Hello everyone. I have been kept busy with the Snacking
Otaku (and other reasons), hence the lack of posts this year. I have not
abandoned this blog. It’s just I had to prioritise other things.
The reason for writing this post is this.
Back in 2018 I had the idea of making a dictionary of memes.
Soon afterward I bought an external hard drive and began collecting research
material. It has been neglected a bit, but I was expecting this project to be a
dip-in dip-out thing anyway. Originally, I planned to make it a book, but
recently I had a thought. Maybe I should publish this dictionary as a blog, in
the similar style to the Snacking Otaku. As of now, no entry is complete let,
so don’t expect anything any time soon. In fact, I was thinking of making it an
online depository for notes. But this incompleteness gave me another idea. What
if I made two versions of the dictionary? A “fixed” official one (written by
me) and a wiki version people can contribute. And if someone adds something
interesting it gets added to the official one.
This is all for off into the future … if you want me to do
so. That is why I’m posting this. I want your opinions on this project.
But I want to address something about this project. This
project explores ALL ASPECTS of culture. Not just the obvious stuff, like
music, literature and paintings. I’m exploring everything – architecture,
fashion, graffiti, linguistics, gardening, product design, baking, knitting,
sport, pornography etc.
That last example touches something I need to address about
this project. It will involve subjects that are taboo. The kind of things most
people are embarrassed or ashamed to acknowledge happens in their culture. But
you can’t have a full picture of a culture without exploring these subjects.
Its like writing about 18th century Europe and only talking about
royalty and aristocrats. It’s a nice cultured story, but it leaves out a lot of
information to build context, such as how dependent they were on servants or
how some made their fortunes through African slaves.
Talking about taboos is tricky. Not only because of their artificially-created
nature, but also the fact that taboos are not a fixed constant through space
and time. This is something many “lazy thinkers” don’t seem to know or realise.
A society’s moral compass can change and is shaped by the unique history of a
tribe. In other words, what can be seen as “fine” in one culture can be a taboo
in another and vice versa. For example, how much skin exposure is okay on a
female. Today (ignoring COVID for a moment) the sight of a woman in a bikini
almost won’t shock anyone on Miami. In Dubai, however, she’ll be likely to be
arrested for indecency. However, back in 1920, the woman in Miami will also be
arrested for the same reason.
Let me put what I’m saying another way. What you think is
“taboo” or “offensive” is not the same everywhere and everywhen. You can’t
judge the past with the present day’s moral compass. The fact that they were
people who made fortunes on trading slaves in the past should be an indicator
of this fact.
In fact, what is considered “offensive” can vary from person
to person. For these reasons, when I considered making this dictionary a
printed book, I thought it should come with a free black marker pen so people
can censor their own individual copies. It’ll cost a fortune to make different
edited editions for various territories.
If this dictionary does go online, I have to print this
disclaimer at the top.
This dictionary will contain things that are not suitable
for children and things some will find “offensive.” This dictionary is
committed to explore all aspects of culture to build a complete picture of the
world. None of this dictionary’s example content originates from the main author,
so if you do find something here offensive, blame the thing’s original creator
for having such bad taste to begin with, not the creator of this dictionary,
who just put it there as an example form history.
Of course, the actual number of “offensive” things would
probably only make up, at most, 1% of the content of the final dictionary.
Although a lot happened in the 20th century, that only covers a tiny
fraction of all of human history, even if you exclude the Stone Age. So, that disclaimer
is just a precaution … like a face mask. There’s always going to be that 0.1%
that’ll genuinely find it sick … while an extra 1% find it a cause worth making
a fuss about – even if it doesn’t affect them at all.
It's a question you may have been asked so many times you have lost count. I bet many art critics get asked it so many times that they have developed a default answer to which ever subject it is.
For example, movies can be placed on this hierarchical pyramid I just made up.
Here's its breakdown.
Kane's Podium. Named after the protagonist of "The Greatest Movie of All Time." These are the movies you'll find in any critic's Top Ten Favourites.
Near Masterpieces. Those movies that are beyond "good" that can be considered "masterpieces" or "classics." Most high brow and art house movies can be found here.
The Good Movie bundle. Movies that are not good enough to be near masterpieces, but good enough to be worth seeing in a multiplex. If it appeared on TV, you might consider watching it.
Multiplex Filler. Movies you only remember as posters on the walls of multiplexes while going to see a "good movie" or only saw because the "good movie" you wanted to see was sold out or not on a convenient time. Also commonly seen on TV A LOT.
The Direct-to-Video Bargain Basement Bin. It doesn't need explaining.
Now, I know some will question where some of the movies I have chosen to feature are placed on this graphic. But it was made in a bit of a hurry, so shot me. But your disgust proves my point I am making. Also, consider this question.....
Where would you put Star Wars on this pyramid?
Many would place A New Hope in the good movie bundle, due to snobbery against everything sci-fi. Some would place it on Kane's Podium (and defend it with their lives). Only ill-educated morons (and I use these terms very broadly) would place it below the "good movie bundle."
And that's just factors present-day opinions. An opinion of something can change over time, due to many factors that one can't just out, because the relationship between a fan and a work of art can be as complicated as one between two human beings.
You see the problem?
Art (like politics) is a very subjective subject. Every person has their own definition to what is considered "art" or what is a "masterpiece." Its something many people know and don't know at the same time. They know "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" but they will get angry anyway when they hear someone say "I like Digimon/Hollyoaks/James Blunt." You can't win against everyone, no matter what you like. Even if the thing in question is brad new or something that has been part of the wallpaper for centuries.
That's why, if you ask me "what is my favourite [insert thing here]?" my answer may be different every time. It could be because of who is asking or how I feel at the time.
Honestly, I find finding favourites very hard. I find it easier if I'm asked for a "top 3/5/10" of a thing. As long as I can have them in order of what I think of first. No hierarchy. No number 1 top of the pile choice. Just a small chosen selection.
