This article is written by Dwight McBride, it is an article that gives his opinion and more or less his feelings of what Abercrombie and Fitch really is. Now do I believe that McBride is 100% accurate in his statement? No, not at all. He does however have some views that I do agree with, but for the most part, I don’t think that McBride is right with his sayings. First off, Abercrombie has been criticized for unique and reveling form of advertising. I do believe that it is an inappropriate way for a store to advertise. Also, they barely show the product in the advertisement. Their main theme is that sex sells. Now whether or not I like it does not make it right or wrong. I wouldn’t think that an advertisement that didn’t show the product would actually sell, however, this method seems to be working for them, so more power to them. It is an new way of advertising and if it is working for them to not have the product in the advertisement, then let them do as they wish. If they go out of business for failing to advertise then it is their risk that they are willing to take. On the aspect that their advertising is too revealing then I do believe that possibly some changes need to be made, but if they are succeeding with this advertising then it is not likely that they will change and also not their fault for not changing their advertising. I place this blame on society. If society promotes this type of behavior and continues to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch, there is no reason why they should be forced to change something that people will flock after. There main goal in the world is to get business, if that way gets them business, then they should not be forced to change their ways as long as they are not harming anyone or breaking any laws.
McBride also stated that Abercrombie and Fitch’s main consumer line is towards white middle to upper class. I don’t believe that this is always the case. I believe that they are trying to sell up scale clothing to rich people, but I don’t believe that it is only directed towards white people. I am a white male of mostly middle to upper class and I don’t shop at Abercrombie and Fitch because I think the clothes are outrageously priced and I can get the same type of clothes somewhere else for much cheaper. McBride argues that by Abercrombie and Fitch saying that their clothing is the, “Real American Look” that they are saying that all people that live in America should look like this and this is how all white Americans dress. This is a stereotype by both A&F and McBride. Abercrombie and Fitch have a rich history in America, beginning in 1907 by selling outdoor clothing, they have evolved into an up scale clothing industry. By saying that they are “Real American”, they are only using their history to their advantage, by saying that people in America have bought their clothing for a long time. McBride I feel tries to change this around into A&F is saying that all people in America look like this. This is a misinterpretation of how I feel A&F really intended their slogan to be used. Also, I feel this is a case where McBride is actually the one that is stereotyping people that wear Abercrombie and Fitch clothing to be white, middle to upper class Americans. I don’t believe that it is only white, middle to upper class Americans that buy their clothing either, it is a style of clothing that all types of people from many different backgrounds buy, not just white middle to upper class people.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Reign of Facebook
Facebook, the new internet phase that is being used by high school and college students nationwide. This new online friends frenzy is a way to keep in touch with various friends and an interesting way to also meet new friends. This new site has sparked much interest and is a wonderful new phenomenon. It is a great way to keep in touch with old friends, as well as make new friends. People post pictures and can tag pictures of other friends that are also in the picture. There are places to update your status and tell what are your plans are, so that friends may know what in fact that you are doing for the weekend. However, this is not seen the same way by all. Some feel that this website classifies people into racial groups. Everyone that is a member of Facebook, each has their own home page, it is known as their profile. On everyone’s profile there is a picture of the person and information about them, from what they like to do, to their favorite music and television shows. From these events, classifications and stereotypes can be drawn from looking at someone’s profile page. From the types of music they listen to and the way in which they speak with their typing can be used to derive this person into a certain stereotype. For instance, someone that listens to country might be stereotyped as someone that is white that lives in the suburbs or country. As opposed to someone that enjoys listening to rap, they might be stereotyped as someone that lives in the inner-city and is African American. Facebook, does not provide a specific location where someone can exactly identify what race they in fact are, but by using these stereotypes, one can come to the conclusion. More on the fact of stereotyping comes when the assumptions of someone’s race are verified by looking at their pictures to have a visual representation of who this person really is. Race is just a visual representation that we give to someone, and through the idea of sharing pictures, comes the negative of classifying people into race, even through the means of the internet. Facebook is a consumer product, and was not intended to be a negative way to classify people into stereotypes and into races. However, people will always find a way to do that either on Facebook, or somewhere else. Between this and Facebook, stereotypes will occur everywhere and anywhere.
