Images Worth 1000 Words
by Latoya Peterson
As of late, I’ve been sent or stumbled upon a few interesting images. Here they are, presented with as much background information as available.
Photo of sticker graffiti in Washington DC, as photographed by Jan Chipchase. What do you think is the meaning of the top image?
The image on the left is a tote bag handed out by designer Phillip Lim to customers. Fashionologie notes that the image is eerily reminiscent of blackface/darky iconography. Your take? (Thanks to reader Tommye for sending this in.)
Reader Paige sent in these ads:
Paige explains:
I read your blog and I was in Berlin the other day when I saw this billboard. The German text says ‘Japan is still whaling’. It’s hard to see from this angle, but the corner of the eye is made up to resemble a fish-tail. I’m with a group doing some anti-racist stuff and we all thought it was very troubling, so I thought you might be interested. [...]
The second photo is just the same ad with some graffiti on it.
Your thoughts, readers?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Nia wrote:
Wow. That’s fucked (the handbag and the anti-whaling ad). I like the “gentrify this” graffiti though. If only bringing attention to gentrification were enough to stop it…
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:33 am ¶
karak wrote:
I don’t get how the Japanese one is racist.
I think it’s beautiful and provocative, without being grotesque.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:55 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
The red-and-blue sticker is an obvious takeoff on the popular Obama poster:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2409/2228331745_8a8b55f1be_o.jpg
But I’m not sure of its message. It could mean black children will have less hope under an Obama administration. Or that black children have less hope now (and Obama presumably will help them).
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 9:20 am ¶
CVT wrote:
To be honest, I wasn’t even sure if the child on the faux-Bama poster was supposed to be black or white, so I’ve got a couple possible interpretations:
1) Troubling – white kids have less hope now that Obama was elected.
2) Troubling, but kind of odd – black kids have less hope now that Obama was elected.
3) Honest and pure – nothing to do with Obama (just playing on the “hope” idea), kids have less hope every day in this f-ed up society
Sadly, I think it’s probably number 1.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Yikes on the whaling ad. That is . . . troubling. There is nothing essentially or exclusively Japanese about the eye shown, for one. And locating the politics of a practice sanctioned by a nation’s government on an already fetishized and caricatured ‘feature’ associated with its people creates a “those who look like THIS are doing THIS (horrible horrible thing)” dynamic that is false and misleading. I’m grossed out.
I’m torn on the Phillip Lim. The elements are there but I’m having a hard time calling it out. It’s a hard image to read. I think the gender of the subject is complicating things for me as well as the slap of coy and cute. I will say, if I saw this walking down the street, I would be squicked the hell out.
I would question where someone’s attraction to this bag would come from.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:00 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
karak~
it’s the trite, geisha stereotype
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:02 am ¶
Asada wrote:
The “less hope” ad was obviously about Obama.
The monkey with the ciggy just looks bad@$$. But put in close proximity with the less hope poster clues you in. I just realized Obama was a smoker. They did a bang-up job of making sure the general (that is, non-savvy) public didn’t know. I’m sure most kids don’t realize either. I could have sworn photo’s of him smoking where photo shopped to demean his character. Then someone said he was trying to quit. He better drop that habit fast.
The handbag….oh boy, I’m okay with letting some crap fly in the name of creativity and freedom, but these things quickly balloon out of hand and become offensive. Then everyone gets sensitive and we hear more about PC-ness to blame when ( I think ) PC-ness helps to protect people from some of the more grisly stuff. It’s hard to say what’s offensive and what artistic license.
The eye thing with whaling is more political than racist. Many groups will do whatever it takes to get attention ( look at PETA and the go naked ads. Mostly naked women do these adds) to serious issues that get swept under the rug.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:04 am ¶
Alexis wrote:
I think the Phillip Lim bag is too cute to be offensive.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:11 am ¶
oterhog wrote:
@Karak….I don’t see how the whaling poster cannot be read as racist. It’s taking a feature specific to people from Japan and implying that, because they have this feature, the Japanese are whale killers. My gut instinct when I saw this ad was disgust.
This ad reminds me of a reality show I’ve seen advertised about a group of mostly white animal rights “activists” going out to sea to stop the Japanese from killing whales.
Why isn’t there a reality show about people killers? Like the racist white people who walk the streets in search of people who look like “illegal immigrants” so they can beat them to death?
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:29 am ¶
GEC wrote:
Apart from the color scheme of the totebag, I don’t think that the face drawn there is iconically consistent with the “blackface/darky” image. The pursed lips, the upward and off to the right gaze of the eyes, the “little Cindy Loo Who” eyelashes, the beauty mark above the left lip, all seem to make more of a Betty Boop reference.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
jen* wrote:
The bag was NOT cute, IMO. It looked like blackface to me immediately. Could just be me, but I’m guessing it’s probably not. I would definitely not carry the bag, and would probably be uncomfortable seeing people carry the bag.
