If I ask you to name a choir, what names come to mind? Vienna Boys Choir, Brooklyn Tabernacle and the Boys Choir of Harlem come to my mind. Of course, Im from the city and so I may be a bit jaded. Still here is no question of the fame of the Boys choir of Harlem. A Google search of the word choir has them come up in position 4. That says a lot, and that is before the Vienna Choir which is older [started in 1498]. Some may not be aware how often they hear the Choir’s work, but it has been in the soundtracks of Jungle Fever, Malcolm X, and Glory to name a few.
So why am I thinking of choir music today? It’s not because I’ve been listening to chamber music lately (which is quite nice in a live performance), but because of NYC officials. The City seems determined to kick the choir out of its current space, effectively causing harm to this institution that has existed since 1968. They are accused of possibly not paying music staff, do not have reliable tour dates and are in debt 5 million dollars. Oh, I should mention that they are on property that can generate $550,000 a year. So the city is willing to just shut the Boys Choir of Harlem out of it rehearsal space.
Let me give you some insight, that may or may not apply, as I recall it. As a native NYC I recall the decades that the city allowed Harlem to be a drug-infested and dangerous place. Everyone knew what streets you could go to, day or night, to get whichever drug you wanted. Police enforcement of laws were laughable. Rats the size of small dogs or large cats ran around from abandoned brownstone to brownstone. It was so bad, that in 1977, according to an article by Ms. Julia Vitullo-Martin on August 3, 2003, “an entire house could be bought for $5,000.” In 2003 a brownstone sold for $2.5 million and 1 million dollar+ sales are common today.
It took roughly 50 years for Harlem to go from the Cotton Club to a literal rathole. Then after a major and historic black-owned bank (I apologize but I forgot the name, this being a ~20 year old event) was forced to liquidate before Mr. Bill Cosby and others could provide funds to guarantee its survival [I have searched for 8 hours in the last couple of days and have not found one reference to this roughly 1983 news occurrence, yet it was national media at the time], numerous other banks in the city began to give loans out to buy houses. This was the 90's and the city started to develop the abandoned and worthless land. Businesses and Yuppies (many brokers as I recall) who could get approved, as opposed to the locals who never had the chance nor could ever qualify in the past, started buying like sharks in a frenzy. Had I the money I would have done so too. It was obvious that the prices would soon soar.
I say all that because again it seems to me that rather than working the situation the City is looking for the money. The fame of the choir, and its good work seems not to be as valuable as the money the buildings they use can generate. This is the conclusion I get.
Though no January 2006 or later appearance dates are available for the choir (no surprise since they may not have a place to operate from after the 31st) dates prior to that for last year are easily found on their website. So to claim that the tour dates have been unreliable could be a stretch. It is stated via the Harlem choir’s website that they have 100% college acceptance. Attendance is 94%, the number of kids passing is 95%. Statewide tests for math and reading show 84% and 79% of the students (respective) are at or above grade level. All of this and only 125 students are actually in the choir. How many other schools can boast such achievements? How many inner city schools that cater to mostly Black African American, Hispanic and other minority can say anything close to that? It wasn’t my high school, where I estimate roughly 15% were accepted into non-city colleges, 25% if you include them. [That was roughly 20 years ago in a better time for students and Black African American youth, I graduated 6th in my class... I had a decent school, but there can be no comparison to the Harlem Choir.]
As Thomas Carlyle says “Music is well said to be the speech of angels; in fact, nothing among the utterances allowed to man is felt to be so divine. It brings us near to the infinite.” I agree with that, and as I previously stated on how AOL is restricting musical expression (in my opinion) the City is doing so and worse for the most petty of reasons, money. Expanding the minds of the youth, especially the Black African American, Hispanic and minority youth that need to be exposed to more than just the inner city, is essential. Any culture or governmental entity that restricts or damages that is a failure and dangerous in my mind. This is especially true when other alternatives can be found. Half a million dollars is not worth the price of a musical note, nor is it even close to the value of an educated and broadly influenced mind.
Let’s apply my rule used for commercials [from my post Burger King ad], if this was happening to the Vienna Boys Choir would the reaction be the same?
This is what I think, what do you think?
Monday, January 30, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
CSI - good entertainment or good murder plan?
Why is it that music, television, books, and movies are constantly cited when some crime gets committed. I won’t say it happens all the time, it seems to go in cycles. I recall in the 80's how rock music was blamed for causing teen suicides. In the 90's it was rap music that would cause attacks on police officers. Movies promoted crack, cigarettes, drinking, and other social ailments for decades. Oh, and cartoons are the reason why children are violent. The cartoon thing is current. And now I see that its back to television programs.
Those who have read my posts, Minorities, Television and 27 percent and The wicked UPN is dead (think of wizard of oz), probably have caught my overall displeasure with television programming and commercials in general. Of the few programs that portray characters with depth and intelligence, CSI is now getting labeled as a cause of a societal problem. I mean the fact that a senior criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has claimed that criminals, in particular murderers, are learning how to hide their tracks and the ‘fact’ its become harder to convict criminals as the television program has changed the views of jurists. I think that line of thinking is absurd.
Much like the false logic of the 80's and 90's, and I’m sure from the decades before that as well, individuals seek a cause or pattern that really doesn’t exist. I tend to look at it like I look at statistics, you can confirm anything that you want to if you manipulate it right. Many crimes are spontaneous, especially those that involve violence. The average criminal is not overly intelligent. Deep thought tends not to occur prior to a crime. These last 2 facts tend to help law enforcement capture criminals. If criminals made better plans, or any plan at all, and with only limited reference to any newspaper (or a conversation with another criminal who had gotten caught) there would be few fingerprints at any crime scene. It is common knowledge that we leave fingerprints when we touch things. I think the first time I ever heard about a fingerprint was back when I was in my early teens in a newspaper article describing how victims were identified.
A better example may be that no matter how many movies, shows or books an individual refers to they won’t be able to become a doctor. ER is not helping people cure their ailments, just as Marcus Welby, M.D. or Paramedic did not. But the argument, if we are to accept it, would make you believe that it must be happening.
I can’t wait for the day when people stop blaming entertainment in general or general social ills. Now this may sound strange considering my thoughts on rap. Here is the difference as I see it. ‘Urban clothing’ [which should mean any clothes worn by someone in a city, like the suits I prefer] is a multi-million dollar industry, that allows people to imitate rappers. ‘Thug life’ is a cultural fact, and a way of life that feeds and is fed by rap. Many rappers are former/current criminals. Many have engaged in violent acts. Rap is basically the glorification of this base cultural standard. Music videos, songs and movies mimic real life actions (a recent example is the allegedly criminal past of fifty cent in his movie - drug dealer, violent, criminal, now a rapper) or at least alleged real life actions.
If there has to be an outcry, and a need to find a cause (beyond lack of education, equal opportunities and societally reinforced low self-esteem) at least take on something that really is having an effect. Show a defined and direct relationship. And then figure out a resolution, because otherwise its just a waste of time and breath. Worse it may cause a decrease in intelligent programming as television executives run to the closest lowest common denominator show to avoid negative controversy and the potential loss of an advertiser.
Those who have read my posts, Minorities, Television and 27 percent and The wicked UPN is dead (think of wizard of oz), probably have caught my overall displeasure with television programming and commercials in general. Of the few programs that portray characters with depth and intelligence, CSI is now getting labeled as a cause of a societal problem. I mean the fact that a senior criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has claimed that criminals, in particular murderers, are learning how to hide their tracks and the ‘fact’ its become harder to convict criminals as the television program has changed the views of jurists. I think that line of thinking is absurd.
Much like the false logic of the 80's and 90's, and I’m sure from the decades before that as well, individuals seek a cause or pattern that really doesn’t exist. I tend to look at it like I look at statistics, you can confirm anything that you want to if you manipulate it right. Many crimes are spontaneous, especially those that involve violence. The average criminal is not overly intelligent. Deep thought tends not to occur prior to a crime. These last 2 facts tend to help law enforcement capture criminals. If criminals made better plans, or any plan at all, and with only limited reference to any newspaper (or a conversation with another criminal who had gotten caught) there would be few fingerprints at any crime scene. It is common knowledge that we leave fingerprints when we touch things. I think the first time I ever heard about a fingerprint was back when I was in my early teens in a newspaper article describing how victims were identified.
A better example may be that no matter how many movies, shows or books an individual refers to they won’t be able to become a doctor. ER is not helping people cure their ailments, just as Marcus Welby, M.D. or Paramedic did not. But the argument, if we are to accept it, would make you believe that it must be happening.
I can’t wait for the day when people stop blaming entertainment in general or general social ills. Now this may sound strange considering my thoughts on rap. Here is the difference as I see it. ‘Urban clothing’ [which should mean any clothes worn by someone in a city, like the suits I prefer] is a multi-million dollar industry, that allows people to imitate rappers. ‘Thug life’ is a cultural fact, and a way of life that feeds and is fed by rap. Many rappers are former/current criminals. Many have engaged in violent acts. Rap is basically the glorification of this base cultural standard. Music videos, songs and movies mimic real life actions (a recent example is the allegedly criminal past of fifty cent in his movie - drug dealer, violent, criminal, now a rapper) or at least alleged real life actions.
If there has to be an outcry, and a need to find a cause (beyond lack of education, equal opportunities and societally reinforced low self-esteem) at least take on something that really is having an effect. Show a defined and direct relationship. And then figure out a resolution, because otherwise its just a waste of time and breath. Worse it may cause a decrease in intelligent programming as television executives run to the closest lowest common denominator show to avoid negative controversy and the potential loss of an advertiser.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
my recent press release
For those who didn't see this, I will reprint it here. :)
New York, NY(PRWEB) January 25, 2006 -- The official launch of the Black Entertainment USA website is the culmination of several months of work by webmaster Mr. Michael Vass. The site is an original design combination of a weblog (commonly known as blogs) and regular webpages. The blog portion of the site is focused on the various entertainment industries (including music, television, commercials, and movies) and all forms of the media that covers them. Of particular interest are black entertainers (and Hispanic and other minorities) and how the media interplays with black and American culture.
The webpage sections contain links to sites rich in useful information on subjects that range from the U.S. Constitution to a link for BlackRefer.com. The information is used as references for the blog in its discussion of black entertainment, black culture, American life, movies, video games, the government and laws, as understood by webmaster and weblog author Mr. Michael Vass.
In addition, unique products can be found on the site created by Mr. Vass that are available via the CafePress.com system. Original design inscribed mugs, T-shirts, tiles, posters, and mouse pads are just a few of the products available.
