If You Buy Becks Modeling Clay, We Can End Racial Strife!
by Latoya Peterson
Or not.
I get what they’re going for, but I must admit my first thought was “So now there will be a serving of love with our racial terrorism?”
They also put together this ad:
Thoughts?
(Thanks to Copyranter – who termed it KKKlay-Doh – and tartedelune for the tip!)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
CVT wrote:
For whatever the purpose, I think I’d be a little bit disturbed if my kid wanted to build himself a little klay klansman. Now, if the other ad had been a Nazi SS officer dancing with the Jew, at least they’d be consistent . . .
Not okay. The second one is more light and positive. The first one? Probably one of the more offensive ways they could have made – what should be – a positive point.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 10:43 am ¶
Just A Thought wrote:
This was an epic fail. How can this even be an attempt to seriously address racial issues given the fact that the black clay model is a gross mischaracterization. The first thing I thought when I saw it was Sambo. And is it a man, a woman? Are they trying to hit a bunch of demographics at once (look, we’re so into reconciliation that we have a Klansman wooing a man that’s black AND gay!). This is definitely not okay.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 10:54 am ¶
Madame Zenobia wrote:
With the first image I am reminded of a skit that didn’t fly on Season 1 of “Chappelle’s Show”. Basically, the sketches that dealt with true acceptance/equality for gays.
There was a sketch where a gay KKK member ‘nicely’ recommended the black people in the community to, ‘go back to Africa’.
Related, but not really; somewhat random, I know—but that’s where my mind went upon seeing the first set of figurines.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 10:55 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
Errrrmmm…I get what they’re trying to get at, too. The ad campaign misses the mark because it takes an overly mushy tack to dealing with racism. As if hundreds, if not thousands, of years can be wiped out with clay, flowers, and a 70s dance move.
And I’m not feeling how gender codes are conflated in these scenes–the Klansperson giving flowers to the PoC in a pink-and pearls room (coded as “female”) which plays into the idea of abuse/terror can be wiped away with some flowers–be it for white women or PoCs. Or the act of an Arab kneeling before a Jewish man, impressed by his physicality (coded in the dancing) in what’s supposed to be coded as a “boy’s room” (cars, dinosaurs, rock guitar), as if men are supposed to subordinate themselves before a physically “better” man.
This could have been solved by 1) putting the models in positions that suggest a meeting of equals reaching recinciliation(offering an olive branch, breaking bread) and 2) with a background not so so gendered–a pale yellow living room, a sherbert-colored kitchen, outside under trees.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:06 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
When I saw this image I rolled my eyes and thought “Well, there is a different take on the old ‘Arab and Jew embrace’ to illustrate opposites coming together thing” And then I scrolled down.
Sigh.
That little clay black man sure has some bright red lips though, huh? Where did they get the reference for this figure, the Nineteenth century?
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:07 am ¶
mistersquid wrote:
The first image would send an entirely different message if the hooded figure had his hood in one hand and roses in the other.
As is, that first image is downright frightening, suggesting that all a black woman (person?) needs is a tawdry symbol of romantic intention to forgive 150 years of terrorist oppression.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:09 am ¶
Amused0472 wrote:
I’m at a loss for the first image. I get the sentiment (I think), but the imagery of a KKK member just can’t invoke anything positive. I can easily read a totally negative subtext into this like “I just pulled these flowers out of your garden so I can burn my cross in your yard.”
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:15 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
I guess I just don’t get the first one. For starters, ditch the robes if you’re trying to make peace. And it seems to imply that black people would be open to Klan woo or something? Perhaps even overcome by it (look at that body language!) Which I doubt. It just makes no sense.
The second seems to imagine a more equitable engagement, but still.
The whole concept is muddy and kind of crap.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:16 am ¶
Monie wrote:
I’m confused; is the stereotypical portrayal of a Black person in the first pic supposed to be a man or a woman?
This is pathetic.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:26 am ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
the 2nd ad is totally funny, it shows a Muslim (who looks Afghan/Pathan, not Arab) and an orthodox Jew having a good time together, but the 1st ad is just tacky, awful, and ignorant.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:38 am ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
the 2nd ad is kind of ignorant (or misinformed).
Why are they showing an AFGHAN/PATHAN Muslim man with an orthodox Jew? If it’s supposed to be about Israel-Palestine, then I’m afraid it’s a huge epic fail because that Muslim man’s outfit does NOT represent the Arab world.
Sigh, not again. One of those ignorant cases where Americans think bellydancing is Desi or that South Asians are Middle Eastern…
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:41 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
“the second one is more light and positive’
Sigh.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 11:43 am ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
Are these ads for real?
As Just a Thought wrote, the black figurine pretty much looks like a racial stereotype.
It’s also weird that both the Arab and the Black figurines are placed in subservient positions. The Arab figurine is on his knees (weird) and the Black figurine is looking coquettish.
It seems like whoever made these ads had their own subconscious (or conscious?) problematic racial stereotypes going on…
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
Shelby wrote:
Because friendship keeps the police from shooting at me! Yay!
Sorry, white people. You being my friend doesn’t make you not racist or me not oppressed. (And what’s the Klan member holding behind his back? A chocolate-covered noose? Or maybe a sugar-coated assault rifle..)
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:09 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Isn’t the kneeling figure in the second image playing an air guitar? Is anyone else seeing this?