By the time of writing this, I have just watched the 1990s classic anime series The Slayers. For those unfamiliar of this classic of cel animation (its well-animated by Madhouse), its basically Fairy Tail made over a decade early.
Here's something I noticed. When you watch the first episode with you eyes closed you will encounter a scene where you will say to yourself "Is that Brock chatting up a pretty girl after rescuing her from danger .... again?"
And you should, because the scene in question is when the main protagonist Lina Inverse "one of the most powerful and feared sorceresses in all the land" is about to battle against a bunch of bandits when "expert" swordsman Gourry Gabriev the picture and slays the whole lot of them. He did so because he thought Lina (due to her short size) was a child. Cue Edward Elric-style reaction.
The reason for the mental picture of Brock in this scene? Simple. It's because, in the series English dub by Central Park Media, the voice actor who portrayed Gourry was Eric Stuart. And, if you look at his Filmography you will find that, apart from voicing Kaiba from Yu-Gi-Oh! and been the narrator in One Piece, he is also most noted for playing (until 2006, I'll explain in a future post) Brock in Pokémon (as well as James from Team Rocket, but that's not important).
As I watched this series my ear pieced up another familiar voice. A quick Wikipedia search later showed my ear was correct - the later regular character Amelia Wil Tesla Seyruun was voiced by one Veronica Taylor. And what is interesting is that, apart from voicing Nico Robin in One Piece and April O'Neil in post-2000 adaptions of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, she is most noted for been the original English voice of one Ash Ketchum.
Now, noting two poke-actors voicing characters in The Slayers is not enough to be subject to an act of cultural vandalism. What finally made me write this post is what happened in episode 17. In it the gang (Lina, Gourry, and Amelia) have to catch a ship without been ambushed by bounty hunters (someone placed a bounty on them for reasons that will spoil the series finale). To do so they have to disguise themselves. They disguises they choose - three female siblings. Yes, Gourry (the idiotic muscle-bound swordsman) was forced to dress as a girl. I have to admit, his long blonde hair helped in this endeavour. He really did become a Sailor Moon knock-off. Of course, Gourry didn't like the ordeal.
(I later found out that this cross-dressing is a regular joke in every series. Yeeaaae!)
And here comes the reason for this post. Remember when Ash Ketchum was forced to cross-dress? He was forcedtodoso in four episodes (as of 2017). If you factor in that Ash was voiced by the same person who voiced Amelia and that Brock is voiced by the former voice of Gourry I have come to a conclusion -
Brock is a reincarnation of Gourry.
And having Ash cross-dress is Gourry's revenge for been forced to wear woman's clothing back then.
translated to English and printed by Viz Media, LLC in August 2013)
(As far as I know, this scene has never been animated. If I'm wrong, please tell me in the comments.)
This scene involves a very interesting idea from the supernatural.... the Tsukumogami. A tsukumogami is a type of Japanese Yokai that only comes into being and self-aware when a manmade object becomes 100 years old. Depending on the treatment the object gets during their pre-Yokai life, it can be a nice Yoaki (which can be the case for most dolls that belonged to girls who didn't have the bad luck of having a brother who had pleasure torturing them) or an evil Yokai (which can be the case for most cars made by British Leyland).
That Austin 1100 Countryman would definitely become an evil tsukumogami if Basil continues battering that poor defenceless thing. It's not his fault his ignition system wasn't assembled at Toyota quality standards. (Before you brand me for taking a shot at Toyota for its recall saga a few years ago, I like to point out that (at the time of writing) I drive an Aygo, a car that wasn't affected by the recall at all :-).)
The tsukumogami are a notable staple in Japanese popular culture, especially manga that feature supernatural themes, like Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan(as seen at the start of this entry). In the scene pictured Kiyotsugu (head of the Kiyojūji Paranormal Investigation Squad and student council president of Ukiyoe Middle School of Ukiyoe Town, Tokyo) explains the concept of the tsukumogami while he leads the KPIS in a research trip in Nishikigoi Flea Market. One of their crew is Tsurara Oikawa (a Yuki Onna or "snow woman"). She was there for a different reason. In fact, the KPIS just showed up and spotted her there a page earlier. I won't say why she was there, as it'll take forever and reveal too much of the plot of the manga, but I will say that the the black-haired male Yokai who was teasing Tsurara on page one was Gozumaru. While there Tsurara noticed on sale some old small glass bowls used to serve iced desserts. Liking one dating from the Taishō period (Japan's equivalent to the roaring 1920s) she buys it and soon after purchasing it she makes herself some shaved ice. While enjoying her selfmade cold snack, the glass dish talked and turned into a little female figure - a tsukumogami. With an association of ice between them, the little lass who began her life as a fancy "penny lick" (that was the term those glass serving dishes had in the West and its not a double entendre) called her "master." This made Tsurara think. She decided to buy all the "penny licks" the stall had and awakened the tsukumogami they became. She was down before, but now she has an entire army of mini Yokai behind her.
While writing this description of the scene, I pondered about all the lonely children, teens and adults out there that are lonely and only have a collection of dolls, plush toys, and figurines as company. Their probably reading this (or the manga I referenced) and now wishing that their "friends" could actually come to life. Sadly, they can't. Objects have to be over 100years old to become tsukumogami, so unless your a serious plangonologist or arctophilist who has managed to acquire figures of the right vintage, it ain't going to happen.
I know, the idea of tsukumogami seem to be just an Asian one, but if you think about it the idea that inanimate objects have souls is a universal one.
Looking through it, the machines he has chosen to cover in this book are machines that do have... what you might call ... charisma. Some "essence" that makes them stand out from the others. It can be easily explained for individual machines, but its hard to sum up generally.
