The association between dogs and globalization are more common than one might think. It can be difficult to draw correlations between globalization and the effects it has on the realm of dogs and dog ownership but there are instances where the effects are evident.

One thing that has changed a lot with the globalization of dogs is them being accepted into other countries. Back in day no animals were allowed to be to be brought in from other countries. Now, that has all changed. With people around the world moving to the United States for business it has changed the rules that use to prohibit dogs coming into America. Now, with a few simple forms and a few shots for the dog coming into our country you get a dog from anywhere in the world.

Another thing that changed in the globalization of dogs is that more people want purebred dogs for showing in dog shows. Many people who have these purebred dogs have more than five purebreds that they will show for the hopes of their dog becoming a champion and breeding with another champion so that they can get more money out of the puppies. They are also breeding to get a certain physical characteristics in their dogs that are what the shows considered standard for that breed.







a) Media and American Society and Culture


Mr. Sut Jhally’s lecture titled “The Factory in the Living Room: How Television exploits its Audience”. Is concerned with the argument that TV is an active process not a passive one. He argues that the reason for this is due to advertising. He also states that since TV is work then letting your child watch TV can be considered child abuse. I agree with his argument that watching television is work and that the purpose of television is to sell to advertisers groups of people who are likely to purchase the products they are selling. I for one hate watching TV. The only reason I watch TV is so that I have something to talk with my friends and co-workers about. Mr. Jhally’s arguments also answer some of the paradoxes I feel exist when it comes to TV. For example why shows can get cancelled even when they are moderately popular. If the point of TV was to create the media that we watch popularity would not be a very big issue. In other art forms the art is created regardless of the popularity of the resultant artwork. He is also accurate when he points out that this same advertising model is beginning to drive the Internet. For example Google is an advertising company. Every service that Google provides its users for free is an attempt to provide advertisers with a similar group of people who are likely to purchase their product. Microsoft does this as well and Facebook is just starting to get into the act as well. While I will not prevent my kids from watching TV I will definitely make sure that it does not become the babysitter or the center of my family time.


Does globalization cause poverty in the U.S.?

Noam Chomsky describes the word globalism as a term that “has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental.” Although it may be difficult to pin-point how globalization directly correlates to poverty in the U.S., there are many variables that seem to play a part in the effects that globalization has on wealth disparity in the U.S. An obvious example of how globalization has contributed to poverty in the U.S. was the outsourcing of automobile manufacturing.

After the automotive industry in Detroit collapsed, it had a devastating effect on the economy and the people whose livelihoods were dependent upon that industry. A less obvious example would be the implementation of NAFTA. The outsourcing of agricultural products such as corn from Mexico had a devastating effect on farmers in Mexico since they could no longer compete with the mass produced farming of corn. How this in turn affects American citizens is debatable but on a long term basis, what is bad for neighboring countries is likely not good for the U.S. as a whole.


 How does globalization affect women in the U.S.?

For women globalization can be both harmful and helpful.  While women have always been repressed in most countries if globalization were to happen it could be very liberating for those women. It would help in the treatment of women, and would help bring women together.

It can be harmful as well.It would have a very negative effect on most women.  Especially, for women in the South.  There are three main reasons that globalization in women is harmful:

  1. Politically because of the pressure from other countries where women are repressed that could turn back the hands of times on womens rights.  Example:  Voting, running for office, working and more.
  2. Culturally  because they would lose their way of life that they have known for hundreds of years.  Losing they culture, ceremonies and speech that they have always known.
  3. Economically because of they could lose their jobs to male workers. Which means they would have to either lose their jobs or have to work for very little money in sweatshops or other low paying jobs.  They could be exploited.


Political aspects of dog and cat ownership. (feel free to edit or add to.)

The intersection of pets and politics is discussed a lot in government. My city for example has an animal control department. They enforce laws that have been passed by the city concerning keeping pets on leashes, barking dogs, enforcement licensing requirements etc. Most of the concern with animal control laws seem to be focused on population control, protecting the public, and educating people. Recently there have been two intersections of policy that have received public attention. The first is attempts to ban certain breeds of dog that many people consider dangerous. Some examples of these breeds are pit bulls, and Doberman pinchers. The second is attempts to enforce spaying and neutering of the animals that someone owns. Spaying and neutering is a process used to remove the reproductive organs or render them of being used as a form of population control. For example in Los Angeles there was a debate in 2000 concerning increasing the license fee for having a dog or cat that was not altered which is another term for spayed or neutered. (Willman) This was opposed by dog and cat breeders due to the additional cost that it puts on their ability to raise cat and dog litters (Willman).

