How the world changes. In 1769 what would become the city of San Diego was formed, New Zealand was found and there was a solar eclipse. Also in that year the first edition of Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage was made. I can understand if most are not familiar with this book, generally royals and other high society in Europe read it and few others as I understand. Essentially it is the book on how a lady is to behave. It would have been the book used in My Fair Lady, and a real princess would have been taught its tenants throughout her life. [If I am misunderstanding I hope my British readers will correct me]
So why should we care? Because of what has changed. In an attempt to gain readers, and to modernize, this book of etiquette now contains information on how to commit adultery, being topless, having a disease-free one-night-stand and how to smoke a cigarette. If this were a movie I’d say they were ‘revisioning’ the storyline and long-term readers know what I think of that. To me it sounds as if this is the high-society version of ‘keeping it real’ or how to be a ‘playette.’ That being the case I can think of nothing sadder.
I’m no prude, and I have no illusion that anyone in high-society is any better than me. Yet having a book, that is a guideline on how to act, advocating base behavior shocks me and leaves me a terrifying image of the future. I don’t care that it’s speaking to how a lady should act. If a book were to be made detailing how a man should do the same exact things, there would be an uproar.
But the fact that it is now acceptable to commit adultery, that “elegance, composure and dignity are all important, whether you are dining with the Queen or cheating on your husband,” is even a concept is despicable. And this view is hardly an isolated one. The African American community is rife with this. The Hip-hop culture is based on this and other similar concepts. We see today the wholesale de-valuation of self-respect and disregard for the opposite sex.
How long before high-society accepts it’s version of a baby-daddy or –mamma. And considering how long it takes for changes to become acceptable in high society, what will the common man and woman be like at the time? What will be the next de-evolution for the Black community and Hip-hop or whatever replaces it. I do mean de-evolution because I can see no positive aspect for being called (or wanting to become) a baby-anything. There is no dignity or elegance in adultery. There is no way to see a pimp as a positive figure worthy of emulation or praise.
The world has changed indeed. Some things are far better. Far too many are not. Some of them get put in books, most are things that just happen. It’s paying attention to the details that makes the difference.
This is what I think, what do you think?
** Something new. I will be trying to add MP3 files of each post. In addition I will try to add retroactive MP3 files of previous posts. Let me know if you enjoy them. And bare with me while I get used to the new format. **
blkentusaoct0506.mp3
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The math of black influence and success - 10.03.2006.1
I recently wrote Do you qualify to be black? - 10.01.2006.1 on my www.mvass.com site. This got me thinking. Who are the leading African Americans today. Who is creating the trends, leading the politics and making the most money.
When considering American leaders money is always a factor for many. Black Americans often focus on how much someone has, in my experience, equating it with prosperity and influence. Money is a focus of music and black culture today, moreso than at any time previous in my lifetime at least. So that is a factor I looked at though I don’t find it to be as significant as many others do.
Taking that into effect I have also tried to figure out the reach of influence of each individual. This is hardly scientific and based on my own calculations. Taking age, medium, wealth, and an assumption that the primary focus of African American celebrity influence is primarily focused in the U.S. where ~13% of the nation is African American and 14% are Hispanic (Latino) American. Based on these factors I have made an equation, which is as follows:
(Net worth/medium) * age /
percentage / world pop. = (the sum) squared = final value
Where medium is an approximate of the main reach of people (ie. Television viewership or my best estimate based on company sales) and world population is 6.6 billion, and percentage is 13%.
So in the case of Ms. Oprah Winfrey the final value is 9.18. As I said this isn’t scientific, but it’s something of interest. The final value equates to influence on the world. A comparison is that President Bush has a value of 91.97.
The ranking breaks down as such for several noted African Americans.
Mr. Robert Johnson – 2.66
Mr. Russell Simmons – 3.35
Mr. Tiger Woods – 12.18
Mr. Michael Jordan – 13.61
Mr. Colin Powell – 52.46
Now what these numbers are saying [based on the figures I could find which may not be accurate. If you are aware of better reliable numbers, please let me know.] is important. While apparel and music related sales do bring wealth and some influence it is very limited in the overall scale. Sports and athletic achievement is also limited though it does improve the numbers. But the real influence is held in the political realm. There is just no comparison.
