Dear Mrs. Obama,

Wow, what a cool appearance on I-Carly (debuted January 16, “iMeet the First Lady.” How exciting to use such a popular platform to spread the message about how important it is to support military families.  It was a brilliant marketing idea (I understand it was yours) to reach the 5.5 million people who watched the episode, making it the week’s top telecast with all kid and tween demos.  The show served as a great Public Service Announcement to support military families.

On the other hand, I’m sorry you couldn’t have put in a plug for anti-racism and healthy relationships—in particular non-violent resolution to conflict.  Without denigrating what you did and the positive message you spread, I’m wondering if you’ve watched the show lately.  While we (me, my husband and our 10 year old son) have watched the show for at least a couple of years, (and we didn’t want to miss seeing you) 2012 is the year we say goodbye.

Why? First, we can’t swallow the promotion of violence as the first resolution to conflict, particularly for young people beginning to explore love relationships.   It was the “iCan’t Take It” episode in September, at the outset of Season 5, that did it.  Freddie and Sam are getting closer, Carly hates being in the middle, Gibby gets revenge by telling Mrs. Benson, Freddie’s mom, and all hell breaks loose.  But for every conflict, Sam reacts violently.  She gets mad at Freddie, she kicks him.  She gets mad at Gibby, she pulls out a 3” section of hair and scalp.  Gibby threatens Mrs. Benson.   And it’s all supposed to be funny. 

But it’s not.  You know why?  Because teen-dating violence is real, and it’s not funny.  According to the Bureau of Justice teen dating violence statistics , about one in three high school students have been or will be involved in an abusive relationship.  The show is following tweens morphing into teens, puppy love, learning about relationships.  According to iCarly—lying, beating, punching and kicking is the way to go.  To which I say no. 

And I did, until all of the promo for iStill Pshycho, the much hyped follow-up to last year’s iPsycho, where Carly, Sam and Freddie are taken hostage by an over-zealous fan.  We hadn’t watched since September, Sam and Freddie are no longer a couple; so, let’s try it again, right?

Except that, aside from the fact that untreated mental illness is not funny (think Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords), the violence has escalated.  IPsycho features torture, sword fights, and possibly worse, passive inaction at the suffering of others.  Freddie is attacked while Sam and Carly idly watch eating cake.  “It was really good cake,” they explain.  Gibby makes it to the top of the chimney to get help for the others imprisoned inside, only to get stuck.  The neighborhood kids, seeing his plight, instead pelt him with tennis balls.  

But the subplot is what really got me…over the top racism.  T-Bo, the manager of the Groovy Smoothie shop and only African American character on the show (On the good side, I suppose, it looks like his character is being integrated more centrally into the show) is now renting a room from Mrs. Benson, Freddie’s over-protective mom.  But, it looks like to stay there, he is being forced to act “white.”  To act “Proper” is the term used in the plot summary.  But to act “proper,” he changes from his bright clothes into a suit and neatly secures his waist long dreadlocks before heading ‘home.’  He speaks in a formal voice, and has to learn to play Mahjong (Note—my 10 year old son says this last point undermines my argument that he’s forced to act white, as Mahjong is a 2,000 year old Chinese game.)  Why does he do this, the kids ask him? “If my mom sees how he really is,” answers Freddie, “she’d never let him in my house.” 

“Let’s all pretend T-Bo doesn’t have feelings,” he responds.

In the end, after riding a motorcycle through the door and saving Spencer (Carly’s older brother) and the kids from an eternity in hell, he’s allowed to be himself and stay at Mrs. Benson’s, but when he goes in to join the group hug—they recoil in disgust, not wanting to be touched by him.

So, Mrs. Obama, I understand that Sasha and Malia are fans of the show.  My question to you is, are these the lessons you are planning to teach them?  For me and my ten year old son, the answer is no.

Perhaps the real answer is watching together to talk about the issues.  “How could that have been resolved differently?”  “What would/could you have done in that situation?”

What are you and your kids doing together, and what are you talking about at the dinner table?

