I will be using a new blog from now on. There will be some posts from this blog and the ‘Wheel of Time’ blog that represent my thoughts, opinions and well anything . The domain is www.ofsaidingandsaidar.edublogs.org

Genders… IN CARTOONS! I know u already checked the others but this one is short and intersting for me (I luv seeing how the kid’s networks portray different TOK thingys) so this is just for interest

As I searched T.V. (unconsciously) for T.O.K. subjects I found something very interesting in Cartoon Network. A new series “Johnny Test” seemed to be a remake of “Dexter’s Laboratory”, but with certain differences- the most striking being those of the different gender roles. In the original series the brilliant scientist was the small boy, and the annoying sister, working father, and stay at home mom made up the family. In the case of the new series the scientists are the sisters, and the rest of the family is made up of the annoying brother, working mother, and stay at home dad. The genders have been reversed! The mother works, and the sisters are the genius scientists!

I started wondering whether this is another sign of the advancement of the battle of the sexes in our society. Superficially it does seem to provide evidence for this progress, seeing as the mother is portrayed as the provider and the sisters as the prodegies. The story, however, revolves around the adventures of the boy who uses his sisters and their inventions only for his benefit. At times the sisters seem all to “submissive” for the progress to really stand out. One has to keep in mind that the targeted audience for the program must be for boys and not girls. Yet, the roles of the father and mother do see a lot of change. The father really does portray the role of what we originally call “housewife”- disciplining the children and constantly cooking for them, as well as cleaning the house and others. In the old series this job was done mainly by “Mom”, who was always there to serve her children’s needs. The mother on the other hand is always dressed in a women’s suite and is usually shown going to or getting from work and when it comes to money… well she’s in charge!

Unfortunately I do not watch the series everyday, but from what I have seen (despite the sisters’ actions) there is definetly some progress being made. The youngER generations are being presented with this unique oportunity, to be exposed to the different points of views- the possibility of a work at home father, and accepting this as normal. One of the problems with the battle of the sexes is that since we were small we were bombarded with the idea of the woman in the relationship to be the caregiver (at least in our society), while the father the provider. Now are kids are being bombarded with both points of view! yay

Journal #2 WARNING= bit of sarcasm and insolence… sorry

I don’t know if you’ve heard my question Andy Fletcher’s credibility… you probably have. During the question and answer session he informed us he was not a physicist, but rather an English major (and almost a Math major). Apparently he just randomly picked a book, “A Brief History of Time”, and decided he liked it- so kept on reading other physics books. As soon as I heard this his credibility just disappeared. How can an English major come and talk to us about General Relativity, Quantum Physics, Chaos Theory, String Theory? Or what’s worse how come WE fell for it, how is it that everyone in that Q&A was basically worshiping the guy?

After discussing this with Lissy and Ms. Leiva some interesting points came up:

1)      Scientific Authority

2)      Interpretation

3)      Purpose

4)      Fallacy

It was pretty clear that I had lost pretty much all the respect I had for the guy (I have to admit I was really disappointed because his presentation had appeared interesting), so Lissy and Ms. Leiva started questioning this. They pointed out several geniuses that never studied physics, but were able to come up with interesting theories and even painting related to physics. I admitted that they had a point, there are some people who do not need to be taught physics to understand the theories and concepts; but those are EXTREMELY rare cases. I cannot see another way to say this without sounding insolent… but I really doubt Andy Fletcher falls into those categories (he even said so himself- he repeatedly mentioned how he was not capable of really understanding much of the concepts). They also pointed out how even those with a Physics major made mistakes or simply did not comprehend it as well as someone without it could. Scientific authority does not really provide an assurance that what they claim to be is correct or accepted. The latter is especially important seeing as many scientists take different stands when it comes to controversial subjects, especially the different theories revolving around the theory of General Relativity and the field of Quantum Physics. These differences make the different arguments “right” or “wrong”, depending on the scientist you ask. The scientist with whom I talked with was in favor of Einstein’s ideas, and negated many of the “philosophy part of physics”, so there is obviously going to be contrast between his ideas and those of Andy Fletcher. Lissy and Ms. Leiva made valid arguments, scientific authority does not always = scientific truth, but it usually does (to an extent, as it was previously stated). Which is why I believed the physicist over Andy Fletcher, but that is another point.

