In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing. That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.
The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy. The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.
Showing posts with label ethnicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethnicity. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Why Asking "Why Can't 'Successful' Black Women Find Good Men?" is a Stupid Question
Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family. First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage. It also presupposes that women want or need to be married. As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married. The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates. And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.
Labels:
blackness,
classism,
Cultural Theory,
ethnicity,
feminism,
homosexuality,
interracial,
marriage,
media,
relationships,
sexuality
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Is The Color of Beauty White?
A friend hipped me to this video and it is truly heartbreaking. Apparently the color of beauty is still white (and will always be if we are to believe those people interviewed in the video.
Before I am accused of being too Afrocentric, I am not advocating that the fashion industry is "blackened" just for the same of having black people on the runways and in the pages of mainstream fashion magazines. Rather, I am advocating at least an openness to representing blackness rather than having designers request "no black girls." Particularly when they are willing to allow white models to don blackface or act as props to showcase white beauty. Which recalls one of the quotes in the film that says people in the industry essentially want white girls dipped in chocolate.
Before I am accused of being too Afrocentric, I am not advocating that the fashion industry is "blackened" just for the same of having black people on the runways and in the pages of mainstream fashion magazines. Rather, I am advocating at least an openness to representing blackness rather than having designers request "no black girls." Particularly when they are willing to allow white models to don blackface or act as props to showcase white beauty. Which recalls one of the quotes in the film that says people in the industry essentially want white girls dipped in chocolate.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Xenophobia Reins Supreme in Arizona
I sometimes cannot believe my eyes. I knew this legislation was in the works, but for it to be signed into law is a completely different thing. (Deep breath!) OK, in Arizona it is now illegal to teach ethnic studies courses because, well, let me just put a quote here from State schools chief Tom Horne who says:
Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot. Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way." But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior. As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students. (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)
"...A Tucson school district program promotes 'ethnic chauvinism' and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race.'"The first problem is that these "ethnic studies" programs are the only place where minority students can get a comprehensive history of their ancestors. When I was in elementary school, black history in the larger history books consisted of Harriett Tubman (she helped free slaves) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (he led the Civil Rights Movement) -- pretty insufficient.
Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot. Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way." But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior. As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students. (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)
Labels:
bias,
blackness,
classism,
Cultural Theory,
education,
ethnicity,
idiots,
law enforcement,
news,
politics,
pop culture,
race,
tomfoolery,
xenophobia
Sunday, May 9, 2010
WWW: The White Women's Workout; or So Funny, It's Kinda Sad
I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily. Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man. But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).
Labels:
blackness,
classism,
Cultural Theory,
education,
ethnicity,
gender,
interracial,
media,
movies,
music,
news,
pop culture,
race
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Unpacking a Racist Harvard E-mail
A friend of mine tipped me off to this e-mail that purported to defend the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people (presumably, mainly white people). I won't even try to unpack this nonsense because Feministe does it far better than I could. It's a long read, but it's well worth the time and energy to do so. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of serious, and well-informed conversations that need to be had about race in America, but that we simply are not well-equipped enough to have. But is more troubling is that, as Feministe points out, this woman is going to be charged with making and upholding the law some day. No doubt, those who believe in her particular brand of "logical" thought will herald her as one who reads the law as it was written while those who seek to uphold the rights of those less advantaged will be seen as "activist judges."
Labels:
blackness,
classism,
Cultural Theory,
education,
ethnicity,
stereotypes
Monday, April 19, 2010
Welcome to Confederate History Month
Here's a fantastic editorial by Frank Rich that in many ways illuminates the "new racial" times in which we live. All of the talk about Obama ushering in a new phase of post-racial-ness has been bunk. In many ways, I think we live in a far more racist society than we did before the Civil Rights Era.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18rich.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18rich.htm
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Reform Post Script
My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).
Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.
This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.
For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.
Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.
Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.
This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.
For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.
Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.
Labels:
classism,
corporate America,
ethnicity,
health care,
media,
news,
politics,
race,
television
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Are White Dolls Worth More than Black Ones?
For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."
It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.
But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.
I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).
It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.
But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.
I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).
Labels:
blackness,
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
fashion,
media,
news,
pop culture,
race
Monday, March 8, 2010
Black Women and Hair
My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.
Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).
Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.

The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.
And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:
Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).
Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.

The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.
And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:
Brian: Can I ask you one more question?
Kenya: Hmm?
Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off?
Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean?
Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it?
Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that.
Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious.
Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls.
Brian: They had real hair.
Kenya: I have real hair too.
Brian: Underneath?
Kenya: Yes, underneath!
Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in?
Kenya: Something like that.
Labels:
blackness,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
fashion,
media,
news,
pop culture,
stereotypes
The White Savior in Hollywood
Last night I got into a discussion about Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar(R) for her role in The Blind Side. The person with whom I had this argument railed against Sandra Bullock's win because she felt that it reinforced the idea of the "helpless black" waiting for a good white person to come and make their lives better.
Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).
In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.
Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).
In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.
Labels:
blackness,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
movies,
pop culture,
race,
relationships
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Kiss is Still a Kiss: White Heteronormativity and the movie Valentine's Day
Garry Marshall you owe me $6!
Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.

