I often question if BEAUTY is in the eye of the beholder. Or does society influence cultures to accept its perception of beauty? Do most human beings recognize beauty with their eyes or do we submit into our mind societies standard of beauty?
We see stick thin models (starving themselves to death) making 7 figure salaries grace the cover of well known magazines. They are all over the media including television, newspaper, internet, etc. We also see curvaceos women in music videos and magazines exploiting themselves wearing revealing clothing for attire. When we view this, do we actually see beauty? Or is American society dictating to viewers the ideal of beauty.
The popular phrases Beauty is only skin deep or Beauty comes from within typically define beauty based on the attribites a person possess, not physical appearnace.
The phrases concentrate soley on the things that make a person more appealing other than physical appearance. This may consist of measuring the level of caring and giving, a person heart & soul, inspiration & dedication, loyalty and etc.
One may argue these phrases stating there has to be an inital attraction (being physical appearance) to intrigue someone's interest. Once this interest is established, individuals then focus on the inner beauty.
Do anyone have a similar or different opinion on this topic?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
The God's Must Be Crazy
After watching the movie and reading the text I was left with a few questions. Which depiction of the !Kung culture is closer to accuracy; Jamie Uys "The Gods Must Be Crazy" or John Marshall's "N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman".
Jamie tells a story of the N!xau not having a use for money. Jamie pays N!xau but he finds the money blown away as shown in the movie. But John Marshall reveals that N!xau does have a use for money. He infact worked as a cook when Jamie found him.
Jamie Uys documentary portrays the !Kung as a perfect culture: no crimes, no punishment, no violence, no laws. They are unaware of the world that exist outside their culture: the good, incompetent, and bad Africans.
John Marshall representation of the !Kung culture in "N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman" is completely opposite of perfect. This documentary tells a story of marriage between young childeren, difficult hunting, sexaul conflicts, jealous, and death.
John Marshall's "N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman" appears to be a more realistic representation to the Western view of African culture.
The text states the stories Jamie Uys told reviewers varied and after being interviewed 10 years later, he was still unable to reveal the truth. Therefore John Marshall and N!xau were left to contradict his story.
So I'm unsure and confused as to which story is closer to reality?
Jamie tells a story of the N!xau not having a use for money. Jamie pays N!xau but he finds the money blown away as shown in the movie. But John Marshall reveals that N!xau does have a use for money. He infact worked as a cook when Jamie found him.
Jamie Uys documentary portrays the !Kung as a perfect culture: no crimes, no punishment, no violence, no laws. They are unaware of the world that exist outside their culture: the good, incompetent, and bad Africans.
John Marshall representation of the !Kung culture in "N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman" is completely opposite of perfect. This documentary tells a story of marriage between young childeren, difficult hunting, sexaul conflicts, jealous, and death.
John Marshall's "N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman" appears to be a more realistic representation to the Western view of African culture.
The text states the stories Jamie Uys told reviewers varied and after being interviewed 10 years later, he was still unable to reveal the truth. Therefore John Marshall and N!xau were left to contradict his story.
So I'm unsure and confused as to which story is closer to reality?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
RACISM WITHIN A CULTURE
January 29, 2008
I was chatting with a fellow RTVF student last week and she brought something to my attention:Racism within the African American culture. She researched the sororities that UNT had to offer and made an interesting discovery.
She was told by another student that "lighter skin black women" generally pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha because they are more sophisticated and classy. They speak well and therefore are criticized for trying to be something they're not "white".
The students that pledge Delta are generally "darker skin black women". The Deltas are associated with being too ghetto and uneducated.
Does this type of racism exists in all cultures? Do other races define social status by the tone of the skin? Does skin tone determine the acceptance of an indivdual?
I was chatting with a fellow RTVF student last week and she brought something to my attention:Racism within the African American culture. She researched the sororities that UNT had to offer and made an interesting discovery.
She was told by another student that "lighter skin black women" generally pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha because they are more sophisticated and classy. They speak well and therefore are criticized for trying to be something they're not "white".
The students that pledge Delta are generally "darker skin black women". The Deltas are associated with being too ghetto and uneducated.
Does this type of racism exists in all cultures? Do other races define social status by the tone of the skin? Does skin tone determine the acceptance of an indivdual?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