But then sometimes, I’m not a fan of the shock art that happens, either.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
Phrone wrote:
I had a hard time with the first two images, just because I could not for the life of me figure out what they mean. -_- The “Less Hope” one is bizarre…I think it’s probably the 3rd option that CVT mentioned. Like, kids these days have less hope in general because there are so many problems in the world. It’s not about Obama in particular, but it’s a rejection of Obama’s message of hope. Maybe. I could be wrong. The monkey image juxtaposed next to it is strange, but it’s also probably coincidence.
As for the handbag…I have no idea. I think it’s more of an issue of unfortunate coloring choices, because besides from the black skin and the red lips, I’m not really getting a “darkface” feel from it.
But I could understand how other people find it offensive…
But I really don’t like the whaling one. It’s taking a feature of a people and locating (a) something inherantly Japanese and (b) the monstrosity of whaling in it. I definitely find it offensive.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
am wrote:
Huh. i took the “less hope” to be an abortion thing. As in, ZOMG HE MURDERS BABIES.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 11:59 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@GEC: You know I was kind of thinking the same thing at first. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I feel that the color scheme is incredibly deliberate. The color scheme + face – why black here and why a face? Were these two independent wishes that just happened to come together?
I got the Betty Boop reference but the layering of it on black is a choice that I’d love to hear more about.
There’s some Patrick Kelly-like playfulness here but I’m not sure that the creators nor the buyers know what they’re playing with.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶
L. wrote:
I can’t say that I’m offended at the tote (I’m too desensitized by now), but I did immediately think black face. And for those of you who don’t see the connection because it looks cute:
http://www.khitradio.com/images/clampett.jpg
I’m not saying that it’s definitely there, but it’s leaning towards it.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
Am echoing AD Nix’s point about the anti-whaling ad, re: the conflation of the Japanese government with “Japan,” done thru a stereotype. I’ve learned to be careful about that conflation in the campaign for the WW2 “comfort women,” when Japanese activist rightly pointed out that there were numerous Japanese people who were and are critical of the actions of the government. This whaling ad also obscures how there are Japanese anti-whaling activists who should be supported.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶
MK wrote:
@oterhog
Thanks for pointing that show out. I saw commercials for it and rolled my eyes. It’s called “Whale Wars” or something like that, and once I heard more about it (like the so-called environmentalists ramming the Japanese ships and basically harassing them, from what I gather), I couldn’t stand the premise of it. The “activists,” who are old white guys, are just extremists who have too much time on their hands. And Animal Planet decided it would be fun viewing.
Anyway, has anybody actually watched it? I’d like to hear other thoughts on it.
P.S. Fuck Animal Planet. Discovery Channel kicks its ass anyway.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
You just don’t put together a jet black face with bright red lips by mistake. You don’t, and to imply that is a load of crap. It’s a conscious decision designed to generate controversy and draw attention to the brand. And, since we’re talking about it, it worked. That’s what these things are used as now. People know that discussions will generate heat but ultimately end with no real consequence or action and immediately vacate the public consciousness.
As for the eye with the whale being “beautiful and provocative.” It’s certainly provocative, and only beautiful if you find epicanthic eye-folds to be exotic. It’s like putting up a picture of a European nose turned upwards, maybe dripping, and writing “White people, still melting glaciers.”
Garbage.
I didn’t pick anything up on the LESS HOPE sticker. Nothing really stands out there, not even the intended message.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶
Maria_Elena wrote:
Thought this might be helpful:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daquellamanera/2804250355/
“LESS HOPE” is created after the 2008 Shepard Farey “Obey” images, and street art, for the Barack Obama US Presidential Election. It aims to generate an ironic, critical, and slightly ambiguous reading on political participation, and social transformations. Part of a push to enable a call to question the conformity with the existing political apparatus, and a much needed critique of the official progressive left and its cultural projection.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
Egbert wrote:
Cosign that “white kids have less hope” for the Obama one. Also thought that placing the monkey-ciggie sticker next to it was a bit nefarious. It’s subtle elements that get into the psyche of society quicker…and then take hold.
That said, I’m not worried about the “blackface bag” as I didn’t read it as that and think it a stretch.
As for the whaling one…no joke…I though it was a beluga whale eyeball which means I didn’t get the point. That is, until I checked Google Images for what beluga eyes look like (they’re all black and perfectly round).