Also there is a long history of dog ownership in the highest office in the United States. According to Christina Macejko the most popular presidential pets are dogs followed by horses. Calvin Coolidge was a dog lover. He had the following dogs; “terrier, Airedale, bulldog, Shetland sheepdog, “police dog”, “bird dog”, two Chows, and three collies.” (Macejko) Theodore Roosevelt had 5 dogs. Both of the previously mentioned presidents had two cats as well. However, it is important to be aware that these animals are used to further the humans own political image. According to “Unleashing Presidential Power: The Politics of Pets in the White House” there is statistical evidence that dogs in particular are used in politics to influence a presidents public image. In their study they found statistical evidence that dogs are hidden from public during tough economic times and are more likely to be displayed when the president’s approval numbers are high or during times of war and scandal (Maltzman, Lebovic, Saunders, and Furth). Some examples of how this is performed are provided by Christina Macejko. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt give a speech concerning criticism about sending a Navy destroyer to pick up his Scottish terrier where he deflected the criticism onto his dog Fala. Saying that Fala’s “Scotch soul was furious.” (Macejko). The speech became known as the Fala Speech. Nixon gave a similar speech which mentioned his Cocker Spaniel Checker which became known as the Checkers Speech. According to Macejko Lyndon B. Johnson caused a public outcry when he was photographed picking up his beagles by their ears. More recently during the Lewinsky scandal a chocolate lab named Buddy appeared with the Clinton family. Or during the recent election the Obama administration repeatedly brought up Romney’s family trip where the dog was strapped to the top of the car instead of riding inside of the car (Maltzman, Lebovic, Saunders, and Furth).

Willman, Martha L. “Panel Oks Tougher Rules for Unaltered Pets; Animals: Council to weigh higher fees and other curbs for dogs and cats. Goal is to reduce number of strays.” Los Angeles Times 07 Mar 2000: B.1.

“Pets and Animals” The official site of the City of Renton. 1 June 2013 <>

Macejko, Christina. “Pets in the White House have affected U.S. history, politics” DVM 39.10 (Oct 2008): 22

Maltzman, Forrest; Lebovic, James; Saunders, Elizabeth N, and Furth, Emma. “Unleashing Presidential Power: The Politics of Pets in the White House” Political Science & Politics 45.3 (Jul 2012): 395-400

Ethnic aspects of pet ownership. (Feel free to edit and add to)


I located two articles that discussed Ethnicity and its relationship to pet ownership. “The Animal – Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity” by Christina Risley-Curtiss, Lynn C. Holley, and ShapardWolf and “Demographics of Pet Ownership Among U.S. Adults 21 to 64 Years of Age” by Martin B.Marx, Lorann Stallones, Thomas F.Garrity, and Timothy P.Johnson. Both point out from the beginning that there is not a lot of research and that over all there is very little difference between different ethnicities when it comes to pet ownership in the U.S. Also both papers point out that the differences that do exist could be the result of social economic differences between ethnicities instead of being specific to the ethnicity itself.

In “The Animal Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity” white people were more likely to have a companion animal, rated their companion animals as significantly more important to them, and more likely to commit animal abuse. This article also cites a different study of African American and white veterinary students which found that 100 percent of the white students had companion animals compared to 86 percent of African American students. The white students were also more likely to sleep with their companion animals.

Christina Risley-Curtiss, Lynn C. Holley, and ShapardWolf. “The Animal – Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity” Social Work. Vol 51 Issue 3 (Jul2006) Pg 257-268. 12p

Martin B.Marx, Lorann Stallones, Thomas F.Garrity, and Timothy P.Johnson. “Demographics of Pet Ownership Among U.S. Adults 21 to 64 Years of Age” Anthrozoos A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People @ Animals (12/1987) Pg 33-37


Just like humans a pets breed determine its characteristics.  Like a pets characteristics mine is I have red hair, green eyes, mostly German, and tall; a pets characteristics are slightly different.  They are friendly, have lots of fur, hypo-allergenic, bark a lot, are good show animals, talk, and etc. Even with a animal that should have most of the same personality because they are the same breed can be different.  All Pets have their own distinct personality, just like humans.

Most people find a pet that they love and don’t care about what it’s breed is, but for pets their breed is really their race.  For dogs you have Poodles, Miniature Poodles, Toy Poodles, Labradors, Dalmatians, Rottweilers, etc. . All of these are breeds of pets that one can have, and of course they could mate between breeds (which we call them mutts or some breeds when mixed called Hybrid).

Hybrids are born when two purebreds are mixed.  A purebred is any dog who is not mixed with any other type of dog.  Example: To make a Labradoodle you would have a Labrador breed with a Poodle (standard size).  There is also called a First Generation, Second Generation, and Third Generation hybrids as well. That means that they are from 25% – 75% purebred or two hybrid dogs bred together.

