Comments

1. Fiqah wrote:

   I suspect there is no message; this is one of those aggravating campaigns that seek to raise awareness of a brand through nonsensical, “edgy” ads that draw a lot of heat for a moment in time. The flash point? Race.

   Seconded. It’s theWhite Folks Do the Negro Show. Hm. This is one of those life moments when I wish we could magically insert perpetually-sour Homey D. Clown and his sock…

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:44 am ¶

2. Daniel wrote:

   I don’t know. I feel a little put off by the fact that the campaign is for a liquor store, because having lived in (poorer, but not extremely) Black neighborhoods where there’s a liquor store every other block, I can’t help but feel like liquor stores are exploiting us anyway. But I think I’m more bothered by that than I am these ads.

   In my opinion the reason these ads are funny because it lampoons how white people routinely borrow/adapt/appropriate culture from people of color, especially African Americans. Jazz, rock and roll, slang. And the ads imply that it isn’t “real.”

   Of course, that’s just where I’m coming from on this, and I can see how others might watch the ad and see it as an example of how the influence of Black people are corrupting white people, or they might think all Black people talk like that, etc. So it’s probably not a responsible thing to air on television, and I’m offended by their irresponsibility (we’re not in “post-racial America!”) but I find it hard to get offended by the ad itself.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:14 am ¶

3. Frowner wrote:

   I actually live mere blocks from Chicago-Lake Liquor (I don’t really drink, so I’ve only been there a couple of times). My sense is that there’s a couple of things in play–first, that this liquor store is seen by the white middle class folks in the neighborhoods to the immediate west and south as a place where poor people and in particular poor people of color shop; it’s at an intersection that has been (for the ten years I’ve lived around here) both high crime and aggressively/problematically policed. It’s also near a new development (that, honestly, is prob lematic but could be worse in terms of race and class) aimed at locals who are mostly framed as white workers and recent immigrants. (It’s a giant old redeveloped building full of small shops and restaurants, all local and a number branches of immigrant-run businesses; for all its flaws it actually does provide decent normal (not yuppie) produce and groceries in a very underserved area. But it’s definitely about writing out African-American presence in the neighborhood in terms of how it’s advertised.)

   One thing that strikes me about this ad: the white people are being mocked in a gentle “ha ha we white people sure are the norm but we’re not, you know, “hip” or anything” way. The pictured white folks are mostly middle aged, very “white” in dress and affect, mostly slightly on the dorky side of “average white people as they appear in ads”.

   I think the ad is meant to appeal to the white workers who work/eat/shop in the new development and to the people in the white neighborhoods to the west and south. I think it’s intended to read as “look, you think of this place as a dangerous or seedy place where people of color shop, but actually not only do white people shop here, but POC are just humorous sources of slang and fashion! They’re here to amuse us slightly dorky white people with their ’slang’ and their exotic typefaces, which are just ridiculous and don’t have any meaning except as fodder for ads!”

   It’s creepy and it gets creepier the more I think about it. I’ve never liked Chicago-Lake Liquor because it’s set up in this hyper-policing way, with lots of security, very ugly, very fluorescent-lit. It really constructs the shopper as a criminal, and constructs poor people as people who don’t deserve any courtesy.

   Wow, I’ve just been thinking about the very complicated ways that race and gentrification play out in my neighborhood and here’s a perfect example. I wonder who owns Chicago-Lake liquors. I wonder what ad agency did this. Off to google….

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:20 am ¶

4. RainaWeather wrote:

   Offensive and lame. The only thing that makes it “funny” is that they people aren’t black. Nothing else.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:30 am ¶

5. Jessie wrote:

   I think your discomfort with these ads is right on the money, especially given that the neighborhood in which this store is located is one of the “black” neighborhoods in Mpls. They are clearly trying to lure people to Lake Street by letting them know that their prices are cheaper because they are in an racially-mixed, lower-rent area. Those white people in the ads certainly wouldn’t live near Chi-Lake. And they probably wouldn’t go there at night, either.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:32 am ¶

6. Thom wrote:

   What seems especially odd is that the store is located in a part of Minneapolis that I am pretty sure has a fairly strong black (as well as latino and asian) presence…thereby risking alienating and insulting a sizeable chunk of their customer base.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:43 am ¶

7. Marcy Webb wrote:

   Hmmm…right.