Photo Credits:  Mrs. Obama on iCarly, Lisa Rose/Nickelodeon, T-Bo in Suit from Robs I-Carly blog, and T-Bo as himself, Sodahead

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul published four newsletters a month for 10 years.  That’s 48 newsletters a year—or close to 500 newsletters.  That’s a lot of content and a lot of work to go out in your name.  Why would you do that if you never read it—suggesting you really don’t care what it says.  Marketing 101 says that’s really stupid.  Or Paul is lying.

You may have heard that the newsletters were rife with racist propaganda.  Here’s the issue as outlined in the Washington Post Biography Fact Checker:  “The national media latched onto the issue during Paul’s 2008 presidential bid, after the New York Times and the New Republic highlighted derogatory statements about blacks and gays from the bulletins…The issue resurfaced as Paul moved to the front of the GOP pack in recent weeks.”    Paul has denied any knowledge of the existence of the racist content, saying “I never read the stuff.”

The stuff he is talking about is four monthly newsletters published by his company, Ron Paul and Associates, and included Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.   The newsletters included constant themes of racism against African Americans, Homosexuals and Jews.  While I prefer not to reprint them here (I hate perpetuating racism by repeating it), here’s a sampling of the awful things about which Paul said “I honestly do not know who wrote those things,” (to CNN in January 2008.)

Marketing 101

So for exercise sake, let’s step back from politics and the content of the newsletters, to strictly look at Paul’s statement that he never read and was unaware of the content going out in his name, from 1985 to the mid-90’s, through a marketing strategy lens.

As Director of Marketing, Communications & Business Development for Jewish Child & Family Services in Chicago, I am 100% accountable for everything that goes out the door, whether internally to employees, or externally to the public.  Strictly from a CYA perspective, somebody is ultimately accountable for the content that goes out to the public.  Somebody does the final proofing to make sure there were no typos, inaccuracies, or errors.  The CEO signs things that come from him, be they the “Message from the CEO” or communications to donors.

 Your print (and now increasingly online) publications are the vehicle to create your brand and position yourself as a thought leader in your field—they take too much time and expense not to have a pre-determined return on investment (ROI), usually to increase your connection to your constituents or followers, your clients and customers. 

In this case it’s not even Paul who says he doesn’t know who wrote the articles, no one seems to know who wrote them, including one suspect, Lew Rockwell, citing seven or eight free-lancers who wrote for the publications.  At a bare minimum it’s poor management and irresponsible, not good qualities for a Presidential candidate anyway.  

Things Happen as a Result of Specific Decisions

Janet Reno’s taking full responsibility for what happened in Waco Texas was the ultimate statement of accountability.  Daniel Mendelsohn, in his book “The Lost:  A Search for Six of Six Million,” said  “The Holocaust is so big, the scale of it is so gigantic, so enormous, that it becomes easy to think of it as something mechanical. Anonymous. But everything that happened, happened because someone made a decision.”  His book traces the specific people, decisions, that led to his family members’ deaths.  

Ron Paul Knew That

But, wait, it looks like I’m preaching to the choir.  Here’s Paul in a 1995 interview talking about his newsletters and their purpose and intent and how he uses them to spread is ideas to his followers.  Okay, maybe he’s senile and just forgot almost 10 years of his life.  Possible.   But, again, probably not a good quality for a Presidential candidate.

Any other Marketers?  Ever see a publication be created and distributed by magic (I wish!)?  Your boss ever give you free reign to write what you wanted, regardless of company image or branding?

Photo credit ibtimes.com

Technically this could be construed as my fault, after Lucca went with me to a client’s art opening a few years ago.  The central piece of the exhibit was a beautiful, supersized hand, making the “okay” sign, the ultimate symbol of peace and spirituality in the artist’s native India.

Except that I had to laugh.  “Hmm, wonder what someone from Brazil would think seeing this?”

“Why,” asked Lucca.

“Well, the ‘okay’ sign means something very different in Brazil.” In fact, it’s the cultural cousin of the middle finger in the US.

Now fast forward four years to Friday night pick-up from school…

“I got sent to the vice-principal’s office today,” Lucca announced.

