The process of going about my group presentation was very interesting. It started out very organically. It began with Icarus, Harrison, and I. It worked out great because we were all Asian American. Harrison and I both work at movie theaters and Icarus is a former actor. That began a dialog about movies. Then, when thinking about movies, I brought up how there are no Asian American movie stars. That was the birth of our topic. Next, we talked about how we wanted to approach it. We thought a mini movie would be cool but it would require time and resources that broke college students don’t have. The reason we settled on a podcast was because we knew Icarus had editing skills. However, it ended up being he just needed basic skills to finish the podcast. After that, we added Cynthia and Manuela. They ended up being great additions to our group. Providing a more diverse opinion on subject is important so we don’t sound like minorities complaining about the system. A female Latina opinion was super important. Cynthia also brought up some great points of being compared to barbie and Disney Princesses. It stirs up a different issue of female minority representation and how that affects children’s perception of beauty. When it came to the actual recording of the podcast, it was a very simple process that became convoluted. We decided to just record on Manuela’s phone. I rented a room in the Library for us to go to. We originally wanted to show the video, but we were in a small room so we couldn’t do that. When it came to a specific focus in our topic, there was a lot of discussion. The main one was should we talk about one movie as a focus or one subject and each have a movie as an example. We ended up settling on Death Note as our movie. That made for an interesting discussion because the anime the movie is based on is Harrison’s favorite so he had a lot to say. Originally, I was okay with our podcast. However, It was 15 minutes and there was no segment where we all talked. This led to a mad rush to redo it on Wednesday. Cynthia saw the podcast on the first presentation day and really wanted to redo it. This led to the format we ended up with where everyone gave their opinion on the state of Hollywood. I think it ended up being more organic that way. Seeing people speak their minds and from their hearts is one of the best parts of podcasts. I don’t really listen to podcasts for the facts. It’s nice to hear different opinions than you usually do. Personally, it would have been nice to have more of a discussion. It felt like more of a round table read. That was one of things that got lost from the first podcast to the next. I understand that we only had a few minutes in class, but a discussion could have really benefited us. The issue deserved more than 6 minutes of our time for sure.
The first group that presented had the most unique idea. Herbal remedies is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of pop culture. However, I think this was the most informative presentation. Nothing I learned here, I would have known from outside knowledge. It was cool to see that all of the herbs had so many different functions. It’s also fun to compare them to western medicine. With herbs, you can take them as is or melt them into water. With western medicine, it’s almost like a concoction of different chemicals thrown together. It’s a different feel in terms of nature and strength.
The second group was super helpful. I work as a peer mentor on campus, so being able to hear about the food resources on campus is nice because I know they’re underused. Food is super important in pop culture. It actually shapes a lot if you think about it. Before physical health was a priority in beauty, people used to look for overweight men. Being overweight was a sign of wealth. The symbolism and the way it brings people together is really powerful. Overall, the way the group presented was really effective too. It really influenced us in our presentation. I feel like the lens it came from, the group being all women, also brought a unique point of view.
I felt like the way the third group approached their project was super creative. It was really similar to the final project. I was amazed at the amount of work they did. It showed a lot of the journalistic side we talked about in this class. They hit a wide variety of topics from local music to sports. It was a good range. I liked how Sachel actually went out and conducted an interview. It all looked really official. The article on the Portland Diamond project was really interesting because it was something I’ve heard about before. The idea of bringing a baseball team is really exciting, however there’s a lot of logistics that need to be figured out.
The fourth group was definitely the most interactive. I got worried because of how controversial the topic is. However, I feel like the experience ended up being very educational. There was definitely a liberal bias at play. I think the conversation was still good regardless. There was a lot of talk, and really strong views, about women’s control over their bodies. It’s a really important point to the discussion. It sucks because the male point of view didn’t want to cast aside the conservative argument and I think that made a lot of people upset. However, the argument of having science be the basis for decision making should definitely be considered.
The consumerism handout was super high quality. It looked like something you would see an activist group hand out on the street. I loved how they tackled a variety of different consumerism issues. They not only focused on the broad issues but the smaller ones too because leakage of consumerism contributes to a big part of the issue. My favorite part was all the quotes. They really show the greed and the ignorance. Americans don’t realize consumerism is a problem. Another cool thing this group did was adding brands that help the environment. It’s important to present an alternative or solution when bringing up a problem.
I was amazed at group 6 because there were only two of them. The idea to do a Tumbler-like page is not a new one, but also not something I would have personally come up with. It was nice to just scroll down and see the comments just like a social media feed. The idea of body image is a huge problem for women. The beauty industry has a focus on making money and is creating a void in women during the process. It was cool to see such a happy, positive little girl tackling this big issues in a holistic way.
The final group’s podcast touched on a lot of important topics that aren’t discussed very much. Cultural appropriation is something that happens every day, so much so that we sometimes don’t even notice it. If you think about hip hop culture, so much of that has been invaded by white people. Post Malone is one of the biggest rappers in the game. So when this group spoke up about Japanese women appropriating chola culture, it was a moment of like “yes people are finally flashing a light on something we need to talk about. I hope in the future cultural appropriation can be something society discusses more in depth on what’s okay and what isn’t.
