Today I heard on the radio how someone was ranting about how the media contributes to the feeling of inferiority of African Americans – in fact I think they used the word “brainwash”. As a hopeful future champion for equal rights I wanted to comment on it. I think the word “brainwash” might be a bit too strong, since I doubt it's actually a conspiracy – more a question of unrealized attitudes of whites and blacks alike. Media does influence the way we look at the world, of course. The imagery we see in advertisements and news will change the way we see the people around us. If we always see black people as laborers, nurses and bus drivers in ads, and white people as doctors, politicians and actors, what will we think? Or, and this I was thinking this morning, what will the little black kids looking at the ads think, of their future and goals? And the news – if we always see more black criminals than white (I won't say if this is a “true” representation of the US or not, since the concept “true representation” is in itself always a bit clouded) what will we or our kids think of these skin colors?
Of course, the world isn't that simple in the US. There are African Americans and first generation Africans (and within this group the subgroup of Somalis, at least in Minneapolis), there are Asian and Arabian born people, and the big group that are without any separation called Latinos, or Hispanic. And another group in themselves are the children adopted to a “white” family, therefore culturally completely “white” but looking different from their so-called peers. All of these groups have their own problems... and also need attention in different ways.
But for the purpose of this blog (trying to keep it short) I wish there were a bit more black professors, actors, doctors and writers represented in the media. If the baby growing in my womb was black (hardly any chance, I know, seeing as we're both nearly transparent) I'd want to surround it with pictures that gave it role models and possibilities that were as near to its own skin color as possible. In fact, I'd look for a black Jesus. I wouldn't want the child to think “I want to be white like Jesus”.
So you believe that we don't relate to people who look different than us?
ReplyDeleteHistorically that assertion seems pretty valid. But are we INCAPABLE? Wouldn't the enlightened, progressive thing to do be to teach our children not to see color, rather than heighten the differences by giving each group it's own set of color-coded role models? Rather reminds me of the pagan gods in antiquity - rather peculiarly similar between societies, but with broad stylistic differences to match the tastes of each community.
And speaking of representations of divinity - very interesting comment on looking for a black Jesus. Looking at paintings and sculptures through history, artists have generally made Jesus look like "their type". So the tendency is a pretty universal one. Jesus would have been a swarthly little Semitic fellow, not the hulking Scandinavian that we see in the paintings and pictures hanging from our walls.
So (setting aside racial & identity politics), a black Jesus wouldn't be such an outrageous departure, all things considered. We might even say that Jesus' race is beside the point when it comes to his ministry and the saving atonement.
Except I would hope the idea of Jesus transcends race. By giving every community or subgroup their "own" Jesus, we are saying exactly the opposite - that race matters a whole lot.
(All very easy for me to say - my race is the majority where I live.)
Yes, good points, Manpace - and to clarify, I was looking from an American childs perspective. And I think this culture is so visual, and puts so much emphasis on color or looks, that in real life we can't disregard the visual representation.
ReplyDeleteBut, say, if Jesus transcends race, how do we paint him? Wouldn't that exactly mean that he could always be the painter's race? Or always, say, lightly blue (no Krishna comparison intended...)
I don't know how important it is to pass on doctrinal truths through the unreliable and indistinct mediums of painting and sculpture. However, if the point of a work is to put a picture to a person or event, I would strive to be as accurate as our understanding allows us to be, wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteI believe race is a temporary and transitory characteristic. There won't be race in heaven - not even white people (indeed, what passes for "white" is really rather squishy and pink).
Well, you forget my ties to contemporary art. I don't think the point of art is necessary to be as accurate as possible (if with that you mean realistic painting). I would try to convey an emotional message. But this is another issue...
ReplyDeleteI agree on race not being an eternal characteristic - in fact, I think it's a historically and culturally constructed category. But of course, that doesn't make it less important in real life.
If it isn't purely commercial, art is meant to convey the truth of something or other. LDS art is generally restricted to pretty ordinary representations of a person or event. That's the "truth" that matters to them. I think it has to do with LDS folks taking scriptural literalism pretty seriously - they'll take art about those scriptures pretty literally as well.
ReplyDeleteThree of my nieces and nephews are black. However important you think race is "in real life" (as opposed to the fake one of eternity?), do you think they should be sitting in primary and a teacher holds up a white Jesus for the white kids, and then shows them a black one, saying, "And this is YOUR Jesus."