According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.
Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.
I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.
Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.

According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.
Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.
I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.
Labels:
blackness,
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
gay,
homosexuality,
interracial,
media,
movies,
pop culture,
sexuality,
stereotypes
Modern Day "Brownface"
When I was on vacation in Amsterdam late last year (shortly before the American Christmas holiday), I began to notice blackface dolls in storefront windows. Later in the trip, I asked a tour guide what it was all about and she retold the story of "Black Pete" who is a servant of Saint Nicholas. There are several stories about Black Pete. One is that his face is black because the Dutch expect the face of the devil to be black. Another story has Black Pete punishing bad children. Still another story purports that Black Pete is the one who actually places gifts for Saint Nicholas (and subsequently that his face is black because from sliding down the chimney, which covers his face in black soot). In current times (as when I was in Amsterdam) Black Pete's face isn't so much black as it is brown, presumably to get away from the idea of blackface. Aside from this representation of Black Pete, I (idiotically, apparently) thought blackface was largely a thing of the past since people like Ted Danson found out that most people (especially black people) don't see the "LOL" potential of blackface these days.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw this photo spread from L’Officiel Hommes, a men's French fashion magazine from 2010.

Are there really not enough black male models? I think not. And perhaps it's just for the sake of creating controversy because certain segments of the internet are abuzz about this photo spread. If that is/was the aim, then mission accomplished. But what it says is that in the high fashion modeling industry, black still isn't good enough. Despite Tyra Banks' best efforts with America's Next Top Model, there are just not a lot of black people who grace the pages of fashion magazines. The cover of Vanity Fair's most recent cover featured thin, white actresses as the future of Hollywood. What this recent attack means is that not only are blacks not good enough to be featured in fashion (along with women who are heavier than a size 6) but even when (on the rare occasion) an editorial calls for people of color they aren't even good enough to fill those few slots.
Some could make the argument that we are living in a post-racial world now that American has elected an African American president -- to which I say BULLSHIT! Try telling a black man (who is not the biracial Barack Obama) that race no longer matters. Even as a reasonably well-educated black man, no one can convince me that race no longer matters. Tell me we are post-racial when the woman on the "El" in Chicago gets up and moves to a different car when I sit down within 20 feet of her. Try telling me we are post-racial when the woman clutches her purse when I get onto the elevator with her.
Although we rarely do this is any way that has real impact, it's time for us to get outraged about our failure to have a real, honest conversation about race and ethnicity. We will always be plagued by these problems unless we get it all out in the open. Once we have had an honest conversation about race, we'll understand why brownface is as offensive as blackface and instead of giving people a forum to use it to titillate and intrigue us, we'll just yawn and look the other way and dismiss it for the publicity stunt that it is.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw this photo spread from L’Officiel Hommes, a men's French fashion magazine from 2010.

