, while the numerous Fu Manchu movies have presented the Asian character's culturally distinctive speech and appearance as emblems of unfathomable evil.

• Asians are relegated to supporting roles in projects with Asian or Asian American content. Usually, when a project features Asian subject matter, the main character will still be white. "The Killing Fields" and "Seven Years in Tibet" are only two efforts that follow this "rule." But the most infamous example is the internment-camp movie "Come See the Paradise" (a box-office flop), which misleadingly focused on a white protagonist and pushed its more interesting Japanese American characters into the background of their own history. However, the success of "Gandhi," "The Last Emperor," and "The Joy Luck Club" proves that mainstream audiences will pay to see Asian and Asian American lead characters. Using Asian American protagonists can even create more interesting and uncommon story ideas.

• Asian male sexuality is portrayed as being negative or non-existent. Although Asian women are frequently portrayed as positive romantic partners for white men ("Sayonara," "The World of Suzie Wong," ad infinitum), Asian men are almost never positively paired with women of any race. Western society still seems to view Asian male sexuality as a problem. Consequently, Asian men are usually presented either as threatening corrupters of white women or as eunuchs lacking any romantic feelings. For example, in the action movie "Showdown in Little Tokyo," the Asian villain forces himself upon a white woman and murders her before threatening the Asian female love interest. Predictably, the white hero kills the Asian villain and "wins" the Asian woman--while the hero's Amerasian sidekick is given no love life at all.

On the subject of Non-Whites being limited by the media in films, a report was published by Ka Leo Staff Columnist Andrew Ma on February 26, 2004 which observes that anyone who was not of European heritage during the early stages of western film production was considered to be inferior. The statements below are from Kaleo.org:

• At the dawn of American cinema, Asians, Blacks and anyone else of Non-European descent were not allowed on-camera. Instead, Whites came up with the blatantly offensive practices of "yellow-face" and "black-face", using white actors to play Minorities. That wonderful idea continued for over half a century; as you can see in "Breakfast_At_Tiffany's. Or for an even more laughable example, watch John Wayne playing Genghis Khan in The_Conqueror.

• American portrayals of Asians have historically been designed with a very specific agenda in mind: to alienate, ostracize and otherwise paint a picture of Asians as rejects, outsiders and foreigners - in short, as less than human and less than truly American. In the eyes of mainstream media, Asians have been universally reduced to one-dimensional caricatures whose sole purpose is to serve as an "exotic" backdrop for white America.

• Eventually, thanks to the efforts of actors like Sidney_Poitier, Blacks managed to turn the tables such that in the current political climate, it is not only allowed, but expected that a Black character in any given show is fleshed-out as a full human being. To do otherwise risk provoking outrage from not only Black America, but the general society at large.

• The story has been severely different for many other minorities though, including Asian Americans. AAs have continued getting shafted with condescending and racist distortions right up to the present day. While that tide has slowly begun turning in recent years, this has been the exception far more than the rule, and it's by no means a done deal.

• American portrayals of Asians have historically been designed with a very specific agenda in mind: to alienate, ostracize and otherwise paint a picture of Asians as rejects, outsiders and foreigners - in short, as less than human and less than truly American.

• In the eyes of mainstream media, Asians have been universally reduced to one-dimensional caricatures whose sole purpose is to serve as an "exotic" backdrop for white America.

• Asian Men: Mysterious, sneaky, indecipherable, and "exotic." The kung-fu man. The Chinese restaurant waiter or delivery boy. (It doesn't matter if the actor is Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or of another Asian ethnicity. They're all the same right?) The nerd and math whiz. Sexually invisible (unless homosexual) and socially inept. Other favorites are the ghetto liquor store clerk and the evil triad gangster. Above all else, he must nearly always be a foreigner with a heavy accent, i.e. not-American (if the actor is native-born American or otherwise speaks fluent English, he's told to act like he doesn't.) If he's not a chinky-jap kung-fu powerhouse, he's pathetically weak and verbally helpless without his "Great White Savior;" as for example, in "Fight Club."

• Asian Women: Also mysterious, sneaky, indecipherable and "exotic." The sinister, cold, money-grubbing, dragon lady bitch. Often, per many a white male's personal favorite, she's the cheap Asian whore who exists purely for the gratification of white males. If she's not a psycho-slutty-gook bitch, she's also totally weak and helpless without her "Great White Savior." Unless of course, she knows kung-fu. Again, foreign accent a plus. Examples? How about virtually every single American movie with an Asian female in it.

• Asian Men and Women Together? Forget it. Even if they are paired with a member of the opposite sex, it must be a white person. Portrayals of Asian male/white female unions are not as preferable to Hollywood as white male/Asian female unions, since the latter stays close to the heart of the Asian-whore fetish. But most especially, it's because the first image threatens the white male status quo. Either way, both portrayals will see the light of day long before an Asian man and woman are ever shown together in any meaningful way. The apparent message coming from Hollywood is that unless an Asian man or woman has a white partner, their relationship is insignificant.

• Another popular method is to consistently refer to Asians using only the most derogatory language, under the guise of being historically accurate or realistically raw. Media barons seem to think it's a good idea to reinforce the perspectives of racists by putting their words (chink, jap, gook, nip, slope, etc.) onto the big screen as often as possible.

• While there are many things to be said for historical accuracy, the real problem is that this is done without any kind of balance. For every one portrayal of Asians as genuine human beings, there are a thousand portrayals of Asians as dismissible stereotypes.

• And the list goes on... Why showcase Asian/Polynesian talent in "Blue Crush," when you can promote a barely-known white female from the east coast to play the lead role and then feebly pass her off as "local?" Better yet, do like "Pearl Harbor," and erase Asians/Polynesians entirely from the landscape of Hawai'i.

• Let's look at "The Fast and the Furious," a movie about import-racing which is a sub-cultural phenomenon entirely created by Asian Americans. First drop white leads into the movie, then demote Asian men to flat, bad guy characters whose sisters sleep with white guys.

• How about "Wing Commander?" A movie based on an Asian-created video game, where a potentially juicy role for an AA character is handled by killing him before the movie starts, then having two White actors talk about him in the past tense. And of course, his face is never seen.

• In "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," another Asian-video-game-based movie uses White leads, but at least actually uses a real Asian woman's voice (again, playing opposite a White male). However, then her animated character's appearance is designed to be that of a White female, which sounds alarmingly like a technologically upgraded version of "yellow-face." Though to be accurate, that would involve White actors voicing Asian characters. But I'm sure that never happens. Except in "Mulan." And "Lilo & Stitch." And... never mind.

• Then there is the dilemma of hapa actors playing full-Asian roles because the movie execs want Asians who "look white" enough. (Half a comeback for "yellow-face?") While there is nothing wrong with hapas choosing to embrace their Asian heritages through acting, this casting process reveals quite a bit about the disturbed mentality still prevalent in Hollywood. A glaring example: "The Last Emperor."

• By the same token, some hapa actors who aren't obviously Asian keep their ethnicity under wraps. One of the highest paid actors in the world is a hapa who has never made it generally known that his father is Chinese/Hawaiian. As far as most people know, Keanu Reeves is simply white. Marketing strategy?

• None of this would matter if Hollywood didn't exercise an inordinate amount of influence over the entire world. But it does. And in this context, cultural looting means just that. They steal it, co-opt it with a white identity and mass-market it to the rest of the world while we sit back and eat popcorn.

• It's by no coincidence that these portrayals (or removals) of Asians and Asian Americans have far and away been predominantly conceived, directed and otherwise produced by Caucasian people, who may claim to want to represent Asians and other minorities, but who invariably impose a "white spin" on things. It really is inherently ridiculous for someone to claim they represent a culture when they're not even of that culture. (Anthropology anyone?)

• Finally, there is the potentially most dangerous consequence of this type of racism: internalized oppression. Again, the biggest problem with these race-based depictions is that there are simply no other depictions balancing them out. AAs that grow up never seeing well-rounded images of other Asians in the media may impose those limitations on themselves and further help perpetuate them. As comedian Margaret Cho joked, "When I was young, I used to dream that someday I would grow up to play an extra on "MASH."

• How often do young AAs today imagine Asians on-screen being capable of more than chop-socky? How many a struggling Asian actor/actress has had to settle for playing grotesque parodies of Asians if they want to find work? Even worse, AAs producing in Hollywood may resign themselves to merely creating projects for white actors because they have been conditioned to feel that creating opportunities for Asian roles is unmarketably futile.

• It's way past time things changed, not solely for the benefit of 11 million Asian Americans, but for the benefit of us all. Because in the end, racism of any kind only feeds into more ignorance, hatred and fear, doing a massive disservice to everyone.

• Fortunately, Asians have already begun finding their own voices in mainstream media and with the accelerating growth of the AA population, it's not even a question of "if," only "when." But it won't happen by itself. Among other things, it will take the continued efforts of progressively minded media-makers to bring about a permanent cultural shift.

This same pattern of White people playing Non-White characters may also apply to the movie Starship Troopers which was partly based on the novel by Robert_Heinlein [1]. In the original novel, the main protagonist Juan "Johnny" Rico was supposed to be a Filipino man (Starship_Troopers#Politics), although Paul_Verhoeven made the decision to change the background of that character into being a White man from Buenos Aires instead.

The media's portrayal of Arabs

The statements below are from the report titled U.S. media fanning anti-Arab hatred done by Aftab Kazmi, Bureau Chief, on 28-10-2003:

• The US media has been fanning hatred against Arab Muslims, creating an atmosphere of fear particularly for Arab students in US universities, a recent study reveals. The 'negative' media coverage, the study says, has been influencing the attitudes and perceptions of US citizens and government, making it even more hostile towards Arab Muslim students after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

Conducted by Nader S. Nasir Al Aulaqi, a UAE student, the study highlights the need for effective scrutiny and monitoring of the American mass media through watchdog groups."Watchdog groups can help expose the slanted news coverage, and force media companies to reduce the racist and biased portrayal of Arab Muslims in the press," he said. The study was a research project by Al Aulaqi at the California State University at San Bernardino during his post-graduate studies in Communications and Public Relations.It focused on the attitudes of Arab Muslim students towards the US government, people and media since 9/11.

A study of Arab Muslim students' feelings and thoughts on racism and prejudice against them before and after September 11 was also a part of the research. Al Aulaqi said the negative media portrayal of Arabs and Muslims for the last many years was amplified by the tragic 9/11 events. He said most Arab Muslim students are deeply concerned by the growing tensions in the US towards their ethnic group.

The US media has been clubbing together terrorism and Islam, influencing the American public to think that all Arab Muslims are "crazy and violent terrorists". "The American media has been a primary agent responsible for creating racist stereotypes, images and viewpoints for Arab Muslims before and after September 11, 2001."

Coverage of the Middle East problem by US newspapers and magazines routinely describes Palestinians as Muslim terrorists who are willing to go on suicide bombing missions in the name of Allah. "The Jewish terrorists who slaughter innocent Palestinians are not presented in the same way," he said. Al Aulaqi's study also revealed that negative and violent images of Arab Muslims in children's cartoons and adult films in the US were also influencing the public perception of Islam and Arabs.

He gave an example of the US print media fanning anger against Islam and Muslims. Muslims were first blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 without tangible proof. "The headline of the Chicago Sun-Times read "In the Name of Islam". Below this headline, a large picture was shown of a firefighter holding a dead child in his arms," said the researcher.

After the truth surfaced that an American ex-soldier was responsible for the bombing, the press did not offer an apology to the Arab and Muslim community, he said. The study also revealed that a majority of Arab Muslim students in the US have not significantly changed their behaviour since the 9/11 events with regard to their habits and lifestyles. Despite an initial reconsideration of their educational plans in the US, he said, most students interviewed expressed their willingness to stay in the US to complete their studies.

Below is a report titled "Truth is the victim as the same old double standards prevail" done by Robert Fisk:

• Why do we always get taken in by the same lies? Don't reporters carry history books, even a cuttings file, to remind them of what they wrote in the last Arab-Israeli war? Even the quotes – the meretricious, cliché-soaked statements – are the same.

Let's go back to June 1982. Southern Lebanon. A UN ceasefire is in place between Yasser Arafat's PLO guerrillas and Israel. In London, a Palestinian tries to assassinate the Israeli ambassador; his potential killer belongs to the anti-Arafat Abu Nidal faction, intent on provoking an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Israel bombs Arafat's men in Lebanon. After several days under attack, they fire Katyusha rockets over the border into Israel. And what happens? Israel invades Lebanon because it is under "terrorist" attack and suggests – wait for it – that "Arafat cannot control his men".

Sound familiar? There's more. By the time cameras were recording the thousands of civilian casualties of the Lebanon war, the Israelis were asking why the "terrorists" were hiding behind the civilians. Why did the Palestinians use children in their war? Israel said it did not intend to kill children, even the ones I found in the Makassed hospital in Beirut, their bodies still on fire from the phosphorus shell that killed them, and blamed their deaths on the PLO.

And duly, I recall, most journalists in 1982 fell in line with the narrative laid down by the Americans and the Israelis, just as they do today. As usual, the slaughter of Palestinian children is blamed on the Palestinians. The death of Arab civilians is the fault of the Arabs. Arafat cannot control "his people". Arabs are turned into "terrorists", as opposed to the folk who are killing the Arab civilians and children whose deaths, of course, are the responsibility of their own grieving parents.

No, we should not get romantic about the corrupt, venal Palestinian officials who tried to rule their little statelets in 1982 – and in 2000. In 1982 we listened to the PLO drivelling on about the "Zionist death wagon" and the massacre of thousands of civilians around a town called Jezzine. The "massacre" turned out to be myth – as most journalists suspected and reported. The PLO would claim they were fighting for the Lebanese – a complete lie – and that this was the most important battle since Stalingrad, a parallel as laughable as it was grotesque. But the PLO's "propaganda machine", in reality so preposterous, was of such inefficiency that no one would take it seriously.

But at least, in 1982, Arafat would talk to the press. At least the PLO could field a few English speakers. Today, Arafat refuses to talk to foreign correspondents, let alone in English, and fields a bunch of officials (apart from Hanan Ashrawi) whose inability to speak good English renders them almost incomprehensible. Claims that Palestinians were not firing at Israeli soldiers were destroyed by video which clearly showed that Palestinian policemen, far from directing traffic, were shooting at their opposite numbers on the Israeli side.

And yet again – the record shows it all too clearly – journalists in 1982 found themselves browbeaten by a supposedly outraged Israel which claimed reporting was hopelessly biased towards the Palestinians. This ridiculous assertion was taken so seriously in the US that the New York Times allowed an Israeli lobby group to "monitor" its reporting. Journalist Tom Friedman had remarks about Israel's "indiscriminate" artillery fire censored from his reports, while the US media used the word "terrorists" (always Arab "terrorists") like a punctuation mark.