My feeling on Facebook is that there is no stereotyping by the product what so ever. Some users may stereotype people on their own, but my conclusion that this is because of the result of Facebook is incorrect. Facebook is a program that is very basic in its format. It is up to the user to place whatever information he or she wishes to share about themselves. From this it is the other user that is doing the stereotyping, not the program itself. This is the same idea as being stereotyped on the clothes that someone would wear. The clothes are not the reason why someone would be stereotyped, it is the person that ultimately makes the stereotype. For instance, just because someone would wear a basketball or football jersey doesn’t classify them into the stereotype of being a “jock”, it is the person that makes this classification that is the cause of the stereotype. For this reason, I believe that the cause for stereotyping on the website, Facebook, does not come from the actual website itself, but from the users that use it and stereotype fellow users into groups and classifications.
My feeling on Facebook is that there is no stereotyping by the product what so ever. Some users may stereotype people on their own, but my conclusion that this is because of the result of Facebook is incorrect. Facebook is a program that is very basic in its format. It is up to the user to place whatever information he or she wishes to share about themselves. From this it is the other user that is doing the stereotyping, not the program itself. This is the same idea as being stereotyped on the clothes that someone would wear. The clothes are not the reason why someone would be stereotyped, it is the person that ultimately makes the stereotype. For instance, just because someone would wear a basketball or football jersey doesn’t classify them into the stereotype of being a “jock”, it is the person that makes this classification that is the cause of the stereotype. For this reason, I believe that the cause for stereotyping on the website, Facebook, does not come from the actual website itself, but from the users that use it and stereotype fellow users into groups and classifications.
The JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT
From 1942 until 1946, the Japanese that lived in America were placed in internment camps designed to house them until the end of the war, World War II. These camps were set up for fear that the Japanese that lived in America had their allegiance pledged to Japan still and would fight for them instead of the United States. The thought was that they would try to sabotage structures in the United States.
The order came from the president himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt in executive order 9066. It stated that Japanese Americans were to be relocated to internment camps for the duration of the war. Two thirds of the relocated people were United States born citizens. The rest of the relocated people were their parents and grandparents. The executive order was backed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was, “pressing public necessity.” The Japanese Americans were then forced out of their homes away from their families and friends, their jobs and their lives, and placed into these internment camps that were designed almost as prisons to house them for the duration of the war. They were treated as enemies to the very country that they lived in. Each family was given a little apartment or dorm style house for their entire family. Portable walls were available for them to put up if they wished. The houses were grouped together with a common dinning and washing area. Recreation was supplied to them in a recreation center, but they were not allowed to leave the camp. Also, the entire camp was surrounded by barbed wire and fencing. This was the equivalent to a P.O.W. camp that captured enemy soldiers were captured and placed in. The Japanese Americans were not enemies of war, they were merely ethnically classified American citizens that were placed in custody for fear they might be loyal to their native land. The United States government, under the Reagan administration later apologized for the decision made during the war.
I believe that the internment camps were not the right way to deal with the possible threat of Japanese sabotages. We are a free country, free to choice how we want to live. By forcing people, based on their ethnic background, internment camps is a slap in the face and goes directly against what this country is founded on. It also goes directly against what our Constitution states. It just shreds the Constitution just a bit. This action was illegal to force someone into what could be said as a prison for doing no crime, only the potential of doing a crime. We all have the potential to commit acts of violence and other such crimes. That doesn’t give anyone the right to lock someone up for a potential cause to protect others. By the United States government locking up the Japanese living in America that is doing more damage then what the government was trying to do in the first place. They just helped out the Japanese. The government was trying to protect its people, but two thirds of the people they locked up were born American citizens. They were hurting their own people more then they were protecting them. It was a miscalculation to solve a problem. There are other methods in which the lands of the United States could have been protected from possible Japanese internal attacks. Other methods should have been exploited and this should have been a last resort, or not even an option to use. We are a land of innocent until proven guilty, this was a violation of this cause. These Japanese – American citizens were assumed guilty just on their race and not for who they really were, which was Americans.
