Have You Seen the Thirsty Black Boy?

by Latoya Peterson

I recently came across the above campaign, produced by Mortierbrigade Brussel, an ad agency in Belgium.

MediaBistro notes:

To attract attention for the cause, a young boy dressed in shorts and a tank top could be seen running into prime time TV shows (live programs, with hosts) only to drink the water that sat in front of the hosts, or their guests. The boy chugged the water and ran off.

In three days, the boy had been on enough programs that a stir was created. In just six days, people donated the equivalent of $5.24 million dollars. Considering the relatively small size of Belgium, that’s no small feat.

The viral piece was meant to highlight the disparaging situation for the 1.1 billion people that don’t have clean water, and the fact a child dies every 15 seconds from a lack of clean water. The agency’s client ‘Music for Life’ and their partner, The Red Cross, did more for clean water in a week than anyone could have imagined.

(It is also interesting to note that Media Bistro took the word “Black” out of the title when reporting the piece.)

Here is the video:

What do you think readers? (Particularly interested in the international perspective.)

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Bookmarks about Viral on 02 Jan 2009 at 12:45 pm

[...] – bookmarked by 1 members originally found by Malt33 on 2008-12-08 Have You Seen the Thirsty Black Boy? http://www.racialicious.com/2008/08/08/have-you-seen-the-thirsty-black-boy/ – bookmarked by 1 [...]

Comments

Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

American middle-America perspective here. Sorry.

I think the concept of having a child run onto a live show to drink water to raise awareness for drinkable water is BRILLIANT!!!! It was destined to become a viral water cooler topic. Also, it apparently achieved the goal of raising funds for a worthy cause.

I honestly am not bothered by the fact that they chose a black child to drink the water. I would have preferred a myriad of children, but I don’t mind their selection.

But is it really necessary to HIGHLIGHT the fact that he’s black. Are they verbalizing his blackness for blind viewers (sarcasm)? Why is stating the obvious necessary here? Maybe black faces are so rare in that country. (That’s where you’re going to need your international perspective.) It just seems unnecessary.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 8:30 am ¶
locked wrote:

i mean… what is there to say? lol lol

i want to say that their wording is wrong. but obviously this really is the situation for many african countries.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 8:31 am ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:

I don’t know anything about race relations in Belgium; it probably explains why they’re comfortable saying “thirsty black boy” when U.S.-based media just says “thirsty boy.” In any event, I think it’s a pretty brilliant campaign, and clearly it was successful. Sometimes it takes getting in people’s faces to wake them up to the immense disparities in the world. One of the biggest killers of children worldwide is diarrhea (along with pneumonia and malaria), and they get it from dirty water, and because they have no clean water to rehydrate them, they die from it. It’s completely preventable, and I’m glad someone is addressing the issue.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 8:56 am ¶
Pololly wrote:

I’ve been reading this site and think it’s wonderful. I only discovered it a few weeks ago, thank you LaToya for this space. This finally got me to comment – I think it is GENIUS.

I’m British (and black) in New York so I’m bringing the international perspective here: I don’t see any issues with it. If this were America, maybe. I think that when most people think of black, in America, they think of African Americans, but in many parts of Europe, they think of Africa. The boy, to me, looks very African I think. I also think it brings a humanity to the pictures of starving children – makes them seem like children, not just tableaux of suffering.

It’s also difficult to have that much issue with the wording because of the language difference. ‘Black’ may not have such a negative connotation as a word, or the translation may fail to capture the nuance of the sentence as originally written.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 9:40 am ¶
AC wrote:

I’m also coming from a domestic or American perspective – but I thought it was a brillant campaign and I wasn’t bothered at all that they used a black boy or identified him as such.

To put it baldly, the campaign was to raise money for clean water in developing and struggling nations many of whom, but not all, are populated by non-white peoples. Using a child of color tends to drive the point home. I’m not sure I would have “gotten” it so quickly if a white child had been used instead, I might have gotten distracted by competing theories as to why the boy was thirsty:- game? a new episode of “Punked”? a commentary on the lack of manners or home training of children? It might have taken the steam out of the campaign to have people too distracted.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 9:44 am ¶
chieftain06 wrote:

I am a Congolese-American and have spent many summers vacationing with my in Belgium. The country is divided into the French speaking south and the Dutch speaking north.

