Responding to Marcel’s first discussion question “How does generalizing various Latin American nationalities under the umbrella term ‘Hispanic’ impact how non-Spanish speaking populations view them?”, I believe that this generalization serves only to homogenize various communities that are, in fact, unique from one another. Each of these communities has its own culture, customs, and linguistic history entirely separate from its neighbors, and should be treated as such. On the flip side, however, the term “Hispanic” could also be useful for non-Spanish speaking people; in the same way whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, and many other ethnic and linguistic groups in the United States fall under the umbrella term “American” (not to mention the other disparate communities that speak different varieties of English we have covered in class), many Spanish-speaking groups can be helpfully called Hispanic. Also, just like the term “American,” there does not seem to be anything inherently negative about using the term “Hispanic.”

“Indirectness” is apparently one of the “signs of a bad boss”…or is it? The article argues otherwise, noting that individuals have their own preferences; some prefer indirect speech as they perceive it to be more polite, while others appreciate being told to do things directly.

P.S. The image overall is very accurate!

1. Language varieties
   1. Mr. Incredible – GA (Craig T. Nelson)
   2. Edna Mode – GE (composite)
   3. Syndrome – GA (Jason Lee)
   4. Frozone – RA (Samuel L. Jackson)
   5. Gilbert Huph (Bob Parr’s boss) – GA (Wallace Shawn)
   6. Mirage – BE (Elizabeth Peña)
2. Context and Choices
   1. Post-heroic “golden age,” 50s-60s United States
   2. Anachronistic, but effective for what the movie is trying to accomplish
   3. Samuel L. Jackson (Frozone) was probably hired for voice recognition, but the rest of The Incredibles cast seem to just be good voice actors in general.
3. Treatment of Language Varieties
   1. Language variety does seem to be used to build character (Mr. Incredible as an average joe, albeit with super-strength; Syndrome as nasally and villainous, but also tragic)
   2. The only voice that is portrayed negatively throughout the film is that of the sinister British spy Mirage.
   3. Most of the characters have “general American” accents. Frozone speaks in vague AAVE, Mirage in BE, and Edna in a composite GE, but none of these are necessarily shown to correlate to gender or class-based character identities.
4. Disney Comparison
   1. The choices for portrayal and overall treatment in The Incredibles, a joint Disney / Pixar romp, are not very similar to what Lippi-Green found in the analysis of pre-2000 Disney films. Whereas Lippi-Green finds many blatantly racist portrayals, and some not-so-blatant ones, in older Disney flicks, The Incredibles uses talented voice actors to masterfully play unique, strong caricatures. The voices presented in this film maximize comedic and otherwise appropriate value characteristic of their respective characters.

Does Lippi-Green sometimes go too far in her accusations of racism in Disney movies? Do the animated medium and the films’ primary demographic justify some decisions made by Disney (e.g. Scar’s distinctly British accent, The Emperor’s New Groove‘s pseudo-Incan aesthetic)?

In extreme cases, does political correctness push linguistic relativism to its limits, nearly supporting the rarely accepted concept of linguistic determinism? In other words, if certain ways of speaking are either publicly advised or denounced by an overbearing but well-meaning government, does that government paradoxically hinder its initial goal of creating healthier social relationships by telling its citizens how to exercise linguistic freedom “properly”?