Not a smart ad. If everyone’s as dumb as me though, they may not get the fact that the eye belongs to a person. No? I’m really the only dumb one? Again? Darn it all to heck and back. There’s that nefarious stuff creeping in again.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶
GEC wrote:
@A.D. Nix: Yes. Looking at it again, the colors do resonate. And, if it were a deliberate play—putting forth the face of an infant (but what about that beauty mark?) could be considered wonderfully transgressive in that it:
1: asserts a more complete humanity for the “blackface/darky” image and
2: presents a sweet baby image that counters the golden glowing gerber baby stereotype.
Or it could be a hot mess.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
The anti-Japanese ad is extremely racist.
Whaling is a subject I don’t talk about anymore with my (Japanese) father. If you want the hardline unadulterated “I love the smell of slaughtered whale in the morning” type of viewpoint, just ask him.
Personally, I think it’s an indefensible practice, and I’m not going to condemn the people who use radical action to stop whale boats.
These kind of media campaigns need to be sensitive to culture and race. I’m thinking of an organization I’ve given to called WildAid that does things the right way. If the goal is to get Chinese to stop eating shark fin soup, they enlist Chinese celebrities to do media campaigns. So the message isn’t just “stop doing this because white people say so” and becomes a lot more appealing and localized.
There are plenty of Japanese ecological organizations. There are plenty of Japanese that hate whaling. It’s not like every single Japanese is a rabid pro-whaler like my dad. But the ad encourages the idea that all Japanese are bloody whale slaughterers… in fact, maybe anyone with an Asian eye shape is suspect.
If you want to spend money on media campaigns to reduce support for whaling in Japan, SPEND IT IN JAPAN and spend it in close partnership with local Japanese organizations. What the hell is the point of running the above ad in Germany? What about whaling nations like Norway and Iceland?
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶
cinco wrote:
Less hope- to me means that white children have less of a chance to be president now that the ‘barrier’ has been sort of broken. And a bizarre inference that for some reason there’s less hope for white children.
The black face bags are in poor taste, but someone will buy.
I’m not much of an activist for mammals or animals other than the two legged type. So the billboard means nothing offensive to me.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶
Tony wrote:
Well, I found something on the Less Hope image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daquellamanera/2804250355/
As far as I can figure, that’s who created it (Can’t swear to it though)
But from the site
”
“LESS HOPE” is created after the 2008 Shepard Farey “Obey” images, and street art, for the Barack Obama US Presidential Election. It aims to generate an ironic, critical, and slightly ambiguous reading on political participation, and social transformations. Part of a push to enable a call to question the conformity with the existing political apparatus, and a much needed critique of the official progressive left and its cultural projection.”
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶
Tony wrote:
Oh, yeah, as to the other images.
The Handbag seems like it could easily have been done with someone who didn’t really know about ‘darky’ imagery, but it’s still disturbing to look at.
The Eye/Whaling thing.
Well, it seems to fit with PeTA style tactics, even if PeTA didn’t do the image.
(remember folks, the E for Ethical is always small, because PeTA doesn’t care about ethics)
I can understand, and even agree with the anti-whaling sentiment, however it would be quite easy to do it without a racial feature as the main thing.
Just keeping to the same sort of iconograpI mean heck, an ariel photo of Japan with a a whale drawn around it. would be far less offensive, and arguably more effective.
If you want to be atleast a little offensive, how about a whale with wounds that make out the shape of Japan?
See, shocking, disturbing, pointing out where it’s going on, without a symbol of the race, just a symbol of the nation.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 2:22 pm ¶
Alexandra wrote:
@ oterhog and CVT cosigned. In regards to the bag I can see it both ways. It does have the betty boop/cupie doll thing going on but the fact its a face bothers the hell out of me. If it didn’t have the circle around it I’d be less bothered and place it in the category unfortunate not necessarily racist.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 3:49 pm ¶
StayingStrong wrote:
That tote design is nothing more than a variation of the Darkie/Darlie toothpaste logo that’s been seen throughout Asia for a long time. (I bought a tube as proof because I couldn’t believe it.) Adding cute flourishes is supposed to throw us off, allowing the designer to be shocked, shocked that anyone could find fault. Pfui.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶
Sara Ryan wrote:
Here’s information about the LESS HOPE sticker from the designer, Daniel Lobo:
http://daquellamanera.org/?q=node/407
Perhaps someone who’s a fluent Spanish speaker can provide an exact translation, but I think it’s intended to be a critique of the mainstream left and maybe of Shepard Fairey himself, for his transition from street artist to designer of campaign art.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
Joanna wrote:
The bag… I highly doubt that they meant anything racial by it. I think they probably were just trying to be different: a more common image would probably be a white background and white face, with black lines drawn. So I think they just reversed it to look edgy.
The whaling one… it was definitely a bad idea, for all of the reasons people already said.
