After reading the ad and the thead, I’m inclined to agree with Isamu and Contrapuntal- the ad uses “Innovation” to leverage the maximum possible wiggle room/interpretation/truthfulness out of the statements.
The point the ad makes is true and correct- African Americans (and Black people in general) have made significant, worthy, and respectable contributions to art and science. But claiming that an African-American “innovated” the Telephone Transmitter (aka Carbon Microphone, a device which appears to have been used in phones almost unchanged from Edison and Berliner’s original designs in the 1880s up to the 1980s) is, if not false, then extremely misleading (Edison may have had an African-American assistant helping him, for example, but that still doesn’t mean it’s really correct to say that an African American “innovated” the design).
Also, calling the listed items “Innovations” in the ad’s wording and context strongly implies to me, at least, that an African-American is purported to have invented them, as the items mentioned were “new” (and thus innovative) when they were first invented. Had the ad said that “An African American came up with an innovation for: [List]”, that would be fine, true, and still make the same point (ie, African Americans have helped improve or create the modern incarnations of these well-known and useful things).
Instead the reader is left with the impression that these things were invented by African Americans, and I can sadly see that approach backfiring amongst certain groups of people with racial prejudices, who might not like the insinuation that “Modern” things like Air Conditioning or Traffic Lights or Typewriters were invented by “Negroes”. (Yes, that’s their problem for being racists, but that’s not the point I’m making.)
Also: how do you “innovate” a mailbox? It’s a box (or a cylinder) with a slot in the front for mail and a little door at the back for the recipient to retrieve the mail from inside. Not much to innovate upon there.
The ad is either deliberately or grossly negligently designed to be deceptive. As a scientist, engineer, and educator I’m disgusted by it. But as a businesswoman, I can see the upside. Hey, look, my mind was just responsible for “innovating” boiling water. Anyone out there drinking coffee or proper tea, send me your fucking money - $1,000, new bills, crisp and clean, and they better have that special smell too - or I’ll sue you into the fucking Stone Age.
If you pay me half, I’ll only sue you into something like the Age of Charlemagne. It’ll be like going to the RennFest, every single day. Won’t that be fun?
Well, actually your link uses both invented and innovated which in context means one or the other. I don’t think it’s any kind of smoking gun–if anything it makes the distinction between invention and innovation more clear IMO.
Merriam-Webster says innovation (noun):
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
Pretty much an invention and not a modification or improvement on something else; The verb innovate does have a meaning of “to make changes : do something in a new way” , but the ad uses the noun. Furthermore I cannot believe that anyone who was responsible for making the ad had the idea of improvement rather than invention.
Also the idea that if an African-american has had some part (albeit a small one) in the development or history of one of those things was what the ad makers were trying to show is stretching the language to the point were Hooke’s law is only a distant memory.
I’m not sure I get the analogy about boiling water. Much though I can see why some people would see the ad as deceptive overall it seems to me just as misleading to trivialize the kind of innovation that results in a patent. No?
Sorry Aji but that reasoning is just silly. Of course patenting, say, a new kind of hairbrush is equivalent to introducing something new, creating a new method or device.
What I can’t figure out is why those making a case against the legitimacy of exaggeration feel compelled to exaggerate their arguments!
It’s one to thing to say, this ad is bad and has the counter-effect of trivializing actual African-American achievements. It’s quite another to deliberately trivialize those achievements oneself.
Perhaps, but I doubt any of the people doing so would be doing so in a different thread. The point of this one is not that African-American inventors (sorry, “innovators”) haven’t come up with great stuff, just that none (or few) of the ones mentioned in the ad did what the ad claims they did.
I genuinely disagree–not just trying to split hairs or give you a hard time.
Either you’re for the clearest possible representation of the facts or you’re not. Some posters seem to be pots calling the kettle black (no pun intended…) and the effect seems pretty harsh.
Oh if it just cheerleading then let’s give them a few bonus inventions or improvements. I hereby propose the siamese clarinet, the upside-down piano, the elevating carburator, the two-wheeled tricycle, the forward-reducing vacuum flipper, the horologium, hemorrhoids, maple leaf rags, decarbonated beer, an improved TV system without image (known as “radio”), etc.
I think they’re referring to Granville Woods, who held patent no. 308,817, a patent on a telephone transmitter, issued on 12/2/1884. (The horseshoe that was referred to earlier is no doubt patent no. 614,273, issued to John W. Outlaw on November 15, 1898.)
That’s undoubtedly what the people who wrote the ad did: looked at the patents issued to African American inventors and just started listing some of the patented objects. So the ad isn’t entirely true, but it’s not entirely false either. An African American didn’t invent the horseshoe, but he invented a horseshoe, one didn’t invent the telephone transmitter, but he invented a telephone transmitter, and so on.
Actually, specifically, anything credited to Edison quite possibly was invented by an African American.
Mr. Latimer was one of the Edison Pioneers, and Edison tended to take credit for all their work. This doesn’t mean everything, just… well, there are stories. Not much more I can say about that. Just that not all of Edison’s inventions were by Edison. Moving pictures are one of the best known of those, if I remember right, Edison being out of the country when they were invented properly.
Mr. Woods is the person we’re talking about here, though.
The French managed to lead the way in a lot of areas, including my favorite (piezoelectricity) for many years. I didn’t realize Faraday actually invented the electric motor; I read that list of innovations/inventions a dozen times looking for something specifically related to capacitance. (I knew it was a joke; I just didn’t put it together.) Thanks.
Well, that’s debatable. There were airships- including Zeppelins- in the air before the Wright Brothers, which had engines, and that’s not including New Zealander Richard Pearse who is widely believed (in NZ at least) to have flown a heavier-than-air craft before the Wrights.