The NCAA refuses to update their rules of compensation, and student athletes are paying for it
Nigel Hayes begging for money/making a statement about fair compensation (Courtesy of Bader Beat)
When Zion Williamson broke his shoe, the entire world held their breath. Williamson is the projected number 1 pick in this year’s upcoming draft. In the basketball world, he is known for his highlight reel dunks and his insane combination of strength and athleticism. In the world of NCAA sports, he is the prized cash cow. The NCAA tournament was the second most watched since 1991 (Pelzman, 2019). ESPN’s college basketball viewership was up 15% (Koster, 2019). The only thing truly different about this year was Williamson.
However, a myriad of issues popped up when Williamson got hurt on February 20th. There was the issue of the age requirement to play in the NBA. There was the argument of if Zion should come back and play at all after getting hurt or if he should wait until the NBA. However, the biggest issue is that Zion didn’t make a penny for his efforts.
For the first time last year, the NCAA raked in $1 billion (Garcia, 2018). The athletes apart of the system saw none of that money, due to the NCAA’s amateurism rules. The dictionary defines amateurism as “An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition (The Free Dictionary, 2016).” In this case, the NCAA is the regulatory body. They make the rules, decides who gets to play and doesn’t, and decides who gets paid and who doesn’t.
Nick Saban is the coach of the Alabama University football team. He is scheduled to make over $8 million a year (Berkowitz, 2018). When you think about it, it doesn’t quite seem fair that the players he’s coaching take in nothing while he makes more money per year then others will make in a lifetime. Players put their bodies on the line are often the ones selling merchandise. It’s very rare for fans to purchase merchandise because of the coach of a team. A personal anecdote; my brother bought a jersey with Zion Williamson’s name on it. Zion didn’t make a cent.
So why doesn’t the NCAA pay the players if they’re paying the coaches? Well the NCAA will tell you they do pay the players—in tuition. As most of you may know, Division I and II colleges can offer athletic scholarships to students who will come in and play for their sports teams. This is good for the college because often athletics will bring in the most amount of money. For example, I was the student accountant for the Portland State Box office last year and kept track of how much money Portland State made from all its activities. Football made the most money and it wasn’t even close.
Zion Williamson in pain after breaking his shoe (courtesy of CBS)
Often, this can be good for the student athlete too. Most students can’t pay for college on their own. I take out $12,000 in student loans per year, and my brother will need 3 times that when he starts college. And that’s where the NCAA places a big part of their argument. They often come out with generic sentences like “We offer once in a lifetime opportunities” and “The tuition we offer is equal to a payment.”
Normally this would be a good argument, and then you remember the $1 billion dollars in revenue. The players don’t make any money, the coaches make less than $10 million each (often significantly less), the schools take in some money, so where does the rest of it go? The NCAA. The NCAA lets the players play without compensation, and then takes all the money for themselves. No one is watching the games or paying for the tickets because it’s a NCAA event or because Nick Saban is coaching. They watch for people like Zion Williamson and thousands of others.
So, the public is mostly in agreement: college athletes should be compensated more fairly for their efforts. Why don’t we just pay them? Well that’s not exactly simple either. College football and men’s basketball made $757 million combined in 1999 (Kahn, 2007). This money comes from T.V. deals, merchandise, sponsors, and a horde of other revenue sources. If you contrast that to a sport like tennis, you begin to see the problem. Although college sports generate $1 billion, it’s not distributed equally across the sports. This brings up a host of other questions. Do we only pay some athletes? If we pay all athletes, how much do we pay them? Do we allow colleges to make offers to recruits like professional teams do to free agents?
That last question could cause a big problem. Obviously, schools have different budgets. Alabama and Alabama A&M would not be able to pay their players the same. This brings up a host of different issues. Previously, money is supposedly not a motivator for the players. They were decided on playing time, facilities, fit, and other factors about the school. Now if you have a player who came from a poor background, their pay level could be the main factor.
Take Western Kentucky’s Charles Bassey. Bassey is a projected second rick pick this year in the NBA draft. He was a very high recruit, and got looks from dozens of schools. The main reason he chose Western Kentucky was for the coaching staff. However, as it appears, Bassey is now headed to the NBA in search of a paycheck. Now think about how his recruiting would change. With the money side now a factor, Bassey would be less likely to look at a smaller Western Kentucky, and more likely to look at a bigger University of Kentucky.
And that would be one of the biggest downfalls of paying the players. It hurts smaller schools already low chances of landing a prized recruit. Western Kentucky hasn’t had an NBA prospect in almost 10 years. NBA prospects bring a variety of things like funds and exposure. If small schools can’t get that, they’re stuck in the NCAA equivalent of a poverty trap.
Charles Bassey (Courtesy of NBC sports)
The NCAA has hidden behind this fact. Often the NCAA will bring up that “it’s just too complicated” to pay the players. Really, that’s not even a valid argument. I’m sure it was really complicated to navigate the fallout when slavery was abolished. The point is that people still felt it was wrong, and they figured it out. Athletes are currently suffering because the NCAA choose to avoid and deflect the issue.