These programs appear to be from Flanders (North) and it’s not surprising that they would be more comfortable using the phrase since racism is slightly more rampant in that part of the country. I applaud the Belgians for raising awareness on this important issue but the way it was done with the sort of “runnning picanniny” routine was in my opinion, quite neo-colonialistic and the use of the phrase “black boy” as unnnecessary and racist. Did he have to be a thirsty “black” boy ?

Why is it that when a person of color commits an act, so often their race, which may not be that important to the issue at hand, is noted?

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 9:46 am ¶
Colin A. B. wrote:

I’m not sure Latoya was saying she had a problem with the usage of the word “black”. I think the use of a black boy is notable for both good and bad. Good in that it shows that it’s really about other peoples, far dispossessed and unprivileged peoples as compared to the white Belgians watching at home. Bad in that it helps foster, I would think, a strong note of paternalistic sympathy for black people inside and outside of Belgium as helpless and hopelessly impoverished. So, while getting the aid to people is good, the people getting the aid will be treated to only more patronizing and pity.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:13 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

It’s a brilliant viral marketing scheme and I’m glad it’s for a GOOD CAUSE.

Nothing to get upset over here.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:19 am ¶
Pololly wrote:

Well, chieftain06, I’ve only been to Belgium twice so defer on the issue of racism… but I’m struggling to see how it is possible to address this issue in a non colonialist way.

Showing pictures of the malnourished children in order to use sympathy to elicit donations is also pretty paternalistic. More temperate campaigns do not work. It’s just very difficult to know in which direction to go with these issues as they have to touch people (for donations) without reinforcing stereotypes (which they inevitably do) – either dehumanizing or infantilizing. It’s almost impossible.

If you asked me for an adjective to describe the boy from those adverts, I would probably think bright or clever before ‘thirsty’ or ‘poor’. Something about him seemed intelligent and quite quick witted. This may be me projecting or the result of an innovative campaign but it didn’t elicit a horrified reaction from me.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
Lauren wrote:

Hang on, I’m confused. Wasn’t this stunt all about clean water in Africa?

So wouldn’t it be racially problematic only if they -didn’t- use a black boy?

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 11:35 am ¶
Sara wrote:

I thought it was pretty amazing. I’m such a fan of creative protest.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 11:54 am ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

His blackness is relevant if they’re raising money for clean water in the third world. It’s better for continuity if they use only one person.
I usually see viral marketing as insidious and intrusive, I guess because of it’s effectiveness? In this case I am really glad it was used in such a way, for a critically important cause.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:24 pm ¶
L-K wrote:

This is brilliant! As a Dominican, I’ve seen upclose the devastation that this issue has on people, not only in regards to drinkable water, but access to water overall.

I understand the concerns of it being paternalistic. Yet, so many people really do not understand how immense of a problem it is. The majority of us on here have the luxury of indoor plumbing. One of the most heartbreaking things I have seen is a child (not a teen, not a preteen, but a child) pumping water at a communal pump, and then carrying those heavy buckets home. This shouldn’t be.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶
maia wrote:

ok. i am of two minds about this. on the one hand the campaign is brilliant. really. someone had a genius moment when they thought of this.
on the other hand, i hate the fact that they used a little black boy to do it. it could have been just as effective, or even more so, for various children (of varying hues) to run in and drink water, but have them all wearing a bright red shirt, or a baseball cap, or something that made it obvious that all the children were a part of the same campaign without needing the racial code. the racial coding (skinny black boy) is too simplistic and a bit more creativity could have taken this campaign to a whole new level.
i am us born and have spent a good amount of time out of the country. the desperation i have seen for water in this world is heartbreaking, but using the simplistic contrast of impetuous black boy and shocked white television folks is the flaw in the brilliance of this campaign.
when i was watching this i kept thinking about that mexican comic book about ‘negro’ the black monkey boy and i resent the way that this campaign plays into that global stereotype.
if the campaign had been to save some endangered monkey species, and the directors of the campaign had used a little monkey to run on stage and drink the hosts water, the campaign probably would have made just as much money.
maybe that seems like a harsh comparison.
it probably is. and i hope that in the future people can work through their stereotypes so that they can clearly see that the reason that african children are dying from dehydration and dirty water is in part because of our association of dark skin with childishness and animality.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶
Myles wrote:

I think that this message would have completely lost it’s ability to effect people if the child didn’t “look” like he had African ancestry.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:

Awesome ad campaign.

The first thing that popped into my mind was Belgium’s history with the Congo Free State (which inspired Conrad’s Heart of Darkness). I wonder if a Belgian viewer would have the same reaction.