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
@ A.D. Nix
I see it now – thanks for pointing that out. Esp b/c there’s a Guitar Hero (?) guitar in the background.
Still, doesn’t change the optics of the image… And also teaches us that girls like romance and boys like rocking. Never the other way around!!!!11!!!
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Yes. AD..
****
Needs a lot of work.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Thea
Oh, doesn’t change it at all. Just gives the kneeling more context. It’s still a choice made.
@ gatamala
Confused. What needs a lot of work?
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:24 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:
@A. D. Nix
Yes. To me it looks like they are playing air guitar together.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:26 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:
Swing and a miss.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:35 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Um, you don’t need to be on your knees to play an air guitar. Or to play “Guitar Hero.”
Arabs (even incredibly inaccurate portrayals, thanks UDMPG) on their knees does not equal “a more equitable engagement.”
Jesus.
For whatever its worth the portrayal of the Jewish figure in the second image is also inaccurate if the “conflict’ being parodied here is Palestine/Israel. Many Hasidim oppose Israel for religious and political reasons. Come to any rally in support of Palestine in New York City and there will be plenty of Hasidim there.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Joseph
Good God. Obviously you don’t have to be on your knees to play air guitar (hence “It’s still a choice made”). The point was to respond to Thea Lim’s “weird” which suggested she didn’t know where the kneeling might be coming from (and you’ll see, she didn’t).
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
I think they are both stupid.
United Colors of Benetton did it better.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 12:58 pm ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
I just wanted to point out to everyone that the “Arab” in the picture does NOT look Arab, his clothes and appearance are Pathan/Afghan.
I don’t understand what Orthodox Jews and Pathan/Afghans have to do with each other.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 1:01 pm ¶
thebiblophile wrote:
Who is being targeted in these ads? Certainly not children? I can hardly imagine a 4 – 10 year old understanding or being able to contextualize the images in these advertisements. Does anyone know more of the context of the release of these ads? What agency created the campaign?
I heard Tim Wise speak the other day – and he said something that’s really stickin out for me: the role of pathology when thinking about racism. Yes, certainly all the isms are grounded in systemic oppression and they are also paired with deeply embedded pychological pathology. These images just scream to me: PATHOLOGY! It almost made me have a code 10 moment….
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@A.D. Nix
Yes, and you wrote that it seemed “a more equitable engagement” before any of that. Look, I am the opposite of interested in getting into this with you again. You have made yourself perfectly clear.
Lets just agree to disagree.
@UDMPG
You are exactly right–they don’t have anything to do with each other. It would still be offensive it were accurate but that fact that the figures are so wrong says a lot about the image.
…Every time I look at the “Arab” figure I think, “EAT papa! No one wants a skinny Santa!”
Also: I agree with Thea Lim (@ #13): I think the black figure is a pseudo-pickaninny with a grotesque, clownish smile. I’m surprised more folks haven’t commented on it.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Unless we’re meant to read one of the figures in the second image as a member of a hate group I do think the two parties “rocking out” together (even with subtle sub/dom positioning) demonstrates a slightly different kind of engagement. Even with gender ambiguity taken out of the equation.
@ Joseph
I saw the air guitar in it from jump. What’s your point? If you don’t want to get into it with me, then, please, don’t commence engagement. It’s really that simple. That, I think we can agree on.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Joe/Nixy –
CHILL. Bury the past thread hatchet.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 1:49 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Uncomfortable with the first image, though I think I get the idea. Creepy.
The second one — I thought the guy on the left was supposed to be Iranian or something.
Still, not quite. Doesn’t do it for me. Tho i can sort of see what they were going for.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 2:01 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:
“Why are they showing an AFGHAN/PATHAN Muslim man with an orthodox Jew? If it’s supposed to be about Israel-Palestine, then I’m afraid it’s a huge epic fail because that Muslim man’s outfit does NOT represent the Arab world.”
Yeah, the Jewish figure doesn’t really represent Israel too well, either. (Or, well, anyone really. Kind of a mishmash of a bunch of “Jewish” stuff that would never really all be together on one person like that.)
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@UDMPG–Mistake referring to the kneeling man in the second photo as “Arab” noted, and I apologize for my mistake.
@Joseph–not to pick on you–’cause you know I lurves ya–but we all don’t outrage at the same parts of the images at once. Maybe it’s not that folks haven’t noticed the Sambo-esque features of the Black figure, but wanted to dissect other parts of the photos’ meanings. You’ve noticed it; Just a Thought noticed it. Others may still be trying to figure out the images and coming up with responses. We got the weekend, and I betcha more will notice and saying something. Give them a minute, luvie.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@LDP
You’re right. I need to let it go. I should have framed my interactions as questions (i.e. “Why do you think the second image seems more equitable”). I’ll do that from now on.
@TCS
Oh, I know. I wasn’t complaining re: the pickaninny stuff per se–I was wondering out loud. Sorry if my irritation at the other stuff colored the tone of my post and that wasn’t clear. I have been teaching “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and when I saw this image it just jumped out at me. I actually thought your reading of these images for gender was really sophisticated and subtle. Please consider this a belated cosign.
As far as folks reacting to different elements in these images in different time and from the bases of different experience I couldn’t agree more. I guess some of my current frustration comes from having to constantly defend my analysis of images that are about me. It is completely exhausting.
