America the Sham

Growing up in white suburbia produces a mindset that is becoming more unusual to me. I, like many of my peers, was convinced at an early age that America is this mystical land that rests on a platform, superior to all other lands we humbly take pity on. That we live in this utopia where freedom is pumped through our water systems and prosperity is sprouting from the sequoias, ripe for the plucking. Children are misled; words like “freedom” and “prosperity” have become banal guarantees. Kids, what are we “free” from, anyways? These guarantees have lost their real importance as human fundamentals that we are entitled to because we were born, regardless of what politics say or not. Our personal paths in life have been obscured in the path planned out for us, but not by us. Whether one agrees with American ideals or not, the fact is our lives have been hijacked, and it’s weird that this is normal.

Our lives have been hijacked because we think and believe things that aren’t self-produced. We live by guidelines, laws, codes that are said to be normal, that it’s just the way it is. We’ve accepted the axiom that hard work, discipline and education are the treasure trails to success. But who came up with this? Seeing as these aren’t a product of nature or evolution, there must be some man behind these concepts. The idea that hard work and respect will get you far in life didn’t seem odd to me before, but suddenly I’m realizing these “honorable” traits aren’t for personal advancement, instead for blind obedience to the American standard.

I’ve begun to lose my mind. Not in some dramatic fashion or more so than most people I know, but in a more creepy, insidious way. It’s the outcome of breaking from conventional ways of thinking. From the boundless literature of intellectual minds from the past and present, and from talking to others I respect, I know my way of thinking is hardly original. I feel insecure talking about this at times because I wonder if this is common sense and I’m simply just late to catch on. Then I wonder if it’s some esoteric concept only grasped by astute thinkers (ha..ha..humbly spoken, of course). Now I realize what I speak of is only foreign to those that grew up like me, privileged and misguided.

This is a cathartic realization for me. I realize now why I find myself angrier than my non-white friends at the inscrutable and subconscious racism that camouflages within society every day. I sometimes talk with my friends from inner cities about the smoke and mirrors of America and become consumed with rage while they coyly smile and respond nonchalantly. Corruption of our nation and unapologetic lies are yesterday’s news to our minority sisters and brothers. They’re aware of the racism and experience it every day; in ways that most white people have been conditioned to think is trivial. Suburbia grew up with the highest trust in our policemen and considered unquestionably reliable in case of an emergency; while urban communities realistically teach kids to stay away from the police at all costs- not only are they undependable for help, but also out to ensure your demise. For some, this sounds like paranoia or like excuses being made for certain behavior, but those are the ones that have never been ticketed for J-walking or searched because of the brand of clothing you’re wearing. For half of the 20^th century, Jim Crow laws were enforced as a way to either disrespect blacks or remove them from our sight and relocate them to jail. Simply because lazy white men were resentful that they couldn’t have slaves do their work anymore. Isn’t this an astounding parallel to today’s circumstances- with our jails at an unprecedented disproportion of blacks to whites, the drastic economic gap between the men with the money and the men who make their money but never see it, or the question of why education costs so much?

I get heat from others who think I talk about this too much or think about it too intensely. Which is exactly the negativity that has brought nothing progressive to the people and kept the hegemony thriving in favor of those undeserving. By not talking about it or questioning what people tell you, we’re handing over our minds while allowing authority to oppress us and our peers. And the reason why America is worse than other oppressive countries is because we wear this mask of benevolence and altruism. We claim to be something that we’re not. It’s outrageously offensive finding out we’ve been tricked since conception, and that we’re still in denial.

Ay, Brah.

The image of women in the media has been prominent in controversial discussion and social conflict theories for decades. While a worthy issue to speculate, we've been distracted from analyzing the male image. Has anyone ever stopped to think, how did men get to where we are now?

The virtues that [straight] men admire in other men have become qualities that confound most common sense. Alpha men today aren’t like they used to be. Iconic male figures in history like James Dean or John Wayne were celebrated for their charisma, confidence and chivalry. Their presence in society wasn’t because of their physical size, misogyny, or aggression, as we see today. Through the years, we can see a visible difference from the men we used to respect to the men held revered today. You can expect the "bro-tastic" "alpha male" of today to be cocky, arrogant, presumptuous, intolerant, and unbelievably muscular. Other than exasperation, this might be posing a real problem. Afterall, men commit 90% of violence and research shows we’re getting more violent. Even CNN chimed in saying the concept of a "quality man" is obsolete.

