Reality TV: Teen Moms

Teen Mom is a reality TV show that tracks four young women as they struggle to raise their children. Most of the girls became pregnant at age 16. In addition to dealing with the stress of providing and caring for a baby, these girls deal with relationship issues and problems at home. This episode is the season 2 finale, in which Dr. Drew recaps the season and discusses the most pressing issues with the four moms. Ferrah was physically abused by her mom, became self-sufficient, and moved out. Additionally, Ferrah is coping with the death of her boyfriend, who was her daughter Sophia’s father. Maci has taken her child, Bently, away from his father, Ryan, and moved to another city. Ryan then said he would take the issue to court. Catelynn and Tyler gave their baby up for adoption. This choice completely ruined Catelynn’s relationship with her mother, who wanted her to keep the baby. The couple was engaged but Tyler temporarily called it off upon finding out that Catelynn slept with her ex. Amber, the fourth and final mom on the show, also had many problems. She became violent towards her boyfriend, and hit him repeatedly in front of their child. She was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. She has no motivation or energy to finish school.
This reality TV show has changed the way I think about myself. I’ve always known that I was lucky to come from a home that was relatively problem free. However, this show makes me realize that I’ve still taken things for granted. Beside the fact that I don’t have the responsibility for raising a child as a teenager, I also don’t have to worry about my relationships with my family. I know my parents would support me no matter what. I also don’t have to deal with the abuse, both verbal and physical, that the people in this show tolerate. Finally, I’m lucky that my parents financially support me, as at least one of the girls on this show is financially self-sufficient. Overall, I feel like a more privileged individual after viewing this episode.

Teen Mom (Season 2) - MTV Shows

Nike …JUST DO IT??

Nike is a company that has cultural and economic elements. People who buy the brand are buying it to find status in the world, which is Bourdieu's idea of culture capital. American's ability to buy wealth through the Nike product. The consumption of Nike shoes in inner-city l areas caused violence because people would kill each other over the shoes. For example, in Harlem 10,000 pairs of Nike and Reebok sneakers were stolen in a fenzy of stealing violence because people were greedy to have the sneakers. This is also another example that extends Bourdieu's theory of culture capital into symbolic violence. This is because the people who owned the Nike sneakers were showing off a sign of wealth that other people in the inner-cities envied, so they would rob the sneakers from the people who could afford them because they wanted to take those other peoples wealth away from them.

Because there was so much violence Nike came out with a crisis management campaign called PLAY (Participate in the Lives of America's Youth). It enabled Nike to restore their social responsibility by coming up with the solution to inner-city deterioration came through the dicipline of sports and its promise of upward mobility.

Furthermore, Nike proclaimed the revolution of running-shoe technology. This would boost Nike popularity to distinguish them from the masses. The "Just Do It" campaign evoked personal responsibility. Nike was first advertised to the white middle-class male because they were associated with fitness being their leisure activity. Thus, implying they would be primary consumers.

But Nike's success came from African American basketball players like Michael Jordan. This showed the diversity Nike had to offer its customers. Advertisers came up with the term "urban market" so that white customers could be more comfortable than saying black and African American. Nike's use of African American's in their ad campaigns relied upon Stuart Hall's logic if inferential racism. This is enabling racist statements to be made without ever bringing into awareness.

To whites, the image of basketball the Nike puts out makes them believe that blacks can achieve their American Dream by buying into the "Just Do It" slogan Nike puts out.

Nike's veneer of social responsibility is less than persuasive due to its invisibility of real contradictions for the consumer caste. Unemployment in African American communities remain outside the media Nike puts out in their advertising. Basically, no one really see's how Nike treats the people who make their products and how it goes against what they put out as "social responsibility." In schools, campus activists throughout the country have been protesting against Nike. Some schools have adopted an anti-sweat shop code as a result of the activism.

Indian Americans in Advertising

In “Con-fusing” Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising, Sanjukta Ghosh analyzes the absence of Indian Americans in American advertisements, and the misrepresentation of Indian culture that is enabled by the dualistic meaning of the word “exotic” as both mysterious and alluring, as well as frightening and unknown. As Ghosh points out in the beginning of the article, the common excuse for why advertisers don’t feature minority groups in their ads, their “lack of disposable income”, doesn’t apply to Indian Americans, who are often well-educated and have (allegedly) the spending habits of a “credit-happy teenager”. (276) Thus, the reason for this exclusion lies elsewhere- as Indian Americans are characterized as the exoticized “other”, a clear line of demarcation is drawn between the West and the “Orient”, characterizing the latter as “backwards”, “spiritual” and unchanging in regards to belief and tradition (in contrast with the “dynamic” and high paced change of Western culture). The examples given in the article are primarily from fashion magazines. Specifically, the Vogue spread, in which a highly stereotypical Indian man (turban, bright colors, dark eye make-up) is depicted in a spontaneous love affair with a white woman along Route 66, simultaneously showing the woman’s “freedom” (as associated with the road), and constructing the man’s identity in the “parameters of the Orientalist gaze” (276). The presence of actual Indian American people in advertisements is rare, while the appearance of traditional Indian garments and styles of dress are often presented as chic and couture because of their exoticism. The traditionally Indian garments are signifiers of exotica, marking taste, sophistication and “awareness” in the consumers that possess these items. The presentation of these items set apart from their origins removes the history and the culture behind them, essentially removing Indian Americans and their culture from the picture altogether, except for the superficial “exotic” or “spiritual” connotations that arise from the fictive construction of Indian identity by American advertisers.