But it is the traditional double standard that marks the propaganda victory of one side over the other in the Middle East. When Israel sent its Lebanese Christian militias into the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982, those militias massacred up to 2,000 Palestinian civilians. Not only did Israel say this was "a mistake". They attacked journalists who reported the murders as "anti-Semitic". Similarly, the killing of Palestinian children by Israeli troops now. On any other story – in Kosovo, East Timor or Belfast – the killing of so many children by "security forces" would engender outrage on the part of journalists. If Serb "security forces" were killing Albanian youths at this rate last year, Nato would have gone to war weeks earlier.

Yet today, we hear the usual weasel words. We hear of Israel's "tough response", its "robust" action, its "restraint". No, the Israelis are not the Serbs. Nor are they the Indonesian army. But journalists are the same. So fearful of creating "controversy" by telling the truth according to real journalistic standards, so vain that they must avoid all criticism, so lacking in resolve that they must announce that the 12-year-old Palestinian shot by the Israelis in Gaza was "killed in crossfire", that they are actively taking sides. And if a massacre follows, will we tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I doubt it.

Other quotes from Robert Fisk:

• Meanwhile our impartial media continues to suggest that there's nothing very odd about using tanks and missiles against rioters and gunmen. The Los Angeles Times is now talking of the Israeli tactics as "heavy handed" – like a schoolmaster who prefers six of the best to three of the best – while BBC Television news told us when the first helicopter fired a missile into a Palestinian apartment block that the Israelis were "resorting to extreme measures". Is that what the Los Angeles Times and the BBC would have said if the Palestinians had fired a missile into an Israeli apartment block? I doubt it. I suspect our old friend "terrorism" would have been produced to account for such a barbarity.

• "This is a story about lies, bias, hatred and death. It's about our inability after more than half a century to understand the injustice of the Middle East. It's about a part of the world where it seems quite natural, after repeatedly watching on television the funeral of 11- year-old Sami Abu Jezar who died two days after being shot through the forehead by Israeli soldiers for a crowd to kick two Israeli plainclothes agents to death. It's about a nation that claims "purity of arms" but fires missiles at civilian apartment blocks and then claims it is "restoring order". It's about people who are so enraged by the killing of almost a hundred Palestinians that they try to blow up an entire American warship.

As usual last night, the television news broadcasts those most obsequious and deforming of information dispensers were diverting our minds from the truth. They did not ask why the Palestinians should have lynched two Israeli undercover men. Instead, they asked why Palestinian police had not protected them. They did not ask why a suicide bomber in a rubber boat should have bombed the USS Cole.

Instead, they asked who he was, who he worked for, and they interviewed Pentagon officials who denounced "terrorism". Always the "who" or the "what" never the "why". - "Lies, hatred and the language of force" by Robert Fisk, The Independent Newspaper (UK), October 13, 2000.

The statements below are from the report "Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People" done by Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communications at Southern Illinois University and author of "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People":

The report below 100 Years of anti-Arab & anti-Muslim stereotyping was done by by Mazin B. Qumsiyeh (director of Media Relations for the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee-NC):

• Hollywood has had a consistent record of Arab stereotyping and bashing. Some in the Arab American community call this the three B syndrome: Arabs in TV and movies are portrayed as either bombers, belly dancers, or billionaires. Thomas Edison made a short film in 1897 for his patented Kinetoscope in which "Arab" women with enticing clothes dance to seduce a male audience. The short clip was called Fatima Dances (Belly dancer stereotype). The trend has shifted over the years and was predominated by the "billionaires" for a short while especially during the oil crises in the seventies. However, in the last 30 some years, the predominant stereotype by far has been the "Arab bombers." In the latest movies G. I. Jane and Operation Condor viewers chant as a hero blows away Arabs.

In G. I. Jane, Demi Moore plays a Navy SEAL officer who gains her stripes killing Arabs. In Operation Condor starring Jackie Chan, we have Arab villains and a money grubbing inn-keeper (no good Arabs). Another scene shows Arabs praying and then cuts to an auction where Chan's women companions are being auctioned.

The author Jack Shaheen has spent year investigating these trends and this is well-documented in his book The TV Arab. According to Shaheen over 21 major movies released in the last ten years show our military killing Arabs. This includes such "hits" as Iron Eagle, Death Before Dishonor, Navy SEALs, Patriot Games, the American President, Delta Force 3, Executive Decision, etc. Not since the heyday of the cowboys-killing-Indians streak of films have we had such an epidemic. New York columnist Russell Baker wrote "Arabs are the last people except Episcopalians whom Hollywood feels free to offend en masse."

It is very interesting that a lot of what we see as offensive is released by subsidiaries of Disney (a so called family value company run by Mike Eisner). It is not surprising then that Disney and Operation Condor received a "Dishonor Award" at this year's national convention of the American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC). The ADC has been at the forefront in combating stereotypes and negative portrayal of Arabs in the media. The successes are there but the challenge is very large indeed.

Some in the Arab community in the US believe that there is a widespread effort now to create the "Muslim terror" as the replacement enemy now that communism is not a threat. In other words, to justify our continued massive military and the billions of dollars we send to Israel every year, we need a demonstrable enemy who will not go away. Israel now emphasizes that this danger of terrorism is more serious than military threats from any country in the Middle East.

This is an ironic twist of events. We now minimize state-sponsored terrorism (such as that which Israel, Turkey, and other allies engage in) and portray the threat in terms of religious and ethnic groups. The Arab community in the US feels especially vulnerable because the energy and center of the Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim media movements are concentrated here. How else would we explain that the New York Times runs a cartoon with a bomb-wielding, mean-looking Arab and a caption that reads "Orthodox.. conservative...reform... what's the DIFFERENCE." Such cartoons have not been rare in Europe since the Nazi era. The harm is not only psychological (insult to a culture or a religion) but helps feed into actions that are physically harmful. Didn't we see this before, dehumanizing a group first before attacking it?

A law was passed by Congress recently on airport "profiling"which is really stereotyping and racism. The idea is that you can identify "risky" people based on the countries they traveled to in the past (thus Arab Americans) and search them more thoroughly than the "normal" people. This leads to one line at the airport for Arabs and Muslims and one line for others.

The double standards and hypocrisy of the media is everywhere. The Palestinians are the victims of mass expulsions, people who have lost their landthree million of themand who are now refugees in Diaspora, prevented from the universally accepted right of return. How is it that they are portrayed collectively as terrorists bent on killing Jews? Israel, the US, and Arab countries pursue terrorists aggressively when they are Arabs but we somehow let state terrorism off the hook.

Even individual criminal acts and terrorism done by others go unpunished. Over 12 years ago, a letter-bomb killed Alex Odeh, ADC regional director in California. Two suspects fled to Israel and the FBI has a reward, but no political pressure is applied on Israel to extradite them. Why couldn't we apply economic sanctions on Israel to comply with UN resolutions? Instead our politicians send Israel 3-5 billion a year of your tax dollars.

The Arab community in North America is vibrant and thriving but is in distress over these issues. We are doctors, business people, engineers, scientists, judges, humanitarians, advocates for human rights, and in short a productive segment of the fabric of this great society.

Western civilization would not have developed without the influence of the Arab civilization (just think of the bridge and continuity that the Arab civilization had between ancient European civilizations and the renaissance of western civilization after the "Dark Ages").

People rarely hear of this history or of Arab heritage of the 20th century Arab Americans: Tiffany, John Sununu, Danny Thomas, Marlo Thomas, Casey Kasem, F. Murray Abraham, Paul Anka, Khalil Gibran and countless others whose names are familiar but whose culture and background are constantly maligned in our "enlightened mainstream" media.

Alternative media like The Prism are needed more than ever. Let us hope that it will not take a hundred years of education to undo the damage already done. Jack Shaheen and Sam Husseini of ADC tell us that, unfortunately, even if no more stereotyping films are produced the backlog of reruns will be very large indeed. A dent in this problem will be made only if decent people would join hands (with such groups as ADC) and would call and write the media outlets to complain every time such a film or event is shown.

Here is also a link to an interview (has audio files) about the negativity that Hollywood taints on Arab people "Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People". The interview had guests Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communications at Southern Illinois University and author of "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People".

The media's portrayal of Blacks

The statements below are from Racist media tears down image of Black males published by history student Misty Handy:

• By creating a monster-like image of black men, the media strategically teach the nation to be unresponsive to the dilemmas in the black community. Each day, as I read the newspaper, I am more and more angered by atrocious portrayals of black men. They are endlessly depicted as heartless gangsters, raging rapists and money-hungry drug dealers. They are perceived as womanizers and deadbeat dads. Because of these inaccurate and hackneyed representations, society has come to accept that these images are symbolic of all black men.

• The same systematic process the media use to miseducate the masses and cause them to believe that icons “representing” black men are factual, is used to promote an angelic picture of white men. Let’s not be foolish here. There are white gangsters, white rapists and white drug dealers. There are a lot of them, but when white men are found guilty of such crimes, the media create an image of astonishment and disbelief, asking questions such as “How could this happen in our community?” and saying “This is not like us.”

• When the two white students in Littleton, Colo., brutally shot their classmates, the country mourned, not only for the victims but for the victimizers as well. The country was concerned with the boys’ family lives and their mental health. Even President Clinton made a public speech that made the boys sound like angels who had somehow been possessed by the devil. Yet when black children shoot each other, it is assumed normal. There is no mourning. There are no speeches. No one cares.

• Since gangs are recognized as a major source of black-on-black crime, it might be interesting to note that most of them started out as black nationalist liberation movements. It wasn’t until FBI agents involved in a counterintelligence program infiltrated such organizations, pitting one group against another and then supplying them with weapons, that these groups began fighting each other.

• For instance, the Black P Stone Nation, a Chicago-based gang, began in the early ’60s. The Stones were dedicated to protecting the black community against hate crimes and to ridding the community of the crystal plague (crack cocaine). Because of the government’s fear of the rise of a “Black Messiah,” government officials infiltrated the Stones, pitting them against other local gangs — namely the Gangster Disciples.

• It’s almost universally accepted that black men belong in prison. The logic behind this? “Animals” must be caged. Trust me, prisons are not filled with a disproportionate number of black men by chance. The penal system creates laws that ensure the

imprisonment of blacks.

The statements below are from Racerelations.about.com:

• Entman and Rojecki illustrate how the television news focus on black poverty and crime is grossly out of proportion with the reality of black life, how use of black 'experts' is limited to 'black-themed' issues, and how 'black politics' are often distorted in the news. In short, they conclude that although there are more images of African-Americans on television now than ever, these images are often harmful to the propsect of unity between the races.

• A mug shot of a Black defendant is 4 times more likely to appear in a local television news report than of a White defendant.

• The accused is 2 times more likely to be shown physically restrained in a local television news report than when the accused is White.

• The name of the accused is 2 times more likely to be shown on screen in a local TV news report if the defendant is Black, rather than White.

• While Black actors are now more visible in films, it is an open question as to how well they are being represented. Compare, for example, how Blacks and Whites are portrayed in the top movies of 1996.

- Black female movie characters shown using vulgar profanity: 89%

- White female movie characters shown using vulgar profanity: 17%

- Black female movie characters shown being physically violent: 56%

- White female movie characters shown being physically violent: 11%

- Black female movie characters shown being restrained: 55%

- White female movie characters shown being restrained: 6%

The statements below are from Yale.edu - a report done by Stephen Balkaran:

• Mass media have played and will continue to play a crucial role in the way white Americans perceive African-Americans. As a result of the overwhelming media focus on crime, drug use, gang violence, and other forms of anti-social behavior among African-Americans, the media have fostered a distorted and pernicious public perception of African-Americans. 1

• The history of African-Americans is a centuries old struggle against oppression and discrimination. The media have played a key role in perpetuating the effects of this historical oppression and in contributing to African-Americans' continuing status as second-class citizens. As a result, white America has suffered from a deep uncertainty as to who African-Americans really are. Despite this racial divide, something indisputably American about African-Americans has raised doubts about the white man's value system. Indeed, it has also aroused the troubling suspicion that whatever else the true American is, he is also somehow black.

• Media have divided the working class and stereotyped young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers. As a result of such treatment, the media have crushed youths' prospects for future employment and advancement. The media have focused on the negative aspects of the black community (e.g. engaging in drug use, criminal activity, welfare abuse) while maintaining the cycle of poverty that the elite wants.

• There are no universally accepted and recorded codes or rules, which apply to journalists in news selection and production. The media have devoted too much time and space to "enumerating the wounded" and too little time to describing the background problems of African-Americans. 4 What is not a crisis is not usually reported and what is not or cannot be made visual is often not televised. The news media respond quickly and with keen interest to the conflicts and controversies of racial stories. For the most part, they disregard the problems that seep beneath the surface until they erupt in the hot steam that is the "live" news story.

• The media have not studied important events in the African-American community today. Issues such as urbanization, education, poverty, and other elements have a significant bearing on positions of the black community. A good example of this is the media portrayal of the Los Angeles riot in 1992. What we witnessed in Los Angeles was the consequence of a lethal linkage of economic decline, cultural decay, and political lethargy in American life.

• Race was the visible catalyst, not the underlying cause, as media portrayed it to be. 5 The portrayal of this individual event encouraged the perception that the black community was solely responsible for the riots and disturbances. According to reports, of those arrested, only 36% were black and of those arrested, more than a third had full-time jobs and most had no political affiliation. 6 Some 60% of the rioters and looters were made up of Hispanics and whites. Yet the media did not report this underlying fact. The media portrayal of this event along with other race riots has again inflicted negative charges and scorn on black awareness. Race riots in Miami in 1980 were similar to the later Los Angeles riots. Here the media also refused to search for the underlying cause behind the protest choosing instead only to depict African-American males engaged in violence and destruction. The underlying factors behind these problems were never researched or explained in prior stories.

• Clearly, the economic structure of the American news media and the local media make them subject to pressures from powerful interest groups. In 1967, the Kerner Report attacked the mass media for their inadequate handling of day-to-day coverage of racial events. The Report charged the media with failing to properly communicate about race to the majority of their audience. That is, white America needed to hear more about the actual conditions and feelings of African-Americans in the U.S. Only when events are associated with concern of the "white public" do they become newsworthy. Given the situation in America where the major news media have predominantly white reporters and serve a mainly white audience, it follows that the "public" which dictates newsworthy events is a white public. The day to day tensions of black existence and exploitation, which are crucial concerns of the black community, are not primary concerns of the white public. Only the symptoms of these conditions, such as freedom rides and social disturbances, impinge upon whites. Hence, it is only such "events" which become newsworthy in a white press.

• One of the main reasons for the inadequate coverage of the underlying causes of racial stereotypes in the U.S. is that the condition of blacks itself is not a matter of high interest to the white majority. Their interest in black America is focused upon situations in which their imagined fear becomes a real problem. Events like boycotts, pickets, civil rights demonstrations, and particularly racial violence mark the point at which black activity impinges on white concerns. It is not surprising that the white-oriented media seek to satisfy the needs of their white audience and reflect this pattern of attention to these selected events.

