Cool Hunting, Parody, and Rap

     I've never been a big fan of rap. I like some of "the classics" like Eminem, maybe some Drake; but after a while, all of it seems to blend together to me. In the last year or so, I've discovered a sub-genre of rap that appeals to me in ways rap never has: comedic rap. It appeared to be the same as traditional rap in terms of style and rhythm, but with funny, satirical lyrics. Merchants of Cool can help explain why some like rap while I prefer comedic rap.
     "Cool hunting" is a technique used by marketers to target changing trends before they become popular. This allows them to get ahead of other brands by knowing what products to market when. The problem with cool hunting is that, in many cases, cool things become uncool shortly after the media markets them as cool. It seems that consumers tend to cycle between bandwagoning and hipsterdom. This may explain why rap has been extremely popular among young people for the past 25 years. Early rap artists united teens through messages of rebellion. As an alternative to conforming to "the system," rap glorified a certain lifestyle centered around wealth, partying, and separating oneself from parents and authorities (those who were uncool). Consequently, rap became popular among young people, and marketers found a new outlet to appeal to them.
     One element of rap that has turned me away from it is the amount of materialism it seems to endorse. Cool hunters have taken advantage of rap's popularity among young people by plugging car, alcohol, clothing, and headphone brands among many more in rap songs and videos, which creates an efficient link between products and consumers. However, some rap artists have used their positions as "cool" artists to discuss social injustices and the need for change. Rappers like Macklemore don't use their work to advertise products, but rather social and political commentaries for the same reason advertisers have adopted rap as an advertising medium: it's appealing to a generation of malleable teenagers.
     But what about young people like me who don't have a reason to like rap? I have a good amount of privilege and I don't feel like I need to rebel against my parents. Comedic rappers create their appeal through a technique cool hunters have used before. Sprite used satire to make their product appealing afternthey realized endorsing a product with athletes too much made the product uncool. To set themselves apart, Sprite aired a commercial featuring NBA players Grant Hill speaking about why people shouldn't listen to pro athletes telling them to buy a product. The ad made fun of the fact that what Sprite was doing was uncool. This in itself made Sprite cool again.
     This very technique makes comedic rap appealing to those who don't like rap. Rappers who make fun of rap culture recognize that many consumers don't find rap cool. They instead parody rap to show listeners that disliking rap culture can be cool in itself. One of the best examples of comedic rap is Lil Dicky, whose song $ave Dat Money parodies the luxurious lifestyles of rappers through a music video shot with "as little money as possible." The genius of this is that it's a rap song parodying other rap songs. This is hugely appealing to people like me who find rap culture kind of ridiculous.
     In this way, comedic rappers themselves are cool hunters. They've seen the trend in people becoming disillusioned with rap, and capitalized on it to make their own sub-genre that attracts these people. It's like Lil Dicky says: "Rap game's got it all wrong." But comedic rap is getting it right.

The Mask You Live In

     Well, I guess I had to do a ranty post at some point.

     This past week, we watched Miss Representation in class and discussed the media's portrayal of women in America. The film's sequel, which I recommend everyone watch (it's on Netflix), is called The Mask You Live In, and is essentially the male equivalent to its prequel. The Mask discusses the ways American men are taught an unhealthy definition of masculinity and the ultimate effects this has on society at large. DISCLAIMER: I don't intend to use this post to undermine the problems presented in Miss Representation. These are legitimate problems facing women that we absolutely need to solve. The reality is that media portrayal of men isn't too generous either, and tackling the problems of both men and women is the key to creating a less sexist, overall better society. 

Here's a trailer.

     

     One reason I preferred The Mask over Miss Representation is because it did a better job of discussing the root causes of society's views of gender. The ideal man is typically portrayed as tall, heroic, muscular, tough, and powerful, with "coolness" prioritized over displaying emotion. Why is that? Much of it comes from the desire of straight, cis-gendered men to impress/appeal to women. If we focus on the media, ads for male products often appeal to this desire. This does two things: first, it reinforces the idea that guys' main goal should be to get girls. This in turn reinforces the second effect, which is that men believe they can get women by being like the men pictured using the product: attractive, powerful, emotionless, etc. Masculinity then becomes associated with domination over women, which is obviously harmful to women, not to mention men who aren't attracted to women in the first place and can't fit that definition, 