As for the kid, well, in the branding of social causes and with the knowledge that this campaign is from another country, I think for some of us the sight the kid will immediately bring up the association with Africa. Although, I have to admit, if I saw this in the U.S., I would be completely confused. I would probably think it is an ad for a new soda or energy drink.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
Pololly wrote:

Maia wrote

I have to respectfully take issue with this. As an African born British person one of my greatest disappointments is how sometimes I feel that ‘Africa’ can be as much a prop for African American talking points as for some white blatantly neo-colonialist views. Colonialism and racism are entwined and related but not identical and Africa’s ‘problems’ are not so simplistic, firstly being that it is a continent with a diverse history, citizenry, and socio-politico-economic reality.

I think it is quite dangerous to conflate the ‘problems with Africa’ into a neat ‘race’ package that has immediate equivalence with ‘America’, that itself is honestly fairly Western-centric and these issues are too complicated. I also think that the issue of ’stereotyping’ is a very difficult one when a campaign is trying to portray a simple and essentially emotional message. I personally feel inclined towards the campaign but am happy to defer if others feel differently. However, I think when talking about ‘Africa’ and ‘racism’, it is so important not to be fooled into imposing African American history onto a group of people just because they are black.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
Pololly wrote:

Sorry, my earlier response was to Maia’s comment, not a reiteration of it.

Apologies

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶
k wrote:

I think this was a brilliant idea!! whoever came up with this, did a great job! Like some of you said, it wouldn’t had been the same if they used any other kid, at least in that country I believe. That’s what people in that country think of when they think of kids dying of thrist, African kids (and they have a good reason, many African countries don’t get clean water). If they would have done it in any other country, maybe they would have used a different kid, it depends on the culture. I know that if this was shown in Peru (that’s where I’m from), it would have made more of an impact if they used an indigenous kid to do it, because that’s what we see, indigneous kids living in poverty, more that any other kid and that has more of an impact because it’s closer to our reality.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶
Bronze Trinity wrote:

Although I would like to blast them for being racist, I just don’t think I can today. It was creative. It was better than those commercials with starving children covered in flies as if everyone in Africa is living like that. Plus it raised a lot of money for the cause. So I give it a pass. It’s not really offensive I guess.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
Pololly wrote:

Sorry, if it’s not clear Maia, I’m responding to this part of your statement.

“and i hope that in the future people can work through their stereotypes so that they can clearly see that the reason that african children are dying from dehydration and dirty water is in part because of our association of dark skin with childishness and animality.”

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 5:44 pm ¶
Vidya wrote:

I don’t find it offensive.
Unlike the ‘photos of starving children’ type ads, this doesn’t totally strip the people in need of their agency (the boy is, after all, taking the initiative and acting).
One limitation affecting almost all of these ads/campaigns, however, is their failure to overtly address the fact that the nations in need are not (naturally) ‘underdeveloped’ but rather (colonially/neocolonially) overexploited. However, perhaps this campaign can be read as containing a subtle reminder that there is a connection between the fact that clean water is not available to much of the world and the fact that those glasses of water are effortlessly available for the wealthy, white, ‘first world’ television hosts.
And it perhaps will raise a subtle, perhaps subconscious, awareness that this unjust situation has the potential to spur exploited peoples to (forcibly) take their rightful share if those who possess it do not freely give it.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 6:15 pm ¶
deb wrote:

I saw this and immediately wondered if Belgium was trying to make up for its King Leopold II’s horrid legacy of savagery and exploitation of the Congolese people during his campaign to colonize the Congo at the turn of the 20th century.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 7:34 pm ¶
jetessence wrote:

I think it was a brillant campaign. Very effective. I’m not understanding the potential problem?? I hope it’s not because they said “black” boy. I find so many non-blacks are afraid of saying the word “black” like it would be racist to do so. So please tell me that’s not it.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 7:41 pm ¶
maia wrote:

pololly said:

Showing pictures of the malnourished children in order to use sympathy to elicit donations is also pretty paternalistic. More temperate campaigns do not work. It’s just very difficult to know in which direction to go with these issues as they have to touch people (for donations) without reinforcing stereotypes (which they inevitably do) – either dehumanizing or infantilizing. It’s almost impossible.

