# data[].attributes.headline
Peer to Peer Discussion 4: Mastering Difficult Conversations 

# data[].attributes.subject
Peer to Peer Discussion 4: Mastering Difficult Conversations 

# data[].attributes.body
The peer to peer conversations this semester have been very interesting to say the least. Uncovering "controversial topics" and being able to freely express your opinions in a safe environment has been an incredible experience. Also being able to converse with the same partner every time has created a great connection especially with those you would not normally be talking to within the class. This discussion specifically was one of my favorites because we were discussing how to approach difficult conversations and implementing pointers from the lessons during our discussion. Having hard conversations can seem intimidating, however if you keep an open mind instead of going into it looking for a fight, these convos will go much smoother than you would think. The important thing to keep in mind is to be open to everything, even if someones point of view goes entirely against yours. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions which is why you can never go into an argument solely thinking you are in the right. This was an interesting lesson because we were able to see multiple different scenarios and choose our thoughts about them based on a scale. Then, once we were done, we were able to compare our opinions and have a discussion on any of the ones we disagreed on. This was a fun one because usually my partner and I agree on everything but for this one we actually had differing opinions. The main topic of argument was whether or not ethnicity should play a role in college acceptances. I initially said no because I feel that ethnicity should not be a deciding factor as to whether students are accepted. An example I gave was how Harvard actually accepts less Asian people just to maintain diversity. However my argument was that if the student is perfect for the school but their race is the last deciding factor that gets them denied, how is this fair? However my partner had a different perspective and felt that schools should consider ethnicities. He feels that considering ethnicities can create opportunities for those who have limited access to resources, such as scholarships. He also pointed out that ethnicity as a last deciding factor can be beneficial to those in low income areas who need that extra boost to be able to compete with other students. Going into the discussion, I had an open mind and due to that I was able to see where my partner was coming from and we both ended up agreeing with each others points. If we had went into the discussion looking for an argument, it would not have gone this smooth. These lessons are ones that I will actually be thinking of and implementing within my personal life and I am so glad we did them during this course.

# data[].attributes.body
The demand for Black Linguistic justice has been increasing rapidly and I strongly agree with this ideology. First, I would like to emphasize the importance of standard English because standards are necessary for full communication like learning English from a young age and global communication. However, within the United States itself, I feel that we need to be less strict on the importance of standard English and the forced conformity of having to use it especially for those who speak Black English. Black English is given a horrible reputation as most Americans view it as "ghetto" or "unprofessional". However, this is a different form of the English language that is part of a separate Black culture. This language needs to be respected just like any other cultural language like Arabic or Spanish. While I do not believe that Black English should be "taught" per say within schools to ensure the wrong people are not using the language, I feel that it should be acceptable to use within school environments. Students should be able to use Black English within their speaking and essays without being harshly shut down by administration. However, the main issue with trying to implement this, is that there needs to be a nationwide change or this will not be successful. This is because even if school districts successfully implement Black English, there is also standardized tests like SATS and AP exams to consider. If students are comfortable speaking/writing in black English in their own schools, they would have to code switch to meet standards for the country. This is why as a nation, we need to be more accepting to Black English and change the standards to meet norms that should have been implemented from the beginning. Furthermore, the standard as a whole should be accommodating to immigrants and those who have English as a second language as well. While proper grammar is important, a few mistakes here and there, especially for non dominant English speakers, should be forgiven. During any standardized testing or school testing, schools should account for students who speak Black English or are non dominant speakers and be graded to the same regard as standard English speakers. This is a change that needs to truly be implemented within our systems especially since America considers itself such a progressive and advanced country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Conference on College Composition and Communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! - Conference on College Composition and Communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conference on College Composition and Communication July 2020 This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! As with previous CCCC/NCTE resolutions and position statements, we situate this demand in our current historical and sociopolitical context. Our current call for…

# data[].attributes.headline
Indigenous languages, linguistic erasure, and language revitalization

# data[].attributes.subject
Indigenous languages, linguistic erasure, and language revitalization

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous people have suffered significantly since the colonization of North America. Furthermore these groups/tribes continue to suffer as their language and culture increasingly diminishes as the years go on and older generations are passing away. Preserving this culture is crucial to maintain the heritage and history that the indigenous people have. As seen in the documentary, tribes are becoming smaller and smaller, and there is less interest in learning about the culture as most younger generations are adapting to westernized colonization culture. The video shows how there is only a small community within individual tribes and that maintaining the culture/language is hard unless it is heavily emphasized while children are growing up. I believe that us as a society should help preserve this culture and language by being more accommodating to these students within schools. We should learn more about indigenous culture, especially about specific tribes within your area, without creating a narrative that strictly benefits colonization and without being disrespectful to the culture. Growing up, we only truly learn about indigenous groups in grade school and never really brush on the topic again. Students should be able to learn their own languages in school as an option, like Spanish or French is given as choices, so kids can learn more about their own culture. Furthermore, governments should give more funding to these groups so that they are able to maintain their tribal communities and spread their message to the local areas that surround them. We owe it to indigenous groups to aid as much as possible especially after all of the trauma they have endured. We can't let these tribal cultures become lost and vanish from our future.