While scholarships cover tuition, often they don’t cover food. When Shabazz Napier won a national championship for the university of Connecticut in 2013, he said something that should disturb everyone. “There are hungry nights I go to bed and I’m starving (Ganim, 2014).” That’s insane. Napier wasn’t just a benchwarmer either; he was the most outstanding player of the NCAA tournament and first team all American. That means he was one of the best in country. If the NCAA won’t pay the it’s best players enough to feed themselves, imagine the college athletes we don’t know the names of.
Shabazz Napier, hopefully on a full stomach (courtesy of The New Yorker)
One of the biggest arguments people like to make against this is that “student athletes should just get jobs to cover their expenses.” At first thought, it’s not a bad idea. College students often get jobs to help pay the bills. Even if you’re in a club, the university is still expecting you to make your payments. I have a job. However, there is a big difference between me and someone like Shabazz Napier.
Student athletes have trouble getting jobs because their sport is already a full-time job. It dominates your schedule. Most college students fit their schedule around their classes. College athletes fit their schedule around practice. They have regular practice, weight training, and film. To be good like Zion Williamson or Shabazz Napier, it takes extra time outside of that working on your skills. Then you have your classes. They must be enrolled full time and pass their classes to keep their scholarship and be able to play their sport. So, you must go to class and do your homework. When are these kids supposed to pick up a shift a movie theater? They don’t get weekends off. In fact, during the season of their sport, they must take online classes due to all the travel. That’s enough stress as it is not including the food problem, or all the pressure coming from outside sources.
Student athletes are stuck. There’s not a lot of change they can make. A good majority of them don’t have enough money to keep themselves going at a sustainable level. However, the NCAA seems to think that paying these players will open more problems. NCAA president Mark Emmert believes that athletes being paid would change their lifestyle. They wouldn’t live in the residence hall or eat in the dining hall. Basically, they wouldn’t have the college experience (Hruby, 2018). I’d argue that the college experience is not starving yourself. There’s also a whole host of other problems that come out of it.
When players are going into college, this is the first time a lot of them feel they’ve had value to the world. Some of these kids come from poor backgrounds, and they didn’t have very much. Take Deandre Ayton. Ayton was the third best player coming out of high school, and eventual first overall pick of the NBA draft. He was born in the Bahamas, and had no idea about basketball until scouts came and caught him in band practice. He then went through a process of working two part time jobs to pay for his basketball training camp, moving countries, and then switching high schools of within the foreign country.
In any other profession except sports, we would reward that story regardless of his place in life. Ayton worked hard through a rough childhood to achieve his dreams. Kids get money to start their own businesses from billionaires. Why shouldn’t be able to be paid for all the sacrifices he and his family made. Which explains the next part of the story.
In March, it was discovered that Deandre Ayton was paid $100,000 to play basketball by the university of Arizona head coach Sean Miller. This is not unusual. College athletes have been paid since the money started rolling in. Colleges want to grab the best prospects, so they can make money and have more success. There are countless examples of this. Cam Newton, OJ Mayo, Maurkice Pouncy, Chris Webber, AJ Green, Dez Bryant, Reggie Bush. If athletes were fully and fairly compensated for their work, they wouldn’t have to put together backroom deals with shady agents and shoe companies to pay for their living expenses.
The scandals go beyond money too. They extend into the classroom. In 2014, it came to light that the University of North Carolina had falsified an entire field of study. The African American studies program contained classes that did not require you showed up to class. Some of which required you write just one paper. Even then, some of the athletes had the paper written for them. This is the precious education the NCAA cares about. These scandals are the result of the NCAA making a ridiculous amount of money, and the people making that money, the student athletes, not seeing any of it.
Now just take a second to imagine if those players had money on the line. People do not want you to mess with their paycheck. And now, these kids must go to class not just for basketball, but also for the paycheck. They’re already putting in all the hours and the work of a job, they just aren’t receiving money for it.
Some people would argue that it’s unethical to tie pay to sports for kids who are so young. I feel like those people aren’t seeing the full story. Kids start going into the workforce as young as 16 in this country (legally). Not just that, but there was a time when kids could go straight to the NBA out of high school. Kids college age and younger could (and still are) paid for their efforts. This issue really isn’t about if we should pay kids to play sports; it’s about if the NCAA wants to distribute the profit it makes or not.
There’s an aspect of social class involved in here too. A study by Kirsten Hextrum found that middle class athletes are more suited to be college athletes than lower class athletes (2018). Because of course they are. Think about it. Middle class athletes are more suited to the environment. They go to the camps that their parents pay for. They got taught the skills they need to improve upon. They go to nice facilities to practice. Now compare that the lower-class athletes. When they scrap to the top, it’s not through the camps. If they go, they’re going on scholarship because they can’t afford it. Some nights, they’re going to bed hungry, or they’re cold, or they’re listening to their parents fight. Then they fight and fight and reach their dreams, and now they’re in college playing the sport they love. After all that, the NCAA has the gall to say “You can’t make any money from all your hard work. Of course, they’re going to take backroom deals. Especially if they have a family back home struggling with rent.