     Media plays a huge role in defining this view of masculinity, but men's upbringing ultimately defines how they accept or reject this definition. The Mask included a great segment of interviews with a focus group made up of male prisoners recounting the childhood influences that led them to commit their crimes. Almost all of them had abusive, absentee, or single parents. The guys had a common feeling of anger from their lack of guidance from parents, who defined the men's views of masculinity by seldom praising them. This contributed to the men's desire to seek satisfaction in ways that landed them in prison. Think of what a lot of parents would say to a young boy who plays with dolls instead of superheroes; most would say that dolls are "girl things" and superheroes are "boy things." How is a boy supposed to be healthy when he is insistently told a rigid definition of masculinity that he inevitably can't entirely fit? He can't. What we often get instead is a culture of hypermasculinity that encourages guys to be aggressive and, in the prisoners' case, commit crimes. 

     The Mask, like Miss Representation, shares some shocking statistics about the effects of society's narrow definition of masculinity, the most troubling being those concerning mental health. On paper, women are statistically more likely to become depressed or develop eating disorders. However, as The Mask points out, an estimated 50% of men with mental illnesses never seek treatment. When the definition of masculinity emphasizes concealing emotions and being independent, untreated mental illness becomes a huge problem. Look at eating disorders as an example: people typically see eating disorders as a feminine problem, but it's estimated that 25% of people with eating disorders are men. Yet only 10% of those in treatment for eating disorders are men, meaning "masculinity" has come to mean hiding faults beyond reason.

      As we discussed today, strict gender definitions harm both men and women. Just look at the comment section under The Mask trailer. Hundreds of commentors complain that The Mask is making boys "pussies" or causing the "feminization of America." So, being feminine is bad? Having compassion makes you more feminine, which makes compassion bad? The message this sends is simply that being a woman is bad. Media outlets like the magazine above perpetuate the ideal of traditionally masculine traits in men, suggesting that diverging from this ideal makes a man more female and thus worse. Glorifying hypermasculinity then not only harms men, but perpetuates sexism against women as well.

     The Mask is a great film that I highly recommend. I could easily talk about much more on this topic, so feel free to bring the discussion to the comments!
What it meant to be a man in 2015.

Spikeball: the American Pastime?

     If you've never heard of Spikeball, you've probably never spoken to most of the guys in our HISP class. Lately, it's been our obsession. After hearing about it at a youth group event, my associate Ben Schwartz and I knew we had to bring it back to McClatchy. The sport looks complex, but it's simple enough to figure out quickly. It has brought us many hours of joy, and I believe it may be among the most promising up-and-coming sports in America. I'd like to highlight a few reasons why Spikeball could be a legitimate professional sport.

     How to play Spikeball.

     Firstly, Spikeball is not a privileged sport. It requires no pricey equipment, uniforms, or club experience. The only things needed to play are a $60 Spikeball set and three other friends (or peers). This makes Spikeball a very egalitarian sport in that being rich doesn't necessarily mean being better. In Spikeball, it's a totally even playing field for who becomes the best. Isn't that part of the American dream?

     Speaking of the American dream, Spikeball in many ways represents American ingenuity. Spikeball became famous on Shark Tank, a reality show that lets entrepreneurs present their ideas to business tycoons to try to earn investments. Spikeball's success on Shark Tank shows what the American dream is all about - striving to succeed through hard work and ingenuity. A sport like Spikeball could become popular because sports fans love origin stories and Americans love innovation; Spikeball is exactly this combination of a cool origin story and innovation. 

     In addition, Spikeball combines the best qualities of some of the best sports. It requires the communication of tennis, the strength of football, the patience of golf, the strategy of basketball, the quick thinking of soccer, the speed of track. In a way, Spikeball is a microcosm of the good qualities of every sport, making it appealing to any athlete.

     Generally, people consider the American pastime to be baseball. If you look at this Bleacher Report article about why baseball is better than football, you'll see quite a few similarities between baseball and Spikeball. However, I believe there are a few areas where Spikeball has baseball beat. For one, Spikeball is most popular among college students. On the other hand, the average age of baseball's fan-base is estimated to be 50. Baseball is becoming less and less popular among young people, so a young demographic is exactly what a sport like Spikeball needs to create lasting popularity. Baseball's dwindling popularity is likely due to Americans' increasing fascination with fast-paced, action-filled sports. (This explains why football has arguably replaced baseball as America's favorite sport.) Its fast pace makes Spikeball exactly the type of sport Americans would love to watch. If nothing else, Spikeball is exciting. Would it not be fun to watch more of this being done professionally? 