Mr. Vass states, "I want to provide a voice, that I don't think is alone, to address some of the ongoing things not only in the Black African American culture, but the whole culture of America which it is intricately a part of. I realize that there is no one authority or voice to such broad topics, so comments in agreement or dissent are always welcomed."
As for the products and gift items available for purchase, Mr. Vass mentions, "As I share my thoughts on various events in entertainment from the view of one Black African American Hispanic, I also want to share some of my more personal musings and poetry from over the years. As time passes, more items will be added to provide greater diversity appealing to a wider range of the world."
For additional comments and information on this release or general site information, contact Mr. Michael Vass or visit the BlackEntertainmentBlog.com site. Comments on any posts should be added to the appropriate comments section on the site.
About Michael Vass and Black Entertainment USA
Mr. Michael Vass is a former securities industry account executive of good standing, and currently works in the field of investor relations. He is additionally a webmaster of several internet sites and weblogs. He has lived abroad, in Moscow and Tsblissi, and in various cities throughout the United States. It is the combination of these experiences that has lead Mr. Vass to the creation of Black Entertainment USA.
New York, NY(PRWEB) January 25, 2006 -- The official launch of the Black Entertainment USA website is the culmination of several months of work by webmaster Mr. Michael Vass. The site is an original design combination of a weblog (commonly known as blogs) and regular webpages. The blog portion of the site is focused on the various entertainment industries (including music, television, commercials, and movies) and all forms of the media that covers them. Of particular interest are black entertainers (and Hispanic and other minorities) and how the media interplays with black and American culture.
The webpage sections contain links to sites rich in useful information on subjects that range from the U.S. Constitution to a link for BlackRefer.com. The information is used as references for the blog in its discussion of black entertainment, black culture, American life, movies, video games, the government and laws, as understood by webmaster and weblog author Mr. Michael Vass.
In addition, unique products can be found on the site created by Mr. Vass that are available via the CafePress.com system. Original design inscribed mugs, T-shirts, tiles, posters, and mouse pads are just a few of the products available.
Mr. Vass states, "I want to provide a voice, that I don't think is alone, to address some of the ongoing things not only in the Black African American culture, but the whole culture of America which it is intricately a part of. I realize that there is no one authority or voice to such broad topics, so comments in agreement or dissent are always welcomed."
As for the products and gift items available for purchase, Mr. Vass mentions, "As I share my thoughts on various events in entertainment from the view of one Black African American Hispanic, I also want to share some of my more personal musings and poetry from over the years. As time passes, more items will be added to provide greater diversity appealing to a wider range of the world."
For additional comments and information on this release or general site information, contact Mr. Michael Vass or visit the BlackEntertainmentBlog.com site. Comments on any posts should be added to the appropriate comments section on the site.
About Michael Vass and Black Entertainment USA
Mr. Michael Vass is a former securities industry account executive of good standing, and currently works in the field of investor relations. He is additionally a webmaster of several internet sites and weblogs. He has lived abroad, in Moscow and Tsblissi, and in various cities throughout the United States. It is the combination of these experiences that has lead Mr. Vass to the creation of Black Entertainment USA.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The wicked UPN is dead (think of wizard of oz)
Ah, I feel a moment of joy passing over me. Sadly it is only temporary. Why might I feel like this? It is the thought of the UPN network disappearing of the face of television forever. The only problem with that is it will be replaced with the CW network. Of course the new network may be a blessing that just can’t be imagined, but the nature of television, and the networks that provide the programming (with a target of the lowest common denominator being the guiding force in determining what gets picked up) implies that what I may imagine is far from what will ever get to be seen on television.
Let me give you an example of why I feel strongly about the UPN. This is the same reason why my outlook for the future potential of the new network is dim. In 1995 the UPN opened its doors. One of the things that the television network was boasting was its diversity. Diversity in television programs has been an issue for a long time and I previously posted some thoughts on the matter inMinorities, Television and 27 percent. The UPN had a lineup of programs that featured Black African American, Hispanic and other minority leads and supporting actors. I, like many, had a hopeful outlook on what may be presented. Those hopes were crushed with my viewing of half an episode of Homeboys in Outer Space.
If a worse combination of writing, set design, and poor allocation of what I imagine as meager funds existed I am unaware of it. That at least I am thankful for. The fact that the program had a short life is not enough to overcome that it ever had a life on television. Sadly a key member of A Different World was part of this program. While he was quite good in School Dayz and A Different World, I haven’t seen him in another program since Homeboys. It was that bad I think. I can’t speak to its plot, there didn’t seem to be any, nor a style or anything that might be of note. If I could say that this was the only program of such low quality to appear on this network, I’d feel quite differently on its demise. That is not the case in my opinion.
Television programs, The Parkers, Moesha, Enterprise and many others have all added to the downward trend exemplified by this network. These are a few of the shows I had trouble with on this network. In the Moesha program, a child dictates the events in the house while her Black African American parents are constantly befuddled and lacking in advice or guidance (this is especially true of the father. I do not mean every episode by the way, and I do not mean to say that this type of ‘children know best’ attitude is solely found on the UPN). In the parkers we have a parent that would rather be a friend that a disciplined guide. How many episodes were there where the mother was chasing a man or at a party, alongside of her much younger child? And Enterprise just failed to live up to the earlier, and far better, extensions of the Star Trek universe. Oh, speaking of Star Trek (yes I am a fan of the original, TNG, and DS9) I can not leave out the other show UPN thrust upon the fans, Voyager. While a stronger presence than Enterprise, the key feature that struck me... the first Vulcan character that seemingly was mentally disabled (at least in comparison to every other such character in that universe).
Let me digress a moment. The Star Trek franchise was know for its groundbreaking episodes when the original first aired. The interracial kiss was the first on television, with a black and white character, to my knowledge. The crew was comprised of deep diversity, with 3 of the 7 main characters being non-white (the Vulcan being an alien, and Chekhov was Russian - a cold war enemy at the time but still white). This diversity was kept to some degree in the future installments, TNG having 1 of the 9 main characters as non-white (Data is an android, but modeled after his white creator, Yar died and was a white human from a distant planet, Worf like many post-original Klingons was dark-skinned but not black. The race of Klingons are all dark-skinned and other than the original show only 1 from a movie was not dark-skinned, but as aliens they don’t count. [Worf is played by Black African American Michael Dorn making 2 on the set but only one on the show]). Deep Space 9 really moved up the stakes with several minority characters in the cast, and as regulars, including 2 Black African Americans (one of which was the key lead), an Asian Woman, and many others as aliens. In all of this groundbreaking and trendsetting actions, one thing was always clear Vulcans were hyper-intelligent and not emotional. UPN decided to show us what a black Vulcan would be like (this was the only one ever portrayed by a black actor to my knowledge) and gave us the equivalent of a high school dropout working in a science lab. Fans of the genre were never amused.
But back to my point, the overwhelming number of shows directly courting Black African American and minority viewers found on UPN were about as enriching as processed sugar. It just gave you something to look at but wasn’t good for much. Even worse is when this filler programing was used to show the diversity gap in television was shrinking. Not every show is an E.R. or West Wing, or SOAP, but they can easily exceed Homeboys in Outer Space. Perhaps the executives of 2 combined studios will be able to muster some quality programs. Perhaps scientists will find that the cure to cancer is in processed sugar. In my opinion the odds are about the same.
Die UPN, die!
This is what I think, what do you think?
Let me give you an example of why I feel strongly about the UPN. This is the same reason why my outlook for the future potential of the new network is dim. In 1995 the UPN opened its doors. One of the things that the television network was boasting was its diversity. Diversity in television programs has been an issue for a long time and I previously posted some thoughts on the matter inMinorities, Television and 27 percent. The UPN had a lineup of programs that featured Black African American, Hispanic and other minority leads and supporting actors. I, like many, had a hopeful outlook on what may be presented. Those hopes were crushed with my viewing of half an episode of Homeboys in Outer Space.
If a worse combination of writing, set design, and poor allocation of what I imagine as meager funds existed I am unaware of it. That at least I am thankful for. The fact that the program had a short life is not enough to overcome that it ever had a life on television. Sadly a key member of A Different World was part of this program. While he was quite good in School Dayz and A Different World, I haven’t seen him in another program since Homeboys. It was that bad I think. I can’t speak to its plot, there didn’t seem to be any, nor a style or anything that might be of note. If I could say that this was the only program of such low quality to appear on this network, I’d feel quite differently on its demise. That is not the case in my opinion.
Television programs, The Parkers, Moesha, Enterprise and many others have all added to the downward trend exemplified by this network. These are a few of the shows I had trouble with on this network. In the Moesha program, a child dictates the events in the house while her Black African American parents are constantly befuddled and lacking in advice or guidance (this is especially true of the father. I do not mean every episode by the way, and I do not mean to say that this type of ‘children know best’ attitude is solely found on the UPN). In the parkers we have a parent that would rather be a friend that a disciplined guide. How many episodes were there where the mother was chasing a man or at a party, alongside of her much younger child? And Enterprise just failed to live up to the earlier, and far better, extensions of the Star Trek universe. Oh, speaking of Star Trek (yes I am a fan of the original, TNG, and DS9) I can not leave out the other show UPN thrust upon the fans, Voyager. While a stronger presence than Enterprise, the key feature that struck me... the first Vulcan character that seemingly was mentally disabled (at least in comparison to every other such character in that universe).
Let me digress a moment. The Star Trek franchise was know for its groundbreaking episodes when the original first aired. The interracial kiss was the first on television, with a black and white character, to my knowledge. The crew was comprised of deep diversity, with 3 of the 7 main characters being non-white (the Vulcan being an alien, and Chekhov was Russian - a cold war enemy at the time but still white). This diversity was kept to some degree in the future installments, TNG having 1 of the 9 main characters as non-white (Data is an android, but modeled after his white creator, Yar died and was a white human from a distant planet, Worf like many post-original Klingons was dark-skinned but not black. The race of Klingons are all dark-skinned and other than the original show only 1 from a movie was not dark-skinned, but as aliens they don’t count. [Worf is played by Black African American Michael Dorn making 2 on the set but only one on the show]). Deep Space 9 really moved up the stakes with several minority characters in the cast, and as regulars, including 2 Black African Americans (one of which was the key lead), an Asian Woman, and many others as aliens. In all of this groundbreaking and trendsetting actions, one thing was always clear Vulcans were hyper-intelligent and not emotional. UPN decided to show us what a black Vulcan would be like (this was the only one ever portrayed by a black actor to my knowledge) and gave us the equivalent of a high school dropout working in a science lab. Fans of the genre were never amused.