• Research has disclosed that most serious crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and assault) in inner cities are committed by a very small proportion of African-American youth, some 8% by estimates. 7 Yet the tendency to characterize all African-American males as criminals continues in our society. It is now common for law officers to stop young black males and to harass them as a result of this stereotype. The negative stereotype has continued to affect the black community, as well as their prospects for employment and advancement. All this has been destroyed and, as a end result, it has contributed to high unemployment within the African-American community.

• The media have and will continue to portray a self-serving negative stereotype of the African-American community. The societal and economic factors of racism have become more than just a bias. They are also a profitable industry, in which the elite will continue to suppress the lower class in order to maximize profits. According to Harvard professor Cornell West, 1 percent of the elite holds some 48 percent of America's wealth. This means that media, racism, and stereotypes will continue to be employed so that those elite can be sure of their continuing economic stability.

The statements below are from Uoregon.edu - a report done by Robin Eisenbach:

• If you were to watch television on any given day, on almost any given channel it is plainly obvious that any nonwhite race is underrepresented. When minority races are present on television shows it is unfortunate that the roles they do play just enforce sometimes harmful stereotypes. Actor Bill Cosby was once quoted saying that networks present images of African Americans that reinforce shallow stereotypes(Ford, 1997, p.267).

• If non-white races are shown so minimally on television and when they are shown it is most often in a negative light then there is a huge lack of racially diverse role models.

• Media has a huge influence. This point may seem obvious, but it is one that can not be stressed enough. If children only see their race in roles that portray shallow or negative stereotypes this can only work toward children questioning the positiveness and worth of their race. The ways images of Blacks are presented in the American media can influence attitudes and behaviors towards Blacks "... media portrayals of Blacks could have a substantial impact on the self-esteem and self-evaluations of Black viewers" (McLaughlin & Goulet, 1999, p. 63).

• Young children may be forming negative schema of their own race, due to media and this could be jeopardizing their self-esteem. "Negative stereotypical images of African Americans in the media affect the self-esteem of young Blacks. Researchers have found that television, especially the media portrayal of Blacks, has more effect on young Blacks than Whites"(Berry & Mitchell-Kernan, 1982; as cited in Orange & George, 2000, p. 303). This affect can skyrocket with an increased amount of television consumption.

• Orange & George's study shows that African American children do in fact watch more television, as a group, than do other children (pp. 299-301). "... frequent exposure in the form of excessive TV viewing can provide the exposure needed to rehearse this information, thereby facilitating its encoding into memory. This excessive exposure becomes the crux of the danger to Black children from TV viewing"(Orange & George, 2000, p. 305). This is not dangerous for just the stereotype and image that African American youth have of their own race, but it is also a dangerous fact when addressing the issue of violence on television. "... television programs are rife with violence, and most importantly the high exposure of children to televised violence increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior"(Orange & George, 2000, p. 297).

• If television mostly shows characters who are in the racial minority in a negative light, if African American children watch more TV than other children, and if a higher exposure to violent television leads to aggressive behavior, then the media is setting up our population of African American youth to fall victim to a harmful self-fulfilling prophecy.

• The lack of positive minority characters on television is not just problematic for the psychology of African American youth, but it also affects Caucasian youth populations. For some children the television may be the most exposure to a minority race that they have encountered. "Children have access to multiple mediums through which they have out-group exposure"(O'Connor, Brooks-Gunn, & Graber, 2000, p.517). For these children television is forming their perceptions of other races.

• Since television has done a generally poor job with positively representing nonwhite races, these children are being robbed of accurate portrayals of other races. "The whites of this experiment support the hypothesis that when whites are exposed to negative stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans, they are more likely to make negative judgments of an African-American target person"(Ford, 1997, p. 271). The lack of multiculturalism on television is an obvious problem for viewers of all races and ethnicities.

The media's portrayal of Latinos

The statements below are from Nahj.org - a report done by Serafin Mendez-Mendez & Diane Alverio:

• Latino-related stories continue to make up less than 1% of all the stories that appeared on the network newscasts. Of the approximately 16,000 stories that aired on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC in 2002, only 120 or 0.75 %, were about Latinos. While that was an increase from 2001, whent there were only 99 Latino-related stories, or 0.62 %, it still remains a dismal record given the growing size and importance of the nation's Latino community. Latinos now make up more than 13% of the population.

• Crime, terrorism, and illegal immigration accounted for 66% of all network stories about Latinos last year. There were 47 news reports alone dealing with Latinos as either the perpetrators or victims of crimes. Twenty-four stories were kidnappings, including 18 on the kidnapping and murder of 5-year old Samanthan Runnion in California. In those stories, Alejandro Avila was a central figure. He was arrested and charged with the kidnapping and murder of Runnion.

• The arrest of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla, for allegedlt plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb", occupied a central role in the coverage of Latinos last year with 21 network stories or 18 % of all stories that aired on Latinos.

• Latinos continued to be portrayed as a dysfunctional underclass that exists on the fringes of mainstream U.S. society.

• Latinos were once again typically portrayed as living in poverty and as criminals. The number of the Latino-related crime stories in 2002 was grossly excessive when compared to statistics on crimes involving Latinos.

• Illegal immigration continues to be an important focus of network news coverage of Latinos. Illegal immigrants are often depicted as a security threat to the country. Stories rarely addressed the many positive contributions made by Latino immigrants or provided viewers with a greater understanding of the causes and benefits of immigration. Of the four networks, ABC led the way with more balanced coverage of Latinos and with stories on a wide range of topics.

• This year's "Network Brownout" report found that Latinos continue to remain virtually absent from network news coverage. When they are covered, the stories are usually unbalanced and provide a stereotypical portrayal of Latino life in the United States. Nahj is concerned about the effect this unbalanced news coverage will have on the majority of U.S. television viewers whose main source of news and information comes watching television.

• We believe the lack of Latinos working in network newsrooms and in broadcast management is a major reason for the poor coverage of the Latino community. For several years, NAJH has called on the networks to report annually the racial and ethnic makeup of their newsrooms. The networks have so far refused our request.

The statements below are from Ethnicmajority.com

• Who we see, hear, and read on television, radio, newspapers, and in movies has a great deal of influence on shaping the attitudes of all Americans. How African, Hispanic (Latino), and Asian Americans are portrayed in these mediums often stereotypes and reinforces negative images of each ethnic group. And the lack of diversity in the media impacts how stories are covered and limits opportunities for Ethnic minorities in these professions.

• According to a recent study by Children Now, the 8 to 9 PM television-viewing "family hour" is the least ethnically diverse, with only one in eight programs having a mixed cast. This sends highly skewed messages about diversity in America to viewers, especially children.

• The Screen Actors Guild, which collects ethnicity data on all casting roles in TV and film, reported that roles for African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans for the first time declined in 1998, in spite of the increasing visibility of this issue.

The statements below are from Umich.edu:

• Latinos as a whole, still remain the most underrepresented group on television . Although they encompass about 12.5% of the national population, Latinos only account for 2% of characters on television. Furthermore, when they are represented on television, they are portrayed in unfavorable roles such as janitors, drug-dealers, and perpetrators of crime.

• Whether one is a heavy or light viewer of television, at some point, everyone will view some sort of television news program. Because Americans use television as their main source for obtaining news, it is important that we examine how Latinos are represented in primetime news programs. As found in a recent content analysis of television news programs, similar to the representations of Blacks in TV news, Latinos are overrepresented as perpetrators of crime.

• Latinos are more likely to be seen in mug shots than non-Hispanic whites. Latino perpetrators are also less likely to be identified by name than their white counterparts. Latinos were 10% more likely to be featured in stories about judicial and crime news, news of riots and demonstrations, and accident and disaster news than whites.

• And although in this country, immigrants come from all over the world, Latinos are more likely to be the focus in stories about immigration than any other group.

• Unfortunately, it was also found that Latinos are rarely seen in "hero" or "good Samaritan" stories. In addition, Stories in which Latinos are the victims of violent crimes are less likely to appear on primetime news. In rare situations when they do appear, the stories are located towards the end of the program and allotted less time than stories in which whites or blacks are the victims.

• Recently, there has been an increasing prevalence of reality television during primetime hours. It is estimated that reality shows constitute 13% of broadcast programming. Out of all of these programs, reality shows such as Cops and Americas Most Wanted, cause viewers to be inundated with negative stereotypes of Latinos. In a content analysis of reality television shows such as these, Latinos were more likely to be portrayed as criminal perpetrators than non-Hispanic whites. It was also found that Latinos were more likely to be featured in mug shots than any other type of photo.

• Latinos were the main focus in stories on drug charges and arrests. It was also noted that very few Latino officers were featured in segments of Cops. Since the amount of Latinos involved in drug related crimes and arrests are overrepresented, and the number of Latinos in authoritative or positive positions is underrepresented, society is exposed to a false sense of the world when viewing so-called “reality” television.

• Many reality television programs have made valiant steps towards improving minority representation. Shows such as MTV's The Real World, NBC's The Apprentice, and UPN's America's Next Top Model, have all featured cast members of Latino decent.

• Historically, Latinos have been portrayed as "buffoons." These characters are often the object of humor due to their lack of intelligence and difficulty speaking English. In I Love Lucy, Desi Arnaz plays the buffoon-like character, Ricky Ricardo. Ricky Ricardo has a heavy accent,and is often seen mentally searching for, or misusing English words.

• Currently,Wilmer Valderama, plays a foreign exchange student on That 70's Show. He is from an unidentified Latino country. He often misuses words and his heavy accent and mispronunciation is often made fun of by his white co-stars. The audience and characters on the show have never found out his real name. He is known as "Fez" which is an acronym for "foreign exchange student." He is not given a first and last name like his white counterparts. This perfectly exemplifies Latinos as being thought of as an inconsequential race.

• Kingpin, a Hispanic version of The Sopranos, has been described as "one of the most violent and sexually explicit television shows ever to be shown on a broadcast network" (USA Today, 2003). Throughout the show, Latinos are brutally violent and often pictured as glorified drug dealers. Latino males are associated with the "Latin Lover," the "greaser," and "bandito" images. Furthermore, Latina women are portrayed as deviant, "frilly senoritas" or "volcanic temptresses," while unintelligent and passive Latino families are portrayed as deviant and dependent.

• However, dramas such as ABC's NYPD Blue, have taken steps to distill these stereotypes. NYPD Blue has broken the traditional media stereotypes by placing Latinos in significant and positive roles. In this crime drama, Latinos are respected officers of the legal system. Latinos serve as main characters, and are not just featured to support their white costars.

• Underrepresentations, misrepresentations, and overrepresentations of Latinos on television may have a very detrimental effect on viewers. According to George Gerbner, viewers of television have the tendency to view television reality as actual reality. This is known as Cultivation. Since Latinos are, for the most part, underrepresented on television, this leads viewers to believe Latinos are not a large and significant part of the American population. In addition, since Latinos are overrepresented as perpetrators of crime, this leads viewers to view all Latinos as dangerous criminals.

• In addition to the Cultivation effect, viewers of television have a tendency to emulate, or model actions seen on television. This theory, proposed by Albert Bandura, is known as the Social Cognitive Theory or SCT. SCT suggests that under certain conditions, such as the repeated, simple, and rewarded messages on television, viewers can and do learn from what they see in the media. Since Latinos are often portrayed as glorified drug dealers, this may lead some Latino viewers to romanticize and want to emulate what is shown. Furthermore, since Latina women are often portrayed as sexy, passive temptresses, this may lead some Latina viewers to believe this is the identity they should embody.

• Studies have shown that children are more likely to identify with characters of their own racial/ethnic background.The underrepresentation of Latinos in positive roles causes a shortage in positive role models for Latino children. They are left with negative images of Latinos, or none at all.

The statements below are from Fair.org:

• When it comes to fulfilling their 1978 pledge to integrate people of color into their staffs, however, most newspaper editors are moving slower than a Gutenberg press. The American Society of Newspaper Editors' goal was to achieve minority employment at daily newspapers "equivalent to the percentage of minority persons within the national population" by the year 2000. Racial minorities now constitute 11.6 percent of news staffs but 27.3 percent of the country's population. At the rate newspapers are going (ASNE last year extended its deadline by 25 years), they won't reach their goal until late in the next century.

• Slightly more diversity can be found in TV news staffs, and far less in magazines. But few top news executives in any medium -- real decision makers -- are people of color. This lack of diversity has consequences in terms of content.

• A more important consequence is the narrow, distorting lens through which racial minorities are frequently portrayed in mainstream news. Studies commissioned by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists have found that only about 1 percent of the 12,000 stories aired yearly on the three network TV evening newscasts focus on Latinos or Latino issues -- and roughly 80 percent of these stories "portray Latinos negatively," often on subjects like crime, drugs and "illegal" immigrants.

• Kirk Johnson's classic study (Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1987) of 30 days worth of coverage of Boston's two largely black neighborhoods found that mainstream media focused overwhelmingly on lights-and-sirens stories involving some "pathology" -- to borrow a term journalists love to apply to reports about black and Latino communities -- such as violent crime or drugs, and "85 percent reinforced negative stereotypes of blacks."

• The flip side of media's overrepresentation of minorities as criminals and druggies is their underrepresentation as experts and analysts. FAIR's studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s documented not only the incredible whiteness of being an expert in national media (92 percent of Nightline's U.S. guests were white; 90 percent of the PBS NewsHour's were white; 26 of 27 repeat commentators on National Public Radio during a four-month study were white) but a tendency to ghettoize minority experts into discussions of "black" or "brown" issues…often those "pathologies" again.

• For Americans still inhabiting largely segregated workplaces and neighborhoods (some as segregated as prime-time TV sitcoms), the media are the main sources of information about people of other racial groups and therefore deserve a share of the blame for the prevalence of racist attitudes.

• In 1990, a National Opinion Research Center survey found that 53 percent of nonblack respondents said that African-Americans were less intelligent than whites, 56 percent said they were more violence prone, 62 percent said they were lazier, and 78 percent said they were more likely to "prefer to live off welfare." Majorities of respondents expressed similar views about Latinos, and significant numbers attributed these traits to Asian-Americans.

• It would be easy to link such attitudes only to such media forums as talk radio, on which powerful hosts have trafficked for decades in ignorance and myth about people of color. But it was publications like The New York Times and The New Republic that helped resurrect the pseudoscience of eugenics and racial inferiority through prominent, often credulous coverage of texts like The Bell Curve. Take, for example, Malcolm Browne's October 1994 Times review, which praised The Bell Curve for making "a strong case" of a "smart, rich" elite polarizing with an "unintelligent, poor" population.

• Conventional media wisdom tends to see our country as a place in which racial discrimination happened in the past, where charges of racism are mostly an excuse, where societal depravity is largely the province of communities of color. This worldview explains why mainstream journalists:

- so often frame affirmative action as an effort to correct "past discrimination," as if society were now color-blind. A six-month FAIR study in 1998 found that nearly a quarter of the news stories used the terms "affirmative action" and "preferences" interchangeably -- a bias against affirmative action proponents who see themselves as opponents of dominant pro-white, pro-male preferences.