Men have undergone shocking reformation in the media through the years. Today, masculinity is associated with how much alcohol you can endure without vomiting, how freakishly huge their biceps are, or the turnover rate in their bedroom. He's expected to know flippant details over a few domestic beers, which he will always drink with his "bros." Men today love their bros, and religiously oblige to the latest puzzling concept of "bro-code." Ugh, barf. Also, the physique of admired men apparently caught elephantitis and has swollen to masses beyond pleasing. Notice the changing bodies from Marlon Brando, John Wayne, James Dean, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme in the 80s and 90s.

In the video “Tough Guise,” Jackson Katz explores the impact that overly-masculinized images have on society and culture. His insight is directly related to the cultivation theory, that suggests mass-produced images and messages are responsible for shaping the perception of our reality, ultimately “cultivating” our culture as a whole from media. Boys will turn out like the men they watch in movies, and those that don’t can expect backbreaking harassment and vicious words like bitch, fag, pussy. We are immersed with this ideal through media. It’s not just in a few places like video games and movies, but it’s literally what passes as a social norm. Katz also drew interesting connections between the construction of hyper-masculinity and politics, sports, consumerism and the marginalization of women.

This image of the alpha male is not an accident. It’s sourced and controlled by white, heterosexual males that do control this message and can leverage it to their benefit. Theoretically, one could postulate how these images encourage military advocacy. One could argue that men conditioned to think brute violence is the route to respect would find more hope in the military. Either way, with media reinforcing apathetic, mindless, aggressive behavior is implementing an ideal that isn’t realistic, and conjointly putting restrictions on an individual’s growth, behavior and attitude.

Sports: Mind-Controlling Propaganda

Considering sports as an “important” part of American culture is the understatement of the year. Sports are a central part of people’s lives and they certainly influence culture. Athleticism, teamwork, competition, hard work and so on are staples of American ideals because of sports. We witness the crowds of everyday people losing their minds, temper and money as though it’s completely normal behavior. Allegiance to a sports team is basically the same as fidelity to your spouse. People get tattoos of their sports team, spend outrageous money to see them perform, paint themselves and riot all for the sake of their team. How has sports become such a monster capable of such mania?

The sociology of professional sports strikes an uncanny resemblance to American sociology in general. To understand a society, one must understand political economy- how money and power are intertwined and what their intentions are with such power. Conflict theory of sociology says that social order results from the rich and powerful using their privilege to maintain their advantage – sometimes by force but more often by control of the media, symbols, schools, and other institutions. American sports are undoubtedly dictated and shaped by the structure of the economy. Furthermore, sports are also socially constructed, but constructed by the powerful moneymakers. Dimensions to question: How athletes become alienated from their own bodies, sports and commercialism, sports as patriotic/nationalistic propaganda.

Sports are a business, an extremely profitable business. Millions and millions are spent publicizing sports and millions of dollars have also been spent watching them. American sports teams are designed to make rewards (usually monetary) for their business owners, and those affiliated become conditioned to only want money, power and prestige. The deviance in sports conduct emphasizes this- increased use of violence, breaking rules like holding and pushing, and the use of steroids as a performance enhancer. Athletes are doing this for the symbiotic relationship, not for individual betterment. In fact, when an individual becomes an athlete, they lose their identity and become a spokesperson for their economic suppliers, or sponsors. Personal beliefs, ethics and positions are replaced with those of the sponsor. Michael Jordan is a perfect example of an athlete exploiting himself to the desires of his many sponsors. On the other hand, Tommie Smith and John Carlos show what happens when you utilize fame to voice personal beliefs. The two athletes were condemned for demonstrating against the inequality in America after they won the gold and bronze medal, respectively.