But back to my point, the overwhelming number of shows directly courting Black African American and minority viewers found on UPN were about as enriching as processed sugar. It just gave you something to look at but wasn’t good for much. Even worse is when this filler programing was used to show the diversity gap in television was shrinking. Not every show is an E.R. or West Wing, or SOAP, but they can easily exceed Homeboys in Outer Space. Perhaps the executives of 2 combined studios will be able to muster some quality programs. Perhaps scientists will find that the cure to cancer is in processed sugar. In my opinion the odds are about the same.
Die UPN, die!
This is what I think, what do you think?
AOL creates gay music, entertainment or restriction?
Let me start with a critique. Or perhaps a rant. Since when has music had a gender? I don’t mean that as a joke. Music has always been something for the masses. Whether the performer(s) were male or female had no influence on the quality of their work. Good music is just that, as is bad music. Gender has no effect on that, that I am aware of.
So why has AOL place not only gender, but sexual orientation into music? I can’t imagine how some exec made this pitch and got it approved. I’m referring to the G-Sides site created and launched by AOL. I never knew that a sexual orientation makes music sound different. It’s quite a revelation. Obviously it seems AOL has found that it has and thus the creation of this site.
I don’t care about a person’s sexuality, it has no bearing on their work. In the case of entertainers it does not prevent nor promote the quality of what they do. Liberace, who influenced musical entertainers from James Brown to Elvis Presley to Tupac Shakur [at least to include him in a song], was at one time the highest paid performer in Vegas and had a huge career and was gay. Did that affect his ability to be an exceptional pianist and singer? To say it does is to say that all exceptional singers (male or female) are gay, which is patently false. To say it was a factor in his abilities is to say that somehow Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder or Billy Joel are somewhat less than great, which I believe to also be a mistake.
Sexuality is exactly that. It is defined as “a state of being sexual, sexual activity”. To place a political category on music is to confine its scope and that of the listeners. It is a way to label and isolate, possibly even persecute those that accept such limitations. What entertainers do in their homes, behind closed doors should be private. In this media crazed world it often is not, by choice or otherwise. But to confine music in such a restrictive and narrow-minded way is insulting to me.
This is what I think, what do you think?
So why has AOL place not only gender, but sexual orientation into music? I can’t imagine how some exec made this pitch and got it approved. I’m referring to the G-Sides site created and launched by AOL. I never knew that a sexual orientation makes music sound different. It’s quite a revelation. Obviously it seems AOL has found that it has and thus the creation of this site.
I don’t care about a person’s sexuality, it has no bearing on their work. In the case of entertainers it does not prevent nor promote the quality of what they do. Liberace, who influenced musical entertainers from James Brown to Elvis Presley to Tupac Shakur [at least to include him in a song], was at one time the highest paid performer in Vegas and had a huge career and was gay. Did that affect his ability to be an exceptional pianist and singer? To say it does is to say that all exceptional singers (male or female) are gay, which is patently false. To say it was a factor in his abilities is to say that somehow Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder or Billy Joel are somewhat less than great, which I believe to also be a mistake.
Sexuality is exactly that. It is defined as “a state of being sexual, sexual activity”. To place a political category on music is to confine its scope and that of the listeners. It is a way to label and isolate, possibly even persecute those that accept such limitations. What entertainers do in their homes, behind closed doors should be private. In this media crazed world it often is not, by choice or otherwise. But to confine music in such a restrictive and narrow-minded way is insulting to me.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Affects on, and of, Entertainment
Some conflicting thoughts present themselves today in my comments. The reason for this is that I find myself on somewhat opposite sides on a couple of issues. The first of those involving the death of the rapper known as notorious b.i.g. While I do not have sympathy or concern over his death, as the lifestyle he projected and prospered from seems to be the key factor in the cause of his death, I do believe that those responsible need to be brought to justice. To that end, a judge has rule that over $1 million in legal fees are to be paid to the family of Christopher Wallace because the city of L.A. withheld evidence pertinent to the family’s civil lawsuit. I presume that the fact that a decision in favor of the family has been entered, and that evidence has been uncovered, will significantly help in bringing justice for the murder. Without regard to profession or lifestyle every citizen, every person, deserves the protection of the various levels of government in full. Murder, even of those who profess a lifestyle (via songs, rap, music videos or other entertainment/media, etc.) of violence, should never go unpunished. The truly sad and disturbing thought is that this murder may have been the result of a conflict over style and money, allegedly on behalf of Marion “Suge” Knight and Death Row Records. Any life, even that of a rapper is worth more than that.
In another matter dealing with the courts, the U.S. Government has requested the search queries held by Google, Yahoo, MSN and AOL. While several of the companies seem to have complied with this request, Google thankfully has resisted. The Government seeks to gain the data and determine if protections currently available actually protect children from certain forms of information on the internet. I am no rocket scientist, but I’d say the simple answer is no. Considering the immense volume of information available in various formats, it is almost impossible to prevent anyone from finding whatever they are looking for. Add to that determination the ever evolving nature of the internet and technology and there cannot, at least at this time, be any way to keep safeguards current. Of course this is eliminating the most potent and direct form of protection which is the parents.
Parents are the ones responsible for being aware of what their children watch and read, not the government. Parents are the ones who are supposed to instill a sense of morality and ethics in their children, not the government. It is obvious that no parent can oversee everything a child does. Even the most disciplined child will wander and investigate new ideas, even those they know to be “off-limits.” But it is the children where such parental concern has been shown that tempers the actions of those children as they cross the line. Beyond that, fate, luck and whatever religious power you may or may not believe in are in charge.
As for the request made by the government, it is not only the fact that the reason for the information is flawed (as I see no viable way the government can prevent innovation), but it violates the 1st Amendment. The government does not have a right to know what I look for on the internet. A random sample of searches provides more than just a list of Wikipedia listings, it is a glimpse of your private life. Would you like to share what website you like to go to with your boss? Or your mother? Why is a congressman, or worse yet a low level functionary any different. In addition, our government (like all governments) tends to abuse information. Whether in the form of infiltrating organizations (like the black panthers) or taping phone lines (you do recall that they have been doing this since 9/11) it is a loss of liberty. I feel this is an extension of one of the powers of the Patriot Act that I despise. The government can access your library records and find out everything the library has about you. The difference is that via the Patriot Act, no one would ever know as this information is gathered in secret. I do not agree with the government tip-toeing around personal liberties, under the guise of protection or curiosity. Freedom of expression (like this Black Entertainment USA blog, or any other entertainment or media) and the freedom to seek knowledge should be left unhindered by the government (in general - I can see a relevance of finding anyone researching Ricin or other potential bio/mass destruction weapons, which is very narrow and targeted).
On the other side of the spectrum is Mr. Harry Belafonte. I have already discussed Mr. Belafonte in my post Entertainment with Fox, Stern, Belafonte and other thoughts and on my Vass blog under post Harry Belafonte and respect. It seems that rebukes from various institutions and individuals, like myself, have had no effect. I dare say that he has even gone further in his unsettling attacks. Mr. Belafonte commits an act that always annoys me, that is a comparison to Nazi Germany. I mentioned recently [in the post Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech 3rd paragraph] my feelings on the comparisons I have heard all my life in reference to American Slavery. I’m sure as a Black African American male, that is older than myself and fought in WWII with the Navy before the segregation of the 60's, that Mr. Belafonte is familiar with these comparisons. I would also presume, based on his direct involvement with Civil Rights, that he has an equally negative view of these casual and selfish comparisons.
Even if I am correct, he has made the faux pas in comparing the Gestapo with our Homeland Security. Entertainers have great power in placing their concerns and issues in the forefront of the media, and thus the world. Black African American, Hispanic and other minority entertainers and celebrities have the double effect of manipulating the media and directly affecting the respective cultures. Derogatory remarks, as I find Mr. Belafonte’s remarks to be, do not benefit anyone in my opinion. They create an atmosphere of hostility that clouds any potential for an actual positive discussion of the issue. When issued by an entertainer or celebrity they do so doubly and cause many who might have taken up the issue to avoid it lest they get enveloped by the negative publicity. On top of this, youth, particularly minority youth, are given fuel to the fire of feeling abandonment and/or persecution which may not be accurate. I say again to Mr. Belafonte, if this may ever get to him, please watch not what you speak about but how you say it. You do more damage for more reasons than you may intend and provide no benefit, in my eyes.
This is what I think, what do you think?
In another matter dealing with the courts, the U.S. Government has requested the search queries held by Google, Yahoo, MSN and AOL. While several of the companies seem to have complied with this request, Google thankfully has resisted. The Government seeks to gain the data and determine if protections currently available actually protect children from certain forms of information on the internet. I am no rocket scientist, but I’d say the simple answer is no. Considering the immense volume of information available in various formats, it is almost impossible to prevent anyone from finding whatever they are looking for. Add to that determination the ever evolving nature of the internet and technology and there cannot, at least at this time, be any way to keep safeguards current. Of course this is eliminating the most potent and direct form of protection which is the parents.
Parents are the ones responsible for being aware of what their children watch and read, not the government. Parents are the ones who are supposed to instill a sense of morality and ethics in their children, not the government. It is obvious that no parent can oversee everything a child does. Even the most disciplined child will wander and investigate new ideas, even those they know to be “off-limits.” But it is the children where such parental concern has been shown that tempers the actions of those children as they cross the line. Beyond that, fate, luck and whatever religious power you may or may not believe in are in charge.
As for the request made by the government, it is not only the fact that the reason for the information is flawed (as I see no viable way the government can prevent innovation), but it violates the 1st Amendment. The government does not have a right to know what I look for on the internet. A random sample of searches provides more than just a list of Wikipedia listings, it is a glimpse of your private life. Would you like to share what website you like to go to with your boss? Or your mother? Why is a congressman, or worse yet a low level functionary any different. In addition, our government (like all governments) tends to abuse information. Whether in the form of infiltrating organizations (like the black panthers) or taping phone lines (you do recall that they have been doing this since 9/11) it is a loss of liberty. I feel this is an extension of one of the powers of the Patriot Act that I despise. The government can access your library records and find out everything the library has about you. The difference is that via the Patriot Act, no one would ever know as this information is gathered in secret. I do not agree with the government tip-toeing around personal liberties, under the guise of protection or curiosity. Freedom of expression (like this Black Entertainment USA blog, or any other entertainment or media) and the freedom to seek knowledge should be left unhindered by the government (in general - I can see a relevance of finding anyone researching Ricin or other potential bio/mass destruction weapons, which is very narrow and targeted).
