The reading is for McBride's article "Why I hate Abercrombie" and it gives much insight to the companies practice in advertisement and their main target audience. The author sites the fact that he has seen many gay men wearing Abercrombie & Fitch at a gay bar that he visited. He sites facts that advertising of men and women wearing next to nothing poses a problem in society and what we perceive as acceptable behavior. After giving a brief history of A&F and its roots in outdoor clothing, he goes on to talk about advertisement and the "celebration of whiteness" (pg. 68).
The main concept of the article is that the advertising for Abercrombie and Fitch is biased towards the white male and female population, and the models of this clothing have to have a certain type of look that would identify them as A&F. In one part, it shows that "Dreadlocks are unacceptable for men and women". The only race that hairstyle would be natural to would be the African American race, which makes it blatant racism. In a book for brand representatives, it shows a picture of an African American male and it shows that he must have a short Afro cut in order to appear natural and classic.
This article begs the question that why won't people shop at other store comparable to A&F such as American Eagle Outfitters where it is not as biased? When a person buys the product, they are buying the image and everything that goes along with it. In my opinion, it should be boycotted if it is not acceptable to people of other races.
My opinion of the product is not skewed since I don't purchase items at the store. However, I don't believe that it is appropriate for companies to only market products to a certain race or ethnicity. To do so gives a bad representation not only to the owners of that store but the people that own the product as well.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Cybertypes
Todays reading was for Nakamura entitled "Identity Tourism" describing the commercials and the companies of technology companies. Commercials are a risky business because in the attempt to find something attractive to get the audience to buy the good or service being presented, the company may alienate or isolate a certain type of people. This often happens with race or gender and can have devastating effects on the sale of that particular item. One of the main commercials that Nakamura is describing is a MCI commercial that is the "largest internet network in the world", saying that the company is very worldly and accepted by most people. However, as Nakamura describes, it is paradoxical because it shows many different people and the aim is to show that they are not different and their minds should only be viewed.
One of the key concepts of this article is that fact that it is very much a fantasy and is not a true representation of real world activities. Stated on page 94, describing advertisements about travel, Nakamura writes " Including these 'real life' images in the advertisement would disrupt the picture it presents us of an other whose 'unspoiled' qualities are so highly valued by tourists". By showing real life, it may make things less desirable for the consumer and the product or service may not sell. What is good for one set of consumers is not for another.
A question I pose towards this article is that in some aspects, the truth may be better than lying about the product being sold. In one particular instance in my past, my family took a trip to Belize City. In the description it sounded like a tropical paradise, but when we arrived there was a bus strike and it was the equivalent of a 3rd world country. In that case, it would be better to have described some problems because the customers view of that product is now permanently scarred from that experience.
For myself being a business major, I found this article to be very eye opening in the sense that sometimes lying about a product in order to make it sound better and less discriminatory is not always the best policy.
One of the key concepts of this article is that fact that it is very much a fantasy and is not a true representation of real world activities. Stated on page 94, describing advertisements about travel, Nakamura writes " Including these 'real life' images in the advertisement would disrupt the picture it presents us of an other whose 'unspoiled' qualities are so highly valued by tourists". By showing real life, it may make things less desirable for the consumer and the product or service may not sell. What is good for one set of consumers is not for another.
A question I pose towards this article is that in some aspects, the truth may be better than lying about the product being sold. In one particular instance in my past, my family took a trip to Belize City. In the description it sounded like a tropical paradise, but when we arrived there was a bus strike and it was the equivalent of a 3rd world country. In that case, it would be better to have described some problems because the customers view of that product is now permanently scarred from that experience.
For myself being a business major, I found this article to be very eye opening in the sense that sometimes lying about a product in order to make it sound better and less discriminatory is not always the best policy.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Reading for March 14th, 2007
The reading for today's class was entitled "How Jews became white folks: and what that says about race in America" written by Karen Brodkin. The chapter outlines some of the concepts of why Jews were not considered white during the pre- World War II days and how they likened themselves to African-Americans. She describes how her parents struggled when they came to America to find somewhere they belonged and could live and how it was for her own struggles. It depicts some of the worst times in American history in regards to racism, ethnic superiority and anti-antisemitism.