“Why?” I asked?

“I didn’t do anything.”

Of course.  “Just tell me exactly what happened.”

“It started with the book we were reading aloud in study group, that said someone was a ‘born artist’. My friend thought it said ‘porn artist.’ The other said ‘no, I said born artist,’ to which he said, ‘Oh, well that’s ‘okay,’ and made the ‘okay’ sign with his hand.”

Lucca continued, saying that he was only being helpful, by letting his friends know that the “okay” sign meant something different in Portuguese.  That led the boy of Italian heritage to show the Italian cultural equivalent (running one’s fingers from back to front under his or her chin), which caused the child of Russian heritage to pronounce, “Hey, that’s the same thing in Russia!”  Then someone asked the boy of Korean descent if he was familiar with the pinky sign, and he shared that was actually attributed by most to being Chinese, but in reality was Chinese-American.

Possibly after spying my smile as I listened to the story, Lucca, now indignant in defense of his innocence, proclaimed “there’s a religion in Southeast Asia where it’s sacred to read using the middle finger as a pointer…would you deprive someone reading in Southeast Asia because the middle finger is vulgar in the US?”

But herein lies the problem of thinking it’s funny. This is the same child who noted that curse words are a social construct…that words themselves cannot be right or wrong…it’s the intent with which the word is used that makes it “good” or “bad.”

To which I say yes and no.  While age 10 renders “because I’m the mommy” ineffective as the end all reason to stop discussion, I will say this:

We live in a pluralistic society where people agree to abide by certain rules to live harmoniously in society, and one of those rules is that we won’t make vulgar hand gestures to one another at school.”

End of story, right?  Until tonight, when he says “but they’re not vulgar in the US, the society we live in, so how can that be pluralistic if people haven’t agreed in the society where the incident took place?”

Help.  I’m in trouble.  Anyone?  Got anything?

With a beautiful woman lying on a bed of rose petals, Air France’s ad in the November 17 Wall Street Journal promises to “surround you with thoughtful details throughout your flight:  considerate, personalized service, Champagne, unlimited beverages, newspapers, magazines, and varied appetizing menus.”

Sounds inviting, right?  Except that the rose petals are in the shape of an airplane (think chalk outline of murder victim, albeit filled in) in the middle of a green field…looking ominously like the outline of Flight 93 in the field near Shanksville, PA, killing all 44 people on board, among thousands who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.

Yikes…maybe the marketing department should have paid more attention during history class?  Be curious to know the response to the ad.  I for one am feeling a little afraid.

Lucca and I picked up this book, Drita: My Homegirl, by Jenny Lombard, on a recent visit to the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.  While understandably a book cover showing the back of two elementary-aged school girls was initially an automatic “no” from my 10 year old son, we (that as probably me) decided to get it after reading the back cover:

“Lombard has created two strong and distinct characters, sensitively explores the effects of war on one family, and illuminates the power of friendship to overcome obstacles.”

It’s never easy to explain (who even understands themselves?) how 1.5M children were killed in the Holocaust, or the images of war on TV and in the news today.

This book isn’t that “heavy” per se, but it is really.  Drita is a refugee from Kosovo, coming to the US with her Grandmother, mother, and baby brother, to reunite with their father who is already here.  Maxie is a 5th grader who lives with her father and grandmother, having lost her mother in a car crash.  

The two don’t become fast friends…at first.  We see insights into both of their lives, Drita adjusting to a new culture, her mom suffering from severe post-tramatic stress syndrome; Maxie adjusting to her dad starting to date again.

Whoa, with all of those serious topics, it’s hard to believe that it’s a kids book, but that’s what’s so great about it.  Things are “dosed” out, or explained, or come through a child’s eye, but in a supportive environment, so that they’re easier to understand, or so that we can see things through the characters eyes.   Each chapter of the story is told in first person, but alternates from one girl to the other, so we see the same story or situation through different eyes.

For us, it’s not a book I would have given to my son and said have a nice read…we read it together, a chapter or two at a time, at bedtime, over the course of a few weeks, and loved it.  But I always recommend broaching tough subjects together–so that we can answer questions, or look historical details up as we go, to learn together along the way.

