This is probably an unpopular opinion post, but I still have thoughts on this matter regardless. It's about commercials and advertising and the weird diversity it's pushing. That sounds awkward, but I'll explain. The first point is that if there are not the "standard" (as in since the inception of advertisements and TV commercials up until about 2010) white person or white family, then the vast majority feature a black person, black family or black and white interracial couple/family.
Do I have a problem with interracial couples or African Americans? Absolutely not. I think it's high time they feature in commercials and advertising (and films and telly shows - or more of them). So what is the problem? Well, it's sort of two-fold. First, we as a society in the US, are battling with issues over equality. I won't lie and say we just now are, as this fight's been going on since white Europeans landed here in the Americas and crowned themselves the end all be all (because we're only talking about the America's here, and really just the US). But as far as black Americans vs white Americans goes, it's a really heated topic right now. As it was in the 1970s and the 1960s. Yet this is where it's weird. So, you have black Americans wanting equality (we'll just say since The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s). How many times have black Americans taken to the streets in protest with signs or marching; trying to gain a leg up in the dominant white society? A lot since then. Have they been featured in advertising? Not really. They were relegated to either be mascots (like Aunt Jamima syrup), or the spokespeople for menthol cigarettes or were featured in black only magazines or commercials that would run on black only television channels. Even major brands might branch out and have an all black family for Lysol or Stouffers or a black woman for their bra ad... but which would only run in a black only magazine publication. Was it always that an advertising firm would show black people in advertising to black people reading a magazine? No. Lots of times it was just white families in those magazines. Or you might have the one random image of an overly sexualized black female. Now, though African Americans are the supporting roles and headliners in all sorts of commercials. But it's just been this rather immediate explosion in the past five years. And though there have been all black telly shows since the 1970s, that number too has gone up a lot in recent years. It's great, but I think the motives are wrong. Which is my conundrum on this point really. Does it matter if the motives are wrong? It matters to me personally, but does it matter in the grand scheme of things? It feels like with the new (and I just mean big) wave recently of Black Lives Matter, that it's garnering attention from people who are not black. People who are allies and of course backlash from people who just want to oppose something. Still, this is not the issue. The issue, is I think that because of social media, that is what made the Black Lives Matter movement so big. The word is getting out there, and the reverberated word of people for and against it. Is this why companies are enlarging their advertising pools, simply because they now know that this particular thing is a big deal? Or is it more sinister? Are they seeing this social media coverage and just jumping on a bandwagon to sell people more things, or to make themselves look good? The thing recently that reminded me of it, was right after The Charleston Nine were murdered, and there was a call for Confederate style flags to be removed from public buildings. Eventually all of them were down with most people just simply taking them down. However, the then Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, just had to get on the news and have a huge dog and pony show about it. 'I'M the one who took it down! I did this! Me, me, me! Look at me! I'll be remembered for this!' (I don't remember his exact words, nor can I find that video anymore, but I'm not overstating by saying this is pretty much what he said). He didn't care about the Charleston Nine, or any black person (in history or current times) and their plight when making that decision. He did all of it for his fifteen minutes of fame, which he basically stated at the time. It was a disgusting display. It's good the flag was down, but that was a terrible and selfish reason to do so. It's crass and a disgusting show of egotism. Does it matter in the long run? In the grand scheme of things? I'm uncertain. Part of me things, "Well, if it's going to make the world a better place, does it really matter if people were doing it for the wrong reasons?" But another part of me thinks that yes, it does matter. I know life is messy and imperfect, but what if the intentions aren't lost through history (because sometimes they are not), and this (among other things where tact wasn't taken) will mar the overall victory. "Well, we won... but we try not to remember the time that blahblahblah happened." I think if you're not going to do these for the right reasons, why bother doing them! But that brings me back to my first thought. If people ever only acted on "the right reasons", with integrity, then probably nothing would have ever changed. Women and people of colour might not have the right to vote, people might still be enslaved, interracial marriage might still be illegal, etc. So, what