The Obama thing… My first thought was that it was some kind of ironic image just meant to be contrary and poke fun at the Hope campaign, in favor of political apathy. But now I’m not so sure.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
The sticker does look like some anti-abortion propaganda, or it sends a message of less hope for the US’ future now that we’ve elected that foreign born, Mohammedan Communist, etc. etc… And the kid does look creepy to boot.
As far as the whaling ad, I don’t think it’s racist at all. It simply make use of one of Japan’s most recognizable cultural icons and plays around with a facial feature.
The handbag…eh. If I would see it on the street I would instantly think blackface. But as someone mentioned, it is kind of borderline.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
firstofall wrote:
why is it these fashion people keep thinking that racism is chic?
first it’s “obama is my slave”
now this?
can somebody email that guy and tell him he is about to ruin his career?
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶
steph wrote:
Alexis wrote:
I think the Phillip Lim bag is too cute to be offensive.
Too cute to be offensive? Bratz dolls, anyone? Asian fetish syndrome, anyone? meh.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:03 pm ¶
cbella wrote:
@am – i thought the SAME thing when i initially looked at the first image. but i also considered CVT’s #1…the child oddly reminds me of the Gerber baby.
after reading more comments, i thought more about the monkey graffiti picture and kinda feel it’s an allusion to Obama (i.e. black man who smokes…nice =/). the placement of both can also be taken up for interpretation…order of priorities or level of expectation for B.O…
i’m torn and really confused about the last two photos, especially the last one. shock art/fashion is stupid and i really get tired of people who think it’s so cool to be so mindlessly ironic (i’m thinking keffiyah scarves…) because that’s the thing to do. if Philip Lim jumped over a bridge in the name of art, would they do the same?
maybe this is fucked up but i consider the eye-dilized whale. if only it were in a different, albeit truly artistic, context
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:09 pm ¶
cbella wrote:
oops, i didn’t mean to imply that those who like shock art/fashion are stupid. i personally don’t like it…
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:11 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
Re: Phillip Lim
http://wondermomo.blogspot.com/2008/04/31-phillip-lim-happy-face-boyfriend-tee.html
That seems to imply that Lim uses an array of peculiar facial iconography in his designs. I’m not fashion person by any means, so I could be completely off, but I would guess that the tote bag was more the result of poor conception and putting the “wrong” face with the “wrong” color.
While we’re on the subject of blackface, is anyone else ENTIRELY creeped out by the Axe “Chocolate Man” commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZK7HS9J46Y). I get the idea of it, but having a white guy spray this stuff on himself and turning dark brown with huge white eyes and white smiling teeth? Yikes!
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:47 pm ¶
Q'd wrote:
Just my two cents and @karak:
I read the billboard with the Japanese eye differently.
In German, “jagen” can just mean “to hunt,” not specifically whaling (though the whale/eye makes this specific point more obvious). My read of it, given the broad meaning of “jagen,” was that it was supposed to reference “Yellow Peril” as an incitement to both fear and revile the Japanese. To me, it seemed to be drawing attention to the whaling aspect –as Asada says–by evoking a visceral response in the consumer of fear toward the Japanese, who aren’t shown whaling but are depicted only as a watchful, metaphorical eye.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:47 pm ¶
Leigh wrote:
Ugh, I find them all reall unsettling and offensive.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:59 pm ¶
Leigh wrote:
I meant really unsettling and offensive. Sorry, typo!
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 6:59 pm ¶
Dirge wrote:
The first two are “clearly” ambigous.
The smoking monkey can be anything. Its the juxtaposition of an animal who is smoking(something they presumably don’t do) that makes that one interesting. There is nothing to suggest the monkey is supposed to be Obama simply because it was placed near a sticker that mocks an Obama ad. (its impossible not to mock those ads given their ubiquity. I hear there is a Sarkozy one in France) Most newspapers boxes, light posts, walls, etc. have a smattering of stickers, graffiti,engravings, etc. put up by different people that are unrelated. So very post-modern.I’m banking the author meant it to mean “less hope for the kids” and the “white” child could have been an arbitrary choice.
The handbag would be uncontroversial if the background wasn’t black. Why they chose black, now that is good question but it could be simply a fashion choice because apparently black is always in.(Or black is always the new black)
The last two are clearly racialized in their semiotics(The eye with the epicanthic fold represents Japan in a no-brainer association.)
I don’t see how it is the Geisha stereotype since all we get is the eye, which is not gender nor occupation nor race specific.
Japan is not the only place where that phenotypic feature is common however since the billboard references Japan we can be safe in our conclusion that the eye is a signifier for Japan. With the fish tales swooping off the corner we might infer that Japan has whales in their eye(not literally of course) but whaling remains an issue or concern for that nation.