On the other side of the spectrum is Mr. Harry Belafonte. I have already discussed Mr. Belafonte in my post Entertainment with Fox, Stern, Belafonte and other thoughts and on my Vass blog under post Harry Belafonte and respect. It seems that rebukes from various institutions and individuals, like myself, have had no effect. I dare say that he has even gone further in his unsettling attacks. Mr. Belafonte commits an act that always annoys me, that is a comparison to Nazi Germany. I mentioned recently [in the post Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech 3rd paragraph] my feelings on the comparisons I have heard all my life in reference to American Slavery. I’m sure as a Black African American male, that is older than myself and fought in WWII with the Navy before the segregation of the 60's, that Mr. Belafonte is familiar with these comparisons. I would also presume, based on his direct involvement with Civil Rights, that he has an equally negative view of these casual and selfish comparisons.
Even if I am correct, he has made the faux pas in comparing the Gestapo with our Homeland Security. Entertainers have great power in placing their concerns and issues in the forefront of the media, and thus the world. Black African American, Hispanic and other minority entertainers and celebrities have the double effect of manipulating the media and directly affecting the respective cultures. Derogatory remarks, as I find Mr. Belafonte’s remarks to be, do not benefit anyone in my opinion. They create an atmosphere of hostility that clouds any potential for an actual positive discussion of the issue. When issued by an entertainer or celebrity they do so doubly and cause many who might have taken up the issue to avoid it lest they get enveloped by the negative publicity. On top of this, youth, particularly minority youth, are given fuel to the fire of feeling abandonment and/or persecution which may not be accurate. I say again to Mr. Belafonte, if this may ever get to him, please watch not what you speak about but how you say it. You do more damage for more reasons than you may intend and provide no benefit, in my eyes.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Correction to Buger King Ad
I want to comment on something that occurred earlier this week. For those who check on the comments from older post, you may have already noticed the most recent response to my post Burger King ad. For those who have not I will provide it here, without edit:
January 18, 2006
I have to say, originally I thought I knew what commercial you were talking about. I thought you were thinking a little too much into the commercial, but just last week I finally saw the commercial you're talking about and I found myself thinking, "Wow, that Burger King guy is a
dick."
Now I don't know if I would have taken it as a race issue if I had not previously read your blog but I do think I still would have thought the King was an ass.
I do have a correction for you though. The commercial you were talking about was for their new super strong coffee not the breakfast sandwich, which makes a direct comparison between the two commercials a little harder to make. In addition the beginning sequence makes a little more sense. While I do believe that you may have a point, I don't know if that commercial was the best example. I think talking about the sudden movement for McDonald's commercials to move from "My McDonald's" in the white suburbs to "Mickey D's" in urban areas may be a little more relevant.
The reason why I have posted this comment is because this is the first case where I am being corrected. While I may, from time to time, correct grammatical errors found in my posts only a correction is different. I will always strive to may available to you my readers any corrections, and the relevant post it corrects, as a separate post. I know I am neither infallible nor omniscient and appreciate the time taken both to express a comment and to provide a correction.
In this case I must admit that the fact that the commercials are focused to sell separate products does change the comparison. The intention and target of the television commercials by Burger King were probably separate. I still feel, as does the commentator, that the television commercial was a failure. I still believe that the majority of the problems I found with the commercial remains though.
I plan to look for some of the McDonald’s commercials, I do not watch much television and of that few network programs, and will make posts as my ire is aroused. I think that the commentator does have a point as I vaguely recall some of the commercials, but not enough so to make any specific statements. I will always strive to not make broad and baseless claims.
I want to thank the commentator for correcting me, and I look forward to the occasions when other corrections come forward. I value ever visitor that reads my posts, and every comment made. I will strive to reply to every contact and comment made. I see these responses as helping me, and you the reader of Black Entertainment USA , get an accurate and full grasp of the subjects I discuss.
January 18, 2006
I have to say, originally I thought I knew what commercial you were talking about. I thought you were thinking a little too much into the commercial, but just last week I finally saw the commercial you're talking about and I found myself thinking, "Wow, that Burger King guy is a
dick."
Now I don't know if I would have taken it as a race issue if I had not previously read your blog but I do think I still would have thought the King was an ass.
I do have a correction for you though. The commercial you were talking about was for their new super strong coffee not the breakfast sandwich, which makes a direct comparison between the two commercials a little harder to make. In addition the beginning sequence makes a little more sense. While I do believe that you may have a point, I don't know if that commercial was the best example. I think talking about the sudden movement for McDonald's commercials to move from "My McDonald's" in the white suburbs to "Mickey D's" in urban areas may be a little more relevant.
The reason why I have posted this comment is because this is the first case where I am being corrected. While I may, from time to time, correct grammatical errors found in my posts only a correction is different. I will always strive to may available to you my readers any corrections, and the relevant post it corrects, as a separate post. I know I am neither infallible nor omniscient and appreciate the time taken both to express a comment and to provide a correction.
In this case I must admit that the fact that the commercials are focused to sell separate products does change the comparison. The intention and target of the television commercials by Burger King were probably separate. I still feel, as does the commentator, that the television commercial was a failure. I still believe that the majority of the problems I found with the commercial remains though.
I plan to look for some of the McDonald’s commercials, I do not watch much television and of that few network programs, and will make posts as my ire is aroused. I think that the commentator does have a point as I vaguely recall some of the commercials, but not enough so to make any specific statements. I will always strive to not make broad and baseless claims.
I want to thank the commentator for correcting me, and I look forward to the occasions when other corrections come forward. I value ever visitor that reads my posts, and every comment made. I will strive to reply to every contact and comment made. I see these responses as helping me, and you the reader of Black Entertainment USA , get an accurate and full grasp of the subjects I discuss.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Beaming entertainment, directors to you
Do you think anyone at GoldenPalace.com ever read the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition in particular rule #218 - Always know what you're buying. I say this because it would seem that Mr. William Shatner, the real life counterpart to Captian James T. Kirk, has read Rule # 1 - Once you have their money, you never give it back. Of course this is good news for Habitat for Humanity, as they gain the $25,000 paid for Mr. Shatner’s kidney. [Yes I like Star Trek, TNG, and DS9 in that order] All the better that he was able to support a useful charity with something that few would even consider of value. As I’ve said in a previous post, Latin music, celebrity donations, I truly enjoy when stars show honest support for a cause, and you can’t give more than a part of the body itself (even if that part isn’t useful).
Of course not every entertainer needs to, literally, sell themselves to support a good cause. Mr. Spike Lee spent part of the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday speaking about, “many young Americans, both black and white, have no idea of the blood, sweat and tears that were sacrificed so we could drink from a water fountain, sit down in a bus, have the right to vote." I have spoken about my agreement that “the youth of today do not have the inspiration that I recieved growing up. There are few notable entertainers that strive for anything more than a paycheck. Even fewer are the number that go after the money without incident (drug scandals, violence against fans and other entertainers, infidelity, ect).”
In addition I think its important to remember that the youth of today, in particular the Black African American youth, have no leaders to follow. I’ve stated before ”leadership is both a factor of what is percieved and done. Leadership is the ability to lead. A leader is one in charge or in command of others. Black leaders, now-a-days, are arbitrary figures that only represent an aspect that the media wants to be popular. Anyone given the title of a leader should be expected to, at a minimum, lead.” Because of this we must remember to explain what has happened before and remember to look forward. Mr. Spike Lee stands out, to me, because he is one of those few willing to say basically just that and not worry if there is any collateral damage to his popularity polls (or whatever is the Hollywood equivalent).
Since I’m talking about directors and what may be in the future I think I should mention what I’m looking forward to for the 2006 movie season. The movies provided by Hollywood last year were on average miserable dreck. Not everyone will agree with that, but you should. It was abundantly clear to me (because of movies like Honeymooners, Dukes of Hazzard) that the writers employed now have run out of ideas. Or that the executives that greenlight movies assume that the lowest common denominator in America dropped a few points from 2004. The revenues the movie entertainment industry received seem to indicate that they were wrong either way. This year a slightly newer approach is being taken.
Comic books are the new source of inspiration. Novels of all sorts have long been fuel for the movie machine, but the growth and maturing or the comic book industry has lead to some quality movies. [yep, I love comic books too] Movies such as Batman Begins, X-men, Blade, Spiderman, Superman and others are driven the profit minded movie studios to make more sequels and expand into lesser know storylines. While Sin City was a great movie based on a solid graphic novel, few of the less mainstream heros are getting the depth needed to make the stories worthwhile. Even some of the successful original movies have gotten sequels that were obviously made to fill company coffers and not provide a meaningful experience to the audience. Examples to me of both types of failed half-hearted attempts include by are not limited to the: Punisher (either movie), Daredevil, Fantasic Four, Hulk, several of the Batman or Superman sequels and others. I can only hope that pure profit is not the only driving force for the other movies that will get slated to be made, or shown this year.
So high hopes are awaiting X-men 3 and Superman Returns. Following the sequels are ‘cash-cows’ line of though could be [hopefully not] Mission Impossible 3. Let’s hope there is actually a team this time, Mr. Tom Cruise is a good actor but the missions are supposed to be a team effort, or am I showing my age? I do think Pirates 2 & 3 will be good only because I think Mr. Johnny Depp is so far outside of the Hollywood machine that if he didn’t like the material he wouldn’t do the movies.
The Da Vinci Code and Casino Royale (a serious version this time for those of us old enough to know that it’s a remake - the first was a comedy) movies have some potential and I hope for the best as the story lines are of interest to me.
Complete avoidance is the only thought I have for the remakes of the Pink Panther and Poseidon Adventure. Mr. Peter Sellers was one of the greatest comedic actors, satirical and serious and physical humor at the wackiest, ever. Mr. Steve Martin may be good, but he is not in that class, not even close if you ask me. But I bet studios are betting that the youth will think its original and go see it, hopefully they will read this or their parents will just rent a tape for them (of the original). Remakes of adventure films just don’t work. I like Mr. Kurt Russell, but I doubt that the movie will take, just the odds.