is the answer to that? It's like the question of taking something you didn't earn. I've seen it on loads of shows about African Americans and it was a topic in the telly show Ugly Betty. Affirmative Action is a good thing as it allowed the doors for minorities to even be considered for jobs they were qualified for. But what happens when it turns ugly? When the business or corporation just needs to fill minority slots and you get a job just because the colour of your skin happens to be the only thing they're looking at. In Ugly Betty, a show about a Mexican-American 22-year-old female breaking her way into the fashion world. She was only considered for the job because she wasn't white. It didn't matter her qualifications. Her family said she should take it because they've been downtrodden for so long, that they deserve all the breaks that they're handed. She's mad and doesn't want to take the job because they only looked at her skin colouring and are just filling a slot. But after her family says their view she considers it both ways. I, like Ugly Betty, would be mad they weren't looking at me as a person, but could also see my families point of view. It's a difficult thing to weigh. In the end, Betty opts for integrity, and won't accept the job. Turns out they either weren't just filling a spot or they listened to her when she voiced her concern, I can't remember as it's been too long since I've watched it, but it worked out well and integrity was on her side. Is that how it would work in the real world though? Is it just that more people don't try it her way? I'm not saying they're wrong. I do know what it's like to have extreme difficulty in getting a job (but for different reasons) and wouldn't want a job handed to me simply because I fit in with the short girl hair club or the fat girl club or something. But also, a job is a job and a job means money that is really needed. Could I pass up a job where money and a livelihood are at stake, just to stand by my integrity? Which is why I said it was a difficult thing to weigh. Or what about the Colour Blind thing. It's an iffy standard to live by. About ten or so years ago is when this was being bandied around on the internet, mainly by white people, who were stating that they were colour blind. I didn't like it. Neither did a lot of people of colour. I'm not sure what the intention was behind it (even though there's the saying that good intentions pave the road to hell), so for all I know it did start out as a nice thing, but that's not what it actually ended up being. It ended up being, "I don't see colour, so therefor I'm stripping you of your ethnicity and your heritage." White people, for the most part, didn't want to see that the Mexican American had their own traditions and histories and things, so they were basically exactly the same as the Costa Rican person or the Brazilian person, and they're all just Latin Americans, and also not white, so who cares. It ended up being something ugly, whether the original intention was good or not. I have never used someone's colour to make them less than. But, I refuse not to see that the world is full of different people, and I refuse to think that the world being different is a bad thing. I'm going to see their colour, and want to know their culture and history and traditions and know what makes the world unique and beautiful. I don't want to see everyone as grey carbon copies of each other or that everyone isn't white so are unimportant. I even like the vast and marked differences between people who are white. Scottish people are different from Norwegian people who are different from Slovakian people, etc. All of it's interesting and we should be happy and excited that we're not all the same people, because talk about things getting boring real quick, y'all. But differences should never be used to judge or belittle someone; or to ostracize them. I add that, because I have come across people, just since this entire advertising and also Black Lives Matter thing started up, who are all, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend, but...." These "non racist" people actually have huge problems with "all those black people" that are invading their TV's. They don't wonder why the shift happened, they just don't like it, because "where are all of the white people!" I do wonder why the shift happened, and while I wonder where some people are, those people aren't white. I'm wondering where all the Asian, Muslim, Indigenous, etc., people are. I could throw in Latin Americans, but I've noticed that they aren't trailing that far behind black people in advertising now, which is only really started because of our current presidents' border wall melarky or all of the people being deported or locked up. Prior to all the heated events that are being widely shared by social media no one really cared if there were Latin American people on the telly, and they weren't really there. They had a telly show or two (and I'm not talking Tele Novella's), and might be in one commercial... and no one other than probably Latin American people cared. Now, non Latin American people care, but it seems like it's only because of all the publicized deportations in the past two years. I could be wrong by the motives, but it seems very coincidental, as to the events and the times of the hike in certain people of colour in advertising. Again, it could be a great thing; a great intention