While the ad uses a “racial” feature to get its point across that does not mean that it is trying to make some connection between that feature and whaling such that the tendency to hunt whales is somehow inherent to those who possess that facial feature. The ad is explicit with its text that this is about Japans reluctance to halt whaling.
Perhaps they could have used a more cultural artifact to represent Japan like a Kitana slicing belly of a giant, blubbery whale but I’m sure many would still have a problem with it.
I do have a problem with the notion that one nation or group of people can’t call another nation or group of people on its shit if the two nations are typed as “racially” different.
Thats bogus.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 7:09 pm ¶
Xiphactinus audax wrote:
“This ad reminds me of a reality show I’ve seen advertised about a group of mostly white animal rights “activists” going out to sea to stop the Japanese from killing whales.”
Whale Wars, incidentally. From what little I’ve seen, it’s the whale killing part that angers them rather than who’s doing it (though Japan’s history of shenanigans, like claiming their whaling is “research”, can’t help matters)…
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶
Lauren wrote:
Might the kid in the sticker be referencing old skinhead imagery? It’s a stretch, but the hair (or lack thereof), checkered shirt, and overalls (or are they suspenders)?
Just a thought.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 9:55 pm ¶
susan wrote:
I know some conservatives think Obama is a “baby killer” (ie pro choice) and I think the top image is about babies having less hope. Blech.
Posted 12 Dec 2008 at 10:09 pm ¶
Stentor wrote:
My first read of the sticker was that it was an abortion thing, but then I realized the kid is wearing clothes, and I would think for an abortion message they’d use a naked fetus or newborn. So then I took it as saying despite all the hoopla about having our first black president, prospects are still not good for the average black kid (a sort of “Obama is not the messiah” thing).
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 12:57 am ¶
Greta Torin wrote:
I didn’t experience the Less Hope ad as a black child. I think it is a white child, but I also don’t think it is saying there is less hope for white children after Obama. That would just be ridiculous. Abortion foes wouldn’t pick such a creepy child, so it’s not that. I actually found it a bit humorous with a meaning I can’t quite put into words. Sort of something like “with freaky children like this running around how much hope can we have?” OTOH, I don’t think the smoking monkey has any reference to Obama whatsoever.
I had to have the Japanese eye poster explained to me. Even when I read the translation I didn’t see a message of equivalency between race and the propensity to hunt whales. The more I think about it the more I see it as insensitive.
However, the kneejerk rejection of anti-whaling activists simply because they are white is offensive and stupid to me. Activists have no right to criticize whaling if they are white and the whalers are Asian? I find that as racist as it is idiotic.
The Philip Lim bag is a blatant reference to the “darky” image and has no excuse.
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 3:00 am ¶
CVT wrote:
@BSK – I posted on the Axe commercials a while back:
http://choptensils.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-axe-dark-temptation.html
As for the baby picture, I read the “intended message” posted above, and I STILL have no idea what it’s supposed to convey. In fact, it seems to want to be vague and uninterpretable – which makes me believe it’s still actually my #1 assessment.
The eye is straight racist. You might as well draw a Japanese geisha caricature while you call out the practices of a particular nation – because, as Atlasien pointed out, it’s not ALL Japanese PEOPLE who whale; it’s just legal in that NATION. And when we start saying that all of a particular kind of people do something (by equating it with “slanted” eyes, as opposed to the country – like Tony said), we’re talking racism. Especially because most people are going to think of that as an “Asian” eye – and equate evil whale-killers with all Asians. Ridiculous.
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 12:29 pm ¶
blaster wrote:
Even before reading the comments that had what the artist’s take on the “less hope” stickers is, I actually found them harmless.
To me, I read “less hope” as “don’t hope for things to get better, work for things to get better” and the face of the youth I interpreted to be intentionally nameless — it represents the next generation, and what they need are material advances and changes, not simply hope.
Having seen a bunch of radical left and right graffiti, stickers, and the like the overall motif of that sticker makes me think it’s a leftist message (”don’t hope, act”) and not a rightist message about obama.
I count myself among those who are skeptical of false hopes, and consequently skeptical of anyone who is telling me to “hope” for things to get better. Marx said that religion was opiate of the masses. I think a more correct statement is that hope is the opiate of the masses.
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶
MK wrote:
@ Greta Torin
While race concerns the ad, it has little to do with the actual whaling. We, who have mentioned it, are just pointing out that the anti-whaling activists happen to be white and use radical practices to stop Japanese whalers. Maybe there is some underlying meaning, but who knows. Please don’t condemn our concerns by calling them stupid, racist, idiotic and offensive.