This idea of not being able to use your own likeness is ridiculous. Back in the early 2000, the NCAA was manufacturing video games about college basketball and football. They contained all the teams and all the players on the teams. They prided themselves on making it as real as possible, with true to life rankings, faces, and movements. However, they didn’t put names on the characters. This was done intentionally to go along with the NCAA’s amateurism rules.
There are a few key things to note about the video games. The first is that all the schools involved got paid for their likeness. Every division one school had a football and basketball team in the game. They used the name, colors, and symbol. All the schools were compensated for using their likeness. The second thing is that not only were the players not paid, they never consented to using their likeness. The creators of these games made sure all the players looked and played like they did in real life, but never asked if the players wanted to be in the video game. A third thing of note is that these games were NCAA sanctioned games. The NCAA gave the ok to use not only their likeness, but likeness of all its student athletes. A final thing to note is that eventually the players sued the NCAA and won. The court system agreed that it was wrong to use their likeness, make lots of money from it, and not pay them.
NCAA athlete’s likeness being used without compensation (courtesy of EA sports)
This type of stuff still happens. The NCAA uses commercials, promotions, and old highlights of players who are not paid for their participation. They waive their rights in a contract with the NCAA that they must sign in order to play. The NCAA controls your eligibility. It’s not like you can barter or bargain with them over if you can get paid for your likeness. As soon as you have an agent to speak on your behalf, you’re ruled ineligible. Not only are you playing without pay, you’re playing without a voice.
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with amateurism. The idea behind amateurism is to ensure that student athletes use the student in their name. That’s a good thing! Colleges are not institutions you go to just play sports. That’s not their purpose. They are made to educate and put out people who can contribute to society in a better way. Amateurism rules have also helped put athletes into schools they normally wouldn’t have gotten into; another good thing. For example, Zion Williamson attended Duke university. Duke is known for admitted academically excellent students. It’s ranked just as high as the likes of MIT and Ivy League schools. As good of a student I imagine Williamson is, I’m sure he wasn’t a valedictorian. There are tangible good things about amateurism, and we shouldn’t do away with it all together.
However, one of the big tent poles of amateurism is “shielding student athletes away from the pressures of professional sports.” I would argue that’s no longer possible. The college football playoff is one of the 5 most watched sports events of the year. It’s the biggest stage you can reach in collegiate football. There is an insane amount of pressure. You’re playing in a packed arena with millions of people watching around the world. Every move, and especially every mistake, you make will be dissected and replayed for years to come. That’s more pressure than most professional sports events. You can’t shield anyone from that, especially with the NCAA raking in the ad revenue from the game.
The gap between revenue and a scholarship (courtesy of Business Insider)
There is no reason to not to tie amateurism and fair payment of the players together. They work well together. The fair payment acts as a motivator for student athletes to accomplish what they need to. You could write up a contract stating the importance of balance school and sport, as well as the financial implications of not following through. Being a student athlete acts as a job anyway. As Maslow points out, it’s harder for people to accomplish their tasks when they’re worried about finances and food. I will even concede that in a different time, the amateurism rules were appropriate. Before the millions of dollars came in, school was the ultimate priority. However, times change. And with all the money comes pressure.
There are a couple ways for this to practically work. One is a flat fee for all student athletes. The money is distributed equally regardless of size or standing. This is the compromise that would make the bottom half happy. I’m sure bowling teams, which don’t make very much money, would be thrilled for the extra few thousand dollars. The problem with that is the money is not distributed equitably. The athletes pulling in the most money, the Zion Williamsons of the world, could feel like the fruits are their labor are being reaped by other student athletes.
Another solution is to pay everyone on par with their “worth.” Now there’s a lot of grey area in this, but basically worth would be decided on how much money they make. Views, merchandise, even concessions would all play a huge role here. This would be a good solution because of the objective fairness. In a sense, athletes are getting back what they put in. However, the downside is that there isn’t as much potential in some sports to make as much. Track and field will never make more than football. Potentially you could end up in a situation you’re now where you still have athletes putting in immense amounts of time and effort and not being paid very much for it. It would be a better option than now because no athletes are being paid at all.
A final option is to not pay some of the athletic programs. It’s no surprise that football and basketball make the most money. There have been arguments on why that should be shared with other programs. This is probably the most controversial option, especially in terms of fairness. Some argue that it’s only fair to get out what you put in. Others argue that the money could be used to help bolster other programs. Regardless, this is an important option when you are considering paying the players.
No matter what happens, someone is going to be unhappy. The players, faculty, NCAA, fans, journalists, parents, or some combination are going to feel like they got the short end of the stick. And that’s the reality when we face a convoluted issue. There are many courses of action you could take and they’re all going to rub someone the wrong way. The important thing here is we need to remember the players. The same kids we’re fighting so hard to protect are the ones starving. We pay all this money to watch college kids hit each other for what? Because we enjoy it. We all love sports.
