Following up on a post I put up last month about World War II internment camps for Japanese Americans, reader Eduardo let us know about a short film distributed by the federal Office of War Information explaining why the camps were necessary and trying to portray them in a positive light. It’s a great example of propaganda. Notice at about 2:45 the narrator explains the change from voluntarily to required relocation of Japanese Americans in terms of their own protection, and at 3:20 mentions that those forced to relocate “cheerfully” took part in the process. It was such a happy, smooth process, with the federal government helping out!

The implication starting at about 4:00 that “loyal” Japanese Americans were happy to relocate as part of their patriotic duty is particularly striking. Presumably, then, if you objected to the violation of your civil rights and treatment as a potential enemy of your country, you proved exactly why you needed to be relocated.

But don’t worry. “We are protecting ourselves without violating the principles of Christian decency.”

Captain Crab sent us an article by David Johnston in the Willamette Week that looks at changes in income inequality in the U.S. since 1950.Based on an analysis of research by Saez and Piketty (2007, with updated 2008 data available at Saez’s website–the first entry under “Income and Wealth Inequality”), Johnston calculated changes in income for various income percentiles in the U.S. Between 1950 and 1980, the bottom 90% of income earners saw their incomes increase by 75% (a gain of $13,222), a rate higher than or comparable to the highest income groups. However, between 1980 and 2008, incomes of the bottom 90% has largely stagnated, while the incomes of the super rich have soared (all data in constant 2008 dollars, adjusted for inflation):

As a result the difference between the median wage and the mean wage has widened (data from the Social Security Medicare Database):

Johnston also includes data on changes in corporate income tax rates, based on IRS data. The actual tax rate — how much corporations pay after various loopholes and tax breaks — fell between 2000 and 2008:

On a similar topic, Deeb K. sent in a link to images at Think Progress showing the actual tax rate of the 400 richest Americans between 1995 and 2007, based on IRS data. During that period, the effective tax rate of this group fell by 13 percentage points:

Their incomes, on the other hand, jumped significantly:

Also see my recent post on various illustrations of inequality in the U.S.

Sangyoub Park, who teaches sociology at Washburn University, sent us an interesting article posted by NPR on various aspects of unemployment. The overall official unemployment rate of 8.8 percent (as of March 2011) hides a lot of variation. For instance, the unemployment rate during this recession has been consistently worse for men than for women:

Nearly half of people have been out of work for at least 6 months:

The unemployment rate for those with a college education is under 5%, while for those who didn’t graduate high school, it’s nearly 10 percentage points higher:

Check out the NPR story for more discussion and a few more graphs.

The NPR article doesn’t include data on race, but Sangyoub found some racial data at the BLS website. As of March 2011, the unemployment rate for Whites was 7.9%, while for Blacks it was 15.5%.

Yvette, Kari B., and Yet Another Girl all sent in links to articles about Dove Ultimate Go Sleeveless deodorant. The campaign for the deodorant focuses on the fact that it supposedly makes your armpits look better. Here’s one commercial (via The Consumerist; it’s not the best illustration of how much Dove is pushing the attractiveness angle, but it’s the only commercial from this ad campaign I could find):

According to research cited on Dove’s website, 93% of women think their underarms are unattractive and thus may refuse to wear sleeveless clothing.

Libby Copeland at Slate sums up what’s going on here:

Dove’s empowerment-via-shame marketing approach for Go Sleeveless has its roots in advertising techniques that gained popularity in the 1920s: a) pinpoint a problem, perhaps one consumers didn’t even know they had; b) exacerbate anxiety around the problem; c) sell the cure.

Ladies, it’s not enough to shave and deodorize your underarms. They need even more prettification than they’ve been getting. How this deodorant does that, I don’t know. But it does. You’re welcome.

Stephen Colbert discussed Dove and advertising based on insecurities recently:

Elyse Mc.D. sent in this graphic based on data from the Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality that summarizes a number of aspects of inequality.

You can get a larger version here. I took screencaps of three of the figures I found most striking:

Via.

Ilysse W. sent in a link to a story about a recent response to homophobia at a men’s volleyball match in Brazil, which she thought was particularly interesting given L.A. Lakers star Kobe Bryant’s recent homophobic outburst at a game and the conversations it has sparked about homophobia in sports. Bryant has been in the news for apparently calling a referee a “fucking faggot” (video at TMZ). The NBA has fined him $100,000, though Bryant says he will appeal the fine and that his words shouldn’t be “taken literally” (via ESPN):

The concern that I have is for those that follow what I say and are inspired by how I play or look to me as a role model or whatever it is, for them not to take what is said as a message of hate or a license to degrade or embarrass or tease. That’s something I don’t want to see happen. It’s important for me to talk about that issue because it’s OK to be who you are, and I don’t want this issue to be a part of something or to magnify something that shouldn’t be.

At a recent men’s volleyball match in Brazil, members of the crowd chanted “bicha”, the equivalent of “faggot,” at a gay player:

Afterward, due to media scrutiny, the player, Michael, publicly acknowledged that he is gay.

In a gesture of solidarity, at the team’s next match, the players wore pink warmup shirts, and one wore a rainbow-colored jersey:

A banner was unfurled in the stadium that said Vôlei Futuro Against Prejudice, and fans held up pink thundersticks (noisemakers) with Michael’s name on them in support:

(Images via Asterisk.)

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the Lakers say they are teaming with GLAAD to try to eliminate homophobic slurs in basketball. I suspect they’ve got plenty of work to do.

Alli sent us a link to a vintage ad posted at BoingBoing that reminds us, in the wake of the Abercrombie Kids push-up bikini top fiasco, that encouraging young girls to act like adult women, including wearing lingerie, isn’t a brand-new phenomenon. The ad, from 1959, offers bra and panties set for girls sizes 2-12:

Initially posted by Mitch O’Connell.

I wonder how this ad would have been perceived in 1959. Creepy? Just an example of harmless childhood mimicking of adults? How do we draw the line between the two?

Sonita M. sent in a link to an image at GOOD that shows the makeup of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives now in terms of various characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, political party, religion) and what it would look like if its members were more demographically representative of the U.S. population as a whole:

As they point out in the accompanying article, however, the area where Congress most differs from the U.S. population as a whole is in terms of socioeconomic status. The average wealth of members of Congress, according to OpenSecrets.org (they don’t specify if it’s the mean or the median, so I presume it’s the mean):

For the U.S. as a whole, median wealth was $96,000 in 2009 (the mean was $481,000), according to the Federal Reserve (via CNNMoney).