     Will Spikeball overtake baseball as America's national pastime? Probably not. But I think it would be an excellent candidate. If you're curious about Spikeball, feel free to stop by the grass behind the D-Wing at lunch to check it out!

Snapchat Has a Lazy Marketing Team

     As I was flipping through a copy of People magazine (it's my mom's, I promise) looking for a print ad to write a post about, I eventually found a Lunchables ad that wasn't great, but good enough to settle for. By chance. however, I flipped to the back cover of the magazine before I started writing and found this:

     This is much more interesting than Lunchables. The entire back cover of the magazine was occupied by this: a yellow background fit with the recognizable Snapchat logo. No text, no brand name, no slogans. Seems lazy, but it's effective.

     An ad like this relies solely on reification. Objectively, the ad is simply the silhouette of a ghost on a yellow background. The ad's meaning comes from the knowledge that this shade of bright yellow is characteristic of the Snapchat app, and that the simple outline of a ghost is Snapchat's logo. In this way, the advertisement transcends its objective reality even without the use of text. Because this relies on the knowledge that this is what Snapchat's app looks like, the ad appeals to the need for affiliation. When one sees this ad (which may be confusing for those unfamiliar with the logo) and recognizes that it advertises Snapchat, he or she feels as if they are part of a special group that "gets" the ad. This makes them feel included by using Snapchat.

     But the majority of people who see this ad probably don't understand it. The target audience of People is young to middle-aged women who are interested in popular culture. That means the target audience of the advertisement is likely the same. However, only young women who already use Snapchat are likely to understand the ad. 

     What's the point of an ad if the only people who understand it are those who already use the product? The ad's lack of text probably leaves most readers asking questions. Middle-aged readers who see this ad may be compelled to look up the logo on their own or ask a younger relative to explain it to them, much like my parents did with me. This means that the target audience is actually middle-aged or older moms who read People because the ad relies on a younger, more up-to-date person to help inform the reader. The ad is thus an attempt to get older people interested in Snapchat. 

     It seems strange that a print ad with no words can have a message; but the implicit message of this ad is that consumers need to be informed on popular culture. Think about it: the ad only makes sense to those up-to-date on popular culture, and people not up-to-date are likely to look into Snapchat to become more informed. Whoever is familiar with pop culture benefits the most. 

     All this from a simple ghost on a yellow background. 

Political Discussions + Social Media = Fallacies

*The following is written with the express permission of Zoe Lackemacher*
   
     'Twas the evening of Wednesday, May 11th, and all was quiet on Instagram. The Bernie Sanders rally had come and gone two days before, as had the pictures people had posted of themselves and others at the rally. But one picture did not appear until Wednesday.
     Zoe, a HISP classmate of ours, posted a harmless photo of herself at the rally accompanied by the caption, "Not too late to research the candidates and really read into their views, it's our future at stake!!" If only she could have seen what would come next. One anti-Bernie comment led to another, which was followed by an anti-Trump comment, and suddenly all hell broke loose. As I write this, Zoe's post has received 232 comments, almost all of which are contributions to this hectic political argument. 
     As soon as I popped myself some popcorn and sat down to read through the fight, a thought occurred to me. It was something along the lines of: "Oh boy! A political argument over social media between teenagers who are somewhat informed about politics: look at all the fallacies!" In this post, I'll examine a few of the many reasoning fallacies I've come across in the comment fight. I'd like to maintain anonymity as much as possible, so I'll refrain from name-dropping those involved in the argument. For the most part, it was two students from Christian Brothers debating several members of the sophomore HISP class. 

Funny video about fallacies in a Democratic Debate.