For example, take cars.... (Yes, we're steering towards Top Gear territory.)
Compare the AustinJohn Cleese beat up earlier with a Trabant. Two cars that (looking at the front) look about the same to the non-car person.
Note: The picture of the Trabant was taken by me inside Glasgow's Transport Museum years before it moved to the Clyde for its river views. The Austin pic is a random one I found online.
Nearly uncanny isn't it. But which is more attractive? I give you some time to think....
Thought about it? Which one do you like most?
Based on prejudice against plastics and two-stroke engines (despite it having a better mileage) the Austin will win. The Trabant is not a well-loved car (except to people nostalgic about the the Cold War and the time Germany was split into two countries). They were ugly machines that they were forced to have due to lack of choice and, when the Wall came down, most former East-Germans abandoned them for something better.
And speaking of two-stroke engines and Trabants, here's an interesting Channel 4 documentary from 1997 about them presented by Robbie Coltrane. In it, he is forced by the producer to take out the engine in a Trabant to demonstrate its ease of maintenance. He claims to have done it in less than 23 minutes, but how can we be sure?
"The 2 Stroke Engine" Coltrane's Planes and Automobiles (1997)
End entertaining tangent.
The Austin, on the other hand, was quite a popular car at its time - the best-selling in Britain. 2.1million Austin 1100s (and its other incarnations made by BL) were sold from 1962-74. Why? Apart from advanced features, like front disc brakes and hydrolastic suspension, or the spacious interior that was about the same in volume compared to the larger Ford Cortina, the Austin looks.... cute. That isn't a surprise, considering that it was designed by the same man who bought the world the cute little Mini. Although the Trabant has a cute face on the front similar to the Austin, it is hindered by the lack of chrome (humans like shiny things).
Why is this relevant to the idea of objects having souls, you ask? Well think about it. In the world of cars some models have an iconic status and these cars are well looked after by their respected owners clubs. As a result, a huge number of these "iconic" cars have survived and are well cherished. But this number is tiny compared to the many more "unloved" models that are slowly dying out every year due to rust and lack of love.
For every Porsche with a careful owner that is safe in a garage they are thousands of Protons with owners of a no-care attitude left out in the rain.
This point hit me recently when I encountered this slideshow from MSN.com entitled 100 popular cars vanishing from UK roads. The last slide was a shock for me, as I have a thing for machines. According to this webpage, the last surviving SEAT Málaga on British roads "died" in 2017. Looking at How Many Left?, they were once hundreds of Malagas in 2001. One of the many millions or so everyday cars made in the 1980s and were still going by the start of this century.
Although the SEAT Malaga isn't (or should I say "wasn't") a particularly special car, the fact that no example of it exists anymore should be a pain in the heart. Especially for the many people SEAT employed in the 1980s to design it, build its prototype, tool its factory, manufacture it, test it, and then finally sale it. The physical proof of all their work and ingenuity ... no more.
If the SEAT Malaga had been a sports car or a car that defined a time and place in history, its story will have been different. But this story is not unique to cars. It can happen to any human-made object. Clothing, gadgets, furniture, buildings, books, records, they are all subject to the same cultural forces that made the SEAT Malaga disappear, preventing it from becoming a tsukumogami.
The concept of the tsukumogami came about in a time when very few people had the money to buy new things for the sake of it. Most people owned things that were hand down generations and were only replaced when they finally broke beyond repair. Then William Painter invented the disposable crown bottle cap and inspired a Mr King Gillette to create his safety razor, featuring cheap replicable blades made to only last a few shaves. Soon manufacturers realized that they could get away with selling people the same product every few years or so with little innovation by just changing its styling. Then they worked out ways to force us to buy the next model (even though we were not that fashion-conscious) by engineering when it'll finally break ... and they won't be able to fix it because only the manufacturers had the right tools and had the monopoly on spare parts, making repairs more expensive than they should. I know some like this state of affairs on the grounds of providing employment and guaranteeing that we all get the latest innovations as soon as they become possible to make, but I personally hate it. Not because of the very obvious environmental problems it causes, but also because I hate when an object that once took someone(s) hours or even years to make gets thrown away just because no one wants it or because a bit broke off it. I prefer it (if possible) if that object able to find another owner than buried under a pile of soiled nappies in a landfill site. But that's the world we find ourselves it.
"We have this idea that stuff from the past lasted a long
time. But that is because we can only see the stuff that has lasted a long
time. We forget about all the stuff we threw away because it was rubbish. …. Most of us only really know what happened because
of what we can see, therefore Medieval England must have been full of
cathedrals. It must have been amazing." - James May, The Reassembler(2017)
What is the oldest object you own? I bet most of you own nothing made before the 1980s. And fewer own something made before the 1960s. And fewer still before World War II. So very few of us will have the chance (if it was possible) to experience seeing an object become a tsukumogami. What to know my answer? Its this.....
a 1920s portable typewriter I bought on eBay
So, we have established that thanks to fashion, certain business practises, education, nostalgia, accident and a general sense of an object's time of usefulness as technology changes, the chances of an object made since 1900 becoming a tsukumogami is very slim. Technically, right now (2018) any object made before or during World War I should be now a tsukumogami. Apart form museum pieces, they are objects over a century old that are in the caring hands of the friends and family of their original owners. You may occasionally see them in one of those antique restoration TV shows. So we can assume that most of them will become good tsukumogami. The ones that would have become evil tsukumogamis may have been destroyed by time or carelessness a long time ago.