response:
i do not believe that it is nearly impossible to touch people without resorting to stereotypes. i am not denying the brilliance of this campaign. i am questioning whether the ‘quickwitted’ young black boy does not play into the idea of a ‘quickwitted’ young monkey. having lived in europe and spent time investigating the congolese war, i have to question the either/or dynamic that you present in how to touch dutch emotional sympathies. yes, i come from an african-american perspective (with significant international experience) and i know that the stereotypes that i have experienced in the states are rampant throughout the global communities (with interesting variations). yes. often african americans think of ‘africa’ in homogenic ideas. yes. the dutch have a different history of colonization and racism. yes. these are complex subjects. but simply because these are complex and difficult subjects does not mean that campaigns have the right to invoke stereotypes of ‘black african’ s in order to raise awareness. innovative uses of stereotypes does not negate the impact of the use.
in other words i can imagine equally impactful ways of using this ‘brilliant’ idea without the ensuing stereotypes.
the ‘monkey boy’ stereotype i found prevalent in europe and the middle east in my work and travels. and i think it plays in this ad as well.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:29 pm ¶
BewareofWhiteRacists wrote:

This is a prostituting of a black boy by advertisers!

Why not refer to it as a thirsty kid?

What if the title was “Thirsty White Boy” or “Thirsty White Girl”? Whites would object!

White multinational corporations control water in numerous third-world nations. Poor Africans, Indians, Asians, and other indigenous people are literally being denied access to water because of high prices.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:40 pm ¶
BewareofWhiteRacists wrote:

Also, has anyone noticed that Anti-Racist Parent moderates against words like “white racists” and inserts words such as “good white.” They also have a number of adoptive white families, so they’re still making excuses for white racists.

A little giddy “colored” music does not change institutional racism. Until whites change, the bigger problem of white racism will be the elephant in the middle of the room.

Posted 08 Aug 2008 at 10:44 pm ¶
Zakiyah wrote:

I am an Japanese living in US & married to an African American. I think their intension is good, but when I hear they say “black boy”, it just makes me irritated somewhat. They could say “a boy from Africa” instead. I maybe little sensitive, but a certain word among certain audience just sound “unfit” whether it was said without any prejudice or not.

Posted 09 Aug 2008 at 11:04 pm ¶
browne wrote:

I think the problem is with this ad in a more universal sense is that it’s very imperialist. It’s very “help the poor savages.” The reason why Africa is in the condition that it is in right now is owing in fact to that very attitude. Countries that came in and bought and sold the people within those countries and now they want to help, since they had a hand in messing it up?

Well this campaign may help a little bit, but it can’t undue the damage that has been done for 100s of years and it continues this “you’re my pet” attitude. And in the long term it continues the trend of reducing Africans to a cause, a metaphor, a thing.

This campaign could be used to save whales or an extinct species. I find this very insulting if you take into account that Belgium played a large part in the slave trade and the oppression of people in Africa particular in the Congo.

A vile campaign.

Posted 10 Aug 2008 at 9:31 am ¶
Persia wrote:

I really do think part of the difference here is, as others have noted, that the boy has agency– he’s going to get his drink of water. It makes him seem like an actor in the scene, not just another passive victim of circumstances.

Posted 10 Aug 2008 at 11:24 am ¶
pololly wrote:

Maia,

My research is in the legacy of French colonialism and I have friends and family working all over Africa and Europe, as well as being born and raised in the UK. So I am particularly sensitive to portrayals of Africa and the history and legacy of colonialism, which does go under the radar in the West. I am particularly aware of it in the face of the reorienting of slavery (rather than colonialism) as the defining tragedy of Africa, in the minds of most (African) Americans. This rewriting of history allows for many things including the spectacular red herring that is the ‘corruption in Africa’ debate. Speaking for the whole of Africa and millions of Europeans Africans must be a burden for African Americans (!) but be assured it is an unnecessary one.

For example, I keep noting in this thread how people trying to help keep attributing colonialist history to a ‘help the savages’ attitude or a ‘feeling that Africans were sub human’. To put it bluntly, even parroting this line is drinking the kool-aid of historical revisionism. I am wincing at this spectacular misreading of history and all the misapprehensions that must follow from it. The impetus for labelling the colonisation of Africa as a consequence of ‘racist attitudes’ about the ’sub human’ African is simple. It allows the falsity of a clean break to be established in the West’s dealings with Africa, from its ‘racist past’ to its ‘non racist present’. In reality this obscures the obvious truth, that exploitation, not cultural education, was and is the driving force in the West’s treatment of Africa. I have found that it serves many people with both good intentions and bad, to neglect this to look more towards race. This allows us to draw easy parallels, parrot our own wisdom (we’ve experienced racism so of course we know what we’re talking about!), and generalize to our own benefit.