In a few months, Zion Williamson is going to become the first pick of the NBA draft. He’s going to sign one of the most lucrative shoe deals in the history of professional sports. He will have more money than he ever imagined having. If his injury had been serious, he would have had no safety net. Duke could have pulled his scholarship; he wouldn’t be able to do the thing he was invited to. We want to pretend that student athletes are here to get an education and play sports on the side, but they’re not. They are making millions of dollars for their respective schools. They are employees. Let’s pay them as such.
Hextrum, K. (2018). Amateurism revisited: How U.S. college athletic recruitment favors middle-class athletes. Sport, Education and Society, 1-13. doi:10.1080/13573322.2018.1547962
Kahn, L. M. (2007). Markets: Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 209-226. doi:10.1257/jep.21.1.209
When Rivers Were Trails is a strange game. I understand the general premise of it and it’s use as an informational tool, but it is still a strange game. Let us start with the good. It is a fairly accurate representation of what it is like to be forced off your land. You do not have a lot of control of the direction and it is very possible you can be separated from your family. I thought the beginning was a good start because you have to go back inside and try to salvage your belongings. It almost reminds me of a fire. From there however, the wheels begin to fall of. A lot of the functions worked very poorly and it is hard to tell if the poor design is intentional or not. The mini games are exceptionally hard, the directions are sometimes unclear, and the cut scenes move to fast to read. In terms of education, there is a lot of good information here. In terms of a game, it’s really hard to engage with. After a few minutes, I wanted to stop playing. That makes me wonder if the education value is there at all because the game is so hard to play. I think the intent is in the right place and we are heading in the right direction, but someone should take this idea and try to improve upon it. The execution of When Rivers Were Trails is subpar. The game I played in the Games For Change was Depression Quest. It an interactive, text based narrative game where you go through what it’s like to have depression. One notable feature about it are the fact that your emotions are described in depth. The game wants you to understand what depression feels like. Another notable feature is that options are crossed out. In the game, you have several options to choose from based on your situation. However, the optimal most positive option is crossed out. It really drives home the point that people with depression can’t just do the things people without depression do, forcing themselves to do something they do not want to do for example. The purpose of it is to try and see through the eyes of someone with depression. I think it definitely achieved that goal. Speaking from the point of view of someone with depression, it is so incredibly hard sometimes to just do the little things like get out of bed in the morning. It’s more than just being tired or having a bad day; it’s an entire weight you carry with you. One of the big drawbacks of the game is that it is very wordy. It would help if there were more pictures. Something to go along with the plot or represent the people close to you like your mom or your girlfriend. What’s interesting about Depression Quest is that it is in direct conflict with Reality is Broken. It doesn’t feel like there is an epic win. That’s kind of on point with both Depression Quest and When Rivers Were Trails. These social games aren’t about riding the high that most video games are. They are about allow you to see a struggle someone else is going through firsthand. I think that’s beautiful. I think it’s really hard to create a game that balance’s social issues and being an engaging game that people want to continue playing. People have a tendency to get lost in one of the other. Engaging games often take the form of the gamer’s interest, such as violence or achieving a win. An educational game doesn’t have the same goals. They pull at two different directions. I feel like for it to be successful, there would have to be a lot of allegory and people would need to be able to see it. If there was allegory that no one caught onto, there would not be a point. I have yet to see a game do this successfully. If I were to create a game like that, I would probably make a game similar to risk. I would want it to be a world game that people could latch onto. I think the best topic would be war to use. A board game would be a good medium, but as we have seen with the likes of monopoly, board games can be transferred to video games. Something Depression Quest does well is provide vivid detail. I think in this war game, the player should be forced to make tough decisions and then actual deal with the tough decisions. This would look like hearing the death count and what the deceased people went through before they died. It could also look like hearing the upheaval people would have to go through if you conquered another country. A focus on bystanders would be important. A good idea would also be to include a prologue to talk about the likes of the veterans and the state of the world, it’s history, and it’s future in a post war setting.
