This is an interesting topic, not only because once again my African history class has introduced me to this question of aesthetics, but also because it is something I fight about with friends and co-workers all the time.
I have noticed that when work is slow, your out with your friends, or you just want to look around yourself there are so many varied people, men and women. They range from dark, light, tall, short, fat, skinny, and everything in between. Then, there he/she is, a beacon of beauty in the sea of average laid out before you. You point him/her out to a friend, but surprisingly they disagree with you! You can not believe it! It does not make sense! Why?
People call me picky. I do not find just any blond-haired girl with big breasts intriguing I guess. I prefer dark hair, darker skin, typically Mexican girls...the list goes on. So, I've begun to ask myself, mainly because everyone I work with is affronted by my "odd" tastes in women, why I like these women. What is it about them that I like? I've noticed some particular features that stand out such as:
Dark complexion
Accents
Strong ethnic background
Strong jaw-line
Larger nose
Straight dark hair
Large dark eyes
And many others
I've tried to find some kind of consistency in women I find particularly attractive, but it is hard without having them side by side. So, I came to the conclusion: A study should be done on several men and women. They should pick from a large group of people the ones they find attractive. Then, those people should be compared together and analyzed for similar features such as jaw structure, facial symmetry and the like to see if people have a "type" at all. In short, it would be to see if people have a perfect person in mind by constructing them from the attributes they desire in a mate. I'm curious to see what she'd look like for myself.
Just a thought I had recently been having about the topic and thought I would write it down. Seems interesting to be able to "define" one's type, if there is such a thing. It does not take a scientist to figure out that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder because I do not believe Scarlett Johanssen is the sexiest woman alive (which again my friends are purely shocked by), but apparently she is in the magazine as such for a reason.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
What comes to mind...
...Africa...hmmm...
Well, I know I'm supposed to think of lions, tigers, and bears. Oh my! But in fact I don't...no tribes come to mind.
I think Egypt first of all. I'm fascinated by ancient cultures...hence the double major in history. Secondly, I think of Johannesburg. Blame it on Totsi but that's what I think. Yeah, I think of tribes, lions, and savanna, but Africa has that, too. Like when I think of America, I think of New York, the Midwest, the Rockies, waves of the pacific lapping at the shore. Sorry tropical Hawaii doesn't come to mind or ice-covered Alaska...that make me prejudice? I didn't think so.
But hey, to each his own. When people think of Texas and cowboys come to mind, am I offended? Not really. There ARE a lot of rednecks here that wear cowboy hats (although not all of those that wear cowboy hats are rednecks and vice versa).
The other day I was watching a television show produced by a US company. Basically, a guy had amnesia, they showed him a cowboy hat and said, "You're from Texas." I laughed. Americans are prejudiced against Africa? Humans create basic ideas and prejudices based on prior knowledge given to them through whatever means. It helps us to protect ourselves, to shape decisions, and to predict events as best as possible. Humans are prejudice, not Americans.
Well, I know I'm supposed to think of lions, tigers, and bears. Oh my! But in fact I don't...no tribes come to mind.
I think Egypt first of all. I'm fascinated by ancient cultures...hence the double major in history. Secondly, I think of Johannesburg. Blame it on Totsi but that's what I think. Yeah, I think of tribes, lions, and savanna, but Africa has that, too. Like when I think of America, I think of New York, the Midwest, the Rockies, waves of the pacific lapping at the shore. Sorry tropical Hawaii doesn't come to mind or ice-covered Alaska...that make me prejudice? I didn't think so.
But hey, to each his own. When people think of Texas and cowboys come to mind, am I offended? Not really. There ARE a lot of rednecks here that wear cowboy hats (although not all of those that wear cowboy hats are rednecks and vice versa).
The other day I was watching a television show produced by a US company. Basically, a guy had amnesia, they showed him a cowboy hat and said, "You're from Texas." I laughed. Americans are prejudiced against Africa? Humans create basic ideas and prejudices based on prior knowledge given to them through whatever means. It helps us to protect ourselves, to shape decisions, and to predict events as best as possible. Humans are prejudice, not Americans.
African(ish) Documentary
All I've read so far from the responses to the question about what constitutes African documentary is purely anti-Western rhetoric without any backing from hard facts or logic. The West is bad; we bash Africa. Why does the world have to be seen in purely black and white. There is something of a gray area to almost all things.
The question is: "Is African documentary film about Africa even when it is produced by a non-African?"
Yes, of course it is. Is it about Africa? The question states that in fact it IS "about Africa" although produced by someone that is non-African. The question is not is it an African documentary, that is already proven true in the statement, but whether or not the African documentary is more African-ish than African. The content will be given through the perspective of its creator(s) which may or may not be African in nationality.
Therefore, my argument is that in fact, the documentary is African, but the perspective itself may not be. Africa through the eyes of an North American, European, South American, Australian, or Asian is still Africa. However, this Africa will differ between the respective continents due to each nations perspective.
But does this mean that Africans see Africa right and everyone else sees it wrong? There were many Germans during WWII that knew nothing about the concentration camps. Many Americans do not know both the good and bad things being done by Americans in other countries. A nation is not all knowing of itself. Nor do other countries know all there is to know about another country. Therefore, my point is that perspectives are just as equal in importance as opinions. They can neither be wrong nor right. They are purely perspectives. If I thought that Africa was just full of lions and half-naked tribes due to my exposure to certain media, does that mean my perspective is wrong? No, it may not be correct, but it is an accurate perspective considering my knowledge. It wouldn't mean I was being malicious on purpose.
