Photo
Answer
Source: dennys
Photo
socimages:

What does it mean to be authentically Cajun?
By Lisa Wade, PhD
The term “Cajun” refers to a group of people who settled in Southern Louisiana after being exiled from Acadia (now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) in the mid 1700s.  For a very long time, being Cajun meant living, humbly, off the land and bayou (small-scale agriculture, hunting, fishing, and trapping).  Unique cuisine and music developed among these communities.
In Blue Collar Bayou, Jaques Henry and Carl Bankston III explain that today more than 70% live in urban areas and most work in blue collar jobs in service industries, factories, or the oil industry. “Like other working-class and middle-class Americans,’ they write, “the Southwestern Louisianan of today is much more likely to buy dinner at the Super Kmart than to trap it in the bayou” (p. 188).
But they don’t argue that young Cajuns who live urban lifestyles and work in factories are no longer authentically Cajun.  Instead, they suggest that the whole notion of ethnic authenticity is dependent on economic change.
When our economy was a production economy (that is, who you are is what you make), it made sense that Cajun-ness was linked to how one made a living.  But, today, in a consumption economy (when our identities are tied up with what we buy), it makes sense that Cajun-ness involves consumption of products like food and music.
Of course, commodifying Cajun-ness (making it something that you can buy) means that, now, anyone can purchase and consume it.  Henry and Bankston see this more as a paradox than a problem, arguing that the objectification and marketing of “Cajun” certainly makes it sellable to non-Cajuns, but does not take away from its meaningfulness to Cajuns themselves.  Tourism, they argue, “encourages Cajuns to act out their culture both for commercial gain and cultural preservation” (p. 187).
Photos borrowed from GQ, EW, and My New Orleans.  Originally posted in 2009.
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

socimages:

What does it mean to be authentically Cajun?

By Lisa Wade, PhD

The term “Cajun” refers to a group of people who settled in Southern Louisiana after being exiled from Acadia (now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) in the mid 1700s.  For a very long time, being Cajun meant living, humbly, off the land and bayou (small-scale agriculture, hunting, fishing, and trapping).  Unique cuisine and music developed among these communities.

In Blue Collar Bayou, Jaques Henry and Carl Bankston III explain that today more than 70% live in urban areas and most work in blue collar jobs in service industries, factories, or the oil industry. “Like other working-class and middle-class Americans,’ they write, “the Southwestern Louisianan of today is much more likely to buy dinner at the Super Kmart than to trap it in the bayou” (p. 188).

But they don’t argue that young Cajuns who live urban lifestyles and work in factories are no longer authentically Cajun.  Instead, they suggest that the whole notion of ethnic authenticity is dependent on economic change.

When our economy was a production economy (that is, who you are is what you make), it made sense that Cajun-ness was linked to how one made a living.  But, today, in a consumption economy (when our identities are tied up with what we buy), it makes sense that Cajun-ness involves consumption of products like food and music.

Of course, commodifying Cajun-ness (making it something that you can buy) means that, now, anyone can purchase and consume it.  Henry and Bankston see this more as a paradox than a problem, arguing that the objectification and marketing of “Cajun” certainly makes it sellable to non-Cajuns, but does not take away from its meaningfulness to Cajuns themselves.  Tourism, they argue, “encourages Cajuns to act out their culture both for commercial gain and cultural preservation” (p. 187).

Photos borrowed from GQEW, and My New Orleans.  Originally posted in 2009.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Source: socimages
Photo Set

huffingtonpost:

GORDON PARKS’ 1950S PHOTO ESSAY ON CIVIL RIGHTS-ERA AMERICA IS AS RELEVANT AS EVER

An exhibition of Parks’ rare color photographs, entitled “Gordon Parks: Segregation Story,” will go on view this fall at The High Museum of Art in Atlanta. The photos capture a particularly disturbing moment in American history, captured via the lives of an African American family, the Thorntons, living under Jim Crow segregation in 1950s Alabama. See all of the photos here.