So what do we have to look forward to in 2006? We have 4 sequels, 3 remakes (if they say its “revisioned” history says stay far away if you share my tastes), and a movie based on a great novel. Sounds a lot like 2005. But we could only hope it will be better.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Of course not every entertainer needs to, literally, sell themselves to support a good cause. Mr. Spike Lee spent part of the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday speaking about, “many young Americans, both black and white, have no idea of the blood, sweat and tears that were sacrificed so we could drink from a water fountain, sit down in a bus, have the right to vote." I have spoken about my agreement that “the youth of today do not have the inspiration that I recieved growing up. There are few notable entertainers that strive for anything more than a paycheck. Even fewer are the number that go after the money without incident (drug scandals, violence against fans and other entertainers, infidelity, ect).”
In addition I think its important to remember that the youth of today, in particular the Black African American youth, have no leaders to follow. I’ve stated before ”leadership is both a factor of what is percieved and done. Leadership is the ability to lead. A leader is one in charge or in command of others. Black leaders, now-a-days, are arbitrary figures that only represent an aspect that the media wants to be popular. Anyone given the title of a leader should be expected to, at a minimum, lead.” Because of this we must remember to explain what has happened before and remember to look forward. Mr. Spike Lee stands out, to me, because he is one of those few willing to say basically just that and not worry if there is any collateral damage to his popularity polls (or whatever is the Hollywood equivalent).
Since I’m talking about directors and what may be in the future I think I should mention what I’m looking forward to for the 2006 movie season. The movies provided by Hollywood last year were on average miserable dreck. Not everyone will agree with that, but you should. It was abundantly clear to me (because of movies like Honeymooners, Dukes of Hazzard) that the writers employed now have run out of ideas. Or that the executives that greenlight movies assume that the lowest common denominator in America dropped a few points from 2004. The revenues the movie entertainment industry received seem to indicate that they were wrong either way. This year a slightly newer approach is being taken.
Comic books are the new source of inspiration. Novels of all sorts have long been fuel for the movie machine, but the growth and maturing or the comic book industry has lead to some quality movies. [yep, I love comic books too] Movies such as Batman Begins, X-men, Blade, Spiderman, Superman and others are driven the profit minded movie studios to make more sequels and expand into lesser know storylines. While Sin City was a great movie based on a solid graphic novel, few of the less mainstream heros are getting the depth needed to make the stories worthwhile. Even some of the successful original movies have gotten sequels that were obviously made to fill company coffers and not provide a meaningful experience to the audience. Examples to me of both types of failed half-hearted attempts include by are not limited to the: Punisher (either movie), Daredevil, Fantasic Four, Hulk, several of the Batman or Superman sequels and others. I can only hope that pure profit is not the only driving force for the other movies that will get slated to be made, or shown this year.
So high hopes are awaiting X-men 3 and Superman Returns. Following the sequels are ‘cash-cows’ line of though could be [hopefully not] Mission Impossible 3. Let’s hope there is actually a team this time, Mr. Tom Cruise is a good actor but the missions are supposed to be a team effort, or am I showing my age? I do think Pirates 2 & 3 will be good only because I think Mr. Johnny Depp is so far outside of the Hollywood machine that if he didn’t like the material he wouldn’t do the movies.
The Da Vinci Code and Casino Royale (a serious version this time for those of us old enough to know that it’s a remake - the first was a comedy) movies have some potential and I hope for the best as the story lines are of interest to me.
Complete avoidance is the only thought I have for the remakes of the Pink Panther and Poseidon Adventure. Mr. Peter Sellers was one of the greatest comedic actors, satirical and serious and physical humor at the wackiest, ever. Mr. Steve Martin may be good, but he is not in that class, not even close if you ask me. But I bet studios are betting that the youth will think its original and go see it, hopefully they will read this or their parents will just rent a tape for them (of the original). Remakes of adventure films just don’t work. I like Mr. Kurt Russell, but I doubt that the movie will take, just the odds.
So what do we have to look forward to in 2006? We have 4 sequels, 3 remakes (if they say its “revisioned” history says stay far away if you share my tastes), and a movie based on a great novel. Sounds a lot like 2005. But we could only hope it will be better.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Entertainers - Fatherhood vs. Image
Tomorrow is the day in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will be remembered. While that is an important thing, I noticed something else today. It has been reported that rap artist Juvenile was arrested related to child support. Of the many things entertainers do this is one that ranks at the top of the list in annoying me. There is nothing that riles me up like a father who abandon’s children and fails to live up to their obligation created by their actions.
Now let me clear a few things up. I do not want to pick on rappers, though they may be more high-profile in this matter, as I will discuss later. Entertainers and celebrities such as Damon Dash, Ice-T, Latrell Sprewell, Zab Judah, David Oakley and others fall into this category. Questions of paternity have fallen on Stephen Bing, and Mr. Bill Cosby among far to many others. While some have lived up to their obligations, others have not. Some, like Wil Smith, have children from previous relationships/marriages and are active in the lives of their children. To the fathers that are doing the right thing I think more needs to be said in acknowledgement. But I wouldn’t mind stoning those that aren’t.
I also don’t agree with some of the things that are done against some of the celebrity entertainer fathers, or fathers in general. While Puff Daddy, does and should pay for the well-being of his child, I can’t say that $35,000 a month or more is needed to raise a child. We are talking about monies that equal or exceed some of the real median household incomes of many Americans. I don’t know about others, but my friends and I grew up where the total annual family income may or may not have equaled the figure given to one child a month. Children deserve a good life, and when it can be afforded it should be given. A court should not be required to remind a father of what his obligations are. Given that, mothers should not seek to supplement their livelihoods based on the wealth of the child’s father.
But there is a bigger issue here, and this is why its on my Black Entertainment USA blog as opposed to my Vass blog. The issue is what does the existence of these high-profile cases do to our children? As we remember Dr. King, what can we say that has happened since the late 60's? Black African Americans, along with Hispanics and other minorities, have gotten a chance to live the American dream. Many have prospered and lead lives their grandparents could never have imagined. But as time has passed there has been an erosion that has occurred as well.
Two thirds of all black marriages end in divorce, and 2 of 3 black children will experience the dissolution of their parents' marriage by the time they reach age 16. In 1970, 68% of black families had both the husband and wife present. This number dropped to just 50% in 1990, a decrease of 18 percentage points over 20 years, compared with a 6-percentage-point decrease over the same time period for white families. When looking at this data, take a moment to also consider this fact. In a growing proportion as you go from 1970 to today, the amount of entertainers and entertainment that is targeted at the youth is oriented on little more than sex. That is not so say that Mr. Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, or Prince were not suggestive or risque. It is to say that O.P.P.[for those that don’t recall it stands for Other Peoples - the last one you can imagine for yourself, but that was the group’s name and lead song as I recall], 2 Live Crew, Sisko, Khia and a growing number are far more than suggestive or risque. Not only has the music that Black African American, Hispanic and other youth listen to become outrightly descriptive and declaratory on the issue of sex (particularly sex without marriage, attachments, responsibility, or respect); with the creation of music videos there has been a race to promote misogyny, and a lack of moral values.
I can’t say that all music videos are without charm, wit or attraction. I won’t deny that occasionally [I rarely watch television] I watch music videos of rappers and others and enjoy the titillation. Of course I am 38. Music videos of this nature were never available when I was in my mid-teens and few in my early 20's (though they never reached the type of actions/displays seen regularly today). Based on the proliferation of this entertainment, are we surprised that there are so many that decry the death of the Black African American family? How shocked can we be when the youth abandon children and applaud their status as a “baby mama,” or “baby daddy?”
Emulation of celebrities and entertainers is not a new thing. Whether it was the desire to be a home run hitter like Babe Ruth and Mr. Reggie Jackson, dunking baskets like Mr. Michael Jordan and Mr. Kareem adul Jabbar, or a star like Mr. Denzel Washington, Mr. Laurence Fishburne, or Mr. Sidney Poitier. It’s the American culture to desire to be the famous celebrity in the spotlight. It’s personal morality to put out a product that you can be proud of and reflects the ethics you hold. It’s an obligation to be responsible for your actions and the reasonable consequences from what you do, especially as an entertainer (Black African American, Hispanic or otherwise). If you can’t live by that, or worse yet actively chose not to, perhaps a rock to the head will help.
This is what I think, what do you think.
Now let me clear a few things up. I do not want to pick on rappers, though they may be more high-profile in this matter, as I will discuss later. Entertainers and celebrities such as Damon Dash, Ice-T, Latrell Sprewell, Zab Judah, David Oakley and others fall into this category. Questions of paternity have fallen on Stephen Bing, and Mr. Bill Cosby among far to many others. While some have lived up to their obligations, others have not. Some, like Wil Smith, have children from previous relationships/marriages and are active in the lives of their children. To the fathers that are doing the right thing I think more needs to be said in acknowledgement. But I wouldn’t mind stoning those that aren’t.
I also don’t agree with some of the things that are done against some of the celebrity entertainer fathers, or fathers in general. While Puff Daddy, does and should pay for the well-being of his child, I can’t say that $35,000 a month or more is needed to raise a child. We are talking about monies that equal or exceed some of the real median household incomes of many Americans. I don’t know about others, but my friends and I grew up where the total annual family income may or may not have equaled the figure given to one child a month. Children deserve a good life, and when it can be afforded it should be given. A court should not be required to remind a father of what his obligations are. Given that, mothers should not seek to supplement their livelihoods based on the wealth of the child’s father.
But there is a bigger issue here, and this is why its on my Black Entertainment USA blog as opposed to my Vass blog. The issue is what does the existence of these high-profile cases do to our children? As we remember Dr. King, what can we say that has happened since the late 60's? Black African Americans, along with Hispanics and other minorities, have gotten a chance to live the American dream. Many have prospered and lead lives their grandparents could never have imagined. But as time has passed there has been an erosion that has occurred as well.
Two thirds of all black marriages end in divorce, and 2 of 3 black children will experience the dissolution of their parents' marriage by the time they reach age 16. In 1970, 68% of black families had both the husband and wife present. This number dropped to just 50% in 1990, a decrease of 18 percentage points over 20 years, compared with a 6-percentage-point decrease over the same time period for white families. When looking at this data, take a moment to also consider this fact. In a growing proportion as you go from 1970 to today, the amount of entertainers and entertainment that is targeted at the youth is oriented on little more than sex. That is not so say that Mr. Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, or Prince were not suggestive or risque. It is to say that O.P.P.[for those that don’t recall it stands for Other Peoples - the last one you can imagine for yourself, but that was the group’s name and lead song as I recall], 2 Live Crew, Sisko, Khia and a growing number are far more than suggestive or risque. Not only has the music that Black African American, Hispanic and other youth listen to become outrightly descriptive and declaratory on the issue of sex (particularly sex without marriage, attachments, responsibility, or respect); with the creation of music videos there has been a race to promote misogyny, and a lack of moral values.