Example: My dog Meeko and my mom’s dog Peanut are the same breed called a “Miniature Poodles’. Peanut is older than Meeko by 6 months, but their physical descriptions are slightly different and their personalities are way different.  Meeko is bigger by about 5 pounds and has black fur.  Peanut is smaller but has grey fur.  Peanut is quite, hates walking on hard wood floors, he will protect anyone that is in the house (although he only weighs 15 pounds), loves attention but does not like to cuddle.  Meeko is loud, jumps on everyone, loves to cuddle, and he doesn’t do well with kids his own size.

Their breed is their race, but it doesn’t define their character or some of their physical characteristics.



Different types of Poodles


Different types of Collies



Much in the same way that humans are categorized by ethnicity, dogs are categorized by breed. Dogs in America have been developed through many eras of crossbreeding and selection. People who intentionally select a specific dog breeds in order to facilitate mating between them are called dog breeders. This is of course much different from natural selection where they would breed naturally in the wild. Sadly, due to the demand of purebred dogs in America, puppy mills breed dogs in a ‘factory farm’ manner in which dogs are neglected and abused. They are often kenneled in small spaces with inadequate amenities. If they are no longer able to reproduce, they me be killed, abandoned or sold to questionable buyers looking to exploit the dogs further. On the bright side, many people are becoming aware of this practice and are turning to adopting dogs from rescue outfits. Often times ‘Muts’ which are a result of crossbreeding different breeds of dogs such as purebreds. The result actually often translates to a much healthier animal than the purebred dogs. For example, short faced breeds such as bulldogs and pugs commonly suffer from breathing difficulties, large dogs such as Great Danes suffer from joint problems, and the ever popular  Labradors Retrievers are prone to over 50 genetic disorders.

Jhonson, Jill. Dogs.” Cats, and Their People: The Place of the family and attitudes about pet keeping” Web. 12 June 2013

Ethnographic Notes A – Who Rules America? (Feel free to add and edit)

Erik I learned that the United States is primarily controlled by an Upper Class social group This group consists mostly of banks, corporations, agribusinesses, and large real estate developers. Power is indicated in three ways. 1) Who benefits 2) Who governs 3) Who wins This upper class is nationwide and through a combination of corporate communities, non-profit organizations, think tanks, and access to government policy makers they are able to guide the country in the directions they think are best. The author makes sure to point out that there is no conspiracy, this is more like a group of people who happen to have similar goals and resources using the resources that are available to them.


Interlocking Directorates in the Corporate Community

I have learned the most board members of the corporations also sit on other big corporations boards.  This is called an interlocks with other companies when a board member sits on other boards with some of the same members.  Each board member usually sits on 6 other corporate boards. This is because they need to make sure they have each others back and control their mutual interest by serving on each others boards.  This is has been going on for a very long time. Corporations are only look out for their own profit.  It also used against government regulations.

For example:  Lets say the government wants to lower interest rates.  Then Chase, Citigroup and Capital One who all sit on other boards and  their own boards  could make the board members of their boards try to contact the legislature to show how this would hurt them financially and it could possible put a stop to it. This is the Corporate Community. They are control everything in the corporate world like Banks, technology, restaurants, etc.



On the website “Who Rules America?”,  I chose to review the article about the Bohemian Grove. The author William Domhoff discusses a gathering that takes place on a redwood grove in Southern California in which some of the most powerful and wealthy elite men get together to relax and socialize.

After acquiring the current membership list to the Bohemian grove affair, Domhoff decided to conduct some sociological research on the members of the club. He argues that his research was had value pertaining to the topics of politics, power and social change. Because the grove gathering was a place where men of political power gathered, the networking aspects should not be overlooked.

Since Domhoff was able to research the backgrounds and corporate connections of all the men who gathered at the event, he could get an idea of the potential effects this might have on government policies. Why? Because depending on the political or business interest held by members, the gathering facilitated a network for compromises and deals that would be financially beneficial to those involved. Because it is no secret the poor get poorer in order for the rich to…you know the rest, one can understand how this could be an example of how the powerful elite build relationships with each other making it easier for them to gain further power in a mutually beneficial way. Domhoff discusses term used in social psychology’s literature called small group dynamics which refers to the concept that when folks meet in relaxed scenarios, and view their group as private or exclusive, the become closer than they would under “ordinary” circumstances.

Pet Ownership and Gender Norms

This posting will primarily focus on dog ownership because there is more research on the subject. That being said there is a little information available concerning gender norms and cat ownership. For example in an investigation by Michael Ramirez called ““My Dog’s Just Like Me”: Dog Ownership as a Gender Display” it is mentioned by both some of the men and some of the women that cats are feminine and that dogs are masculine and that a man with a cat violates gender norms (Ramirez 378). There is a history of cats being associated with femininity. According to Elizabeth Atwood Lawrence cats have been frequently equated with a feminine image and that gender discrimination and speciesism in the veterinary profession have been correlated (Lawrence 623). Lawrence attributes this to cats’ fecundity, dedication to their kittens, and their playful nature (Lawrence 629).