# data[].attributes.body
SAE (standard American English) is a hidden privilege not many realize that they have.  The ability to speak SAE creates many advantages and opportunities compared to those who have accented or broken English. This article really highlights the discussion we were having in class about the privilege that comes with SAE. This article highlights the advantages of easy access to information, the assumption of being American, deemed intelligent and educated, fully represented in media, accent is not mocked/exaggerated, treated fairly, and most importantly not forced to code switch. Those who use other forms of English, whether it be AAVE, broken English, or accented English, are deemed uneducated and ill-mannered. This affects not only the privileges mentioned above, but also can affect their life like getting jobs or housing, interacting and meeting with others, and being profiled/hatecrimed and having a safety issue in your own community. I, myself as a child of immigrants, have seen this first hand in multiple encounters. My dad speaks broken English and majority of the time, the way he is treated by white Americans or SAE speakers, is with ill manners or rude behavior. However, once I start speaking in for him and the recipient recognizes my SAE, they start regarding me while completely ignoring my father in the process. This type of treatment of not being regarded as a human being is so horrific and hostile just due to accents or broken English. This is an issue we need to overcome as a society because currently we treat SAE speakers with the highest regard while treating others very lowly. We treat them as if they are incapable and they are in the wrong, when in reality we need to understand that no one can control their roots and upbringing. Seeing the way my dad has been treated throughout the years is so hurtful and saddening because he made it so far and came to a brand new environment just for my family, only to be treated with this disrespect and hate. As a society and community we need to be better and do better especially if we consider ourselves to be the "land of immigrants".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You know, the one where a bunch of bilingual Americans sang the hymn in their native languages, including English, Spanish, Hebrew, Wolof, French, Tagalog, and Keres?

Remember how everybody loved it?

I don't either.

While many applauded the commercial's message of inclusivity and acceptance, social media and conservative news outlets decried the multilingual rendition as ugly, insulting and contrary to the nation's values.

The most common critique: "This is America, and in America, you speak English."

Such a sentiment clearly privileges English speakers. But we should take an even closer look because not all English speakers are privileged equitably in the United States.

Expressing racist, classist, ableist and sexist prejudices, many people maintain negative presumptions against those who speak English with "un-American" accents, or with "urban" or "rural" accents. Many criticize or make fun of speech differences, , the so-called "gay lisp," and so on.

In other words, it's not that all English is privileged. Instead, the USA tends to idealize Standard American English (SAE). SAE is essentially the neutral "non-accent" mostly associateded with the suburban Midwest.

Such SAE privilege - and conversely, the discrimination against non-English languages and non-SAE accents - manifests in many ways, though not for all of the reasons you might think.

Below are privileges that those who speak SAE have and a breakdown how SAE privilege harms non-SAE speakers.

1. You're Assumed to be American

Let's just get this out of the way: The USA has no official language! There is no federal law that states that citizens must speak English.

However, as evidenced by the negative backlash to the "America the Beautiful" commercial, many insist that to be American is to speak English.

This, of course, is a bizarre - not to mention oppressive - assertion because English doesn't even come from the USA. It comes from England!

Prior to imperial English colonization, there were hundreds of indigenous languages in what became the United States. And many are still spoken.

And, following the US Invasion of Mexico in the mid-19 century, the USA annexed one third of Mexico's territory. The Treaty of Guadalupe effectively converted the territory of millions of speakers of Spanish and various indigenous languages into American soil with the stroke of a pen.

There are over 300 languages that are spoken as a first language in the United States. And more than 60 million people in the USA speak a language other than English in the home.

Nonetheless, often only those who speak English (with American accents) are assumed to be American.

Consequently, those Americans who speak other languages are frequently told to "go back home." They are often excluded from the spaces, institutions, and rights to which they are entitled.

2. Your Language Affords You Easy Access to Information

Go to the doctor's office. Go to a school. Go to a restaurant. Go to a realtor. Go to a courthouse. Go on the Internet. In how many of those settings is English the only available spoken or written language?

How are non-English speakers supposed to navigate these spaces? How are they to gain equivalent access to education, healthcare and criminal justice?

Of course, legally, translation services are available in certain contexts - in public schools, hospitals, courthouses, police stations, and so on.

However, not everyone is aware that such services are available, or that when absent, they can legally request them.

Further, as a former courtroom Spanish-English interpreter, translation is an imperfect enterprise . Some words and phrases don't translate that well. And many English speakers view the interpreter as burdensome and annoying.

I remember many interactions, for example, when the presiding judge refused to slow down when speaking so that I could adequately interpret what they were saying.

In other occasions, lawyers demanded that I speak so quietly that my client could barely hear me.

And the barriers to access don't end there.

Most classrooms are English only. Schools are required to provide English as a Secondary Language (ESL) services, and some - the vast minority - offer bilingual or dual language classes.

Nevertheless, non-English speaking students often struggle academically and socially when placed in schools that demand English proficiency from the get go. Further, most standardized tests are available in English and only a limited number of other languages.

3. You're Assumed to Be Intelligent, Educated, and Non-Violent

No language or accent is inherently superior to another!

Nevertheless, expressive of pervasive classism and racism, in the USA certain accents and languages are associated with intelligence whereas others are associated with violence.

I've noticed this based on my own multilingualism.

When speaking in English, people's body language towards me is usually more welcoming. They smile more. They stand a little closer. They make few negative presumptions about my profession.

However, after talking to someone in Spanish, I sometimes notice a change in how nearby non-Spanish speakers orient themselves towards me. Sometimes their smiles disappear, and they take a step back. Or sometimes they ask certain classist and racist questions about my job or my "immigration status."

The same could be said of other languages and non-SAE accents, particularly of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), for which there remain incredibly problematic and negative prejudices concerning its speakers' supposed lack of education or gang affiliation.

This reflects a huge double standard, though:

Anglo native-English speakers who learn a second language are applauded for their intelligence and hard work. They're told how many professional doors are going to open as a result of their bilingualism.

The same isn't true for non-Anglo, non-native-English speakers who learn English as a second language. Rather than celebrating their intellect and perseverance, this kind of bilingualism is regularly treated as expected, and even the most minor mispronunciations and grammatical errors are criticized.

4. Your Accent Is Positively Represented on TV and in Film

On screen, how often does a CEO, a politician, a principal, a professor, a lawyer - any profession that we aggrandize in the USA - have a Spanish accent? an AAVE accent? a rural accent? an Arabic accent? a "Valley Girl" accent? a lisp?

