Hi All -
I am doing a case study on Disney for my Globalization and Media course. I was wondering how widespread Disney really is and what your experiences are on watching Disney movies and shows. I have been to Disney World twice and my dad owns every Disney movie ever made. Disney is a huge part of my life, but I assume most other people do not share my sentiment. Please post your thoughts on Disney and your exposure to it.
Also, I just had to write an essay on how the movie Aladdin is racist and pseudo-feminist. Do you think that Disney is bad and negatively influencing our culture? I know the girls I babysit for are really into dressing up like princesses, and several of my friends claim that they are princesses. :) Is Disney too prevailant in American culture?
Just wondering what other people thought about the topic. Please let me know.
-Andrea
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Why do people matter and mother nature doesn't?
As some of you know, I have volunteered to go to south africa as a research assistant to aid scientists and biologists in conservation with an organisation called Operation Wallacea. through OW 32 speices have been introduced to science in the previous years.
Now for me to go on the expedition i need to raise about £5000 although if i get to £4000 it wouldn't be that bad. it's for the expedition itself, travel expenses, accommodation although most of the time we will be sleeping in tents and we'll have armed guards with us that'll protect us in the wild, our food and insurance. our diving equipment and so many other things. When i ask people to donate even if it's just £1 or $1 or BD1 sometimes i get people saying we only give money to help poor people. what those ignorant people don't see is that they actually do more than just destroy those poor people's lives by not helping science and biologists like myself.
i'll give you an example if people would bother with donating money to install tsunami warning devices people would not have died, had their houses destroyed and their lives wouldn't have been the hell it was when the tsunami came. AFTER they had gone through all that horror those ignorant people were like "yeah ok now we'll donate money to make their lives better". why couldn't you have donated before than so that they wouldn't have GONE through that horrifing experience?? as a mate of mine said " prevention is better than a cure" same with south africa if we don't conserve their forests, their animals, their lands they won't have anything to eat if everything dies, in addition most medicines come from plants and if all are destroyed where are people going to get their extracts. I better stop since I can go on and on...please feel free to comment and add your ideas even if you disagree
If anyone wants to have a look at operation wallacea and what their scientists and research groups have achieved and what they are currently doing please visit www.opwall.com
Reem
Now for me to go on the expedition i need to raise about £5000 although if i get to £4000 it wouldn't be that bad. it's for the expedition itself, travel expenses, accommodation although most of the time we will be sleeping in tents and we'll have armed guards with us that'll protect us in the wild, our food and insurance. our diving equipment and so many other things. When i ask people to donate even if it's just £1 or $1 or BD1 sometimes i get people saying we only give money to help poor people. what those ignorant people don't see is that they actually do more than just destroy those poor people's lives by not helping science and biologists like myself.
i'll give you an example if people would bother with donating money to install tsunami warning devices people would not have died, had their houses destroyed and their lives wouldn't have been the hell it was when the tsunami came. AFTER they had gone through all that horror those ignorant people were like "yeah ok now we'll donate money to make their lives better". why couldn't you have donated before than so that they wouldn't have GONE through that horrifing experience?? as a mate of mine said " prevention is better than a cure" same with south africa if we don't conserve their forests, their animals, their lands they won't have anything to eat if everything dies, in addition most medicines come from plants and if all are destroyed where are people going to get their extracts. I better stop since I can go on and on...please feel free to comment and add your ideas even if you disagree
If anyone wants to have a look at operation wallacea and what their scientists and research groups have achieved and what they are currently doing please visit www.opwall.com
Reem
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Hot Wheels?
Hey,
I had a speaker in one of my classes yesterday who brought up several interesting points relating to globalization and the way the world interacts. He told us a story about something they were doing with Hot Wheels toy cars. Mattel decided that they wanted to create stories and videos to package with their cars when they are sold. This guy's company created characters to drive the cars, mostly guys, but also a few girls and wrote stories about them. When they went to pitch the ideas, the problem came up that they could not sell cars with female drivers globally, because some countries do not allow women to drive.
I thought this was a very interesting point. I knew that companies had to do market research for the varies countries they sell to and that they have to adjust their products to sell in different countries. However, it seems crazy that children in these countries cannot even play with toy cars that have female drivers. I know our cultures are very different, but I wonder how you guys feel about this. Is this a common occurence? Do you know that these types of things are happening? Are we forcing Americanization by even wanting to sell toy cars with female drivers because women here can drive? Just things that make me wonder . . .
Andrea
I had a speaker in one of my classes yesterday who brought up several interesting points relating to globalization and the way the world interacts. He told us a story about something they were doing with Hot Wheels toy cars. Mattel decided that they wanted to create stories and videos to package with their cars when they are sold. This guy's company created characters to drive the cars, mostly guys, but also a few girls and wrote stories about them. When they went to pitch the ideas, the problem came up that they could not sell cars with female drivers globally, because some countries do not allow women to drive.
