Hi, my name is Lokman. I'm a fourth year graduate student at the Annenberg School of Penn. Born and raised in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, I came to the States for my graduate studies. My parents are from Hong Kong. I got my MA degree in China Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands, where I wrote my thesis on the topic of internet censorship and regulation in China. I got interested in technology, internet, new media and communication and ended up at Annenberg, where I am currently busy working on my dissertation proposal that will look at the impact citizen journalism has for global news production.
I will do some traveling in the summer, going to Hong Kong and Budapest. I'm really excited to visit these places and meet people. In Hong Kong, I will be participating in the 6th annual Chinese Internet Research conference hosted at Hong Kong University. In Budapest, I'm going to a conference that focuses on the tensions new technologies create between the global and the local. Following that, I will be attending the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit. I am excited to meet everybody from Global Voices, who are an amazing group of people trying to bring attention to what is happening to those parts in the world that the mainstream media are ignoring. After coming back to Philadelphia, I will be busy revising and finishing my proposal, so that I will be ready to defend it by the end of August, or early September.
I'm a bit of a veteran and have a personal, a scholarly blog and I also contribute to a group blog. Look forward to getting to know all of you!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The race card...?
Paul Krugman's May 25th editorial in the NY Times (Divided We Stand) mentioned the 'race card'...it got me thinking. What is it?
I've come to the conclusion that it is an overused and meaningless rhetorical construction that needs to be purged from our political vocabulary.
While researching on the 'tubes I noticed that Krugman's definition is different from others I encountered. He uses the 'race card' to mean politicizing race. All the other definitions I found described the term as unjustly accusing your attackers of being racist in order to shirk responsibility for your actions.
Krugman's definition shows an interesting evolution in political thought. According to the second definition only a minority can pull a 'race card.' Racism against the majority has no doubt always existed, but it didn't matter because the majority was in power.
However, now there are tools that have institutionalized discrimination (a form of racism) against the majority i. e. affirmative action. These tools strip away majority privileges, turning the majority into just another interest group. I read an article (unfortunately I can't find it!) that describes how the 2008 primary campaign has recognized this transformation with white working class voters. Hillary is sticking up for them as subjugated group.
But that definition doesn't work when whites are still the overwhelming majority. One alternative is the politicization of race. Now Obama supporters can accuse Clinton of playing the 'race card.'
If find this definition absurd. Race is political. Why? Because Racism is a power struggle. It inevitably leads to one group subjugating another (hidden discrimination as a lighter form and slavery as a more extreme form).
It is meaningless for political supporters of any candidate to decry politicizing something which is inherently political.
I think that the real problem is politicians using race to obfuscate issues. Race is an emotional shortcut. Race deters rational thought because of the complex and deeply personal feelings it arouses. But crying foul and hurling the 'race card' at individuals using race for their own gain simply adds to the existing smoke and mirrors. Flinging this epithet only injects more emotional rhetoric into the already hazy arena.
Throwing down the 'race card' is counterproductive and will perpetuate racist thoughts because it discourages discourse. Accusing someone of using the 'race card' is really done out of fear. Fear to tread across centuries of pain, guilt, indignation, disgust, and incomprehension. Fear to open up and accept responsibility for the past and present (something majority and minority need to do).
In the good spirit of George Orwell we must cast this meaningless phrase into the rhetorical rubbish bin.
In its most benign form this phrase is a wearied accusation, but underneath the mask of racial equality this phrase actually perpetuates racism.
I've come to the conclusion that it is an overused and meaningless rhetorical construction that needs to be purged from our political vocabulary.
While researching on the 'tubes I noticed that Krugman's definition is different from others I encountered. He uses the 'race card' to mean politicizing race. All the other definitions I found described the term as unjustly accusing your attackers of being racist in order to shirk responsibility for your actions.
Krugman's definition shows an interesting evolution in political thought. According to the second definition only a minority can pull a 'race card.' Racism against the majority has no doubt always existed, but it didn't matter because the majority was in power.
However, now there are tools that have institutionalized discrimination (a form of racism) against the majority i. e. affirmative action. These tools strip away majority privileges, turning the majority into just another interest group. I read an article (unfortunately I can't find it!) that describes how the 2008 primary campaign has recognized this transformation with white working class voters. Hillary is sticking up for them as subjugated group.
But that definition doesn't work when whites are still the overwhelming majority. One alternative is the politicization of race. Now Obama supporters can accuse Clinton of playing the 'race card.'
If find this definition absurd. Race is political. Why? Because Racism is a power struggle. It inevitably leads to one group subjugating another (hidden discrimination as a lighter form and slavery as a more extreme form).
It is meaningless for political supporters of any candidate to decry politicizing something which is inherently political.
I think that the real problem is politicians using race to obfuscate issues. Race is an emotional shortcut. Race deters rational thought because of the complex and deeply personal feelings it arouses. But crying foul and hurling the 'race card' at individuals using race for their own gain simply adds to the existing smoke and mirrors. Flinging this epithet only injects more emotional rhetoric into the already hazy arena.
Throwing down the 'race card' is counterproductive and will perpetuate racist thoughts because it discourages discourse. Accusing someone of using the 'race card' is really done out of fear. Fear to tread across centuries of pain, guilt, indignation, disgust, and incomprehension. Fear to open up and accept responsibility for the past and present (something majority and minority need to do).
In the good spirit of George Orwell we must cast this meaningless phrase into the rhetorical rubbish bin.
In its most benign form this phrase is a wearied accusation, but underneath the mask of racial equality this phrase actually perpetuates racism.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Allow me to introduce myself...
Hello readers,
I am stationed in Washington, D. C., our nation's gloriously humid capital.
I am a rising junior where I will be majoring in Communication and Public Service. My interest in communications is due to my passion for film and politics.
This summer I will be an intern at the communications firm GMMB. They specialize in political campaigns and messaging for non-profits.
I'm still trying to decide what my posts will be about, but I'll keep you posted.
--Yanik
I am stationed in Washington, D. C., our nation's gloriously humid capital.
I am a rising junior where I will be majoring in Communication and Public Service. My interest in communications is due to my passion for film and politics.
This summer I will be an intern at the communications firm GMMB. They specialize in political campaigns and messaging for non-profits.
I'm still trying to decide what my posts will be about, but I'll keep you posted.
--Yanik
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Summer in Philly
Hi All! My name is Rocio Nunez, I'm a rising second year graduate student at Annenberg. I'm originally from New York City, and attended Duke University where I majored in English and Film Studies. My interests in communications lie in cinema, and audience reactions to films. While there were many opportunities for summer projects, this year, I opted to stay right here in good old Philly, PA.
In the coming weeks, I'll be serving as a volunteer at the Centro Pedro Claver, a community based organization that works mainly with local Latinos in North Philadelphia. I'll be shooting a documentary about the center's summer youth program. I am very excited about the prospect of working with youngsters who will be learning leadership skills. Another interesting aspect about the program is that it was partially funded by inmates at a local prison. While I know little about what to expect, I am looking forward to the experience and sharing it with readers.
In the coming weeks, I'll be serving as a volunteer at the Centro Pedro Claver, a community based organization that works mainly with local Latinos in North Philadelphia. I'll be shooting a documentary about the center's summer youth program. I am very excited about the prospect of working with youngsters who will be learning leadership skills. Another interesting aspect about the program is that it was partially funded by inmates at a local prison. While I know little about what to expect, I am looking forward to the experience and sharing it with readers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