While reading this article, I found myself trying to remember Indian characters in movies and television shows that I’ve seen. The few that came to mind have all been depicted in a less-than-flattering light. The first to come to mind, as was the fortune teller from Drag Me to Hell, who was depicted as mysterious and dark, but whose legitimacy was seriously questioned by the white male lead of the movie, who basically equated his business with overly spiritual or mystical garbage, sold to unsuspecting white consumers as “exotic” or mysterious. The second, was Anwar from the British teen drama Skins, who is shown as devoutly religious, but also bumbling, simple and eager to please his white friends. The last was Tori from Battlestar Galactica, who spends the first half of her presence in the show as the President’s hardworking and serious assistant, but who quickly falls into a conniving and evil role after she finds out she’s a cylon (oops, spoiler). All these Indian-American characters are representative of the dualistic definition of “exotic” that defines these groups through the “Orientalist” gaze, embracing qualities that depict them as mysterious, exotic, dedicated to their culture, but also simple, “traditional”, set in their ways, and even conniving and evil.

Fashionably Ethnic?

For the most part in this article "'Con-fusing' Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising," the author Sanjukta Ghosh discusses the way in which minorities, specifically Indian Americans, are represented and excluded from the media. Ghosh develops the ideas of "Orientalism," "exoticism" and the way in which American popular culture has constructed a sense of "self" and the "other" or the "familiar 'us'" and the "peculiar'them.'"(275) By excluding and stereotyping Indian Americans in today's media, society, has in a sense developed a way to keep, not only Indian Americans, but also other minorities "in check."(276) According to Ghosh, the exclusion of these peoples from the media and advertising stregthens Indian American's position in the "power structure."(276) Thus, this absense in the media reinforces their sense of powerlessness in contrast to great power posessed by the Western/Caucasian peoples of America. In addition, this absense in the media can also be seen as a visual depiction of a "racially cleansed society."(276) By depicting a 'racially cleansed' society with the exclusion of ethnic groups in today's media, the concept of the "us" and the "them" is further enforced and the idea of needing the American Indian population "only for their labor and not their lives" is developed.(275) Furthermore, this articles describes the way in which Indians are developed when in fact they are included in the media and advertising. On the rare occasions that American Indians are depicted in the media it is almost always in the same, stereotypical way. Indians are seen strictly as an "exotic" group of people in American culture, they are seen as a group of people lost in their traditions which therefore hinders them from becoming constructive members of the modern world.(275) Therefore, their perceived sense of separation from the modern world makes it easier for the media to misrepresent and exclude them from advertising, film, television, etc.
In this collage of relatively recent fashion magazine covers the absence of Indian American, and minorities in general is painfully apparent. It is obvious that there is not a single representation of any race or ethnicity other than European/Causcasian. This exclusion of not only Indian Americans but also other ethnicities, from many mainstream fashion magazines and the fashion world in general, is one way through which the media has developed minorities' positions in society. By not featuring minority peoples in these magazines the media develops the idea that ethnic people are capable of being as beautiful as caucasian people. As a result, minorities are depcited as not being capable of acheiving success in our culture/society, which is so largely based on materialism and appearance.

The Invisible Indian Americans

In United States culture, many races are portrayed as a certain stereotype. For example, African Americans are depicted as being “lazy and prone to criminal activity and violence” (274). Stereotypes are also often set for Latinos and Native Americans. However, Indian Americans seem to disappear in the midst of all of this stereotyping. It seems as though they have been “erased” or “silenced” from our society (275). Culture of Indian Americans has been showing up in minimal areas – “scholars have found Orientalist imagery in contemporary Hollywood cinema (Shohat & Stam, 1994), in literature (Viswanathan, 1989), and in news (275). More recently, Indian Americans have been featured in fad magazines like Vogue with an entire spread dedicated to Indian American models (277). Perhaps the most representation Indian Americans get in our culture is through their absence (276).

False Portrayal

Sanjukta Ghosh essay, “Con-fusing” Exotica: Producing India in U.S. Advertising, explains how media lacks diverse minority groups (African Americans, Latinos, Indians, Native Americans) in mainstream media. Indians have been “systematically written out, erased, silenced, and marginalized in any mainstream picture of America” (275). In media, it is true that minority groups are often put in the background, if at all, in mainstream media to keep some form of “purity” for the country (America) (275). Sometimes though there is just a complete absence of these minority groups and this absence is a way to “reinforce their absence in the power structure” (276). Through this power, it allows media to “recode” the cultures of these minority groups in the media. This absence also makes it possible for media to erase these minority groups overall. This whole concept is actually very disturbing to read about. How is it possible that media either completely erases these minority groups or changes their cultural identities because they have the power to do so.