- waxed indignant over anti-white, anti-Jewish invective uttered by an associate of the Reverend Louis Farrakhan to a college audience of a few hundred (which prompted a 97-0 U.S. Senate resolution of denunciation) while being virtually tone deaf to the anti-black, anti-immigrant invective emanating, via 50,000 watts of power, from Bob Grant, a top talk-radio host in New York City. (Senators, as well as other politicians, have appeared regularly as Grant guests.)

- largely ignored, for years prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, the militia movement. If hundreds of heavily armed units of African-Americans (or other racial minorities) were training across the country and talking of the inevitability of violent clashes with the federal government, we'd have seen massive, hysterical coverage -- and not just from white talk radio.

- have made conservative black academics more prominent news sources than their progressive colleagues. Although blacks and Latinos tend to be left-leaning as voters, right-wing blacks and Latinos -- like Armstrong Williams, Linda Chavez, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and Thomas Sowell -- are more prominent in syndicated columns and talk shows than left-wing ones. (After becoming editorial page editor at New York's Daily News in 1991, Ellis Cose found a memo from his predecessor decreeing that the paper run no more than one black op-ed columnist per day.)

• Many news outlets, of course, have done some exceptional work on racism. In 1991, for example, ABC's PrimeTime Live presented dramatic evidence that racial discrimination is a present-day disease, not merely a "legacy." Producers dispatched two evenly matched, well-dressed, well-spoken college graduates -- one white, one black -- to seek jobs through the same employment agency, apartments from the same landlords, a car from the same dealer. Again and again, hidden cameras recorded how the black man was lied to or turned away. Even without hidden cameras, mainstream media should be able to focus a sharp lens on present-day racism in society. A good place to start might be in the newsroom.

The media's portrayal of Native Americans

The statements below are from Media-awareness.ca

Aboriginal people have been vigorously stereotyped in words and images for hundreds of years. Film, television and comic-book producers have perpetuated these stereotypes over several generations, and so old notions of what it is to be a Canadian Aboriginal or a Native American have lived on well past the emergence of a public consciousness that knows better.

• For over a hundred years, Westerns and documentaries have shaped the public's perception of Native people. The wise elder (Little Big Man); the drunk (Tom Sawyer); the Indian princess (Pocahontas); the loyal sidekick (Tonto)—these images have become engrained in the consciousness of every North American.

• Hollywood's versions of "how the West was won" relied totally on the presence of Native tribes, who were to be wiped out or reined in. "And, for the longest time," says Canadian Ojibway playwright Drew Hayden Taylor, "there wasn't a real 'Indian' to be seen on the movie sets: Native 'representation' was taken care of by Italians or Spaniards—anyone with dark enough skin to save on makeup."

• As the portrayals of Native characters—either as primitive, violent and deceptive or else as passive and full of childlike obedience—extended to TV, novels and comics, they became familiar, comfortable signposts for much of Western civilization whenever it needed to acknowledge the Aboriginal presence. Since few people, especially in larger urban centres, actually came into contact with Indigenous populations, these portrayals, however inaccurate, had all the more impact. Though popular U.S. films rarely looked north of the border, these stereotypes etched themselves just as deeply into the Canadian psyche.

• "We were well into the second half of the 20th century before it occurred to filmmakers that Native people were still around, and even leading interesting lives," says Taylor. "Groundbreaking films like Pow Wow Highway, Dance Me Outside and Smoke Signals provided fresh and contemporary—though still romanticized—portrayals of the Native community."

• In the 1980s and 1990s, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) made a real effort to improve the portrayals of Aboriginal people in its television dramas. Spirit Bay, The Beachcombers, North of 60 and The Rez used Native actors to portray their own people, living real lives and earning believable livelihoods in identifiable parts of the country. The Beachcombers and North of 60 drew substantial audiences among Natives and non-Natives alike.

Television in the United States has been slower to respond to criticism. Indigenous faces are still almost entirely absent from the small screen, except in the news or in documentaries. There have been a few efforts to change the situation, however. In the late 1990s, the American Indian Registry for the Performing Arts in Los Angeles published a directory of Native American performing arts professionals. And in 2001, after acknowledging that "Native Americans are virtually invisible on TV," CBS and NBC held talent showcases in major cities across North America to strengthen their databases of Aboriginal performers.

Misrepresentation—How Many Ways?

The new climate of "political correctness" has combined with genuine effort to counter some of the more overt forms of racism in films and television—but subtle vestiges of Native stereotyping still remain. Some of the most common stereotyping traps are various forms of romanticization; historical inaccuracies; stereotyping by omission; and simplistic characterizations.

• Romanticization:

- The Indian Princess is the Native beauty who is sympathetic enough to the white man's quest to be lured away from her tribe to marry into his culture, and further his mission to civilize her people. "The Indian princess is strictly a European concept," writes Native American Joseph Riverwind. "The nations of this country never had a concept of royalty. We do not have kings, queens or princesses."

- Surely one of the most widely used stereotypes in cinematographic history, the Native Warrior is fierce and formidable and a threat to civilized society. Bare-chested and brandishing a war lance, this warrior is the epitome of the savagery that must be courageously overcome by "progressive elements" pushing West. A more recent incarnation is the romanticized (and eroticized) figure of the strong silent brave flashing, as journalist Paul Gessell notes, "a lot of skin, [and] looking for some White woman to ravish."

- These images appear in many forms and in surprising places. In his photo exhibit Scouting/For Indians, 1992-2000, Jeff Thomas, from the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario, captured images of the Warrior in forms ranging from historical statuary, and coats of arms carved on the walls of Ottawa banks and office buildings, to contemporary book covers. Thomas says he took these photographs to raise awareness of the often unconscious "demonization and eroticization" of Indians.

- In an effort to redress past wrongs, there has been an increase in another time-honoured romantic stereotype -- the mythic Noble Savage. Elevated to a sphere of goodness unreachable by those in contaminated white society and usually possessing some spiritual connection to the land, the Noble Savage (who American academic Rennard Strickland calls "the first ecologist") communes in a cloud of mysticism and places no value on material possessions. Not even the popular Thunderheart avoids the romantic brush. "That movie says that every time you get half a dozen Native people in a room, you can get a prophecy or a vision," says Canadian Cayuga actor Gary Farmer.

• Historical Inaccuracies:

- Farmer cites the successful Canadian film Black Robe, about a Jesuit missionary's quest to save the Huron's souls, as typical of the one-sided historical accounts that upset Aboriginal people. "Black Robe misses a key element," says Farmer. "Nobody explains the Iroquois Confederacy's five centuries of peace between the six nations. The Hurons saw the devastation from the alcohol brought by the newcomers as a decay that had to be rooted out. The Iroquois told the Hurons that everyone not affected should leave, and they would go in and clean the area out." Farmer contends that there's never been an understanding of why that was done—and so the story of a classic conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples has never been told.

- Film and TV producers have never let details get in the way of a good story. Nowhere is this more true than in depictions of Aboriginal life, where artistic license is liberally taken in portraying dress, customs, livelihoods and spiritual beliefs and ceremonies. This reduction of cultural heritage and diversity (which most audiences do not even notice) is seen by critics as both a symptom of the problem (not taking Aboriginal people seriously) and an unconscious yet systematic way of perpetuating erroneous stereotypes. What occurs in many films, says social critic Ward Churchill, "is roughly parallel to having a Catholic priest wear a Rabbi's headgear and Protestant cleric's garb while conducting High Mass before a Satanist pentagram, simply because each of these disparate physical manifestations of spiritual culture is visually interesting in its own right."

• Stereotyping by Omission:

- Most film depictions of Native people are set in a 50-year period in the mid-19th century. Where were Native North Americans before the coming of the white man, and where are they now? Apparently "Indians" did not survive the transition to modern society.

The article "Stereotyping Indians by Omission" notes that Indians are "the only population to be portrayed far more often in historical context than as contemporary people." Considering the size of Chicago's Native population, for instance, the article asks, "why has not one Indian ever received emergency care on ER? And where are the nurses, a primary career choice for many Native women?"

The most flagrant omission in movies and television is the Aboriginal woman. When she is included, it is most often as a "sexual savage" (who cannot be tamed and must therefore be degraded and eventually conquered). In Canada, the National Film Board of Canada tried to counter this cultural amnesia in 1986 with a four-part drama series entitled Daughters of the Country -- produced to "re-open the history books" and document the evolution of the Métis people through the lives of four strong women.

• Simplistic Characterizations:

- Perhaps most destructive to the image of Aboriginal people is the lack of character and personality accorded them by the media. Aboriginal people are almost always cast in supporting roles or relegated to the background, and are rarely allowed to speak or display a real personality. And what character they do have tends to reveal itself only in terms of their interactions with white people. Rarely is an Aboriginal portrayed as having personal strengths and weaknesses, or shown acting on his or her own values and judgements.

Nor is the Native ever allowed to tell his or her own story. Most stories are conveyed through the lens of the European experience. A common device used by Hollywood to attach familiar values to Native acts has been to script a white character as narrator (Dances with Wolves, Thunderheart). While this purports to treat the American Indian sympathetically, the reality is that the Aboriginal is robbed of voice.

• The Bigger Picture:

- A number of academics contend Hollywood's depictions of Aboriginal people are based on much broader motives than simply winning audiences. In American Indians: Goodbye to Tonto, J.R. Howard says that in the American psyche, Native people have fulfilled their purpose: "Indian resistance having served to fuel the myths of conquest and glory, and the American divine right to conquest."

And there's a whole school of thought that believes that the stereotypes of Native people and the "Wild West" must still be maintained in today's society. "Somebody is benefiting by having Americans ignorant [about] what European Americans have done to them," writes Wendy Rose in her New Yorker article, "Who Gets to Tell Their Stories?"

Ward Churchill argues that the myths and stereotypes built up around the Native American were no accident. He maintains that they served to explain in positive terms the decimation of Native tribes and their ways of life by "advanced" cultures in the name of progress, thereby making it necessary to erase the achievements and very humanity of the conquered people. "Dehumanization, obliteration or appropriation of identity, political subordination and material colonization are all elements of a common process of imperialism," he says. "The meaning of Hollywood's stereotyping of American Indians can be truly comprehended only against this backdrop."

From Journalism.sfsu.edu on "Pocahontas" and misrepresentation by Nicole Wong on June 30, 1995:

• When "Pocahontas" opened in theaters June 23, Disney not only released its 33rd animated movie, but a powerful uproar of controversy from the Native American community as well. At the movie's San Francisco Bay Area premiere, organizations including the American Indian Movement (AIM) marched up and down the crowd of eager movie-goers, handing them protest flyers and chanting picket sign slogans.

Many upset citizens voiced their disgust with Disney's racial slurs, stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans and historical inaccuracies. Those upset by the film said it would negatively affect kids. Throughout the movie, the white men continuously referred to the Indians as `savages' and restated their goal to `shoot Injuns.' "It hurt me a lot how they called us savages and how they're teaching kids that and making the white guys look good," said Oglala Lakota tribe member Theodora Chief, 14, after seeing the movie. Chief is the granddaughter of Russel Means, the voice of Chief Powhatan in "Pocahontas".

• Monoque Sonoquie, Chumash Nation tribe and AIM member, agreed that the movie's diction would have a bad influence on kids. "I don't think they should be teaching children to be using words such as `savage' and `filthy heathen,'" Sonoquie, 29, said. "I would consider it harassment if my children are called `heathen' at school."

No one can resist singing a catchy tune, especially when it's from a favorite movie. Sonoquie said another negative result of the movie was that kids would pick up the lyrics of "Pocahontas" songs, which referred to Native Americans as `filthy little savages,' `barely even human,' `only good when they are dead' and `dirty redskin devils.' However, Native American Joel Chaske, 25, said although the remarks made him uncomfortable, it was important that Disney didn't sugar-coat them because they were true to the era depicted.

• Audience members found Disney's language to be offensive to Native Americans. "They're perpetrating useless expressions which make them (Native Americans) be less important," said Bernardo Lopez, member of AIM. "The worst part is they keep reviving them." Nevertheless, Native American Apeanahkwat, an actor in the "Pocahontas" play in Disneyland, said it was necessary to show the white men calling the Native Americans those derogatory names and ruining the land because that's what really happened. "It reminds us of what they (the white men) did and humanity should never permit it to happen again," Apeanahkwat said.

• "Pocahontas" greatly disappointed Native Americans, including Lakota Harden, 38, of the Oglala Lakota tribe. Harden said she grew up surrounded by horrible images of Indians in the media. After seeing the movie, Harden said Disney simply continued to promote these stereotypical images of Indians as savages instead of working to terminate them.

• One portrayal causing a large controversy was the movie animators' portrayal of Pocahontas as a voluptuous young woman clad in a skimpy dress. To some, including Apeanahkwat, Pocahontas is a role model for Native American girls. "She didn't connotate sex at all," Apeanahkwat said. "She's very lovable and represents all the wonderful things that young girls should be." However, others said Disney used sexuality to earn a large profit. "It creates negative images of how Indian women should look," Sonoquie said. "I hated it," Chief said. "There was no point in it being made because it was fake; the truth should be made ... No Indian woman is shaped like that -- our bodies are sacred; it's sad how they're flaunting it everywhere."

• Native American Marquel Spencer, 15, said in addition to exploiting Pocahontas' body, Disney made the white men seem better. "It didn't show everything," Spencer said. "The whites probably killed more people than that one Indian."

The letter below is from Powhatan.org and is the actual feedback from Chief Roy "Crazy Horse" after watching the movie "Pocahontas":

• In 1995, Roy Disney decided to release an animated movie about a Powhatan woman known as "Pocahontas". In answer to a complaint by the Powhatan Nation, he claims the film is "responsible, accurate, and respectful."

We of the Powhatan Nation disagree. The film distorts history beyond recognition. Our offers to assist Disney with cultural and historical accuracy were rejected. Our efforts urging him to reconsider his misguided mission were spurred. "Pocahontas" was a nickname, meaning "the naughty one" or "spoiled child". Her real name was Matoaka. The legend is that she saved a heroic John Smith from being clubbed to death by her father in 1607 - she would have been about 10 or 11 at the time. The truth is that Smith's fellow colonists described him as an abrasive, ambitious, self-promoting mercenary soldier.

Of all of Powhatan's children, only "Pocahontas" is known, primarily because she became the hero of Euro-Americans as the "good Indian", one who saved the life of a white man. Not only is the "good Indian/bad Indian theme" inevitably given new life by Disney, but the history, as recorded by the English themselves, is badly falsified in the name of "entertainment". The truth of the matter is that the first time John Smith told the story about this rescue was 17 years after it happened, and it was but one of three reported by the pretentious Smith that he was saved from death by a prominent woman.

Yet in an account Smith wrote after his winter stay with Powhatan's people, he never mentioned such an incident. In fact, the starving adventurer reported he had been kept comfortable and treated in a friendly fashion as an honored guest of Powhatan and Powhatan's brothers. Most scholars think the "Pocahontas incident" would have been highly unlikely, especially since it was part of a longer account used as justification to wage war on Powhatan's Nation.