of "Yes, we should be including these people, because they live in America too!", but could it also be for a 15 minutes of fame/we want you to think we're allies so you'll purchase our products/an entire thing wrapped up completely in egotism and greed? I don't know. I also realize that my testing pool is very limited. I don't have cable or satellite, so rarely see commercials. But I have been lucky enough to house sit for people last year and this year; people who did have cable. There's a lot of commercials on cable. I had forgotten that in the ten plus years I've been without this type of telly service. Last year, there were probably three commericials from three different corporations that featured an all black line up, or a black and white interracial couple. In just the span of one year, that number has more than doubled. And there are a lot of Latin Americans featuring in commercials as well, or they're showing two different interracial couples in the same commercial or an all black family and an all Latino family in the same commercial. There's even a film coming out, which I saw the TV trailer for, where the entire cast is black and they have the token white person. So the roles have been reversed. Last year a film was just cast with all black actors or they were still having an all white cast with a token "ethnic" person. It was an interesting change and I appreciated the reversal, but it was still strange to see. It's only been one year. That's extremely fast for the film/television/advertising industry. But perhaps it is not that fast. The number of films with an all black cast had to start somewhere (I believe the 1970s - at least to where it was a big deal and is still talked about), and little by little over the years, more films were being made. It seems like there are more all black cast films now than there were in the 1990s, though there were quite a few then, but perhaps it is not that the number has changed, but that the frequency has. That these films are catching up in turn over the same as all white cast films. So instead of two a year, there are four or six? Again, I don't know the numbers. Just the other day I was even wondering how I know about current films now. I was pondering this while driving. Current films aren't advertised in the newspaper anymore (not that it would matter, as we haven't gotten the paper in twenty plus years - but the people I house sat for they received the paper, and yeah it's definitely not in there). There's not a lot of advertising online either for films. Unless you specifically know about a film, you can't really just look them up easily, and really you can only go to the website that was made just for that film). It's cable. There are still film trailers shown on cable. That and if you visit the theatre a lot, then you'll see the trailer previews before a film. We haven't really been going to the movies much in the last five years, and since we don't have cable, it makes sense that I'm wondering how in the hell people know about movies anymore. I experience the trickle down effect. The new telly show or film, I'll know about it once it hits Redbox or Netflix. So I'm about a year behind (or six months), which means that my numbers are slightly skewed on the more conservative side of an estimate. I've even seen commercials (within this past month) where not only does it feature black people in a commercial from a large brand (that's never really given much of a spot towards them before), they even have a black lady doing the voice over instead of a white man. That's a huge difference from just last year. It's the new Ford commercials. Ford, from what I've always seen, has only ever shown white people (for the most part like 98% most part) and it's always been a white person for the voice over (and that as 98% a white man). It's not a bad difference in the least, though I'm sure to some people it is. It was just unexpected and it made me sit up and take notice. "This is different than all the other Ford commercials. This is great! I hope their intention is great..." Which again brings me to, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter all that much about the intention? There are loads of black people, just in my town, who drive Fords. SUV's to all the sportier things like a mustang. It's nice to see a representation of yourself in the advertising for the thing that you're interested in buying. Would I feel this way if I wasn't in a marginalized group? It's not a people of colour issue, but a people of weight one. I'm in the fat girl club. I have noticed the slight uptick in big girls in advertising, but it's still few and far between. It's nice when I get to see myself in a commercial for something I would want or need like underwear, instead of just always the super skinny woman. If I was super skinny and white would I ever have reason to see the other point of view? Probably not. But it's not to say never, because who knows? But I do think that the vast majority of white people are so used to seeing themselves in everything, that there's never a chance for them to think, "Hey... what about other people?" I think being a big girl and not seeing myself in films/telly shows/advertisements helped me open up that internal dialogue. And it was common sense if a person of colour stated that they wanted to see a representation of themselves... and not as an off-hand joke, instead of me feeling