The most interesting point present in this article to me was the way “ad after ad, Indian products are appropriated, even robbed, and then represented as works of haute couture designers whereas Indians are airbrushed or erased out of the picture” (278). Their clothes (Indian’s clothes) is even really liked by many consumers because media appropriates them by placing them on white models, erasing their culture and history in turn seeing the product as sophisticated. Yet, when viewed on the objects themselves, the natives, they are seen as “primitive and backwardness” (279). Take for example this pashmina shawl ad above. Pashmina shawls are an Indian product. Do you see any history or culture tied to this pashmina ad? No, on the contrary, a very elegant classy white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes is displayed wearing the pashmina shawl, in a what seems fairly wealthy house. Cultural ties to the product are completely absent and recoded. If ads or media in general are going to represent minority groups at all, they need to not only present them correctly but more minority groups need to be presented in general and in the correct light.

The invisibility of Indian Americans

I never noticed how different races are portrayed in media in the United States.  Race is in fact a credible factor in establishing cultural, economic, and political membership (274).  In specific to certain minority groups in mainstream media is seen as significant and dangerous.  Organizations like the NCLR, NAACP, and ADC are still shown as "narrow and cliched (275)."  Ghosh discusses how African Americans are commonly portrayed as lazy and violent.  Latinos are often seen to be driven by primal urges and Native Americans are rarely shown at all. In defense of certain Advertisers they argue that minority's low ratio in population, they are seen as marginally irrelevant to advertisers.  All of this information does not explain why Indian Americans are ignored because they have a disposable income.  They are constantly erased or invisible in the media.  Said argues in defense for this race and discusses how the media doesn't recognize these people for who they are, but they still continue to utilize their craftsmanship and particular icons.  Said discusses Orientalist, he quotes "how media and advertising produce a commodified and orientalist version of India that simultaneously erases indigenous peoples out of the landscapes or puts them in the background (275)."  They are in turn, noticed for their labor not their lives.  

I found the part of the article where Said goes into examples of certain advertisements that utilize certain "Indian American" elements.  For example, Liz Claiborne models a white women in a silk sarong made in India, but any other signifier of India is absent, in conclusion they are robbed of recognition.  These "exotic" objects are included in a number of advertisements and the only way that the United States is going to progress is by recognizing particular minorities more, especially Indian Americans for who they are not not just what they make or wear.

U.S. Take on Different Cultures

In Sanjukta Ghosh’s article, “Con-Fusing” Exotica, Producing India in U.S. Advertising” she presents the issues of an ever so common portrayal of the India race in the media. In the majority of popular American magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan etc… it is evident that the majority of the advertisements lack the portrayal of any sort of race or if they do, they portray races is in a misinformed way. Ghosh writes, “This chapter examines how media, in general, and advertising, in particular, produce a commodified and an Orientalist vision of India that simultaneously erases indigenous peoples out of the landscape or puts them in the background” (275). In this article, not only does Ghosh look at the issues concerning the lack of ethnicity in the U.S. media but also that when there is the portrayal of another culture, it is usually a misinterpretation. One example that really stuck out to me in this article was the fashion advertising spread in Vogue magazine.

In this photo spread Vogue portrays two people traveling when they run out of gas. The two people in this ad are a tall, blonde, model and the other is a taxi driver. At the beginning of the photo spread the taxi drivers body position portrays him to be praying and is wearing a turban. The woman happens to be wearing white, a very innocent color. While the woman is looking at a map for directions the native taxi driver relies on traditional methods. “As maps signify him as incompetent and traditional and perhaps serve as a reminder of India’s backward status” (227). Ghosh describes this photo spread/scenario to be a mockery to the native India, taxi driver. “The binaries used in this fashion spread poist the Sikh as a backward, unenlightened, lustful, irrational, driven by primal urges, left behind, both untouched by modernity and comically ill-equipped to handle modernity” (227). In this article, it is apparent that fashion spreads can misinform and portray different races in an untrue and misleading light, while also diminishing their heritage and culture through advertisements.

In conclusion I believe in most of Ghoshs arguments, concerning the fact that in modern media and advertisement, different cultures are not always portrayed in a truthful and correct way. Closing her argument Ghosh writes, “Media needs to stress the heterogeneity of Indians in America – their differences based on class, gender, age, sexuality, and religion” (280).