And I lurves you too.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
It’s interesting to leave this site and see what others think of this ad campaign. Consider this headline:
Racially-Sensitive Toy Campaigns
Wow… the intent and the effect don’t quite match up in my mind. Unless this is a clever play on words, where the Klansman is “sensitive” because he’s offering flowers, there’s no way you could call this racially sensitive.
It reminds me of our good friends at PETA and their shock value KKK costumes last month.
And it also has me wondering: are there certain images that we should label out of bounds, always, no matter what? It’s’ similar to the conversation going on in another thread about race and comedy. Should certain words be off limits?
I think that images carry more weight than words…
I’d like to open this one up… are there certain images that because of their history should be labeled off limits?
Is there any way to appropriately use blackface, a noose, the Klan, etc. in pop culture?
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶
RMJ wrote:
The second one is sort of okay – at least it’s not sexualized and they look like they are having fun and joining in some kind of egalitarian activity (sub/dom aside). I think the first one’s been covered – the lips are weird, the sexualization, etc.
If they wanted to do a black/white thing, why don’t they have a coded Southerner – hunting jacket, camo, NASCAR, mullet, something like that – giving the flowers or whatever other sign of camradarie? Even a Confederate flag trucker hat (or some other sort of flag gear) would be better and more era-appropriate than a KKK member (though still not totally cool).
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Numa wrote:
Is it just me or does the kneeling figure in the second picture not look a wee bit like Ayatollah Khamenei? Well the white beard, black turban combo immediately brought him to mind for me and if that’s a representation of him having a dance then I think it’s made of EPIC WIN!
Now I have this image of the world’s religious leaders getting together and doing a choreographed dance to a Spice Girls song…
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Respectfully cosigning with Minotaar and thebibliophile; AWESOME handles, by the way.
I’m gonna make the argument that both of these depictions are equally offensive. Why? Because of the extremely unwise usage of hyper coding in order to create the visual metaphor. I mean, the ads don’t have text or sound, so the only way to communicate is with imagery, so following that logic, the pictures have to “shout.” The problem, of course, like with actual shouting, is that while we often hear the noise, but can’t make out the words.
My take on this: the use of the Klansman (?!?!?!?) and afro-wearing Black man above and the Afghan/Pathan man (thanks for the clarification UDMPG!, I knew something was messy there but I couldn’t quite figure it out) and Hasidic man is probably best understood as the drawing out of conceptions of ” extreme” ideologies. The great big ol’ ‘fro on the Black man may indicate that he is a nationalist (although I think a dashiki may have come in handy, the lip thing is outta control), and the Klansman…well, his ideology has a uniform, so that writes itself. The only way the second pic “works” is if the Afghan/Pathan man is understood as being the conflation of the Arab/Muslim/Persian/anti-Israel militant (<–sorry for that, I don’t agree, I’m just saying it seems like that’s what they’re going for here) and the Hasidic man is understood as being pro-Israel. As Joseph astutely pointed out, many Hasidim are NOT pro-Israel…but a conservative pro-Israel Jewish man in a yarmulke would have probably been too subtle for an ad like this, I don‘t know. At the very least, the idea for both ads is how the antipathy arising from diametrically-opposed ideological positionality is easily remedied with flowers and air-guitaring.
SIGH. This is gonna fuck up how I see Play-Doh for a minute.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:10 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
And here we have reason #46876846478 why multicultural ad agencies will never go out of business.
Failed execution of a nice concept, and it’s a shame. My first guess is that the original simply had a White guy with the Black guy but the client thought it was to vague and wanted something more “hardhitting.” My second is that whoever did this wanted some controversy to be had to create a “buzz.” It’s a shame, because this really had the potential to be good.
Also, that lil clay Klansman is fooling no one. We know he has a brick in the hand behind his back.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
Why are they showing an AFGHAN/PATHAN Muslim man with an orthodox Jew? If it’s supposed to be about Israel-Palestine, then I’m afraid it’s a huge epic fail because that Muslim man’s outfit does NOT represent the Arab world.
That may have been intentional– they want to represent Islamic-Jewish harmony rather than get themselves in hot water with Israel-Palestine.
Though this would be a lot better argument if the whole thing didn’t have so much fail on it. That KKK one just weirds me right the fuck out.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:25 pm ¶
Samer wrote:
WTF.
What’s with the wave of post racist shit? The second one is less fucked up only because being Jewish doesn’t mean you’re a Zionist (Two VERY different things) and I’m convinced it’s a disco dance. Not all Jews sport curls, and not all Arabic people rock turbans and beards.. the first is too fucked up to express in words.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
Muslims and Jews have a longstanding beef that involved wrongdoing on both sides.
Black people have solely been victims of the Klan.
The two things do not line up.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶
Free wrote:
@ mistersquid – my thoughts exactly, plus all those teeth signal a trap: lured with flowers towards the gnashing of teeth, a Fatal Attraction.
@UDMPG – first impressions: huh? Afghans and Jews need reconciliation? And why is the Afghan figure kneeling? Wow, that Orthodox Jew has a severe case of Saturday Night Fever – BLECH!
Why are the black and Afghan figures submissive?
Epic FAIL! Now back to Play-Doh 101 …
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 4:58 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Fiqah
How do you think things would read if the figures from one were swapped for the figures in another? Or with sub/dom positions reversed?