• Circular Reasoning - Why not start at the beginning? One of the first comments from CB Guy #1 read, "Tbh all the candidates suck but I would rather have Trump over Bernie." In other words, because he likes Trump more than the other candidates, he likes Trump more than Bernie. The conclusion is stated in the premise.
• Red Herring - Later in the comment thread, someone accused Trump of being racist and misogynistic, to which CB Guy #1 responded, "I'd rather have a president who doesn't get us into more debt #feelthebern." While this may or may not be true, CB Guy #1 doesn't actually address the topic being presented to him. Instead, he diverts attention to Bernie Sanders' financial policies, a topic completely independent of Trump's social views. Way to avoid the topic, CB Guy #1.
• Appeal to Ignorance - Enter CB Guy #2. He argued for Trump's immigration plan by reasoning that illegal immigrants account for a large percentage of crime in the US. A fellow HISPster responded that this is because statistics suggest implicit bias in police and juries. CB Guy #2's response read, "That's an opinion. I don't know if you can actually prove they are biased unless you journey inside their minds." He argued that if implicit bias hasn't been proven to exist (which it has), it therefore doesn't exist. Bad move, CB Guy #2. Bad move.
• Ad Hominem - Where to begin? As you might guess with petty teen arguments, this comment fight is riddled with name-calling and attacks on character. Most of it (unfortunately) came from CKM students. CB Guys #1 and #2 were arguing that Bernie supporters just want free stuff and people should learn to "WORK themselves into that 1%," to which several McClatchy students pointed out that Christian Brothers, being a private school, requires some privilege to attend. That's a fair point, but it got a bit out of hand when a HISP student commented, "I thought with your private school education where you are taught of Christianity and goodwill you would be able to understand humanitarian politeness." This is an attempt to make the CB Guys' argument seem illegitimate, but in reality, it's little more than an insult. CB Guy #1 came back with a zinger: "Nobody respects you because of the pictures you put on social media." Because a girl's Instagram content has everything to do with her argumentation. Great point, CB Guy #1. 

     These are just a few examples from a fight that embodies many qualities of social media. I think this exchange demonstrates how easy it is to insult and debate people over social media whom you've never met. If this debate happened in person, it would probably last about five minutes. Behind the keys of a keyboard, it's so easy to throw around insults and make hasty reasoning fallacies without worrying about the consequences. Many thanks to Zoe's Instagram for an interesting piece of media.

What's up with My Blog Name?

     If anyone has been confused about the title of my media blog, be confused no further.
     My blog name references NBA player Metta World Peace, whose unique name not only makes a great play-on-words with "metacognition," but also has a surprising amount of relevance in critical thinking.

     This is Mr. World Peace. Formerly known as Ron Artest, World Peace is currently on the decline in his career. About 10 years ago, he was one of the NBA's elite defenders, winning Defensive Player of the Year in 2004, being selected as an All-Star the same year, and winning a championship with the L.A. Lakers in 2010. However, a series of recent injuries have pretty much made him an insignificant part of the league. 

     During his prime, however, Ron Artest (later to change his name to Metta World Peace) developed a reputation as one of the league's most aggressive and eccentric players. He was largely known for getting into fights on and off the court, including altercations like this elbow thrown at James Harden. What he is most known for is his role in "The Malice at the Palace," arguably the worst fight in the history of professional sports. With less than a minute left in a 2004 game between the Detroit Pistons and Artest's Indiana Pacers, a fight broke out between the two teams that escalated into an all-out brawl. Artest ended up chasing a drunk fan into the stands and punching him, earning him an 86-game suspension - the longest in NBA history. 

Behold the mighty power of alcohol and testosterone.

     After that game, "Ron Artest" became a name of infamy. The name itself developed a negative connotation and Artest became known as one of the league's most violent, even criminal players. This might help explain his strange choice in 2011 to change his name to Metta World Peace. "Metta" is a Buddhist word meaning "kindness" and "World Peace" is...well, world peace. If your name was synonymous with "criminal," wouldn't you prefer a name with as positive a connotation as "Metta World Peace"? 

     If his original name-change wasn't ridiculous enough, World Peace changed his name once again in 2014 to The Panda's Friend. (Not sure if his first name is "The"? Or "The Panda's"??) This was likely another attempt to create a more positive image for himself. After all, who doesn't love pandas? If you can be friends with the panda, you must be a pretty good guy. Compare the positive connotation of this name to the negative connotation of "Ron Artest." Ron Artest was the player who used to start fights, but The Panda's Friend is a good guy. 

     The Panda's Friend has since changed his name back to Metta World Peace, but his situation is a great example of the power of language and connotations. And now my blog name will hopefully make a bit more sense.

"Ferris" Is Awfully Close to "Ferrari"...

     Television and movies are no longer just entertainment. Now that nearly every American household owns a T.V., television programming and movies are now a link between advertisers and consumers. Madison and Vine marketing, or product placement, is the integration of advertising into T.V. programs and movies. It allows companies to subtly yet effectively market their products to target audiences.

