The tangled web of American history

Posted on December 5, 2018 by bvanrysdam

Today is National Repeal Day.

On January 16th, 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing alcohol and the following year, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote.

In a strange way, these two events were connected to each other. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had been promoting prohibition for many years, believing alcohol was the cause of many social ills facing our nation. In those days, a man controlled the household money and could drink away the family’s life savings with the wife having little recourse to stop him.

Another factor that played a large role in all of this was World War I. Many women became involved in the war efforts, working in factories, running the house with husbands at war, allowing them to earn their own money and even great freedom.

All of this led America into the Roaring Twenties where consumerism took off. Advances in printing found magazines entering more and more homes, offering a plethora of manufactured goods just waiting to be gobbled up. Sensing a growing market, many companies began to market directly at women, thus giving them an even greater voice to advance their status.

Fast forward thirteen years and America found itself in the Great Depression. Because of Prohibition, organized crime grew with gangsters taking control of big cities. Both men and women struggled to survive. Many Americans were looking for something to cheer about and their thoughts soon turned to drink.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a repeal during the 1932 presidential campaign. He won the election in a landslide and Prohibition was dead one year later. On December 5th, 1933, Utah (being the final state needed for a three quarters majority) the 21st Amendment was ratified repealing Prohibition.

Cultural lines being drawn in The Netherlands

Posted on November 19, 2018 by bvanrysdam

There is a clash of cultures taking place in the Netherlands that is dividing many people in a land known for its tolerance.

The controversy involves a character named Zwarte Peit (Black Pete) who is the companion of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) and part of the annual feast of Saint Nicholas when the saint is welcomed with a parade as he arrives from Madrid. This Dutch Santa Claus leaves well-behaved children presents and punishes those who have been very naughty. The tradition is that Zwarte Piet is black because he is a Moor from Spain and first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman.

So what’s the problem? Many Dutch people (the white ones) put on blackface makeup with curly wigs and light red lipstick to portray Zwarte Peit. Some protesters consider the figure to be an insult to their ancestry while supporters consider the character to be an inseparable part of their cultural heritage.

Many schools and business in Holland are taking notice by changing Zwarte Peit’s clothing and look all together. The U.N. even declared that it was a “vestige of slavery” in 2015 and many cities including Amsterdam and The Hague have reimaged him or done away with him altogether.

Growing up, my parents belonged to a Dutch Club where people who immigrated from Holland came together to meet and socialize. My dad was often chosen to play Sinterklaas and I was given the role of Zwarte Peit with blackface makeup and all to help him hand out presents. I did not think about it at the time, but today can see how it would offend people.

Morales and society change over the years, leaving older generations to lament the good old days and younger ones wondering what were you thinking. I am not smart enough (or Dutch enough) to know what the answer is, other than I hope this can become a teachable moment where people can better understand where we came from and where we can go moving forwards.

Saving face

Posted on October 29, 2018 by bvanrysdam

I’m Back (maybe)

Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.

It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.

Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.

Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.

Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.

Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.

Just swipe to the right

Posted on October 22, 2018 by bvanrysdam

How bad has politics gotten? There are now dating apps that help you locate someone who follows your political leaning.

Introducing Donald Daters, a brand new dating app for people who support President Trump and want to find like-minded partners. The app, whose slogan is “Make America Date Again”, is available on the App Store and Google Play.

Every day you will receive 25 finely curated matches to connect with for free! Then, after you go through your daily matches, it’s time to see what other singles are up to in your area in the activity feed. There you can like, send messages and connect with any of your matches.

Now before you think this app is a private party just for those on the right, Donald Daters encourages freethinking and welcomes anyone to download the app and enjoy their community although they also mention you can join without bias, judgement, or liberal intolerance (so much for freethinking).

Unlike some political gatherings, Donald Daters say they will not allow abusive language and bigotry is not acceptable (which is kinda sad that a dating website offers more self-control than today’s political rallies). The site even offers actual testimonials from users including Laura R. from Ohio who said “finally I can meet people with the same values and beliefs as me”.

“For many young Trump supporters, liberal intolerance has made meeting and dating nearly impossible. Support for the president has become a deal breaker instead of an icebreaker. That’s why we created a new platform for Trump supporters to meet people without being afraid of talking politics,” Emily Moreno, CEO of Donald Daters, posted to the website.

It remains to be seen how successful this new dating app will be, but one has to wonder if the Trump Organization will sue for intellectual property theft.

Who is minding the store?

Posted on September 19, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Computers and big data are getting smarter and smarter, but are we relying on them too much?

Bogus ads and fake news on Facebook are getting people’s attention. Being able to super-target a consumer down to age, gender, location and web browsing history is a marketers wet dream, but a question of who is minding the store is starting to be raised.

There is currently an investigation underway to determine if the Russian government tried to influence the recent presidential election, but there is even a darker element to targeting certain groups of people that defies common sense.

ProPublica, an investigative news organized reported on how Facebook’s automated ad software allowed them to target people interested in ‘Jew hater’, ‘History of why Jews ruin the world’ and ‘How to burn Jews’. The Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson tested those targeted groups with his own ads which Facebook approved within 15 minutes.

Facebook eventually removed those options after it was brought to their attention, but the question remains, how could that have been an acceptable target demo to begin with?

Buying ads on social media that are automated allows companies to keep profits high and costs down, but at what cost? Free speech is protected by the First Amendment, but do these companies really want to be known for promoting and profiting from these messages?

Disinformation is nothing new, Tokyo Rose was a fabricated name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda. The soldiers knew it was fake, but in today’s social media world, it’s getting harder and harder to spot them.

What responsibility does Facebook have? In the end, not much unless you are fan of credibility. Letting the consumer figure out what’s real and what isn’t does not sound like a solid business approach. Your friends might not stop posting, but companies might have second thoughts of having their ads next to a Jew hater ad.

There is another dark side to this automation without human oversite. During Hurricane Irma, people were scrambling to evacuate Miami. Travel websites starting jacking up fares that were $547 to over $3,200. Price gouging? No, just a computer doing its job of seeing high demand for an item and pricing it accordingly. Again, removing the human element from the equation.

How did consumers respond? They turned to social media to publicly shame companies for their practices (and to their credit, most responded). Until we learn to better humanize computers, we should be even more wary of what is being served to us in our feed.