When you go to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), we are bombarded with huge billboards in hope to catch the attention of passengers, which include pictures of people in lingerie or underwear. A few months ago, there was a controversy surrounding the Philippine Volcanoes, a Philippine rugby team, for posing too provocatively for an underwear company in EDSA. It was deemed “inappropriate” by the mayor of Mandaluyong, Benhur Abalos and Valenzuela mayor, Sherwin Gatchalian (Naredo & Pedrasa, 2011). Many were offended by how many innocent children can perceive those titillating images. These scantily clad models that are in the billboards are made to sell and appeal for our sexuality to our human instincts.
Sexuality is both an attribute and constitutive (Cenzon, 2008). According to Thomas Hobbes (n.d.), “Man is a collection of base, animal urges. To act on them and experience sinful pleasures would be morally no different from taking a breath.” In a word, since “sexual desire is an instinctive reaction in animals” (Taflinger, 1996) and we are a collection of animal urges. There is something natural and innate, similar to animals, for human beings to have a certain sex appeal for others.
Sex in advertising or “sex sells” are advertisements that show either the female and male body in order to attract buyers. Ever since advertising was established as a moneymaking business, sex has been utilized with it since it was proven that it could improve interests and sales. Sexuality is considered to be one of the most reliable tools of advertising. However, some companies can overuse our natural sexuality. Thus, more and more sexual images are not connected with the object being advertised. Which leaves some humans cheated in a way sinc...
... middle of paper ...
...ng sexual innuendoes in advertisements help people to remember and buy the product that are being advertised? Does putting too much sexual images change our view towards sex? What are the positive and negative effects it can have to the people looking at it? Should marketers stop putting sexual images on their product and should they change the way in which they sell their products? Do putting innuendoes in advertisements work for both men and women? And is bombarding us with images change societies’ view about human body.
Works Cited
http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/sex.html
http://creativebits.org/inspiration/does_sex_advertising_sells
Beach, Tare. “T&A at Trade Shows.” Ebscohost. Wright State university Lib. Wireless Review.
11/01/99, Vol. 16 Issue 21, p84, 1p. 10 May 2010.
http://inspirationfeed.com/inspiration/sex-sells-50-creative-sexual-advertisements/
This thought has been held on for far too long. In a consumer-driven society, advertisements invade the minds of every person who owns any piece of technology that can connect to the internet. Killbourne observes that “sex in advertising is pornographic because it dehumanizes and objectifies people, especially women,” (271). Advertising takes the societal ideology of women and stereotypes most kids grow up learning and play on the nerves of everyone trying to evoke a reaction out of potential customers, one that results in them buying products.
In order to make more eastern land available for settlement, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. This enabled the President of the United States to have power physically to move eastern Indian tribes to land west of the Mississippi River. Indian Title did not grant the Indians the power to sell their own lands. The result of which was that, the Indians went uncompensated for their lands and the Original Indian Title was forsaken. Although more than 70,000 Indians had been forcibly removed in a ten-year journey westward, a trip that became known as the "Trail of Tears," the Passamaquoddy Indians remained in the northeast. This was possibly due to their remoteness and harsh winters of the North Atlantic coast.
Back in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. This act required the government to negotiate treaties that would require the Native Americans to move to the west from their homelands. Native Americans would be moved to an area called the Indian Territory which is Oklahoma and parts of Kansas and Nebraska. Some tribes that were to be moved are Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw. All of the other tribes had relocated in the fall of 1831 to the Indian Territory besides the Cherokee who did not relocate until the fall of 1838. They did not move from their homeland without a fight. Their homeland was parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina. They started this march in the fall of 1838 and finished in early
The tragedy of the Cherokee nation has haunted the legacy of Andrew Jackson"'"s Presidency. The events that transpired after the implementation of his Indian policy are indeed heinous and continually pose questions of morality for all generations. Ancient Native American tribes were forced from their ancestral homes in an effort to increase the aggressive expansion of white settlers during the early years of the United States. The most notable removal came after the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Cherokee, whose journey was known as the '"'Trail of Tears'"', and the four other civilized tribes, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, were forced to emigrate to lands west of the Mississippi River, to what is now day Oklahoma, against their will. During the journey westward, over 60,000 Indians were forced from their homelands. Approximately 4000 Cherokee Indians perished during the journey due to famine, disease, and negligence. The Cherokees to traveled a vast distance under force during the arduous winter of 1838-1839.# This is one of the saddest events in American history, yet we must not forget this tragedy.
In May 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which forced Native American tribes to move west. Some Indians left swiftly, while others were forced to to leave by the United States Army. Some were even taken away in chains. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, strongly reinforced this act. In the Second State of the Union Address, Jackson advocated his Indian Policy. There was controversy as to whether the removal of the Native Americans was justified under the administration of President Andrew Jackson. In my personal opinion, as a Native American, the removal of the tribes was not in any way justified.
The Cherokee Trail of Tears resulted from the execution of the Treaty of New Echota (1835), an “agreement” signed under the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (The Cherokee and the Trail of Tears). With the expansion of the American population, the discovery of gold in Georgia, and the need for even more land for American results in the push to move the Natives who were “in the way”. So with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Congress acted to remove Natives on the east coast of the United States to land west of the Mississippi River, something in which was never embraced or approved by them (The Cherokee and the Trail of Tears). Many state governments, such as Georgia, did not want Native-owned land within their boundaries, while the Natives did not want to move. However, under the Removal Act, the United States Congress gave then-President Andrew Jackson the authority to negotiate removal treaties.