When I first encountered the tsukumogami back when I read Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan a few years ago the idea of an object becoming a living being after a certain amount of time intrigued me. But the problem I had picturing it was the 100 year rule. Because its now 2018 the objects that will become tsukumogami are objects from a time period way different from the present. I mean, how many of us have seen (for real) a Hammond Typewriter or a phonograph cylinder? If tsukumogami were real, I have to wait a very long time for objects I'm very familiar with to become them. We have to wait until 2081 for DeLoreans and the first IBM PCs to become them. I bet the artists in Japan who created the many brush strokes depicting tsukumogami would not have imagined that centuries later tsukumogami would be able to perform up to a million instructions per second and travel from 0-60mph in 8.8seconds in a stainless steel shell. And another thing. If tsukumogami existed, it would make TV shows about antiques look like dramas about human trafficking. And if it did you may think twice before sending your old PC to the recycling centre where it could end up been shipped to the third world to be "recycled."
As I am writing this snow has fallen outside my home. The UK is currently experiencing (what the local media have dubbed) "snowmageddon" ..... again.
Back in January the snow as so deep in that I was not able to drive. (The snow was just touching the rim of the wheels, which my front-wheel drive hatchback struggled with.) The way it is now, I will not be surprised that I will be stranded again.
But don't worry folks. I am well stocked with food and supplies that will last until spring (which is very soon coming, as this is in fact the last day in February).
The real reason I'm writing this is to tell you that thanks to some improvements of my current situation (I am not stupid enough to write out what exactly these things are on a blog because I know the of people who monitor for such things.) I am in a great mood, despite the weather.
Because of this I have decided to tackle a few things I have laid dormant for a "while." Just today I finally got around to decorating my hallway. I had bought the paint and tools to do so months ago, but I had been too busy to get it done. And that was just a warm up.
For the next few weeks I "will" (I am putting that word in quotes just in case) be getting a few dormant tasks and projects done ... or at least attempt to.
This will include tackling the list of "draft" posts I have for this blog. I have drafts dating back to 2013! So, unless my mood takes me in another direction, the next post you'll see here will be one I have laid unfinished for possibly years.
It was summer 2017. My mother wanted to take my nephew
somewhere for a holiday (or vacation, for the Americans reading this). I
thought about one day going to London to see the Science Museum. She used this
as an excuse for a trip to London for the three of us.
She asked a couple of parents while my nephew was in his
swimming club about holidays and how to arrange them. One day she came to my
place to get me to book the hotel and flight (They suggested flying there as it
was fast, allowing extra time in London.). I struggled. Found a hotel and
booked a room, but finding a flight was a nightmare. London has 4-5 airports,
with Heathrow been the most well-known. Naturally, we tried to get a flight to
there. In the end, she went to a travel agent and had the holiday arranged
there … six days before departure!
Because of her various hospital appointments there was only
one window for the trip. But to me it was too soon. A lot of pressures at my
end made the idea of going on a plane for the first time in ten years too
stressful. Just two days before the trip I told my mother I was not able to go.
But she still wanted to take my nephew on a trip so they went there without me.
They had a good time.
But here’s the thing – why do we do this? Why do many of us
(every year) go through the stress of finding brochures, trips to photo booths
and filling out forms for passports, looking up price-comparison websites,
buying new swimsuits, arranging taxis to take us to airports or harbours in
hours where milkmen and yokai roam the streets, and getting legally-sanctioned
harassed by guys in uniform because of a half-empty bottle of water that use to
contain over 100ml of liquid? Why all this annual collective madness every
summer (and winter, for the skiing)?
To be honest with you, I don’t find holidays that
interesting. I find them mostly as an inconvenience rather than a pleasure. I
really don’t like high temperatures. I don’t sunbath. I don’t dance in discos.
I rarely eat exotic food. In fact, the only thing I mostly do while on holiday
is draw or write stuff – mostly in the shelter of my hotel
room/cabin/tent/caravan. I could have just stayed at home and done the same
things, but other people insist I should “go out and explore.” Although the odd
experience has been great, such as Disneyland, but if I had a teleporter I
would use it instead of going through the hassle of navigating to an airport,
have my luggage inspected by strangers in uniform that actually give you the
image of exploding planes instead of safe flying and arranging a place to sleep
when I get there. I know some will say “the journey is the best part of the
trip than the destination,” and I agree with you, especially when it comes as a
narrative device in fiction. But really, have you ever had to look up the
timetables for flights to and from London?
I have been like this since I was a child and that is not
going to change anytime soon.
So why do we “go on holiday?”
With what happened recently with London I have been thinking
about all this.
I think one major component in our collective need to travel
is to do with “social bragging.” For a long time in history long-distance
travel was hard … and expensive. Naturally (until recently), only the rich
could afford to take such long trips for non-essential reasons, like sketching
the ruins in Greece and Rome or shooting a wild tiger for its fur and bragging
rights at the hunting lodge. Even though today a plane ticket from the UK to
Spain can cost as little as a large family’s weekly groceries the act of travelling
a long distance for pleasure still has a whiff of snobbery about it, even if
the destination is basically alternative version of home where the climate is
different.
But, of course, this snobbery has evolved over the years.
Back in the 18th century Londoners would have considered going to
Bristol exotic. But as transport technology improved, so did our ambitions to
travel further form home. In 1900, going to Paris from London was a challenge,
making the city a desirable location for holidays. Paris still is a desirable
location for a trip. Any grand tour of Europe demands at least one stop in the
city. But its desirability has fallen since the Channel Tunnel made the trip to
it a simple one-hour train ride from London. The Mediterranean also went through
this. Until the 1960s the only English-speaking people going there were rich
people, artists, and the occasional journalist. Since the package holiday
opened up the Med to many the only true way an Englishman can show off about
going there is buying a second home there (although Brexit may make such things
harder in the future). During my lifetime travelling from Europe to America or
the Far-East became more affordable. As a child, I went to Florida a few times
to go to Disneyland and Universal Studios. If I had been born a decade earlier
such adventures would have been just out of reach of my dad’s salary. Now I may
consider going to Tokyo one day - within the next decade or so.
