Nanny Culture: A Racial Trend?

Ellen Jacobs Photography

Driving to school the other day, I saw an interesting site. A "nanny brigade", as my dad, a fellow witness, noted, was crossing the street in route to the local park. A group of about five middle aged women of color were pushing strollers filled with tots. This got me thinking about the nanny culture in America. It seems that in my neighborhood many white families hire either Hispanic or African-American caretakers for their families. I wondered if this was a national trend or a localized phenomenon. I got input on this query by reading "Ms. Melting-pot's" blog post on nannies in America.

The author told a personal story in one of her posts of a time when two of her relatives, one white and one colored, took their newborn niece with them to lunch. The women were approached by a fellow patron of the restaurant: a 3-year old girl. The little girl turned to the colored women and quickly asked "Are you her babysitter." 

What the blogger found interesting, as do I, was the fact that the small child was so used to seeing women of color caring for a child that it comes naturally for her to assume that the colored women was the hired help to the white women, and not the other way around. The author claims that this is due to the "global assumption that women of color are the caretakers of White children." It now seemed to me that this phenomenon existed outside of my community, and this blogger went even further in claiming that this is a global assumption.

         For me, this recalled the movie "The Help." Which looked at the dynamic of African-American nannies in the south during the early 1960's. A similar dynamic which I observed driving to school the other day, "Ms. Melting Pot" observed through a personal experience, and that New York City photographer Ellen Jacobs captured through her recent photo series (one is shown here) "Black Nannies/White Children." 

I would make the argument that as far as locally and nationally, this phenomenon of colored nannies and white children exits, although I am unsure about the global aspect. Do you agree?

Religion or Competition at The Water Cooler?

Wednesday marked the beginning of a religious time in the Christian church called "Lent", a time known to be one of the holiest of the year according to the Christian calendar. During the 40 day span in early spring leading up to Easter, Christians are supposed to "give up" an item in their lives. And while many of the lent participants are devoted Christians, what I find interesting is the amount of participation for the event from the non-religious alike.  A blogger for Metro puts it that "Although part of Christian tradition, religion doesn’t come into it for many these days, with the practice of giving something up for 40 days having evolved into a general office-based will power competition." 

A Jewish friend of mine informed me on her aspirations to go until Easter without eating any chocolate. Despite the deep Christian roots, many non-religious participate in the event, focusing on the time as just another challenge. Like the article mentioned, an "office-based will power competition" is what many see lent to be. As I see it, whoever can really restrain from M&M's or cut back on the coffee for a whopping 40 days has a new thing they can brag about around the water cooler. I suspect there are many other things that people to equip themselves with things to speak on at the "water cooler", such as parents to pushing their children in school and sports for more "bragging material". What other things do you think that Americans put themselves to in spite of better bragging material about their own and their families achievements? Do you agree that Lent has become a time for people to try to do a little something to show up their co-workers? 

Blame it on the Label?

While sitting at the counter in my kitchen this morning enjoying a bowl of my favorite Honey-Nut Cheerios, I overheard the voice of a familiar newscaster in the other room. The reporter noted on what apparently has been a hot topic in the news the past day, new requirements regarding food labels to help cure America's obesity epidemic. This made me think. Is America's obesity problem the responsibility of the box's label? Further research lead me to learn that starting in a few years, food labels will become less "cluttered" and "more user-friendly" says NPR. Among many things that the new food labels will aim to change, one thing in particular that struck me is the new serving sizes. The article suggests that the serving sizes listed on packages have "long been misleading, with many single-serving packages listing themselves as multiple servings, so the calorie count appears lower." Noting that the new serving sizes would be more realistic for what people eat. 

I looked at the food label on the brightly colored box of Cheerios. It read that the current serving was 1 cup for 120 calories. But who are we kidding, no one can simply just eat one cup of Cheerios. I looked at my bowl thinking that maybe the new food labels would be better. If the box actually suggested a realistic serving, cereal lovers like myself could see the real facts on the amounts that they were actually consuming. 

Michelle Obama advocated for these new food labels to fight obesity in America. While I agree that making more realistic serving sizes can help consumers understand how many calories they are really ingesting, I began to wonder if just by doing this people would really eat less? To me, regardless of what the box says, I feel as if I would eat the same amount of Cheerios wether or not the serving size was one cup, or two cups. It seems to me that obesity is caused more by people's personal decisions on how much they eat, rather than mislabeling. What do you think? Are we just blaming our problems on labeling when really we are the only ones who can cure the epidemic?

 

Processed Culture?

         With what seems like the majority of the country enduring a record breaking cold winter, it is prime time for advertising industries to hit their cold, pale and worn-down customers with ads of beautiful white sand beaches and sunny blue skies. One of these ads that particularly made me ready to jump on a plane to the nearest port of call was one for a Caribbean cruise. Although I have never been on a cruise myself; I know that it is a huge industry, so I did some digging o One contributor, William Chalmers, to the Huffington Post thought critically about the of the genuineness that the cruise experience provided and posed the question, is this really traveling? He argued that "Cruise ship lines have turned travel into nothing more than just another shopping-spree experience aboard a floating hotel. Is a four-hour port visit (aka tourism villages) on a guided prepackaged highly sanitized outing through restored historical districts with processed on-demand culture."