     If you were paying attention in Mr. Wong's class last semester, you'll remember that he talked about Seinfeld quite a bit. One episode he brought up a few times was called "The Junior Mint." The episode includes a scene in which Jerry and Kramer visit a hospital to watch a live surgery demonstration. In the viewing gallery, Kramer starts eating Junior Mints, which he offers to Jerry. Jerry refuses the candy, but Kramer insists that he take one. Growing angry, Jerry slaps the Junior Mint out of Kramer's hand, and the camera follows it as it falls below to the operating table into....You can guess where. The humor of the situation helps to distract from the blatant use of Madison and Vine advertising. This episode's use of Junior Mints as the center of one of the plot lines makes it as much of an episode of Seinfeld as a cleverly-disguised advertisement. Brands & Films, a blog about product placement, writes of the episode: "It included all three types of product placement: the name of the brand was mentioned several times, the product was visible for a few seconds, and one of the main characters has even eaten the candies." 

     I haven't seen many episodes of Seinfeld, but I'm pretty amazed that there hasn't been more product placement like this. Think about it: the show aired for almost ten years, it had 180 episodes, and it earned a cult following - between 76 and 108 million people watched the show's finale! It was a perfect medium for advertising. If a product (like Junior Mints) appeared on Seinfeld, millions would not only see it but also develop a positive association with it. 

     Speaking of cult followings, what about the car in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? An entire scene is devoted to showing off the 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California. While Cameron talks about the car, the camera switches between shots of the tires, headlights, and it even settles on the Ferrari logo for a moment. The scene below isn't far from a two-minute Ferrari commercial. This is where target audiences come into play. Assuming the target demographic of Ferris Bueller is teenage boys and young men, this use of product placement makes total sense. What did teenagers in the '80s like more than MTV and sports cars? The image of two teenage boys stealing a shiny red Ferrari just screams, "You're a teenage boy - buy a Ferrari!" 

     Madison and Vine advertising allows companies to reach consumers through entertainment as much as possible. If you think about it, the only thing stopping advertisers from airing ads during T.V. shows is the shows themselves. Between programs, viewers are bombarded with advertisements, but then the ads have to stop so the program can resume. Product placement allows advertisers to overcome this inconvenience. Rather than buying airtime during commercial breaks, Junior Mints can slip in a reference to their product in an episode of Seinfeld. The same goes for movies, which contain no ads at all. Ferrari need not create a new ad campaign when they can simply make an appearance in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Desperate to compete with other advertisers, companies have transformed T.V. and movies from entertainment to another medium for advertising products.

Loaded Language in Current Events

     Anyone who has seen newspaper headlines in the past few weeks knows that Brazil is a mess right now. The Summer Olympics are only a few months away, and a number of scandals involving President Dilma Rousseff and national oil company Petrobras have recently been uncovered, leading to the lower house's decision to start the impeachment process. The country is now divided between Dilma's supporters and her opponents, leaving the nation with a severe lack of leadership.