The Imagined View of India

Before reading this article, I had never taken the time to notice the appearance or context in which Indian Americans appear in advertising. Edward Said's research on Orientalism revealed the tactics behind the portrayal of different races and cultures, "because the chief function of Orientalism was 'to control, manipulate, even incorporate what is manifestly a different world.'" Western world advertising uses the absence of indians in order to incorporate this idea of "exotica". This also emphasizes a groups position in the power structure, which indicates where they are in the social structure. Absence also clarifies who is who in the spectrum which declares who has the most power and what can be done with that power. This power allows our media to place cultural identities on certain groups, molding them into what popular culture expects and wants. This is very unfortunate and unfair because the population of Asian Indians is growing immensely in the US, and is the most educated ethnic group in the country. I would like to say this isn't true, but it is. I have even been affected by this stereotype put on certain minority groups. It blurs peoples visions of who these people really are, and where they truly come from.

More on Native Americans

Ilana mentioned how ads for the Seminole Hard Rock Casino don't mention the Casino's owners at all. I think it is interesting that the modern media ignores Native Americans when media played such a critical role in the way Europeans perceived the people of America when colonizing the continent.

The European world was introduced to the image of native America by the French philosopher and essayist Montaigne. In his essay, “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne asserts that America's native people were civilized, in the purist way, in the original state of humankind, the state of nature, embodying "the most true and profitable virtues." Montaigne’s image of Native Americans eventually grew to the commonly accepted stereotype of the Noble Savage. This figure was a myth about an autonomous wild man in the woods and completely ignored the complex and diverse social and cultural structures that governed life in native America.

Montaigne was not the only contributor to the stereotype. Almost every writer of that time period elaborated on the image. In fact, Shakespeare played a major role in distributing the image of the Noble Savage to the public in Europe. The character of Caliban in Shakespeare's play The Tempest highlights the wildly racist popular opinions of the time.

Shakespeare's Caliban-

Secluding the Seminoles

Media has forever had an impact on the way race is portrayed. “Because mass media are a major arena where the struggle over national (racial) identity is played out, the lack of any or diverse images of minority groups in mainstream media is both significant and dangerous” (274). For decades, several activist organizations have recorded instances where Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans have been underrepresented or ignored by the media. Native Americans in large part are a minority, but have a very large disposable income. Regardless, “they have been systematically written out, erased, silenced, and marginalized in any mainstream picture of America” (275). This truthful statement is better represented and understood with the concept of casinos. Native American gaming enterprises are operated on Indian reservations (or tribal lands) throughout the United States. Tribes have sovereignty over these casinos and have the ability to establish these businesses exempt from all state regulations. In the commercial for Seminole casinos, there are no signs that this is owned and run by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Although the tribe(s) are in complete control, their advertisements are intentionally ambiguous seeking middle road America. They want to preserve anonymity to in turn draw wealthy customers.

Powertrips and Powerlines.

In the article, Nike, Social Responsibility and the Hidden Abode of Production by Carol A. Stabile, it discusses how Nike Corporation undeniably has created wealth for its owners and shareholders. They specifically tailored their product to their target audience through “the corporation’s ability to reach middle class consumers through appeals to the values and belief systems of that audience” (199). This was particularly effective during the 90’s within the lower-middle class African American and Hispanic community. The rising trend within these communities was to invest in a pair of trendy shoes in order to identify themselves as some with a higher status. After reading this article, I am reminded of a time in my past where I grew up in a relatively rough area of Miami. In school, my friends and I invested more time talking about my new pairs of Air Jordan shoes than my multiplication tables. We went as far as judging those around us who didn’t have “name brand” shoes, particularly Nike shoes. In some of the neighborhoods by my block, groups of kids would tie shoes together and hang them from power lines. This signified that they had successfully taken the shoes from other innocent kids by physical force and intimidation. In some instances, it was the marking of gang turf. The more valuable the shoe, the more respected that you were by your fellow members. It’s an ongoing cultural identity that lingers in most inner cities. Fascinating.

Two words: "greed and shoes"