The great big ol’ ‘fro on the Black man may indicate that he is a nationalist (although I think a dashiki may have come in handy, the lip thing is outta control), and the Klansman…well, his ideology has a uniform, so that writes itself.
I didn’t see this as a representation of a Black Nationalist at all. An interesting read. I’m not sure how that might work itself out in this European context.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:07 pm ¶
Yonah wrote:
Ruchama: Yes, that “Hassidic” guy does NOT look like it… hassidim wear tight blue suits now? And where’s his tzitzit? (I guess maybe he wears them “in”?)
So while we’re pissed about the weird pseudo-Afghani thing, let’s take a minute to notice the weirdness on the other side, too.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:10 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
um, I don’t think that’s a black man in the first picture — the flowers and her stance tip it off for me (the pink background helps as well).
Also a the shape of the her lips are that cupid’s bow shape, which is feminine. I doubt a man’s lips would be so shapely.
I think ppl are stumbling over the hairstyle (and minimal breasts?). Which is my next peeve — that long hair is so closely coded as feminine that a black woman with a natural curly style is seen as a man — despite numerous cultural references to the contrary.
I don’t find her face to be a racist caricature. I liked seeing a black woman with natural hair depicted. Though the rest of the pic is objectionably unrealistic (both the klansman’s offer and her pleased acceptance).
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶
Lorraine wrote:
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@A.D. Nix: Honestly, I’m of the opinion that a lot of mainstream, average, erry-day folks equate the presence of an Afro (The Cruel Secretary explored this in her post about the now-infamous “New Yorker” Obama cover) with militant Black (nationalist/separatist/whatever-ist) ideology. I believe that this particular meme is so firmly-rooted that if Michelle Obama had actually worn a ‘fro, there’s no way President Obama would have won the popular vote…but now I’m getting off-topic.
So, yeah, that’s how I read it at first. But then the other elements – the large red lips, the big eyes, and the absence of that dashiki I mentioned – kinda threw me; Dr. Pilgrim at the Jim Crow Museum would be all over this.
I absolutely did not read this the Klansman-Black man as anything but American. I don’t know. I don’t get what they were going for at all.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:29 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Fiqah
If the image originated in the States, I’d be more likely to read it as militant. As Becks is a Germany company and the ad’s intended audience is European, I didn’t even get there.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:39 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@A.D. Nix: Oh, man, homey. Now I’m gonna have to think about the significance of “The Klansman” as an internationally-read meme. For the record, now that I look REALLY hard at the Black…er…person I’m not sure the militant thing holds. I do think that hyperbolic Blackness might be the idea, though. (BTW, I still don’t think it’s a woman; in keeping with the exaggerated themes of the characters I think that a woman would have been depicted as overtly-sexualized as the hyper-sexual “Jezebel” image does occupy a place in European racism. European print and other ads do often depict homosexual situations in a pedestrian manner that would just not fly stateside…rambling, sorry.)
Okay, head hurts. ::: passes torch :::
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 6:10 pm ¶
JT wrote:
“The first image would send an entirely different message if the hooded figure had his hood in one hand and roses in the other.”
Very true.
The tagline “Let the kids build a better world,” is a cute idea, but the carryout was a failure.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
WAIT!
::: takes torch back :::
Physical positioning: huh. A Black…er….person handing a Klansman flowers with a “sorry no hard feelings smile” is…:::exhales::: Okay, that would have been SO much worse. Because presumably the Klansman caused offense by being a Klansman…not the Black person by being Black. Now, the Hasidic man kneeling under the Afghan/Pathan…:::exhales again::: I really have no idea. Well, no, that’s not true, I have some idea, but the visual narrative in the second pic, reversed or as is, is disturbing when you take the standing over/kneeling under thing into account; this is LOADED imagery. Cosign with others who said that they could have put them at a table together or something.
Okay, I think I have exhausted this.
::: passes torch – for rill this time :::
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 6:50 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Fiqah
I’m gonna make the argument that both of these depictions are equally offensive.
Cosign.
…I am wondering why it is necessary to compare/rate the two images on a scale of more/less offensiveness? What is gained by this?
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 8:11 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@Joseph:
“…I am wondering why it is necessary to compare/rate the two images on a scale of more/less offensiveness? What is gained by this?”
WORD. It’s all a big bag of yucky. ::: tired little fist pump :::
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 8:33 pm ¶
queerhapa wrote:
Re: gender, how do we know the “klansman” is a man? Looks like it could be a pregnant woman under that robe to me. Now how would that shake up the racial and gender politics of the first image?
(Okay, I’m only being half serious here.)
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶
MelMel wrote:
What the hell? Is the Jew about to punch the Muslim dude? What is the Black person’s gender? The KKK is a legitimate culture? Gee, I didn’t know!
Aww, flowers? You shouldn’t have.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 10:33 pm ¶
Miss Profe wrote:
Another mis-guided advertising campaign. What were they thinking?!
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 1:53 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
These clay figures seem to perfectly express the White Liberal’s “Can’t We All Just Get Along” perspective on racism and ethnic relations.
It’s superficial as it is trite.
The only way these figures would “work” is if they were *parodying* this feel-good pablum.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 5:38 am ¶
Rchoudh wrote:
Both images are offensive to me in that symbols with loaded meanings are being used to “lighten the mood” among different and historically opposed groups. And why do German companies think that blacks all resemble “sambos” (remember the Obama doll created by a German toymaker?)
