Where's the Peace in "Jesus Piece" ?

“Jesus Piece” is the latest album from the rapper “The Game.” The album artwork has sparked major controversy and it’s obvious as to why. The picture depicts Jesus in a gangster-like fashion, wearing a red bandana around his face and “bling” around his neck. If you were to present this album to a devout Christian, I guarantee that they will be offended. 

The Game is culturally appropriating the religion of Christianity. He is taking a very symbolic and religious figure and using it for his own personal fulfillment, particularly to sell his music. This is a perfect and clear example of cultural appropriation because he is a person of power due to his celebrity status therefore he has some influence among the public. Through his album, he distorts the image of Jesus and consequently, it misrepresents the Christian faith. One critic claims that "Jesus is depicted as a shallow man searching earthly treasures and presumably a participant in criminal activities."

Because Jesus is represented in this light, people might think that this is the “Jesus” that they (Christians) believe in. The image is taking the Christian culture and affiliating it with the “hood.” It causes misinterpretations and produces more ignorance. In addition, it goes against the teachings and messages of Jesus; He was not about that lifestyle and He definitely did not represent it. And as for one individual, Tanyi, she asserts that "He's gone too far...He's making a mockery of what is sacred to many individuals."

Common image of Jesus

What makes it even more controversial is The Game’s response to the whole issue. He claims, “You can’t say that’s not Jesus. You’ve never seen Jesus. You know why I put the rag on his face, because I didn’t want anyone saying I put Jesus on the cover of the album, so I covered his face. That’s not Jesus, that’s Rick James with a rag on.” However, the picture of Jesus is the common image in a religious household, so there is good reason as to why people might believe that that is Jesus on the cover. Why couldn’t he use a different image? Why did he chose an image that closely resembles Jesus. And if he claims that that is Rick James with a bandana on, why is he wearing the clothes of Jesus and posing the same way? The Game could have thought about it more intently, but he wanted the controversy. He knew it would arouse public reactions and that is exactly what he wanted. It’s plain and simple; he used Jesus to sell his music and get PR. He borrowed a revered figure and used it for own selfish needs. 

The Game says "It's not Jesus...it's Rick James with a rag on"

 
The irony of all of this is that The Game claims he is a passionate Christian; which could be a possible reason why he doesn’t think he is offending anyone; because he is a part of the Christian religion, he isn’t appropriating them. But that still doesn't excuse the fact that he has distorted the true meaning of Christianity.

Celebrity Endorsements: Yay or Nay?

"Advertisers frequently use the testimony of a celebrity to support a claim: a football star touts a deodorant soap, an actress starts every day with Brand A coffee, a tennis pro gets stamina from Brand X cereal, a talk-show host drives a certain kind of car. The audience is expected to transfer approval of the celebrity to approval of the product. This kind of marketing is misleading and insults the intelligence of the audience. Am I going to buy the newest SUV because an attractive talk-show host gets paid to pretend he drives one? I don’t think so. We should boycott this kind of advertising and legislate rules and guidelines for advertisers."

— passage by columnist Sue Jozui (2007)

  

Advertisements seem to be ubiquitous in American culture. It's often used as a strategy to promote an idea, belief or product. Along with it comes an "accessory" such as celebrities in which their testimonies are used by advertisers to support their claim. In the passage, columnist Sue Jozui asserts that celebrity endorsements are "misleading and insulting to our intelligence." In other words, she firmly believes that this type of marketing makes our society look dependent upon the approval of others, particularly one who is held in high regard. Jozui cites examples of advertisements that involve a celebrity urging people to buy a product because it "worked" for them, in order to point out that the approval of a famous person is required to gain the approval of the consumer. The author expresses her suspicion of the concept that consumers are likely to accept a product if it’s celebrity-approved. One of the main implications that the author notes is that if celebrity endorsements were to be regulated, a product would be able to build its own credibility without the help of an individual of high social status. Because of this, Jozui concludes that the use of celebrities in advertisements hinders the product's ability to prove its believability and deceives the consumer's knowledge, therefore this type of marketing should be boycotted. However, imposing regulations upon this type of advertising strategy isn’t the proper solution because it does not benefit society and at the end of the day, it is up to the consumer whether or not they want the product.

"Should celebrity advertisements be boycotted?" is the question that Jozui presents. However, to counteract that question, how would boycotting celebrity endorsements benefit society? The answer is simple; it won’t. The implication that celebrities hinder the credibility of a product is contradictory. Doesn't a product need the feedback of a customer to build validity? A smart consumer looks for product reviews prior to purchasing it to make sure it's what he or she needs. The feedback of others is fundamental because it gives the consumer an idea of the effectiveness of a product. Jozui fails to mention that a celebrity is also a consumer and is simply giving their take on the product itself. The only difference is that they are people with high social status which will only add more authenticity. In other words, attaching big Hollywood names to a product will only help it prosper even further.

Despite that, the intention of the celebrity is called into question. What are their reasons for agreeing to affiliate themselves with these brands? Some may say that they do it for the money or they use it as a tool to boost their career. Believe it or not, celebrities aren't always selling a product but they are also "selling" a message to make society better. They could be advocating about putting an end to bullying or world hunger. Take Ellen DeGeneres for example; she's considered endorsement deals however, she stated:

"I would not feel good if I had made a deal and was making money for something that I'm not proud of and don't have any control over." 