With only 27 million in assets, Mr. Powell staggers over everyone else in my grouping. I would say that this group, while small is somewhat accurate in description. It comprises 2 billionaires, a broadcast television mega-star, 2 sports legends, 4 business giants, and one politician. The fact is that so much attention in black culture is focused on the wrong avenues.
Money may feel like a equal to power, but it is not. Sports may seem like a ticket to power, but it fails as well. The most important tool is direct involvement in what is going on. The richest woman, and most powerful television figure does not come close to the effect of Mr. Powell. The math may not be perfect, but you can see that the influence over 300 million people is more directly tied to power than entertaining smaller portions of the nation.
So I must ask, why is the current theme of the culture focused on entertainment and income? When did that become more important than influence and change? Why is the superficial and transient desired above the integral and stable?
This is what I think, what do you think?
Note some figures derived in part from or with reference to:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_16_100/ai_78966463
http://blogs.sohh.com/ya_heard/archives/2006/08/post_43.html
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/BlacksM.htm
http://www.charityvillage.com/cv/research/rphl10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_billionaires
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501638.html
When considering American leaders money is always a factor for many. Black Americans often focus on how much someone has, in my experience, equating it with prosperity and influence. Money is a focus of music and black culture today, moreso than at any time previous in my lifetime at least. So that is a factor I looked at though I don’t find it to be as significant as many others do.
Taking that into effect I have also tried to figure out the reach of influence of each individual. This is hardly scientific and based on my own calculations. Taking age, medium, wealth, and an assumption that the primary focus of African American celebrity influence is primarily focused in the U.S. where ~13% of the nation is African American and 14% are Hispanic (Latino) American. Based on these factors I have made an equation, which is as follows:
(Net worth/medium) * age /
percentage / world pop. = (the sum) squared = final value
Where medium is an approximate of the main reach of people (ie. Television viewership or my best estimate based on company sales) and world population is 6.6 billion, and percentage is 13%.
So in the case of Ms. Oprah Winfrey the final value is 9.18. As I said this isn’t scientific, but it’s something of interest. The final value equates to influence on the world. A comparison is that President Bush has a value of 91.97.
The ranking breaks down as such for several noted African Americans.
Mr. Robert Johnson – 2.66
Mr. Russell Simmons – 3.35
Mr. Tiger Woods – 12.18
Mr. Michael Jordan – 13.61
Mr. Colin Powell – 52.46
Now what these numbers are saying [based on the figures I could find which may not be accurate. If you are aware of better reliable numbers, please let me know.] is important. While apparel and music related sales do bring wealth and some influence it is very limited in the overall scale. Sports and athletic achievement is also limited though it does improve the numbers. But the real influence is held in the political realm. There is just no comparison.
With only 27 million in assets, Mr. Powell staggers over everyone else in my grouping. I would say that this group, while small is somewhat accurate in description. It comprises 2 billionaires, a broadcast television mega-star, 2 sports legends, 4 business giants, and one politician. The fact is that so much attention in black culture is focused on the wrong avenues.
Money may feel like a equal to power, but it is not. Sports may seem like a ticket to power, but it fails as well. The most important tool is direct involvement in what is going on. The richest woman, and most powerful television figure does not come close to the effect of Mr. Powell. The math may not be perfect, but you can see that the influence over 300 million people is more directly tied to power than entertaining smaller portions of the nation.
So I must ask, why is the current theme of the culture focused on entertainment and income? When did that become more important than influence and change? Why is the superficial and transient desired above the integral and stable?
This is what I think, what do you think?
Note some figures derived in part from or with reference to:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_16_100/ai_78966463
http://blogs.sohh.com/ya_heard/archives/2006/08/post_43.html
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/BlacksM.htm
http://www.charityvillage.com/cv/research/rphl10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_billionaires
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501638.html
Monday, October 02, 2006
From comic books to the silver screen - 10.01.2006.1
Here is something interesting. As Hollywood continues to wander, having lost the stomach to make truly unique movies and instead backing formulaic rehashes and ‘revisions’ of classic movies, more movies based on comic books are being done. With each success the number of movies increases and the lower the tier of character interest becomes. Of course the rush to get the latest hero brought to life can result in massively inferior interpretations.