I can’t say that all music videos are without charm, wit or attraction. I won’t deny that occasionally [I rarely watch television] I watch music videos of rappers and others and enjoy the titillation. Of course I am 38. Music videos of this nature were never available when I was in my mid-teens and few in my early 20's (though they never reached the type of actions/displays seen regularly today). Based on the proliferation of this entertainment, are we surprised that there are so many that decry the death of the Black African American family? How shocked can we be when the youth abandon children and applaud their status as a “baby mama,” or “baby daddy?”
Emulation of celebrities and entertainers is not a new thing. Whether it was the desire to be a home run hitter like Babe Ruth and Mr. Reggie Jackson, dunking baskets like Mr. Michael Jordan and Mr. Kareem adul Jabbar, or a star like Mr. Denzel Washington, Mr. Laurence Fishburne, or Mr. Sidney Poitier. It’s the American culture to desire to be the famous celebrity in the spotlight. It’s personal morality to put out a product that you can be proud of and reflects the ethics you hold. It’s an obligation to be responsible for your actions and the reasonable consequences from what you do, especially as an entertainer (Black African American, Hispanic or otherwise). If you can’t live by that, or worse yet actively chose not to, perhaps a rock to the head will help.
This is what I think, what do you think.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Entertainers Queen Latifah, LL Cool J and Stephen Cobert
I finally get to talk about some of the few rappers that I respect and enjoy! The year is really shaping up. Seriously, Queen Latifah and LL Cool J are both entertainers who’s performances I have enjoyed for years. I even referred to them both when I made my post Rating Rapper in Movies. For those looking to be in the entertainment industry, especially if you are a Black African American or Hispanic, these are examples to emulate.
I find it interesting that while Queen Latifah has won an Oscar for her work in Chicago, she has not been approached with more substantial film roles (or so it would appear from the body of work she has done since winning). Most actors get, or at least it would appear by the substantial increase in pay and style of movies done, a lot of higher profile films after winning such a prestigious award. Of course Queen Latifah has been able to headline several films and produce 4 (of which one was executive producer). At the same time there has been many more roles for her. All in all she has made quite a name for herself, whether the discussion is about rap hip-hop music, television shows (she was a key co-lead in Living Single where she honed her acting chops I think), or feature length movies. In an age of mainstream rap/hip-hop that is misogynist in nature, and where the few women that have come to the forefront tend to generally be feeding into that mentality, Queen Latifah is a wonderful role model. More importantly she is a Black African American entertainer that is of note and showing everyone that there are alternatives that are equally (and in my opinion more self-sustaining) beneficial.
As for LL Cool J, he is another entertainer that has shown longevity that his peers in hip-hop is far from being matched. While he has not gotten to the caliber of either Mr. Wil Smith, nor the success of Queen Latifah, there is no denial that he stands proudly on his own. His beginnings on television (the show was In The House as I recall, please correct me if I am wrong on that) equally prepared him for the work he does today. He continues to pursue his rap hip-hop success as well, being more active than Mr. Wil Smith or Queen Latifah at the moment. In his performances, in any venue, he has shown the males, and particularly the Black African American men, that there is no need to embrace the lowest forms of black culture to attain success. His past is no less difficult than many, and he has encountered bumps as he has matured. There is no question on that. Yet he is capable of maintaining a stature that should be looked up to and followed.
What I really enjoyed reading was a discussion with both entertainers, about the latest movie (in which both star though Queen Latifah leads) Last Holiday. One of the highlights for me were the comments made by LL Cool J; which at a guess I would imagine is echoed by every parent involved in the rap industry or listening to the music. His exact words are, “As a black male I see a lot of insecurity amongst our men, cause we feel like we gotta dog women and make ourselves look better.” Also stated in that same interview was, “When you have a 6 year old or 5 year old running around feeling like they gotta wind their body cause that's what girls are supposed to do, cause that's all that's on the videos, that's crazy. What are we teaching our girls? Not that we shouldn't have sexy records or make great music and show women being beautiful. I'm not saying that. It's how we do it.” It’s nice to hear other, more famous and influential individuals, particularly those that are Black African American Hispanic or another minority, stating the same things that I believe and say here in my blog.
Perhaps we will see a change one day. I can only hope that future entertainers, regardless or race, chose to forgo the easy money made at the expense of entrenching stereotypes and belittling the culture. The promise of the future is worth more than the price tag for a Dome. [I can’t find a site for this so they may not be made anymore, but they were a hand-made high end sports car. I was shown the one Mr. Kadeem Hardison used to own by Mr. Hardison. Pleasant man, on a very bad day.]
On a lighter note, I just want to say that I really enjoy watching the Colbert Report. This is not only comedy, its satire on a fantastic level. Few can match the arrogance and confidence with which Mr. Stephen Colbert utters ‘truthiness’ and defends his stance on that being his creation. (It doesn’t show in my spell checker so I go with Mr. Colbert on that, cause that’s how I feel in my gut!) Of particular note is his segment the Word of the Day. If you haven’t seen this show, I’d suggest it. I like it .
This is what I think, what do you think?
I find it interesting that while Queen Latifah has won an Oscar for her work in Chicago, she has not been approached with more substantial film roles (or so it would appear from the body of work she has done since winning). Most actors get, or at least it would appear by the substantial increase in pay and style of movies done, a lot of higher profile films after winning such a prestigious award. Of course Queen Latifah has been able to headline several films and produce 4 (of which one was executive producer). At the same time there has been many more roles for her. All in all she has made quite a name for herself, whether the discussion is about rap hip-hop music, television shows (she was a key co-lead in Living Single where she honed her acting chops I think), or feature length movies. In an age of mainstream rap/hip-hop that is misogynist in nature, and where the few women that have come to the forefront tend to generally be feeding into that mentality, Queen Latifah is a wonderful role model. More importantly she is a Black African American entertainer that is of note and showing everyone that there are alternatives that are equally (and in my opinion more self-sustaining) beneficial.
As for LL Cool J, he is another entertainer that has shown longevity that his peers in hip-hop is far from being matched. While he has not gotten to the caliber of either Mr. Wil Smith, nor the success of Queen Latifah, there is no denial that he stands proudly on his own. His beginnings on television (the show was In The House as I recall, please correct me if I am wrong on that) equally prepared him for the work he does today. He continues to pursue his rap hip-hop success as well, being more active than Mr. Wil Smith or Queen Latifah at the moment. In his performances, in any venue, he has shown the males, and particularly the Black African American men, that there is no need to embrace the lowest forms of black culture to attain success. His past is no less difficult than many, and he has encountered bumps as he has matured. There is no question on that. Yet he is capable of maintaining a stature that should be looked up to and followed.
What I really enjoyed reading was a discussion with both entertainers, about the latest movie (in which both star though Queen Latifah leads) Last Holiday. One of the highlights for me were the comments made by LL Cool J; which at a guess I would imagine is echoed by every parent involved in the rap industry or listening to the music. His exact words are, “As a black male I see a lot of insecurity amongst our men, cause we feel like we gotta dog women and make ourselves look better.” Also stated in that same interview was, “When you have a 6 year old or 5 year old running around feeling like they gotta wind their body cause that's what girls are supposed to do, cause that's all that's on the videos, that's crazy. What are we teaching our girls? Not that we shouldn't have sexy records or make great music and show women being beautiful. I'm not saying that. It's how we do it.” It’s nice to hear other, more famous and influential individuals, particularly those that are Black African American Hispanic or another minority, stating the same things that I believe and say here in my blog.
Perhaps we will see a change one day. I can only hope that future entertainers, regardless or race, chose to forgo the easy money made at the expense of entrenching stereotypes and belittling the culture. The promise of the future is worth more than the price tag for a Dome. [I can’t find a site for this so they may not be made anymore, but they were a hand-made high end sports car. I was shown the one Mr. Kadeem Hardison used to own by Mr. Hardison. Pleasant man, on a very bad day.]
On a lighter note, I just want to say that I really enjoy watching the Colbert Report. This is not only comedy, its satire on a fantastic level. Few can match the arrogance and confidence with which Mr. Stephen Colbert utters ‘truthiness’ and defends his stance on that being his creation. (It doesn’t show in my spell checker so I go with Mr. Colbert on that, cause that’s how I feel in my gut!) Of particular note is his segment the Word of the Day. If you haven’t seen this show, I’d suggest it. I like it .
This is what I think, what do you think?
Monday, January 09, 2006
Entertainment with Fox, Stern, Belafonte and other thoughts
And I thought the year was starting slowly. It would seem I am wrong. Mr. Michael J. Fox is back on the idiot box [I find that a more accurate name for television, as what it regularly provides will lower an IQ faster than anything except drugs, predominantly]. Its commendable that a solid actor as he is not only continues to provide television entertainment but also steadily continues his work for theMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. As I’ve stated in my post Tookie Williams and Hollywood, “I do appreciate that fact that many have strong convictions and stand by them, famous or not.” I will add that I find great respect in those who remind us that we are only ever as disabled as we allow ourselves to be. Individuals like Mr. Muhammad Ali, Mr. Stephen Hawkins, Mr. Stevie Wonder, Mr. Richard Pryor, Mr. Fox and others are shining beacon of that fact.
On a more mainstream note though is the possible return of Futurama to television. Much like the return of Family Guy [the Stewie and Brian characters are just brilliant] or the long run of the Simpsons, networks are finding that animation does not mean insipid prattle geared towards toddlers, pre-teens and drug-addled masses. While Futurama may never be a beacon for much more than a few laughs, though there have been episodes with more than just subtle hints at deep social meaning it may lead, I hope, to one day see a more serious and adult oriented anime style program. The expression via art can provide more than any CGI effect ever could, to a well thought out and targeted story. I’d suggest seeing Ghost in the Shell: Stand alone Complex to see what I mean.
Speaking of Bender, [best segue I could think of] the 23rd annual Adult Video News Awards have just taken place. Of course no one would ever want to go and see such awards (besides me one day, I just think it would be a fun experience. I’d love to go to the Oscar’s as well but I think this may be more attainable) other than the 5,000 people in attendance. I have to laugh since no one ever buys or sees pornography, yet the industry made 12 billion dollars last year (beating Hollywood by 3.7 billion dollars or 41.6% in 2005), was the first and is the most profitable industry on the internet to my knowledge.