In this article, Nike, Social Responsibility and the Hidden Abode of Production, Carol A. Stabile discusses Nike’s various marketing strategies and alleged “social responsibility”, contrasting them with the realities of the company’s manufacturing practices and outlining the racist implications that are present in the ad campaigns. Stabile begins by discussing Nike’s history as a company, and its alleged commitment to social responsibility and acting like a “global citizen”. The following section, on the “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok in the early 1990’s, shows how Nike’s public image as “responsible” was tested by their controversial campaign strategy. The images of “sneaker war” advertisements were juxtaposed in the media with images of inner city violence, “threaten[ing] to become a critique of the very consumerist desires Nike had so successfully manipulated” (198). The desire turned into greed, as both stores and individuals were robbed of their Nike’s by those who desired the shoes so bad that they were willing to resort to violence to get them. Nike later donated to inner city schools, and began a program aimed at bringing safe “play” back to “American” youths, showing the corporation’s veiled racism, as the problem of “unsafe play” for children was really only an issue in the inner city, implying that athletics was the “prioritized” route for these children.
Nike’s ad campaigns were not always aimed at the inner-city- initially, their advertisements were meant to appeal to the baby boomer demographic in the late 1970’s, who were now entering the professional sphere. These advertisements incorporated “watered down ideals from the 1960s” (199) articulated as a part of the consumer lifestyle, showing people wearing their products running through forests, appearing rugged and “individualistic”. These ads focused on appealing to white male consumers, emphasizing the craftsmanship and the social responsibility of the company, qualities that are attractive to this demographic. Nike seized the opportunity to market fitness to the middle-class, as this was an increasingly popular leisure-time activity. This “angle” eventually shifted to place more emphasis on the “urban” image, a word carefully used to leave ambiguity as to the “intended” race of market audiences. The evolution of this campaign makes obvious the underlying racism of Nike’s advertisements; fitness was sold to white, middle-class people as a leisure activity, while it was sold to black or ethnic people as their version of the “American dream”, their route to social mobility and prosperity. Nike’s alleged commitment to “social responsibility” was further weakened by the exposure of unfair and inhumane sweatshop practices in production. The success of this company relies on what is hidden remaining hidden, disguising reality and keeping contradictions hidden that might upset consumers.
After reading this article, I can’t say I was particularly surprised. The kind of greed and sense of necessity that is created by expensive athletic shoes like Nike is excessive, and ridiculous at best. I’ve witnessed this frenzy first hand, as my younger brother is completely obsessed with expanding his shoe collection and looking at shoes on the internet, and he’s only eleven years old! The extreme greed that is associated with the consumption of these “fashionable” objects is obviously connected with their cultural capital, the distinction that one gains in owning these shoes. Reading the first section of the article reminded me of Americans getting mugged while abroad for their blue jeans (something that may or may not be an urban legend, as I am unable to find an article about this at all?). Even if it isn’t “true”-true, the similarity is there- the “identity” that goes along with the product, whether its symbolic of Western ideals, or upward mobility for an inner-city youth, the social value that goes along with coveted objects can be extreme, and even lead to real-life violence.

The Profit of Nike

In Carol A. Stabiles essay, "Nike, social responsibility, and the hidden adobe o production," she covers a few topics associated with Nike. The one I found most interesting was the part about the sweatshops. Nike hires laborers in Indonesia for below minimum wage to make very expensive sneakers for consumers in the United States that those workers would never be able to afford. Nike spends hundred of millions of dollars on their advertisement campaigns against other sporting good companies, yet they have a history of not paying their laborers well.

While Nike pays their laborers in Asia almost nothing, they pay their star athletes an enormous amount of money to wear their clothing. Athletes like Lebron James and Tiger Woods have signed over 100 million dollar contracts each with Nike to just wear their clothing and do advertisements for them. While these people just wear Nike clothing to get paid, the workers making their clothes are making around two dollars an hour. But the case that Nike would bring up is that even though they pay these athletes multimillions of dollars, they profit immensely because consumers will go out and buy Nike golf equipment and Lebron James basketball sneakers. Nike workers, work harder and much longer hours than athletes like Lebron James or Tiger Woods, which creates an uneven state of political economy.

I Never Thought Shoes Would Actually Be "To Die For"

In Carol A. Stabile’s article about Nike, I had absolutely no idea any of those “sneaker wars” went on. The “wars” went on between Nike and Reebok in the early 90s in their television advertisements both showing NBA players wearing their sneakers (197). People then began to feel the need to keep up with this consumerist society and purchase these shoes. However, people went to even greater lengths and killed others for their shoes. A quote from J. Lomuscio stated that there were “situations in town where youngsters not only had their bicycles stolen but their sneakers – their Michael Jordan Air Pumps – right off them” (197). Then, Nike realized they needed to change their advertising and the way they portrayed their sneaker line so that this inner city crime wouldn’t take place anymore. Nike then decided to try to appeal to their more “running geek” consumers, rather than their competition between Reebok (199). They changed their advertisements and began using slogans like ‘Just Do It’, hopefully drawing in a different band of consumers. I didn’t know any of this went on and it really surprised me! I thought Nike was always more toward the average runner, but it is shocking to hear that people actually killed others for their shoes. It’s actually very sad to me that some people are that drawn into consumerist societies that they don’t care about others’ lives and care more about shoes.

More Nike More Problems

Wither we like it or not, Nike is a huge brand in the consumer world. Their trademarks check sign can be recognized by most and the brand that they have created is sought after by huge athletes and your every day person. Since the shoe company started, their sneakers were hot items that everyone wanted. I thought it was interesting to read about the sneaker wars in the article Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode. I feel that some of these things may still go on in inner city neighborhoods. But I don’t think any of the shoe manufacturers should be the blame. Nike has created many smart sneaker campaigns and choosing Michael Jordan as a major spokesperson and designer may be one of the reasons Nike has become so popular. Though I did find the information on the factory workers salaries and day pay to be very eye opening. This is just another problem our society faces. In this article it talked about Nike using African Americans to promote their products to gain more African American customers. Though I don't really believe this is necessary. In my opinion Nike is one of the only brands that all different types of groups and people wear. I have seen all races, athletes of all different sports, "skateboarders", "people who act like they skateboard", "surfers", "preppy kids", "hipsters", babies, adults and other groups all wear Nike sneakers and I don't think many other companies can say they have that wide a range of customers.

