The ad for Belo Men does not reflect the truth that there are non-white (in the PH context, this means brown) car owners as much as there are white (in the PH context, this means mostly Spanish/American/Chinese - or a combination of all - mestizos) car owners.
NOTE: If you are Caucasian white and you're in the PH, you're not expected to commute because you are supposed to be rich and own a car. You are also not supposed to commute because you don't want to invite anyone to kidnap or mug you (I am not being racist by implying Filipinos are violent, but the PH is a third-world country and I am being realistic).
The Belo Ad for Men's whitening products wants your insecurity, your colonial mentality to come alive enough for you to feel that yes your skin needs some brushing/scrubbing up enough for other people to think you're not poor or that you own a car. Though you don't actually have to own a car, the point is to make people think you own one. The Belo Ad for Men reflects not the truth but what you want to be true: you can look like you own a car = rich without actually owning a car or being rich.
Similarly, the Belo for Men ad doesn't have to reflect what is culturally true but simply show what it wants to be true: you're brown, you need to be whitened up, you need our product, Buy Belo.
If you agree, if you have bought into the idea that your skin is not good enough, you can easily buy a Belo. If you agree, you are its target market. If you believe the ad, it's for you.
But hey, is it just me or is the ad making fun of itself too and making light (no pun intended) of the fact that we equate skin whiteness with sosyal-ness?
As if it's pointing its finger at you and making you look at how you look at yourself and others. Tongue-in-cheek much?
Because, be honest, where were you when you were taught about PH history and our "pre-colonial" and "colonial" past?
When I was in the fifth grade, I was curious about the teacher's use of the terms "colonial" and "pre-colonial" but could not mouth the words of my wonderment.
It was only years later that I understood what I was wondering about: why use pre-colonial to refer to PH history before the Spanish came? As if our history was anchored / leveraged at us being "colonized."
What? The PH didn't have a life before it was colonized and could only refer to itself before it got screwed by Spain? The PH didn't exist as its own? and had to attach its identity to only that part in history?
We were taught to see our country this way, the Philippines circa B.C. (before colonization) and A.C. (after colonization).
aka -- The Philippines before it was ransacked and pillaged and The Philippines after it was ransacked and pillaged.
Is it a wonder now why most of us still see ourselves this way?
How much do we know about the Philippines from year 0 to 1520?
0 comments:
Post a Comment