Euro-Americans must ask themselves why it has been so important to elevate Smith's fibbing to status as a national myth worthy of being recycled again by Disney. Disney even improves upon it by changing Pocahontas from a little girl into a young woman. The true Pocahontas story has a sad ending. In 1612, at the age of 17, Pocahontas was treacherously taken prisoner by the English while she was on a social visit, and was held hostage at Jamestown for over a year.

During her captivity, a 28-year-old widower named John Rolfe took a "special interest" in the attractive young prisoner. As a condition of her release, she agreed to marry Rolfe, who the world can thank for commercializing tobacco. Thus, in April 1614, Matoaka, also known as "Pocahontas", daughter of Chief Powhatan, became "Rebecca Rolfe". Shortly after, they had a son, whom they named Thomas Rolfe. The descendants of Pocahontas and John Rolfe were known as the "Red Rolfes."

Two years later on the spring of 1616, Rolfe took her to England where the Virginia Company of London used her in their propaganda campaign to support the colony. She was wined and dined and taken to theaters. It was recorded that on one occasion when she encountered John Smith (who was also in London at the time), she was so furious with him that she turned her back to him, hid her face, and went off by herself for several hours. Later, in a second encounter, she called him a liar and showed him the door.

Rolfe, his young wife, and their son set off for Virginia in March of 1617, but "Rebecca" had to be taken off the ship at Gravesend. She died there on March 21, 1617, at the age of 21. She was buried at Gravesend, but the grave was destroyed in a reconstruction of the church. It was only after her death and her fame in London society that Smith found it convenient to invent the yarn that she had rescued him.

History tells the rest. Chief Powhatan died the following spring of 1618. The people of Smith and Rolfe turned upon the people who had shared their resources with them and had shown them friendship. During Pocahontas' generation, Powhatan's people were decimated and dispersed and their lands were taken over. A clear pattern had been set which would soon spread across the American continent. It is unfortunate that this sad story, which Euro-Americans should find embarrassing, Disney makes "entertainment" and perpetuates a dishonest and self-serving myth at the expense of the Powhatan Nation.

Chief Roy Crazy Horse

Excerpts below are from the report entitled "A History of Native Americans in Cinema" by Ward Churchill, Nov. 1, 1998:

• Indian Movies Sans Indians

- During the near half-century when real native people were all but frozen out of the movies, the studios cranked out something on the order of 2,000 films dealing with what are called "Indian themes." Another 2,500 or so were made as T.V. segments between 1950 and 1970. Given this saturation—there is no other word—of imagery, it is fair to say that three

consecutive generations of Americans were conditioned to see native people in certain ways, for clearly definable purposes. While most of what was produced consisted of squalid potboilers in which Indians served, as Oneida comic Charlie Hill puts it, as "pop-up targets to give the cowboys and the cavalry something to shoot at," some of the films at issue must be considered as serious cinema. In this sense, they must also be assessed as conveying as deeply virulent a message of racial triumphalism as anything ever produced by Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda during Germany's Nazi era.

One can debate whether John Ford's The Searchers (1956) was really the most racist anti-Indian movie ever made, or whether that dubious distinction more rightly belongs to Robert Mulligan's The Stalking Moon (1969) or John Huston's Unforgiven (1960), but the fact is that there are a vast number of contenders. And, as Indians were systematically converted onscreen to America's equivalent of untermensch, the herrenvolk most directly responsible for perpetrating genocide against us were just as systematically heroicized, a matter which remained true from Errol Flynn's portrayal of George Armstrong Custer in They Died With Their Boots On (1941) to Robert Shaw's in Custer of the West (1969).

Being perfected was what Cherokee aesthetician Jimmie Durham terms "America's Master Narrative"—Gramsci might have called it "hegemony"—that is, indoctrination of the populace with a mythic (mis)understanding that nothing really wrong had transpired in the course of U.S, history. On the contrary, it had all been a noble undertaking, carried out by a combination of gallant leaders and brave settlers forging a better future. If anyone had gotten hurt along the way, namely Indians, it was because they'd "brought it on themselves" by being essentially subhuman in the first place and then compounding the defect with persistent and aggressive attempts to prevent whites from making things "work out for the best."

• The "Good" Indians

-Not all Indians were so bad, of course. Some were even depicted as being noble, too. These were the ones who perceived a "tragic inevitability" in being overrun by a self-anointedly superior race or culture, and who therefore evidenced the good taste to "simply vanish" with dignity rather than complaining about it. Even better were those who not only accepted the innateness of white supremacy, but who used their insights to provide actual service to Euroamerica, helping the invaders get on with it. Such notions are not unfamiliar to colonial literature, as even the most cursory reading of Joseph Conrad will reveal. The Lone Ranger's Tonto is, after all, simply Rudyard Kipling's Gunga Din recast in feathers, as is Chingachgook in Last of the Mohicans.

Once "revisionist" films like Little Big Man and Soldier Blue began to appear in 1970, mainly as a sop to mounting protest of the Vietnam War, previously glorified martial figures like Custer began to lose their allure. The Master Narrative was consequently reworked to admit that unconscionable atrocities had been committed against Indians over the years, just as they were being committed against Indochinese at the time. Such "historical excesses" were then attributed, however, quickly and quite uniformly, to "anomalous" Custer-like characters.

Always, these highly personalized embodiments of evil were counterbalanced by the centrality of sympathetic white characters—Candice Bergen's Christa Marybelle Lee and Peter Strauss's Honis Gant in Soldier Blue, as examples, or Dustin Hoffman's Jack Crabbe in Little Big Man—with whom Euroamerican viewers might identify. Always, the Indians in such films serve as mere plot devices intended mainly to validate the main white characters' alleged sensitivities, and to convey forgiveness to "good" (i.e., most) whites for the misdeeds of their "bad" (i.e., atypical or "deviant") peers.

Although one can readily imagine the response had Hollywood opted to depict the European Holocaust of the 1940s in a similar fashion (albeit Steven Spielberg comes uncomfortably close with Schindler's List) the convention has been adhered to vis-à-vis the American Holocaust with almost seamless precision for the past twenty-five years. Most recently, it has been manifestly evident in Kevin Costner's 1990 epic, Dances With Wolves, as well as Michael Apthed's Thunderheart a couple of years later and such mid-90s teletrash as Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

The propaganda function served by the revisionist formula is to allow constituents of America's dominant settler society to avoid confronting the institutional and cultural realities, which led unerringly to the historical genocide of American Indians. Moreover, in first being led to demonize men like Custer, and then helped to separate themselves from them via the signification of characters like Jack Crabbe, Christa Lee and Costner's Lt. Dunbar, white audiences are made to feel simultaneously "enlightened" (for having been "big" or open enough to concede that something ugly had occurred) and "good about themselves" (for being so different from those they imagine the perpetrators to have been).

Thus reassured, mainstream moviegoers and TV viewers are psychologically positioned to join Sully, the "nice white guy" in Dr. Quinn, intoning in unison that, since they who are so different from Custer now comprise it and despite what "he" did to the Indians, "this is still the best country in the world" Translated, (after viewing a movie like Dances With Wolves) mainstream audiences feel-ever-so-much more entitled to participate in the American system, and to gorge themselves on the material benefits accruing from it, than they did before.

Below is a report titled "Appropriation of Culture" done by Paul D. Gonzales and San Ildefonso Pueblo:

• Talk-show host Larry King once said, "If a modern professional team was being formed today, they would never consider using the word 'Redskins' as the team name." So, why do names that indicate racism against Indians still exist?

Ted Turner, the television magnate, has produced a series about Indian people that has brought some recognition to them and has made Turner a great deal of money. His wife, Jane Fonda, has had a very high-profile life, helping the anti-Vietnam War movement and other such causes. Yet, when it comes to her own country, she seems to ignore the most obvious problem - that of Indian people still being referred to as second-class citizens. Turner will have you believe that he means no disrespect to the Native American by keeping the name "Braves" for his Atlanta baseball team.

But ask all the Indian people how they were affected when "brave" was rubbed in their face such as, "Hey Brave, come here and bring your little squaw with you." The National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media contacted Fonda directly in hopes that she would provide them with an audience with Turner. But the Coalition's president, Dennis Banks, was given the runaround when Turner referred him to the president of the Braves. There was no action by the president of the team, Turner, or Fonda, whose only comment was, "I promise I won't do the tomahawk chop at the Braves games."

When asked about the mascot for the Cleveland Indians, "Chief Wahoo," the owner and fans say that they use him to honor Native Americans and their culture. I don't think I want my daughter and her people honored in this way. The image of Chief Wahoo looks too much like a drunken Uncle Tomahawk with a big red nose. Not exactly a hero for any child.

I used to think these concerns were insignificant compared to the many issues that my people were facing just to survive. I thought that Indian children wearing Redskins jackets was better than wearing some other offensive insignia like a skull and crossbones But I have come to realize that the many images used by the non-Indian world as mascots, logos, and club names are offensive to me and many other Indian people. It's hard enough to live with the word "Indian" because some explorer was looking for a different country to conquer.

I have a good friend, Charlene Teters (Spokane), who is a great artist, painter, and activist. For many years, as she was working her way through college and raising two children, she was a graduate student in fine arts at the University of Illinois, home of the fighting Illini. Yes, the mascot is an Indian chief. During the halftime programs "Chief Illinawic" parades around in an outfit that only a true warrior/leader should wear as a sign of the honor that his tribe recognizes he deserves.

As any good mother would, Charlene has told her children of the honors that are placed on certain people who are to be respected and looked up to. She has told me the heartbreaking story of the time she was able to take her family to the "big game" so that the children could see their basketball heroes. During halftime this ridiculous caricature, "Chief Illinawic," came out in his beautiful warrior outfit and began acting like a clown, doing flips and tumbles, and performing some phony Hollywood war dance. Her children were in shock. They cried from embarrassment as the rest of the crowd laughed. It was a long time before her children recovered from this experience. Charlene has never recovered, and since she has told me the story, neither have I.

As long as my people think that these issues are not important enough to take a stand on, we are slowly giving into our last bit of dignity and the hope of making all people understand that racism comes in many forms and all are wrong. We must begin to remove even the smallest indication of racism so all people know that someone is being hurt, that our children suffer the shame and continue to live with it. Today, if starting a new team and developing a new mascot included anything like the New Jersey Jews, the Nebraska Negros, the Richmond Rednecks, or the Washington Redskins, we would not think twice about how offensive these names are. Today we can admit we know better.

Note: Mr. Gonzales is the first Native president of the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts (SWAIA). He is the former director of the IAIA Museum and has been involved in the arts most of his life.

Lack of racial diversity in the highest media positions

A survey during the 1990's which was conducted by FAIR reported that 80% of ABC's Nightline guests were professionals, while 89% of those professionals were male, and 92% of those males were White. Fair then continued to find consistent numbers done for other shows as well. For example, 90% of the guests in PBS's Macneil and Lehrer NewsHour were White, while 87 % of those guests were male, 67 % of those men were from the government. In 1996, there was a survey that reflected the numbers of the subjects interviewed in American network news to be around 86% for White men.

Such statistics are consistent with the argument that White men seem to be the leading force behind the structures of the mainstream media: "White journalists dominate the mainstream media; and White people hold most creative positions in the entertainment media as actors, writers and directors. All these factors contribute to the prevalence of Whiteness in media, and help to reinforce White privilege as the norm....Most mainstream media content also reinforces White privilege by featuring White characters and addressing white interests and experiences. When programming does feature non-white characters, they usually appear in supporting roles." Source: Media Awareness

Women catering to White Men more than with Non-White Men onscreen

Observations have also been made which concerns that Hollywood has used White men in romantic leads with Non-White females more than Non-White males have been used opposite of their very own racial female counterparts. Denzel_Washington is widely considered to be an example of a Non-White actor who has been restricted by the White Media as well. For example in this link Blackcommentator.com it states:

Nicholas Kristof asks, "when will Hollywood release a major motion picture in which a black man and white woman fall in love.". Kristof raises an interesting point, but we feel his complaint misses the real problem, which is that Hollywood has shown a frustrating reluctance toward depicting romance between black men and black women.

The statement above also applies to the pattern in which most Non-White actresses have kissed and made out with White Men in movies, commercials, fashion, etc. more than they ever have with Non-White men in those same fields of entertainment. The pattern of White male protagonists usually outnumbering Non-White male protagonists in films (especially romantic films) while pairing up with women (whether those women are White, Asian, Black, Latina, Multi-racial, etc.) might be suspect in the current movie and/or television careers of Reese_Witherspoon, Jessica_Alba, Tia_Carrere, Thandie_Newton, Jennifer_Lopez (although Jennifer Lopez may have done many intimate scenes with Non-White men in her music videos - just not in Hollywood movies), Jennifer_Aniston, and Kristin_Laura Kreuk to name a few.

Such "coincidental" observations are considered to be consistent and widespread amongst the majority of female stars in the entire entertainment business as well. Many believe that these women for the most part, usually do sex scenes with White men onscreen much more than with Non-White men. There may also be another disturbing pattern which is gaining the attention of the public. That pattern is described as having White men doing love scenes with Non-White women in action movies more than Non-White men (especially Asian men) do love scenes with the women of their same race in romantic films. Here is a listing of various movies, television shows, or onscreen projects which have some of Hollywood's leading ladies romantically pairing up with White male protagonists only.

• Just Like Heaven
• Sweet Home Alabama
• Legally Blonde
• Legally Blonde 2
• Vanity Fair

Jennifer_Lopez

• Maid in Manhattan
• Shall We Dance?
• Monster in Law
• The Wedding Planner
• Gigli
• Angel Eyes

Jessica_Alba

• Into the Blue
• Sin City
• Idle Hands
• The Sleeping Dictionary
• Fantastic Four
• Dark Angel

Note: Jessica_Alba has been paired romantically with a Non-White male character before in the movie Honey 2003. Mekhi Phifer played "Chaz" who was romantically involved with Jessica's character "Honey Daniels". However, there is no clear and definitive evidence indicating that Tia_Carrere or even Reese_Witherspoon have gotten intimate with any Non-White male character in any of their movies, television shows, or onscreen projects. Jennifer_Lopez has been known to have gotten intimate with many Non-White men in many of her onscreen projects throughout her entertainment career; although for the most part, her romantic films have her only pairing up with White men (and she has done at least 6 romantic films in recent years).

Public questioning seems to arise about whether these women are actually aware of the repetitive pattern, and whether they are so awestruck by only White men that they cannot see themselves kissing an Asian, a Latino, A Black, or any other Non-White man for that matter. Of course, statistics cannot not lie; the majority of western movies, videogames, comicbooks, storylines, fashion commercials, and commercials in general usually have women from different backgrounds (Asian, White, Black, Latino, etc.) interacting with White men (usually in lead roles) most of the time - more than they ever do with Non-White men in general. The public may even argue that there is more lesbianism in the media (sometimes in threesomes with a White man) on screen more than women attempt to do a simple kiss scene with most Non-White male characters (especially Asian males). This may very well be most evident in the western adult industry, but such a pattern's existence seems to be significantly widespread in most other avenues of the media as well.