While Batman, Spiderman, Blade and a few other movies have been quite good and have the monetary success to justify their sequels (and prequels) there is the other side as well. The Fantasic Four completely missed the mark. The Hulk was an abysmal glorification of CGI effects. The later Christopher Reeve Superman movies became pure camp, and the later Batman movies were about looks over anything else. The last X-Men movie was just an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the first 2 movies.
So what is left? The big hitters of DC comics and Marvel have been used with mixed results. Time to drop the character quality and get the lesser characters made. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Blade was a relatively minor character. The movies were mostly well done and good enough to have a series based on them made by the Spike cable network. Spawn on the other hand was far less interesting, though the potential was there.
This brings us to the next string of movies soon to appear at a theater near you. Ghost Rider has Mr. Nicholas Cage. It has CGI effects and lost of internal struggles, as characterized by the battle for maintaining control over a demon that shares the body of a man. Potentially good, or it can go the path of the Hulk – too many effect and the story line is muddled at best.
The Black Panther may be a real big winner. This is another pet project by Mr. Wesley Snipes. Its focus on a successful African nation and its leader can be a big draw and a positive image in an arena where Black African Americans, Hispanics and every other ‘minority’, is under represented. And now news of Iron Man has just come out.
I’d like to say this will be a good movie, but I have some doubts. First there will be a need for a lot of effects, from the suit to its weaponry. So believability could be an issue. Also the character is not just flawed, he’s a mess. An alcoholic and womanizer, Tony Stark is also the president of an arms making corporation. Not a great draw depending how the director plays it. The good parts are the director is Mr. Jon Favreau, who did Elf and Made, and Tony Stark will be Mr. Robert Downey Jr. Mr. Downey is perfect for the role as his own bouts with his inner demons make him uniquely in touch with the character.
So while the best characters may have been done, the best movies might be just down the road. Of course if the number crunchers push for a formula approach rather than the deep wealth of character development already done, you can wait for the DVD’s and have some neat Frisbees.
This is what I think, what do you think?
While Batman, Spiderman, Blade and a few other movies have been quite good and have the monetary success to justify their sequels (and prequels) there is the other side as well. The Fantasic Four completely missed the mark. The Hulk was an abysmal glorification of CGI effects. The later Christopher Reeve Superman movies became pure camp, and the later Batman movies were about looks over anything else. The last X-Men movie was just an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the first 2 movies.
So what is left? The big hitters of DC comics and Marvel have been used with mixed results. Time to drop the character quality and get the lesser characters made. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Blade was a relatively minor character. The movies were mostly well done and good enough to have a series based on them made by the Spike cable network. Spawn on the other hand was far less interesting, though the potential was there.
This brings us to the next string of movies soon to appear at a theater near you. Ghost Rider has Mr. Nicholas Cage. It has CGI effects and lost of internal struggles, as characterized by the battle for maintaining control over a demon that shares the body of a man. Potentially good, or it can go the path of the Hulk – too many effect and the story line is muddled at best.
The Black Panther may be a real big winner. This is another pet project by Mr. Wesley Snipes. Its focus on a successful African nation and its leader can be a big draw and a positive image in an arena where Black African Americans, Hispanics and every other ‘minority’, is under represented. And now news of Iron Man has just come out.
I’d like to say this will be a good movie, but I have some doubts. First there will be a need for a lot of effects, from the suit to its weaponry. So believability could be an issue. Also the character is not just flawed, he’s a mess. An alcoholic and womanizer, Tony Stark is also the president of an arms making corporation. Not a great draw depending how the director plays it. The good parts are the director is Mr. Jon Favreau, who did Elf and Made, and Tony Stark will be Mr. Robert Downey Jr. Mr. Downey is perfect for the role as his own bouts with his inner demons make him uniquely in touch with the character.
So while the best characters may have been done, the best movies might be just down the road. Of course if the number crunchers push for a formula approach rather than the deep wealth of character development already done, you can wait for the DVD’s and have some neat Frisbees.
This is what I think, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)