And speaking of learning along the way, now that Lucca is 10, and we’ve been having these intercultural outings and discussions along the way, I realize pretty soon he may be the one leading the way…as seen from our first take of this review….I think my son just dissed my exemplary multicultural presence…

Why “brewing,” and not the implied “spontaneity” of a blog post?  Because the description above uses perfectly refined, planned, and politically neutral language that doesn’t really convey two episodes of what I believe to be unconscious bias on the part of two of the three lone white people in the room of otherwise 30+ African-Americans during the session. 

The first one was me (ouch!), one of three Caucasians and the “subject matter expert” leading the presentation.  Not sure who/how many caught what I would call my “gaffe” but here’s what happened.  I dove into the strategies and activities, without giving an overview of what we mean by Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace.  As more general questions started right away, I realized immediately my unconscious assumption:  That because the audience was African American, OF COURSE everyone would know about Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace.  But, indeed, that field is just like any other area of expertise, you study it, there are best practices, there are academic studies….

Luckily, I had learned my lesson from the last time I had made fun of someone from another culture (now I’m being playful, even flirtatious, because I’m talking about my Brazilian-born husband in contrast to my Missouri-Jewishness) and had a batch of “Extra Slides” at the back of the file that had the “Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion” in place and ready to go.  There’s buried in here somewhere a 15 year overdue apology for making fun of my husband because when he was working on his MBA he occasionally would ask me to proof his presentations.  “But they’re 100 slides!” I’d protest. “No, it’s just the first 10,” he would say, “the rest are back-up.”  To which I would think, “Whatever.  No one in the United States does it that way.”

At any rate, thanks to following my lovely husband who didn’t know what he was doing, I was able to seamlessly (I’m pretty sure it was seamless to most) pull up the overview slides from another presentation I’ve given in the past,( presumably to white people—my commentary here) and give the overview with authority.

So then we went into my favorite part, Intercultural Communications.  It’s my favorite because I live and breathe it. I’m a marketer by profession, and specialize in communicating to people of different backgrounds.  Understanding the various communications styles, recognizing my own, and how all of these might be influenced by cultural and gender differences, is fascinating.

So here comes unconscious bias number two, from Philip* who was from one of the area’s larger Public Relations firms.  Philip was #2 Caucasian at the event, and his colleague Martha made the third and final (I think it’s important, just because I think my reactions to things were possibly influenced by being in the minority—which makes me hyper-conscious, curious if it’s typical when being in the minority to temper behavior, and of course curious about grave implications for that in the workplace, etc…)

Oh, we were talking about Philip.  So the conversation was about Communications Styles. “Direct,” which puts facts over people to divine truth and understanding, and “Indirect” which looks at feelings and relationships first. 

When I asked the group if Direct or Indirect was more prevalent in the workplace, all said “Indirect.” Which, as a Direct communicator I thought “are you kidding?  US Business norms are all about results and action, normed around a male, Western European communication style.  But, again, this is not about me….

So what I said was that it’s interesting to see how communications styles do seem to trend around culture and gender, so for example studies show that 50% to 80% of Hispanics tend to favor an Indirect communication style, or 50% to 80% of white men tend to favor Direct.

And that’s when Philip, in HR asked his question.   “But if it’s only 50% to 80% then really it’s not a statistic at all.  I tend to evaluate each person individually and build relationships with people one at a time.”

My gut thought was “like being colorblind.”  And the immediate reactive thought to that was (okay, that’s the problem, I knew something was wrong at the time, but it took me a good week to really think it through) the problem with the colorblind approach is that it is often the privilege of the majority culture to be color blind.  Because the structures of society, and certainly the USAmerican workplace, are normed around the majority culture.  So what I could have said was “That’s actually belies your white privilege, Philip, because as part of the majority culture you are not constantly reminded of your race or culture.”

But what I said was that while the trends shouldn’t supplant what’s in front of you, nor should groups be stereotyped by their dominant communication style, that it’s helpful as a framework to better understand one’s own style and to make sure that the reward bands—which people in the organization’s ideas and contributions are valued, are not being influenced by communication styles. 