The physicist I talked to was in favor of Eintein’s views of the universe (if you recall Einstein was against much of Bhor’s and Schrödinger’s ideas) so he gave me an interpretation which basically said no to everything that Fletcher had stated (uncertainty, and other weird theories). He did admit that many of the theories that Fletcher said where accepted by some, but are too farfetched. When I mentioned this Ms. Leiva and Lissy pointed out that there are different interpretations to experiments and theories. This is one point I had to give into, because it was reasonable (the theories Fletcher presented are accepted by many scientists) that each has their own interpretation.

Now the last two points sort of merge together, mainly because they said one point and I responded with another.  Ms. Leiva and Lissy (after a while of discussing) mentioned how it did not really matter he had no scientific authority because the point of the activity was to make us see how science, especially physics,  is not as concrete and safe as we thought. Fletcher did make us see how uncertain it really is, but through at least one fallacy (that I know of).  I explained one of the experiments that Fletcher showed us (the one where they shot electrons to a wall of lead and every once in a while an electron passed) and then the explanation he gave (“the electrons seemed to simply appear on the other side, did not pass through the lead or under or over it, it simply appeared on the other side”-Fletcher said something like that). One day later the physicist told me that Fletcher was wrong, he had explained the scientist’s observations incorrectly and then proceeded on telling me how the electron apparently did go through the lead and due to something called negative potential energy gained speed and reached the detector faster. What I really wanted to say is that: I understand the purpose of InterTok, which consists of showing us how uncertain science is. Yet, Fletcher achieves this by explaining and justifying concepts in an erroneous way. It is no longer a matter of scientific authority, he explained one experiment (that we know of) incorrectly. Not only that but he holds no physics degree. As I talked with some UWC students who were also disappointed by the fact that he was not a physicist, I heard someone mention how he was more of an “entertainer” rather than a lecturer. I don’t necessarily believe that you cannot entertain and lecture at the same time, but if one were to look at what he did you notice that he did not necessarily lecture, but rather entertained (this was not always the case). When someone asked on some clarification on what the String Theory is, he did not explain it at all. Rather talked about how physicist discarded anything that was complicated and ugly and preferred simple and beautiful theories. DOUBT IT But I am not really in a position to argue since I do not know much about physics (oh wait the same could be said about him). What I am trying to get to is that Andy Fletcher was not the right person for this activity, he is simply not qualified (and yea someone qualified= scientific authority and able to present both sides and interpretations of the different concepts).

Journal #1- Language in the Airport

I had the opportunity to go to the states during Easter week. After a six hour flight our connection was, of course, delayed so we had to wait one or two more hours for the plane to get to the airport we where in. Several of the passengers, including us, were worried about other connections we had (we were not sure if we were going to catch the next flight).  One of the passengers seemed to be really confused and lost, which I noticed when I saw her talking with my mom. My mom made me a “come here and help me signal”, so I went over to see what was going on. Apparently this young woman came from Portugal and had a connecting flight but did not know if she was going to make it. There was one problem; she did not speak English and hardly any Spanish.  She had no way of communicating with the people from the airline and had no idea what to do. When I got there she was trying very hard to speak to my mom in English, and the conversation (if it can be called that) was getting nowhere. This changed of course when she heard us speaking Spanish, she immediately switch over to Portuguese and started telling us her story.

She was from Brazil, but had gone to visit her sister in Portugal who had a kid. She had lived with them for a couple of years, but she met a friend of the family (American) and fell in love. During this conversation (which remember was, from her side, in Portuguese and, from our side, in Spanish) she used hand gestures (whether to point at something, make a figure, etc.) and photographs (she took out a photo album). Without these I could not have understood most of what she said. Yes, Portuguese and Spanish are quite similar, but you still need something else to comprehend everything.

This experience made me think on the question we never got to answer (and never will- I am only stating what language was in this situation… but more on that later), what is language? More specifically can language include bodily gestures (which many refuted) and photographs (which we never really called ‘language’)?