Not too often.

Most "elite" characters have supposedly "safe" and "intelligent"-sounding SAE accents.

And when it comes to non-SAE accents?

Those roles go to some of our most harmful tropes: the dangerous undocumented immigrant; the undereducated, supposedly violent gang member; the unkempt "hillbilly" or "redneck"; the Islamic terrorist; the "ditsy" blond; the simpleton; or the overly feminine gay man.

Because non-SAE accents are narrowly and negatively portrayed in popular media, we are taught to think ill of the speakers of those accents.

5. Your Accent Is Not Satirized or Exaggerated

I've overheard many folks non-SAE languages and accents.

An acquaintance of mine pretended to mimic a coworker of Asian descent, saying, "Ching, chong. Ching, chong."

On TV or just outside walking my dog, I've overheard groups of predominantly white people making fun of African American Vernacular English, appropriating phrases and pronunciations affiliated with urban Black culture.

Upon telling someone that my mother is an American Sign Language interpreter, they respond, "Oh, I know sign language!" and crudely sign the word "bullshit."

When checking out at the grocery store, I've heard customers pretend to speak Spanish with the cashier with the Latinx last name by adding "o" to the end of each word.
Wrong. Because "mock languages" are insulting, a type of covert racism that vulgarizes non-privileged languages and accents.
Mock languages also reveal a glaring double standard: While non-SAE speakers are expected to perfect their mastery of English grammar and pronunciation, the same is not expected of native English speakers learning, say, Spanish.

6. Your Accent Is Not Treated As 'Exotic'

Hey, American English speakers, how many times have you gone out in the USA and been asked to "say something in American?"

Never happened, right?

Well, I remember a few years back when I was invited to a party. One of the other attendees was originally from Nairobi, Kenya. When some of the others learned this, they excitedly circled in and said, "Oh, say something in Kenyan."

Clearly this partygoer was uncomfortable and reluctant to respond. But, ignoring her embarrassment, the group insisted. Finally, she sighed and, in Swahili, asked, "What do you want me to say?"
The group awed and laughed, commenting upon how "different" the language sounded.
And then they posed more ignorant and prejudicial questions: "How do you say 'giraffe' in Kenyan?" "How do you say 'baboon?'" One also claimed to know the answer to these questions by citing The Lion King.

7. You're Not 'Misheard' or Purposefully Ignored Because of Your Accent

There was a meme going around a while back. It was Will Smith as Captain Hiller in Independence Day. In the film, just after knocking out the crash-landed alien, Smith very clearly says, "Welcome to Earth."

The meme, however, transcribed the line differently:

Many assumed that Smith had pronounced the "th" sound as an "eff," as is more common of AAVE accents.

Now, if he had said "earf," that clearly would've been fine. Certain accents are not inherently better or worse than others.

However, when perceiving a non-SAE accent, many of us direct negative associations toward the speaker.

We also often stop listening, suggesting that it is the speaker's responsibility to improve their accent and cater to our auditory prejudice and laziness.

Want more proof?

Years back, there was an experiment that compared comprehension and bias related to language.

Two groups of students took an exam, listened to a tape-recorded lecture and then took another exam. Investigators told Group A that the recording was an American, native-English speaking lecturer and told Group B that the recording was an Asian, non-native-English speaking lecturer.

But, they played the exact same recording - of a native English speaker - for both groups!

Comparing the scores and comments following the second exam, Group A scored significantly higher and responded more positively to the recording. Group B, however, scored lower and complained that they couldn't understand the lecturer, that the lecturer needed to learn English and so on.

8. You're Not Forced to Codeswitch

Ever notice how every national news broadcaster speaks the same?

No? Watch any episode of ESPN News and pay attention to when they turn the analysis over to the three sports - soccer, hockey and NASCAR - that ESPN has deemed more "regional?" Do you notice the switch to a Spanish, Canadian, or southern accent?

Unless purposefully trying to sound "folksy," though - and it's only folksy from an outsider's perspective - most broadcasters train in SAE because (as described above) we are taught that speakers of this accent are safe and intelligent.

Of course, very few of us are national broadcast journalists.

But that doesn't matter because the same privilege applies everywhere.

Because most people perceive my SAE accent as intelligent and non-violent, for instance, I'm not forced to change the way that I speak when at work, in the classroom, in court, and so on.

The same, though, does not apply to non-SAE speakers.

Now, I know what some of you might be thinking: "That's not privilege. Everyone has to speak professionally when in the workplace."

Well, let's interrogate this. What does it mean to "speak professionally?"

Sure, it means that - unless I'm the boss, at least - I probably can't swear while at work.

But it also means that a specific accent and specific phrases are expected, whereas other accents and phrases are deemed unacceptable.

This is not the same thing as saying that there can be no slang in the workplace, for example. Because certain informal sayings are definitely common in, say, an office.

"Make hay" means being productive in the short term. Getting your "ducks in a row" means being prepared and organized. To "boil the ocean" means wasting time. As most of these phrases - and there are many more - are associated with SAE, they privilege SAE speakers and those who can access SAE pronunciation and lingo.

Further, some common business jargon is just flat out racist (for instance, "Open the kimono" means to reveal information).

Those with non-SAE accents are forced to speak differently, otherwise they risk being labeled such racist, classist and sexist terms as "urban," "country," "girly," and so on.

Subsequently, such perceptions negatively affect professional and academic advancement, criminal guilt and so on.

Speakers of Standard American English are formally and informally rewarded for their accents.

Alternatively, speakers of non-SAE accents and languages are often met with distain, negative perceptions and exclusion.

And, no, demanding that someone "just learn English" isn't the solution.

Because this sentiment is an expression of SAE privilege, which itself is an extension of a system that privileges middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied, cis-gender, white men over everyone else.