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶
Teabag wrote:
Q’d
Yes, “jagen” means “to hunt” in general (German has no specific verb for “hunting whales”), but what is being hunted is specified through a visual clue in the poster, the more or less whale-shaped eye. Of course, they could have written “Japan jagt noch immer Wale”, but it probably wasn’t spelled out in order to give people this little riddle to solve: “What do they still hunt? Oh, whales!”
I would not interprete too much into this aspect.
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶
Lorraine wrote:
Ugh. These things really annoy the crap out of me. I don’t know what the message of the baby is. I totally missed the racism in the asian-eye image until a commenter explained it. *shakes head* Thanks gatamala.
I linked to this post on my blog.
Lorraine
http://honkytalkantiracism.blogspot.com
Posted 13 Dec 2008 at 5:50 pm ¶
ahimsa wrote:
These images are definitely disturbing.
On a related topic, I saw my first NOBAMA bumper sticker a few days ago. I live in a mostly pro-Obama/anti-Bush area so I’d never seen one before.
In addition to the NOBAMA text, there was an image of his face with a red circle and slash over it. I know that political bumper stickers can get very nasty with language (all over the political spectrum) but this one seemed more disturbing to me for some reason. I felt that using Obama’s face (and it’s hard to identify it as any specific person when it’s a small graphic on a bumper sticker) made it look more like “no blacks” or even “no black men” (ooh, scary!) than “I’m against this specific politician.” But maybe I’m reading too much into it?
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 12:08 am ¶
Psycheycho wrote:
I thought that the “Less Hope” sticker was referring to Obama’s age, and the critcism that he recieved for being so young and inexperienced (like a baby).
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 2:53 am ¶
Shauna wrote:
The first image I read as Obama was the baby, saying that he wasn’t ready too be president because he was too young and inexperienced. If it was supposed to convey any message though then it failed because its so ambiguous, but ambiguity may have been the point.
The second image I think is different from blackface because the point of blackface is that the person is ridiculous and mocked by the audience. However, in the bag the face is a typical cutesy face and is not mocked by the audience, it looks like a Black Betty Boop, celebrated as cute and beautiful. The only similarity is the literally black background and the bright red lips.
The third image I think is really offensive because it takes a stereotypical ‘Asian eye’ and highlights that to represent one of many Asian nations, villifying that ethnic feature along with whaling.
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 3:14 am ¶
Shauna wrote:
aw man psychecho beat me to the other obama interpretation
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 3:15 am ¶
Lisa J wrote:
MK
I don’t get your last comment. So racism is ok if it is part of a crusade against another wrong? Is whaling bad (except when used to survive ala Eskimos) yes, but saying it is ok to fight against it by using clearly racist imagery?!! That is so wrong headed. I also don’t think anyone here has said being against whaling is stupid or racist but using a clearly Asian eye as the sole image in an ad against whaling in Japan and making the eye appear to be a whale image is clealy racist, at least to me and many others. To me it sounds like you are engaging in the whole “you are being too sensitive” school of trying to silence minority voices when they speak out against racism. Since when is it better to say it is ok to caricature and promote discrimination against your fellow humans while defending non-humans? I’m sorry to seem to single you out but I found this to be really, clearly racist and if you or others don’t get it, well to quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers, ” If you have to ask, you’ll never know!”
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 3:46 am ¶
Reiter wrote:
I saw a commercial for that whale wars show and pretty much rolled my eyes. What next? White privileged peaceniks ramming Inuit boats and demanding them to stop hunting whales and seals just because they say so? The anti-whaling ad definitely bugs me if only because as a Chinese-American I get enough jokes at work for supposedly killing the shark population and eating cats and dogs.
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 5:33 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
More on the “animal rights” movement and its problematic (racial) politics.
“I love animals”
http://stuffwhitepeoplesay.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/i-love-animals/
“Shark Fin Soup”
http://www.bigwowo.com/2008/12/shark-fin-soup/
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 7:35 am ¶
jaye wrote:
I thought the Less Hope image was an image of a baby Obama, and I really didn’t understand the meaning at all. After reading all these comments, I still don’t, although it was interesting reading what people thought of the two stickers being put together.
And I didn’t understand what the billboard meant either until I read some of the explanations, and now that I get it, yeah, it’s pretty racist. I remember watching the ads for Whale Wars, and I was pretty pissed with the wording “The Japanese have killed thousands of whales, it’s up to us to stop them.” Rather than saying they’re trying to stop anyone that kills whales, they pinpoint the Japanese in the ad, as though that’s what Japanese people do, kill whales. While the brave Caucasian-Americans are defenders of all lovable creatures, great and small.
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 10:00 am ¶
MK wrote:
Lisa J-
I wasn’t trying to speak for minorities (I am one, by the way, and I hate when white liberals and conservatives speak for us, for different reasons).