Of course while Mr. Howard Stern has been called a pornographic entertainer and insulting by many, he need no longer fear the weight of the FCC on his back. Starting his first day at Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. [I will note that I was a broker in the past and this was a stock I recommended for years. It’s inclusion is not a recommendation nor a solicitation, and I do not work as a broker any longer. - I hate the legal stuff] Mr. Stern finally had the chance to tell his listeners exactly what he thought and they heard it exactly as he said it. One of the things I love about non-terrestrial radio is that it is a shining example of Freedom of Speech. If you don’t like what he has to say, change the channel. If the thought of this form of entertainment existing offends you, don’t buy it.
I love the way that so many protest and scream how something is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed. Yet those same people take the exact opposite view when discussing something they believe in. Bill O'Reilly is an example of that. Recently it was noted on the Daily show with John Stewart how O’Rielly on one hand was critical of the censorship he felt was happening with ‘Merry Christmas’ being removed from stores (yep, nothing says religion like shopping) as it was insulting to Christians [how as Christ was born in January anyway], but insists that even non-Christians must use the term instead of ‘Happy Holidays’. A bit 2-faced and illogical yes?
And lastly the week has started with Mr. Harry Belafonte calling sitting President Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world.” I’m sorry but that is just off-base. [My post Harry Belafonte and respect goes into the other ramifications of his comments.] Suffice I will say that I respect the convictions of Mr. Belafonte. I do not agree with him. To an extent I feel he is doing what Kayne West and to a lesser degree Mr. Ethan Hawke did, as stated in my post Rappers, Clemency, and Interactive Video gaming Entertainment. That is to say using his celebrity to express his personal feelings, which is fine, in a manner that is rude and disrespectful. Being a famous Black African American is no excuse to belittle the President of the USA. Entertainers are not excused of the ability to use tact, just because they disagree with policies or politicians.
Like I said, its getting interesting and the month has hardly started. So far most Black African American or Hispanic entertainers have been quiet. I’m sure that will change soon. Even so, while this site it predominantly interested in Black entertainers, and Hispanic or other minority entertainers, it is not the only thing I have to speak about.
This is what I think, what do you think?
On a more mainstream note though is the possible return of Futurama to television. Much like the return of Family Guy [the Stewie and Brian characters are just brilliant] or the long run of the Simpsons, networks are finding that animation does not mean insipid prattle geared towards toddlers, pre-teens and drug-addled masses. While Futurama may never be a beacon for much more than a few laughs, though there have been episodes with more than just subtle hints at deep social meaning it may lead, I hope, to one day see a more serious and adult oriented anime style program. The expression via art can provide more than any CGI effect ever could, to a well thought out and targeted story. I’d suggest seeing Ghost in the Shell: Stand alone Complex to see what I mean.
Speaking of Bender, [best segue I could think of] the 23rd annual Adult Video News Awards have just taken place. Of course no one would ever want to go and see such awards (besides me one day, I just think it would be a fun experience. I’d love to go to the Oscar’s as well but I think this may be more attainable) other than the 5,000 people in attendance. I have to laugh since no one ever buys or sees pornography, yet the industry made 12 billion dollars last year (beating Hollywood by 3.7 billion dollars or 41.6% in 2005), was the first and is the most profitable industry on the internet to my knowledge.
Of course while Mr. Howard Stern has been called a pornographic entertainer and insulting by many, he need no longer fear the weight of the FCC on his back. Starting his first day at Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. [I will note that I was a broker in the past and this was a stock I recommended for years. It’s inclusion is not a recommendation nor a solicitation, and I do not work as a broker any longer. - I hate the legal stuff] Mr. Stern finally had the chance to tell his listeners exactly what he thought and they heard it exactly as he said it. One of the things I love about non-terrestrial radio is that it is a shining example of Freedom of Speech. If you don’t like what he has to say, change the channel. If the thought of this form of entertainment existing offends you, don’t buy it.
I love the way that so many protest and scream how something is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed. Yet those same people take the exact opposite view when discussing something they believe in. Bill O'Reilly is an example of that. Recently it was noted on the Daily show with John Stewart how O’Rielly on one hand was critical of the censorship he felt was happening with ‘Merry Christmas’ being removed from stores (yep, nothing says religion like shopping) as it was insulting to Christians [how as Christ was born in January anyway], but insists that even non-Christians must use the term instead of ‘Happy Holidays’. A bit 2-faced and illogical yes?
And lastly the week has started with Mr. Harry Belafonte calling sitting President Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world.” I’m sorry but that is just off-base. [My post Harry Belafonte and respect goes into the other ramifications of his comments.] Suffice I will say that I respect the convictions of Mr. Belafonte. I do not agree with him. To an extent I feel he is doing what Kayne West and to a lesser degree Mr. Ethan Hawke did, as stated in my post Rappers, Clemency, and Interactive Video gaming Entertainment. That is to say using his celebrity to express his personal feelings, which is fine, in a manner that is rude and disrespectful. Being a famous Black African American is no excuse to belittle the President of the USA. Entertainers are not excused of the ability to use tact, just because they disagree with policies or politicians.
Like I said, its getting interesting and the month has hardly started. So far most Black African American or Hispanic entertainers have been quiet. I’m sure that will change soon. Even so, while this site it predominantly interested in Black entertainers, and Hispanic or other minority entertainers, it is not the only thing I have to speak about.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Friday, January 06, 2006
First entertainment strike to American Express
Only 5 days into the new year and it's happened again. Yet another commercial I believe to be offensive, brought to us this time by American Express. I realize that this is the 3rd television commercial that I find fault with, you can see my thoughts on Burger King and Malibu Rum. Still I think it is important to point out problems and suggest the solution of removing television commercials of this nature, so that at least that aspect of tv and American life can improve.
In this television commercial we are shown a young Black African American sitting in a classroom, circa the 1970's with a grainy film techinque from that time, while an announcer introduces her to us. The announcer states that the Black African American girl was 'always born to be a shopper' and we hear her ask her teacher "Where did the Pilgrims go to shop." She does so while looking quite pensive and ernest. We see another scene in which the girl (same age) is standing in line with other children as a White nurse (in the traditional nurse uniform which includes white shoes) passes by. The young black girl follows the woman as she passes by, leaning over to watch her go past. She then turns quickly to the young white boy next to her and says "Can you believe she is wearing white after labor day!" Next we see the child sitting in a room, with what we must assume is a psychiatrist (based on the era)behind her desk flipping ink blot cards. The young black girl states that each item on the ink blots looks like an item found in a store (one was called a lip gloss or purse and the blot looked very much like a butterfly style dot to me, as I recall). The female psychiatrist turns her head with a dumbfound look on her face to the parents, both roughly late 20 to 30ish Black African Americans, sitting together on a couch and shaking their heads in disdain (or so it looked, it could be embarrassment I'm not sure). We then see the girl fully grown in a shoe store, handing an unseen attendant the Amex carrd. Behind her and facing the screen are to black babies in a side by side stroller (I'd assume they were twins and the stroller was made for that as they appeared to be the same age). The now-woman black character seems in my opinion to be completely un aware of what is happening to her children behind her, there is no one else in the store (from that angle anyway) though. After a cut scene to show the new American Express card, we come back to a white woman who is looking at the black children and comments "Oh they are lovely." The Black woman exclaims, as she looks down at her shoes, "Don't you think! I have another pair in green."
Now really think through this commercial. What does it really say. We see that the child is either being taught improperly (thus meaning that school is unimportant) or that she is stupid (meaning she was given the proper information and she chose to diregard it). An implication that Black women are (or are taught) materialistic and that this is the most important fact of life is also made. From the next scene we can see that the child cannot focus on the situation at had (distracted by someone walking by), that recognition of a female nurse is unimportant (a woman with a title is unimportant), that the only concern for a woman is her apperance (regardless of situation or position), and that gossip is very important. Lastly for her as a child we see that her perception is materialistic, skewed, and unrealistic. The white psychiatrist is unsympathetic to a child in need (institutions don't care about Black African Americans), and finds blame with the parents (they raised the child to be like this). The parents for their part are bewildered (a common theme these days repeated on most youth oriented television shows and some movies, especially with African Americans, Hispanics or other 'minority' families. Ie. Moesha, That's So Raven, Home Alone, et al.)
As an adult we can derive that American Express, at least, believes the value system of this woman is perfect as they have given her a card. I didn't get a clear look at her hand to see if she was obviously married (which plays into the political family values issue). Her values are obviously off-center as she keeps her back to her children in a store (bad motherly attributes in these days) implying she doesn't care. Materialism is the theme of the commercial thus the shoe store, of course it is also restating the old stereotype of women and shoes. The Black womans disregard for her children and bad values is enforced when she takes a comment on her children to be about her shoes. Black women priorities are on their possesions and not family.
While this distasteful ad has much the same affect no matter the race of the woman/girl, it take additional meanings when a minority (especially one that is black) is presented. At least in this country as I have come to understand in my 35+ years of life. Even without the race issue, this is a repugnant television commercial and American Express normally has far greater taste. This also brings the question on why in an ad targeted to Black African Americans, and specifically to Black women, does not match the higher standards usually held by this company.
I would love if anyone from any of the companies mentioned, or their advertising companies, were to contact me or comment on my observations. I cannot think that no one in any of the companies or departments involved with the approval of these ads could not see the further meanings of the commercials. It is one thing to make programs and television commercials that are geared to the lowest common denominator [which is an insult to the intelligence of the average American viewer] but to further monetary gains by promoting stereotypes and ill-formed conceptualizations of groups is quite another.
I firmly believe that these and worse commercials will become more rampant and touch upon more minorities and other groups as no one calls them on their actions. I bet that part of why each of these thoughtless commercials contains Black African Americans, and others Hispanics and various other 'minorities' is that the statements would be felt more harshly to white America. Fear of lost sales is not a motivation to unfairly present any group.
I do not, nor will I ever, say that any advertisment, on television, a movie, radio or any other medium and form of entertainment cannot be fun and/or sarcastic. I believe firmly in the right to free expression. I also believe that you cannot treat people fairly part of the time and expect that there will not be a deep psychological and real impact from the rest of the time.
I wish that companies, and the govenment for that matter, would just try to treat me like a man, not a category. I am a man, an American, and a Puerto Rican Black in that order. Don't you wish for something along the same lines, or do you assume that that is how they already view you. I'm sure my 'minority' readers agree with me.
This is what I think, what do you think?