William Safire writes in the New York Times that “[t]ens of thousands of years ago — long before prehistoric humans were struck with the notion to attract one another’s attention using grunts, growls, hisses and whoops — they probably commenced communication with facial expressions and hand signals. The smile and the frown are still with us, and — like widened or narrowed eyes — are mood transmitters universally understood.” Safire makes a good point, our ways of communicating probably began with bodily gestures that were reinforced with noises such as “grunt, growls, hisses and woops”. These “facial expressions and hand signals” that Safire mentions were evident in my conversation, and as I mentioned before-essential. I remember specially one instance in which the gestures definitely helped.  She was talking about her niece’s birthday and kept saying the word “bolo”, I thought it was a toy (ball or something) but later on when I said “queque” (keep in mind she talked in Portuguese and I responded in Spanish) she asked what that was. I made the shape of a cake with my hands and started blowing (as if it had candles) and she said “oh, bolo”. It was not essential to the conversation, but it showed how gestures can communicate ideas that could not be by verbal communication. As for ‘non-hand gestures’ I remember how looking at the expressions her face was making was really important, almost essential, in comprehending/interpreting some of the things she was telling me. When she was talking about her niece or her boyfriend her face lit up and she smiled and laughed, her eyes almost shining-reflecting her mood. If I ever got lost (conversation-wise) all I needed to do was to look at the “mood transmitters” and I could tell whether she was bringing up another good memory, or rather sad because she had to go back to Brazil.

Can bodily gestures be considered part of language? (IN THIS CASE)

Yes, hand gestures are a definite yes (they might be misinterpreted but it doesn’t mean they do not have a purpose and/or are a way to convey a message) and other bodily gestures (made by a humans, since my “real-life-situation” is basically a conversation with another human) such as mood indicators are ways of reinforcing or further explaining a point or idea.

I am forced to admit, however, that Mario (I think it was him) had a good point when he said that bodily gestures are not universal forms of language, especially if we look at animals. Whether dogs wag their tales when they are happy purely out of instinct or as a way to show that they are happy, cannot be really proven. So one would have to look at individual cases and see if they do perform the function = language.

Tom Crocket and Tim Gangwer write in ARTSEDGE that “[p]hotography is a language. Like the written or spoken word, photography has its own vocabulary and its own grammar. Photography might be called an art of selection. A photographer works with a vocabulary made up of the visual elements that exist all around us. Anything we see can be a visual element.” They make a good point; a photographer transmits a message using “visual elements that exist all around us.” I have to admit that when she took her album and started showing me pictures of her sister, brother-in-law, niece, boyfriend and friends everything became a bit clearer. She definitely used the visual elements that were represented in the photograph to help explain her point. These helped especially when she was talking about her boyfriend, she was excited and talked really fast (reaaaallllyyy fast), it was not until I saw the pictures that I made the connection.

Can photographs be considered part of language? (IN THIS CASE)

I think that photographs were part of language in that conversation, they helped convey the message. Just because photographs are not conventional forms of communicating (in a conversation, because via newspapers, magazines and others they are obviously important if not integral)does not mean they are not a part of language.

I know I took a very safe position, because I kept my reflections tied up to the situation I was in, but the primary purpose of this is to show how the interpretation of what is language varies from person to person and from situation to situation. We saw this in our class, we could never really reach a definition we all agreed on. Of course we can’t really just give up and say we can never come to a conclusion, but rather try to judge different situations individually (there might not be absolutes but that does not mean there are not any answers).Yes I know it is obvious, but I always forget.

Bibliography

Crocket, Tom and Tim Gangwer. “The Language of Philosophy.” ARTSEDGE (2003).

Safire, William. “On Language- Signalese.” New York Times (2009).

Protected: Music and emotions, who would have thought?… me? Journal #2

THE CREATION (morals or religion?) Journal #1

We have had some heated discussion lately on the subject of religion. In one of these discussions I mentioned that I believed that somehow religion and morality are connected. I stated that this connection, a really long time ago, was strong enough that they were indistinguishable.