The Ugly Truth

In Stabiles article, Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production, was an interesting article.  It shows both sides of multinational corporations like Nike.  He discusses Nikes history in that of the “Sneaker Wars.”  This ongoing advertising war between Nike and Reebock sparked a wild fire in the inner cities.  The violence in these cities over something as simple of a pair of shoes amazes me.  I can’t believe that our society has come this far to that we are shedding blood over something as dumb as shoes.  Nike utilizes the idea behind consumers wanting things just because it is the most popular or to prove some sort of “status in the world (197).  This in turn created a war between youthful people who wanted to prove their identities through a pair of sneakers, Nike sneakers.  After this crisis occurred, Nike went into overtime to repair their damaged reputation to the public.  Society has also made us all so consumed with reputation, and Nike certainly demonstrates this.  They launched a crisis management campaign with “anti-racist” advertisements and created the PLAY campaign. 

            I found the part of the article interesting where Stabile discusses the particular contradictions that Nike uses when campaigning.  He talks about the women’s campaign, “if you let me play sports,” in comparison to the Vietnamese women slaving over creating this product under awful wages and working conditions.  Stabile also discusses how Nike uses racially different people in their advertisements, but are usually celebrities whose salaries are extremely higher than the racially different people who are making the product. 

            I’m sure that Nike will be under criticism for as long as they remain in the spotlight, but I found this article interesting in that it showed a different side to the big corporations and the ugly truth about their employees.

Nike's Questionable Social Responsibility

Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production by Carol Stabile examines Nike’s public relations, and how it develops these images. Philip Knight, the CEO, discusses how Nike strives to create healthy work environments and points out that he has created a company that “began in my basement and today creates wealth where none existed before” (196). Stabile challenges the “rhetoric of social responsibility” throughout the piece. Nike was faced with a problem when the company became associated with inner city violence, which began with “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok over market share. This proved to be too intense, as publicity in 1989 implied that kids were killing each other over athletic shoes. Sports illustrated even claimed that inner-city youths were committing murder for Air Jordans. Looting, killing, and robbery occurred. Stabile questions how much Nike’s advertising techniques are to blame for this. Nike launched a crisis management champagne to prove how Nike was part of the solution rather than the problem, and suggested that the main issue in inner-city schools is that the poor kids do not have access to formal athletics, undermining the economic and educational programs. Nonetheless, Nike’s success in advertising is contributed to the corporations ability to reach their target audience, middle class consumers, through appeals to their belief systems and values, demonstrated through their television advertisements in the 1970s, advertisements that focus on the rhetoric of revolution, and their current slogan, “Just Do It.” Nike gained much publicity through basketball and the use of African American celebrities such as Michael Jordan, as the company acknowledged the importance of the “urban market.” This provides positive role models and the instills the idea that the American Dream is available to African Americans, despite the fact that images that criminalize African Americans flood the media. Stabile suggests that Nike is not as responsible as it first appears. For example, while Nike endorses women empowerment, the Vietnamese women making the shoes work 12-hour days and earn only about $2.25 a day. This exposes a contradiction that is not publicized, and labor activists and journalists hope to rise awareness. Stabile ends by saying that consumers ought to “concentrate on making visible those practices and realties that are routinely kept out of sight” (202).

For my video, I found a clip of News from Sky TV interviewing former soccer pro Jim Keady. Jim lived in Indonesia for a month on the wage that the Nike employees get paid there (2 Australian dollars), and discussed his findings on the news. Overall, he said one could just survive on such wages but that they were completely inadequate. Jim couldn’t meet his basic needs and had his human integrity undermined, as he was constantly hungry and exhausted. Everyday was a struggle, even more so for the locals who have other expenses. Workers must work overtime. Nike is trying to “wash their hands” of this, and improve conditions, which Keady actively challenges. This video corresponds to page 201 of the reading, which discusses Nike’s contradiction between Nike’s apparent social responsibility by liberating women and using African American spokespeople and their confined business practices abroad, such as making workers work long hours with insufficient pay. I found this part of the reading particularly interesting, because I have been briefed on this concept previously, and wonder if the company has, or still is, actually making any positive changes.