Watching Princess Mononoke was an interesting experience for me. It’s a lot different than other films I usually watch. I prefer those big action/adventure blockbusters that usually result in a happy ending. It leaves you with a good feeling when you leave the theater. Princess Mononoke is not that type of movie. It’s so hard to emphasize with anyone because you have flawed protagonists and antagonists with good intentions. It is so real, which is amazing considering the way it’s shot. The concept is also a little bit foreign to me. I’m not familiar with anime, so I have no idea what it means when the article talks about how well the film blends environmental issues with the traditional elements of anime. One other thing that was an adjustment when watching this was the concept of all the gods. I’m used to the western, pagan belief in one god. It was strange to see incarnations of different gods for different aspects of life. One thing that freaked me out is when those worm things (whatever they are) were turning characters into demons. It made me so uncomfortable. I don’t like idea of death and especially not reincarnation where you turn into something sinister. That’s why I hate zombies so much. For all of the things that made me uncomfortable, I do believe it was a good film. The voice actors worked well with the animation (which was really good for the 90’s) and the plot played out really well over the course of the movie. There was enough battle and action to keep viewers interested. Of course, the most important thing was the message. Even though the movie is about the destruction of forests, I feel like you can get caught up in the characters and internal struggle and distracted from the point that this is about our world. It’s important to put that into perspective because there are some really important messages. While Princess Mononoke is relevant, I also feel that it is dated. The ended almost seems like a cop out; the forrest spirit’s death heals the land. In reality, there is no way for the land to heal like that. In the 21st century, we’re dealing with complex, intertwined problems where we solve one and two more happen. This is why it’s important to walk away from Princess Mononoke with a realistic view. When I read the two articles, I remember one pitted it against Wall-E and The Lorax. I didn’t like that comparison because of all the differences between the movies. Those movies were created for entertainment and money making purposes by american studios. Princess Mononoke had a bigger purpose and it was created in Japan. The american movies had an environmental overtone while Mononoke had an environmental focus. I felt like that wasn’t acknowledged in the article. Another thing that wasn’t acknowledged was the flaws with Mononoke. I feel like this movie wasn’t created with a western audience in mind. That’s totally fine, however it can be harder for engagement and can result in the movie losing sight of it’s focus. Of course no movie is ever perfect. Princess Mononoke is a great film; I want to make that clear even though I keep bringing up what it’s lacking. In terms of comparing impact of anime versus documentary, they have different audiences. Anime is better for visual learners who enjoy story telling. Documentary is better for informational crowds, often more educated. Anime has the advantage of playing to a wider crowd, however their message can get lost. For example, I brought up earlier how you can get too focused on the characters. There is a population of the audience who can’t see the allegory in the story. I think they could work off each other very well. For example if you were to watch Princess Mononoke and then maybe an Al Gore documentary and thought about how they could be connected. That would be a great way to get a lot of information from two very different, but complementary, sources. One other thing I wanted to bring up was that on the DVD, Emily played the subtitles along with the movie and that really threw me off. The subtitles were translating from Japanese to English, but the movie was also dubbed in English and the script was changed, so they were saying something different from what I was reading. There was a disconnect in my brain which might have played into my writing above.
This week was by far my favorite week of the term so far. I love comics and everything they encompass. They stress creativity and fantasy, while simultaneously reflecting what’s happening in society. It’s a very deep form or art that is extremely underappreciated. All of this was why I was excited to get into my comics. The comics I chose were Spider-Man: Miles Morales, Vol 1 and Invincible Ironman: Ironheart Vol. 1: Riri Williams. One thing these comics really had in common was that they went out on a limb. They didn’t go the tradition route of making the successor a heir of the former super hero like Wolverine. They were unique characters with unique backgrounds. It’s also awesome to see young heroes of color in mainstream comics. Miles Morales is the main character of an Oscar winning movie. That is something no one could predict a decade ago. It feels like relief to minorities. For years, African american readers could only read B-list books of Black Panther and Luke Cage. Putting more heroes of color in the forefront, like making Sam Wilson Captain America, is encouraging for those of us who didn’t have role models who look like us. Personally, I didn’t see a lot of avian american representation. The only one off the top of my head I can think of is Sunfire and he never had a leading role. Seeing the likes of Amadeus Cho is encouraging, especially after seeing white characters take Asian roles like Ronin, Daredevil, and Electra. It seemed like Asians were just bad guy ninjas for the longest time.The two articles I read were “Marvel is wrong about comics killing diversity” and “Keeping score in the DC vs. Marvel diversity arms race.” This articles seemed at odds with each other even though they were about the same topic. Comics diversity talked a lot about what was bad with Marvel, while arms race had a lot of praise for Marvel. While both articles agree that more work needs to be done, it’s interesting the different approaches they took. In the first article, it brought up the lack of minority writers of comics. This is a very good point, however I disagree with the ripping of white men writing colored comics. Yes, there is a lens but it’s unfair to criticize someone who’s doing their comic the way they see the characters. For the second article, I thought it was missing a large chunk of it’s argument. It talked a lot about how all comic movies stared white men. It completely leaves out the larger issue which is how to make money in hollywood. For example, Black Panther only made the amount of money it did because it had Marvel attached to it and a backstory. An independent movie like Black Panther could not have the same impact. The movies staring white men like Iron Man have allowed marvel to experiment and branch out the create more diverse movies. The 99 was an interesting comic. I thought it had a good premise, however, there is the overarching middle eastern bias. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just goes against the initial idea. I think it would be stronger with multiple author because it would provide more perspectives. It was nice to read about a different type of comic. I’m only familiar with Western comics. I’m really excited for anime week. My girlfriend really likes anime and I see it as a chance to expand my horizon. There is beauty in all types of comics. That’s what makes the comic art form so amazing. It’s so flexible and personal. The style of the art and writing can be so unique and tell the same story in countless different ways The comic we made on Wednesday was about body positivity. We saw a lot of dogs around us when we went outside and were talking about how much we love dogs. Then I brought up how dogs come in all different sizes and we still love them. We ended up going with multiple different dogs in the panels with different backgrounds and histories. We really wanna drum up the point that no matter what we look like, we’re all the same.