Rather than insisting that non-SAE speakers change, therefore, we must stop perceiving non-SAE accents (and their speakers) in the negative.

We must celebrate linguistic diversity because such diversity highlights the vast diversity of experiences, knowledge and abilities that exist in the United States and everywhere else!
Andrew Hernández is a Contributing Writer for Everyday Feminism. He is a public anthropologist and teacher and is completing his PhD in cultural anthropology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and he adjuncts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) and Baruch College (CUNY). You can follow him on Twitter @AndrewHernann or at his website www.AndrewHernann.com.

Filed Under: Tagged With: Articles, Race & Ethnicity Posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Harmful Examples of Standard American English Privilege - Everyday Feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know, the one where a bunch of bilingual Americans sang the hymn in their native languages, including English, Spanish, Hebrew, Wolof, French, Tagalog, and Keres? Remember how everybody loved it? I don't either. While many applauded the commercial's message of inclusivity and acceptance, social media and conservative news outlets decried the multilingual rendition as ugly, insulting and contrary to the nation's values.

# data[].attributes.body
Lippi-Greene's chapter 7 discussing Disney was very intriguing to read about. Disney is a corporation that has been around for years and thousands of kids grew up right alongside it. Disney is now a multi-mass media company that reigns over thousands of other companies like ESPN. While Disney is advocated as a safe and informational aspect for kids, the network is not as innocent as it seems. Countless times again and again, Disney has created stories based on large biases just to play into a diversity narrative when in reality these films have been very harmful for various ethnic groups. They categorize large cultural groups under one movie and use it as a diversity speal to benefit their company. Furthermore, rather than accepting the criticism they receive, especially from the minority groups affected, they choose to ignore/block it out and focus on their own goals. This is extremely horrifying because the narratives that Disney displays are ones that are instilled within young children who start watching tv from as early as 2 years old. Take for example the movie Aladdin which confusingly mixes together both desi and Arab culture into one narrative. Furthermore, the culture seen in the movie is an extreme one where the evil characters wear the most authentic garments with overexposed features and accents while jasmine and Aladdin are heavily sexualized. Furthermore in the remake, the lead playing Jasmine is half white and half Indian while the male lead is north African Egyptian. This is not representative of the authentic story that inspired Aladdin. While you would expect Disney to listen to the critics in the animated version and fix these issues in the live action that was just recently filmed, they kept the same exact narrative while just adding a little diversity. Also while they received a lot of backlash from both desi and Arab ethnic groups, rather than acknowledging their mistakes, they chose to ignore the remarks by blocking comments. Disney can be a great platform for kids but by not using their resources the correct way they are harming rather than helping and they need to be held accountable for this. Kids are growing up watching these channels which automatically create thoughts and ideologies within them. As a large corporation with so much power and influence, they truly need to reprimand this before it is too late.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disney's live-action Aladdin, a remake of its 1992 animated film, has finally arrived in theaters, and on one level, it's something of an achievement. The production, helmed by Guy Ritchie, had a hefty amount of cultural baggage to overcome, and has been dogged by controversy and skepticism over its premise and execution since before filming even began.

All the backlash isn't entirely the 2019 film's fault. Although the original movie was a critically acclaimed masterpiece, it was also dripping in Orientalism and harmful racist depictions of Arab culture. The new film has, for the most part, managed to shirk much of its inspiration's exoticism and cultural inaccuracies, but despite Ritchie's clear efforts to deliver a more respectful version of Aladdin, it may not be enough to satisfy many of its detractors.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release earlier this week asking reviewers and critics to acknowledge that the "Aladdin myth is rooted by racism, Orientalism and Islamophobia" and to "address concerns about racial and religious stereotypes perpetuated by the [new] Disney film."

Most people think that the story of Aladdin comes from the original 1001 Nights tales, which is a collection of traditional Middle Eastern and Asian folklore. But in fact, Aladdin isn't a traditional folktale; it has a different history, and it's one that still causing controversy today.

The tale of Aladdin is born from a hodgepodge of cultural influences - each with an Orientalist viewpoint

Aladdin had no known source before French writer Antoine Galland stuck it into his 18th-century translation of 1001 Nights. Galland claimed to have heard it firsthand from a Syrian storyteller, but claiming your original story came from an exotic faraway source is a common literary device. In recent years, however, the discovery of a memoir by a Syrian named Ḥannā Diyāb cast doubt on the idea that Galland invented the tale. Diyab met with Galland in 1709 and told him several stories to include in 1001 Nights - which historians now believe most likely included Aladdin. But as the book's most recent translator, Yasmine Seale, noted in a 2018 interview, Diyab's version was never recorded, and it's unclear how much of the story came from him or Galland: "Diyab's contribution - an oral performance recorded in a few lines in Galland's diary - is ultimately unknowable." Seale also added that "in many ways ['Aladdin'] is a classic piece of early 18th century French literature, with its charm and its bigotries." In other words, while he had a Syrian source, a French guy with a European colonial view of Asia brought us the original Aladdin.

The story's exoticism - a xenophobic view of other cultures, or people from those cultures, as being somehow strange, unfathomable, or alien - is entrenched in that framing. A specific flavor of exoticism is Orientalism, an idea famously conceptualized by Edward Said. Said was a leading figure in early postcolonial research, and in his 1978 book Orientalism, he outlined literary and narrative tropes that US and European writers used (and still use) to portray Asia and the Middle East as bizarre, regressive, and innately opaque and impossible to understand. The othering of these cultures often takes the form of romanticized depictions of these regions as mysterious or mystic fantasy lands, framed through a colonial perspective.

What's fascinating about the origins of this tale is that, even though 1001 Nights has been traditionally translated in English as Arabian Nights, the original story was set not in the Arab world, but in China. Early 19th and 20th-century versions of the story clearly show Aladdin as culturally Asian.