At first I believed that morals, and our ability to distinguish right from wrong, came to be because of religion. It made sense, because the morals and ethics of today have as a base the codes and morals of specific religions. The more basic ones, certainly, since new moral conflicts have divided many. But the more basic ones such as, do not kill, do not have affairs, do not steal, help others. Most of these basic morals have even been integrated into our laws, and it they have not into our society’s moral fabric. This integration can be observed throughout history, whether one focuses on the classic civilizations or those from the medieval period. During the infamous Inquisition in Spain, the ethical norm was to denounce any that did not follow the moral code, the law. Back in the classic civilizations one could see that the morals were established by those divine beings. They lived their lives, in the way they thought their gods would approve; because of fear that their gods would punish them, whether it was during their lives, or their afterlives.

Even to those civilizations that existed before the aforementioned ones, there are records that to some extent they revered a deity of some sort. Although the morals change throughout history there is something that is constant (at least before the past century), religion and morals are intricately connected, and by extension law.

An article posted on the NYT last year, titled “For Good Self-Control, Try Getting Religious About, where the author mentions a discovery made by Michael McCullough and a fellow psychologist from the University of Miami. Researchers have constantly found that “religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier.” Apparently it can all be related to the self-discipline that “religious institutions and behaviors” instill upon the people. This self-discipline enables them to focus on certain goals, as well as following what one might call certain moral rules of their religion. It was discovered that people that were brought up with religious WORDS such as “God” and “Bible” “were slower to recognize words associated with temptations (like drugs or premarital sex). This demonstrates that religion did not only exercise control through law, but also language. The control of this language, to some extent, prevents certain behaviors that are bad for people (such as drugs, and even premarital sex-which can spread sexual diseases). Someone of religious character or upbringing has probably fewer chances of falling into one of these temptations (which might include breaking a moral) than someone who is not of religious character. Some might argue that those of spiritual character should then have the same positive aspects of those of religious character. This is not the case, as those with spiritual character appeared to score low in “conscientiousness and self-control”. As stated before it is the self-discipline that religion teaches that makes the difference.

“Darwin’s God” mentions how we are hardwired to believe, some suggest that it might even be an evolutionary adaptation. It makes sense, at least from my perspective in which morals came to be because of religion. Without morals, there would be no guides, no laws, there would be anarchy (I am well aware that some might argue against this, but this is my opinion). Yes, religion is not the only way to impose self-discipline, there are various methods to achieve this. However, religion is perhaps the first way through which we were able to achieve this self-discipline; since it seems more likely that our ancestors would embrace explanation of the incomprehensible than “private meditation” as mentioned in the NYT’s article. “Darwin’s God” mentions that societies without a religion have not made it past three generations, I am not surprised.  How can a society live without a religion to back up those morals that bind our animal behaviors survive?

It is this question that made me reflect on which appeared first, which gave birth to the other, religion or morals. Did religion appear as an evolutionary response in order to bind some to a common belief? Would this religion eventually create the morals that would rule the lives of our ancestors? Or did morals appear first, and did the need to enforce them bring about religion? I believe that both theories are valid. The question itself, has become insignificant (at least for me), because either way the connection is no less meaningful, no less powerful.

Ethics… (our punishment)

What is the source of the sense of right and wrong? For moral beliefs, can one distinguish between the source and the justification, or are the two the same?

The source of what tells each individual what is right and wrong, depends much on their cultural, social, political and religious background, amongst others. The individual’s upbringing and experiences creates the person’s reality, and therefore it creates their concept of right and wrong. One is brought up to believe certain truths that one does not dare to question or reject. For example, we had a friend who was brought up in a very strict, conservative and extremely religious upbringing. The slightest indication of a “hickie” caused her family to go into a frenzy, and strongly reprimanded her. In a less conservative family, like ours, although such an event would be met with consequences, they would not be as severe as the case of our friend.  The difference in moral opinions is influenced by many factors, and they create a well defined moral line. This  is a line which limits the individual from committing certain actions, and it cannot be contradicted or unquestionable. If the line is crossed, a certain sense of guilt and remorse appears. 