Source: huffingtonpost
Photo Set
Quote

"Rivers know this: there is no hurry. We shall get there some day."

- A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh (via kushandwizdom)
Source: kushandwizdom
Photo
whentwoheartsrace:

He’s brilliant.
Photo Set

idlesuperstar:

Happy 88th Birthday David Attenborough b. 8th May 1926

The remote and lonely beach where I first saw a Komodo dragon, ten feet long, stalking imperiously across the sand, now receives several boatloads of visitors every day. The tropical swamps in northern Australia filled with magpie geese are now part of a national park and queues of visitors file into the caves to see the ancient rock paintings that I was lucky enought to photograph for the first time.

From the seventies onwards, the films had reasonable technical competence. As I look at them now, lined up on a shelf, I like to think that they give a fair and comprehensive picture of how the natural world was and how human beings viewed it during the second half of the twentieth century. Maybe in another fifty years they will be valued as records of some species that have by then disappeared. I hope not.

But I did not make them because I had premonitions of impending eco-disaster. I did so because I know of no pleasure deeper than that which comes from contemplating the natural world and trying to understand it.

- David Attenborough, Life on Air, 1997 

Source: idlesuperstar
Answer
  • Question: However, A lot of animals are only bred for the pure reason of creating produce to sell and to be eaten, it gives money to farmers, and also if everyone stopped eating the meat then they may stop selling the meat and breeding the animals. In other words they could become extinct. Don't get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians and vegans (my boyfriend is even vegetarian) and i know a lot of the animals are treated horribly, and I understand that. - Anonymous
  • Answer:

    edwardspoonhands:

    Extinction is an ecological problem, while most farm animals do not exist inside of a natural ecology. If all the cows went extinct, that would be ecological fine (actually, beneficial) because they are not natural animals, they were created by human breeding. There has never been a wild cow in the history of ever….though cow ancestors (like bison) are still around, the direct natural ancestor of the cow, the Auroch, is already extinct.

    Pigs would not go extinct…they live in the wild in lots of places. Chickens probably would…though their wild counterparts are also doing fine. 

    The question of “what would happen if all people stopped eating meat” is a very interesting one. I would like to answer that question…possibly a very good video idea…

    But I can’t really imagine that people will stop eating meat unless meat becomes completely unavailable. 

Source: edwardspoonhands
Answer
  • Question: I'm sorry, you said meat is bad. This isn't 100% true. Studies show that when real meat (meaning meat that hasn't been through some unnatural process, with the extreme being McDonalds) is eaten in the correct proportions then it can be beneficial to our health. Now, that essentially means moderation, and picking the right meats. But truthfully, a general good rule in life is everything in moderation. I just think it's unfair and incorrect to say meat is bad period. - Anonymous
  • Answer:

    edwardspoonhands:

    You’re right, meat isn’t necessarily bad for your health (though, to be clear, there’s no data supporting the idea that McDonald’s meat is better or worse than other meat…except that it’s easier to eat a lot of it very quickly, and there’s a ton of salt…and you generally also consume it with fried potatoes and sugar water.)

    But yes, there’s nothing wrong with meat in moderation…though diets high in animal protein have been found to be linked with cancer, heart disease, and premature death in humans.

    But, on the whole, whether I live to be 73 or 78 is not so much of a concern to me as the overall impact I have on the world during those years. No one can deny that meat is horrible for the environment. Giving up meat would reduce your carbon footprint by more than giving up driving

    40% of grain produced in America is fed to livestock animals. That’s enough to feed 800 million people. 30% of the world’s total ice-free land is used to grow crops to fead to livestock. 30% OF THE WHOLE WORLD! Only 10% is used to grow human food crops.

    There are ways to raise animals with less significant or even beneficial environmental impact…but we do not raise animals that way. 

    I’m not even touching on the cruelty, here. Let’s just worry about the Earth and not individuals for a moment…if we do that, meat is /clearly bad/ and we should all eat less (if we can), which I try very hard to do.

Source: edwardspoonhands