It was a factor in my mother’s decision to take my nephew to
London. His friends have gone on holidays to various places, including Florida
(where she plans to take him in 2018), and she thought he was been deprived of
something if he didn’t go somewhere. She was taking me on holidays almost every
summer at his age, but her ill health in the past decade or so has prevented
that. This trip to London was his first proper vacation (He has been on
two-to-three-day coach trips to England and a week in a caravan park before, by
the way.).
But there is another factor in our desire to travel. And it’s
one that most people would say if you asked why they do it – to get away from
it all and try something new. Today many of us can expect to live past 70 years
(antibiotic-resistant bacteria permitting) and our world is a big place full of
interesting things and sensory experiences, like big canyons, underwater light
shows, and feats of achievement that have made people think “There is no ways
humans can build that on their own back then. They must have had aliens to help
them.” It is considered a massive shame for a creature that has a capacity to
wonder to be denied the chance to explore such a large sensory-scape. In fact,
it can be considered a crime to do just that.
Just over a century or so ago, not many of our ancestors had
that chance. Most spent their shorter lives mostly within the same dozen square
miles. Many things prevented them from doing so than just the cost of travel.
Today they are still things that prevent us from travelling, but the cost of
travel shouldn’t be. The only things that should prevent one from travelling
are bureaucracy and politics … and diseases.
Because of what happened I made a brave decision – I plan to
go to London …. by plane
… on my own!!!
November 2017 addition
I just found this interesting video from 1979, featuring the voice of John Cleese....
I had the idea of this very recently. One internet meme that I have seen a few times on my Facebook feed has been one of these...
For those who are not familiar, they are a reference of a series of TV ads for Snickers that started in 2010. Below is the first one ever, featuring Betty White... playing American Football!
First "Not yourself" Snickers ad,
featuring Betty White (2010)
The still used in the memes above come from this version, starring Joan Collins.
Snickers ad, featuring Joan Collins (2012)
They are many memes based on these ads, but the one I have been seeing feature a certain red-head....
And its from this version where I got the idea for my version of this meme.....
I await your praise (and anger) in the comments.
(But please read the ad's disclaimer before you do so.)
Posted on Facebook earlier today, realting to this story that was trending that day.
This Shilpa Shetty "Animal Farm" thing is just the thing a Cultural Vandal was made for.
The idea she "made a mistake thinking its a book about been kind to animals" is so simplistic and lazy in analysis. To anyone who has read the George Orwell "fairy tale" (including me) one message you'll get is "This is not how to treat a nation of people." In other words, the message of "be nice to others (including animals)" exists in Animal Farm, so Shetty's words are not as "dumb" as you may think. Also, most kids today reading Animal Farm will not get the Stalin reference. What they will see is a very bad pig mistreating other animals. Kids don't see the world in the same way "cynical" adults (with knowledge of history) do. Most media critics don't realise this when they talk about children's literature (and other things, including cartoons and video games). I read between the lines, and looking at this story, I see that Shilpa Shetty is a bit smarter than the average twitter user. Books can have multiple messages, from be nice to animals to why Stalin is a bad guy. #AnimalFarm#ShilpaShetty
Over a month ago a relative of mine published a blog entry about a question that almost all parents today have asked themselves – Should I let my young child(ren) watch TV? She became a mother over a year ago and the post is on one of those blogs new mothers create to document and share her adventures in motherhood. They are a lot of them and (I’m guessing) that topic is in the Top 20 topics these blogs discuss. And I imagine that it’s a very decisive one, especially now where most of us get our daily news through screens than on paper. Is it OK to let my toddler watch TV? What shows are OK at what age to watch? What about violence and cursing? Is too much TV making our kids “dumb”? Should they just read books instead? …..
“...this discovery of yours [Theuth, inventor of letters] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. ” – Socrates, from Phaedrus
Yelp, they were people in ancient times that thought writing was a corrupting medium. Put’s things into perspective, doesn’t it. With every new development come critics who prefer the old ways who nit-pick the new thing for “flaws” and reasons not for them to adopt them … and forcing it onto the children. “Will somebody think of the children?” From the printing press to mobile phones, it always happens. But it’s not the fault of the technology itself….
“All technology can be used for bad and good. It’s up to you how to use it.” – Vladimir Zworykin (an inventor of television)
It’s us that control the use of technology, especially when it comes to media technology. We (the consumers) have a control on what any medium shows. No printer would publish a story, unless it would attract readers. No broadcaster would make a programme, unless they knew they are people who would listen/watch it. It costs money to print a book or make a movie or TV show, and it’ll be a huge waste if no one read the book or watched the movie/show. All those hours at the keyboard wasted to compose the decorative words that make up the pile of paper that’s under your couch preventing it from rocking. Also, if no one watched a TV show how is a broadcaster going to make money when the advertisers pulled out before the next episode? Media-makers need to make a profit, like any other industry. And the most guaranteed way to do so is to make content the audience wants to see, read and hear…. regardless of truth or artistic integrity.
In short, we (the audience) have some control on what is shown on TV. But writing hundreds of angry letters rarely works. The most effective thing is to avoid the offending thing by switching channel or switching off the TV altogether. In doing so you’ll end up not discovering that new restaurant that opened up on the High Street you might have liked to try out. And you won’t be the only one. If many did the same thing, that restaurant will have lost a lot of potential new customers, which could have made the restaurant. And when it finds out why, they’ll reconsider where they advertise their business. And other businesses who advertised during the offending show may do the same, losing the broadcaster a lot of advertising revenue. Facing this loss of income the broadcaster might consider cancelling the offending show. Victory for “good taste”!
But, of course, this won’t work with every broadcaster (‘cough’ BBC ‘cough’ PBS). And you may be reluctant to switch off your TV, because you like the ambient sound it provides while you cook, hoover the floors, build model kits or other things you like to do while the TV is on. People don’t complain about the millions of adults doing this every day. But when children enter the equation the Socrates’ of TV (who, I assume, mostly don’t have children themselves, so you got to really question their credentials people) begin to creep in your life.