You could even still find many stage depictions of Aladdin as culturally Chinese well into the 20th century, such as in this yellowface production of a British pantomime from 1935:

But the Aladdinmythalso was a cultural hodgepodge, with many depictions of the story freely mixing Chinese elements with European elements. In an 1880 musical burlesque version, Aladdin appeared to have been played by an actor in yellowface, with a contemporaneous setting that seems culturally European:

This tendency to modernize Aladdin continued into the 20th century. As we can see from this archival photo from a 1925 stage production, the story was often presented as a hybrid tale of the exoticized Orient meeting modern English-language styles and fashions.

Following the rise of Hollywood, however, European and American storytellers gradually began transforming Aladdin into a Middle Eastern tale. Movie studios played up the exotic setting and emphasized cultural stereotypes.

And no Hollywood production did more to solidify this change than Disney's animated version of Aladdin.

The 1992 Aladdin codified how we think of the story - and the new film had to grapple with that legacy

Perhaps in response to its alleged roots as a Syrian story, the 1992 animated film transplanted the fictional Chinese city of Agrabah to somewhere along the Jordan River. But Disney also gave the film several architectural and cultural flourishes that seem to hail from India - like basing the Sultan's Palace on the Taj Mahal.

The 1992 film revels in a lot of Orientalist stereotypes: Its mythos reeks of mystical exoticism, with Agrabah explicitly described as a "city of mystery." Jasmine is a princess who longs to escape an oppressive and controlling culture; her ultimate aim is to gain enough independence to marry for love rather than political expediency, which made her strikingly evolved for the time but seems hopelessly limiting now. Meanwhile, her father, the sultan, is a babbling, easily manipulated man-child. The citizens of Agrabah are frequently depicted as barbarous sword-wielders and sexualized belly dancers. Worse, the opening song, "Arabian Nights," originally contained the ridiculously racist line, "They cut off your ear if they don't like your face / It's barbaric, but hey, it's home."

Perhaps most crucially, the film renders its heroes, Aladdin and the Genie, as culturally American. Their wisecracking street-smarts, sheer cunning, and showy braggadocio are all coded as things that set them apart from the residents of Agrabah, and Robin Williams's famously improvisational jokes as Genie are anachronistically drawn from contemporary American pop culture. In essence, it's very easy to unthinkingly read Aladdin and the Genie as two Yankees in a land full of exotic Others.

This take on the story became the definitive one, so to release a new version of Aladdin in 2019 is to grapple with all of this baggage at a time when audiences are less likely to turn a blind eye toward it. Things got off to a rocky start:The choice of Ritchie as director - great when it comes to snappy street action, but less so when it comes to nuanced portrayals of race - didn't exactly inspire a ton of confidence.

Then came one casting controversy after another. An early report that Ritchie and Disney Studios were having trouble casting the lead role, in part because of alleged difficulties finding Arab and Asian actors who could sing, drew outrage from fans. Then the production was criticized for casting ethnically Indian British actress Naomi Scott as Jasmine, instead of a Middle Eastern or Arab actress. And then news that the film had added a new white male character to the cast, played by Into the Woods' Billy Magnussen, raised more eyebrows. (His role ultimately turned out to be a bit part added for comic contrast to Aladdin.)

To top it all off, reports that Disney had been "browning up" some actors on set sparked flabbergasted reactions and drew a swift response from Disney, noting that "great care was taken to put together one of the largest most diverse casts ever seen on screen" and that "diversity of our cast and background performers was a requirement and only in a handful of instances when it was a matter of specialty skills, safety and control (special effects rigs, stunt performers and handling of animals) were crew made up to blend in."

Given all of this, skepticism over the film has run rampant. Disney and Ritchie seem to have taken pains to deliver a respectful film: They've written more three-dimensionality into most of the main characters, especially Jasmine and the Genie, and they've removed much of the exotic stereotypes of the film's predecessor. Still, there remains a lack of confidence in their final product. The Council on American-Islamic Relations noted before the film's US debut that "as seen through the trailer, the racist themes of the original animated cartoon seemingly reemerge in the live-action remake, despite efforts by Disney to address the concerns from 25 years ago."

Then there's the tense sociocultural context in which this new live-action film is appearing. At any other time, Aladdin might have been little more than a dose of multiculturalism, but it has emerged at a moment when global politics are deeply fraught, progressives have fought hard for ethnically diverse and authentic cinema, and extremists- everyone from actual radicals to media fans engaging in online review bombing - have demonized and attacked the very idea of multicultural representation. The Council on American-Islamic Relations was also wary of this, warning that releasing the film "during the Trump era of rapidly rising anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and racist animus only serves to normalize stereotyping and to marginalize minority communities."

All of these factors have created a rocky path for the movie, and seem to have hindered its route to finding critical success; currently, reviews are decidedly mixed. But Disney is a global powerhouse whose films can shape cultural perceptions for generations, and Aladdin will doubtless have plenty of pull at the box office. So for better or for worse, Aladdin 's crossed cultural signals and its troubling legacy will probably be with us for a very long time to come.

Correction: This article originally stated that Aladdin most likely had no Syrian source. It has been updated to provide additional information and context on Syrian storyteller Ḥannā Diyāb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The fraught cultural politics of Disney's new Aladdin remake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disney's live-action Aladdin , a remake of its 1992 animated film, has finally arrived in theaters, and on one level, it's something of an achievement. The production, helmed by Guy Ritchie, had a hefty amount of cultural baggage to overcome, and has been dogged by controversy and skepticism over its premise and execution since before filming even began.

