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….)

@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 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

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.

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)