While reading Persepolis and March #3, I thought about how this was vastly different than the comics I usually read. I am an avid Marvel comics fan. Most Marvel comics aren’t like this. The majority of them are light-hearted and fun. For those that are not, they are still fiction. There is a sense of distance between me and the comic. When I read Persepolis and March #3, it was too close to home. These are real people going through real problems in the real world. That was why it was a bit jarring for me at first, especially March #3 because that takes place in America. Going along with that point, the actual style of the comic was different as while. Because these books are memoirs, they are lot more text heavy. Often, traditional comic books don’t have a narrator. These books did in order to provide context on events and the thought process of the protagonist. They also felt super long. Because these memoirs are so powerful, every struggle and noteworthy moment felt like a climax. It was like a roller coaster going nonstop downhill. One thing I did not like (and this is a problem for graphic novels in general) is the lack of continuity. I felt like these books jumped around a lot which makes it harder to figure out where you are. In a movie, it’s more reasonable to figure out. However, in comic form, the reader is left to their own devices to figure out what point in time the event is taking place in.
The idea of hot vs cool medium is a very important one. I believe it plays directly into level of understanding. Take the Wolf of Wall Street as an example. Anyone can watch Wolf and have a basic understanding (drugs, money, jail). However, if you read Belfort’s book, you will have entirely different, a much deeper understanding that takes place. When reading, you have to conceptualize. You have the understand the words on the page, how they interacting, and form images in your head. This is largely the same with comics. Yes there are pictures, but the pictures are still images they act in unison with your brain filling in the gaps. With movies, all the information is given to you visually. It takes all the deep thinking out of consuming by watching casually. No one has ever passively read a book or comic, but many people have passively half watched a movie before.
The essay I read in Journalism is called The Hauge. It was about the War Crimes committed in the Netherlands. The Hauge is very graphic. Because it’s only six pages, it packs every panel with a memorable image and loads of information. The version I read was also in color, so that added to how disturbed I was. One thing I thought that was especially interesting was the lens the author had. He was so against the court system. He painted everyone out to be a bad guy in this situation. I felt it almost took away from who the true bad guys were. Yes, all the people who participated in this should be punished. However, the court system did not cause this problem. It was created to punish people for crimes we can prove, not that we’re almost certain about. Justice must be served without a shadow of a doubt. The article I read from the time period was on where other countries stood in this conflict. This is article was mostly straightforward and factual, but took a biased turn toward the U.S. at the end. All the countries had one sentence status updates, and the U.S. had a long paragraph with clear patriotic bias. It was interesting to see the different biases. One article was factual, but had a nationality bias. The other was subjective while staying neutral in term if international blame.
I think the idea of using comics to raise awareness has pluses and minuses. There are a good amount of positives. Using comics allows you a wider base. Some people cannot or will not read, so the picture invite them in. It also makes it easier to digest than a 500 page book. Also, using comics can really focus your audience. If you have an issue that affects the group of people who reads comics, it’s best to use their medium. Bouncing off that point, it may also exclude other audiences. Some people don’t read comics. If an otherwise interesting book comes out in comic form, you might lose a portion of an audience. This hurts when you’re trying to be informative because you want as many people as possible to see your message. Another problem is the message. In comic form, things may be lost in translation compared to how they may be with photographs.
In terms of Madaya mom, I think’s it’s a wonderful idea that Marvel and ABC came up with. This was a struggle where traditional journalists couldn’t do their job. They had to get creative. The idea of Madaya mom really shows off the ingenuity of reports. I think it’s also a great idea because it gives readers a character to hold onto and an easy way to follow the issue of the war. It also was a good way to expose a new audience to the world of comics.
The documentary I watched was called “Immigration in Italy” by Matt Colburn. It covered a few of the biggest issues Italy is facing right now with a focus in social factors. Italians have a lot of preconceived notions of what immigrants look like. They often think they are young, African men who are coming to cause trouble and steal their jobs. In reality, the majority of immigrants coming into Italy are women from other European countries. Another big problem is citizenship. There are only two ways to become an Italian citizen as an immigrant. The first is to work in the country for 10 years uninterrupted. The other is to marry an Italian and apply after 3 years. This can make it really hard for immigrants because losing your job or getting divorced can cost you the opportunity and rights of becoming a citizen. I noticed a lot of similarities between what Italy is facing and what America is facing right now. There is a lot of fear and misinformation. This makes it hard for immigrants and also citizens because of the huge disconnect. Another similarity are the amount of barriers people face to citizenship. Both countries have high barriers because they want to regulate their population and border.
This documentary does a good job of raising awareness of the issue, but not much else. It does a good job of conducting interviews with knowledgeable people. However, there are many things that could be improved upon. No actual immigration or citizenship processes are touched upon. No important people in the conversation are mentioned. There is no footage of some of the things they talk about. They also don’t have any next steps of what to do with this information. One of the reasons for this may be that this was a very small film with a minimal budget. It was just one guy with a camera. He may not have been able to afford amenities like special effects or stock footage. Regardless, next steps would have been helpful. It is apparent that the director didn’t think too far ahead past completing the project. This is linked to the article about the downside of measuring social change. It is so hard to measure and market the change a documentary highlights because often they don’t have the budget. In “Immigration in Italy” following up to see the results of the documentary would probably involve funding a whole separate documentary. This shows the give and take. Your message really only travels as far as your pockets are deep. Measuring this documentary for impact wouldn’t have very much effect. It was a small documentary on YouTube. This documentary isn’t going to cause legislative reform in Italy. However, it will raise awareness of the issue. For its target, I think it did a pretty good job.