# data[].attributes.body
Analyzing the five facts of life discussed in the Lippie-Green article, I was able to create many connections with the reading. Professor Savage, also asked a very interesting question at the end of class that stuck with me, and it was along the lines of "Will we successfully be able to integrate inclusive language within our societies, and what roles will this play in profession positions like jobs" I believe that we will never be able to integrate inclusive language because of our standards but this could be possible if society changed its standards as a whole. Take for example how non-native English speakers are deemed "less professional" because they may have improper grammar and an accent. For instance, my dad is a non-native speaker and had to learn English when immigrating to this country, and works as a database administrator in the government. However I feel that during job interviews or meetings, he has to work twice as hard to make sure his English is good to be deemed as credible as a person who speaks fluent English with no accents. Another example is how many professors will have accents but will have the same or even better credentials than fluent English speakers, however students are less inclined to take a course with them just because of their accent. People with accents or broken English are looked down upon even if it is not intentional just because of the standards we were raised with. People get easily annoyed at non-English speakers but fail to realize that we need to break these misconceptions because you can't blame a person for their roots. No one is less worthy than you because of their broken English. This concept of having proper or standard English has been embedded into the roots of our professional standards and unless we change this from the beginning, we can never properly integrate other types of language.

# data[].attributes.body
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh is a very interesting article that has stuck with me for the past few weeks. The part that stuck out to me the most was the 26 conditions that most people of color can not count on which shows the true reality of white privilege. Going through the entire list, there were so many shocking and thought provoking conditions that I found myself agreeing with and made my realize how privilege is subtley embedded within our culture more than we know. One of the rules that really spoke out to me was 5 which states I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. This one really hit me because in the entirety of my well being, I have never felt represented on the media as a hijabi Muslim. Most media portrays a westernized view of islam and hijabis that is completely wrong and so disheartening. The story line always goes the same way: the hijabi is being opressed and forced to wear the hijab, she meets the white male lead and they fall in love, she takes off her hijab and becomes "free" by becoming more westernized while breaking all of her islamic morals and boundaries. Seeing this over and over again within the media really breaks my heart because anyone who is attached to the islamic religion knows that this is the worst representation of Muslims ever because 90% of muslims never act/feel this way. Another rule that caught my eye as well was if a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race. This takes me back to a horrible interaction I had with a traffic cop a few years ago. My family and I had gotten pulled over due to a misunderstanding however the officer was immeidtaley biased once he saw that we were evidently Muslim. One moment that stuck with me to this day was how my grandma was sitting next to me in the backseat and she had her hands hidden under her scarf because she was cold. However with no questions asked, the officer started screaming at my grandmother to raise her hands because he thought she was carrying a weapon on her person. My poor grandmother who can't even understand or speak English, instantly became scared raised her hands, and in them she held a water bottle. The officer, a white male, never apologized rather he pretended like the situation never happened and continued to act rude towards us. This scenario has instilled a fear in me when it comes to officers especially now that I commute on my own. Examples like these also show how as a person of color you always have to be on guard regardless of being an innocent individual. White privilege is so real and its incredibly disappointed that we are still stuck in this phase rather than reforming and evolving as a society.

# data[].attributes.body
This class has to be my favorite discussion that we have had yet. Cancel culture is the latest trend and is slowly worming its way into every aspect of our society whether it be celebratory gossip or politics. While the idea of cancel culture is good in theory by holding people accountable for their horrific actions, it truly is not effective in reality. Take for example our current cancel culture situation. Every week a new celebratory or famous person is put on blast for their past and everyone is posting it all over social media. The celebrity lays low for the week and then silently make their comeback. Through the whole process they lose maybe 10% of their followers but the checks are still coming in and people are still actively following and supporting them. So what true change really occurred? I think the main issue with cancel culture is that rather than truly holding people accountable for their actions, this culture is just a new hot topic in the news. For instance, what usually happens when a celebratory is put on blast? They come out with apology videos but rather than being genuine in acknowledging their wrongs, they need to look good in the media to maintain their wealth and status. Furthermore while these people are only cancelled for that careless week, they're still rolling in their checks so what is the true effectiveness of this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 celebs who were cancelled in 2021, from Chris Noth to J.K. Rowling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the recent sexual abuse allegations against Chris Noth to athletes who lied about being vaccinated and - gasp - Twitter queen-turned-troll Chrissy Teigen, here are the biggest stars who fell from grace in 2021

# data[].attributes.body
this is a large discussion that we had in class that truly had me thinking about the way I speak and the words that are normalized in my everyday vocabulary. When this was brought up in the class discussion, I originally could not tell the difference between the two words as they both sounded the same to me. However once it was explained, I realized that firemen is derogatory as there could be firewomen as well. This along with the majority of vocabulary present in our everyday language has been a huge debate recently especially in terms of words that have been normalized that we should no longer use. While I do agree that certain words, especially derogatory ones, should be banned I feel like situations like this are fine as our true intentions behind the words are not to be harmful. Take for example how we say "you guys" when talking to a large group of people, not just for a group of men. I feel as though I may be biased as these words were normalized to me growing up, however I feel that certain words like fireman vs firefighter is not necessarily a big deal in vocabulary. However I will state that if anyone feels offended by these terms then of course we shouldn't use them. The best way to fix this problem is to instill the correct words into children starting from a young age. However, not all words need to necessarily be changed especially if they are not meant in an offensive way. To me, saying fireman vs firefighter is not necessarily offensive, since I consider both men and women when discussing firemen. The issue at hand is that while I may not consider this offensive, someone can which is why we need to establish what words are acceptable within society from a young age so they do not become normalized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you think there's a difference between the terms fireman or firefighter? I didn't when I was a kid, but that seems to have changed.

When you see that big fire engine go blaring by, do you think of a fireman or firefighter?

You may argue that they're one in the same. For many, they are.

But an alternate definition for one of those terms leads some to believe only one term is the correct choice for those who fight fires.