Are there really not enough black male models? I think not. And perhaps it's just for the sake of creating controversy because certain segments of the internet are abuzz about this photo spread. If that is/was the aim, then mission accomplished. But what it says is that in the high fashion modeling industry, black still isn't good enough. Despite Tyra Banks' best efforts with America's Next Top Model, there are just not a lot of black people who grace the pages of fashion magazines. The cover of Vanity Fair's most recent cover featured thin, white actresses as the future of Hollywood. What this recent attack means is that not only are blacks not good enough to be featured in fashion (along with women who are heavier than a size 6) but even when (on the rare occasion) an editorial calls for people of color they aren't even good enough to fill those few slots.
Some could make the argument that we are living in a post-racial world now that American has elected an African American president -- to which I say BULLSHIT! Try telling a black man (who is not the biracial Barack Obama) that race no longer matters. Even as a reasonably well-educated black man, no one can convince me that race no longer matters. Tell me we are post-racial when the woman on the "El" in Chicago gets up and moves to a different car when I sit down within 20 feet of her. Try telling me we are post-racial when the woman clutches her purse when I get onto the elevator with her.
Although we rarely do this is any way that has real impact, it's time for us to get outraged about our failure to have a real, honest conversation about race and ethnicity. We will always be plagued by these problems unless we get it all out in the open. Once we have had an honest conversation about race, we'll understand why brownface is as offensive as blackface and instead of giving people a forum to use it to titillate and intrigue us, we'll just yawn and look the other way and dismiss it for the publicity stunt that it is.
Labels:
blackness,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
fashion,
models,
pop culture
Monday, February 15, 2010
Framing Phobias
Whether we will admit it or not, media, at its core, works to frame events for us. Most often, news media works to frame blackness as a symbol of deviance, destruction and generally all things horrible. And as sociologist Herman Gray notes in his fantastic book Watching Race, "... the demonization of blackness -- welfare queens, the aggressive black female, the menacing black criminal -- in the public sphere of media spectacle... enables[s] the mobilization of counterimage of blackness -- the figure of individuality, competence, exceptionalism -- as difference." (See Harry Reid's comment about President Obama for more on how educated blacks are framed as different than "others."
In addition to this framing of blackness as menacing, the news media also work to frame phobias for us. Erica Chito Childs, in her book Fade to Black and White, asserts that the media frame fear of interracial relationships for us and that whenever these unions occur three things happen:
1) The relationship is often doomed from a long-term perspective;
2) The white person in the relationship is shown to be somehow deviant; and
3) The opposition to the interracial relationship is centered on black opposition rather than white opposition.
It's this third point that is most important for the purposes of this post. This framing can also be used as a way to look at homophobia. There is, without a doubt, homophobia that exists among white people. We see it nearly everyday in evangelicals and conservatives using scripture to denounce gay rights or by using "slippery slope" arguments about how gay rights will create a social Apocalypse. And one can either agree or disagree on their position by saying they are right or wrong -- and it is largely determined on where you stand on social issues. But it's the framing of black opposition that is sometimes the most telling.
While the video embedded below does not feature blacks, it's important to know that most people (particularly Americans) make no distinction for black skin and blacks are thereby implicated by the video. In addition, while homophobia among whites is framed as being either a religious issue or one related to income or education level, all blacks are often stereotyped as being homophobic. Despite efforts like the ad campaign launched last week on Long Island, there is still a long way to go to get the media to stop framing events so that we can stop relying on stereotypes to label people.
In addition to this framing of blackness as menacing, the news media also work to frame phobias for us. Erica Chito Childs, in her book Fade to Black and White, asserts that the media frame fear of interracial relationships for us and that whenever these unions occur three things happen:
1) The relationship is often doomed from a long-term perspective;
2) The white person in the relationship is shown to be somehow deviant; and
3) The opposition to the interracial relationship is centered on black opposition rather than white opposition.
It's this third point that is most important for the purposes of this post. This framing can also be used as a way to look at homophobia. There is, without a doubt, homophobia that exists among white people. We see it nearly everyday in evangelicals and conservatives using scripture to denounce gay rights or by using "slippery slope" arguments about how gay rights will create a social Apocalypse. And one can either agree or disagree on their position by saying they are right or wrong -- and it is largely determined on where you stand on social issues. But it's the framing of black opposition that is sometimes the most telling.
While the video embedded below does not feature blacks, it's important to know that most people (particularly Americans) make no distinction for black skin and blacks are thereby implicated by the video. In addition, while homophobia among whites is framed as being either a religious issue or one related to income or education level, all blacks are often stereotyped as being homophobic. Despite efforts like the ad campaign launched last week on Long Island, there is still a long way to go to get the media to stop framing events so that we can stop relying on stereotypes to label people.
Labels:
blackness,
branding,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
homosexuality,
interracial,
media,
news,
pop culture,
race,
sexuality,
television
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Race and Ugly Betty
In the interest of full disclosure, I am heart broken that Ugly Betty has been canceled. Yes, the second and third seasons left a bit to be desired, but this season, its last, was really a creative renaissance for the show. When I read the story on Huffington Post, I did something I rarely do -- I read the comments and ran across this comment from SpoooonBK who said: "Ugly Betty is currently the only sitcom on American TV that focuses on an honest and positive portrait of a Latino family. We need shows like this. It is a shame that this is happening."
One of the things I find problematic about the statement is the use of the word positive to encompass the presentation of the Suarez family. Positive is such a subjective term when speaking about any presentation of a group of people on television. And for everything that we might deem positive about Ugly Betty, there are also things that could be construed as negative like the idea that Hilda was an unwed, teenage mother or that Hilda embodies the stereotype of the loud, sassy Latina women.
Whether Ugly Betty is ultimately remembered as a positive or negative portrayal of Latino families is a moot point. What is important is that another quality program is biting the dust and it's a sad day for television viewers.
One of the things I find problematic about the statement is the use of the word positive to encompass the presentation of the Suarez family. Positive is such a subjective term when speaking about any presentation of a group of people on television. And for everything that we might deem positive about Ugly Betty, there are also things that could be construed as negative like the idea that Hilda was an unwed, teenage mother or that Hilda embodies the stereotype of the loud, sassy Latina women.
Whether Ugly Betty is ultimately remembered as a positive or negative portrayal of Latino families is a moot point. What is important is that another quality program is biting the dust and it's a sad day for television viewers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)