Michael Ramirez focuses on dog ownership in relation to gender. First how the dog was selected which he breaks down into planners, impartials, or the smitten. Planners know what appearance, sex, and breed they are looking for (Ramirez). Impartials may have some idea but make their decision based on the personality of the pet. The smitten rely on just knowing that the dog is the right dog. Approximately 50% of both men and women selected the same sex of pet (Ramirez).  Men tended to be planners while women fit into all three groups (Ramirez). Men tended to focus on appearance, sex, and breed while women tended to focus on personality (Ramirez). When describing their dogs men tended to focus on their dogs activity and strength while women focused on behavior and personality (Ramirez). “Overall, owners consistently used gender to interpret their dogs’ personalities. At times, they even went as far as to reframe unconventional gender behaviors into traditional ones, thereby maintaining stereotypical characterizations of gender.” (Ramirez) According to Ramirez women focused on companionship and men on play.

Lawrence, Elizabeth Atwood. “Feline Fortunes: Contrasting Views of Cats in Popular Culture.” Journal of Popular Culture. Vol 36 Issue 3 (Winter2003). Pg 623, 13 pages

Ramirez, Michael. ““My Dog’s Just Like Me”: Dog Ownership as a Gender Display” Symbolic Interaction. Blackwel Publishing Ltd, Vol 29 Issue 3 (Summer 2006). Pg 373-391

Ethnographic Notes B – An American Ethnic Group


Irish Catholics migrated to the United States beginning in 1845 as a result of the potato famine in Ireland. According to the site Digital History they maintained their own cultural identity because of protestant persecution once they arrived in the states. The site also points out that Irish Catholic immigrants focused on collective action and politics to improve their situation.

” Instead of emphasizing individual upward mobility, many Irish men found work in more egalitarian situations, on labor gangs or construction crews or as longshoremen. Irish Catholic men were also especially likely to seek government employment (especially as police officers) or to find jobs under contractors who held city contracts or in public utilities, such as street railways. During the 19th century, Irish Catholics often took the lead in forming and supporting labor unions.”

“Irish American Solidarity” Digital History. May 24 2013 <>.

Michele – Italian Immigration

Italians moved to the United States to escape poverty.  They never really wanted to state in America; we use the term “Birds of Passage” for people not wanting to stay here.  They always planned to go back.  Unlike most immigrants more Italians went to South American instead of North America.

They didn’t want to be farmers.  Most Italians wanted to work in the cities and do manual labor, because this paid more.  They made some of the first skyscrapers, because they loved construction jobs. Even the women in Italian families worked to help out the family.  They did most of their work in the home to keep the family ties together.  Of course they did have their hands in other things as well including: sports, crime (mob), entertainment, politics and small businesses. They were least successful in politics because the lacked the education to be truly effective.


Al Capone (nicknamed “Scarface”) is still one of the most famous mobsters to date for the Italian mob.  He was born in Brooklyn to immigrant parents in 1899. He was made famous during Prohibition  by smuggling alcohol.  He was also made famous by gunning down 7 rival gang members on February 14, 1929. Now called the St. Valentines Day Massacre.   An was only caught because of tax evasion in 1931.


Digital History. 2013 June 2. “Italian Immigration”. [online] Accessed 2013 June 2

Biography: True Story. n.d. Al Capone. [online] Accessed 2013 June 2


3,250,000 Russians emigrated to America between 1820 and 1920. The first records of Russian emigrating to America is in 1747. The Russian orthodox church was established in Alaska in 1795. Interestingly, many Russians returned to Russian when the U.S. bought Alaska in 1867.


During the late 1900's, a surge of Russians emigrated to America. This was due to the massacre of Jews that occurred after Alexander II was executed in 1881.

Records indicate that more than 50% of Russians put down roots in Pennsylvania and New York. Because of the lack of skills, many resorted to low paying occupations in mines or factories doing manual labor. A large portion of Russians established themselves in the Lower East Side of New York.

In a scholarly periodical by Rebecca Joblonsky, the topic of Russian Jews in New York City. The cultural aspects of American Russians in unique in that since many Jewish people migrated to the U.S. because of persecution, they are a displaced people. As migrants living in New York, they had to acculturate themselves in a situation where they were again outsiders.


Works Cited.

Jablonsky, Rebecca. "Russian Jews And 'Gypsy Punks': The Performance Of Real And Imagined Cultural Identities Within A Transnational Migrant Group." Journal Of Popular Music Studies 24.1 (2012): 3-24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 June 2013.