   On the one hand, I co-sign with Tami: There is no message. The ads are an example that not everything transfers inter-culturally.

   That said, it reminds me of the quote, “Imitation is the best form of flattery.” As a language girl, hip hop language is highly creative.

   I admit, however, that I have the same look as the woman in the second ad when White people try and use Black slang. It just doesn’t work.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:47 am ¶

8. A.D. Nix wrote:

   I’m struggling to find the humor in those try-hard ads. That is some Crispin Porter-style asshattery.

   Oddly enough, I came across the same kind of b.s. this morning while listening to The Moth regular Jeff Simmermon on the latest This American Life (’Pro Se’) tell a story about his sister. This was in front of a live audience. The earliest punchline in the story comes when he , um, “shifts” tone to impersonate her. She sits down on his bed to console him and begins her comforting speech with “Bitches g’on come and bitches g’on go” and it continues in that vein. The audience ROARS. Roars.

   Now, this is radio. I’ve never seen Simmermon live. But . . . it’s This American Life and The Moth. I took a leap and assumed Jeff was white (since been confirmed). He goes on to clarify that he and his sister have the same parents and grew up in the same house. Just in case you might think she’s . . . you know. Which would ruin the joke. Ha ha?

   I look forward to the day that this stops being “funny.”

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 9:53 am ¶

9. Mimi wrote:

   I don’t find this very racist. Stupid, yes, but not really racist. Where I grew up, everyone talked like that so it’s not just a “black” thing to me.. it’s a Latin, Asian, white, everybody kinda thing to me. More racist is the fact that as someone who is trying to break down the color barrier, people here are possessive of “black slang” when to me it is just the ghetto slang we grew up with. I wasn’t aware that as an educated Latina I could not lapse back into my ghettoness when hanging out with my old friends from the neighborhood. It must make me racist since apparently it is only slang that belongs to blacks. Really people. If you are going to go that route, enjoy the fact that even stuck up white people think it is cool to participate in hip hop culture.

   See, now I’m mad because you have me talking about Latins and “white people”. That s*** is rude. I usually don’t refer to people by race as I find it offensive and racist. Who’d a thunkit? Thanks.

   Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:17 am ¶

10. lastpolarbear wrote:

    I don’t see this in the banner ads, but from the commercials I get the sense that they are making of white appropriation of black culture

    It’s making fun of the Juno-esque attempts of white people to increase hipness by appropriating the language of people perceived as hip, in a self-conscious manner that doesn’t come from the actual experience of growing in a Black community.

    Since learning that Chi Lake is in a strongly black neighborhood, I worry that these ads are being targeted specifiically to white customers (aired in places where they assume poor minorities won’t see)… and they are offering up their liquor store as a place where white people can come “slum” and “play Black.” Blech.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:17 am ¶

11. Brandon wrote:

    I think that these ads are intended for a black audience. The white characters are served up as deserving mockery.

    The ads certainly deserve our mockery. (Although I wonder if the last tv spot, in isolation, could work. Less racial context there.)

    Incidentally, I have a large group of very white, very middle class co-workers who constantly talk to each other in what they think of as ghetto talk. (It’s pretty much early 90’s hip hop lingo.)

    It has always made me very uncomfortable… and now I think I know why.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

12. DreaD wrote:

    Mimi said:

    “Where I grew up, everyone talked like that so it’s not just a “black” thing to me.. it’s a Latin, Asian, white, everybody kinda thing to me. More racist is the fact that as someone who is trying to break down the color barrier, people here are possessive of “black slang” when to me it is just the ghetto slang we grew up with. I wasn’t aware that as an educated Latina I could not lapse back into my ghettoness when hanging out with my old friends from the neighborhood. It must make me racist since apparently it is only slang that belongs to blacks.”