The probable cause for such a widespread pattern is said to have been influenced by the mainstream media's very old and deeply-rooted trend of repetitively promoting White people through protagonist leading roles, which in turn may have resulted in social brainwashing and cultural assimilation. Sadly, even though western society has slowly progressed from the early practice of openly accepting racism, "Whiteness" remains to be the established normality in the mainstream's subconscious. This established mentality (Whiteness or Racelessness) would then be the direct cause for the social desensitization towards Diversity (since Diversity isn't perceived as normal or "Raceless").

If so, there could be an extremely high probability that White men are being subconsciously accepted as the ideal male standard in western society, causing many women (regardless of race) to be instinctively attracted to them more than Non-White men. The fall-off of such an influence would also pose as a severe threat to how women all over the world unconsciously view the Non-White man in direct comparison to the media praised White man. The severity of this impact of course, is highly dependent on the influential reach of the most dominant media in the world (which so happens to be the western media - particularly the American media and its worldwide associates).

The problem is that the global society is also naturally receptive to what it sees and hears through the media, and because "Whiteness" has been so deeply established by the most powerful media in the world, many people (not just in North America) could be unknowingly perceiving White people (especially White men) as the most powerful and attractive. Such a global influence could also create devastating social problems for the children of today and the generations of the future.

Racial Cliches onscreen

Racial cliches refer to the certain recognizable patterns onscreen which have been consistently identified by viewers as being negative towards Non-Whites. Racial cliches are considered offensive towards Non-Whites and have been said to be responsible for influencing society's broad perception towards Non-Whites negatively and on a subconscious level. For example, a racial cliche that has been identified by the public would be when a Non-White character predictably dies, or is associated with drugs, criminal tendencies, hostile behavior, or at least gets the lower end of the bargain in comparison to White characters.

Likewise, if Non-White characters do play protagonists in storylines, they often team up with a White protagonist as well (making Non-Whites appear as inferior aspects, unable to solve challenges by themselves). Racial cliches often come with a "catch" attached with the circumstances surrounding Non-White characters (whether those characters are antagonists, or protagonists). Such racial cliches can be easily identified in such mainstream media presentations like in movies, video games, comic books, television commercials, television shows, news, etc.). Below is a list of a few examples which have been known to carry racial cliches:

• The 6th Day (2000)

- At most, there were 2 black people present in this movie and both of them were secondary antagonists who were eventually defeated.

• Final Fantasy: Spirits Within

-In this animated movie, the main male character was White male and the main female character was a Multi-Racial female. The only Black character in this movie was killed (martyrdom). If there were any Asian male characters in this film, they were hardly noticeable. Many believe that an Asian male protagonist could have been a better romantic match for Aki_Ross (the Multi-Racial Asian female protagonist). All too predictably however, this film falls into the increasingly large category of White male/Asian female duo films.

• Planet of the Apes by Tim Burton

-A film done by Tim Burton which is actually consistent in following the trends of the earlier versions of having all the Black characters die in the storyline. Only Michael_Clarke_Duncan survives (although he was cast as a Non-Human, but was under the authority of the lighter skinned ape played by Tim_Roth).

• Queen of the Damned

- All the black people die in this movie. All the survivors happened to be White.

• Equilibrium

-Taye_Diggs is perhaps the only Black character in the future setting of this storyline, but predictably plays the antagonist (bad character). Unlike the White character in this movie, he is unable to overcome the evils of his surroundings. He happens to be the only Non-White character in the entire film but he happens to be evil and he happens to be killed off.

• Dreamcatcher (2003)

- There is one major Non-White character (not including the extras) in all of this film and he happens to be die. The character was played by Morgan_Freeman and is killed in a gun duel with a White man. Note: Antagonists are almost always inferior to protagonists in most storylines.

• Ghost Ship (2002)

-The film has about two Non-White characters in the crew which sets out on a mission to salvage a ghost ship. The Black male character named "Greer" played by Isaiah Washington, and the Latino/Hispanic male character named "Santos" played by Alex Dimitriades both get killed in this movie. Even though many Whites also die in this movie, the remaining survivor happens to be White.

• Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

- Most, if not all the Black characters in this movie (and its trilogy) have been killed off or killed off early. Of course the nuclear holocaust is a major part of the trilogy's base storyline, however, the remaining characters who were supposed to survive happened to be White. In fact, there is only 1 Black character in this film that had a speaking role, yet was still cast as a victim.

• Saw (2004)

-There are two Non-Whites in this film who get killed off. The Black cop Danny_Glover and his Asian partner Ken_Leung die, whereas the only remaining survivors happen to be White.

• Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation

-This film has several Non-White characters. The Asian male character dies early while most of the platoon kill each other because of an invasive alien influence hijacking their bodies. In the end, the Hero (a White male character) dies while a White female survives.

• The Fast and the Furious

-There are many Non-Whites in this film and the main protagonists in the storyline are played by Vin_Diesel (Multi-Racial actor) and Paul_Walker (White actor). Rick Yune (Asian male) is type-casted as the villainous influence in the storyline who leads a corrupt Asian street gang. In the end, Paul Walker's character overcomes them all.

• Lethal Weapon 4

-Danny_Glover (Black Cop) and Mel_Gibson (White cop) overcome the hostile Asian male villain played by Jet_Li. In the last fight scene however, Danny Glover's character gets knocked out (making him unable to continue for awhile). On the other hand, Mel Gibson's character stabs and eventually shoots and kills the Asian villain (making him the direct and last cause of the Asian's demise).

• Training Day

-Ethan_Hawke (a White police recruit) prevails over the main character (Alonzo Harris by Denzel_Washington) in the film. Even though Alonzo Harris was the central character in the storyline, he was still a villain.

• Bruce Almighty

-Jim_Carrey (White character) is the central character in this film. Morgan_Freeman (playing a deity in the human form of a Black male) plays the wise spiritual influence to Jim Carrey's character (he props him up). Even though Morgan_Freeman plays God so to speak, ultimately, he only serves to play a support role to the central White character in this film. Note: The Racial Cliche here can be classified as the "Magic Negro" (a subordinate character designed to play moral support for White protagonists in films). For more on the "Magic Negro" see: Definition, and Black Magic

• The Matrix

- The Matrix films have the main White male protagonist (Keanu_Reeves) destined to save humanity. In the Matrix, the "Magic Negro" character could be identified as Morpheus played by Laurence_Fishburne. Ultimately though, the fate of humanity can only rest in the hands Neo. Note: most media messiahs happen to be White - examples include John Connor from the Terminator Series, Ripley in the Alien Series, Johnny Rico in Starship Troopers (He was originally supposed to be Filipino), Superman, Batman, James Bond, all the protagonists in the Lord of the Rings series), Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Pete Mitchell (Top Gun), Indiana Jones, most of the soldiers in "Black Hawk Down", Bruce Willis' character in "Armageddon", Lt. Christopher Blair in "Wing Commander", Picard, Kirk, and Janeway (Star Trek), Kurt Russell's character in "Stargate", Marty McFly (Back to the Future series), George Clooney and Nicole Kidman in "Peacemaker", Tom Cruise in the Mission Impossible series, etc.

• Executive Decision

-In this film, the U.S. special forces team was composed of many Non-White characters. The villains were Non-White as well. Halle_Berry was the Non-White female who found herself caught up in the hostile situation. Ultimately, Kurt_Russell who played the White male protagonist saves the day. Oliver_Platt is also cast in the movie and he plays another White male hero. The Black soldier (the one who was originally assigned to diffuse the bomb) gets paralyzed (making him unable to continue); such misfortune eventually creates the opportunity for Oliver Platt's character to "step in" and be the difference maker in that critical point in the film's storyline. In the end, the White protagonist played by Kurt_Russell saves the day and wins the heart of the Non-White female. Although John Leguizamo (Latino actor) played a major role in this film, the fate of the plane (and all the passengers) was truly in the hands of the characters belonging to Kurt Russell and Oliver Platt.

• The Lord of The Rings Trilogy

- The only Non-White human characters in this film were played by the Haradrim and the Easterlings, and they happened to be villains.

• Starwars Trilogies

-Billy-Dee_Williams and Samuel_L_Jackson were the only Non-White characters to play major roles in the Starwars mega series. Even though both of their characters were major players in the storylines, they are ultimately playing subordinate roles (support characters) to the central White characters.

• Kill Bill

-Uma_Thurman plays Beatrix Kiddo (a White female protagonist) and ends up killing scores of Asian men (commonly portrayed as insignificant and expendable extras]. She also kills a Black female hostile (played by Vivica_A._Fox, a Eurasian female villain, and ultimately an Asian female villain (played by Lucy_Liu).

• Final Fantasy VII

- A Japanese video game (which has recently been turned into a CGI movie - Final_Fantasy:_Advent_Children) has its main White protagonist (Cloud Strife) destined to save the world. The Non-White characters in this movie (Yuffie Kisaragi -Asian, Barret Wallace -Black, and Tseng - Asian) are not the central characters, even though Final Fantasy was created by the Japanese. Other Final Fantasy protagonists such as Squall Leonhart from Final_Fantasy_8 also happen to be White as well.

• The Incredibles

-Samuel_L._Jackson voices a Black CGI superhero who is only secondary to the entire family of White superheroes. The main superhero in this CGI film is "Mr. Incredible", a White male protagonist voiced by Craig_T._Nelson.

• The Lion King

- In this cartoon animated movie, Matthew Broderick voices the main protagonist lion named "Simba". Three Non-White celebrities also provided voices for the characters in this film. Cheech_Marin voices one of the villain hyenas (Banzai), while Whoopi_Goldberg voices the other villain hyena (Shenzi), and Robert_Guillaume uses a thick Swahili accent to voice the wise Mandrill monkey named "Rafiki", who acts as a spiritual guide for "Simba". "Rafiki" is parallel to the "Magic Negro" racial cliche pattern evident in other Hollywood films. James_Earl_Jones voices "Mustafa" (father of "Simba"). Unfortunately "Mustafa" is not the main protagonist in this film. In fact, he even gets killed.

• Showdown in Little Tokyo

- Tia_Carrere is the Asian female character who is the love interest of the White male protagonist in this film played by Dolph_Lundgren. The main villain in this movie is an Asian male played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Most of the Asian men in this film are villains as well (many of them get killed off as common expendable extras). Brandon_Lee plays the good Asian male side-kick (support role) to Dolph's character. Brandon Lee's character and Tia Carrere's character almost never interact in this film. It could be speculated that Brandon Lee would have been a better romantic pair up with Tia Carrere in this film. Instead however, this movie follows the repetitive White male/Asian female hook-up.

• Gerber.com (Gerberbaby)

- The Gerber Baby may perhaps be the most recognizable and commercialized baby face in the world today. She is a White baby. The choice for using a White face as the logo for this product is consistent with the widespread establishment of "White normalcy", "Whiteness", or "White Racelessness".

• Gillette and Schick commercials

- The majority of Gillette and Schick commercials use White male models. This racial cliche is consistent with the widespread establishment of "Whiteness","White normalcy", "White male normalcy", "White racelessness", and White male masculinity as the ideal male standard. A few commercials have Black male models, and even fewer times when it is a Latino male model. There are virtually no Native American, Arab, Middle-Eastern, or Asian males used in any of these types of commercials in western society.

• Axe and Tag Body spray for men

- These commercials depict many women from a variety of races being helplessly seduced once the male subject puts on the body spray/deodorant. The majority of these commercials have White men as their main subjects. Tag may have used one Black male subject in a commercial set in a grocery store. So far however, there have been no Asian, Arab, Latino, Middle-Easter, Native-American, or any other Non-White male subject (besides the one instance when a Black male was used) in these commercials before. This pattern is consistent with the mainstream media's repetitive efforts to promote the conceited White male masculinity image as the covert standard for the human male gender in society. It is consistent with the false (yet subconsciously established) social ideology known as White normalcy, White racelessness, or "Whiteness".

• The Adult Industry

- The majority of porn and sexual material in the western Adult industry consist of White males having sex with women of any race (White, Asian, Black, Latina, etc). Black males are a far second and Latino males are even more rarely used in the western porn industry. But the most rarely used are Asian, Middle-Eastern, Arab, and Native American males (even if its with the women of their own race).

On the contrary, many Asian, Black, Latina, Middle-Eastern, and Arab females are used with White men. There is also more lesbianism (and lesbianism combined with a White man, example: threesome or foursome) than there are Non-White men (especially Asian men) having sex with the women of their same race in the entire western adult industry.

When the term "interracial porn" is used as a category within the industry, it consists of Non-White men having sex with White women, Non-White women, or women of their same race. However, when a White male has sex with any Non-White female, the term "interracial" never applies. These patterns are consistent with the mainstream's desensitized subconscious submission to the deceptive propaganda proliferation (by the mainstream media) for the continued establishment of a false social standard centered around the "White male normalcy", "White male masculinity", "White normalcy", "Whiteness", and "White racelessness" superiority complex.

• Pantene "Winter Rescue" television commercial (airs in Canada)

- In this commercial, the female subject character is Asian. The only other character in that commercial later greets her as he steps inside a house or room. The man who greets her is White. The racial cliche might imply that Asian men are less of a normalcy than White men are for Asian women (might be consistent with the usual pattern of pairing White Men with Asian Women). See Lib.berkeley.edu on the repetitive pattern concerning Asian men being downcasted in western culture, while Asian women being perceived as more suitable mates for White men.

An excerpt from that report done by Peter Feng states: "In the American popular imagination, Asian women are depicted as ultrafeminine sexual objects for white men, and that sexual formula leaves Asian men literally out of the picture. For example, a recent episode of the CBS television series Chicago Hope featured Julia Nickson as a Chinese American woman who helps a doctor played by Vondie Curtis-Hall to diagnose and treat an elderly Chinese immigrant. Although virtually all of her scenes were played opposite an African-American doctor, at episode's end Nickson's character accepted a date with a peripheral white character. Anxiety over black male sexuality certainly accounts in part for this resolution, and indeed actor Curtis-Hall seems constantly to downplay his sexuality - as if intelligent black men have to suppress their physicality in order to succeed in the white-collar world - but the complete absence of Asian American men (excepting the feeble-bodied patient) is even more striking."

Movies such as the Joy_Luck_Club might be particularly consistent with this racial cliche because it portrays Chinese culture (especially Chinese males) as being negative and restrictive to the freedoms of Chinese females. This in turn might allow for a refreshing picture of White men to somehow liberate Chinese women. About the time the movie made its debut in theatres, many Asian Americans (many from the Chinese American Community) were offended by the negative portrayal of Asian men in this film. Such screen potrayals are said to be relative to the fact that Asian American masculinity in films has been constantly restricted and made to be purposely absent onscreen by the western media. See Lib.berkeley.edu - report done by Amy Kashiwabara of University of California, Berkeley; titled "Vanishing Son: The Appearance, Disappearance, and Assimilation of the Asian-American Man in American Mainstream Media"for more information about the western media's false portrayals of Asian men (particularly Asian American men).