Whether the moral beliefs have a justified origin or the source is hidden beneath individual upbringing, depends much on the situation.  One instance in which the justification and the source was discussed yesterday (in our discussion of photojournalism-specifically the case of Omayra). What many of us thought was that it was wrong to take the picture of this suffering young girl, however the photographer’s justification was different, since it allowed him to take the picture. This justification was to help other victims and bring awareness to the situation, despite the fact that he thought it was morally wrong, he took it so that world could be AWARE. Justifications and these sources might differ, but they are independent from each other.

How important are values (“principles”, “ideals”) in politics? Is politics primarily concerned with what is or what ought to be? Is it better for society if politicians are skilled in the workings of power, or if they have strong principles that govern their actions?

Values are of great importance in politics, since the politician has to lead a group of people based on their ideals. They find themselves in the presence of power, and if moral values are not present, the politician can unjustly and unfairly use that power. One would hope that the politician has very strong ethics, due to the positions they might find themselves in, as  well as the possibility to do wrong.  Furthermore, politicians must make many decisions, and in many cases easier ways can be taken to get things done. However a Politician must be obstinate in their beliefs. Still, some personal moral values must be broken and put on hold for the benefit of the country or the matter at hand.  Although such factors contradict each other, both are necessary. A politician must be firm in their beliefs; however to a certain extent they must be willing to put some down if the country is in dire need.  Politics is concerned with “what is” and “what ought to be” in favor of their  own beliefs. An example of  this is if a conservative leader is in power, he/she might fight for the elimination of abortion, because they feel that it  is what is correct and what ought to be. Politicians do indeed base their actions on what they feel is correct, however what does vary is their opinions.   In conclusion, politicians need to fight for what they believe is right, because such demonstrates passion and perseverance. However this must be balanced with the knowledge of governing and the interest of the people being represented.

Does ambiguity in ethics make it “weak knowledge”?

As the question mentions there is a lot of ambiguity in ethics, making it nearly impossible to arrive to a conclusion on a topic relating to ethics. Some of us believe that it is a weak knowledge because this ambiguity, despite the fact that it makes us question most things (if not all), makes it impossible to come to an answer one can be sure is the right one. If one can never come to a concrete answer or conclusion, then it is a weak knowledge. However, others argue that this is the case for other knowledge as well, because we are constantly being proven wrong in different areas. As an example one can view the scientific progresses, which change the knowledge we consider to be true every few years. History is also another area that has several unknown factors, since we are unable to know why certain things occurred. The reason why this ambiguity is more present in ethics is because the uncertainty and change in ideas can be seen almost immediately, whereas the ambiguity in the other knowledge takes longer to be evident.

We are not alone

I think it was two weeks ago that we went to HMUN… well, the thing is: Cata and I met some really cool people from Singapore in an activity for international students. It was pretty interesting seeing how we and people from different cultures interacted with them (and each other). It is not the first time I’ve watched a lot of culturally different people interact in one of these activities, but seeing as this is the most recent one (and when I was watching this I could not help but think that this is to Tokish) I decided to focus on this one. One of the predominant… feeling that I got while I saw this was amusement, because sometimes we can be so ignorant (like me… I’ll explain later) of a certain culture and/or the way to interact with them. A perfect example of this awkward interaction is the greeting part, in Latin America the greetings are usually warmer (in a way) and impersonal, for example it is not uncommon for complete strangers to say their goodbyes and give  a peck on the cheek or something of the sort. One of the people Cata and I met was from El Salvador and when she had to go and said goodbye to the Singaporeans (i have no idea how to call someone from Singapore…) she hugged them and left. What was funny was the way they reacted, the first one to be hugged had a look on her face that said (pardon my language) WTF followed by one of comprehension and almost an “oh”. The other guy also had a confused look on his face but was not caught unawares… I have no idea how the Singaporeans greet and say goodbye but these two did not do it by hugging a perfect stranger. Of course as soon as I noticed this I thought “she should not have hugged them… doesn’t she know that they have a different culture”… well seems I am not so knowledgable (karma -.-) because my stupid mouth, at one time, said “wow you speak english very fluently”. Of course I had no idea one of the national languages in Singapore = English. Ah… the ignorance And even though I had an inkling as to where Singapoe is, I could not point it in a map. (So much for knowing how to deal with people from other cultures huh?) This is just one of those cases were you find out that despite these occasions can provide some amusement, you gotta watch out or else you’ll end up being the one causing the amusement or in a very embarrasing or/and awkward position. Another awkward moment was when Catalina and I said goodbye… as soon as Catalina said goodbye I knew that something awkward was going to happen. Since they did not know the different “rules” of saying goodbye… Before I go on bear in mind there were two Singaporeans one male another female. Ok so Catalina said goddbye hugged them and then it was my turn, I hugged the F Singaporean and (”por costumbre”) started to give the M Singaporean a handshake, he of course thought that I was going to hug him so by the time he realized I was going to shake his hand he had his arms up and moving in for the hug. I felt so bad for him cause I could tell he was kind of wth… (”de lo que vi”)
OOO by the way, they were also taking IB and that TOK was one of the topics that made us talk with them and later go get something to eat together. Apparently we are not alone in the suffering… they are also clueless when it comes to TOK, they do not get it as well! Don’t take it the wrong way Lizzy but you know it IS a really difficult class, Catalina and I were simply glad that we are not alone

Sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes I am kind of tired… it’s like 1:30 a.m. and I had the worst night last night… (which accounts for my use of spanish words every once in a while)

Anime and Censorship Journal #2

 It is not mainly Cartoon Network the one realizing the censorship, but many companies that imports these Japanese. These censorships are done to get a hold of a particular audience, as well as to make the series understandable and Americanize them. In other words these censors are done so that the specific American culture of certain ages can see it and understand it. Many of these can be classified into different types of censors: political correctness, drugs and illicit substances, violence, death, weapons, nudity and sexuality. There are other censors that do not focus on whether it is ethical to include these characteristics in the series or not, these censors affect the plot and certain aspects of the series that will allow the viewers to identify and comprehend it.  Censorship of the anime a region that had a particular experience or understanding of a concept.

The censorship due to political correctness carries heavy weight when editing an episode or entire series. The coloring of people, religious implications, and references to WWII (for example) are some of the censorships done for political correctness. In the series “Pokemon” one of the pokemon called Jynx, was said to represent an African-American woman. Due to the controversy around this pokemon one of the series was not aired to the racial stereotyping. As seen below, the pokemon was actually changed from having black face to a purple face for future episodes.

  This episode was not banned in the Japan because in Japan there isn’t that much controversy with black people (African-Japanese- politically correct)when compared to that in the United States. The religious censorship is quite extensive in anime, very interestingly with the Sanskrit religious symbol manji. Controversy around this symbol is due to the fact that it is quite similar to the swastika, but their meaning could not have been more different. The manji is a symbol of good luck, power and strength, however the resemblance to the swastika caused those in charge of censoring the series have had to airbrush (erase) it in anime series such as: “Shaman King” and “Yu Yu Hakusho”. This act demonstrates even more the cultural differences, in this case with education. Since most of the Americans have been educated in the believe believe that any symbol similar to the swastika represents Nazism, while in most of the Asian countries the use of the manji was not banned at all. There are other examples where certain symbols have some religious significance in America but not in Japan, one of these symbols include the  use of the outline of a hexagram in the Yu-Gi-Oh! series. Hexagrams are often associated with occultism.

The left image shows the edited form, while the one in the right demonstrates the unedited form. This is another example of how symbols vary from culture to culture, not only in educational forms but religious as well/ There are other instances in which characters hanged from pieces of woods and books with the title “Bible”, monsters whose names come from religious origins have also been changed and at times the scenes or books “deleted” entirely. These changes in religious symbols and references also demonstrate how the religious characters of the Japanese and American cultures differ. In these censors religion, education and racial stereotypes have acted as filters in these exportation of anime from Japan to America. These filters have allowed for the Americans to watch the anime series without feeling insulted or uncomfortable, if these censors had not been imposed then the current reactions to the anime would not be there. These serve to prove the cultural, social and religious views affect the way different countries interpret symbols, characters and situations.