The first issue that arose for the Americans, was where to put the existing Indians while they conquered their land. The United States felt that the Indians needed to be secluded from all other races so that they would become civilized. This Indian Territory was where eastern Indian tribes such as the Kickapoos, Delawares, and Shawnees lived. As the population of Americans increased in the western sector of the United States, they also invaded that land specially allotted for the Indians. Instead of moving the Americans out of the Indian Territory, the government minimized the size of Indian Territory by half. Now the Northern half was open for white settlement. As for the western Indians, such as the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahos, American settlers went around them to settle the California and Oregon. The Americans decided to stay away from further conflict with the native Americans because they knew they were unable to move them away from their land.
Native Americans, namely the Cherokees, had been living on the lands of the eventual Americas without European contact for years until the 1700s. After contact was made and America had gained freedom, people like President Andrew Jackson, believed that the Cherokees should be removed from the land that was rightfully the United States’. President Jackson even hired Benjamin F. Curry of Tennessee to help with the removal of the Cherokees from east of the Mississippi River. Curry believed that his job was to try to drive the Cherokees to either want to leave without a second thought or sign a treaty agreeing to America’s terms. Curry’s actions led to the natives of the Cherokee nation’s objections of being removed so miserably. Many complained about how their significant others or children were either forcibly removed or held to get the natives to agree to leave. Some of the natives decided that they would try to fight their way out of being removed, but some, like Rebecca Neugin, a member of the Cherokee nation’s father were persuaded not to resist so that they or their families would not be harmed more than necessary. When some of the Americans, like Evan Jones, saw this, they tried to spread awareness of how the Cherokees were being treated,...
The Choctaw was the first of the Indian tribes to sign a treaty, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. About 15,000 Choctaw left and 2,500 died during their leave (Peppas 2013, page#). They were allowed to stay “under the terms of the Removal Act.” Any of them that chose to stay were pressured to move off by whites who would move to the land or stole from them even though they were supposed to be protected (PBS).
During the late nineteenth century, there were as many as one hundred thousand Native Americans moved westward. The Native Americans from five different tribes were removed when Andrew Jackson signed into law The Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Cherokee tribe was the most devastated by this law. This removal of the Cherokee people is considered one of the most horrific acts in our nation’s history. It was called Nunna daul Tsung (Trail Where They Cried) or Trail of Tears.
...(Perdue 20). It gave them two years to prepare for removal. Many of the Cherokees, led by John Ross, protested this treaty. However, in the winter of 1838-1839, all of the Cherokees headed west toward Oklahoma. This removal of the Cherokees is now known, as the Trail of Tears was a very gruesome event. During the trip from the southern United States to current day Oklahoma, many of the Cherokees died. Shortly after their arrival in Oklahoma, they began to rebuild. They began tilling fields, sending their children to school, and attending Council meetings (Perdue 170).
With all other justifications aside, the people acted as though they were doing what is right by removing the Indians but in reality they had ulterior motives of gaining geographic, and political, wealth and power. The North American lands that the Natives inhabited was extremely valuable in some areas, and since the American population was growing it was an opportunity for the population to expand further and their strength to be in numbers. The wealth of the land is represented through the accounts of Elias Boudinot when he states, “…there are 22,000 cattle; 7,600 horses; 46,000 swine; 2,500 sheep; 762 looms; 2,488 spinning wheels; 172 waggons; 2,943 ploughs” (p 121). This value enticed Americans to further drive the Indians west to take the land and the wealth for their own. After they drove the Natives off this land, they sent them to “a few acres of badly cultivated corn, instead of extensive fields, rich pastures…” (Crawford, p 117). Therefore, it is clear that a driving force for the removal policy was the want for the land they inhabited. Furthermore, on a more political level the land meant the American population could grow without the interference from the growing Native American population. Andrew Jackson supports this with the statement that, “It will relieve the whole State…of
President Andrew Jackson wanted the white settlers from the south to expand owning land from Five Indian tribes, which was called Indian Removal Policy (McNamara). The Five Indian tribes that were affected were Choctaws, Muskogee, Chickasaws, Cherokees, and the Seminoles. In the 1830, the Removal Act went into effect. The Removal Act gave President Andrew Jackson the power to remove Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi river by a negotiate removal treaties (James). The treaties, made the Indians give up their land for exchange of land in the west (James). There were a few tribes that agreed to sign the treaties. The others that did not sign the treaty were forced into leaving their land, this was known as the Trail of Tears.
The portrayals of men in advertising began shifting towards a focus on sexual appeal in the 1980s, which is around the same that women in advertising were making this shift as well. According to Amy-Chinn, advertisements from 1985 conveyed the message that “men no longer just looked, they were also to be looked at” as seen in advertisements with men who were stripped down to their briefs (2). Additionally, advertisements like these were influencing society to view the male body “as an objectified commodity” (Mager and Helgeson 240). This shows how advertisements made an impact on societal views towards gender roles by portraying men as sex objects, similarly to women. By showcasing men and women in little clothing and provocative poses, advertisements influenced society to perceive men and women with more sexual
Counter-hegemony, cultural appropriation and generalisation can be seen in advertising, by wording and visual representations. The following example harnesses the power of sexual or pornographic elements to sell milk. There, however, is a subtle underlining of religious iconography and reference that has been manipulated as a sexual innuendos, as a means to sell their goods.