Another report, this time done by Joan Kee of Harvard University (see Desexualized Asian Male in the Western Media), observes the same consistent pattern: "Asian American male sexuality has long entailed a discourse of nothingness. The Asian or Asian American male is perhaps best known for his absence in the colonizer's sexual hierarchy. This strikes a sharp contrast to the colonizer's perception of the Asian female as an embodiment of excessive sexuality. Asian American males have been consigned to positions of inferiority within the hierarchy -- the Asian male as sexually impotent voyeur or pervert is a reoccuring icon, appearing throughout American cultural history and especially in film. Notable examples of this include Mickey Rooney in "yellowface" as the bucktoothed Japanese landlord who sneaks peeps at Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) or the pathetically asexual nerd Long Duk Dong in John Hughes' adolescent classic Sixteen Candles (1984).

Source materials:

Racial cliches identified in several films

Racial cliche identified in the film "The Fast and the Furious"

Asians type-casted in "The Fast and the Furious"

Magic Negro

Lib.berkeley.edu

Lib.berkeley.edu - report done by Amy Kashiwabara of University of California, Berkeley; titled "Vanishing Son: The Appearance, Disappearance, and Assimilation of the Asian-American Man in American Mainstream Media"

An extensive analysis on Racial Cliches in Entertainment can be reviewed via: "Offensive Ethnic Cliches in Movies: Drugs, Sex, and Servility" - written by Stuart Fischoff, PH.D., Ana Franco, Elaine Gram, Angela Hernendez, and James Parker from Media Psychology Lab. California State University, Los Angeles (based on a paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Boston, August 21, 1999)

Here is a source Greenmanreview.com which identifies the racial cliche of the White man/Asian woman hook up tendency found in The Last Samurai (2003), and the film's similarity with the movie Glory (1989) (of which both storylines happen to be seen and spoken through the perspective of White characters).

Regressive Mentalities vs. Progressive Mentalities

There is a defensive reasoning mentality that has been used by many supporters of the current White media which insists that Non-Whites simply cannot generate enough impact and worldwide gross whenever cast as leads, unlike the current bulk of White protagonists in films. In the eyes of the anti-media movement, the main problem with such an argument could be that there aren't enough Non-Whites in leading protagonist roles to begin with, which in turn, cannot provide for a consistent comparison of statistics. The statistics of the actor Will_Smith could present a strong argument against the point of view shared by advocates of the current media. A listing of some of the movies in which Will_Smith has been casted as the main protagonist of a storyline is as follows:

• Independence Day : $816,969,255 Worldwide Gross

• Men In Black 2 : $440,200,000 Worldwide Gross.

• Men In Black : $587,800,000 Worldwide Gross

• Bad Boys 2 : $262,000,000 Worldwide Gross

• Bad Boys : $140,800,000 Worldwide Gross

• Hitch : $357,855,338 Worldwide Gross

• Wild Wild West : $217,700,000 Worldwide Gross

• Enemy of the State : $250,300,000 Worldwide Gross

• I Robot : $346,701,023 Worldwide Gross

Note: His numbers and career totals can be found via: The-Numbers.com. According to that source, Will_Smith has been able to generate an income of $3,923,512,439 worldwide and an income of $1,827,463,970 in U.S. alone.

Another argument which advocates of the current White media adhere to (and of which the anti-media may perceive as defensive) insists that Hollywood is nothing more but a business and therefore, doesn't have to prioritize itself for the needs of society. This could suggest that the current Media is doing nothing wrong because it is only functioning the way it was designed for - entertainment; hence it needs not be morally conscious of itself. Perhaps the problem with a defensive mentality is that the media cannot literally separate itself from society, for society is the ultimate recipient of what the media shares (since the public is naturally receptive to whatever the media presents and influences upon the mainstream general consensus). For this inescapable interaction between media and public, the media (as a whole) may have an undeniable obligation to the necessities of society.

Other Regressive and Progressive Approaches that deal with Media Affairs

Many argue that attacking the media's racist tendencies requires the public to be able to identify which approaches are regressive to society, and which approaches are progressive for society. There are two common approaches shared by modern society into dealing with the current media's trends: 1.) Leave it as it is, or 2.) Expose its deceptive patterns and continue to proliferate public awareness so as to pressure the entire industry into persistent change.

Upon the analysis of the first approach: "Leave it as it is."

• This approach might seem to be the more regressive mentality because instead of addressing the deceptions, the deceptions are allowed to continue. Furthermore, it's critical to realize that the media is everywhere. Even though most people do not rely directly on the media for guidance and wisdom, human beings are helplessly receptive to what they watch, hear, read, and interact with. The entertainment industry has been deeply rooted in social affairs far too long to be ignored and shut off completely. "Leave it as it is" could be regarded as an impractical approach to most people of the modern age.

Upon the analysis of the second approach: "Expose its deceptive patterns and continue to proliferate public awareness so as to pressure the entire industry into persistent change."

• This could be considered as the more progressive mentality of the two because it advocates direct intervention from the public into the affairs of the media by sheer awareness. Through constant and repetitive pressure by the public's voice, the media will be in the receptive position instead. Since the public always outnumbers the media, society has access to a stronger resource through unity than what the media can counter with. This mentality simply means "in order to remove a problem, don't run from it, but instead, just face it directly".

Diversity in media presentations should not be limited to storylines only central to race issues

Many people have often said that in order to fight racism effectively and to establish normalcy for Diversity, the public must continue to pressure the mainstream media into fully changing itself while allowing more protagonist roles in media presentations not central to race issues (to balance out the Diversity in all aspects of western media). It is widely considered to be a logical step towards gradually reversing the effects of the already deeply rooted stereotypes plaguing modern society. In other words, the point emphasized by the public enforces that the media must consider more Non-Whites in leading roles in every movie genre, while not constricting them to only support roles or in storylines that are centered around the very subject of Racism. Such a step would likely construct a fresh image for Non-Whites in everyone's minds, which would then establish normalcy for all people (reversing the effects of White normalcy which has been influenced on society for over a century by the mainstream media).

This may be considered as a necessary and mandatory step towards gradually eliminating the negative stigma of which the mainstream media has deviced upon the public's mentality towards the concept of "Diversity" and its repetitive association with race issues. For example, it argues that, if diversity is increased in the media but only in presentations that deal with race issues (such as movies like Crash_(2005_film)), the public will continue to be stigmatized by the exterior image of Diversity - because the subject "Racism" carries a lot of negativity. Since "Diversity" is a mainstream term which concerns Non-Whites, then Whites will only continue to be subconsciously accepted as the social standard/norm, and such a stigma cannot be reversed if Non-Whites are tainted with racial issues. In short, more Non-Whites must be cast in storylines and presentations belonging to all avenues and genres of the mainstream media. This includes, commercials, comicbooks, novels, movies, computer games, fashion, the adult industry, news, theatre, etc. and not just in music and sports.

In essence, the ultimate goal is to establish Diversity as the true social norm instead of the subconsciously accepted false and deceptively covert western social/mainstream standard of "Whiteness" . If Diversity could be established as the standard normalcy for society, then the term "Diversity" would be perceived as a concept belonging to everyone (Blacks, Asians, Whites, Latinos, Arabs, Middle-Easterners, Native-Indians, etc. equally). If that were to happen, the mainstream would then no longer instinctively identify with 2 general groups like "White" and "Non-White" aka "People of Color". However, since "Whiteness" continues to be the subconsciously accepted norm of society, everything Non-White is coined the term "Diversity"; for "Diversity" is not an established normalcy yet, making it subconsciously perceived as being inferior so to speak.

White Racelessness in Western Culture (excerpts from "Whiteness in America")

Below (including the sub-category titled: "Whites are the 'standard' humans against which all other humans are compared") are portions from the full article entitled "Whiteness in America: a State of Racelessness and Culturelessness?":

• "so many self-styled "open-minded" white Americans subconsciously equate celebrating their European/Euro-American ethnic heritage to being a "white supremacist" or a neo-Nazi. Pride in being European/Euro-American does not have to go hand in hand with a sense of superiority towards non-Europeans/non-whites. By abandoning European/Euro-American pride and the celebration of European/Euro-American culture to the care of white supremacists, so-called "non-racist" whites are doing European heritage or white American heritage a disservice. And certainly NOT doing non-white Americans a favor. Individual whites become "raceless" when they deny that whiteness or European racial heritage is of any relevance. One would think that this "color blind" approach bodes well for interracial relations, but actually, this "racelessness" is anything but "color blindness" because many of the same whites definitely don't see people of color as raceless. A "raceless" non-identity is the basis for whites seeing themselves as the "normative" humanity free from race or ethnicity, and non-whites as abnormal humans with race and ethnicity. We set whiteness as the norm that others have to measure themselves again.

How did we end up equating whiteness to "the real, normal humanity"? I was glad to read One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race, which was reviewed on your site. This book traces the origins of many of our weird modern attitudes towards race and culture back to the early history of our nation. Author Scott Malcolmson suggests that white America's rejection of race was an attempt to distance us from the history of slavery and other wrongs done against people of color. The American revolutionaries' belief in universal humanity as part of their new American identity clashed with the reality at that time - the presence of black slavery. Unwilling to deal with the issue of slavery, their response was to blame England for the existence of slavery. Malcolmson continues: "... the new white Americans felt they had nothing else for which to apologize..., the newness of their country, in terms of moral responsibility... was precisely a repudiation of the white racial past.

The following passage from One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race, further elaborates on the point:

• The belief in race, then, had an enormous pressure placed on it by Revolutionary thought. White Americans reacted to this pressure by denying the relevance of their racial past, placing the blame for it on others, excluding the nonwhite physical reminders of that past from society...clinging tightly to the ideal of a humanity beyond race that was nonetheless... restricted to white people... They knew that blacks and Indians were human... In this predicament they could either sacrifice their humanity to whiteness or make their whiteness into humanity... To be at the head of humanity's march was both to be white and to be beyond race - to be fully human.

"Whites are the 'standard' humans against which all other humans are compared"

• An example of how Westerners see themselves as the norm for humanity is our usage of the term "world music" - often used to refer to music originating outside Western Europe/USA. It makes one think that Western Europe/USA is not part of the world. Western music is "default, normal" music. Other music is "world music." The use of term "international student", referring to foreign student, follows the same logic. One can only conclude that the U.S. is not part of the "international" scene, and that each foreign student belongs fully to the "international scene", not just to his/her individual country.

• Another term whose common usage I find annoying is "tribe" or "tribal". A tribe is a unit of political organization - the number 1 definition for "tribe" in Webster's dictionary is "esp. among preliterate peoples, a group of persons, families, or clans believed to be descended from a common ancestor and forming a close community under a leader, or chief." In casual American conversation, the word "tribal" has little to do with political organization. You hear phrases like "tribal music", "tribal clothing" and "tribal dance", which beg the question, "which tribe?"

If you look at the context in which the word "tribal" was used thus, you would find that the speakers are almost always talking about African, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander or aboriginal Australian cultures. While tribal affiliations sometimes exist, or did exist in these cultures, it must be remembered that Europeans organized themselves as tribes too. In fact, the word "tribe" originated from the 3 groups into which Romans were originally divided. The everyday use of "tribe" and "tribal" in American speech has become so tainted with the image of the primitive savage that some Americans of African descent have asked that the word "tribe" not be used in referring to African descent groups, preferring the phrase "ethnic group".

When we talk about "ethnic" food, we commonly mean non-European food, like Indian food, Mexican food and Vietnamese food. We usually don't call French food or Irish food "ethnic food". It seems like we think whites don't have ethnicity. This attitude amazes me and I have always wondered where it comes from.

• "One Drop of Blood" proposes that since the frontier days, "racelessness" has been the prerequisite towards becoming truly American. Paradoxically, it was at the same time taken for granted that the true American can only be white. Malcolmson describes the contradiction:

... only "white" immigrants were eligible for citizenship. When Brandeis said that the United States alone "recognizes racial equality as an essential of full human liberty," he immediately followed with, "It has, therefore, given like welcome to all the peoples of Europe."... Americanizers did not, however, advocate a white America. Neither did Brandeis...Americanizers were against racial identity... Races were what European immigrants had and would go beyond... To be American was to be raceless... The people who, by general consensus, had races... were non-whites.

The use of the word "White" to identify a people

It has been said that the use of the word "White" (like the word "Black") to identify a people and their culture may had a profound effect on how the world sees those people and their culture. Since the word "White" is deeply symbolic of positivity, divinity, victory, power, universality and such, any people who were to be associated under that same word would instinctively and subconsciously be perceived as being superior to peoples of other races. In modern society, that word has been universally associated to European-Caucasians. Of course, this modern association with European-Caucasians is related to the fact that even though the classification of Caucasians applies to light to brown skinned people from Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, South Asia, and many parts of Central Asia, mainstream thinking has, for a very long, misinterpreted (with devastating effects) the very definition of Caucasians as being limited only to Europeans who do not have the distinct physical characteristics of Asians, Africans, Arabs, Middle-Easterners, Latinos, Native Americans, etc.).

The positive connection of "White" with the European-Caucasian race would then serve to create a deceptive and highly covert superiority/inferiority duality in the mainstream's subconscious. For example, anyone who is not a European-Caucasian would be universally vulnerable to the subconsciously covert and deceptive inferior mentality. On the other hand, a European-Caucasian would be universally vulnerable to the subconsciously covert and deceptive superiority mentality. This domino effect is considered to be most noticeable in western society. The greater danger of this of course, is that western thinking has already influenced so much of the modern world, which in turn, has affected global politics, global economics, international relations, etc.

Note: In western society, "Whiteness", "White normalcy", or "White racelessness" has been widely established as the social standard, and has already been subconsciously cemented into mainstream thought through a variety of propaganda mediums (such as the mainstream media).

The Psychological impact of "Whiteness" may significantly fuel the drive for "Designer Babies" in future society

Although the current state of biotechnology does not yet offer the full array of perfected techniques for reproducing and designing babies, it has been estimated that such technologies will enter the mainstream within the coming decades. Many fear however, that because "Whiteness", "White Normalcy", "White Racelessness" has been a long and deeply established western social standard (and because Non-Whites have been covertly and subconsciously perceived as being inferior - through misrepresentative propaganda tactics persistently practiced by the mainstream media and politics for centuries), that the flight of this upcoming technology will further seduce the mainstream into fashioning its future children according to White characteristics. Indeed, the earlier overtly racist Eugenics movements in western society may one day, be covertly integrated into a more robust and politically correct system in the form of 21st century biotechnology.

Some of the current and upcoming techniques which involve the process of designing babies are listed below:

• SCREENING EMBRYOS FOR HIGH-RISK DISEASES. Some parents have a high likelihood of passing on the genes for a disease. Many inherited diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, can be detected very early using a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PDG). This procedure, first used in 1990, helps doctors detect severe genetic disorders very early in a pregnancy. If it is used to screen test tube babies, an embryo with an inherited condition need never be implanted in the womb.

