i can’t breathe
Origin of Native American Dreamcatcher
It is believed that the origin of the Native American dreamcatcher (or Indian dreamcatchers) is from the Ojibway Chippewa tribe. The Ojibway would tie strands of sinew string around a frame of bent wood that was in a small round or tear drop shape. The patterns of the dreamcatcher would be similar to how these Native Americans tied the webbing for their snowshoes.
About Dream Catchers…
Dream catchers are/were Ojibwe/Annishnabe/Chippewa (all same tribe). We have gotten TRULY tired of hearing how they came from the plains tribes, the southwest, & the most common of all “According to Sioux Legend, …” I swear there must of hundreds of these darned tags at galleries all over the globe with each gallery owner “swearing” that a “Sioux” artist gave it to them… They all act surprised when you tell them that no “Sioux” artist would refer to themselves this way.
White Entertainment Television (WET) is the television station that is always watched but never seen. It is the white counterpart to Black Entertainment Television (BET), an American television channel aimed at blacks.
White Americans say stuff like:
How come there’s a BET but not a White Entertainment Television? How is that fair?
You have BET. If we had WET, we’d be racists.
This is called being blind to white privilege. Or maybe just being blind.It is called being so used to how society favours whites that you do not even notice it and think of it as “normal” and “fair”.
So fair that any change from it, like BET, Black History Month or affirmative action, is seen as unfair and reverse racist.
Peggy McIntosh, in her famous essay on white privilege, listed the WET thing as #6:
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
On American television:
- Blacks have BET, TV One and few others.
- Whites have ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Lifetime, HBO, Showtime, TNT, TBS, National Geographic, The History Channel, TV Land, Hallmark, Disney, Food Network, SOAPnet, Playboy, Nickelodeon, Sprout, MTV, VH1, Syfy, GAC, Spike, FX, USA, CMT, Bravo, NFL, TMC, E!, Cartoon Network, Cinemax and on and on and on.
American television is whiter than America. If it were a matter of “simple demographics”, as many claim, then out of a hundred stations (most people get way more), 12 would be black, more or less, 16 Latino, 5 Asian and 1 Native. It is nowhere near that.
BET is, in effect, a crappy UHF station for blacks, for those old enough to remember UHF (channels above 13 in the days before cable, which mainly showed reruns and old movies). Crappy because it does not currently even have news shows or children shows, much less cooking shows, game shows, travel shows and so on. There is no black CNN (news), black PBS (education and culture) or black HBO (serious drama).
BET is even white-owned!
White American television is white in three ways:
- It is by and for white people. Blacks are, at best, an afterthought. That is why black characters tend to be few, have short life expectancies and lack love lives. They are not the “target demographic”.
- It stereotypes blacks and other people of colour. Worse than lack of representation is misrepresentation. American television pictures blacks as
- violent and
We know that by asking people in the Taiwanese countryside, where knowledge of Black Americans comes mainly from American television shows. Even BET has been guilty of stereotyping blacks.
- It is so white that issues of race rarely come up. As if White Americans live in Sweden or the Middle Ages or something.
The first one is pretty much innocent, but the other two push racism:internalized racism in blacks and externalized racism in everyone else, even people in Taiwan.
If kids can’t socialize, who should parents blame? Simple: They should blame themselves. This is the argument advanced in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, by Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd. Boyd—full disclosure, a friend of mine—has spent a decade interviewing hundreds of teens about their online lives.
What she has found, over and over, is that teenagers would love to socialize face-to-face with their friends. But adult society won’t let them. “Teens aren’t addicted to social media. They’re addicted to each other,” Boyd says. “They’re not allowed to hang out the way you and I did, so they’ve moved it online.”
It’s true. As a teenager in the early ’80s I could roam pretty widely with my friends, as long as we were back by dark. But over the next three decades, the media began delivering a metronomic diet of horrifying but rare child-abduction stories, and parents shortened the leash on their kids. Politicians warned of incipient waves of youth wilding and superpredators (neither of which emerged). Municipalities crafted anti-loitering laws and curfews to keep young people from congregating alone. New neighborhoods had fewer public spaces. Crime rates plummeted, but moral panic soared. Meanwhile, increased competition to get into college meant well-off parents began heavily scheduling their kids’ after-school lives.
The result, Boyd discovered, is that today’s teens have neither the time nor the freedom to hang out. So their avid migration to social media is a rational response to a crazy situation. They’d rather socialize F2F, so long as it’s unstructured and away from grown-ups. “I don’t care where,” one told Boyd wistfully, “just not home.
This Wired article is great.
I am in all truthfulness attempting to be cheerful about this whole topic, though most people find themselves hindered in believing me, no matter my protestations. Please, trust me. I most definitely can be cheerful. I can be amiable. Agreeable. Affable. And that’s only the A’s. Just don’t ask me to be nice. Nice has nothing to do with me. [x]