(www.sass-pants.com) — In response to my post the other day about the random solicitation we accidentally received offering us the chance to “help feed an elderly Jewish person for just $2.40,” reader TSS shared the following comments:
Bizarre, but why funny? Certainly not “priceless”… It’s worth exactly 2.40. What is the name of the soliciting organization and what does Pat Robertson have to say, if I may be so bold?
you know – something that strikes me here:
when you “feed the children”, which “children” are you feeding? there is something implicit that most Americans understand, or something explicit which they have seen on television commercials for the Feed the Children project and other similar projects: the children are impoverished, often of color, living in foreign nations. but the project isn’t called “Feed the Impoverished Children of Color in Foreign Nations”.
why go into all of this? because the solicitation could have said, “Feed the Elderly” – in which case we would have understood without question that the elderly named were impoverished elderly. this wouldn’t have been funny at all. it might have been a solicitation from Meals on Wheels or any other service that contributes to the welfare of impoverished elderly.
if in any way adding the word “Jewish” is the thing that makes this advertisement funny, i ask you to ask yourself exactly why that is.
I realized I had a lot more to say than just quick yesses and nos, so I figured a second post on the topic would be appropriate.
The organization is the Chicago-headquartered International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. I’d never heard of them before this landed in our mailbox. According to the organization, IFCJ is “one of the top 501(c3) Jewish charities which unites Jews and Christians, fights poverty & helps Jewish emigrations from Russian and other countries, resettle in Israel.” But unless you already know that, how would you know that? Not from anything on the outside of this envelope, I assure you.
On the back of the envelope, Pat Robertson is quoted as saying, “I commend Rabbi Eckstein for encouraging Christians to involve themselves in supporting Israel and the Jewish people.” This leads me to believe that this mailing is targeted to a very specific Christian population within the IFCJ’s membership or purchased/rented mailing lists, a demographic that would find Pat Robertson an authority on where they should “involve themselves.”
I find it interesting, however, that Robertson did not say, “I charge every Christian to make it a personal priority to support Israel and the Jewish people by doing X, Y, and Z specific things.” This strikes me as damning with faint praise, to be frank–a strange and somewhat amusing element of this already bizarre solicitation.
And who on Earth is Rabbi Eckstein anyway? Reading through the IFCJ website, I discovered that he’s the founder and president of the organization. Mentioning him on the outside of the envelope makes sense once you know that, but assuming that the former holder of my husband’s mailbox is on a purchased or rented mailing list (the outside of the envelope does not say, “Thanks for your past support!” or “We need your help again!” and I haven’t opened it, as we will be returning it to the post office for forwarding or return this week since it’s not our mail), how on earth would the recipient know that? Another reason the Robertson quote is strange. It doesn’t actually tell me anything useful; it just gets his name on the outside of the envelope.
Back to the front of the envelope, and still working with my assumptions that this mailing was intended for a very specific American, Christian demographic, I imagine the planning meeting for this piece went something like this:
Guy A: Our donations from Christians in the US have been low lately. We need to do a mailing.
Guy B: Hmm, okay, I’ll order the mailing lists from Focus on the Family and the Christian Broadcasting Network. Other media don’t guarantee that the subscribers identify themselves as Christians, and we already know those people like to donate their money to religious organizations. And maybe we can get some kind of testimonial from Pat Robertson or James Dobson. Or who’s that other TV church guy? Joel Osteen? Those people love guys like them.
Guy A: Great idea. Now, how can we approach this? Hmm… Well, let’s see. We should use some pictures. People like pictures.
Guy B: Pictures of what?
Guy A: You know, Jewish people.
Guy B: Yeah, but that could be anyone.
Guy A: Oh, good point. Well, let’s see if we can get some really old people who look like the cast of the downtown senior center’s production of Fiddler on the Roof and put scarves on the women so everyone knows what they’re supposed to be.
Guy B: Oh, perfect. Because that’s how mainstream America thinks of Jews anyway, and it will make the Christians feel guilty if we can get the people to look really hungry and pathetic somehow. Maybe we can get them all to cry. That will be great for donations.
I mean, seriously. Don’t tell me this same envelope went to the Jewish half of the mailing list. Maybe the intentions were phenomenal. Maybe these are what every single one of the folks receiving financial and other support from this organizations look like. But I suspect that they chose these specific images for the reasons I outlined above in my imagined conversation: playing on the preconceived notions of an ignorant audience by reinforcing their stereotypes and playing on their religious guilt. I find that both insulting and offensive.
But I also find it ridiculous and stupid, which is why it’s so funny. Yeah, stereotypes exist for a reason, and I’m sure there are some elderly Jews who look just like the folks on this envelope. But not all of them do! And not all of the ones who do are hungry and impoverished, for that matter. Reinforcing stereotypes isn’t something I see as a major priority for an organization dedicated to bring Jews and Christians together. At least, it shouldn’t be. They should be fighting AGAINST notions that make their support recipients an “other.”
Oh, and thank goodness someone came up with a way to make it affordable to feed elderly Jewish people. FINALLY. Because I was just saying to my husband the other day, “Gee, honey, aren’t these prices getting astronomical? I wish someone would find a way to feed an elderly Jewish person for under $3.” Enter this mailing, which promises to feed elderly Jewish people for the low, low, bargain price of $2.40. Again, this is just bizarre. Since when is $2.40 such a critical price point that it warrants top billing?
Hunger and poverty aren’t funny. But this mailing, in my opinion, makes a mockery of a serious issue. It was a perfect storm of marketing absurdity. Hence, why I had to laugh. And why, even if it had been addressed to me, I would have thrown it out without opening it.
Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Have you ever met a Jewish Russian/Eastern European elderly immigrant living in Israel? I wonder if you could share what experience you have had that would lead you to be able to discern that the photos are stereotypical – other, perhaps, than your exposure to Fiddler on the Roof.
Again, if this appears to be a “stereotype” to you, how exactly does this image differ from presenting the images of sad-looking children of color on advertisements and solicitations for Feed the Children? Do such images equally make a mockery of hunger by suggesting that all hungry children look a certain way?
http://www.feedthechildren.org/site/PageServer?pagename=dotorg_homepage
Try this site out. Click around. You will notice a theme. [Impoverished] Children of color… being held/aided by… adults who are white. Hm. Curious.
Do you believe that ALL children of color look like the children in these images? Are all children of color sad and impoverished? Do you think that there aren’t any children facing a grueling winter of hunger who are of a race other than those depicted by these images? or that there aren’t any children of color who are in healthy condition, with a sufficient amount to eat?
Whether or not the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is a reputable organization – an organization whose donations truly support the causes their literature suggests they do – I am still having a hard time understanding exactly how this solicitation is in any way different from other solicitations which you might have taken for granted as depicting people in need.
I’d also like to point out that this solicitation is FAR from being the first to utilize a seemingly arbitrary number – i.e.: $2.40 – to demonstrate that what is an affordable daily sum for most can be completely out of reach for others.
*tss*’s last blog post..part two: sitting on a bag of frozen green beans, (or: the coefficient of friction)
@TSS, The envelope doesn’t say, “Feed an elderly Jewish person in Russia or elsewhere in Eastern Europe.” It says, “Feed an elderly Jewish person.” Period. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have the time (or inclination, for that matter) to research every organization that sends me unsolicited requests for funding. This was an exception to the rule because it struck me as so bizarre that I wanted to blog about it. That’s the ONLY reason I looked it up and know anything about their work with Russian Jews. It is not immediately apparent. I think my argument still stands.
Also, I’m not talking about the marketing materials from Feed The Children–though it’s certainly not off the table if they send me stuff. I merely mentioned them as an organization that I had at least heard of before. If I were to compare their website to the envelope from IFCJ, it would be comparing apples to oranges: both fruit, but not the same variety. It’s not a fair comparison.
Regardless, I haven’t received any solicitation of this nature, from any organization, in years, with the exception of a several catalogs in a short period from Heifer International, which primarily depicted cows, goats, chickens, and rabbits, not people. And for that matter, they depicted a wide variety of each species at that, demonstrating the variety of needs of the people served by the livestock gifts.
KK – the reason i draw the comparison between the images at feed the children and those on the envelope for the solicitation you received are because i am reaching towards an inquiry as to the nature of “feed hungry people” solicitations.
you referred to the image and caption as funny. i am pointing out that the information implied by similar pictures and words can be OBVIOUS in one solicitation because we are COMFORTABLE assuming that it is obvious – but, the same implied information is LOST altogether or FUNNY in another solicitation because it is not as comfortable.
again, i bring up feed the children – which doesn’t indicate the demographic it serves in its one liners. the demographic is implicit.
when you see “you can help feed an elderly jewish person” – the IMPLICIT information is that that the elderly, jewish person in question is hungry. not that you may be feeding “Mrs. Horowitz” whose husband is a “top cardiologist”, as Lori suggests might be a possibility. [incidentally, there you have a genuine case of stereotyping.]
you yourself said that the images were “stereotypical” – but
a.] i still don’t know what, concretely, gives you that impression
b.] i still don’t understand how “stereotypical” images of people in solicitations and advertising aren’t completely standard.
research into the organization or not, there is still an issue at hand as to why pictures of old, sad men and kerchifed women, and a caption about feeding jews, is funny.
*tss*’s last blog post..make words with mouth
I think the “funny” comes from the absurdity of the premise that $2.40 can feed a hungry Jewish person, Child, Lawyer, President, CEO or goat. The US ALONE produces enough food to feed every man, woman and child 2000 calories a day (and a lot of people reeeeely don’t even need that much – some more…). Hunger in the world has nothing to do with availability. Much like the CEOs of the car manufacturers arriving in DC to beg for bailout money at $20k per flight on their corporate jets, some of the CEO of the “charities” could lead by example? What was it a few years ago with one of the top charities in the US? The head hancho was making $400k/yr? Riiiiiight.
Sorry for taking so long to reply to your comments, TSS and MIKCTR. We had a death in the family, and things have been a little busy on this end. But at any rate!
@TSS, I just don’t think I’m going to be able to give you an answer that satisfies you, as I feel at this point I’m just going to begin repeating myself. For now, I think it best to let this go, and if I find that I can provide further insight or explanation, I’ll definitely re-comment. Thank you for an interesting discussion!
@MIKCTR, good point. There’s a certain absurdity to the notion that this or any other charity can solve the problems of world hunger, however noble the pursuit. But that wasn’t what I thought funny. Worth pointing out though! Thanks for your comment.
You’re welcome for the comment. You have some most interesting [random] topics that seem to go much deeper than the original poste. I guess that’s one of the things that makes blogging so interesting! lol
My intention was to point out the absurdity of what companies/charities will use to market to people – aka “make money”. ‘Steriotypes’ ARE a biggie! If people don’t believe it, compare the commercials on FOX and practically any of the other networks and see what ’services’ and ‘products’ are marketed to the audiences who watch the programming they provide! It’s almost ‘uncanny’ ;o) LOL
To survive the attack of “they’re not all like that” I’ll go ahead and conceed that all charities are not out JUST to make money ;o) Speaking in ‘generalities’ here. (How steriotypical….)