And this is where I come in.
From what I heard from adults over the years about the subject of kids learning things is that they think young kids are like animals. And most adults think animals are dumb. Therefore young kids are too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, leading them to the “classic” situation of them jumping off furniture thinking they can fly like Superman. A situation that is captured perfectly in a catchy saying - “monkey see, monkey do.” It has been proven scientifically that from birth to about 3-years-old, most children learn about the world from imitation. But, this is mostly because until about age 3, most kids haven’t had the full training in how to ask questions and understanding the meaning of verbal and visual media let – the traditional way we all learn things. A 2-year-old’s mind is capable of asking questions, like “Why is the sky blue?”, but the ability to say “Why is the sky blue?” and to process the excuse the adult they asked gives them (because they don’t understand Rayleigh scattering themselves) aren’t fully mastered let.
What I’m trying to say is that (despite appearances) young children are smarter than you think. They are not the “dumb” animals the “monkey see, monkey do” saying applies. By believing this saying you are underselling your species. They are the offspring of one of the most successful animals that the Earth has ever seen (and the Earth knows that, very well).
But the fact remains that most of their learning in their early years is in the form of imitating the actions of others.
However, exactly how this is a problem is a highly debated subject. Some say that kids will copy everything they see or hear. Some say they are limits. But the former do have a massive piece of armour – The Bobo Doll experiments of the early-1960s.
clip from The Brain: A Secret History (BBC, 2011)
In 1961 American psychologist Albert Bandura took 36 boys and 36 girls (aged between 3-6) from Stanford University’s nursery school and split them into five groups. One was the control group. The other four were individually shown an adult with an inflatable clown doll. Two of them saw the adult treat the doll nicely, while the other two saw the adult beat it up. These two groups were split by gender to see if the gender of the adult affected the outcome depending on the gender of the child. After seeing the adult with the doll the kids were individually taken to a room full of toys and a clown doll like the one they saw earlier. What was observed was that the kids did copy the behaviour of the adults. If the adult treated the clown nicely, the kids treated it nicely. If they saw the adult beat it up, they bet up the clown. Boys were more likely to be physical with the doll than girls and more so if the adult was a male. Girls were more likely to be physically violent when the adult was a female. Also, kids who saw adults who were nice to the clown were less likely to use a toy mallet on it than the control group (who had a mallet, but no clown).
In 1963 he did a follow up experiment. A group of 32 boys and 32 girls (aged between 3-6) were split into four groups. One was shown nothing (the control). One was in the presence of an adult beating up the clown doll. One was shown a film of an adult beating up the clown doll. And one was shown a person in a cat costume beating up the clown doll. Each individual kid was then placed in a room full of toys and a clown doll like the one they saw earlier. What was observed was that no matter what medium and whoever they saw do it, every kid who saw the clown doll beaten up exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behaviour as the control group. Also it further proved that boys were more likely to be violent than girls.
These experiments (especially the latter one) have been the smoking gun in the debate that TV violence makes viewers (especially children) violent in the real world ever since. But some have criticised this experiment for a few reasons you should know about before you use this experiment to prove your point about kids imitating everything harmful they see on TV.
The kids used in the experiment were all from the same socioeconomic background (they were the children of Stanford students who were in their nursery (a rare luxury for most Americans at the time, except for white professions). But this didn’t stop Bandura concluding that the results applied to all children.
The kids were a bit older than they were when Bandura did his initial Bobo Doll experiments in 1961, so the kids may have had outside influences before watching the clown doll been bet up.
Between the kids watching the film and been left in the room with the clown doll, they were exposed to a mildly frustrating situation to elicit aggression. Also they were denied the chance to play with the toy for a while, making them agitated. In short, they were primed to become aggressive before they saw the clown doll.
And the clown doll in the experiment was designed to be hit in the first place. You can tell just by looking at it. (To remove this variable the experiments were restaged later with a real clown instead. The results were the same. What do people have against clowns, anyway?)
Also it assumes that every child is the same biologically.
Not every kid is the same cognitively so they are going to be kids who will develop slower than the average statistics most development charts show (which should have this fact included as a well-being warning for parents). This is especially true when it comes to children on the autism spectrum, which include me ….
“Children with autism exhibit significant impairment in imitation skills. These deficits have been reported on a variety of tasks including symbolic and non-symbolic body movements, symbolic and functional object use, vocalizations, and facial expressions.” - Brooke Ingersoll, PhD (The Social Role of Imitation in Autism: Implications for the Treatment of Imitation Deficits, Infants & Young Children (Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 107–119, 2008))
This puts me in quite a unique position in this debate. Thanks to my autism I have a sort of buffer for the media I’m bombarded with every day. I am more aware of the psychological tricks the media uses on us than most people are aware off, and I do read up about them from time to time, which is one reason I am a cultural vandal. I have also nit-picked bits and pieces from stories and accounts everywhere, from books to online posts. With these (plus my childhood memories) I am going to tell you all a true insider account of a child’s mind in the hope of helping you understand how kids learn things and process media. I hope this would help finally clear things up and answer those questions you had regarding whether you should allow you kid(s) to watch TV.
And this fact co-insides with the observation that most of us rarely have memories from before the age of 3. Also, rather alarmingly, memories can be rewritten over time, like articles on Wikipedia. So if one decides to try to write an account of one’s childhood experiences of the world, please factor this in, as each time you re-examine your memories you are unintentionally altering them for your present purpose. And I am very aware of that, hence of nit-picking other people’s accounts – from adults.
Now, our main feature.
