> as many times ive referenced this period in time for african >americans in my posts over the past 3 years. had no idea. but you've shown me how necessary that reference truly was.
Let's Play Jeopardy:
cashone_again: "economics for 1000 alex..." alex trebeck: "this has >shit to do with black folks keeping money in their own >community or economic empowerment." *Boop* *Boop* alex trebeck: "cashone_again..." cashone_again: "what is marketing, alex." ** crowd cheers ** **camera pans to mother, smiling in audience...father nods in approval.**
>LOVE these images.
?? (rhetorical question, but if they didn't exist, would you have been the one to come up with them or present them to an all-black audience)
have i read any of your comments? yes. you believe that marketing is a reflection of a pre-existing reality - where consumers sell the product and marketers serve as a medium to mass communication, letting folks in oregon know that the latest styles in new york are mid-high kicks with the jumpman label.
>PERIOD. end of discussion. "here, pop this in there..that way we can keep talking" **hands suave_bro a tampax**
>my black political thought >proffessor scoffed @ the "blaxploitation" film era of the 70's >arguing that when we finally got creative control over our own >images, we throw pimps, gangsters, hustlers, and promiscuous >women up there as our role models and heroes.
don't hold your professor in such high regard - granted, she's intelligent, but she's human. note that we're discussing media - not marketing, but the lines blur sometimes - so i'll take the bait. i wasn't around in the 70's, so i can't speak to shaft and foxy brown, but shift the gaze for a second. italian-americans began to gain ACCESS (not control) to media around the same time. the godfather came out (a mix of crime/drama, with elements of italian culture - the characters were loving to each other and ruthless at the same time -great drama) it had enough italian culture in it that every italian person was suddenly tied to the mob (stereotype). only in the last decade have producers breached from the blueprinted plot. italians don't like that shit. they won't even watch the sopranos. it doesn't sell to them. it sells to whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds...but not the olive-skinned. did we throw pimps, gangsters, hustlers and promiscuous women into our films? yeah, and it's the "hollywood shuffle" (robert townsend) that got a lot of black folks in through the back door. were they our role models and heroes? i can only speak for myself - i loved arnold horshack as much as i loved freddie washington, and looking back - i liked mr. kotter too. did nike give me dreams, goals and ambitions neatly packaged in a massai warrior-looking black male that could defy gravity? HELL YEAH, and there wouldn't be a bald N.B.A. player today without nike. everybody bought into it. not because we're black and we love those images, i'll let you in on a secret (it was 'cause white folks thoughts have special powers : ) it's because these images are powerful. and here's the most important argument that you can present to me - i'm calling for control of these images...in other words i'm calling for censorship, like the far-right wing conservatives of the republican party, i want to control what you see, what you hear, and what leads you to your final purchase. from my perspective it's control for a good cause. more realistic images of blacks will lead to a more critical viewing audience, and ultimately reflect reality. but, if the marketplace can be controlled for my desires, it can be controlled by those who oppose my views as well. oh...but you missed that. see - this entire discussion is about the lack of control. nobody believes that "whitey" is controlling our images. it's the fact that they're out of control (and it's near impossible to control them in a capitalist society - i'll give you that). the question i posed when i refused to bite my lip was essentially, would black people create these images on their own? but i'm really starting to believe that k'orr was right, and you think pimps, hustlers, pushers...are reflections of reality and that's why they sell - so there's no point in the question 'cause there is no common ground.
>WHO WOULD THRIVE "NOT"PUSHING THESE IMAGES!?!?
anyone trying to reach a black consumer base. only those trying to reach the general "white" market would thrive, and they'd thrive because of sheer numbers. they're not trying to reach the black consumer - at least not realistically. i know people born into upper-middle class families who follow marketers whims like they're bloodhounds trailing dred scott..."ooh, nelly...ooh, jay-z...oooh, T.I....ooh, fitty cent." they walk around their neighborhoods with untrained pitbulls, they answer their doors with machete in hand, and their home is filled with sawed off shot-guns. living in fear and creating fear amongst their neighbors. do marketers want their money? they'll take it, but that's not their target market, they're nothing but icing on the cake - reinforcing the images that marketers have created.