What Is Behind the Curtain: Nike

Carole Stabile’s essay brings to light the truth behind Nike’s social responsibility and hidden sweatshops of production. Stabile explains how corporations make sure to keep a perfect public image and how we as citizens and humans of this world should “concentrate on making visible those practices and realities that are routinely kept out of sight [from the public eye]” (202). Stabile first introduces the “sneaker wars” Nike and Reebok were fighting over the market and featuring million-dollar advertisement’s involving NBA players to target their consumers. Eventually, inner-city violence was connected to sneakers “In March, 1992, a fifteen-year-old in Philadelphia reportedly was killed during the theft of his Air Jordans; in April 1992, South Central L.A. erupted, with looting and brand name sneakers again splashed across pages and screens; and in July 1992, KP Original Sporting Goods in Harlem was robbed” (197). Nike quickly ran a bunch of antiracist ads with Spike Lee and donated along with Michael Jordan $200,000 to Chicago Public Schools; Nike also started the PLAY (Participate in the Lives of American’s Youth) (198). Nike did this to show that they were not the problem of this violence but rather the solution, keeping their name in good light and publicizing that they are out in this world to better society, yet drastically hiding the reality of their inhuman production factories. Even though Nike initially started off attracting a white male consumer because fitness and leisure time was more available for them, now, Nike “most widespread publicity is through basketball” (200), primarily attracting the African American population and “urban market” to say that whites can still purchase Nike too. Nike uses all these positive images of these grand athletes to show them that the “American Dream” is within grasp, even though the clear reality is that not everyone will go professional just by wearing Nike. Most of the athletes would not preferably where Nike over another brand but rather do so because they are bought out by million dollar contracts to represent their brand and wear their sneakers. Nike ads most often always come in a positive light. Take for example their ad attempting to show the empowerment of women “If you let me play sports” (201), but what we do not realize as consumers reading or watching these ads is what is hidden behind the curtain. A lot is hidden that we as consumers do not know. “Vietnamese women who make Nike shoes, working 12 –hour a day for a wage of between $2.10 and $2.40 a day, are kept of the screen” (201). Why? We all know the answer to that one, it would belittle Nike’s status and all the money they have put in to advertisements to portray themselves in a positive light. How can Nike pay million dollar contracts to already million dollar athletes to wear their shoes and only $2.10 a day to women working so hard to make their product? What if Nike's Just Do It advertisements were portrayed like in the video below? Now do you want to purchase Nike shoes or sportswear? The unfortunate reality is advertisements such as these would kill Nike’s business. Advertising and corporate propaganda always show us and tell us what WE want to see and what WE want to hear. The truth of the matter is that not only does Nike do this, many other corporations out in this world today use sweatshops for cheaper labor. The question is when will this all end and will advertisements ever truly expose reality? In the end, companies are all out their in this world competing to make maximum profit and rise to the top, sometimes though this comes at the expense of others well-being and at the expense of hiding reality to the world.

Hoop Dream

The article about Nike pretty much summed up a lot of elements related with what I learned in the "Sport and Society" class here at Rollins. That class deals with the sociological aspect behind sport and there was a lot of time devoted to discussing Nike and how it effects sports. Nike has used a lot of African American athletes in their campaigns. Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, and Lebron James, Dwyane Wade and Terrell Owens to name a few. Most of the African American athletes being sponsored are associated with the NBA, predominately due to the demographics behind the NBA. I'd imagine they do this to appeal to African Americans, and the slogan "Just do it" gives a call to action to buy the product they are advertising.

I talked a little bit about this in my paper about the identity of Sports stars in ads. Nike gives this image of a way to rise out of the low class conditions and become an amazing athlete by buying the latest and greatest Nike shoes. I talked a little bit about how they are portraying Gatorade in that way in my paper.

It is ridiculous that some sports players are payed more by their sponsorships than what they make in the sport, which is more evident in Golf than most other sports. This excess in sponsorship from Nike and other companies ties into the political economy theory that we learned about earlier. Nike is almost a monopoly of a sports, they are the worlds leading supplier in sportswear and apparel. Their advertisements make them seem like they are the best company and when they use these athletes in the advertisements it creates the feeling that an aspiring athlete has to associate oneself with Nike to be successful.

Nike's marketing of social responsibility

Carol Stabile tells us "how multinational corporations produce and manage their public images" (197). The example of Nike reveals the push and force it initiated to spread its name out there and advertise its products - for example competing with Reebok. It is no surprise that Nike's aggressive advertising sparked the "sneaker wars" with Reebok. Shockingly it took a toll on the outside American society - mainly the projects in inner-cities, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, South Central L.A. and many other unreported news; but these killings/homicides show how media and advertising strongly affect and shape the viewers' minds. In this case, the sneakers I find this incident quite scary but also ironic and I will explain why I think so. At the height of its career, Nike initiated a goal many other corporations follow and that is "all about trying to find some status in the world" (197). And of course with this goal accomplished through the media, Nike has a fairly average very well-rounded popular rating amongst its consumers. However, the ironic part is that while Nike is trying to make a good name for itself, stand for good values, and promote equality by working with African American spokespersons, we can't forget that Nike has another social responsibility that deals with the actual means of producing the products -- and what groups of people exactly do that. Well obviously poor class minorities take on the jobs in the sweatshop production factories. These are are low paying jobs that (for example) "Vietnamese women who make Nike shoes, working 12-hour days for a wage between $2.10 and $2.40 a day, are kept off the screen" (201). That is unethical and the values of Nike, promoting equality and positivism, are lacking there tremendously. Its message to the overall public is sometimes not realistic because "Nike's commitment to 'social responsibility' because the contradiction between corporate production and employment practices and chronic unemployment practices in African American communities remains outside the screen or printed page" (201). However, as these issues are coming to mind and are starting to globalize, I am sure Nike is initiating changes to improving its reputation, quality of production and quality of advertising.