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 6:11 am ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Joseph -
“I guess some of my current frustration comes from having to constantly defend my analysis of images that are about me.”
I think that’s the thing. You don’t have to defend your position right off the bat. Because that leads to some of these verbal conflicts that get out of hand.
I missed it. I looked at the ads before breakfast at 6am before running off to work, dashed off some comments, and that was that. Mental note – should take more time or not comment at all, for sure. But no matter how aware I like to think I am, we all miss things at first blush.
And I come to this site to LEARN. From reading other comments (yours, included), I’ve definitely taken a step back from that “first look” and realized how ridiculous the second one was, as well – in fact, maybe even more stereotyped, in some ways.
But when you bring it first as dismissal or defense, it makes that learning harder. When you responded to my comment, all you had to do was explain your position, and I would have gotten it when I had the time to sit back and really look at it all. If you operate out of the assumption that I’m out to get you (which I’m not, I hope you read my last comment on the 300 thread), then you’re not going to be teaching me anything. And I’m more than willing to learn (or adjust).
I get how the frustration boils, and you won’t always have the patience to “teach” folks – but at least here, on this site, give people the benefit of the doubt. Not in the “real” world, maybe. But here. It will get you to some great discussions, which will bring down frustrations, as opposed to escalating.
I won’t comment on this again, but I felt the need to lay it out one last time.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 11:22 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:
i just don’t understand why it’s so difficult to read the black figure as a woman — feminine pose, shapely mouth, pink room (blah blah blah), heterosexist romantic offer.
the woman on the cover of kindred below has short hair and is wearing a shift. if she had on pants, and a loose top, are you telling me you’d be calling her a man? even after many contextual clues to the contrary?
i don’t know. i think the problem with the obama doll was that it had no connection to the reference. but, it didn’t have large lips or look particularly sambo-ish. it just looked nothing like the president (that’s racist, btw).
having a character with large lips or a large nose in is not inherently sambo-ish. portraying them as mindless, stupid, grinnin’, eating or stealing watermelon, getting eaten by alligators, that is. she looks most like this picaninny image found here. but to me, that image looks insulting and the one above does not. her skin tone is realistic, her mouth is proportionate to her nose, her eyes are not popped out any more than the other figures. it is a caricature but i don’t see where he went out of his way to to create an insulting portrait.
of course i have to divorce her from the klansman right next to her.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 11:40 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:
also, the afro does not signify militancy in and of itself, it’s the context that it’s placed in that signals militancy. for example, the new yorker cover, michelle obama was wearing an afro and a machine gun. that’s coded as militant. or, they might be shown with a black power fist, like angela davis.
in this case, the girl just has an afro, like i might have if you saw me in the street in 1998. her hair is being coded as militant by you, not the sculptor.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@cocolamala: Who are you addressing exactly?
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@CVT:
I understand what you are saying and I appreciate your reaching out to me (Here, and on the “300″ thread, which I’d long since abandoned, but went back to check when you asked). If you say that the posts you’ve made that I have objected to were a result of a too-quick read on your part then I believe you. But whether they came from carelessness or intent the result for me is the same: a rejection of my experience.
You are right that I have been coming on strong lately, although I think if you reviewed a history of my posts overall you’d see that is not usually my style. Why, then? Because of a sub-theme that pops up throughout the site on various comment threads which amounts to “Middle Eastern/South Asian/Islamic experiences do not count” or, “are less than.” You needn’t look further than this thread to see it. Your innocuous comment at the top initiated a thread-long discussion about the relative offensiveness of the two images. Latoya’s original post did not ask us to contrast them, or suggest that one was somehow “better” or “worse” than the other. And yet we have had days worth of just that, ranging from a description of the second image as “light and positive” to “Epic Win!” And all of this despite the fact that Arabs, Jews and Muslims have ALL weighed in on the various offensive elements in this image. Again, I wonder why that is? My argument is this: diminishing the impact of this image to the people it is designed to represent is not the same thing as analyzing it. and in my estimation that is exactly what has happened here. Again.
As far as the tone of my posts is concerned while your point is taken (see my response to LDP) I think it is important for me to say that if I have seemed angry lately that is because I AM angry. I am an Arab-American man, which means that I spend my entire life pretending to be less angry than I actually am–a pressure that surely some of you can identify with. When I post here I have an expectation of, if not understanding, then at least mutual respect from other folks who are going through their version of the same thing. But I haven’t been getting it and it is starting to grate on me.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Joseph -
I DEFINITELY hear you on the “anger coming through” thing. I actually wrote about that recently – the frustrating need to constantly “be the bigger person” when educating about race, when all you want to do is break things. So – I’ve got you. And anything I’ve said/done to further that I would like to apologize for (and do my best to stop from here on out).
I also get you on how my comment – no matter the circumstances – did negate your experience, so I’m on that, as well. As an Asian-American (a MIXED one, at that), I often fight against the “what do YOU know about race?” backlash all the time, so I admit I’m a bit embarrassed that my comment sparked the same kind of comparison in this thread.