Remember, the causes, evolution, justifications and dismantling of slavery and colonialism were not identical – for one, slavery ended in the 1800s, colonial rule for most Africans between 1960 and 1980. The history is astonishingly complex and I think that the proper response to any genuine attempt at analysis should be ordered with a side of humility, especially if someone is bringing their own cultural baggage to the table.

Frankly Maia, I respect your experiences but find it striking that you blithely refer to the variety of African experiences as ‘variations’ on the African American experience. They are not. I aslo find it interesting that you include the Middle East in your calculations. I think sometimes there is a tendency of African American scholars when looking at the black experience to view the rest of the world as a mass, I would not try to draw detailed parallels between, say, Canada and the Middle East, on this issue, so I would be wary of massive generalizations across the 50+ countries you have just mentioned. It is possible that as an African American, your experiences in Europe are not necessarily identical to those of African or even European born blacks. I don’t think your experiences are illegitimate but I would just point out that these are complex issues, and the response from my black European and African friends and family have been much more ambivalent on this issue than from my American friends.

But having said all that, I am interested in your response. The paternalism of the relationship between the West and Africa is fairly well documented. I’m interested in how you would ask for donations. What ideas can you think of that are totally unstereotypical, retain agency and do not portray paternalism? How would you protray Africans, refer to them and engage discussion about them without falling into similar traps?

Posted 10 Aug 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶
sunlit_shadows wrote:

Not really sure what to think about people’s objections to the use of the word “black” here. Yes, white is often thought of as the “default” setting- as A.C.’s comment (#5) makes clear- one would not automatically assume there is a political or race-related motive if a white child appeared in such a way. If the word “black” was not used, many people would assume the child was white (without having seen the video beforehand).

But is pointing out difference a bad thing in itself? I don’t think so. That’s like saying that difference is bad so we should pretend it’s not there, that we are all the same (and hmm, if we’re all the same, maybe those POC’s shouldn’t get “special privileges” like affirmative action *sarcasm*).

People who are afraid to refer to someone’s race may be afraid of breaking the “colorblind” illusion- because by doing so they show that they do “see color”. Of course, ‘colorblindness’ is BS and acting like calling someone ‘black’ is offensive seems to imply that to call someone black is an insult. Like how many people will do everything to avoid referring to a differently-abled person’s wheelchair or amputation, because it might make them feel bad. Color is not a disability.

Posted 10 Aug 2008 at 4:55 pm ¶
browne wrote:

“the ‘monkey boy’ stereotype i found prevalent in europe and the middle east in my work and travels. and i think it plays in this ad as well.” maia

Exactly. The “black boy” part doesn’t bother me (not as much) the animal like behavior of a boy running with water dripping down his shirt is what bothers me.

He seems like a little dog or as Maia said a little monkey. As I stated earlier this campaign would be very good for a non human animal. No one would ever even think of doing a campaign similar for white children victims, it would be thought to be in poor taste. People are dying and you want to make a little funny ad, not funny. Not cool. Very harmful.

Browne

Posted 10 Aug 2008 at 8:00 pm ¶
ccch wrote:

Pololly said it all for me. So I (as a Caribbean/American expat living for 2decades in Europe) concur whole-heartedley.

Sorry if it’s a cop-out, but sometimes there’s just nothing more to add.

Posted 11 Aug 2008 at 3:47 am ¶
Francis wrote:

Just the thought of this campaign raises my hair.

I am half-Belgian, half-Congolese (perfectly at ease with both heritages) and I don’t find this campaign offensive: I find it tastelessly patronizing.

The tragedy with most Third-World countries is that they are very rich, yet the population never benefits from it because all the natural resources are exported and processed elsewhere.

I’m not questioning the philanthropy or the good will or of the donors. Raising EUR 3.3 million is a noble feat, but I’m afraid fighting poverty will require more than a donation that serves to relieve from the consumerist guilt.

I think projects like SODIS, rather than teaching people to rely upon foreign funding, provide them with the tools for fighting water-related diseases.

Posted 11 Aug 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
BewareofWhiteRacists wrote:

The real issue is white supremacy.

Remove white multinational corporations from third-world countries and you solve the problem!

Congo is rich in resources, but over 32 white multinational corporations control this country!