I thought this was a very interesting point. I knew that companies had to do market research for the varies countries they sell to and that they have to adjust their products to sell in different countries. However, it seems crazy that children in these countries cannot even play with toy cars that have female drivers. I know our cultures are very different, but I wonder how you guys feel about this. Is this a common occurence? Do you know that these types of things are happening? Are we forcing Americanization by even wanting to sell toy cars with female drivers because women here can drive? Just things that make me wonder . . .
Andrea
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Elections
Yesterday being Super Tuesday, people are buzzing around here about the elections... How much do you guys hear about this? Do you have any thoughts/opinions at this point?
I read an interesting article in Time magazine the other day. (You can find the link below...)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708570-3,00.html
The title was Why Young Voters Care Again (And Why Their Vote Matters)...
The article talks about how my generation is using their right to vote more than in years past. I think a lot of people have become a little disillusioned with the government in general, and November will bring the possibility to turn things around, to bring the key word of everyone's campaign: "change." The article brought up the point that for the 18-25 year old voter, he/she has never really known (or at least remembers) anyone besides a Bush or a Clinton in office. Which I hadn't realized, but is entirely true.. Even just by the very fact that Obama is a new face and name, he seems to emulate the change and inspiration that is so desperately needed.
I have to admit, to my own self, that I do not know as much about the individual issues themselves as I should. But I agree with what Carolyn Kennedy wrote in her endorsement of Obama:
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Obama has demonstrated the spirit that I think we really need. As everyone can feel, Washington has become so divided, and I believe that Obama can instigate a certain healing process. I was talking to someone in the office about this, and he said he wanted to be able to "go to Europe and other nations and wear the American flag with pride," like his Canadian friends can do.. and I think we should all want that. I guess apart from any particular policies (and I don't mean to imply that the particulars are unimportant), to me this is what will matter in the upcoming election.
On the other, somewhat more cynical hand, I wonder if the enthusiasm that the Time article outlines has to do with our generations' desire to be a part of history - to have a hand in electing the first black or the first woman president. Is it this novelty that makes both candidates so appealing? Is this right? I suppose in a way it follows our general desire for change. Either way, the support that both campaigns have rallied so far is remarkable.
Would love to hear some of your thoughts. The forecast this week is rain, rain, rain... keep your chin up and stay dry ;)
E
I read an interesting article in Time magazine the other day. (You can find the link below...)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708570-3,00.html
The title was Why Young Voters Care Again (And Why Their Vote Matters)...
The article talks about how my generation is using their right to vote more than in years past. I think a lot of people have become a little disillusioned with the government in general, and November will bring the possibility to turn things around, to bring the key word of everyone's campaign: "change." The article brought up the point that for the 18-25 year old voter, he/she has never really known (or at least remembers) anyone besides a Bush or a Clinton in office. Which I hadn't realized, but is entirely true.. Even just by the very fact that Obama is a new face and name, he seems to emulate the change and inspiration that is so desperately needed.
I have to admit, to my own self, that I do not know as much about the individual issues themselves as I should. But I agree with what Carolyn Kennedy wrote in her endorsement of Obama:
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Obama has demonstrated the spirit that I think we really need. As everyone can feel, Washington has become so divided, and I believe that Obama can instigate a certain healing process. I was talking to someone in the office about this, and he said he wanted to be able to "go to Europe and other nations and wear the American flag with pride," like his Canadian friends can do.. and I think we should all want that. I guess apart from any particular policies (and I don't mean to imply that the particulars are unimportant), to me this is what will matter in the upcoming election.
On the other, somewhat more cynical hand, I wonder if the enthusiasm that the Time article outlines has to do with our generations' desire to be a part of history - to have a hand in electing the first black or the first woman president. Is it this novelty that makes both candidates so appealing? Is this right? I suppose in a way it follows our general desire for change. Either way, the support that both campaigns have rallied so far is remarkable.
Would love to hear some of your thoughts. The forecast this week is rain, rain, rain... keep your chin up and stay dry ;)
E
Monday, February 4, 2008
Corporate Giving
Hello again,
As someone from Connecticut who roots for all the NY sports teams, it's better not to mention what did or didn't happen in the Superbowl last night - I'll keep quiet about the game itself. I will comment though on one commercial in particular that I would love to hear your thoughts on... you can watch it at the link below:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tMMct-a3-Lk
It's a spot for Dell's (RED) computers - the campaign that companies like GAP, American Express, Motorola, Hallmark, even Georgio Armani have joined to combat AIDS. In fact on website (www.joinred.com), a blurb about the commercial reads, "This ad shows that ordinary people can help eliminate AIDS in Africa, simply by choosing Dell (PRODUCT) RED while shopping for computers that they're already going to buy, and other ordinary people recognize and celebrate this choice..." In months past, the (RED) campaign has gotten a lot of attention. Headed by celeb icons like Bono and Bill Gates, it's sexy - it uses the "hot" products we all know and love, and celebrity faces like Penelope Cruz, Julia Roberts, and Don Cheadle to promote a cause and raise money/awareness for AIDS... all in all a good thing, right? I'm getting something by giving something.. what's not to love?
