A Good Slogan Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

      Recently our teacher in American Studies presented a power point about the Civil Rights Movement. I was shocked to find out that an organization started back then with the name of the United Negro College Fund had kept its same name today. I figured that they would have obviously changed their name to be more politically correct. Just like how my mom always tells me that I can no longer call being stewards, they are now flight attendants. Or more seriously, the change from derogatory terms such as queer being used to describe homosexuals to gay. This brought me to the question of why did UNCF not change their name to something else?

      I found a great article that helped me to understand the reasoning behind the name staying the same. If you'd like to read the full article you can find it by clicking HERE. It explained how the name UNCF was a well recognized name and various attempts to change it to other things such as the "College Fund" were unsuccessful. The change was too confusing for a lot of people and simply did not stick. Another point brought up was that acceptable terms keep changing, so it would be difficult to change it every time. The president of UNCF said that when the company first started he "thought of himself as a Negro"and as times has gone by that has changed to "black"and then "African-American."

      However the organization is making efforts to take attention away from the title, instead choosing to focus on its slogan, "A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste." They have remade their logo so that it no longer states what UNCF stands for and just allows the slogan to do the work of explaining what the organizations believes in. I think this is a good compromise, allowing the familiar letters to remain the same and still being able to send out a positive message.

Do you think this shift in logo is sufficient enough of a change? Why or why not? What else do you think UNCF could do in order to stay politically correct?

Opera Vs Musical

      This past week I went to go see the opera "Showboat" with my chorus class at the Lyric Opera of Chicago. I had never seen an opera before, only musicals, so I was interested to see if they were as dry and boring as I'd been led to believe. I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed the show and I did not see how it was any different from a musical besides the fact that they had a giant screen for the superscript with the lyrics (even though they were singing in english, I was very appreciative of that). However, upon further research I found that Show Boat is considered a musical, but then I was confused why an opera house would do a musical. This lead me to try and figure out what truly is the difference between musicals and operas?

      I found an article that was trying to define the line between the two genres of shows. If you'd like to read the full article you can check it out by clicking HERE. Basically, the article talked about how many people have tried to make crossovers and combine both genres, with little success. The author attributes this to the fact that "these genres are too close for comfort. The differences, though slight, are crucial." I guess I can understand that there are many similarities because both use musical numbers to explore an often very dramatic story. I thought it was curious that the author defined the difference as "in opera, music is the driving force; in musical theater, words come first." At first I did not understand this analysis because I thought they meant that the dialogue in musicals was more important than the music, which is not the case. However, as I read more I realized the author meant that they lyrics to the songs are more important in telling the story line in musicals than they are in operas. I thought this was very true since operas are often done in different languages, so the way you understand the story line is by the mood the songs portray. Though the difference is very slight, I do think it makes combining the two genres nearly impossible.
      If you know more specifically the difference between the two I'd love to find out more!

Do you think combining the two genres is impossible? Are there more specific differences between the two genres?

      

"Color Blind" Casting

      In theatre class this week our teacher brought up the subject of colorblind casting. I'd never heard the term before and was quite interested in the topic when she brought it up. Basically colorblind casting is when a director casts a show with actors that might not have the same ethnicity as the production normally contains. The idea is that they can try to have more integrated casts and give actors more opportunities usually denied to them because of race. 

      At first, this seemed like a great thing to me, but my teacher had mixed opinions on it. She thought that the term "colorblind" had a poor connotation to it. It meant that you would pretend to not see, or ignore someones race, but in truth you can't do that. Why would you ignore part of a person? She thought it was better to be conscious of someone's race, accept it, and work with it to improve the production. 

       I read an article from awhile back that discussed some of the pros and cons of color blind casting. Click HERE to read the article.  

      The article brought up the issue of white people playing roles traditionally played by black people. For instance, in the show Showboat there is a black that sings the well-known song Ol' Man River. Some would argue that the song would not have the same affect if it was sung by a white man. Another example would be the show Ragtime. The show is centered around a black man, Coalhouse Walker Jr. and his black wife, Sarah. Coalhouse's car gets trashed by a bunch of white males because they are mad at him for being successful black man. His wife is also killed because of misunderstandings based upon her race. There is also a subplot about an immigrant and his small daughter. The show is a marvelous commentary on American and it's treatment of minorities. However, the entire plot is centered around problems based upon their race. A white man could not possibly play the part of Coalhouse, the story wouldn't make sense.

      Where do we draw the line then? An equally qualified white male could wish to play the role of Coalhouse but he will be turned down because of the color of his skin. I don't think color blind casting is necessarily a completely good or bad thing. 

When is color blind casting appropriate? Do you think there are limitations on color blind casting? If so, what?

Oh Bother!

      This week while I was babysitting I took the kid I was looking after to the library because there was a showing of the new Winnie the Pooh movie. Although the movie was entertaining and it was fun to watch part of my childhood come to life again, I was a little discomforted by some parts of the film. I noticed that there was a lot of misspelled words throughout the film. If you click HERE you can watch a short clip from the film where there are two examples of misspelled words.

      In the clip, they misspell the word tail, writing it instead as "tael" as well as honey being spelled "hunny." For adults, I think this misspelling is found somewhat adorable. People remember the years when they used to spell things in silly different ways simply because they didn't know any better. However, for children I do not think it is a good idea to have these errors. Although at some level it allows kids to connect with the characters, show them that the characters they love also have problems with reading and writing just like them. It's important for kids to be able to relate and see that they're not alone if they are struggling to learn how to read and write.
      However I think that this could possibly harm the kids developmentally. They do not know any better and just trust the TV shows and things they see around them. These incorrect spellings are reinforced in what they watch every time their beloved pooh bear is eating some "hunny." They learn how to spell one way and then have to be corrected, which can be frustrating and confusing. They continually see the cartoon figures they trust telling them one thing and then their parents and teachers are telling them another.
      I don't think its acceptable for films that children watch be allowed to intentionally misspell words because it could harm the children's development.

What effect do you think TV has on children? Do you think children understand the spelling is flawed or do they take it as truth?