- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Beyond my more societial/political issue with the ad, I have a generalized marketing one that plays into it.
I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.
There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.
This falls into the latter and I think it's a method that is the least useful at this point in time. Here's why...
I believe the "guilt/sham" method is one that is going to work best with the younger generations. I think group 2 and group 3 are your largest ones in these generations. I also think they're the most open to being "shamed" into it because they've been brought up and raised, more so than other generations, with the notion that racism is bad / diversity is good and do not likely have as much experience with prejudiced thoughts or racist actions on their own part in their life. It's much easier to extort a change in thought process or reaction in someone, imho, through shame/guilt when you can tie that to someone close to them rather then themselves (where self delusion and self image comes more into play)...in this case, namely the "earlier generations" as the scape goat.
However, there's two issues with that mindset and method right now predicated on one simple fact/opinion...there's more adult, middle aged, and elder populations then your young populations right now and those other three demographics skew differently in terms of the group make up.
1) The "Shame/Guilt" method more than any other method tends to extort a negative reaction from those who aren't positively affected by it more often then the other two methods. Essentially, this adds fuel to the fire of both the actively racist, those who are prejudice in their thought process, and even thos who are neutral but dislike the technique and method. The "We are all the same" and to a lesser extent "Embrace Diversity" methods I believe both have a higher propensity to inspire a relatily neutral response, and a less extreme on average negative response, by those who don't react to it positively then this method. When combined with the lower amount of generations that this will affect positively, I see the net result of this kind of advertising...especially one going to the length this one goes to...as a negative because it fans the flames worse than it fights them. Which adds into number two..
2) Ultimately, we need the older generations to continue to teach, instill, and steer the younger generations away from the racism and prejudice of the past. As you move down generation to generation the trend, imho, you go from less racists to more prejudiced and then less prejudiced to more neutrals. Thankfully, it seems that those who are prejudiced are at least open to the notion of attempting to instill a belief that racism/prejudice is bad even though they may experience it. Which is great, because for us to continue the downward trend of racism we need to continue the education. However, to me, actions like this have the inverse effect by inflaming individuals and making them less inclined or open to instilling those things as it promotes bitterness and divisiveness through its methodology.
The "Shame/Guilt" method I think works well and produces a net positive in two situations. When the attrocities occuring are just so horrific that the jarring of it may have an impact or when the actions that occur are rather unusual or andequated.
Is Racism today good? Of course not. But let's not delude ourselves also in thinking that having someone clutch their purse tight when they pass you on the street is akin to being segmented into an entirely different population segment at a public location. Or that having your resume passed over because your name sounds ethnic is like seeing people hosed down with firehoses and having dogs set on them. Or that amount and type of neighborhoods where a minority is questioned for being "in the wrong" place is anywhere near as numerous as it once was, let alone that the frequency such happens is the same. Heck, even the interaction with law enforcement would provide more horrific and frequent examples in the past then there is today.
This is not saying that bad stuff, horrilby bad stuff, doesn't happen today due to racism. This is not saying that the racism today isn't bad. What I'm saying is the average bit of racism today is far less overtly "disgusting" then it was in the past and that the frequency of the extremely disgusting behaviors are less. And as such, the use of shocking "Guilt/Shame" methods has its impact reduced compared to using such at the time of the civil rights movement. I think it's much easier to shame people, and keep them from successfully rationalizing it, when you're pointing out people being hosed down or lynched rather than losing out on a job or not getting a taxi hailed.
When your child, teen, and adolescent aged generations transition into your young adult and adult generations and you have the next group coming up I think you'll begin to be able to see more of this kind of tactic becoming perhaps a bit more useful. The younger generations would now be the ones having kids and being entrusted with their education while also being the ones less likely to be inflamed and to actually be moved by this kind of advertising. However...right now...I think this type of advertising method does more harm then good, fuels the fires and stirs controversy that negatively effects the racism debate in this country, and pushes things in the opposite direction of where it needs to go.