The NFL also regularly acts as propaganda for the military. Militant advocacy is ubiquitous during games- frequent advertisements for US military, appearances of troops at games, segments of troops overseas during holiday games. The Super Bowl begins with the national anthem and then encouraging words from the president, followed by fighter jets flying above. Furthermore, the parallels between the two are unmistakable. Athletes, like soldiers, become numbered gladiators that sacrifice their health and identity to follow orders from a commander. They are submitted to a caste system; and exploited to never see the kind of money they’re actually generating. Their bodies become conditioned for violence to gain territory on the opposition. Even terms used in football come directly from military use: Blitz, line to gain, bomb, trench, and encroachment.

As a non-sports fan, I’ve always found the reaction from fans intriguing, or mind-boggling. It’s interesting that seemingly sound-minded people can fall in love with athletes from across America that play for the team they live in, while developing this irrational hatred for similar men that play for opposing teams. Reminiscent of flag-waving war supporters without a clue what we’re fighting for, much?

The sociology of sports reflects everything that is wrong with America. Sports naturalize extreme violence for the sake of winning, is run by commercialism, uses the subservience of athletes to back corporate wishes, and strips the individual of their voice to stay popular with the keepers of normality. Corporations use their power to hide this fascist agenda and mislead fans into believing there’s no political notion in sports. We have been manipulated into accepting irrational behavior, finding ourselves act the same as those who are heavily biased in politics or blind nationalism. Sports have become a diversion to the issues that matter, a distraction that pits our own human nature against ourselves.

Yay For Gay

What do you get when you have two working people bringing home a salary with no child to spend it on? A marketer’s wet dream. According to San Francisco research, 76% of the gay and lesbian community earns more than the national average of $40,000 a year. This is largely because there is no child in the picture so both parties can afford to work. Marketer’s refer to it as DINK (dual income no kids) and are tickled to death by this jackpot. But what do you do when you have a mass of money to appeal to and the rest of your market is still up their bigoted ass? Use innuendo like your life depended on it.

For some reason, advertising to gays has this stigma that misled people to believing it must be sleazy or overly sexual to be effective. As though the only way to get homosexual attention is through sex. But isn’t that already a maxim for advertising in general anyway? Sex sells…to everyone. For decades the sexy attempts to sell to straight men has produced sweeping outrage from women for the shocking indecency and deprecation. When advertisers find themselves in this new light of moral awareness, they use a tactic like product placement. Homo-placement discreetly places symbols or other gay suggestions in the ad that blow over most hetero-heads. However, these ads that target gays don’t frequent your average CNN or ABC. They implement the classic American device known as “separate but equal.” Advertisers will run one gay commercial on Logo or Bravo and another, basically identical without homosexual implications, to the rest of America.

I’m not totally certain how I feel about these strategies to incorporate gay characters in mainstream commercials. On one hand, the fact these companies are using utmost discretion sends a message that being gay is something to hide. However, subtle placement could also be seen as attempts to normalize the homosexual community to the rest of society. While there’s always room for scrutiny, these ads could be baby steps toward tolerance (the non-offensive ads, anyway), a way to include homosexuals in ads without alienating them. Perhaps eventually pave the way to overall social equality. After all, there’s no better way to reach the top than through capitalism!

While it’s true that marginalized groups in history have acquired power through economic resources, it’s always been through producing or controlling money. However, gays and lesbians are breaching equality in the economic realm as the role of the consumer. It is because they’re so attractive to advertisers that they are offered the some kind of route to equality. Unfortunately, this commodization of homosexuality resulted in ads that hide gay culture with innuendos behind a straight appearance. Misrepresentation like this is ignoring millions of homosexuals who don’t experience reality like this, thus rendering their lives invisible once again.

Groupon-gate

Relatively new, inconspicuous companies have an important goal when introduced to the market- to notably position your brand and get your company known. Advertisers and PR reps stretch their morality thin concocting ads and publicity that will be memorable, infamously or not. Queue the cliché, “Any press is good press.”

Groupon is a company that was essentially invisible before they kicked down the doors of decency during the Superbowl XLV. Their parody to the suffering of Tibet was supposedly used to poke fun at their business, one that survives off trivial spending. Millions of viewers didn’t see the juxtaposition in such a comedic light and Groupon was castigated for their poor taste, eventually pulling all of the ads.

