Mitch Albom wrote an article about Pepsi dropping Ludacris and picking up Ozzy. See, Russell Simmons is organizing a boycott of Pepsi products because they consider it racist to allow a raunchy white guy be their spokesman but not a raunchy black guy. I hadn't thought about this, but I definitely agree. I also think that they are a victim of capitalism, but back to my point. Mitch Albom is stupid.
The accusation, of course, is racism. White profanity is OK, but black profanity is not. Simmons believes that this is an important issue, and that it warrants a boycott. The heat is on from the rap community.
Which leads me to one thought:
How do I get off this planet?
What have we come to when a battle rages over who is more vulgar, the black guy or the white guy? What is Pepsi thinking in the first place? This is less about racism than it is about stupidity. You make one terrible choice. You fix it. Then you make another.
He certainly can have his own point of view, but does he have to be so condescending? Not that I am the authority, but this seems like the classic sense of people just not getting it. I don't think anyone thought, "Gee, white guys sell more than black guys," but the fact is that a black guy was fired and a white guy was put in the superbowl ad. No matter the intention, the effect is there. So Mitch Albom, shhhhhh. Go back to your hole.
02/09/03 3:11 PM
agreed its dirty nasty..but, isn't ozzy more popular than ludicris in the pop culture world, or at least more recognizable? But maybe thats cuz we live in a racist world as well....hrm. Hmm! It seems that ozzy has a more generational recoginition. My parents would recognize ozzy and not recognize ludacris. I dunno, thats probably racist too...i can't win! argh! but yes that albom line is pretty dumb.
02/09/03 10:49 PM
I don't know for sure, but I think I agree with the Sheriff. I think that Ozzy is much more widely recognizable right now; he is the hot thing in the media lately on the covers of any number of major magazines, etc...
Ozzy has also been a celebrity for more than 20 years. He is certainly recognized by a much larger audience by that alone. I think it would be more aptly considered racist if they dropped BB King, or Little Richard, or Bill Cosby, or somebody with comparable recognition, although I still don't think that's racism. Ultimately, Pepsi isn't trying to be fair or just, they are trying to sell product. That may or may not be right and good, but I don't think their motivation was racist. Pepsi can't be blamed for a society that responds more strongly to Ozzy than to Ludacris. We need to fix society if anything.
So the effect is circular; audience responds to white guy, company uses white guy, audience responds, etc... The difference of opinion is then, where in the cycle to you fight the problem.
02/09/03 11:08 PM
On further review, and after my ever media conscious roommate explained to me what the whole controversy is about, I tend to agree that it seems a bit racist. Dropping Ludacris because of controversy and picking up Ozzy but finding nothing wrong seems suspect. Sorry for the double post, but I totally misunderstood what the whole controversy was about, which now makes much more sense. I thought it was just about who could sell more, I didn't recognize the underlying issue.
02/10/03 11:53 AM
also, let it be noted that a few days after bill o'reilly demanded on his show of shows that pepsi drop ludacris as a spokesperson ... pepsi dropped ludacris as a spokesperson. that man needs to be shot into the sun.
08/29/04 12:56 PM
take a look at the two types of vulgarity.
What does ludicras sing about? gang violence, bitches, hos, and fucking hos during gang violence
What does ozzy sing about? Craziness, war, and ironmen
So ozzy swears, big deal, it's not all that bad compared to Ludacris.
Plus, everybody and their great aunt can recognise Ozzy, many wouldn't recognise ludacris if he walk up to them wearing a name tag.