They don't usually sell Maybachs, Vacheron Constantine, Prada, McMansions, Versace or Louis XIII in the hood.
These brands aren't even made in the hood.
People in the hood don't even own these companies.
But somehow, many people know about these brands. Some even have the knock-offs.
But how do people, who are thought of as being too poor to advance in society, suddenly acquire the urge to possess these things?
It's not as though they are inherently part of their culture.
Maybe seeing the products in videos on BET has an effect.
These videos seem to be a nice marketing tool to bring such item to the common consciousness of many people who really can't afford them.
Some say that we shouldn't celebrate the rare individual who has overcome the many social, political and racial obstacles involved in making it to a higher level within our nation.
But why not?
If seeing someone else with a large flat screen television can stimulate the desire for one having there own - why can't the same be true of success?
I'm sure some people who were born into slavery were operating under the assumption that that was all there was to life.
That freedom was just some myth, or something only possessed by the bourgie.
That the system was always going to keep them in chains.
But what created enough volition in men like Nat Turner to cause them to attempt such an audacious grasp at freedom?
What caused some to escape through the Underground Railroad?
What caused others to learn to read - even though it was illegal?
Their "culture" was one of servitude.
What caused some to seek freedom and go against "their culture"?
During Segregation, when oppression was legal - what caused some to see past their roles imposed by society to a life of freedom?
Were the Civil Rights leaders "thinking white" in operating under the assumption that all men should be free?
How could they see themselves as more than "their culture"?
Obama is to Polo as Oprah is to Hermes.
Tiger is to Louis XIII as Cosby is to Maybach.
They are not the saviors (We are our own saviors in this sense), they are just the marketing tools that need to be used to elevate the expectations of the culture - of our common conciousness.
They are not "Too Bourgie" - they are the luxury brands.
If people in the hood can spend thousands of dollars on rims, Jordans or Hennessey - why can't those same people spend the same money on Your Baby Can Read?
If people in the hood can assimilate these luxury brands into "their culture" - why can't they assimilate the luxury brand of success?
How are Tiger, Oprah and Obama seen as "Too White" - But brands like Polo, Versace, and Rolex are not?
Maybe we need to redefine our "culture" instead of using one that has been defined for us.