affronted or thinking they were just stupid. I, too, know what it's like to not feature... and to only be represented as the lesser-than side-kick joke, if I'm represented at all. I remember being in high school and my friend complaining about Asian roles. "We only ever get the nerdy roles or the super Asian roles.", which was her way of saying being type cast to only play historical Asian roles like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Kung-Fu films or something. Which is a huge step up from the 1960s and before where you have Micky Rooney playing the horrible stereotype of the "Chinky" neighbour in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or the all white cast made to look Asian (and it looked horrible) in The Good Earth, or even John Wayne playing Genghis Kahn. But still, just to be strictly set to play "typical" Asian only roles or the nerdy sidekick isn't enough. Or the Indigenous people being typecast to only play "Indians" in a wild west film. It's better than white people being dressed up as Indigenous, but they can play any role, and should be able to. They don't mind playing the role, if it's more authentic and not just what white people imagine them to be (as "hootin hollarin' Injins), because they are in the acting industry and want to get roles and if you're making a film about the west and there are Indigenous roles, then they should go to Indigenous actors... but they want other roles too, just like any actor. No actor likes being typecast into one certain role. It's the same with black roles back in the day. It was a huge step when black actors could just be filled into a role (even if it wasn't an ideal role like they were a porter on a train), as opposed to white actors in black face acting foolish or directing the black actors to portray the stereotypes that white people were comfortable with. However, being a service person, even if you're directed to just act like a normal person (and not this horrible yessa-ma'am stereotype), while it was a huge step forward in the acting world for black actors, it certainly wasn't enough. They wanted to play non-service people, to starring in films, to not being the solitary black person in a film, to even directing films and having their scripts even considered. Just being a non stereotyped service person was not enough. And it shouldn't be enough for any group of people. It's an actor thing and a human thing. Women don't always want to be typecast as the harlot, though they might find it fun to take on that role once, if the script is good, but to just be the harlot in films because you're pretty and female is terrible. Or the simpering female, because that's how men see them and will be the only roles they receive. No one wants that. Or people in the LGBT community, they want to play any roles. They might not want to play the character who is straight, but they don't want to be typecast as the stereotypical "Flaming Queen" and they'll want to have a film where they're not the token gay person or in a film written and directed by someone from their same LGBT community on a serious issue. Yet too many times I hear people say that these people should stop complaining or basically that they should stay in their allotted roles. However, these allotted roles are characters created by people who aren't from that community or of the same gender or ethnicity and are terrible characters. They make the non LGBT, non fat, non person of colour, non female person feel comfortable and they're wrong. I say this partly because, well, it does have something to do within the parameters of film/telly/advertising, but also because when I was trying to look up the numbers for this article, which I couldn't find, what I did find were articles where white people have been complaining about "all these black people taking over". They're "taking over" as you put it, because they should. They live here too. They are citizens as well as consumers and should be represented (normally and not stereotypically or as a weird supporting character) in these things. My issue is merely when these things are happening and I'm hoping that it's not for selfish, greedy reasons on the part of the people in charge of creating films, telly shows, and advertising, but also that if that is the reason that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Like this won't wall go away because black people aren't the hot topic anymore, and instead all the advertising will go to a different group, with that getting taken away when something new comes along. No, I hope that this upward and forward trajectory keeps going for the black community and things for other groups of people will push forward and keep going too. This creating space and taking it away once whatever is in question isn't the hot new thing has happened in the past. I don't know the reasons though. Is it that this particular company was ahead of its time and no one was ready. Even though it coincided with an event that people were passionate (for and against) about, perhaps the company was coming from a place of integrity and society wasn't ready for it, so they switched back to what they knew. Or was it that advertisers really are that horrible and fickle and once you're no longer new, you lose what you've gained? Which is why I wonder about the motives because that's school yard play and isn't cool and I wouldn't want it to happen. I also don't want