While leaving the year 2011 and entering the year 2012, one specific thing comes to mind: the end of the world. The Mayans stated in a prophecy that on December 21st, 2012 (12.21.12), a cataclysmic event will occur. This event has been interpreted in two ways; the first way is referred to as a New Age interpretation, believing that the Earth will be transformed in a positive way (either physically or spiritually). The second way is thinking the 21st will be "the end of the world" and is very similar to the idea of an apocalypse. To read more information on this prophecy, you can read here.
Over the years, society has been anticipating and has had a lot of fun hyping up the "big day". A film released in 2009, 2012, is a disaster movie that illustrated the impending end of the world and the struggle of a specific family trying to survive. Sure, it was a huge flop with the critics, but everyone came to see it--not for the deep, underlying meaning of the film, but the riveting experience of watching the world that we have built up all these years come to a crumbling end. The audience was simply fascinated.
Why do you think, as Americans, we choose to interpret a day that can have a potentially positive effect on the world as the ultimate end? America is seen as a place of opportunity and full potentially great things--not a place that expects failure. Why do we have such an un-characteristicly negative outlook on the future?
Today in class, we discussed the confrontation between Frederick Douglass and his master, Mr. Covey. Covey is described as a poor slave owner with a reputation to "break" free-spirited slaves. It was guaranteed he could tame them. After Douglass was whipped countless times and was pushed past his limit, he fought back. "Mr. Covey seemed now to think he had me, and could do what he pleased; but at this moment-- from whence came the spirit I don't know -- I resolved to fight" (42, Douglass).
After fighting back, and winning, Douglass remained a slave for four more years, but was never whipped again. This was considered a major triumph, not just for Douglass, but for any slave. The fact that Covey stopped enforcing such cruel behavior on a slave that fought back was shocking for the time period.
After Douglass was free, he did not recruit men to physically attack those practicing slavery, but instead wrote the book called Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass about his life as an enslaved man. We are actually currently reading it in class. This is very different than the soldiers that volunteered to fight in the Civil War in the film Glory that we watched in class. In this movie, men idolized acts of violence, considering it a valiant effort to support what was right.
American society idolized individuals and supports those who actively fight for what they believe in. Douglass chose to speak his mind and write a book on slavery to emotionally and mentally appeal to people opposed to physical violence--an act that worked well in his past with Mr. Covey.
Why do you think he chose literature to appeal to listeners opposed to violence? Do you think this choice was more affective?
This morning on Facebook, I saw a link of JayFunk, a famous Los Angeles street dancer, fingertutting. Tutting is a style of hip hop street dance that is based off of Egyptian hieroglyphics. It emphasizes beats in the music and almost looks like the dancer is a robot. JayFunk was using this style of dance, but limiting it to just his hands. To see what I'm talking about, watch the video below.
At the end of this epic one minute and fourtey-seven second video, there was a quick zoom out to a Samsung Galaxy SII phone, completely touch screen, and said "unleash your fingers."
First off, I was shocked that this movie was even a commercial. As a dancer, I know that artists constantly throw videos of their repertoire out onto the internet to further publicize their name in the dance community, and fact he chose to further publicize his talent by starring a Samsung commercial blew my mind. The Samsung Galaxy SII has virtually nothing in common with street dancing, but the slogan "unleash your fingers" stated at the end made all the difference by emphasizing the bridge between fingertutting and this new touch screen phone. Customers of Samsung won't want to buy this phone now because it's the cheapest, the fastest, or the most reliable. They will want to buy it because it's "cool." By associating this visually satisfying form of movement with this phone, the consumer believes the Galaxy SII has equal amounts of "awesome" associated with it.
My question: would this video influence Americans to buy this phone? Americans value success--something JayFunk clearly displays. Despite this, we also value efficiency, low prices, and state-of-the-art technology, something that the ad didn't even bring up once. Despite the lack of those many contributing factors, do you think Americans will still buy the phone?