In this television commercial we are shown a young Black African American sitting in a classroom, circa the 1970's with a grainy film techinque from that time, while an announcer introduces her to us. The announcer states that the Black African American girl was 'always born to be a shopper' and we hear her ask her teacher "Where did the Pilgrims go to shop." She does so while looking quite pensive and ernest. We see another scene in which the girl (same age) is standing in line with other children as a White nurse (in the traditional nurse uniform which includes white shoes) passes by. The young black girl follows the woman as she passes by, leaning over to watch her go past. She then turns quickly to the young white boy next to her and says "Can you believe she is wearing white after labor day!" Next we see the child sitting in a room, with what we must assume is a psychiatrist (based on the era)behind her desk flipping ink blot cards. The young black girl states that each item on the ink blots looks like an item found in a store (one was called a lip gloss or purse and the blot looked very much like a butterfly style dot to me, as I recall). The female psychiatrist turns her head with a dumbfound look on her face to the parents, both roughly late 20 to 30ish Black African Americans, sitting together on a couch and shaking their heads in disdain (or so it looked, it could be embarrassment I'm not sure). We then see the girl fully grown in a shoe store, handing an unseen attendant the Amex carrd. Behind her and facing the screen are to black babies in a side by side stroller (I'd assume they were twins and the stroller was made for that as they appeared to be the same age). The now-woman black character seems in my opinion to be completely un aware of what is happening to her children behind her, there is no one else in the store (from that angle anyway) though. After a cut scene to show the new American Express card, we come back to a white woman who is looking at the black children and comments "Oh they are lovely." The Black woman exclaims, as she looks down at her shoes, "Don't you think! I have another pair in green."
Now really think through this commercial. What does it really say. We see that the child is either being taught improperly (thus meaning that school is unimportant) or that she is stupid (meaning she was given the proper information and she chose to diregard it). An implication that Black women are (or are taught) materialistic and that this is the most important fact of life is also made. From the next scene we can see that the child cannot focus on the situation at had (distracted by someone walking by), that recognition of a female nurse is unimportant (a woman with a title is unimportant), that the only concern for a woman is her apperance (regardless of situation or position), and that gossip is very important. Lastly for her as a child we see that her perception is materialistic, skewed, and unrealistic. The white psychiatrist is unsympathetic to a child in need (institutions don't care about Black African Americans), and finds blame with the parents (they raised the child to be like this). The parents for their part are bewildered (a common theme these days repeated on most youth oriented television shows and some movies, especially with African Americans, Hispanics or other 'minority' families. Ie. Moesha, That's So Raven, Home Alone, et al.)
As an adult we can derive that American Express, at least, believes the value system of this woman is perfect as they have given her a card. I didn't get a clear look at her hand to see if she was obviously married (which plays into the political family values issue). Her values are obviously off-center as she keeps her back to her children in a store (bad motherly attributes in these days) implying she doesn't care. Materialism is the theme of the commercial thus the shoe store, of course it is also restating the old stereotype of women and shoes. The Black womans disregard for her children and bad values is enforced when she takes a comment on her children to be about her shoes. Black women priorities are on their possesions and not family.
While this distasteful ad has much the same affect no matter the race of the woman/girl, it take additional meanings when a minority (especially one that is black) is presented. At least in this country as I have come to understand in my 35+ years of life. Even without the race issue, this is a repugnant television commercial and American Express normally has far greater taste. This also brings the question on why in an ad targeted to Black African Americans, and specifically to Black women, does not match the higher standards usually held by this company.
I would love if anyone from any of the companies mentioned, or their advertising companies, were to contact me or comment on my observations. I cannot think that no one in any of the companies or departments involved with the approval of these ads could not see the further meanings of the commercials. It is one thing to make programs and television commercials that are geared to the lowest common denominator [which is an insult to the intelligence of the average American viewer] but to further monetary gains by promoting stereotypes and ill-formed conceptualizations of groups is quite another.
I firmly believe that these and worse commercials will become more rampant and touch upon more minorities and other groups as no one calls them on their actions. I bet that part of why each of these thoughtless commercials contains Black African Americans, and others Hispanics and various other 'minorities' is that the statements would be felt more harshly to white America. Fear of lost sales is not a motivation to unfairly present any group.
I do not, nor will I ever, say that any advertisment, on television, a movie, radio or any other medium and form of entertainment cannot be fun and/or sarcastic. I believe firmly in the right to free expression. I also believe that you cannot treat people fairly part of the time and expect that there will not be a deep psychological and real impact from the rest of the time.
I wish that companies, and the govenment for that matter, would just try to treat me like a man, not a category. I am a man, an American, and a Puerto Rican Black in that order. Don't you wish for something along the same lines, or do you assume that that is how they already view you. I'm sure my 'minority' readers agree with me.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
2005 went bang, 2006 is alone...so far
So 2005 has passed and it closed with quite the bang. I mean that literally for rapper Trice. I was actually surprised that more rappers weren't shot. Another big blow was directed not to an entertainer but to the paparazzi that stalk them.
In Cali, legislation was passed on the 31st that removes the monetary incentive that has driven the frenzy of private photographs of entertainers. Of course there are those that are protesting the new law as unconstitutional. Without shock it seems to be the paparazzi themselves are claiming that the law is unfairly biased. If it is not then it should be, in my opinion. Why? Because something needs to be done to reign in the money-hungry vultures whose only purpose is to invade the privacy of people who deserve at least some time to themselves. The fact that publishers can also share in the liablity doesn't hurt either.
I agree that public personalities trade some of their right to privacy for the fame and wealth they attain. I too find interest in a story of activism, or punishment for laws broken that involves a singer, actor, politician or other entertainer. I don't care a shred about what they wore (or didn't wear) to a private beach, who they are surrounding themselves with during an evening of merriment, or if their marriages are in trouble. If Joe average were to have such photos or stories made public there would be an outcry of enourmous levels.
The public does not deserve to know intimate details about any entertainer. They are people and deserve respect for that reason alone. If they choose to divulge information, like Mr. Tom Cruise did about his lady love, then that is different but unsolicited intrusions should not be allowed. The right to freedom of speech and therefore the Press does not exceed or supplant a persons right to privacy nor does any right extend where it causes, directly or indirectly, harm to someone else. Not being able to shout fire in a movie theater, when there is none, is the same line of thought. Intrusive actions on children need to be verbotten.
Thus the year ended, with cries of pain and cries of anger for income streams that have been threatened. [No I am not, nor do I believe I will ever be, sorry or upset that some rapper has been shot/injured/killed especially if it is in any way related to the lifestyle they promote.] The new year has started with less of a roar, but with a statement of its own. Increasingly it seems that entertainment is becoming something not shared but experienced alone. That trend is both alarming and deeply saddening.
The proliference of portable devices that provide entertainment media directly to one individual has taken another step forward. Starz now provides a movie download service. I can not say that having music available is a bad thing; nor that I can't appreciate the ability to view movies as I travel. The technology is not the issue, its how we use that technology that troubles me.
Entertainment has always been about the shared experience of whatever medium. Movies (as an example) are meant to be seen with the masses, and I feel lose something when viewed individually. The spark of creativity ignited by the medium dies quickly when there is no one around to express the compelling and/or divergent thoughts with. Movies, music or whatever becomes that much more when a group of social beings are there for the experience at the same time.
As it becomes more available to individualize the experience, more is lost. The appreciation and impact is lessened each step we take from the masses. How this might affect us as a collective whole I cannot say, that is not my area of expertise. But I am aware enough to know that there was a reason why singers and painters and actors and entertainers have always existed in some form in every society and culture, on every part of the globe, since there have been humans. What happens when social being stop being social? What is the impact of the loss of a shared experience? Perhaps one of you, my readers, knows but I do not.
Thus ended 2005 and begins the year 2006. I like to be a bit philisophical from time to time.
This is what I think, what about you?
In Cali, legislation was passed on the 31st that removes the monetary incentive that has driven the frenzy of private photographs of entertainers. Of course there are those that are protesting the new law as unconstitutional. Without shock it seems to be the paparazzi themselves are claiming that the law is unfairly biased. If it is not then it should be, in my opinion. Why? Because something needs to be done to reign in the money-hungry vultures whose only purpose is to invade the privacy of people who deserve at least some time to themselves. The fact that publishers can also share in the liablity doesn't hurt either.
I agree that public personalities trade some of their right to privacy for the fame and wealth they attain. I too find interest in a story of activism, or punishment for laws broken that involves a singer, actor, politician or other entertainer. I don't care a shred about what they wore (or didn't wear) to a private beach, who they are surrounding themselves with during an evening of merriment, or if their marriages are in trouble. If Joe average were to have such photos or stories made public there would be an outcry of enourmous levels.
The public does not deserve to know intimate details about any entertainer. They are people and deserve respect for that reason alone. If they choose to divulge information, like Mr. Tom Cruise did about his lady love, then that is different but unsolicited intrusions should not be allowed. The right to freedom of speech and therefore the Press does not exceed or supplant a persons right to privacy nor does any right extend where it causes, directly or indirectly, harm to someone else. Not being able to shout fire in a movie theater, when there is none, is the same line of thought. Intrusive actions on children need to be verbotten.
Thus the year ended, with cries of pain and cries of anger for income streams that have been threatened. [No I am not, nor do I believe I will ever be, sorry or upset that some rapper has been shot/injured/killed especially if it is in any way related to the lifestyle they promote.] The new year has started with less of a roar, but with a statement of its own. Increasingly it seems that entertainment is becoming something not shared but experienced alone. That trend is both alarming and deeply saddening.
The proliference of portable devices that provide entertainment media directly to one individual has taken another step forward. Starz now provides a movie download service. I can not say that having music available is a bad thing; nor that I can't appreciate the ability to view movies as I travel. The technology is not the issue, its how we use that technology that troubles me.
Entertainment has always been about the shared experience of whatever medium. Movies (as an example) are meant to be seen with the masses, and I feel lose something when viewed individually. The spark of creativity ignited by the medium dies quickly when there is no one around to express the compelling and/or divergent thoughts with. Movies, music or whatever becomes that much more when a group of social beings are there for the experience at the same time.
As it becomes more available to individualize the experience, more is lost. The appreciation and impact is lessened each step we take from the masses. How this might affect us as a collective whole I cannot say, that is not my area of expertise. But I am aware enough to know that there was a reason why singers and painters and actors and entertainers have always existed in some form in every society and culture, on every part of the globe, since there have been humans. What happens when social being stop being social? What is the impact of the loss of a shared experience? Perhaps one of you, my readers, knows but I do not.
Thus ended 2005 and begins the year 2006. I like to be a bit philisophical from time to time.
This is what I think, what about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)