I want to go into further detail, but I’m not trying to hijack this site, so please read this post (very timely, indeed) on my site, and we can continue this discussion there (or not, if you’re a bit burnt on it).
http://choptensils.blogspot.com/2009/03/youre-not-only-one.html
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@Joseph:
“Because of a sub-theme that pops up throughout the site on various comment threads which amounts to “Middle Eastern/South Asian/Islamic experiences do not count” or, “are less than.” ”
I think we’ve touched on this before, but just thought I’d reiterate – I totally agree! You know that I’ve noticed this before as well.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
i’m talking to the people who read her as a woman despite contextual evidence, and i mean the afro is being coded by you the reader as militant, more so than the sculptor is characterizing her as a militant character
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶
KatinPhilly wrote:
@Joseph and Sobia
I (not a Muslim or Arab-American) got absolutely flamed on some progressive comment threads during the presidential campaign for calmly pointing out how the lame or outright offensive defensiveness of Obama’s progressive and liberal supporters against the charges of him being an “Arab” or “Muslim” was hurtful and denigrating to the Arab and Muslim communities in the US (not to mention how this was playing out in the rest of the world). The nicest response I received was that Arabs and Muslims in the US should just “get over it”. I am still fuming over this. It took a Republican (Colin Powell), for christ’s sake, to finally take a publicly principled stance against the Arab and Muslim hating, much to our (the progressive and liberal community’s) shame.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 7:04 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
i meant “who read her as a man despite”
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@cocolamala: A few points.
1.) Per my original comment, I read both ads as equal-and-opposite parallels. The red thread connecting both these images, as I read them, may have been two men with extreme/fringe ideology, in which case saying “Afro = militant” is not that different from saying “Bearded Afghan/Pathan = militant” (<–sorry, once again, this is not my opinion, just what I thought they may have been going for). A.D. Nix pointed out that the Afro probably wouldn’t have the same connotations in Europe as it might here, at which point I wondered what a Klansman was doing in a German ad
2.) Per my later comment, the Black person may be read as androgynous. I think it’s significant that in two separate images with such exaggerated coding, the only thing we can say with certainty about the Black person is that they are Black.
3.) While I agree that long hair – and long hair only – is socially-coded as being feminine and desireable, I’d like to just state that what made me seriously doubt that the Black person is supposed to be a woman was the lack of secondary female characteristics (i.e., breasts and hips) AND the fact that zie is wearing a turtleneck and slacks, and no jewelry, NOT the absence of long hair. Why not have an exaggeratedly-female depiction if the Black person is in fact a woman? Or at least a dress?
4.) The pink background suggests that it’s a girl’s room, and not a whole lot else about the sex of the Klan member (thanks for pointing that out, queerhapa!) OR the Black person. As for the posing, I think that gender coding is a bit trickier to read there
5.) Dark skin + full lips + natural hair do not necessarily = Sambo. I agree, and I really think that everyone commenting here is sophisticated enough to know that phenotypic Blackness is not negative in and of itself, but it is not insignifcant that Blackness here falls along a historically-problematic visual narrative. Black people look like a lot of different things – so why this particular imagery?
6.) Finally, while I stated that Afros are often viewed as being militant, I never said that they were not subject to interpretation. You disagreed that the author was coding the Black person as militant. Fair enough. My take was one of a myriad possible reads of this image, and the logic guiding that possible interpretation – which I later stated myself that I was not so sure about – was laid out in my first comment. I’m really not trying to debate Sistagurl Hair Politik on this thread; there’s another post up right now that’s doing that just fine.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 10:08 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
@fiqah
fair enough
though i still have questions about interpreting her gender as male — i understand her not wearing a dress or earrings, (but she might be wearing lipstick) — that’s kind of essentialist, to require a woman without jewelry and short hair to wear a dress or something to signal her gender even though she’s in a traditionally feminine courtship pose.
i also think that the motto implies that the kids who live in these rooms are making these figures (of course that’s totally unrealistic), but if so, that means a child with a pink room is modeling a black man being courted by another ex-racist white man with flowers. that’s a very sophisticated gender expression for a child whose taste in room decor is so traditionally gendered.
i do like the way that differing interpretations are offered up for examination here. and that we are not forced to receive one as totally right or wrong. i am not interested in disrespect.
oh and i can’t say why they picked this particular looking woman for juxtaposition with the klansman in this ad. it doesn’t (and possibly couldn’t) mitigate the misguided idea that this figure would be charmed by the klansman’s offer, and that the creative direction was incredibly off target here. but if they used a real woman as a reference for this figure, i wouldn’t want to be calling her out her name because of her features either.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 12:18 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:
if they used a real woman as a reference, that could explain why she doesn’t have more bust or hips. a real woman is going to have her real body shape, not necessarily the curves that pop culture says we should have.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 12:27 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Fiqah
Per your image analysis – I’m more interested in the swapping of figures beyond their original contexts. I think the premise in the first image is more problematic than any match-up (on the theme of “Opposing Groups”) so no matter who jumps into it, it’s bizarre. Nazi soldier/Jewish person of either gender, First Nations person/pilgrim, “Janjaweed”/SLM.
I think it’s the extension (whether read as woo or apology) and reception that’s making it so damned bizarre.
cocolamala
I agree about the dangers in leaping to Sambo. And I’m about 99% sure we’re supposed to read the black figure as a woman.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 10:20 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@cocolamala
Your points about gender markers re: race are well taken, but I don’t think I would assume that advertisers have a comparable level of sophistication in terms of these portrayals. Unlike say, artworks–which invite multiple readings–ambiguity in advertising is a sign of its failure. By definition advertising is composed of simplistic, immediately recognizable images, tropes and themes. And these images are above all, advertisements.