I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.
There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.
This falls into the latter and I think it's a method that is the least useful at this point in time. Here's why...
I believe the "guilt/sham" method is one that is going to work best with the younger generations. I think group 2 and group 3 are your largest ones in these generations. I also think they're the most open to being "shamed" into it because they've been brought up and raised, more so than other generations, with the notion that racism is bad / diversity is good and do not likely have as much experience with prejudiced thoughts or racist actions on their own part in their life. It's much easier to extort a change in thought process or reaction in someone, imho, through shame/guilt when you can tie that to someone close to them rather then themselves (where self delusion and self image comes more into play)...in this case, namely the "earlier generations" as the scape goat.
However, there's two issues with that mindset and method right now predicated on one simple fact/opinion...there's more adult, middle aged, and elder populations then your young populations right now and those other three demographics skew differently in terms of the group make up.
1) The "Shame/Guilt" method more than any other method tends to extort a negative reaction from those who aren't positively affected by it more often then the other two methods. Essentially, this adds fuel to the fire of both the actively racist, those who are prejudice in their thought process, and even thos who are neutral but dislike the technique and method. The "We are all the same" and to a lesser extent "Embrace Diversity" methods I believe both have a higher propensity to inspire a relatily neutral response, and a less extreme on average negative response, by those who don't react to it positively then this method. When combined with the lower amount of generations that this will affect positively, I see the net result of this kind of advertising...especially one going to the length this one goes to...as a negative because it fans the flames worse than it fights them. Which adds into number two..
2) Ultimately, we need the older generations to continue to teach, instill, and steer the younger generations away from the racism and prejudice of the past. As you move down generation to generation the trend, imho, you go from less racists to more prejudiced and then less prejudiced to more neutrals. Thankfully, it seems that those who are prejudiced are at least open to the notion of attempting to instill a belief that racism/prejudice is bad even though they may experience it. Which is great, because for us to continue the downward trend of racism we need to continue the education. However, to me, actions like this have the inverse effect by inflaming individuals and making them less inclined or open to instilling those things as it promotes bitterness and divisiveness through its methodology.
The "Shame/Guilt" method I think works well and produces a net positive in two situations. When the attrocities occuring are just so horrific that the jarring of it may have an impact or when the actions that occur are rather unusual or andequated.
Is Racism today good? Of course not. But let's not delude ourselves also in thinking that having someone clutch their purse tight when they pass you on the street is akin to being segmented into an entirely different population segment at a public location. Or that having your resume passed over because your name sounds ethnic is like seeing people hosed down with firehoses and having dogs set on them. Or that amount and type of neighborhoods where a minority is questioned for being "in the wrong" place is anywhere near as numerous as it once was, let alone that the frequency such happens is the same. Heck, even the interaction with law enforcement would provide more horrific and frequent examples in the past then there is today.
This is not saying that bad stuff, horrilby bad stuff, doesn't happen today due to racism. This is not saying that the racism today isn't bad. What I'm saying is the average bit of racism today is far less overtly "disgusting" then it was in the past and that the frequency of the extremely disgusting behaviors are less. And as such, the use of shocking "Guilt/Shame" methods has its impact reduced compared to using such at the time of the civil rights movement. I think it's much easier to shame people, and keep them from successfully rationalizing it, when you're pointing out people being hosed down or lynched rather than losing out on a job or not getting a taxi hailed.
When your child, teen, and adolescent aged generations transition into your young adult and adult generations and you have the next group coming up I think you'll begin to be able to see more of this kind of tactic becoming perhaps a bit more useful. The younger generations would now be the ones having kids and being entrusted with their education while also being the ones less likely to be inflamed and to actually be moved by this kind of advertising. However...right now...I think this type of advertising method does more harm then good, fuels the fires and stirs controversy that negatively effects the racism debate in this country, and pushes things in the opposite direction of where it needs to go.