Or, as Marti Barletta, accomplished expert in marketing to women, told me when I asked her the same question a few years ago, “you have to start somewhere, and because the commonalities to play out over a certain portion of the population, it gives you a starting place from which to operate.”

Luckily, Steve,* an HR Director at a major Chicago corporation (and African-American) then chimed in to say how effective it had been at his company when they did take into consideration the cultural implications of communication, and we moved on.

So, my 10 minutes is up (it morphed into 25…yikes!) and really this could have been summarized in three sentences:

1.  People of color are not inherently magnanimous experts on diversity, inclusion and pure, unbiased opinion.  In fact, thinking such continues to be an unconscious bias by either a.) Looking for approval from the other, or still operating from a framework of “white/majority” and everything else.
2. Claiming to be “colorblind” is a tenet of white/majority privilege, and is really only possible for someone from a majority culture.  And, seeing color or difference is natural, and does not equate to prejudice or racism.
3. If you are the invited speaker at a Professional Learning event, it’s okay to “stay on topic.” In other words, my handling of both situations, without publicly announcing the underlying bias, was okay, because the topic was diversity and inclusion in the workplace, not the underpinnings of racial inequity in society.

On that last one, though, while it may make me a great, consummate professional, it might not catapult me to ideological fame.  I’m reminded of seeing Gloria Steinem speak at an event in Chicago a number of years ago.  She espoused these amazing, controversial opinions, and had no qualms about calling it out like it was.  “She’s fabulous,” I remember thinking.  “I wish I could be in a position to say whatever I thought and have people listen.”

But that goes one further, to the idea that “when your mouth is open, your ears are closed.”  So maybe I’m not too far off.

What are the interactions that make you uncomfortable, that have you still thinking about them three weeks later?  Those are the ones to follow…

* Names changed

Opening Night Feature Film: Life in Rio's favelas is explored through their own voices in 5X Favela. Recipient of multiple awards including Cinema Brazil Grand Prize, Special Selection at the Cannes Film Festival, and the Chicago International Film Festival. Produced by Carlos Diegues.

The Illinois and Sao Paulo Chapters of Partners of the Americas are proud to present MOSTRA II, the second Brazilian Film Series in Chicago. The event will take place November 9 – 16 at Columbia College,  School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Brazil in Chicago, Northeastern Illinois University, Northwestern University, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

This year’s MOSTRA (“Show” in Portuguese) presents an outstanding line-up of films with social themes, including feature fiction, documentaries, and shorts.  The event is presented by the Illinois and Sao Paulo Chapters of Partners of the Americas, in collaboration with Columbia College Chicago, the Consulate General of Brazil, Brazil in Chicago, Grant Thornton LLP, the Lemann Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Northeastern Illinois University and Northwestern University.  A complete schedule of showings will be available after September 15th on the MOSTRA website: www.brazilianfilmsinchicago.com

Among the many films, the MOSTRA II will present three Brazilian award-winners:

• 5x Favela – Directed by seven different geniuses of the Brazilian cinema, the project ‘5 x Slum, Now by Ourselves’ gathered over 80 young people from Rio’s favelas to create a feature film consisting of five stories that reflect different facets of the daily lives of residents of these communities – with the promise of escaping stereotypical representations. Directors: Wagner Novais, Rodrigo Felha, Cacau Amaral, Luciano Vidigal, Cadu Barcellos, Luciana Bezerra, Manaíra Carneiro. Opening Night Festa, November 9.

• A Orquestra dos Meninos – The Children’s Orchestra – In the poor and dry Northeastern region of Brazil, a group of children form a woodwind orchestra to play Mozart, Bach, Villa Lobos, etc. The orchestra is created by conductor Mozart Vieira, a 25-year old humanist and dreamer. This causes strong reaction from parents and politicians, because he’s taking the children away from the work in the fields.  Director: Paulo Thiago.