Yes, that ad is disturbing and odd, but both Japanese whalers and the so-called activists that harress them to stop them are at fault. I might have worded my last post horribly, but what I was trying to do was respond to the earlier post that called our “knee-jerk” reaction offensive, idiotic, and the like. The anti-whaling activists, at least in that show, remind me of PETA, and they happen to be white. Instead of ramming the Japanese whaling ships and throwing stink bombs onto them, why don’t they do something more productive to further their cause? Yay for baby boomers and their “progressive” mindset.
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“In addition to the NOBAMA text, there was an image of his face with a red circle and slash over it. I know that political bumper stickers can get very nasty with language (all over the political spectrum) but this one seemed more disturbing to me for some reason. I felt that using Obama’s face (and it’s hard to identify it as any specific person when it’s a small graphic on a bumper sticker) made it look more like “no blacks” or even “no black men” (ooh, scary!) than “I’m against this specific politician.” But maybe I’m reading too much into it?”
I dunno… I’ve seen similar anti-HRC materials before. Now, my father and I saw an “Obama 2008″ bumpersticker with a Curious George-esque monkey on it on some guy’s truck. For some reason, we eventually came to the conclusion that the occupant was not a supporter….
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 8:19 pm ¶
deb wrote:
The “Less Hope” picture makes me think that it might have something to do about Obama’s political views on abortion. Maybe?
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 10:58 pm ¶
Dirge wrote:
@Lisa J
Is has nothing to do with not getting it.
Its all about interpretation, and one interpretation is not necessarily “better” nor more “accurate”(in the sense of reading the creators intentions) than another.
If one reads it as racist,than it is racist to them because we can only know a thing at the point of “reading”, though we can’t rule out that the creator may have had some racists intention. And if even not, that they used such a “racialized” feature may suggest a readiness to racialize others and use race as a proxy for critiquing behavior.
The fact is the creators of the ad used “racialized” imagery but that does not mean the intention was to connect Asians with whaling though it is trying to connect Japan with whaling and therefore they may have used a Japanese person as the model for the ad though there is no distinct marker to suggest the person is Japanese except for the context of the ad: we know it is an ad critical of Japanese whaling practices.
And it pretty explicit about that so I don’t think its possible to stereotype Asians based off this ad.
However, I do think using physical features like that has no place in an ad critiquing the practices of a nation simply because for one it draws attention to the feature so one cant help but to attach some significance to it even there really is none, except for the fact that we can presume that the face is supposed to be that of a Japanese person.
Posted 14 Dec 2008 at 11:34 pm ¶
blaster wrote:
@Greta Torin, as a radical leftist of color, I think the question is not “is it fair to criticize the anti-whaling group because they’re white” but rather “why are they white” and at least part of the answer has to do with it being a group that has failed to confront its own racism, and this shines through with an example like this.
I actually have had the… experience… of meeting the captain of said ship – the Sea Shepherd. His name is Paul Watson, and he’s an egotistical, self-promoting, classist white man who I have mostly unkind words to say about. I have heard him blame innocent people for being in prison because they were too poor to afford a better lawyer, in response to a question about how he feels about getting away with things when others go to prison for far less.
The reality is that these groups are largely white because they go unchallenged when they perpetuate or support racism. This ad is clearly racist. PETA loves to equate animals to Black men in chattel slavery. The Sea Shepherd and related groups have said very racist things to indigenous groups who have gone whaling. This is documented, and this is the problem, and this is a large part why the reality show is showing a bunch of white kids.
http://www.certain-natl.org/racism_in_the_ar_movement.html
Those who care more about people than whales disgust me. Those who care about people and whales should know that if they want to do something to help the whales, they need to be working towards an inclusive movement – and that means no pulling shit that attacks your allies and potential allies because of how their eyes look.
Posted 15 Dec 2008 at 12:26 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@GEC: I think I vote hot mess! Red. hot. mess.
@blaster: “Why are they white” is such an amazing question. I think we often forget to ask it when things collide in this way because of all of the focus placed on the “other” subject. But it’s a crucial question to confront. If the ad were created by an org run by black Nigerians and appearing in Lagos, even the audience here wouldn’t hesitate to investigate that trajectory.
Posted 15 Dec 2008 at 10:52 am ¶
polerin wrote:
The bags go beyond blackface as reference to performers, it is directly tied to the “antique” statues that are making a comeback among people who think they are hip edgy pieces of southern imagery.
Posted 15 Dec 2008 at 10:52 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
1. I thought I was going crazy looking at Whale wars. Thanks blaster for the info. Those people have some balls.
Dirge
I don’t see how it is the Geisha stereotype since all we get is the eye, which is not gender nor occupation nor race specific.
Surely you did not miss the white paint?