So as you can see, these endorsements may be a lucrative deal but it isn't always the reason why celebrities partake in them.

            

            

Furthermore, Jozui assumes that we aren't smart consumers because we buy into whatever the celebrity claims about a product; since these ads "insult our intelligence", she assumes that we are weak-minded inviduals. However, we can think for ourselves. Not all are gullible and easily convinced. Just because so-and-so uses a certain product doesn't mean we will go out and buy it. However, it may be different for children advertisements since young kids are easily influenced by cartoons or their favorite actor/actress. If kids see their favorite cartoon character or celebrity on a product, they are bound to beg their parents to buy it. It all goes down to who the target audience is. It's understandable for children to desire a product if their role models are on it but older viewers should have the common sense of purchasing a product based on its effectiveness and usefulness. And as consumers, we should be able to make our own judgement.

The question whether or not this type of marketing should be boycotted is up for debate. But it's clear that it wouldn't be the proper solution as it has its own downsides.

Word Count: 737

Aisles of Segregation

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/1114/1224326570945.html

Walk down the toy aisles in any store and you'll see a clear distinction between the girl's and boy's section. One area with a pink theme is bombarded with glitter, dolls, princesses and household-based toys. Now move on to the blue-themed area that is filled with action figures, guns, and cars.

Simply, these  gender-stereotyping toys are sending the wrong messages to children. Products that are aimed towards girls are reminding them what they are capable of and that is wearing pretty dresses, admiring themselves in front of vanity mirrors and taking care of household work. The message is pretty clear: girls are only good for domestic roles and making themselves look good. On the other hand, boys are given a sense of patriotism and are encouraged to be superheroes and athletes; it makes them seem active, daring and sporty.

However these messages can negatively affect the way we think. It pollutes the minds of children by giving them the idea that girls and boys are so fundamentally different that there are no toys available that both genders will be able to enjoy. Back in the 70s and 80s, toys were unisex but nowadays they are categorized specifically for boys and girls. Take Legos for example. They used to market to both sexes until they created two completely different Lego universes. They've added a Lego Friends line which is there attempt to market towards girls. Lego Friends points out the assumptions that society has on girls with the most common being that they are genetically programmed to like pink and participate in home-decorating activities. 

Before

After

Now I firmly believe that the media has a lot to do with the gender inequality that plagues our culture. It's apparent to me that women are badly represented in the media while men are praised by society. In movies for example, the male is usually the hero whereas the female is a damsel in distress waiting for her "Prince Charming" to save her. I think society tries to enforce the idea that men will always be superior over women. Instead of being stuck on that old ideology, our society should start gravitating towards gender equality. (343)

Room for Debate

Should College Be For Everyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/01/should-college-be-for-everyone

There is a question going around whether college is suitable for everyone. In my opinion, I think EVERYONE should aspire to go to college. I say this because having a college degree opens up a lot of opportunities and doors for you that you may not receive with only a high school diploma. Statistics show that between 1973 and 2010, the jobs that require education beyond high school more than doubled from 28 percent to 60 percent. This shows that more and more jobs are requiring you to have a post-secondary education. Furthermore, a college degree can give you the credentials you need to get the job that you want and it gives you a higher chance of being hired. In other words, having a degree can lessen the competition with others who are also applying for the same position. With our economy, jobs aren't easy to find and when jobs do become available, the company would most likely hire the person with the higher education. Kevin Carey points out in his discussion that we are living in a mobile society where workers need credible evidence of their skills and abilities to get a job. This is highly accurate because no one in their right mind would hire an individual who has no experience or skills whatsoever for the job that they are applying for. For instance, an individual would not be allowed to operate on someone without proof of having completed the required training and education to do so. Not only that, a college degree means that you earn more money. According to Anthony P. Carnevale, people with a college degree make 84 percent more in their lifetime than those with only a high school diploma. So if you want to be financially stable, opting for a college degree is your best choice. On the other hand, there are some drawbacks to this issue. College may be available to everyone but it doesn't mean that they can afford it. College IS getting more and more expensive these days which can discourage an individual from trying to attain it. And for those who are able to get their college degree may not be able to pursue the career they want due to the unavailability; It's not always guaranteed that they will be able to get the job that they want after they complete their education. Going to college isn't mandatory but I believe that everyone should pursue a post-secondary education to survive in today's economy. (415)

Related Articles: 
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/who-shouldnt-go-to-college/
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/commentary/should-everyone-go-college

Related Videos:

Generation WE Reflection

First off, I noticed that Generation WE includes people with different ethnicity. It reveals how America has become so diverse over the years. I agree with some of the points that were made in the video such as the future of politics and where it will stand in the future. We will see a change in our politics because we will be the ones making the choices once we are of legal voting age after all. As of right now, with the reelection of Obama, our generation seems to aim more towards the democratic party. Another point that was made in the video was the perception of America. I don't agree with people's view that America is “arrogant” because I think we are far from it. Our generation is more caring, intelligent and creative. People today are more involved within their communities/or clubs; These qualities are changing America for the better. Their perception also effects me in a way because I AM a part of this generation so knowing that people actually think that way about America makes me want to take action. I'd hate to be a part of something that is affiliated with such negative connotations. In the video, they also point out that we should attempt to restore the American Dream. However, I think it's time for us to create a new dream because we can't always fall back on the same dream. I think a new vision is necessary for our country to evolve and expand even further. (253)