• Mutum - Thiago lives in an isolated farm in the arid backlands of Minas Gerais, Brazil.  As he is forced to confront separations and betrayal within the home, Thiago begins to see and understand a place that he had never been able to before, thus slowly letting go of his innocence. Director: Sandra Kogut.

Purchase Tickets Online: www.illinois-saopaulo-partners.org/MOSTRA

Admission: General admission $8 each, or buy a `5 Movie Pass` for $35.

Student Tickets (w/valid ID) $5, or a `5 Movie Pass` for $20 (free at their home institution).

The Illinois-São Paulo Chapter of Partners of the Americas is a volunteer, person-to-person diplomacy organization committed to improving the lives of people across the Americas by sharing best practices in arts and culture, sustainable architecture, agriculture, environment, and more. www.illinois-saopaulo-partners.org; www.partners.net.

# # #

I knew I was in trouble when the nice lady at the grocery store said “powdered or liquid” when I asked for marshmallows.  Well, not actually in trouble, that would be the fact if there was only one way to do things…the “American Way.” But when you are involved in a multi-cultural family you know there are often many ways to do things.

Cultural Equivalence

I love the idea of  “cultural equivalence.”  In translation it might be finding the right word match to convey local sayings.  Or once when setting up a “Teddy Bear” exhibit at O’Hare, we included cultural equivalence for making a child feel comforted.  Teddy Bears might not be in every culture, but the idea of comforting a child is.  Like pita bread is to nan is to tortilla; or spaghetti is to raman, or bowing is to shaking hands.

While some cultural equivalents are obvious, some are the “mother of invention” as one tries to make favorite recipes in another country.

Not that we needed to have our “own” foods while in Brazil.  They have plenty of their own treats there, from pao de queijo (delicious little cheese breads) to brigadeiros (chocolates covered in chocolate sprinkles) and beyond.  It was just that my goddaughter still remembered the Rice Crispy Treats I had made for her during her one-time trip to the US in 2001.  Now that I was visiting her in Brazil, wouldn’t I please make them?

Finding the Ingredients

So, pretty much NONE of the ingredients were available in Sao Paulo.  After following the attendant from the bakery to the frozen food section (she was so nice I didn’t have the heart to say you clearly have no idea what a marshmallow is) we moved onto cereal, only to confirm my suspicion that there are no rice cereals available.  Since I had apparently used both Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies when Pri had been in the US, and she had her heart set on a vanilla/chocolate combo, we settled on “Sucrilhos” which are basically miniature sized, a little thicker, Frosted Flakes.  Also available in Chocolate. 

We splurged and bought real butter, and went on to a specialty store which was assured to have marshmallows–and indeed we found something called a marshmallow, that was a circle, about 8 inches in diameter, with two layers, one white and one pink, about an inch thick.  Squishes like a marshmallow…so we bought three of them.

Baking

At this point we just devloved into a science experiment.   Going from memory (one cup butter, bag of marshmallows, rice krispies to stick?) we melted the butter, which was a different consistency in Brazil and was still a little thick and creamy even when melted.  That required adding extra marshmallow, which was more the consistency of peeps to begin with, and melted into a pretty liquidy (which I had now idea how to say “liquidy” in Portuguese, since it’s not exactly a word in English to begin with) substance, that required pouring in the entire two full boxes of cereal, one chocolate one vanilla, mixed together for a massive glob of “Sucrilhos” com Marshmallow.  The marshmallow liquid then sank to the bottom of the cooling pan for a hard, rubbery base…

Which turned out actually kind of delicious

And my niece/goddaughter, for whom I went to three stores and messed the entire kitchen…loved them!  With the sugar coated cereal and extra sweet marshmallow it was a sugar high not to be missed.  Granted, it was probably most appealing to my 10 year old son and 20 year old niece, but then it gave something else for the cousins, who speak different langauges, to do and enjoy together.

In the end

Baking in a culture other than my own reminds me of ordering in restaurants in another country–you have to approach it with a little latitude, because your never sure exactly what you are going to get.  But in some ways that’s the delight of sharing  and learning about another culture.

How do you adapt to other cultures?  How do you share our own culture when you are there?