African American Sitcoms

Robert R. Means Coleman’s article, Black Sitcom Portrayals, he talks about the different ways that African American people are portrayed in particular television shows.  Throughout the article, he interviews different people or actresses/actors from different shows. 

I found a lot of the article interesting.  I obviously am aware of certain prejudices that Black people face from day to day, but when I think about the way that certain African American people are portrayed in television shows it kind of makes me confused why and how they do this and what race the particular director of the show may be.  I found myself during the article thinking if this director was white and making these black actors degrade themselves or dumb them down, does that make him a racist? If this director is black as well, isn’t he just making the stereotypes that are created already, worse?  

In specific to these questions, I found the part of the article that discussed the Fresh Prince of Belair interesting.  I haven’t watched this show in sometime now and I find it interesting that they talk about how J.C Cartlon is seen as the “good kid” because he has such good behavior and honesty, qualities that he says are uncommon in depictions of young Black males (81). I never thought about Will being sort of a charity case that he is described in this article, but it makes sense that he is portrayed as the typical black male who needs a place to stay, and just happens to have wealthy black relatives.  

Most of the series that are discussed in this article display wealth in the Black families.  In the Cosby Show, I never noticed how much of a stretch their lives are.  How they contradict the standards that have been set by society, by having a Black lawyer and Black surgeon as the parents of 3 beautiful, intelligent children.   

In discussion with how most of the sitcom stars appear to have lighter skin is another topic that I found interest in.  I have noticed that even today, society has accepted and even thought more beautiful or highly of Black people with lighter skin.  

Black Sitcom Portrayals

Black Sitcom Portrayals by Robin Coleman depicts the inferiority linked between the African American class and national TV sitcoms. In Coleman’s article he begins to explain how the African American is portrayed as a lower working class citizen that is dependent on a White family to survive. He cites examples from Sanford and Son and Roc to illustrate his point by claiming that those characters were assigned roles based on their race to reinforce the lack of upward mobility within their class. Coleman further articulates his point by claiming “the participants struggled to offer a genre-wide assessment of what favorable traits the comedies held…” (79) The notable positives that were explained by the actors from the TV sitcom were challenged by Coleman. From the crossed line between self- sufficiency and reinforcement of lower class, to the “rare and good” African American young male who is ridiculed for having strong values, and to the “African American male who is not only depicted as deficient in love, but also in family life.” (83) One of the thoughts that stuck out to me was the portrayal of women and the misogynistic abuse aimed towards them. In Martin one of the actors said, “they’re always puttin’ women down and talking about their butts, even when it’s a decent little comedy or something, they make fun of each other so bad, and I hate that.” ( 83) The sitcom colored these women in a light that was self destructive for the women in the Black community. It pigeonholed these women into a category where negativity fueled their world and all they had to talk about was commonplace things.

Whiteness?

In Robert Means Coleman’s article, Black Sitcom Portrayals, he touches on issues and controversies regarding the way African Americans are portrayed in the media and more commonly in TV sitcoms. Throughout this article, Coleman interviews, or takes clips from different actor/actresses in these sitcoms to get their views of the way the black culture is portrayed through television first hand. Doing this, makes the reader feel a closer connection to what Coleman is saying, such as the portrayal of black females being portrayed as partner less and the common stereotypes of black people. It was interesting to read about the TV sitcoms and how they are portrayed. Shows like, The Jefferesons shows a black family, which is wealthy, an uncommon portrayal of the black sitcoms usually seen on TV. J.C.B says, “Yeah, I think its important to see because too may of our Blacks that achieve, the community for the most part tends to shun them and call them names, (such as) tryin’ to be White and all this stuff like that. And I think it’s positive to have more people that are showing advancement in life“ (80). It is sad to me that wealth within black communities can be seen as “whiteness” or trying to be white. It is in a way funny to me, that when black families are successful and wealthy they are seen as trying to be “white” while this should be seen as an inspiration. Shows like, The Jefferesons shows a Black family, which has many achievements which is uncommonly portrayed on TV sitcoms. Similarly, this idea of “whiteness” can relate to today TV show, 90210, which Julia talks about. In this show there is one black boy, who grows up in an all white, affluent community. Dixon could be seen from the Black community of trying to be white. This also relates to Via’s article. It is shocking to me to see the image of Gabourey Sidibe’s in Elle magazine. They alter her skin color on the cover to look “whiter”. It seems to me that media is trying to portray black people, but in a way trying to target “white” and “wealthy” audiences.