     The language used by various news outlets reporting Dilma's impeachment is loaded in different ways, depending on the outlet. In this post, I'll compare the loaded language found in The Guardian's article Rousseff Should Be Impeached, Brazil Congressional Report Recommends and an editorial from Forbes, Why Impeaching Brazil's President Dilma Is a Bad Idea.
     In The Guardian's article, the author uses words with negative connotations to subtly project a negative image of Dilma. For instance, the charges against Dilma are summarized as committing acts of "unconstitutionality, illegality, and fiscal irresponsibility." These words are somewhat vague, but convey heavy negative connotations. The author could have used more moderate language like something as simple as "Dilma broke some laws." However, the language used adds more severity to Dilma's situation by connoting reckless law-breaking. Similarly, the article says that Rousseff has been accused of "manipulating" budget records. A neutral word like "change" could have been used, but "manipulate" holds a more devious connotation. The author also uses the phrase, "Rousseff's chances of surviving," referring to Dilma's odds of remaining in office. This puts Dilma's situation into a "life or death" context. If she gets impeached, she will not "survive," as the author writes, which contributes to the severity of her situation. This type of extreme, negatively loaded language portrays Dilma in a negative light.
     Similarly, Kenneth Rapoza uses loaded language in his article for Forbes to project a negative image of others who would become more powerful if Brazil were to vote to impeach Dilma. By doing so, he argues that Dilma shouldn't be impeached (unless she's proven to have been involved in the Petrobras scandal) because the alternatives are worse. Rapoza explains that some of the politicians who would become more powerful are on a list of legislators being investigated in the same scandal as Dilma. One of his quotes is that "the foxes are guarding the chicken coop." This analogy uses the negative connotation of "fox" to project these politicians as sly and untrustworthy. When referring to the effect Dilma's impeachment would have on foreign investment, Rapoza uses negative words like "cut" and "lose" to convey the negative consequences of impeaching Dilma. Finally, Rapoza concludes by deeming Brazil's situation a "nightmare." While "problem" or "bad situation" would suffice, "nightmare" carries a strong negative connotation, helping to emphasize his point. Even though this article doesn't necessarily disagree with the other article, it uses more extreme examples of negative language to argue a different point.
     These are only two examples of how loaded language is used by news outlets. If you were to watch the same news story on both Fox News and MSNBC, you'd see tons of loaded language used to support or criticize political ideologies. This discussion of language reminds me of our discussion of Nigerian Oil and MEND last quarter. Some see MEND as a terrorist organization. Others see them as revolutionaries. The two words have roughly the same denotation, but very different connotations. When it comes down to it, language is a reflection of opinion, and one person's "terrorist" can be another's "revolutionary."

Why Don't They Make Neighborhoods Like They Used To?

     The other night, I was out at dinner with family at Tank House, a barbecue restaurant at J and 19th. (Good tater tots, mediocre food otherwise - but that's beside the point.) Across the street, I noticed a billboard advertising Curtis Park Village, the new neighborhood being built next to Curtis Park. The ad featured a panorama shot of Brownstone-style houses with the large caption, "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" The ad didn't stand out to me too much at first. But after considering it for a while, I started thinking, "Wow, that's a really white thing to say." If you look at the connotation of this slogan, you can see that this ad campaign has some deeper racist implications. Let me explain.
     Realistically, I'm not particularly informed on the politics of building Curtis Park Village, but I live in Curtis Park, just around the corner from the development, so I've been able to follow the debate over the development for some time. Planning the neighborhood has been a divisive process, with debates centering on what grocery stores to include, whether or not to build public park space, and even whether or not a gas station should be built. Race has been at the periphery of many of these debates. For example, some have pushed for higher-end stores like Trader Joe's to move into the neighborhood, while others advocate for more affordable stores like Save Mart. Because these more affordable stores are attractive to low-income families, some fear that building these stores will attract "the wrong crowd" to the neighborhood, likely meaning families that aren't white and upper-middle class.
     Curtis Park's history can help to explain the role of race in the building of Curtis Park Village. When Curtis Park was created, it was essentially a white-only neighborhood. Non-whites and minorities including Asians and Jews couldn't buy property in Curtis Park. This led to the creation of more diverse neighborhoods like Oak Park.
     Now think about the Curtis Park Village billboard in this context. The ad is trying to project a positive connotation onto the neighborhood. "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" appeals to feelings of tradition and neighborly values. Maybe it reminds you of your childhood home. In this context, the ad makes Curtis Park Village very attractive. In the historical context of Curtis Park, the billboard has a much different connotation. "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" You mean neighborhoods that didn't allow minorities? Neighborhoods that were solely white? This gives the billboard a far more negative connotation, drawing up memories of discrimination and intolerance. In this way, I don't think it's completely far-fetched to say that this ad campaign is just another subtle attempt to keep Curtis Park white.
     I am by no means an expert on Curtis Park's history or the politics of building Curtis Park Village, and I'm definitely not against Curtis Park Village. For the most part, I'm excited that the neighborhood is being built. The new stores and public park area will be great additions to the neighborhood. Still, I think it's important to consider the racial implications of what's going on. If you want another interesting example, look at the Curtis Park Village Website. The development is described as being "between the iconic neighborhoods of William Land Park and Curtis Park." True, Land Park is to the west of Curtis Park Village. But isn't Oak Park just east of it? It's interesting that they chose to use two of the whitest neighborhoods in Sacramento instead of the more diverse neighborhood of Oak Park. Is it possible that this is another attempt to preserve the "whiteness" of Curtis Park?
     This is just my view - feel free to comment and share yours!