The order came from the president himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt in executive order 9066. It stated that Japanese Americans were to be relocated to internment camps for the duration of the war. Two thirds of the relocated people were United States born citizens. The rest of the relocated people were their parents and grandparents. The executive order was backed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was, “pressing public necessity.” The Japanese Americans were then forced out of their homes away from their families and friends, their jobs and their lives, and placed into these internment camps that were designed almost as prisons to house them for the duration of the war. They were treated as enemies to the very country that they lived in. Each family was given a little apartment or dorm style house for their entire family. Portable walls were available for them to put up if they wished. The houses were grouped together with a common dinning and washing area. Recreation was supplied to them in a recreation center, but they were not allowed to leave the camp. Also, the entire camp was surrounded by barbed wire and fencing. This was the equivalent to a P.O.W. camp that captured enemy soldiers were captured and placed in. The Japanese Americans were not enemies of war, they were merely ethnically classified American citizens that were placed in custody for fear they might be loyal to their native land. The United States government, under the Reagan administration later apologized for the decision made during the war.
I believe that the internment camps were not the right way to deal with the possible threat of Japanese sabotages. We are a free country, free to choice how we want to live. By forcing people, based on their ethnic background, internment camps is a slap in the face and goes directly against what this country is founded on. It also goes directly against what our Constitution states. It just shreds the Constitution just a bit. This action was illegal to force someone into what could be said as a prison for doing no crime, only the potential of doing a crime. We all have the potential to commit acts of violence and other such crimes. That doesn’t give anyone the right to lock someone up for a potential cause to protect others. By the United States government locking up the Japanese living in America that is doing more damage then what the government was trying to do in the first place. They just helped out the Japanese. The government was trying to protect its people, but two thirds of the people they locked up were born American citizens. They were hurting their own people more then they were protecting them. It was a miscalculation to solve a problem. There are other methods in which the lands of the United States could have been protected from possible Japanese internal attacks. Other methods should have been exploited and this should have been a last resort, or not even an option to use. We are a land of innocent until proven guilty, this was a violation of this cause. These Japanese – American citizens were assumed guilty just on their race and not for who they really were, which was Americans.
Ethnic Notions
The movie that we watched in class mainly focused on the evolution of African Americans in America. The time frame started to back when America was first founded as a nation and how African Americans were viewed as inferior to white, Europeans who were settling the land. The African Americans were used as slaves to do work under harsh conditions. Then it moved on to the pre Civil War era and how African Americans were viewed during that time. They continued this trend of how African Americans are viewed up until modern day.
Another aspect of the movie was how culturally, we as Americans (black and white) have viewed African Americans in different popular culture aspects, such as in music and cartoons, and even in advertising on food products, such as Aunt Jamiema maple syrup. Specific examples that the movie talked about were in the 1940’s ethnic cartoons gave African Americans big lips and a representation that they were all the same. During the time of slavery, an image that represented African Americans was the “Happy Sans Bo”, an image of a slave that was always well happy. He wore torn up clothes and did hard work, but he never seemed to dislike what he did. He was always singing and smiling as he worked. This image was shown throughout the north before the Civil War and gave the image that African Americans liked slavery and were very content with how things were. The idea was passed around that to change slavery would hinder African Americans and would actually put them into a worse spot then they were in. The reasoning behind that idea was that without slavery that African Americans would not be able to support themselves let alone their families. The movie led on that all these ideas of the Happy Sans Bo and later the minstrels and Zip Coon gave whites in the north the misconception that slaves were happy with slavery.