First off, we humans are mostly visual creatures. About half our brain is used to process visual information, more than any of our other senses. So it isn’t a surprise that people tend to remember pictures better than words, especially children. This is the reason slapstick comedy is timeless. When watching cartoons when I was kid I tended to remember the visuals more than dialogue. I have vivid memories of the design of cartoon characters from shows I watched, but for the life of me I can’t remember exact pieces of dialogue from those shows. Catchphrases and regular gags, yes. But precise pieces of dialogue, no. That part of my memory only developed later (say early-teens).
Because of my lack of recall for dialogue at the time, I could watch shows like Harry Enfield and Chums and Father Ted without my parents panicking about me picking up bad language (that only became a problem later when I first learnt about swearing at about age 9 (My mother hates it.)). I even managed to see Euro Trash at the time. I remember it more for its colourful cartoony sets rather than its content. (If you have no idea what Euro Trash is, be grateful you don’t.)
And on a side note, this also applies to music as well. As I remember from childhood, I didn’t pay attention to the lyrics of songs until well later in life (mid-teens roughly). I was more interested in the tune and sound. To me the words were just interesting sounds. I never processed them as words that have symbolic meaning, like the words from mum or teacher. And it’s not just me. A few weeks ago BBC Radio 6 Music had a program where listeners suggested tracks for a playlist inspired by their kids’ favourite songs. One listener sent in a suggestion and told this story. This listener’s toddler was in Tumble Tots and the organisers of it were staging a stage performance and the kids were asked to suggest songs to dance to in the show. This parent was bought to one side after that day’s session about what song this toddler suggested (which was also the song the listener suggested for the playlist) – ‘Psycho Killer’ by Talking Heads.
Now this track is a great example of what I’m explaining. If you ignore the program inside your head that processes the meaning of words as they are spoken to you, ‘Psycho Killer’ becomes a good tune you can dance and “bah” to. The young me would have done the same thing that toddler did if I had heard of that song back then. My older sister was well into Gothic rock in my pre-teens and played such music nearly every night. My room was next door to hers and the wall separating us was basically a sheet of corrugated cardboard covered with chipped wallpaper (on my side), paint and posters, so I heard her music and developed a taste for music outside the pop I was hearing on the radio. And those nights of muffled Gothic rock has had an effect in my taste of music since. The band Garbage is my music library, and I do listen to them occasionally, even though one song I like the sound of has lyrics that talks about self-harm.
You see, not everyone sees or gets the same message in one piece of individual media, neither that is a painting, a sculpture, a song or a movie. One person can see a work of art (say Andy Warhol’s soup cans) as the greatest example of visual delight highlighting consumerism while another person would see it as a meaningless image and wonder why this is considered art. I think this is something many people who complain about the media don’t fully grasp. Kids would watch a TV show (like The Simpsons) and miss out on a number of things only adults would get. For example, in “Lisa's Pony,” Lisa first sees the pony Homer buys her in her bed during the night. She screams at the sight of the pony. To a kid watching this she is screaming of surprise of finding a pony in her bed. Only adults (who have heard of The Godfather) will get this scene as a reference to the “horse’s head on the pillow.” In other words, it is possible for kids to like things, like gangsta rap music, without getting any “bad influences” from it.
In other words, it is possible for kids to like things, like gangsta rap music, without getting any “bad influences” from it. But, it is worth noting that kids will repeat the sounds they hear, including questionable lyrics. (I remember once reciting quietly to myself some lyrics from ‘Mister Psycho’ from Space’s Spiders album – during my mother’s Sunday school class.) But its worth reminding that they are not picking up messages form them let. Their just organised sounds to them - for now.
So kids (including the younger me) aren’t that good at recalling verbal language, but good at recalling visual things. Very young kids will act out scenes on TV, but only the visuals. It’s only later (say at least 3-years-old) they will try to recite dialogue of some form.
As a child I had a good visual memory. I was able to re-enact scenes of cartoons in my head all time (I was not idiotic enough (or strong enough) to really hurt myself and other people when doing so.). I even tried to construct models of the sets of shows, like Finders Keepers and How Do They Do That? (I tried to reconstruct the time they flooded the set, using Lego. I used a pile of blue bricks as the water.) It was only later (say about 12) that I “got” what people were saying on TV. I had watched a lot of comedy shows, like The Fast Show, Bottom, Shooting Stars and Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em and never listened to the dialogue. I just enjoyed the visuals. I still have the visual memory today, and I have since re-watched those shows on DVD to add the dialogue in my memory of them.
Now, some of you may be already thinking that letting kids watch TV a lot will give them too many ideas that could lead to the breakages of many ornaments. But I do have one last important thing to say about this.
A television set is a window to things outside your home or circle of influence. It can show you images from the other side of the world. Animals in the wild. Feats of human achievement, like iconic works of art or sports people trying to break records. If you value the idea that kids should be exposed to as much of the world as possible TV can do that - especially when parents aren’t able to take them far outside their home for whatever reason (budget, geography, politics been a few of them). But I do think they are a few things that should not be shown to kids too early, like Game of Thrones, political debate shows (because they can’t fully understand that stuff let) and most Religious programming (I’m okay with Songs of Praise).
However, there is a one very good reason you should allow you kid(s) to watch TV – it exposes them to many faces. Very young children are surprisingly good at learning new faces. In fact, it has been proven at 6-month-old kids are able to identify individual monkeys. (Something also all adults struggle with, even if they worked with them for years.) This is because the neuron connections needed to recognise faces have not been "pruned" let to just recognise human faces.
"Babies soon lose this skill: By 9 months, like adults, they’re no good at all at telling apart monkeys. That’s because as time passes, infants are able to see only what they already see in the world. This is a phenomenon called “perceptual narrowing” and it is best known for its effect on language acquisition: Very early on, infants stop being able to tell the difference between certain speech sounds that they’re not hearing. We have to hear these phonemes to know them. And we have to see the monkeys to know them, too. (This works the other way too: Monkeys exposed only to human faces prefer human faces.)" - Nicholas Day
But this pruning doesn't only effect a child's ability to identify individual animals. It also effect their ability to identify other fellow humans, as Nicholas Day will testify...