This means that Africans producing a documentary film about a non-African society are equally important to the collective viewpoint of this world. Every perspective is necessary to understand the information to focus on, to better understand the viewpoints of certain societies and much, much more. The important point is the topic and what the creator wishes to portray.
This is my point of view. Yes, Western civilization chooses to view certain aspects of African history in a particular light, but to accuse all of Western culture of being short-sighted or ignorant is equally as such. It is a perspective.
Here are some interesting quotes about history that serve to voice my argument:
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. - Winston Churchill
People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them. - James Baldwin
History is a novel for which the people is the author. - Alfred de Vigny
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice. - Mark Twain
And the best one I found:
Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters. - African Proverb
The question is: "Is African documentary film about Africa even when it is produced by a non-African?"
Yes, of course it is. Is it about Africa? The question states that in fact it IS "about Africa" although produced by someone that is non-African. The question is not is it an African documentary, that is already proven true in the statement, but whether or not the African documentary is more African-ish than African. The content will be given through the perspective of its creator(s) which may or may not be African in nationality.
Therefore, my argument is that in fact, the documentary is African, but the perspective itself may not be. Africa through the eyes of an North American, European, South American, Australian, or Asian is still Africa. However, this Africa will differ between the respective continents due to each nations perspective.
But does this mean that Africans see Africa right and everyone else sees it wrong? There were many Germans during WWII that knew nothing about the concentration camps. Many Americans do not know both the good and bad things being done by Americans in other countries. A nation is not all knowing of itself. Nor do other countries know all there is to know about another country. Therefore, my point is that perspectives are just as equal in importance as opinions. They can neither be wrong nor right. They are purely perspectives. If I thought that Africa was just full of lions and half-naked tribes due to my exposure to certain media, does that mean my perspective is wrong? No, it may not be correct, but it is an accurate perspective considering my knowledge. It wouldn't mean I was being malicious on purpose.
This means that Africans producing a documentary film about a non-African society are equally important to the collective viewpoint of this world. Every perspective is necessary to understand the information to focus on, to better understand the viewpoints of certain societies and much, much more. The important point is the topic and what the creator wishes to portray.
This is my point of view. Yes, Western civilization chooses to view certain aspects of African history in a particular light, but to accuse all of Western culture of being short-sighted or ignorant is equally as such. It is a perspective.
Here are some interesting quotes about history that serve to voice my argument:
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. - Winston Churchill
People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them. - James Baldwin
History is a novel for which the people is the author. - Alfred de Vigny
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice. - Mark Twain
And the best one I found:
Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters. - African Proverb
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Better Late Than Never
My thoughts on the first day of class were some of familiarity. My double major is in history and I have taken several classes such as "History of Violence," "Pre-Colonial African History," and some others that challenge the Western concept of representation and presentation of events, facts, opinions, and ideas.
Particularly in the first two aforementioned classes I was introduced to a four-quadrant system of philosophy produced by Ken Wilber. It is very complicated and difficult to explain, but essentially this is the breakdown of those quadrants:
This four-quadrant system helps to define the world around us and put it into perspective, whether we see the universe in a dichotomy of good and evil or of a solid unified form that is benevolent in its nature. For instance, what defines a terrorist from a rebel besides our cultural understanding of good and evil - a dichotomy. When we say terrorist, we are using a word that represents a negative connotation that instills hatred and anger. When we say rebel, we are using a word that represents heroism, strength, and determination against all odds.
I apologize, my understanding of the four-quadrant system is limited, but I recommend reading about it on your own. It's very intriguing. But Dr. Wachanga's discussion on facts, information, and how they are represented are directly linked to how we perceive the world around us. For someone that believes time is circular, believes they will be reincarnated, or even that their god is neither good or evil (for instance, a floor is not innately evil because someone slipped on it nor is it good because someone didn't - it is only existing) their perception of the world around them is quite different than an American for instance.
I thought this was worth mentioning at least. Although quite delayed, I still remember what it was that I was thinking during the lectures, particularly after reviewing the slides. If anyone else is familiar with the four-quadrant system, I'd love to get some feedback.
Particularly in the first two aforementioned classes I was introduced to a four-quadrant system of philosophy produced by Ken Wilber. It is very complicated and difficult to explain, but essentially this is the breakdown of those quadrants:
This four-quadrant system helps to define the world around us and put it into perspective, whether we see the universe in a dichotomy of good and evil or of a solid unified form that is benevolent in its nature. For instance, what defines a terrorist from a rebel besides our cultural understanding of good and evil - a dichotomy. When we say terrorist, we are using a word that represents a negative connotation that instills hatred and anger. When we say rebel, we are using a word that represents heroism, strength, and determination against all odds.I apologize, my understanding of the four-quadrant system is limited, but I recommend reading about it on your own. It's very intriguing. But Dr. Wachanga's discussion on facts, information, and how they are represented are directly linked to how we perceive the world around us. For someone that believes time is circular, believes they will be reincarnated, or even that their god is neither good or evil (for instance, a floor is not innately evil because someone slipped on it nor is it good because someone didn't - it is only existing) their perception of the world around them is quite different than an American for instance.
I thought this was worth mentioning at least. Although quite delayed, I still remember what it was that I was thinking during the lectures, particularly after reviewing the slides. If anyone else is familiar with the four-quadrant system, I'd love to get some feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)