- Status
F
...I did a little research (and I mean only a little) on when "America" was first used - it was after Amerigo Verspucci - who some argue "discovered" the new continent, and not Chris Columbus. I use "discover" somewhat fascetiously since the native people had inhabited it for near 10,000 years already. Also the definition and naming of North and South America as two continents was used as early as 1507 - quite some time before the U.S. claimed its "misnomer".
(I know, I know - who cares)(I do)
(I know, I know - who cares)(I do)
Last edited:
G
Anyone seen the 'I am African' ads? The strong physical reaction of nausea I had when I saw and was analysing this was amazing.
http://www.darchtimes.com/blog/mar2006/african.jpg
http://savageminds.org/wp-content/image-upload/paltrow.jpg
If you can zoom into the small print or look up these ads and look at the small print they'd give you an idea of what they are campaigning about.
http://www.darchtimes.com/blog/mar2006/african.jpg
http://savageminds.org/wp-content/image-upload/paltrow.jpg
If you can zoom into the small print or look up these ads and look at the small print they'd give you an idea of what they are campaigning about.
F
(wise guy...):dry:
Based on DNA, we all originated as genetically "African" - are all related - Hence a bold campaign, in light of that knowledge, appealing for help/financial contributions in combating/relieving the AIDS (pan)epidemic there (especially since the drug companies here hold back the drugs that help, as well holding their patents $acred, not allowing generic brands to flourish - their own drugs being utterly exorbitant in price and so, completely out of reach)
Based on DNA, we all originated as genetically "African" - are all related - Hence a bold campaign, in light of that knowledge, appealing for help/financial contributions in combating/relieving the AIDS (pan)epidemic there (especially since the drug companies here hold back the drugs that help, as well holding their patents $acred, not allowing generic brands to flourish - their own drugs being utterly exorbitant in price and so, completely out of reach)
Last edited:
G
Ok, thanks for sharing..:biggrin:
I prefer this one better:
http://gawker.com/news/photoshop/gwyneths-african-ad-inspires-imitators-193729.php
I prefer this one better:
http://gawker.com/news/photoshop/gwyneths-african-ad-inspires-imitators-193729.php
F
Whoops - that was actually VERY funny! (I could read the fine print at the bottom of the poster). If there is a lighter side to unfathomable suffering (is there?) - that would be it (and it does NOT actually attack the original campaign)
I assume celebrity causes/endorsements are what make you nauseous...
I assume celebrity causes/endorsements are what make you nauseous...
Last edited:
G
You're missing my point. Gwyneth Paltrow and/or anybody who is an 'ordinary citizen' in the west who isn't living in Africa has not lived through the experiences of someone in Africa with Aids. They are not African. To me, these ads show a privileged group (rich celebrities and anyone who thinks like them) thinking they have the right, after all this "we are all from Africa" news stories, to go and assume that they can take the experiences of people that they don't want to listen to as individuals with individual, separate needs (rather than grouping them as "African"), and say it's theirs and that they "understand" and display their underlying racism through culturally insensitive representations of people they don't know.
The ads are patronising ("poor starving people in Africa" Live 8 mentality) and racist and do not challenge anything regarding drug companies. Do you think "Africans" all have Aids, wear tribal markings (that look like some 3 year old has gone over their faces in a crayon) and go around topless? These are racialised, stereotyped images you get in old films.
The ads are patronising ("poor starving people in Africa" Live 8 mentality) and racist and do not challenge anything regarding drug companies. Do you think "Africans" all have Aids, wear tribal markings (that look like some 3 year old has gone over their faces in a crayon) and go around topless? These are racialised, stereotyped images you get in old films.
Last edited:
F
You know what? You're absolutely f**king right on SO many points man!!
But I still consider it to be the far lesser of supposed evils in trying to raise awareness in a 'provacative' way. I do not believe all Africans have AIDS, but the statistcs - well, they're not even merely staggering - but utterly INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
I also went directly to the site:
www.keepachildalive.org/i_am_african/i_am_african.html
and had another look at the posters. I think the colour in the markings (however created/simplified - and not possibly being able to represent each of the numerous tribes) and 'slogan' simply highlights the cause in an otherwise B&W picture (denoting the harsh reality). SO immaterial of course is this 2 cents! I also read the "WHY" section, suggest you might too, written by "IMAN" - most especially the last paragraph, which does in fact promote further educating oneself on the very relevant drug company policies.
Friend, I still concede to many of your points - but what are the alternatives when even The Church (a supposedly benevolent organization - ya right) will not condone let alone promote the use of condoms to prevent the further spread of such a devastaing disease. Do you have any suggestions? (I'm not being fascetious at all!). Cause while you and I have the luxury of debating the merits versus the stereotypical assumptions, 24.5 million people did not - nor did the 12 million orphans left behind...(2005 stats)
:sad:
But I still consider it to be the far lesser of supposed evils in trying to raise awareness in a 'provacative' way. I do not believe all Africans have AIDS, but the statistcs - well, they're not even merely staggering - but utterly INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
I also went directly to the site:
www.keepachildalive.org/i_am_african/i_am_african.html
and had another look at the posters. I think the colour in the markings (however created/simplified - and not possibly being able to represent each of the numerous tribes) and 'slogan' simply highlights the cause in an otherwise B&W picture (denoting the harsh reality). SO immaterial of course is this 2 cents! I also read the "WHY" section, suggest you might too, written by "IMAN" - most especially the last paragraph, which does in fact promote further educating oneself on the very relevant drug company policies.