"My wife, studying in Nanjing at a time when there were very few white people in Nanjing, had her fairly cosmopolitan Chinese roommate ask her, “How do you people tell each other apart? You all just look the same.” She wasn’t being rude; she was genuinely bewildered. Hilariously, when my wife returned to New York, she kept mistaking people on the street for people she knew. And then she thought, My roommate was right: All white people really do look the same. After a year of just seeing Chinese faces, she was, at least temporarily, no longer able to differentiate non-Chinese faces. Of course, this is famously the case with Americans who never leave America, too: Hence, all [insert ethnicity here] look the same. This isn’t racism. It’s just perceptual narrowing. And it happens fast: At birth newborns don’t prefer faces of their own ethnicity; at 3 months, they do."
In short, if you want your child to be able to tell apart Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon (or more significantly (for white folk, anyway), Samuel L. Jackson and Laurence Fishburne) you should expose your child to as many faces as possible. The more variety, the better. It'll be a great game for your kid to play. But it can be hard to find such variety in some locations (such as a countryside village), so if you happen to be in such a location find books, newspapers or magazines ... or switch on your TV.
You'll find a large variety of faces on TV today, especially on kids TV and entertainment shows, like sitcoms and soap operas. I can credit TV (in hindsight) for my ability to recognise faces many white people (sadly) have trouble with. My young eyes saw a number of shows with non-white casts, like Desmond's, The Cosby Show, and Goodness Gracious Me. One of the first regular faces I saw on TV was Andi Peters (when he was that broom cupboard with Edd the Duck). So, from the very young age I knew from observation that my pale-freckly skin was not the only hue people's skin could have. Also, I did have an Asian friend back in primary school.
(As a side note I only first learned what racism is from that episode of Father Ted. I think because I first learnt it from a comedy performance it helped me to "get it" without much difficulty. The concept was explained well quickly, when Ted put on that lampshade and pretended to be a cartoon china-man - and then getting a massive shock when three Chinese people showed up at the window seeing his "impression."
"I never would have done that if I knew there was a China Town on Craggy Island."
Although back then in 1998 I didn't know about the antisemitism the Nazis implemented (I just saw them as my country's opponents during "the war" and the bad guys in Indiana Jones), seeing Ted's shock of seeing Nazi memorabilia in his house (after making peace with the Chinese people of Craggy Island) first cemented in my mind the link between Nazis and "been a racist." From my experience of this example, I can say that comedy can be a great teaching tool for complicated thing.)
And that’s all I have got to say about the subject of allowing kid(s) to watch TV – except one thing. Kids learn more from real world examples than reconstructions made from lights behind a sheet of glass. Unless they have been left in front of a TV for marathon-amounts of time, kids are exposed more to the actions of real world people in front of them than people on TV, especially members of their family, but especially their parents. By worrying about the effect of the “electronics intrusion” on their kid(s) many parents have forgotten that they have the biggest influence on their kids’ upbringing than anything else. No aunt, uncle, sibling, grandparent, teacher, babysitter, robot, pet or medium has more influence on a child’s mind than their parents. It is said that the average person will spend about a decade of their life watching TV, but that’s about half the time the average young person will be under the influence of at least one parent. Parents, you have more power over your kid(s) than a TV set (For one thing, you can unplug it.).
And this has been proven by science in one crucial aspect. In a 2016 study published by BMC Psychology, it has been shown that caregivers will respond differently to baby cries depending on their pitch. And this response follows stereotypical gender roles. Other studies show further proof that parents are unintentionally-enforcing gender stereotypes on their children. In one experiment I saw staged on TV (on the 2014 edition of Horizon "Is Your Brain Male or Female?") a baby boy was dressed in the clothes made for girls and a girl was dressed in boy's clothes. When an adult was presented with one of these babies the adult was guiding the baby to play with toys that were fitting of the gender they thought the baby was (cars for boys, dolls for girls). The babies generally didn't care which toy they were given. The only one who (unknowingly) cared which one was the adult. To me, this suggests that their has been a parent-to-child cycle of gender stereotype enforcement. Adults force kids to do certain things (because its "tradition" and "proper") and those kids become adults who do the same thing to their kids, because they didn't know better.
By been aware of your own influence over your own kid(s) you can help them become more-rounded adults in the future. Adults who weren't subject to the gender stereotype enforcement cycle, because you didn't force them to play with certain toys and wear certain clothes (or worse). And if more parents do this the next generation will be free from been forced to behave in a out-of-date mould.
To sum up, TV (like any toy or person) can be a good influence on your child - you just got to apply caution on specific bits about it, like some TV shows, the size of the parts that make up teddy or the sweet tooth of the neighbour's kid. But remember, not everyone picks up the same message from the same artwork, especially children. Children don't process song lyrics in the same way adults do, but they might repeat lyrics int he same way as one repeats the melody of tunes. Kids love slapstick, but please teach them not to hurt themselves (the TV is (mostly) not going to do that). Comedy can be a great education tool in teaching complicated subjects (like racism and economics). Although what your kid watches on TV can be big influence, it is nothing compared to you and your actions. You have the power to shape your kid(s) destiny. With great power comes great responsibility, so use it well.
Well, that's everything (honest). That is all I got to say about raising children (for not, probably). I await your accusing, insulting comments (which I won't read).
P.S. At the time of writing I AM NOT A PARENT (May as well confess this fact (unlike others)). The closest I am to been one is when I'm with my nephew. As I stated at the start of this article, I was writing this using childhood memories and my knowledge of how media works on us. I am no expert on child anything. I have never claimed to be so, and never will.