The real ideals of slavery must have been kept secrete to most of the northerners, for how could they possible believe that the African Americans were happy with slavery. Also, how could they believe that they would not be able to support their families and themselves. The only idea that I could think of in why they wouldn’t be able to support themselves is that at the time, racist was so strong that for a white employer to hire a black employee might not be done. However, I don’t really see how this view was thought of back then before slavery was abolished. For me to see any glimpse of reasoning for that is really a long shot.
Looking back to some of the old cartoons I used to watch when I was a child, I do remember seeing the Jim Crow Character, Happy Sans Bo, and the minstrels. At the time I never really thought anything of it and in fact I never did like those cartoons anyways, I saw them as too make believe in the fact that no one ever really acted the way that they did in the cartoon. I never saw them as racist when I was younger however. I just saw them as a cartoonist conception of how someone looked. Also, I didn’t just think it was the African Americans in the cartoons that looked make believe, I felt it was really the whole set of characters that were draw out too far fetched to be any type of realistic entertainment.
The rest of the movie classified the specific time periods and what happened in detail during those time periods. Also there were specific examples of different African American entertainers at the time, such as Bert Williams. Bert Williams learned how to speak non proper English so that he could play the part of an African American to amuse white crowds. He also had to darken his face to make it appear even blacker then it already was. The finally makeup effect that he had to do was to whiten his mouth to make it appear bigger then it was. He had to do all these things just to follow the conception of African Americans at the time.
Another aspect of the movie was how culturally, we as Americans (black and white) have viewed African Americans in different popular culture aspects, such as in music and cartoons, and even in advertising on food products, such as Aunt Jamiema maple syrup. Specific examples that the movie talked about were in the 1940’s ethnic cartoons gave African Americans big lips and a representation that they were all the same. During the time of slavery, an image that represented African Americans was the “Happy Sans Bo”, an image of a slave that was always well happy. He wore torn up clothes and did hard work, but he never seemed to dislike what he did. He was always singing and smiling as he worked. This image was shown throughout the north before the Civil War and gave the image that African Americans liked slavery and were very content with how things were. The idea was passed around that to change slavery would hinder African Americans and would actually put them into a worse spot then they were in. The reasoning behind that idea was that without slavery that African Americans would not be able to support themselves let alone their families. The movie led on that all these ideas of the Happy Sans Bo and later the minstrels and Zip Coon gave whites in the north the misconception that slaves were happy with slavery.
The real ideals of slavery must have been kept secrete to most of the northerners, for how could they possible believe that the African Americans were happy with slavery. Also, how could they believe that they would not be able to support their families and themselves. The only idea that I could think of in why they wouldn’t be able to support themselves is that at the time, racist was so strong that for a white employer to hire a black employee might not be done. However, I don’t really see how this view was thought of back then before slavery was abolished. For me to see any glimpse of reasoning for that is really a long shot.
Looking back to some of the old cartoons I used to watch when I was a child, I do remember seeing the Jim Crow Character, Happy Sans Bo, and the minstrels. At the time I never really thought anything of it and in fact I never did like those cartoons anyways, I saw them as too make believe in the fact that no one ever really acted the way that they did in the cartoon. I never saw them as racist when I was younger however. I just saw them as a cartoonist conception of how someone looked. Also, I didn’t just think it was the African Americans in the cartoons that looked make believe, I felt it was really the whole set of characters that were draw out too far fetched to be any type of realistic entertainment.
The rest of the movie classified the specific time periods and what happened in detail during those time periods. Also there were specific examples of different African American entertainers at the time, such as Bert Williams. Bert Williams learned how to speak non proper English so that he could play the part of an African American to amuse white crowds. He also had to darken his face to make it appear even blacker then it already was. The finally makeup effect that he had to do was to whiten his mouth to make it appear bigger then it was. He had to do all these things just to follow the conception of African Americans at the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)