Their PR team had to have warned them of risky and unattractive consequences. There are questions and concerns that should have been addressed before airing.

- How many people have an emotional investment with Tibet and other grass-root organizations

- Is our advocacy for these organizations evident in the ads

- What kind of an image will we assume

- Will this be easy to fix

- Is it worth it?

Cleaning up this mess looked like a field trip to hell. Seemingly, media attention was more important for Groupon than brand image. Although, in 2011, all media is global media and marketing strategies must be designed to acknowledge that. I think the backlash was more than Groupon expected, because their crisis management wasn’t too solid. There were many routes that could have been taken yet their response didn’t seem thought out. The letter from Andrew Mason, Groupon’s CEO, assured that any damage done wasn’t intended and his angle for the ad was to be funny. He went on to point the blame at the ad agency, Crispin Porter & Bogusky, for their tendency to add controversy to their creativity. His words were defensive and poorly executed and Mason was criticized for it. Instead of implying “you’re just too stupid to get the humor,” he should have carried a more sympathetic tone. It’s important to understand the differences between values and ethics of other people, especially when you’re attempting to sell to a huge audience of key publics.

Now Groupon is better known and their business seems steady, at least in America. On the other hand, Groupon’s image isn’t exactly favorable by the masses just yet. Whether it’s the interesting approach to humor or indifference for sensitivity, the company was careless with it’s first major ad campaign. The role of PR in a campaign is especially crucial during the Superbowl; what people are saying the next day is what really matters. Either the PR reps were ignored or they were slacking.

Kanye: Contradicting Misogynist or Misunderstood Esotericism?

Hip-hop and rap music have an interesting position in American society. On one side, it’s seen as a terrorizing menace that perpetuates criminal and sexist ideals, and to others it represents a non-conformist voice reflecting urban communities and their right to be heard. I’m getting my feet wet on this particular genre of music and while I’m still just getting acquainted, it hasn’t taken me long to realize there are powerful messages behind the surface that deviates from what most perceive.

Kanye West is a prominent figure in the realm of hip-hop. Controversial, sure, but regardless whether you agree with his methods or not, this guy is artistically brilliant and very socially aware. Without critically analyzing his actions and lyrics, Kanye seems strikingly prideful and pompous with little regard to others. But knowing that nothing is actually as it seems, I caught interest in this bombastic icon. Kanye’s music embraces obscurity and isn’t easily grasped in the light of day. He uses fantasy, satire, and hyperbole to stream together an autobiography or point of view, with little concern to literal translation. This underlines the consideration that rap/hip-hop is, by definition, poetry.

His new video for the song Monster roused a backlash of anger over the obvious use of female exploitation. The apparent displays of violence and brutal sexual treatment toward women caused enough controversy for MTV to ban the video after receiving a slew of petitions. My reaction wasn’t different. I felt puzzled and irritated that someone with a history of powerful metaphors and context would completely degrade his credibility as one who fights injustices of the system. I was curious how someone can fight for the rights of one minority group while slandering another, in tandem, and determined to find a deeper, less offensive meaning.

Let’s think about Kanye’s past involvement with women. The infamous dramatics of interrupting Taylor Swift to defend Beyonce left everyone outraged and left me scratching my head. The whole incident wasn’t that big of a deal… and did anybody consider the fact he was absolutely RIGHT? His context was making a solid point- that black women aren't recognized for their talent as much as white women, even when it's basically unquestionable who's more deserving. Aftermath media stories of a broken up Swift left shaking on stage because of another angry black male were obnoxious. Poor Taylor? Please. I’m sure she’ll figure a way to eventually fight through the mental anguish. Keeping consistent with Kanye’s relation with women, I’m starting to think this video is just exposing the injustices of white women vs. minority women.

I found some insight on the blogosphere that noticed a story being told here. In the video, all of the completely dead women are white, while women of color were in a zombie, otherwise “monster,” state. I see here that Kanye is playing up the role (monster) given to him by America and further suggesting this role doesn’t just yield to the individual, rather a label all people of color have been and are continually stricken with. He’s virtually personifying the role people not only wanted to see, but forced him to embody. Nicki Minaj’s guest appearance is clearly categorizing the roles women have to pick from: Controlling bitch or innocent plaything. There’s an important undertone in the video, like I suspected, but I’m still not sure if I agree with it.