Several of us have pointed out that both figures in the other image are a mish-mash of inaccurate elements that are combined in that way so that the conflict being parodied might be “read” in a split-second. In other words, the image is instantly recognizable not despite these inaccuracies but because of them. In that light it seems incredibly unlikely to me that the thinking behind the first image would take into consideration the subtleties you have pointed out in terms of race and gender.
I agree with A.D. Nix that context is the key here. Although you (and others) have understood it differently it seems to me that the intended “humor” of the first image is derived from the fact that both figures are male. In other words, the coquettish posture of the black man is analogous to the out-of-character smile and outstretched hand of the Klansman. For me, this is the real danger inherent in both of these images: the “joke” comes from how unlikely it would be to find the parties involved relating to one another in this way, which reinforces the impossibility of the purported “can’t we all just get along” message they are pretending to support.
I am not really disagreeing with you here– but rather pointing out that the mere fact of multiple, differing interpretations tells us that this image is a failure in its own terms. You and I both both know African American women who, with a few tweaks, might fit the image represented by the black figure here. But I seriously doubt, especially given the ham-fistedness of the other portrayals, that the agency involved chose this ad to make a point about real body shapes etc.
I can’t help but think that it would require an amount of sensitivity that is belied by absolutely everything else in these ads to ascribe that level of understanding to the folks responsible for them.
@A.D. Nix
“I think the premise in the first image is more problematic than any match-up (on the theme of “Opposing Groups”) so no matter who jumps into it, it’s bizarre. Nazi soldier/Jewish person of either gender, First Nations person/pilgrim, “Janjaweed”/SLM.”
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you explain?
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 1:30 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@Joseph
I can. In other words “I think it’s the extension (whether read as woo or apology) and reception that’s making it so damned bizarre.” The way reconciliation is addressed is a problem.
One party (in this image I would argue a “culpable” party) offers flowers; the second party (in this image the target of the first party’s life-threatening efforts) is Betty-Boopishly receptive – as if this is all he/she has been waiting for.
It’s dangerously simplistic to the point of shouting “just get over it already” to both parties which is particularly problematic in this match-up but never really works if ideological differences on this scale are involved (especially differences in the vein of one group believes they should be allowed to live, the other vehemently disagrees).
The message (Let the kids build a better world) would be better served by showing the aftermath of reconciliation if anything at all.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@cocolamala: Oh, wow. I never even thought that saying that the Black figure didn’t look like a woman might have been insulting to the model the ad folks may have used. I wasn’t even thinking in terms of real-life representation. Of course, this introduces a whole other dimension of questioning (nooooo!) with these images, like who all the other real-life human models may… have…. been? :::head scratch::: Yeah, see….hm. Too many things. And I agree, dresses and jewelry and long hair and full hips and tig ole bitties do not necessarily a woman make, but I’ll say again (and for the last time – apologies to the other posters and the Editrix for monopolizing the thread) that in two pictures that rely SO heavily on stereotypes, would it have killed them to make the Black figure, if a woman, gender-obvious? I mean, fuck, would it have been such a turrible stretch? :::sigh:::
@Joseph and A.D. Nix: Yes, yes, yes. What you guys said – seconded. Like, all of it. I thank you both for articulating what my completely fried brain just could not muster. Hell, even when I have had rest/food and am in top form, I’m struggling to keep up with all the smart over here. So, co-mofo-sign, squared. Keep it up, y’all.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 9:23 pm ¶
Ashmo wrote:
So this new clay ad – what were they thinking!? I actually discussed this ad in my class the other day, and I was actually mad when she showed it. I can’t believe they think this is a good way to sell clay! Lets take the first one – what could they possibly think it amusing about a klansman giving a Black women (or man?) flowers?! First of all, its not as though a Black person would actually accept flowers from a klansmen – and definitely if he were all dressed in his robes! And the, it looks as though the KKK dude has something behind his back… I mean maybe a gun? Knife? NOOSE!?! Seriously, this was the WORST ad ever made and I totally take offense to it!!!
As for the second ad… I don’t really get the Jewish guy & the Arab guy dancing and laughing together… I mean is the Arab man supossed to be playing guitar hero while the Jewish man is dancing to the music? Honestly, these people need to think what they deem as funny…
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 10:52 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
@cocolamala:
Yeah. The lips are not in themselves sambotizing but for me it’s the juxtaposition with a klnasperson that does it. For some reason, when I see someone having set up a klansperson giving a powerful to a gleeful school-girl crush type black woman, I probally read racial stereotpyes/caracictures into the presentation of the black woman just because I am going to be on the guard for racism.
Also, I think the two figures in the bottom are suppose to be discoing and read the person kneeling as doing one of those Saturday Night Fever dance moves that ends with a knee slide or starts out in one.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:03 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@A.D. Nix
You have explained why you find it so disturbing beautifully–I cosign your read on the first image and I think your focus on the “reconciliation/seduction” angle is right on.
I am just not clear on why you are making the comparison. In other words why preface your argument with “the first image is more problematic…”? Your analysis doesn’t really depend on contrasting it with the other figures…so why are doing that?
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
@tracey,
i agree. using the klansman black woman romantic combo makes me trust the imagery less — the lack of understanding it took to create that scenario could easily leak all over all the characters and how they are being drawn.
but she looks like a unique individual to me more than a sambo (graphic tool of promoting racism by misrepresenting how black ppl actually look and act).