    I respect what you’re saying about your upbringing and use of slang that is deemed “black.” There’s no way I can take your experience from you, and would never try to. However, my response is that the slang you are referring to IS Black in nature. Not to say that many folks don’t participate or use it b/c of their circumstances (e.g., participation in hip hop culture, being raised in urban communities, etc.), but it IS at its cultural roots a Black mode of speaking. And that’s important to remember, b/c we ain’t post-racial yet.

    My frustration comes b/c I feel like sometimes folks are invested in de-culturizing Black Americanness, i.e. stripping it of the elements that define it as a distinct culture. For me, these elements include music, language, history, etc. Very few people IMO would step to Puerto Rican or Chinese culture, for example, and feel free to participate in it freely while simultaneously reducing the importance and validity of the culture itself. Perhaps b/c Black Americanness (or more specifically, African-Americanness) is not readily attached to a country other than the US or an altogether different language…I’m not sure. But there is this insistence among some folks to detract from its validity. And there is an indignation that Black folks would even attempt to protect our culture. But again, how many folks really have beef if individuals of other (perceived to be more legit?) cultural/racial/ethnic groups are protective of elements of their cultures?

    Not to mention the fact that b/c of the history of our culture being erased (inaccurate history books; the white-ification of the historically Black musical artforms of Blues, Jazz, Rock and Roll; slavery and its history of robbing language and tradition from Africans; etc.), yeah, we might be a little protective of our culture.

    Sorry for the derail.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:06 am ¶

13. Sean wrote:

    I had the same initial reaction that Daniel had, in that the first thing that struck me about this was the irony of it being a liquor store ad. I still have lucid memories of growing up in neighborhoods with liquor stores on every corner -as well as having to step around/over winos, urine, broken glass, etc, just to get to school.

    So it seems a disturbing proposition despite whomever this ad is aimed at.

    If it’s aimed at a white viewership, then this commercial is disengeneous, even though it’s ostensibly poking fun at white appropriation of black culture. (And why ignorance always seems to represent “black culture” is a topic for another discussion.)

    If it’s intended for an audience of color, then the message can only further exacerbate the type of conditions I saw growing up.

    Can’t see the good eitherEITHER way.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶

14. Ruthie wrote:

    I posted this at What Tami Said, but I’ll post it here too.

    I definitely see the racist interpretation, and being white, I am not in the most enlightened position to declare what is racism and what isn’t. However, I wanted to throw in my two cents, because my initial reaction, at least, was different.

    My first impression of the ads was that the stiff, staid, boring WASPy white people were trying to be cool and young and hip, and that what was funny is that they fail miserably. Sometimes I do the same thing, saying, “What up, ma homie?” and the reason people laugh is because it sounds so awkward coming from a nerdy white girl in Tina Fey glasses. Where I live (San Diego) and in my peer group, we associate talking like that with being “cool”…come to think of it, we kinda associate being black — or at least the stereotypical performance associated with urban blackness — with being cool, rather than being “other,” at least on the surface. So someone mimicking that style in humor is not mocking the people they are imitating, but mocking themselves for being so obviously not “in.”

    That doesn’t mean these ads are ok, and this discussion is actually prompting me to reflect on my own behavior I just mentioned. In many ways its a comment on class, period, even if you buy that the racial aspect is fluid and subject to interpretation. A lot of the descriptions I was originally using when I typed this comment were class-related, like “urban” and “with it,” and they certainly have racial connotations as well.