Posted 15 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm ¶
one hapa wrote:
@MK, and thanks to blaster for the excellent question and info on Paul Watson:
I watched Whale Wars over the weekend for about a hot minute – the episode I saw had the captain (Paul Watson) sending the crew’s four women out to board (uninvited) one of the Japanese whaling ships. He said something about “their society…won’t know what to do with women”. Aaaaaaand that was about when I turned off the TV in disgust.
Posted 15 Dec 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
@MK know I understand where you were coming from and it seems like we are on the same page. Thanks for clarifying for me
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 1:43 am ¶
skott wrote:
I usually just lurk here and I don’t think I have much new to contribute, but I wanted to voice my opposition to those who claim naivety as a defense for the creators of the above images.
1. The Less Hope sticker – I’m a bit embarrassed to admit to knowing people like this, but prior to the election I did talk to some so-called radicals who actually did not want Obama to win because they feared complacency and thought a McCain win would increase the chances of ‘The Revolution.’ (You may be familiar with the type of person I’m talking about.) I have a serious problem with this point of view, because even if it should cause the political pendulum to eventually swing further leftward, in the meantime there will be many people disenfranchised even more than they are already. To me, it comes from a place of privilege. I suspect that the makers of this sticker hold the former point of view.
2. The tote bag – maybe the blackface/darky resemblance is a coincidence (and this is a doubtful maybe) but someone at some point probably made the connection and pointed it out and this should have kept it from being distributed. It’s like someone (perhaps accidentally) saying something that sounds racist to certain people and then handing out free CDs of that person speaking. Seriously, why? The fact that it is being given out for free means that the store would lose nothing for not giving it out and in my opinion should cease doing so.
3. The poster – perhaps this is due to my second-hand experience of seeing close friends deal with Asian exoticism, but I made the eye-racial connection right away and I second Atlasien as to why this is offensive. Also, as an American, I think it is completely hypocritical for us to condemn the anti-environmental actions of another nation considering our own track record. (It upsets me greatly to think that the global warming we are contributing a huge amount to is going to be most detrimental to nations and people that hardly benefited from the technologies that brought it about.) Germany may have cleaned up its act somewhat, but we all have blood on our hands. Let’s fix our own problems before we tell another nation what it ought to be doing (or not doing).
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 2:11 am ¶
Lisa J wrote:
@Dirge. I semi-disagree with you about “getting it”. If you have one opinion and I have one that is diametrically opposed and can’t even conceive why you think what you think then I don’t get what you are saying. I may or may not be valuing you opinion/interpretation/read on things and may just disagree or I might not only disagree but have made a value judgement and think the other opinion is evil or mean or just plain dumb. Either way, I am not getting what you are saying or opining. Now if I disagree but can at least understand why you might think what you think or “get” where you are coming from. I originally thought that an argument was being put forward that the ad was in no way racist and was good b/c it was speaking out against a bad thing, hence my assuming the person not getting it.
I also disagree a bit with your assesment of the sign. Or think I do b/c I’m not exactly sure whether you think the ad is racist or not after reading your comment several times. I see it as very racist for not just addressing the issue and drawing attention to it about a country by using and obvious racial marker that applies to that country. And I don’t think I said anything about it stereotyping all of Asia I just think it is racist, or maybe at best extremely insensitive
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
coco wrote:
I immediately thought about blackface when I first saw that Lim bag, but thought I might have been reaching
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
Re: Comments about the Philip Lim bag being hard to read…
The color scheme of the bag is, to me, the most unfortunate aspect and I would have a very difficult time believing that any designer working in America would think presenting a face with full cheeks and pursed lips in that specific color scheme would be ok. It is, regardless of intent, an iconic image. Red lips, black face = Blackface, just as three circles drawn together in a certain way = Mickey Mouse, even if, for example, someone like Murakami chooses to alter and reinterpret that iconic image to make a point:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2667047461_63ebb5a127.jpg?v=0
The image still contains very specific historical significance and acts a symbol for things that are, for the most part, readily identifiable – America, capitalism, pop culture, mass production, branding, childhood, etc.
If Lim was trying to reinterpret Blackface or comment on it, I think that perhaps his medium – a tote bag for mass production that will probably not be mostly purchased by people with advanced degrees in something like Ethnic Studies or Art History or people who are otherwise deeply immersed and interested in discussions on race and ethnicity – is not the best choice. This, then, leads me to believe that even brining that up as a possibility is giving the people behind this bag a little too much credit. THAT would be reaching.
But to say that this bag was designed, approved and mass produced without any thought as to the racial and historical implications entrenched in this particular image in this very specific color scheme is, frankly, b.s.
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 10:10 pm ¶
A. wrote:
I do want that bag though…
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