I'm not sure when the mood changed. But it seems like I became aware of the distinction sometime in the 1990s.

When I was a kid, many little boys would say they wanted to be a fireman. That was the term everyone used.

One of my favorite shows as a kid was Jack Webb's Emergency. That show followed the adventures of Paramedics Gage and DeSoto at Los Angeles Fire Department's Station 51 Rescue Squad.

I'm pretty sure they used fireman. I know in the movie The Towering Inferno, they referred to firemen.

But I became aware sometime later that firefighter was the preferred term.

It's likely not because of the first reason you might assume.

You could certainly say fireman sounds like a sexist term. So you might assume the main objection to the term - and the reason for a preference of firefighter was all about gender.

But the primary reason I've heard has nothing to do with gender.

In fact, it has to do with furnaces!

I found a reference to the distinction in a forum for members of the firefighting profession. Several responded to a question of whether they call themselves a fireman or firefighter.

One, who said he uses the term firefighter, said, "Firemen take care of boilers in HVAC plants!"

Another agreed, saying, "I fight fires, I don't shovel coal on a locomotive."

Some - but clearly not all - firefighters prefer that term because they see a fireman as someone who stokes furnaces or takes care of boilers.

There are the "traditionalists" out there, as with all things, who grew up with the fireman term and prefer that option.

I choose firefighter because I realize there's a sensitivity to fireman. If someone is going to complain about one or the other, it's always to complain about the use of fireman. I've never received one complaint about the use of firefighter.

By the way, if you follow a style guide, you should check what that resource has to say. I largely follow AP Style here and I definitely follow it at the real job.

AP Style makes it clear that firefighter is the preferred term for them as well.

AP Style tip: it's firefight, firefighter, firetruck, firewall. Use fire department unless a proper name: the Chicago Fire Department.
- APStylebook (@APStylebook) April 28, 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fireman or Firefighter? Some Think There's a Big Difference!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you think there's a difference between the terms fireman or firefighter? I didn't when I was a kid, but that seems to have changed. When you see that big fire engine go blaring by, do you think of a fireman or firefighter? You may argue that they're one in the same.

# data[].attributes.body
This week's article, "white privilege: unpacking the knapsack" was so intriguing to read about especially as my honors 110 project was about the barrier society has created for women in stem compared to their male counterparts. The article emphasized how men have this underlying privilege that men have which they either ignore or focus to realize. This ties in directly with the research paper that I did and correlates with my own experiences as a a women in stem, more specifically within the computer science field. From a young age, stem programs are catered much more towards boys while "creative" programs are catered towards girls. It is instilled within girls that stem is for boys which conditions them as they grow older and decide to pursue their careers. Furthermore, many women in college including myself feel that they are mistreated compared to their male counterparts. A prime example of this, is how many of my male classmates will "mansplain" concepts to me by using a condescending tone which creates a nervous atmosphere for me to ask questions. Furthermore, I find that when I explain a topic especially within cs, a male counterpart will reexplain the same exact point as me but indicate that I am wrong. The research that I found while doing my project, truly correlates to the experiences I have in real life. Due to reasons like these, many women hate joining into the stem field since it is so male dominant. Additionally in the workplace, women are often paid much less and met with lots of mistreatment especially regarding sexual remarks made by their male counterparts. All of these reasons correlate with this weeks article by showing how men truly have the upper hand and they truly do not realize it. It is so important for these boundaries to be broken because women are just as much or even more qualified for these positions compared to men.

# data[].attributes.body
This week's discussion about manufacturing consent reminded me of my time as a journalist in high school. I was part of the newspaper team and we learned a heavy emphasis on journalism ethics and regulations. These were rules I always thought journalists abided by and that they told the truth regardless of the people in power. However, Chomsky made me realized how everything is truly intertwined with the people in power and we are always given a distorted version of reality. These strict rules that journalists should be abiding by, are only under the pretenses that the government approves of whatever is being published to the public. This was very interesting to learn about because it made me realize that in a sense I was also abiding by these rules instead of being able to write freely. For example any articles about the school had to represent the school in a positive light and we were not able to criticize any policies or regulations we disagreed with. This was essentially because all articles has to be approved by the principle. This is a key example of Chomsky's views because you are never able to freely write what you believe under any institutions. Furthermore, writing articles against an institution publicly results in backlash and harsh criticism that can ruin your reputation. Chomsky had many interesting views that I truly agree with especially based on my experiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

# data[].attributes.body
This week's topic was extremely interesting and very close to me due to the severity and depth of this topic. While creating my discussion facilitation and the articles discussed in class, it reminded me of a project I did in honors 122 discussing the time I spent at a Palestinian protest in Washington DC during March 2021. The article discussing how Israeli lobbyists are controlling the media about Palestine. During this time, Palestine had blown up on the media once more, leading to mass protest outbreaks across the world. However, this was when I noticed the crucial importance of social media and how powerful people essentially mediate this media. I found when I posted about Palestine on twitter or instagram, these posts were being hidden and censored from majority of viewers. This protest was an incredible moment for me, especially seeing how people could truly come together and fight for a cause. Being able to do this in the nation's capital surrounded by people fighting for the same issues, was an incredible and unforgettable experience. These are some of the photos I captured during the protest and used for a photo analysis project for a previous class. The discussion we had during today's class reminded me of this project I had created and how the articles correlated with this experience of mine. All of this has made me realize it is so important to find information yourself and be cautious of the media since we are not given the reality of news, rather we are given a sheltered scope based on the people in power. I truly enjoyed this week's discussion and the topics we were able to analyze in class.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mayr: Power, Discourse, and Institutions