    Food for thought. At the very least, I’m guessing that the “WASPy white people trying to be hip, ha ha, what losers” angle is what the advertisers were originally going for. If so, ignorance of the other interpretations doesn’t excuse them from the result.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶

15. DCBred wrote:

    @Mimi

    There’s a difference between using language that you’ve acquired and grown up with and using language to mock people–whether white or black. As someone who’s worked on media for some time, I can assure you this ad was not intended to show people who “naturally” speak this way, but rather make fun of the juxtaposition of white middle class men using slang in a liquor store. I think the issue here is more of a class issue than a race one, but the fact is race is often coupled with class. But that doesn’t mean it’s about Black people, I think it’s about lower income POC in general.

    Your avoidance of using race when referring to people because you think it’s rude is odd. Race is not rude, it’s a social fact. And just because you refer to someone’s race doesn’t make you a racist, it’s how you do it. And just because you avoid referring to someone’s race doesn’t mean you’re not being rude or racist in some other way. Point being: words don’t make you a racist, your beliefs do.

    … but words can make you rude so maybe it is good that you avoid using race when speaking to someone if you can’t choose your words carefully enough to avoid being crass.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶

16. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    My initial analysis upon watching the ads were that they were making fun of white people who are adopting what they think is black culture (and poorly, as well) and that the target audience is the largely PoC/white lower-income communities that the liquor stores serve. I think this point-of-view is reinforced by the looks that the PoC characters (and the checkout woman) give to these white characters. The rational characters (and therefore audience PoV) are reacting to these buffoon characters. Also, the comedy comes from the fact that these white characters are not speaking/behaving authentically. Watch how woodenly they deliver their speech and their stiff body language. If these are capable actors behind the characters, they should be able to give more convincing performances, but I feel as they they were instructed to be “faking it”.

    That said, I don’t think it’s very successful at being funny. It’s certainly not original. As for offensiveness, I leave that judgement in the hands of individual people who are from the two clashed cultures portrayed.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶

17. maatnofret wrote:

    I live in Minneapolis too. I know exactly where this liquor store is. Shopping there is awful: fluorescent lights, bare walls, cameras everywhere. No, thanks. When I shop, I prefer to be treated like a customer, not a criminal. A cheaper bottle of wine isn’t going to convince me otherwise.

    These ads are terrible. I’m white, so from what I can tell, I’m the target market of this campaign. What the heck are they getting at? “We know you’re a racist co-opting idiot, but we want your money?” Screw that. If they improve their atmosphere, service, and inventory, I might reconsider. Until then, I’m going to Surdyk’s, even if it is farther away.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶

18. FilthyGrandeur wrote:

    i have also speculated about these ads

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶

19. Mari wrote:

    Not to mention just the implications of depicting all the “business” people as white men. Because of course you couldn’t be a white-collar business person if you were a person of color or a woman. And of course no “normal” white person would ever really act like that! I really hate ads like this because they harmfully mock a very legitimate identity, and disguise the harmfulness by making all the white viewers think they’re just laughing at themselves.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶

20. ashlynn wrote:

    What annoys me here is that what only sticks out is the white people speaking the slang. Therefore, the perception is that black people talk like that all the time. I think I’ve had enough of seeing multiple liquor stores and nail salons ON THE SAME BLOCK, let alone within a short radius of each other. Next.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:48 pm ¶

21. Kaonashi wrote:

    Reason #5489798 why multicultural ad agencies will never go out of style.

    I hate this AND those horrible “Ball Park” call-and-response commercials. While I know they’re going for the “Here we go, White people trying to be “hip” and embarrassing themselves yet again” theme, it’s just a lazy thing to do because it’s been DONE.

    Not to mention just the implications of depicting all the “business” people as white men.

    This. Personally, I would have thrown in a “Carlton” character and made the guy eavesdropping on the phone call Indian, lol.

    And of course no “normal” white person would ever really act like that!

    Never underestimate the stupidity of some people.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶

22. Frowner wrote:

    I just got home from work and could watch the video with actual sound rather than just look at the print ads. Gross! Complicated, but gross! Yes, it is minstrelry because the basic assumption is that POC and even the concept of race itself are basically just toys for white people to amuse themselves with. It doesn’t really matter about intent, or whether the ads make fun of white people for being unhip (although the ads seem to exist to position the viewer as a hipster post-racial white person); the whole thing is that race is just one more cute little trope to sell things to white people. It’s like one step past colorblind; it used to be annoying to hear people say “oh, I don’t see race”; now the new version is “I see race, but I don’t have to think about it”.