…see but it does misrepresent how black folks act – her response is obviously not representative
…and it is a short trip from there to misrepresenting how she looks (i see where you’re coming from fiqah, on why does she have an afro then…?)
but i don’t think her looks are belittling or uglifying to blackness – and for me, that’s what sambo and the rest of those images do. juxtapose the imperfection of the dark other (hair, lips, nose, skin) with the perfection of white aesthetics. that is not going on in this ad. the fact that the klansman is charming the black woman with those flowers is an (obviously twisted) affirmation of her desirability. that is the opposite of sambo.
sambo (and the other stereotypes) are pitied, feared, lusted after, victims of violence – but not courted. that’s not racism.
that’s the only teeny-tiny part of this ad that actually is on message. had the ad director actually consulted black folk, they could have come up with a way to depict racial reconciliation in a less offensive way. but their racial/cultural ignorance interferes with the message.
and gender ambiguity, and race intersect for me. as a girl who wore cornrows or an afro in her youth, I have been mistaken for a boy more than once. i’m not particularly manly but i did wear loose clothes during my self-conscious adolescence. At 13, i felt like i had to get my ears pierced to get some automatic gender recognition. it’s not fun to be called out your gender. y’all.
that is all.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 4:08 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Joseph
“the first image is more problematic…”
Review. Not words I used, not words I would use. Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 5:44 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@A.D. Nix
I’m not disagreeing, really…I’m just asking. Rather than assume your intent I was hoping you’d explain where you were coming from.
I’m confused by why you say you didn’t use those words, since I quoted them from your post. Am I misunderstanding the context? That’s all I am asking.
I am not trying to keep a conflict between us alive–this idea of contrast has been a significant element in the the thread has progressed. I am curious about why. That’s all.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 9:26 pm ¶
the real patriot wrote:
Tacky, tacky tacky and completely distasteful. It’s sad that it seems this clay is marketed toward children. It teaches two things: racism should not not be taken seriously and two – people who are affected by racism should not be taken seriously. Also, I agree with the poster who said that there is some kind of subconscious (or not, who knows) racism going on here, as the black figure is the RECIPIENT of the Klan member’s “affections” and playing the feminine role, while the “Palestinian” guy is on his knees before the dominant “orthodox” guy. Also, the black figure looks like a total cariacture.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 10:26 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@Joseph: Can I offer a possible explanation as to why some folks compared the two images? I think it may be as simple as the fact that it’s two images. I mean, not to undermine your argument about the comparing being disturbing, but I suspect that the reason I didn’t compare them was because I have been “trained” (thank you social psych and crtical race theory courses!) not to. I dunno, maybe we automatically learn to compare/contrast when presented with two images? Just a thought.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 11:42 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ Joseph
I think you misunderstand the context. By “the premise” referred to in the phrase you truncated (”I think the premise in the first image is more problematic . . .”) I do not mean “picture of black person and klansman” rather the structure of the scenario (independent of the figures portrayed). “More problematic” refers to the fact that I do think the structure of the scenario is more of an issue than the parties in it (aforementioned black person and klansmen).
It’s a separation of two of the elements within the image (the structure of the scenario and the figures plugged into it).
The point is not “Oh, it’s so much more offensive with these figures in it – more offensive than it could ever be with any others” rather that it’s an incredibly problematic premise. It doesn’t matter who shows up in it.
If that isn’t what you mean by “contrast” forgive me but, you’ll have to be more specific.
Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 12:01 am ¶
Nathan wrote:
It kinda looks to me that they were being delibrately ambiguous with the gender, I would assume to try and side-step any gender-specific issues. If had had to pick a gender though, I definitely err towards saying the black figure is a woman, however.
But either way, total WTF moment. And the second picture is just as bad as the first. The kneeling thing with the waving arms just smacks too much of awe. (mind you, if I remember correctly, wasn’t one of the famous Travolta dance moves from that movie a sliding-on-knees thing? Doesn’t excuse the end-effect, of course). Perhaps if they’d been positioned back to back it’d look a little more palatable… no way around the awfulness of the ‘lets just pick any old stereotyped appeareance’ issue, though
Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 3:11 am ¶
Solitude wrote:
so offensive, racist (gross characterization of the black “male”??!) and….THREATENING or meant to threaten: if you pay attention, where is the Klansman’s right arm? behind his back? what is he holding? a rope? what does this cannibal look mean? If you look into the bed behind (whatever the bed means here…) you see a stuffed cunning fox spying on them!!
For the Arab man/Jewish man, as noticed by others, inferiority vs superiority is so clear here and so disgraceful but, again, what parallels the Jewish man’s attitude and stance in a more threatening way?! A dinosaur!!
Noooo way i’m gonna buy that kind of stuff for my daughter to play with!! Never know what may suddenly appear as these examples are definitely NOT the better world our kids should build! crazy…
Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:24 am ¶
Solitude wrote:
by the way… look at the blue hippo on the wall supposed to parallel the black character’s attitude!?
Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 9:42 am ¶
April wrote:
Both are offensive, but not surprising.
However, it seems some don’t have many issues with the second image. Maybe I am over analyzing it but…why is the Muslim kneeling to the Jewish man? The intention is not as clear to me as it seems to be to others.
When I am of need of modeling clay I wil be certain avoid this brand. Not cool.
Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 4:15 pm ¶