He brought up an interesting point I had never really thought about. Are cruisers, and people on prepackaged travel tours really experiencing the countries they visit? Or
are they only experiencing, as Chalmers puts it, "processed culture". I feel like these travel companies do put these kinds of trips through some sort of filter. The people who work for the travel agency have to specifically pick which sites to see, and which to leave out. By choosing which ones they want to include in their tour, they are filtering what the travelers see and ultimately think about a certain location. Most of the time, as Chalmers notes in his articles, the sites that the tourists are led to are very manufactured. Places that are made for tourists, and not raw cultural experiences. 

With this said, I still believe that taking cruises and other packaged tours is a very meaningful experience. Touring places that are filtered by a travel company still gives the traveler more experience in another country than they would have had at home, but I think it necessary that the traveler understand that their tour may not immerse them in the true culture of a country in the way that they originally thought. 

Repeating History?

           The use of chemical weapons in Syria caused a huge out roar in 2013. It was one of the hottest topics during the year. And while our government has made other issues more public lately, the topic of Syria still lies unresolved. The other day I came across an interesting article on foxnews.com. The article immediately grabbed my attention by its pretty "to the point" title, "Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval."  The article states that "The White House again has decided it does not need Congress’s blessing to bomb targets in Syria related to the chemical weapons attack."

           Recently in my American Studies class, we have been studying past wars and conflicts in American history. One war in particular that fascinated me was the Vietnam war, not actually a war at all. That is because congress didn't actually declare war. The article reminds us that Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution gives only congress the power to officially declare war. However, during Vietnam the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave the president power to put troops in Vietnam. Some considered this the president declaring war, but technically this is not an official war because it was not declared by congress. Giving the executive branch the power to send troops to occupy an area, and carry out basically a war, was a very controversial thing. Millions of opposers nationwide gathered in anti-war rallies and unions across the nation (as shown in the video here). 

            The Vietnam war incident seems to sum up perfectly the public opposition caused when the government invests all power to take military action in the excessive branch. It seems odd that after such reaction before, now the government is giving Obama the power to do the same. To me, it seems odd that what so many people opposed before, could happen again. What if Obama was to start an unofficial war in Syria? I would argue that we would see such violent protests as during the Vietnam war. I wonder if our government, or Americans in general, really take history in account when making decisions. Or, if they choose to focus on certain successes and forget about some of the bad associated with it. What do you think? Do Americans really learn from their history? 

 

Have You Heard About It?

This week I was overjoyed when I was the first "like" on a Humans of New York Instagram post. With a screenshot proving that I, in fact, was the first like, I bragged to many of my friends and classmates about this amazing feat. For those of you who haven't heard of Humans of New York, I urge you to check it out, because it is truely amazing. 

  A few years back a man named Brandon moved to New York as a photographer, without much money and being unemployed, Brandon decided to start taking photos of random people on the streets of New York. As time went on, he began to ask the people simple but provoking questions, and turned their responses into the caption of the photo he took of them. Using these photos and quote captions, he began to publish them to Facebook, Tumbler, and Instagram, and compiling them into a book. Now with over 470,000 followers on Instagram, and 2.8 million likes on Facebook, Humans of New York has really become a trend.

 What really attracts me to the page, and what others say attracts them as well, is that the quotes are so intriguing but come from such everyday looking people. A man sipping casually on a coke in a restaurant after he has just been heartbroken. Or an young boy who admits that to him, grown-ups are grumpy. It reminds me, and all Humans of New York followers alike, that everyone has a story. And while you may just pass hundreds of these people on the street, some of the most ordinary people can say the most extraordinary things. 

Humans of New York Photographer, Brandon

          I believe that the blog and the success of the blog in general revel many things about American culture. The fact America is so fascinated by the words of everyday people shows how much we like to hear from others, maybe this is because when we listen to others' stories, we connect with them and feel like we can relate. Or maybe there is another reason why people are so intrigued by such a blog. What do you think is so fascinating to the American public about such a blog? What does the name of the blog do for your understanding of the blog in general? 

America's Favorite Genre?

Being a huge country music fan myself, I was happily surprised to see that in a poll taken by the NDP group country music was selected as "America's favorite genre" in 2012. While this was just one poll done, I think that the results may be telling us something. And of course I am bias to the wonderful genre of country, but maybe the poll revels something deeper, perhaps about what makes country music so appealing. It is the lyrics of everyday rural farm-boys loving life, and upbeat simple tunes prove to appeal to me, and I hypothesis that this is the same thing that allures other Americans as well. 

       The NDP group claims in their article that "Country music has become America’s favorite genre, mostly because of its diversity and the accessibility of its artists to young and old alike." While I agree with this statement, I think it is also really interesting to consider classic American stereotypes. Apple pie, farm boys driving Chevy trucks, "Main Street" USA, all things that people think about when picturing the US, and also the things primarily sung about in country music. I find an interesting parallel between these two. Is it the "diversity in artists" that makes country music so popular? Is it the way it fits into so many stereotypes? Or do you disagree with the survey in the first place and feel that country music is not America's favorite genre. Or maybe you think that since this survey was taken in 2012, things have changed. Please comment below with your thoughts.