Friend, I still concede to many of your points - but what are the alternatives when even The Church (a supposedly benevolent organization - ya right) will not condone let alone promote the use of condoms to prevent the further spread of such a devastaing disease. Do you have any suggestions? (I'm not being fascetious at all!). Cause while you and I have the luxury of debating the merits versus the stereotypical assumptions, 24.5 million people did not - nor did the 12 million orphans left behind...(2005 stats)
:sad:
Last edited:
Y
I was initially going to ignore this thread, because I think it's obvious what people should think about political correctness. But I'll say it anyway, for no other reason than now you have to listen to me bitch. :smile:
Political correctness has several levels. If a black person (this is just an example from the top of my head, no offense, I'm not a racist person for the record) is offended by the word '******', that's pretty acceptable. On a personal basis, if somebody is annoyed by what you say, that's pretty much their right, and it's your right to call them lame and not say it around them if you want to avoid a lecture.
But in the modern age, with the world becoming (or maybe it's at its worst and we're past that now) a nanny state, with the government deciding what is or isn't good for you (serious crimes like murder and rape excluded), political correctness may be a more dangerous thing than something you can just shrug off.
I can't cite specific examples, but increasing numbers of people in power are taking it upon themselves to "help" the population... such determination and will, if only it actually helped. The way they help is by imposing extreme measures.
Political correctness I do hate in some instances, and not in others, I don't particularly enjoy some words being said around me, though I don't really bother telling people off because that's not my right. You get some really irritarting people who flinch and dive out of the room the moment you say "fuck".
But anyway, PC on a diplomatic level is something to be watched out for. I actually don't mind it that much unless it's diplomatic, or when it's used by people with some influence to try to convince an entire group that something is bad just because they don't like it, for example, the 'parental advisory' (give me a fucking break) label on records. There was a huge thing in the 80's where nanny state ideology people were concerned (and that's a vastly understated word) about the fact that if a teenager were to listen to Black Sabbath lyrics or what have you, that individual would instantly go on a killing spree or abuse people. So they tried to typify or classify an entire group of people. If you listened to Aerosmith, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Twisted Sister, Metallica, ad nauseum, you were automatically thought of as being dangerous and disturbed. This kind of attitude continues in school today, where people may become violent by being forced there against their will, and then video games get blamed.
So, yes, PC I don't mind in some cases. In other cases I really loathe it and in other other cases, I want to outlaw it completely because of the measure of how it sometimes gets used. The main thing is to protect your personal space, although just opposing a law as it pertains to you is... weak. If you believe in something, even if it doesn't necessarily apply directly to you, you should oppose it. The reason laws are as constricting and ridiculous as they are today is because people didn't pay close enough attention. I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just saying that's how it happened.
Political correctness has several levels. If a black person (this is just an example from the top of my head, no offense, I'm not a racist person for the record) is offended by the word '******', that's pretty acceptable. On a personal basis, if somebody is annoyed by what you say, that's pretty much their right, and it's your right to call them lame and not say it around them if you want to avoid a lecture.
But in the modern age, with the world becoming (or maybe it's at its worst and we're past that now) a nanny state, with the government deciding what is or isn't good for you (serious crimes like murder and rape excluded), political correctness may be a more dangerous thing than something you can just shrug off.
I can't cite specific examples, but increasing numbers of people in power are taking it upon themselves to "help" the population... such determination and will, if only it actually helped. The way they help is by imposing extreme measures.
Political correctness I do hate in some instances, and not in others, I don't particularly enjoy some words being said around me, though I don't really bother telling people off because that's not my right. You get some really irritarting people who flinch and dive out of the room the moment you say "fuck".
But anyway, PC on a diplomatic level is something to be watched out for. I actually don't mind it that much unless it's diplomatic, or when it's used by people with some influence to try to convince an entire group that something is bad just because they don't like it, for example, the 'parental advisory' (give me a fucking break) label on records. There was a huge thing in the 80's where nanny state ideology people were concerned (and that's a vastly understated word) about the fact that if a teenager were to listen to Black Sabbath lyrics or what have you, that individual would instantly go on a killing spree or abuse people. So they tried to typify or classify an entire group of people. If you listened to Aerosmith, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Twisted Sister, Metallica, ad nauseum, you were automatically thought of as being dangerous and disturbed. This kind of attitude continues in school today, where people may become violent by being forced there against their will, and then video games get blamed.
So, yes, PC I don't mind in some cases. In other cases I really loathe it and in other other cases, I want to outlaw it completely because of the measure of how it sometimes gets used. The main thing is to protect your personal space, although just opposing a law as it pertains to you is... weak. If you believe in something, even if it doesn't necessarily apply directly to you, you should oppose it. The reason laws are as constricting and ridiculous as they are today is because people didn't pay close enough attention. I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just saying that's how it happened.
I agree. We need to tolerate female genital mutilation in East Africa, we need to be tolerant of slavery in Saudi Arabia (probably still exists), human cannibalism in Borneo (possibly still exists) and the charming practice of "honor killings" among various Arab groups. (Quite widespread.)
Down with judgmental Eurocentricism! After all, all of the above are cultural practices of long standing. Who are we to say? What gives us the right to impose our beliefs on others?
And damn those evil Briitish in India, what right did they have to prevent Suttee?
Down with judgmental Eurocentricism! After all, all of the above are cultural practices of long standing. Who are we to say? What gives us the right to impose our beliefs on others?
And damn those evil Briitish in India, what right did they have to prevent Suttee?
- Status