One of the key factors in this reading was World War II and its effects on the lives of Jews and "lower class" minorities. Things such as the GI bill prohibited the lower class people such as African Americans and Jews from collecting the money owed to them, including women. This was the reality of those times but as the author describes, it becomes better around the 1960's. Upstart suburbia's like Leavittown were no longer allowed to discriminate against blacks or Jews and equality was on the rise.
One thing i am unclear about is the reasons for why a Jewish person would not be considered white. Most Jewish people have white complexion but are not considered white because of religious premise. It makes very little sense to base skin color blindly on religion nearly 1900 years after the original conflict started.
I found this reading to be informative because I did not know the struggles of the Jewish person quite that far in depth. I knew of antisemitism but I didn't know it ran so deep into America's past.
One of the key factors in this reading was World War II and its effects on the lives of Jews and "lower class" minorities. Things such as the GI bill prohibited the lower class people such as African Americans and Jews from collecting the money owed to them, including women. This was the reality of those times but as the author describes, it becomes better around the 1960's. Upstart suburbia's like Leavittown were no longer allowed to discriminate against blacks or Jews and equality was on the rise.
One thing i am unclear about is the reasons for why a Jewish person would not be considered white. Most Jewish people have white complexion but are not considered white because of religious premise. It makes very little sense to base skin color blindly on religion nearly 1900 years after the original conflict started.
I found this reading to be informative because I did not know the struggles of the Jewish person quite that far in depth. I knew of antisemitism but I didn't know it ran so deep into America's past.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Reading for March 12th, 2007
The reading for today is Chapter 12 out of Zinn entitled "El Norte: the borderland of Chicano America". It describes the move north of many Mexican and Latin American people to America and its effects on Mexico and the United States. It changed the Mexican infrastructure by forcing farmers to the cities to work factory jobs and shortly after the big move made the Mexican Revolution, pitting rival factions in a brutal war against each other.
Among other things, he talks about the railroad that entered Mexico and its effects on migration. Mainly, the idea that Mexicans began working a vast array of jobs was a main point. They had spread across the southern states and even to portions of Michigan and Illinois. Quoted from the text, Zinn describes the Mexican labor force as "usually assigned to the worst jobs and received the lowest wages" during the great immigration boom of the early 1900's. They often worked "contract to contract" so that opportunities were limited to them and could basically become slave labor.
The idea of the Mexican immigrant being poor is not a surprise to me during the early 1900's. What is interesting to me, however, that during the 2000's, this really hasn't changed. Mexican Americans pride themselves on how much work they can accomplish and how efficiently it is done. In the same token, the average American puts in very little work into their work. It would seem more reasonable to pay the hardest worker the most money to do their work efficiently. It is more profitable to capitalize off of the hard work of someone than to pay more money for less work. My question would be why are Mexicans paid very little even in this century?
This article basically solidified everything I thought about the treatment of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. I believe they are treated unfairly in the American culture. Where I do believe that there should be restriction on immigration, I believe that the Mexican natives that are present in the states right now should be treated better and given better jobs.
Among other things, he talks about the railroad that entered Mexico and its effects on migration. Mainly, the idea that Mexicans began working a vast array of jobs was a main point. They had spread across the southern states and even to portions of Michigan and Illinois. Quoted from the text, Zinn describes the Mexican labor force as "usually assigned to the worst jobs and received the lowest wages" during the great immigration boom of the early 1900's. They often worked "contract to contract" so that opportunities were limited to them and could basically become slave labor.
The idea of the Mexican immigrant being poor is not a surprise to me during the early 1900's. What is interesting to me, however, that during the 2000's, this really hasn't changed. Mexican Americans pride themselves on how much work they can accomplish and how efficiently it is done. In the same token, the average American puts in very little work into their work. It would seem more reasonable to pay the hardest worker the most money to do their work efficiently. It is more profitable to capitalize off of the hard work of someone than to pay more money for less work. My question would be why are Mexicans paid very little even in this century?
This article basically solidified everything I thought about the treatment of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. I believe they are treated unfairly in the American culture. Where I do believe that there should be restriction on immigration, I believe that the Mexican natives that are present in the states right now should be treated better and given better jobs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
