Cam’Ron, “Hey Ma”

 

Choose three out of the eleven videos posted below — or you may pick one of your own choosing and two from the list below — and depending on what is depicted in each video, analyze how race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or age are signified and depicted. What signs are used, for example, to signify an individual or groups of people? Be sure to distinguish between the signifier and what you think is signified. How do the camera angles or movements work to convey values, attitudes, and the intent of the video? Do the videos contain negative stereotypes, objectify people, or challenge stereotypes and objectification.

Also, there has been a great deal of debate recently about the problems of cultural appropriation–the often inappropriate act of borrowing or stealing elements of another culture, typically by members of another and more dominant culture, and twisting using them to your own ends. Cultural appropriation uses the objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that doesn’t respect their original meaning, give credit to their source, or reinforces stereotypes. (There’s a video posted below as well about this.) Do you think any of the videos you chose have done this and if so, what is your reaction? How do you think the pleasure of the music, including the lyrics, might shape one’s reactions to the visual depictions, in finding them stereotypical or not? And what might be some of the consequences of the representations in the videos you chose?

Videos to choose from:

Michael Jackson, “Black or White”

Coldplay, “Princess of China”

Avril Lavigne, “Hello Kitty”

Duran Duran, “Hungry Like the Wolf”

Cam’Ron, “Hey Ma”

Twisted Sister, “We’re Not Gonna Take It”

Miley Cyrus, “We Can’t Stop”

Ariana Grande, “Seven Rings”

Lizzo ft. Cardi B, “Rumors”

Breland, “My Truck”

Harry Styles, “Watermelon Sugar”

Video on cultural appropriation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEMVEmeubk (Links to an external site.)
Loading media…
Minimize embedded content

Sample Solution

There are north of 7,000,000 individuals in clinics in the United States alone (Statista). The cutting edge innovation today has permitted a significant number of those in the clinical business to fiddle, restore, and broaden a patient’s life; these practices have saved huge number of individuals, who are experiencing sicknesses. With this power, comes numerous debates on whether or not a few practices ought to be proceeded. The most common way of “passing on calmly” results from a deadly infusion that quickly kills the patient without affliction; prevalently known as willful extermination, leniency killing, helped self destruction, or the freedoms to kick the bucket (Wolf). “Killing is the latent structure (orthanasia) as acknowledgment of the desire of God has been acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church which has characterized it as inaction or oversight which without anyone else on through its expectation causes passing” (Diaconescu 476). The term killing, starts from the Greek expressions “eu”, meaning great, and “thanatos”, meaning demise (Wise 9). Killing is accepted to have been available for a really long time and to have been utilized by humankind from a few ages before the twenty-first-century breed (Diaconescu 476). The choice for willful extermination is helpful for patients to stay away from superfluous misery, monetary and social crisises.

The most established development to authorize willful extermination was in 1835, where individuals from an established gathering in England requested the recompense of leniency killing (Diaconescu 476). Helped self destruction was believed to be utilized oftentimes by the Germans in mid 1933-1945; Germans would explore different avenues regarding clinical synthetic compounds with various a large number of insane patients (Diaconescu 476). The act of willful extermination was brought into center in 1976 (Diaconescu 476). Swiss Academy, in 1777, permitted a patient’s medicine to be taken out and permit nature to kill them; notwithstanding, Pope Pius XII contends that willful extermination might be performed on the off chance that a patient’s wellbeing isn’t improving at the smallest (Diaconescu 476). “Killing was safeguarded by popular characters, for example, Voltaire, Th. More, Fr. Bacon, D. Hurne, B. Shaw, B. Russel, Nobel, and these days by an incredible number of Nobel laureates” (Diaconescu 477). Columbia was the principal American country to permit the act of leniency killing in 1997 (Diaconescu 476). A notable doctor who utilized the strategy for benevolence killing was Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who claimed a self destruction machine to play out his casualty’s passings (Marzili 11). Dr. Kevokian’s self destruction machine performed by infusing or breathing in synthetics into the body of the patient to stop the heart; Janet Adkins, Marjorie Wantz, and Sherry Miller were casualties of Kevordian’s machine (Marzili 11). Dr. Kevordian was condemned to jail after a sum of one hundred thirty counts of homicide with his self destruction machine on March sixth of 1999 (Diaconescu 476). A later report made by James Eglinton, from the University of Edinburgh, stated “Messenger” from a Newspaper that referenced David Goodall, an Australian man, who was one hundred four preceding he decided to take a deadly infusion to take his life; he was not in critical condition yet thought it was his opportunity to leave the world (Gale Global Issues). Today, numerous regulations forbid the demonstration of orthanasia and doctors who are blamed for playing out the training can be brought into addressing (Diaconescu 476).

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.