There are also certain taboos in a society that affect the censorship, especially when illicit substances or tobacco or alcohol. In this case we can observe a legal influence, besides the social taboos. The FCC has certain regulations that make networks airbrush certain uses of illicit substances. “Naruto” is one of the examples where the use of drinks is moderated. As an example, one of the characters is seen drinking under the bridge, the editors decrease the redness in the cheeks to reduce the effect of being drunk. There is another character that is also seen to drink several times (he is underage) to prevent any notion of underage drinking they changed the use of the word alcohol and substituted it with elixir. These two censors demonstrate how the American society rejects the idea of transmitting messages to the anime audience that is related to alcohol, and if it has to be present to “hide” it.  In “Dragon Ball Z” and other series such as “One Piece” smoking is completely airbrushed. This reflects specifically the social idea that smoking is unhealthy and children should not be exposed.

                Weapons, violence and blood is one of the aspects of anime that are more controlled by networks since in many cases the media effect theory is believed. The media effect theory states that people, especially during childhood, become desensitized to violence and violent acts. These censorships are know to make changes so that a direct hit from one character to another is seen. They do this by using bright colors or focusing in other areas. Weapons can sometimes be problematic when editing an episode or series, as an example we have “The Legend of Dratini”. In this episode of the Pokemon series, some of the characters have guns pointed at them, but no shots are fired. This demonstrates the sensitivity of the American society in respect with the gun control. The subject of death is quite sensitive, relating to the media effect theory (a social perception), therefore some series like “Naruto” or “Dragon Ball Z” where death was switched to something more sutil. Yet as the series progressed this attempt the references to death where more and more abundant, so they could not do anything. The cases with death provides one of the instance where censorship has not worked, served it purpose.

The profanity demonstrates aspect of the conspiracy of language, as well as the fact that some words do not exist in the other language.  Interestingly the Japanese language has no swear words, yet translations of certain words have resulted in the use of swear words to give the same message. One common example is the word “kuso” that means discontent, however when translated into English “shit” or “damn”  have to be used for the word to be strong enough. This relates to the example that we viewed in class that talked about how a man felt at a football game. He was not able to express the feeling with a word in English, yet in Japanese there is a word for it, “asai”, and similar to this case the translation into English is faulty.

There are two final social perceptions that are different in each country (Japan and the United Sates), nudity and sexuality. Unlike the Japanese, the United States frowns upon any nudity in the hentai or references to homosexual  or transsexual relationships and behavior. One clear example is the editing of the main character in “Zach Bell”, since in the Japanese released episodes the character is seen running around naked, while the American version has the character running around with underpants. There have been cases in Canada that some have become illegal due to the obscenity of these. Homosexuality is more tolerated in Japan, due to the cultural background of the country, where there are certain traditions that honor male relationships with strong “homoerotic tones”1. The social perceptions of having homosexuality related to sexual acts and the opposition to the exposure of this material to children in the U.S. results in several changes in some of the series. One such case is in “Cardcaptor Sakura”, where a homosexual relationship between two of the men was completely removed. Interesting to note that in this case there were no “homosexual behavior” that included any touching between them. The mere concept of a homosexual relationship was removed from the series as to not have the children exposed to it. Transsexual behavior is also deleted or even banned, as seen in the episode 18 of the Pokemon serie, “Beauty and the Beach”.  One of the male characters wears an inflatable suit that provides breasts so that he could compete in a bikini contest, the episode was first banned from the states and was aired later. The sensitivity of these three subjects show great differences between the two cultures, specifically with the fact that one culture views it to be normal, while the other is scandalized that some of the episodes should include one of these.

These cases of censorship general and change little over time since they are specific to the views of a culture, a society, and dominant religions. These cases have shown how different a culture can be, especially on their view of actions and symbols. Yet these are not all of the reasons to censor and ban certain series and episodes. Sometimes it is necessary to change some items in the original anime so that the viewer can identify with it. Some of this changes have to include changes in the setting, to make the setting more Americanized so that the American viewers can identify with it. Examples of this include small details such as changing the currency to dollars and the substitution of foods that are unknown to several Americans with an American food (Submarine Sandwich exchanged for the Onigiri).

Recently however, there has been an interest in the exotic Japanese culture, therefore titles, music and credits that were usually translated into English are now being left unedited.