other people ignored because they simply aren't in the news. I realize that things might take time and steps need to happen, but lets get the ball rolling for everyone. I see it slowly starting to happen, but also I've seen the start of momentum before just to see it fizzle out before it's even started. Perhaps that is on the part of society in general not being entirely ready for something and drawing back from it. But hopefully society is in a place now where acceptance can come in by and large for every group that's been marginalized that still isn't being properly represented. Because let's not pretend that society doesn't jump on band wagons full force and then depart when all the fanfare is over leaving other people to clean up the celebratory mess. I'm not saying some people in society don't really have their hearts into something, but for the most part people just follow along with whatever is new and exciting, which is why there is the saying of fifteen minutes of fame; where you or your cause is famous for like half a minute and then people no longer care because it's not cool to care about anymore because something else has come along to distract their attention. That type of behaviour is hurtful, not just personally, but for a cause. My whole point, I suppose is just that. If the advertisers and film/telly people see The Black Lives Matter movement as the hot new item, because society at large sees it this way; making this huge uptick in black people in these roles... if they're no longer the hot ticket item, because society no longer cares, then all of this will go away. We'll be back to all white casts with the random, token black person and separate all black cast films and telly that no one will care about watching anymore. And the momentum to get other people represented in these ways will fizzle out. It's important to get people represented because the more that that side of society (the side for white people only in things) gets to see, everywhere, what the US really looks like as far as the fabric of people is concerned, then these things become normal in the societal psyche and that reverberates into these marginalized peoples personal lives, making things better all the way around. It's not just the fact that a black person is advertising what was always a company represented by white people. It has a huge power to change perception and perspective and that moves into other areas like healthy food availability or better housing, etc., until total change has happened for the better. It might not happen this way, the fifteen minutes of fame and having it all taken away, we'll just have to see. The tract record though isn't really on their side (the corporations and people in charge of film/telly/advertising) for this to keep up any type of momentum. It's why I wonder at the motives and what the outcome will be, because I think it's long overdue that these changes have happened and I think it should continue to move forward. I have hope though. Social media isn't all bad. I mean there are instances of people taking things too far, which hurts their side (and most of their side have to say "Uh... that's not us), and it makes the opposing side think everyone on that other side is stupid. However, more marginalized groups have access to social media and are letting their voices be heard, which wasn't an easy task even a decade ago, much less further back in history. Which might the entire reason why advertisers have taken notice and listened. It's not a bandwagon fanfare like in decades past, where white advocates are the squeaky wheel and then take it all away by no longer caring. Perhaps people from these groups, taking to social media, and contacting the corporations in full force is the turning tide here and perhaps that has staying power in the long run. I hope so. I may be a white person in looks, but I've been over seeing nothing but white people everyone for awhile now, and I'm someone who wants everyone group from fat and thin to people of colour and white to straight and LGBT being everywhere in films and advertising, the way I see the reality in my town. Art is supposed to imitate life, but I've seen it sorely lacking in the diversity of people department in my life and I'm all for the right change. And that was a great ending, but I have to add. I included the intro photo because I have questions. Is it insulting to black people? I have no idea. I want to say yes, but if the majority of African Americans here in the US loved the commercial, then that's the only answer I need. I'm not saying that black people can't be or don't get excited or happy about things, but is this spot on? Or is it white exaggeration? I don't know. The black people I do know and meet, when they get excited or happy about something, it's not like this. But I am in the south and people act different by region I have also noticed. It's like there's truth here in their actions, but also it's exaggerated. Do I just not like exaggeration that's not real? Because white people could be acting the same way (and I have seen commercials like that) and I don't like it. So, I'm confused by this commercial, but that's good because it can be open dialogue on learning if someone has a mind to have that conversation with me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorA girl from South Mississippi who finds herself in exploration. Archives
November 2019
Categories |