I think using reality TV in a documentary setting is a good way to inform younger and lower educated viewers. Reality TV is universally entertaining. It blends the ridiculous with daily life. This way, people who don’t like consuming information in a traditional standard can still get it while being entertained. For example, I looked around the room while watching Sweatshop: Deadly Fashion. What I noticed was a high level of engagement. The protagonists were teenagers like us and influencers. There were characters like in a fiction novel that the audience can grab onto. During the Puerto Rico episode, there was significantly less engagement. The protagonist was older and the content was more cut-and-dry. It reminded me a lot of episode of Vice. That’s not to say that it wasn’t successful in achieving it’s goals. It was clear that it wanted to stress the fact that Puerto Rico feels like it has no support from the U.S. However, it terms of engagement from a younger demographic, Sweatshop: Deadly Fashion is much closer to the kind of show a college kid is going to want to watch.
I think that Anthony Bourdain does a good job of catering to his audience. You can tell that by this point in his series, he has established what type of show he has. He has a unique style that blends together many elements of typical documentary while inserting himself directly in the situation. It reminded me a lot of Morgan Spurlok’s “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.” Instead of just being a narator and a fellow onlooker, Bourdain is inserted directly in the situation. It makes for an authentic interaction in his interviews. It’s nice to see his personality and point of view. However, it’s important to remember his lens. While he may be right in the U.S. not paying much attention to Puerto Rico, it’s still important to remember that there are two sides and the U.S.’s side should be examined as well.
Hello my name is Daniel Pak. I am a sophomore here at Portland State University. My major is accounting. I am from Beaverton, which is about a 20 minute drive from Portland. The ways I consume pop culture are through the news, the internet, social media, celebrities, athletes, music, television, video games, movies, and other ways I can’t think of right now. My favorite is the NBA. Basketball is super important to me, so I always want to stay on top of trends and news. The reason I engage in the forms of pop culture that I do is the way I was raised. My dad has always been into media. He has gone to the library to rent the latest DVD’s that come out on every Tuesday since I was in elementary school. He loves watching moves, television, and especially sports. Growing up, it was a family event to gather around the TV and comment on what was happening. As society has evolved, I feel like I’ve evolved with it. I’m not terribly addicted to social media, but I do get my fix. I love looking at memes and peeking into the life of my favorite celebrities. My evolution is especially apparent in music. When I was a kid, I was super into the soft rock and pop that dominated the airways in the early 2000’s. However, recently music has shifted. Rap has dominated that past 10 years and I’ve kept up with it. Soundcloud rap is my guilty pleasure. My favorites are XXXtentacion, Juice Wrld, YK Osiris, Jay Critch, and the YBN. Pop culture marketing affects all my decisions subconsciously. I’ve always been about branding. I love supporting the brands that are important to me. Once someone has something to latch on to, I reach for it and show it off. What’s crazy is that I’m fully aware of this. I think I’ve just embraced it. I’ve never been afraid of drawing attention and I love supporting the things that are important to me. I have a business mindset. Unlike some of my classmates, I don’t mind the constant advertisement. I see it as part of the game. How else are businesses supposed to survive? As you saw in The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, companies need to uphold their image in order to survive. The best way to protect that image is to show it off in a positive light via advertising. One thing I’ve never understood is consumer rights. I understand it may be an ethical dilemma to sneak advertising, but the nature of business is pushing the boundaries. Taking things to the extent of the law is the best way to be successful, which is all businesses care about. In the same way that societies values have shifted my music taste, they have also shifted our consumer preferences. In chapter 5 we saw how, over time, we moved from religion to materialism (although they are not necessarily two ends of a spectrum). Personally, I think the industrial revolution had a lot to do with that. Once we had the capacity to create more, it distracted us from the traditional values of family. However, in present day it seems like the world has grown smaller. With social media and improvements in cross-continent travel, the ability to meet people from other parts of the world has changed our interactions with other people. Simultaneously, it seems like we are growing farther and farther apart from our fellow man. More screens and less face-to-face interaction has caused our relationships to be more shallow. Some people do things they would never do in person, like rain down heinous insults. Pop culture changes society daily. From facebook to twitter to vine to snapchat to tiktok, society is constantly moving and meeting the next trend that comes up. They’re changing our lives. For example, right now the number one song in the country is “Old Town Road” by Lil Nas X. Lil Nas X is a social media influencer who plays off of memes. Because of the song, people have embraced country (at least for the moment). Before, country was seen as the most uncool genre. I heard people say all the time “I listen to everything except country.” By blending trap rap and country, Lil Nas X started a wave of pandemonium. It’s left to see if he will continue the momentum.
Daniel Pak Pop Culture Blog 