As someone who’s passionate about fighting against injustices and for civil liberties/human rights, I proudly stand in defense of every voice, idea, person that struggles to survive America. Kanye as a self-proclaimed mama’s boy shouldn’t ignore the objectification, backbreaking pressure, standards and boundaries all women are subjected to. Fighting against one "ism" should be fighting against all "isms." He’s become apart of the imperfections he stands against. Remaining secure in one perspective of a group without considering another lens is making the same mistake as the ignorant majority. And by grouping people into a framed judgment is muffling the efforts of progressive rebels fighting alongside. With all this said, there's no doubt that being oppressed in one area doesn't mean you're not privileged in another- and I'm aware my counterpoint is relatively weak, but it's important to consider. Ultimately, my respect Kanye as an artist and an intellect is unwavering, but he’s still evolving and he is holding to ideas that should be provoked. Just probably not ones that the majority disputes- always ignore the majority.

Soldiers Without Swords

The Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords is a documentary about the virtual invisibility of African American media and their struggle to get their voices heard. When slavery was abolished, blacks in American had to viciously fight to maintain in society. Life was arguably more grueling as a freedman, especially in the South; there were no means to employment, no wealth distribution, nobody teaching them how to survive, and blitzkriegs for frivolous lawbreaking to remove them from society (the law was essentially a tool for exclusion and expulsion). It was kind of like legally permitting 10-year-olds to drive, discontinuing driver’s education, and then arresting them for turning right on red. With such strong oppression, the black population fought a tough battle to keep their culture alive.

The sheer wonder that media possesses is beyond underrated, but The Black Press is really mind opening. Using a newspaper as a tool to transport ideas, dignity, hope, inspiration is beyond extraordinary and marvelous. It told people how to get jobs, how to get housing, how to manage in the jungle, that no one should stand for the heinous treatment from white people. There was a chance to comeback to the obscenely offensive cartoons and articles in the white papers and a chance to leave a legacy worthy of their respect.

The revolutionized means of communication gave a voice to the profound intellect that was formerly oppressed in the black community. Knowledge otherwise ignored of black history (like how the entire genealogy of the human race has black origins) was surfaced; new scholars now had a medium to talk and teach. The diversity of opinion was a substantial advancement for the growth of not only blacks, but also America as a whole. Without the new range of opinions, Americans were smothered with only one (delusional and senseless) vantage point.

One of the surprising things of The Black Press was the origin of the “Double V” movement. I had recognized it as a Dick Nixon trademark, but had no idea it started in the black media during World War II. As WWII surfaced, America scrambled to recruit as many soldiers as possible, and they didn’t see a chance of winning without the involvement of African-Americans. Under this sudden desperation for compliance, the Double V campaign emerged and exposed the extreme injustice being called for. The Double V’s represented the fight for domestic victory at home, not just overseas- calling for a victory against racism. Why should one risk their life for a country that doesn’t acknowledge their human rights and maintains a conviction of hypocrisy? Why would one fight to better a country that has no intention on bettering their living conditions? This movement encompassed every valid reason for blacks to fight for citizenship at home if they were expected to give their lives for America’s victory.

Even with every valid reason, every logical rebuttal, white America will refute motives that appear undermining. The black media had to proceed with caution, otherwise risk claims of sedition, or behavior deemed with the intent to overthrow established order. The lines of sedition are blurry, akin to the Espionage Act, but the purpose was to outlaw statements during war that were "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive … about the form of government of the United States." Being cautious wasn’t enough for the black media, as their papers got banned from military circulation because the army felt it was dangerous.

The story behind the black press of America is one of heroism and inspiration. In conditions that were dominated by whites and egregious prejudice, the black press persevered with exceeding courage, honor, valor and distinction, fighting a battle that diligently persists today. We can acknowledge this history and regard it as admirable, but to continue as though it doesn’t apply to today is neglecting the bigger principle, and therefore rendering it useless.