I never noticed how different races are portrayed in media in the United States. Race is in fact a credible factor in establishing cultural, economic, and political membership (274). In specific to certain minority groups in mainstream media is seen as significant and dangerous. Organizations like the NCLR, NAACP, and ADC are still shown as "narrow and cliched (275)." Ghosh discusses how African Americans are commonly portrayed as lazy and violent. Latinos are often seen to be driven by primal urges and Native Americans are rarely shown at all. In defense of certain Advertisers they argue that minority's low ratio in population, they are seen as marginally irrelevant to advertisers. All of this information does not explain why Indian Americans are ignored because they have a disposable income. They are constantly erased or invisible in the media. Said argues in defense for this race and discusses how the media doesn't recognize these people for who they are, but they still continue to utilize their craftsmanship and particular icons. Said discusses Orientalist, he quotes "how media and advertising produce a commodified and orientalist version of India that simultaneously erases indigenous peoples out of the landscapes or puts them in the background (275)." They are in turn, noticed for their labor not their lives.
I found the part of the article where Said goes into examples of certain advertisements that utilize certain "Indian American" elements. For example, Liz Claiborne models a white women in a silk sarong made in India, but any other signifier of India is absent, in conclusion they are robbed of recognition. These "exotic" objects are included in a number of advertisements and the only way that the United States is going to progress is by recognizing particular minorities more, especially Indian Americans for who they are not not just what they make or wear.
No comments:
Post a Comment