# data[].attributes.subject
Mayr: Power, Discourse, and Institutions

# data[].attributes.body
This article while very insightful was definitely challenging to understand. Through the discussion of how power correlates with institutional ideologies and policies, I wanted to reflect on the past few years in American politics. I very much agreed with Mayr's argument as our current government situation is a great example of how powerful positions can hinder and silence the general public. When the Black Lives Matter protests were going on across the nation, we saw the brutality and harshness the public was faced with. This largely had to do with the current president Donald Trump's power and his openly racist views and morals. Thousands of protestors were arrested and met with extreme measures. Now compare this to the Capitol Hill riots and the treatment these individuals were met with. No one was tear gassed, no one was met with physical violence, and no one was met with any emotional or verbal trauma. This is a prime example of how values imbedded within institutions directly affect people and how we need to break these stereotypes and create new standards. The drastic difference in treatment given to both groups was so horrifying to uncover, as one group was quite literally fighting for their freedom while the other was mobbing and breaking protocol just because they did not agree with national election results. Mayr brought up an excellent point about creating direct change because these institutions are essentially creating the rules and regulations for our countries. We need to do better as a nation and truly tackle these underlying values that are still embedded within our country's morals.

# data[].attributes.body
Focault is a theorist that has unique ideologies about power and knowledge and how they affect our values and morals. Through the various videos we watched regarding Focault, alongside this podcast episode, there are many interesting thoughts and questions I have regarding Focault. Primarily, Focault has brought up a new sense of perspective when discussing how our morals and ethics regarding right vs wrong are strongly based on the beliefs of our government and want they instill in us through education, institutions, and society overall. This is something that I never truly thought about and I definitely have to agree that the way people behave and their opinions are strongly based on the ideologies of the institutions within their countries. Take for example an American vs a North Korean and their two different governments affecting their thought processes. Furthermore I really think it is so interesting how Focault believes power has a direct correlation to knowledge and how he wants us to truly analyze why things work the way they do. However, Focault's main point is that institutions nowadays have too many rules and is too advanced and that we should go back to the way things were like during the Renaissance era. Take for example, how Focault argues that nowadays people with mental illnesses are placed into hospitals and seen apart from normal civilization, however during the renaissance era, they were able to interact with civilization like any average humans. While I do see his point in this, I also disagree with his ideas as without the advancements we have today, society would still be stuck in the past in immoral ways. Without the adaptation of ideologies to correlate with advancements we would be stuck in an outdated past filled with bad morals such as racism and the lack of education. Advancements always have good versus bad sides to them but that does not necessarily mean we should get rid of them completely. I feel that in theory his ideologies would never truly work as we want to learn from the past and implement new ideas into the future rather than permanently being stuck in a past that will set us back for ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today we begin talking about the work of Michel Foucault.
Support the show on Patreon!
www.philosophizethis.org for additional content.
Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Philosophize This!: Episode #121 ... Michel Foucault pt. 1 on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today we begin talking about the work of Michel Foucault. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)

# data[].attributes.body
Our last in class discussion regarding Daryl Davis and the Ku Klux Klansman who had a unique friendship despite their opposing views. I wanted to take this concept and learn more about these types of friendships when I stumbled upon this article regarding the friendship between a Palestinian and an Israeli. The current Palestinian crisis has been going on for years and now more than ever the divide between both groups is horrifying and extreme. The war has been a major hot topic as we see new videos and articles daily about innocent Palestinians being brutally tortured by the Israeli military. Due to this, I was very interested to see the relationship dynamic within the article and correlate it with the relationship dynamic of Daryl and the KKK member. However this article was more interesting and aligned more with my values as the relationship in this article is a mutual understanding between both parties for a better future. Both the Palestinian and the Israeli agree that both parties need to work together to stop the destruction. However in the video with Daryl Davis and the KKK member, while they both respected each other, at the time the KKK member still believed in his values. Seeing these kinds of relationships is so interesting because when two people are on opposite sides of the argument spectrum, it's thought provoking to see the dynamic between them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While tensions between Israelis and Palestinians rise, a Palestinian-American shares his friendship with an Iraeli artist who introduced him to art and environmental design. They pray for a better tomorrow for Palestinians and Israelis, one that reclaims dignity and hope for all.

Commentator Saliba Sarsar, who is Palestinian-American, describes his family's friendship with a Jewish family in Israel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Palestinian-American Tells of Jewish Friendship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While tensions between Israelis and Palestinians rise, a Palestinian-American shares his friendship with an Iraeli artist who introduced him to art and environmental design. They pray for a better tomorrow for Palestinians and Israelis, one that reclaims dignity and hope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid

# data[].attributes.body
This article was incredibly interesting to read and analyze as it correlated social media and its direct affects on our current democracy in a unique perspective. I agreed with many of Haidt's arguments including how extremist groups on social media platforms are very detrimental to our society by emphasizing cancel culture and forcing Americans to choose sides when it comes to our government. This photo I found is a good representation of Haidt's argument especially in regards to how social media is ripping apart our unity as a nation. The roots of our nation are now in the hands of social media and are slowly deteriorating our democracy. I especially found the article interesting when it discussed how many institutions censor all messages because they are afraid to receive backlash from extremist groups. This was an extremely eye opening conversation and one I had never realized but can agree is truly implemented in our society today. Everyone is afraid of what they post(in some situations lack of posting) on social media especially in regards to political views because of how divided our nation is. My one analysis against Haidt's argument is while social media can be harmful, it is also benefitting our society by bringing awareness to politics especially with the younger generations. Social media posts show these generations like GenZ how to be engaged with politics and teaches them to care about our government and the decisions that they make for our country. While I do agree that angry viral posts can be harmful, they can be helpful in keeping us engaged with our current situations. I also feel that while Haidt's argument is very accurate, his ideas would never be executed as social media platforms would never agree with his policies since they would be losing investments. Overall, I truly enjoyed reading this article as it changed my perception on certain social media aspects and made me understand the power our voices directly have on our government.