Taylor D. sent in a link to a collection of vintage ads that includes this one:

From Vintage Ads:

Holly M. sent us this one:

NEW! Larry Harnisch, of The Daily Mirror, sent us this one:

The fact that these girls were considered “chubby” is only slightly more distressing than the fact that polyester blends were considered fashionable.

What do they call sizes for “larger” kids these days? I know they don’t say “chubby,” but I don’t think they use the “plus-size” term for kids–am I wrong? Is there a standard industry term?

Thanks to Captain Crab for letting me know about this fun 20-minute video by Annie Leonard called The Story of Stuff.  It it, using animation, she explains how “[f]rom its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad.”  Basically it’s about the externalized costs that allow us to get things for $1.99 at our local big-box store:

Found at The Story of Stuff.

NOTE: As several commenters have pointed out, this video is definitely a simplification–it is, after all, a very brief overview of an extremely complex process. The video still provides a fairly accurate portrayal of some concerns expressed by critics of globalization, despite the simplifications.

One commenter in particular argues that the statistics used in the video are flawed or even entirely made up. I really have no way to judge that one way or the other, not being an expert on this. At the website for The Story of Stuff, there are citations for all of the numbers used, so if you’re really interested in that, you might want to look more fully into where the data came from. Again, I can’t take a real stance here one way or the other because this isn’t my area of expertise; the data might be flawed, but the commenter doesn’t provide other data to contradict it. It might make for an interesting discussion on the use of data and why people with different views on globalization might use different numbers. You take students through it and ask “What’s useful here? What statistics might be inaccurate? Why might they be presented that way? Why is it possible to come up with statistics that say completely different things about the same issue?”

Click here for a discussion of how one Professor uses it in a Rhetoric and Writing class.

We used to have a post up about Milgram’s famous obedience study, in which he led people to think they were giving other participants electric shocks, including some that were supposedly at a fatal level. It’s often used as an example of unethical research, since some participants suffered mental distress because they thought they had seriously hurt or even killed someone. We took the original post down when the videos we linked to disappeared, but I just found another video of some footage. For some reason it won’t embed, but here’s a link.

UPDATE: The original footage has been taken down, but the BBC did a replication:

Captain Crab sent in a link to this story in the Mail Online about two girls who were kicked out of school for being “two blonde.” Here are the girls:

The girls claim the headmaster said they would be expelled “unless they dyed their hair brown.” He says he simply sent them home until they had it dyed, and that this is in accordance with the school’s dress code, which does not allow “unnatural” hair colors.

It brings up some interesting questions about “naturalness” and how we alter our bodies. Is an “unnatural” hair color any color that a human has never had without help from some type of chemical or other coloring agent? Or is “unnatural” a color other than what your hair would be if you didn’t dye it? Both of these girls dyed their hair colors that many women dye their hair and that some people do have “naturally,” that is, without bleaching it. Does the fact that they chose blonde have anything to do with the reaction? If they had dyed their hair black or auburn, would they have been sent home? I have no idea, I’m just wondering.

You could also use this story to discuss attempts to control kids at school through the use of uniforms, dress/appearance codes, etc., and the way kids always try to get around them, leading to constant renegotiations of what is acceptable and unacceptable between students and school authorities.

Thanks, Captain!

Mary T. sent in a photo she took of the cover of the Spanish (as in, from Spain) magazine Muy Interesante. It’s Not Safe for Work.

The text on the cover says, “Can we fall in love with an animal?” Notice the association between women of color and animals (is the animal we might fall in love with the leopard or her?), a very common theme. Black women in particular are often photographed either with animals (especially wild cats–tigers, leopards, etc.), posed in a cat-like stance making a snarling face, or in cheetah or other animal-print clothing. This ties in to beliefs that non-White women are often sexually aggressive “animals” in bed, unable to control their fierce sexuality (which could be both a turn-on and a threat, especially when it is connected to the idea that these women have large numbers of children with many men).

Thanks, Mary!

NOTE: A commenter says,

…it seems clear to me (based on the position of her hand and the text of the headline) that she is not being compared to the jaguar, the headline is asking if the bestiality being portrayed is possible or normal.

That may be true, but that doesn’t mean there’s not also an association between the woman and an animal going on. Among other things, bestiality is, according to research on sexual behaviors, more common among men; the decision to show a naked non-White woman in this pose, possibly having sex with an animal, is not a logical outcome of what we know about bestiality and who partakes in it but rather a choice to draw on various associations we make about sexuality and “savageness.”

Sabrina W. sent in this ad for an herbal toothpaste (from Thailand?), found at Sinosplice:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y7eg0REXZM[/youtube]

I don’t quite know what to make of it. I mean, in theory it would be a nice message that stereotypes are often extremely misleading. But “looks can be deceiving” applying to Black people? It’s not actually undermining the idea that Black men look scary (just like herbal toothpaste might look disgusting), it’s just that it turns out that in some cases, they’re actually nice, kind people! And presumably the toothpaste tastes better than it looks.

It’s interesting that the woman is afraid the Black man is going to hurt or maybe kidnap her child. In the U.S., I don’t think that’s usually the major concern–there’s the stereotype of Blacks as muggers, and women (particularly White women) often fear that they might be sexually aggressive, but I don’t think Black men are usually depicted as child molesters or kidnappers here–the stereotype of those groups is usually of middle-aged White men.

Thanks, Sabrina!

Leontine G. sent in this iconic image (found at Empire) of Spock and Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series, next to the actors who play those characters in the new version (a movie by J.J. Abrams):

Leontine says, “I have a vague feeling that actors and musicians are getting smoother and more plasticky looking,” and this image shows some of that. The Spock and Captain Kirk on the right are supposed to be younger than the ones on the left (the movie is a prequel, more or less), but it’s not just that the actors are younger. There’s clearly also irbrushing and make-up used to erase any lines, blemishes or other “imperfections” on their faces (and either New Spock’s shirt fits perfectly, or they airbrushed out most of the wrinkles).

You might use this to talk about changing standards of beauty in the visual media. If the original Star Trek came out today, how much retouching would they do to the picture of Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner? Maybe the photo would still show them with as many wrinkles and facial lines as they have…but I’m doubtful.

For another example of how TV standards of changed (in this case, how much sexual activity is shown on teen-oriented shows),  see this post about the old and new versions of Beverly Hills, 90210.

D. Cho sent in these t-shirts, which make fun of Asians who speak accented English:

Found here. The buck teeth, squinty eyes, and hat are a nice touch.

Found here.

The face on this one is supposed to be Kim Jong Il, and I believe the “Oh Reary?” references the movie “Team America, World Police,” though I bet a lot of people won’t get the reference and will think it just makes fun of how Asians supposedly speak:

This one (found here) might appeal to the man in your life you enjoys sex tourism to Thailand, if you’re looking for gift ideas:

This photo is interesting because they put the t-shirt that has a camel on it (and that plays on the derogatory term “camel jockey” often used for Middle Easterners) on a model who I think we are supposed to view as Middle Eastern–not quite the ethnic diversity in models that I’ve hoped for:

Why he is wearing four shirts, I do not know.

You might use them to talk about stereotypes and racial humor, or why people never tire of t-shirts with tired puns on them.