• SCREENING EMBRYOS FOR UNKNOWN DISEASES. The PDG technique could also be used to screen embryos even when there is no known risk of inheriting diseases. Also, doctors could screen for unpredictable disorders in the chromosomes - disorders which could result in miscarriage, birth defects, or diseases like Down's syndrome.

• SELECTING THE SEX OF A BABY. There are legitimate medical reasons to prefer a male or a female child; for instance, many diseases can only be passed on through the male line or the female line of descendants. While there has been some recent progress in selecting the sex before fertilization (by dividing the sperm likely to produce males from those likely to produce females), the sex of an embryo can more easily be determined after fertilization through PDG. It can also be determined several weeks into pregnancy - at which point an abortion is required if the baby is not of the desired sex.

• PICKING AN EMBRYO FOR ITS SPECIFIC TRAITS. This is not really possible today, but it is imaginable that as our understanding of the human genome improves, doctors might be able to develop a general genetic profile of several fertilized embryos. The parents could then choose an embryo based on its profile - although there would be no guarantees that the baby would grow to match its profile. This method has no therapeutic value.

• GENETIC MANIPULATION FOR THERAPEUTIC REASONS. As our knowledge of the human genome increases - and as our ability to modify it improves - we will be able to fix diseased or defective embryos at the genetic level. This technique is called germ line therapy, which refers to the fact that it would be performed on an egg, a sperm or a small fertilized embryo. Defective sections of DNA could be replaced with healthy DNA. Although, to date, there is no practical way to do this for humans, there have been several recent breakthroughs.

• GENETIC MANIPULATION FOR COSMETIC REASONS. It is conceivable that someday, the same technique used for genetic therapy could also be used for selecting other genetic characteristics. It is nowhere near possible today, but in the future, inherited characteristics like eye color, hair color or height could be selected with some rudimentary amount of control. Other characteristics, however, such as intelligence, athleticism and beauty are so greatly influenced by environmental factors (such as parenting and nutrition) that genetic manipulation is never likely to have more than a slight effect.

References:

Tecsoc.org/biotech/focusbabies

News.BBC.Co.Uk/Health

Spiked-Online.com/Articles

ABC.net.au/Science

Guardian.co.uk/Archives

Ourworld.compuserve.com/Genetic Engineering

Zmagsite.Zmag.org "The New Eugenics"

Biotech.indymedia.org "Children of the Revolution"

godspy.com/issues "A Brave New World"

Louisville.edu/Research "Designer Babies are not far away"

Science.Howstuffworks.com/Designer-Children

Illinois.issues.uis.edu/bioethics

Bioethicsanddisability.org/Eugenics

Biotech vs. Bioethics

Gene.ch "Making Super Babies"

Ethics of Genetic Life Design - Advent of New Liberal Eugenics

Emmerich1.com/Eugenics -- has a statement by I.I. Gottesman, a director of the American Eugenics Society (1970): "The essence of evolution is natural selection; the essence of eugenics is the replacement of 'natural' selection by conscious, premeditated, or artificial selection in the hope of speeding up the evolution of 'desirable' characteristics and the elimination of undesirable ones.".

The Definition of Racism

Racism is a very complex negative mentality which has been deeply rooted in humanity's history. The statements and the subcategories below (from the source UC.edu) identify the many characteristics of Racism:

• Racism is founded on the belief in one’s racial superiority over another.
• Racism encompasses the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and practices that define people based on racial classifications.
• Racism involves a generalized lack of knowledge or experience as it applies to negative beliefs and attitudes.
• Racism uses the inflexible assumption that group differences are biologically determined and therefore inherently unchangeable.
• Racism does not exist in a vacuum, but rather is enacted and reinforced through social, cultural, and institutional practices that endorse the hierarchical power of one racial group over another.

Historical Background of Racism:

• Racism in the United States has existed since the inception of this country. It is an institution that has dramatically shaped American society. European settlers began with overt acts of racial discrimination, such as the enslavement and genocide of African and Native American people. The use of direct force and political subjugation helped White people maintain unconditional authority over non-White inhabitants and elevated White power and privilege. Exploitation of non-Whites also helped constitute much of the rapid economic growth and prosperity seen in American history. Over the years, however, many non-White and White citizens fought against the institutionalization of power based on the color of one’s skin. As historic legislation against racial discrimination grew, the semblance of overt racism was replaced by more covert racism in which the generations of institutional and individual racial prejudice continue to plague the way members of different races think, act, and feel towards one another.

Differences between race, ethnicity, and culture:

• Race- a classification of human beings into distinguishable groups that are based on innate and immutable physical characteristics, e.g. skin color, hair texture, eye shape.
• Ethnicity - a classification of individuals who share a common ancestry comprised of customs and traditions that are passed on between generations, e.g. religion, dress, and nationality.
• Culture - a broader category that extends beyond race and ethnicity to include any group of people who share common lifestyle characteristics which are passed on to members of the particular group, e.g. socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, geographic location.

What is prejudice?

• Stems from natural tendency toward categorizing information as a way of simplifying the abundance of information that exists in the world.
• Such categorizations or stereotypes are generalized to incorporate further information and are therefore based on insufficient evidence and can be distorted.
• Attitudes and beliefs are a central part of these stereotypes, and can either be positive or negative.

Note:Racial prejudice is comprised of negative attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes, which are inflexible and resistant to change despite contradictory evidence.

What is discrimination?

• The behavioral manifestation of negative prejudice.
• The purpose is to preserve and favor the characteristics of one’s own group at the expense of others in the comparison group.

Note:Racism is a combination of racial prejudice and discrimination.

Minority/Majority Group:

• Minority group - any group who is singled out in society based on physical or cultural characteristics and is treated differentially and unequally. A minority group may or may not be a numerical majority, but the defining features are a lack of social, political, and economic power, which is determined by the dominant, majority group.
• Majority group - any group that holds the social, economic, and political power to influence and determine who will have access to the benefits, privileges, and opportunities of the society.

Power/Privilege:

• Having power means having the capacity to create desired effects or to influence others for one’s own benefit.
• Social power refers to the capacity that a particular group has in being able to effect desired changes, but also refers to the potential of such a group exploiting those who hold less power.
• Having this power is a privilege which is unearned and only afforded to those who fit the mold of the dominant group.

Forms of Racism

• Overt Racism - what most people are familiar with since it is easily detectable and takes the form of direct behavioral or verbal racially discriminatory acts.
• Covert Racism - more subtle, yet occurs more often than overt racism and is more easily hidden, denied, or discounted.

Individual Racism:

• Overt Example: An Arabic male student who is brutally murdered out of hate.
• Covert Example: An employer who decides not to hire an Asian American employee because she believes that the employee might drive away business, but tells the person that there are no more openings available.

Institutional Racism:

• Overt Example: A country club that has clearly written rules which preclude any non-White members.
• Covert Example: An academic curriculum that only emphasizes European American history and does not address the history of other ethnic/cultural groups.

Cultural Racism:

• Overt Examples: The extermination of Jews in the Holocaust. The enslavement of African Americans.
• Covert Example: The unrealistic and stereotypical portrayal of ethnic minorities in the media.

Consequences of Racism

On the minority or target group:

• Low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and physical illness.
• Internalized racism (Unquestioned acceptance of the myth of racial inferiority).
• Limited access to necessary and desired resources.
• Limited freedom and death.

On the majority or dominant group:

• Continued ignorance of and isolation from others.
• A challenge to humanistic values, creating an impairment of moral development.
• Pressure to maintain the status quo.
• Perpetuation of group conformity, which limits individual and intellectual growth and undermines authentic relationships.

Formation of Racism

Perpetuation of Racism

• Tendency toward adhering to and preferring the values and personal beliefs of one’s own group.
• Tendency toward associating with individuals or groups that have similar values and beliefs and therefore limiting the amount of intergroup contact and experience from which to draw.
• Tendency toward categorizing information and using generalized assumptions, which often lead to stereotypes and negative biases.
• Judging the values and standards of minority group cultures by the values and standards of the majority group culture and labeling the former as inferior (a.k.a. ethnocentrism).

Note:A child is not born a racist, but rather racism is a learned social phenomenon, via family, education, religion, the law, and the media. It is difficult to grow up in society without adopting the worldviews and biases of the society.

Some Solutions

Individual Level: 

• Individuals holding each other accountable for recognizing and countering racial beliefs and practices.
• Majority individuals engaging in diversity trainings and joining minority individuals in grass root efforts to combat racism.
• Individuals engaging in cross-cultural friendships and relationships.

Institutional Level:

• Minorities’ full participation in the political system.
• Inclusion of ethnically diverse contributions, values, and perspectives into the educational curriculum and practices.
• The implementation of laws and strategies that aim to give those who for generations have been and continue to be denied the opportunity of a higher education.

Cultural Level (Removing Whiteness/White Racelessness/White Normalcy):

• A media system that portrays minorities in a realistic rather than stereotypical and negative light.
• Celebration, education, and integration of different cultural traditions into society.

A brief overview of modern racism (Covert Racism)

Public reviews have recently focused on the deceptive problems of the White mainstream's tendency to pretend that racism no longer exists in today's society. In actuality however, classical racism has taken on a new form known as Covert racism - racism that isn't easily detectable. In classical racism (Overt racism), the actions involved were explicit, obvious, and direct. Such actions would include violence towards a race, the public use of racial slurs, slavery, hate crimes, etc. Of course, most of those practices have now been prohibited in modern laws. Covert racism on the other hand, is above modern laws because it is carried out in such a politically correct and deceptive manner. It is racism that is often expressed by people who do not see themselves as racists (whether they are aware of it or not).

The transition from classical racism to covert racism is not just evident in the evolution of Hollywood films, but it is also be evident in television commercials, in the adult industry, in the mainstream news, in the comic books, in video games, in fashion, in music, in internet forums, in racial polls, public opinion polls, in beauty contests, in stand up comedy, in politics, in religion, in sports entertainment, in institutional and social processes, in home-lending practices, in the statistical racial discrimination in employment and promotion, in law enforcement, in residential “white flights” (moving away from Non-White neighbors), in the systematic under-funding and under-equipping of schools predominately attended by Non-Whites relative to schools predominately attended by Whites, in the disproportionate surveillance, in the unwillingness to allow more Non-Whites the opportunities to gain the highest positions of creative and administrative control in every workforce, and more.

One could also argue that the phenomenon of covert racism could have been further cemented into the modern mainstream by the many famed civil rights victories of the past as well as by the recent and isolated Non-White achievements in films and politics today. For instance, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it may have triggered the White mainstream's hidden eagerness to believe that all race issues have been solved from that point onwards. Indeed, such victories may have encouraged (and continue to encourage) the illusion in which racism is a thing of the past, and because of that, such an illusion would then result into a state of deceptive social complacency - in which the danger would allow for a full submission to the current western social norm known as "Whiteness", or "White Racelessness".

Upon the deceptive belief that racism no longer exists or is at least, no longer a significant problem in modern society, the majority of the White mainstream and most White-ran institutions would thus believe that modern day racial issues are only caused within the Non-White groups themselves. In other words, the racist issues of today would be nothing more than direct results caused by the "self-sabotaging" mentalities of the Non-White groups themselves.

See more about Overt and Covert Racism at:

Racism in Modern America

Term-papers.us on Covert Racism

Information on essays about Covert Racism

"The Full Blown 'Oprah Effect': The effects of color, class, and new age Racism

Descriptions on Overt and Covert Racism

Non-White Population outnumbers Whites in California (Hollywood)

There is a growing argument from the public which states that Hollywood should have more Non-Whites than Whites in leading roles in its films because California is a state which has more Non-Whites combined than that of the White population. See California demographics: California#Demographics. Such statistics could strongly argue that Hollywood is left with no excuse whatsoever for its refusal to consistently increase the opportunities for Non-Whites in its films. Such a situation may also apply to Texas where the Non-White population has been estimated to be around 50.2 %: Texas Demographics

External links

Media Awareness

Black Commentator

Minorities and Entertainment

Yaaams web pages

Medialit.org Article512

Medialit.org Article413

NPR.org

Archives 2005/01/05

UFL.edu

Arasite.org

Hanksville.org/sand/stereotypes

BBC.co.uk on the negative portrayals of Non-Whites in the UK

A Bibliography of Materials in the UC Berkeley Library

Syllabi on Diversity and the Media

Journalism.sfsu.edu

Lehigh.edu on "The Last of the Mohicans"

Howhist.com on American Indians and the Media

Powhatan.org

A Clash of Values

Indiancountry.com

"A History of Native Americans in Cinema"

CSMonitor.com

Uweb.ucsb.edu "The Changing Face In Film"

Imdiversity.com

Ejumpcut.org Archives 2002

Brightlightsfilm.com

Modelminority.com

English.uiuc.edu on Hollywood

Rowmanlittlefield Catalog

Racial Cliches identified in films

Racial Cliches in Films and their influence on Society's Perceptions

Findarticles.com Article # 19136206

MSNBC

Academic.udayton.edu

Upress.umn.edu

Emmerich1.com

Innercity.org

The-Numbers.com

Statenews.com

Racial cliche identified in the film "The Fast and the Furious"

Asians type-casted in "The Fast and the Furious"

Fair.org

Kaleo.org

Lib.berkeley.edu AmericanSons

Lib.berkeley.edu The Vanishing Son

Desexualized Asian Male in the Western Media

Whites and Racelessness

Racerelations.about.com

Yale.edu

Uoregon.edu

Ethnicmajority.com

NAHJ.org on "Brownout"

Umich.edu

Buildingblocksforyouth

Latrobe.edu.au

Npr.org on Hollywood/Racism

Usc.edu on Media Stereotypes

Usc.edu Resources on the Media potrayals of Native Americans

Blackjournalism.com/muslim

U.S. media fanning anti-Arab hatred

"Truth is the victim as the same old double standards prevail"

Onpointradio.org

Shef.ac.uk on Racism/UK

Hollywood, mainstream press incite Arab anger

The Anti-Arab Manipulation of the U.S. Media

100 Years of anti-Arab & anti-Muslim stereotyping

Studyworld.com

Information on essays about Covert Racism

"The Full Blown 'Oprah Effect': Reflections on Color, Class, & New Age Racism

Tecsoc.org/biotech/focusbabies

News.BBC.Co.Uk/Health

Spiked-Online.com/Articles

ABC.net.au/Science

Guardian.co.uk/Archives

Ourworld.compuserve.com/Genetic Engineering

Zmagsite.Zmag.org "The New Eugenics"

Biotech.indymedia.org "Children of the Revolution"

godspy.com/issues "A Brave New World"

Louisville.edu/Research "Designer Babies are not far away"

Science.Howstuffworks.com/Designer-Children

Illinois.issues.uis.edu/bioethics

Bioethicsanddisability.org/Eugenics

Biotech vs. Bioethics

Gene.ch "Making Super Babies"

Ethics of Genetic Life Design - Advent of New Liberal Eugenics

http://www.arasite.org/whites.html

Racesci.org "Schools fail to fight racism"

home.cc.umanitoba.ca Descriptions on Overt and Covert Racism

Taking a stand agaisnt racism in the media

Harbour.sfu.ca