Has anyone noticed that whites own most resources without even colonizing the countries?

Imperialism is still in effect. Whites own most of the resources throughout the globe.

Slavery sweat shops and slave work in Asia and Africa are rampant!

IT’S THE WHITE SUPREMACY. Say it like it is!

Posted 11 Aug 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶
ccch wrote:

@ BewareofWhiteRacists, that might have rung true some time ago, but who continues to perpetrate this “white imperialism?”. Say it with me now………”Black African leaders!”

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 3:44 am ¶
Thomas wrote:

I’m a (white) Belgian. I think it’s a great ad, but yes, it makes me feel uncomfortable at the same time. I don’t feel like racism or calling the boy a “black” boy is the problem, but the idea of paternalism (also the idea that its very probable that most of the people who created the ad/came up with the idea where white, considering Belgium’s demography). I guess pololly is right when (s)he says the west’s ongoing history of paternalism and exploitation in Africa makes it impossible to organize such aid without implying bad connotations. And to some extent these feelings are always present when people have to rely on charity to get help: they have to rely on the goodwill of others just to get what they actually simply have a right to get. Knowledge of the wests dealings with Africa makes this case just all the more obvious.

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 7:28 am ¶
Sloppy Drinker wrote:

I’d be curious to know how much of that money is actually going to end up as water in the mouths of thirsty children. I don’t know anything about that charity, or their track record.

Also, I’d be curious to know why they don’t refer to him as “thirsty child” or “thirsty African child” rather than “black boy.” That’s pretty lame, if not for the racism than for the fact that it doesn’t really describe what makes him relevant to the piece in the first place. He’s relevant because he’s thirsty and lives in a place without sufficient clean water (Africa) not because his skin is dark.

Finally, the thirsty African child is a very sloppy drinker. I’m just saying.

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶
Chris wrote:

I’ve spent a bit of time in Europe and I’m not at all upset or surprised that they noted that the boy was “black” simply because I don’t think it has all the racial bias implications that it does in the U.S. Yes, its obvious that he’s black, and since they aren’t racists they don’t have a problem saying it because its not taboo. I tend to think in this case its nothing more than a description. I find it funny that here in the U.S. when my white friends describe me they seem to be uncomfortable adding “black” to the description (i.e. “the tall guy with the red jacket and jeans) when I might be easily distinguished as the “black” guy standing with the group of “white” guys…

Posted 13 Aug 2008 at 8:40 am ¶
Sam wrote:

Like deb, I interpreted the explicit mention of the kid’s blackness as an immediate admission of guilt for the Belgian slaughter of Congolese people in the last century. I think probably the ad execs involved here didn’t want to stand accused of pretending to be race-blind or ignoring the historical realities here. Which I think is to their credit in a way: Acknowledging outright the kid’s blackness more honestly speaks to the neocolonial and/or racist problems inherent in campaigns like this. Yes, it’s strangely reductive and obvious, but given Belgium’s colonial past, I think it’s practical.

Besides the obvious problem of the let’s-throw-money-at-the-poor-decolonized-subaltern attitude, the most striking problem with the campaign to me is the fact that the boy doesn’t say anything at all. (Also the fact that he spills half of each glass of water down his shirt strikes me as unnecessary.)

However, I don’t really understand the complaints from other commenters about the child being referred to as “black” rather than “African” — as though “African” were that much more specific a descriptor.

Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:41 pm ¶
Win wrote:

Child of Africa on television and not used to push rabid consumerism as seen in Nike or Gatorade adverts?
Sure, I’ll take it.
I don’t think I’ll ever feel the same way about the song “Nantes” anymore either. Great placement.

Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 8:52 pm ¶
Korolev wrote:

Never seen it here in Australia…. I don’t think its effective at communicating its message at all. I don’t think it will encourage anyone to donate money – because it lacks context by itself. To see a black child run onto the screen, drink a glass of water, and then leave…. well, if I hadn’t see the youtube video explaining what it was about, I wouldn’t have had a clue what was going on.

The ad just didn’t seem effective. An ad must have context. Just seeing a guy run onto the stage, drink a glass of water, and then leave, doesn’t inform me of anything. I wonder how many people would have understood the campaign if it wasn’t explained in the video. I know I wouldn’t have.

Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 10:24 am ¶

Have You Seen the Thirsty Black Boy?

Trackbacks & Pings

Comments

« Home

About This Post

Categories

Subscribe to This Blog

Search

About This Blog