Right... but isn't there something somewhat off about trying to fight a sexually-transmitted disease with sex-laden ads? In one, Christy Turlington is sitting in a yoga position with a (RED) leotard.. that happens to be falling off her shoulders and clearly showing the outline of her breasts. In another a bare shouldered Jennifer Garner stands in a (RED) army coat.. with nothing under it. What are we really trying to sell here - a product or an awareness about AIDS and some of its causes/preventions?
Does it say anything about our culture that we're linking this materialism to "doing good"? Once again, consumerism has become the center of our motives/purposes... Through Project (RED) we become a "good consumer" not necessarily a good citizen. It gives us sort of an easy way out - a chance to know that some of our dollars are going to a good cause when we walk out the GAP doors with a bag of new (RED) stuff. Do programs like Project (RED) underestimate what we as Americans are capable of? It almost assumes that we can never completely step out of ourselves - even for a moment - to think of the other person.
Maybe I'm being too cynical -- don't get me wrong. Project (RED) has indeed raised money for an incredible cause; I'm not at all meaning to suggest that the founders of this program have bad or manipulative intentions or that this is ALL geared towards raising the bottom line. As a culture, we are very egocentric, and so it could be argued that (RED) is just an example of good marketing - an effective way to target the public, and at least get them talking about the campaign and AIDS, and maybe even contribute some money. At the same time, because of the fact that we are all citizens, and not just consumers, we should at least question things like this, and not just accept and swallow them as they're packaged. When Dell says, "Now there are four new ways to help eliminate AIDS in Africa" and shows me four new Dell products, I should at least be able to think of four other ways that I might be able to contribute - beyond swiping my American Express - or at least realize that I'm probably getting more out of the deal than someone with AIDS in Africa.
As someone from Connecticut who roots for all the NY sports teams, it's better not to mention what did or didn't happen in the Superbowl last night - I'll keep quiet about the game itself. I will comment though on one commercial in particular that I would love to hear your thoughts on... you can watch it at the link below:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tMMct-a3-Lk
It's a spot for Dell's (RED) computers - the campaign that companies like GAP, American Express, Motorola, Hallmark, even Georgio Armani have joined to combat AIDS. In fact on website (www.joinred.com), a blurb about the commercial reads, "This ad shows that ordinary people can help eliminate AIDS in Africa, simply by choosing Dell (PRODUCT) RED while shopping for computers that they're already going to buy, and other ordinary people recognize and celebrate this choice..." In months past, the (RED) campaign has gotten a lot of attention. Headed by celeb icons like Bono and Bill Gates, it's sexy - it uses the "hot" products we all know and love, and celebrity faces like Penelope Cruz, Julia Roberts, and Don Cheadle to promote a cause and raise money/awareness for AIDS... all in all a good thing, right? I'm getting something by giving something.. what's not to love?
Right... but isn't there something somewhat off about trying to fight a sexually-transmitted disease with sex-laden ads? In one, Christy Turlington is sitting in a yoga position with a (RED) leotard.. that happens to be falling off her shoulders and clearly showing the outline of her breasts. In another a bare shouldered Jennifer Garner stands in a (RED) army coat.. with nothing under it. What are we really trying to sell here - a product or an awareness about AIDS and some of its causes/preventions?
Does it say anything about our culture that we're linking this materialism to "doing good"? Once again, consumerism has become the center of our motives/purposes... Through Project (RED) we become a "good consumer" not necessarily a good citizen. It gives us sort of an easy way out - a chance to know that some of our dollars are going to a good cause when we walk out the GAP doors with a bag of new (RED) stuff. Do programs like Project (RED) underestimate what we as Americans are capable of? It almost assumes that we can never completely step out of ourselves - even for a moment - to think of the other person.
Maybe I'm being too cynical -- don't get me wrong. Project (RED) has indeed raised money for an incredible cause; I'm not at all meaning to suggest that the founders of this program have bad or manipulative intentions or that this is ALL geared towards raising the bottom line. As a culture, we are very egocentric, and so it could be argued that (RED) is just an example of good marketing - an effective way to target the public, and at least get them talking about the campaign and AIDS, and maybe even contribute some money. At the same time, because of the fact that we are all citizens, and not just consumers, we should at least question things like this, and not just accept and swallow them as they're packaged. When Dell says, "Now there are four new ways to help eliminate AIDS in Africa" and shows me four new Dell products, I should at least be able to think of four other ways that I might be able to contribute - beyond swiping my American Express - or at least realize that I'm probably getting more out of the deal than someone with AIDS in Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
PSA's for Peace