There have been recalls and bans of certain episodes that occur mainly because of a certain disastrous event. One of these episodes includes one that caused seizures, blindness and loss of consciousness to Japanese children. This was an isolated incident of medical not social reasons. Some of the social reasons include the Chuetsu disaster which made the producers keep from airing an episode that resembled the earthquake. The SARS epidemic and the event following 9/11 also made the networks refrain from airing these episodes under certain titles such as: “The Tower of Terror” and “A Scare in the Air”. The disasters are reflected even in these series, one can observe the social implications and social changes in a society after a certain disaster.

As seen previously there are many changes in the anime series that are brought from Japan into the United States. With each anime series there are certain changes and modifications done to them, they have to pass through a variety of filters that will remove certain ideas and characters that are not suitable for the American society. In other words these censors work as moral filters, for some parts of the content are removed because they will not be accepted in the American society. These filters, at times, can change the nature of the messages. Take “Cardcaptors Sakura” which was an anime series destined for a female audience, the network changed the name to “Cardcaptors” and it was destined for a male audience. This is an example of how the American networks change at will the anime episodes to the theme and message that seems more marketable.

Pt.2 Reflect

As stated before the Cartoon Network is the network that has most of the anime series mentioned in the first part, we get the Americanized versions of the anime; in other word we get the American message. The message can sometimes be similar to those values that we appreciate here, however sometimes the messages are the opposite to the ideals that are part of the Costa Rican culture. In the series Pokemon one can usually see a moral message, be kind to your friends and work together. These aspects are like those that would be accepted in our society, however sometimes the characters experience certain events in a different manner. As an example, one of the main characters left home in with her Pokemon and had just participated in a tournament, she lost and called her mother. The mother replied in very stern tones that she was not to call her again, but to talk with her friends and Pokemon. That she had to learn to be independent. In Costa Rican society most of those who can afford to send their children to study abroad instill upon their children the importance of family and do not mean to completely separate themselves with their children, as a matter of fact most insist or hope that they will come back after they study instead of staying in another country.  I am aware that this is not true to all and there are cases were the opposite or simple no real message is instilled upon them. The example previously mentioned shows how this message went against some of our society’s, or perhaps group within a society (of those that send children to study abroad). The relevance of this example is that it shows how these Americanized anime series go against some of our ideals. Yes, one must consider that most cartoons in our country come from the outside, which is why these statements are much more important. The Costa Rican youth is being exposed to ideals that are not from our country. They are being bombarded by Japanese, American and European ideals and morals. This is one of our country’s cultural degradation that occurs due to the close contact between our country and others more developed and our inability to provide the same technological and economic resources that allow creations of simple cartoons. The more globalized our developing country becomes, the more diluted does our culture become. Our cultural values are at the whim of the developed countries. Think about this, if they can filter simple cartoons to fit their view on what is right and what is wrong what else have they filtered? This is part of the relevance of this journal, to demonstrate that these developed nations are controlling our views on what is right and what is wrong.

  I know you must be wondering what led me to write a journal about anime and censorship… well one of the cartoon network adds where the ones that got me thinking. They use the catchphrase “we do what we want” (follow the link to see one of the videos), the first times I saw the different adds I found them really creative, I still do (the ones I haven’t watched like ten thousand times), however at one point I just began thinking about how Cartoon Network is one of the main kid networks. In other words our country’s youth is watching Cartoon Network! They are being exposed to that very idea in the add. You have read what the anime is censored, yet in many cases this censorship just does not seem enough. One random day change the T.V. channel to this network. Try to look at an anime series, the ones that have characters with huge eyes and exagerated expressions (think Pokemo), and you will se how violent they are (some not all). Take “Naruto”, which was what made me write a journal on anime and consequently the censorship, they kill the characters and there is blood and everything. Are we supposed to let OUR youth watch that? What kind of perspectives will they acquire? Violence happens everyday? Violence is entertaining? NO, they should not be exposed to this material, the least they could do is play it at a later time say… midnight?

The Invasion

I recommend anyone who is clueless as to an idea on writing a TOK Journal to watch this movie released in 2007, starring Kidman and Craig. Great TOK material! You will not regret it.