    I still maintain that part of the subtext of the ads is “yes, there are African-Americans here at Chicago-Lake liquor store, but they’re not scary “, which given the white middle class folks who commute in or live in the surrounding neighborhoods seems pretty plausible.

    This is all part of gentrification in the neighborhoods near the store–one day, racism is all about selling alcohol in horrible surroundings to poor communities and communities of color; next day, it’s about convincing the white people that they can move in and buy alcohol too, because there’s more money in doing it that way. Wow, I hate this.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 6:24 pm ¶

23. merq wrote:

    I weep.

    Everything else I thought has already been said. It’s because of shit like this that I feel vindicated for working in advertising… at least, there are some of us within the system who can shoot down a racist idea at the brainstorming level.

    Sheesh!

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶

24. Lynn wrote:

    I have nothing to add. But I drive by Chicago-Lake everyday and have not noticed these ads. I haven’t seen the commercial. I’ll be looking out for them tomorrow. It makes me wonder if I’m really unaware of the store while I’m driving or if, as has been suggested upthread, the ads aren’t playing to the immediate community.

    Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:39 pm ¶

25. m. wrote:

    I don’t really think anyone who’s black needs to justify being offended by this, no matter the reason. This has nothing to do with “slang” or being “ghetto”, it’s called ‘vernacular’. I know I have been offended and grossed out by people doing their take on a “deep rez” accent, or when acquaintances (and even a friend) have made asinine gestures at jokingly “accomodating” me (see also: insulting me and mocking my people/killing two birds with one stone) by using rez slang in a condescending, “ironic” way. (Some of it not even used in my communities, but don’t tell them that that and their being awkward is the reason I laugh in their faces when they do it.) Seemingly off-topic (I don’t believe it is, though), but I had a conversation with a friend once about white people and mainland/”educated” Asian people (usually on the West coast, and, from what I’ve heard, O’ahu) mocking or *attempting* to speak (they can’t) [Hawaiian] pidgin. Funny! Because it isn’t a “real” language that isn’t already discouraged and, to this very day, an everyday form of communication for many. I think this is pretty similar in a lot of ways.

    The thing is, whether or not someone finds it racist, this *is* offensive…because it’s a TIRED ass tactic that has NEVER BEEN FUNNY. Yes, yes, many of us already know; white people are a kooky, freewheelin’ bunch, but please – “irony” was never clever or cute to begin with. Whether it’s racist, appropriative or just plain ridiculous, it’s still boring, annoying and OLD. Personally, I’ve never found whiteness very endearing (or even chuckle-worthy), especially when someone is drowning in it. Actually, it’s pretty repulsive…whether or not the person is aware of the “intensity”/”level” of their whiteness doesn’t even matter to me. I’m sure a lot of white people out there would like to get a few jokes of their *own* in at their race’s expense and laugh at how awkward they can be with the rest of us (I actually have gotten the impression that a lot of them think they’ll be more appealing to people of color that way), but once again, it’s *tired*. Especially when it involves picking up and misappropriating the language/mannerisms of people of color (or “acting like (their idea of) a ____ person”). So, uh, when I hear/find out about white people doing this, they ought not expect a response on my end that involves anything other than the sound of crickets, snoring, or–more realistically–an, “Um, okay…”

    (Yes, I realize that last bit probably wasn’t a very useful contribution, but people who don’t have the gift of funny *trying* to be funny is seriously offensive to me. Like, Dane Cook-/Adam Sandler-/Russel Peters-/Margaret Cho-/’Stuff White People Like’-level offensive. “STFU now, plz-n-thnx.”)

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:11 am ¶

26. Daniel Cunningham wrote:

    Oh c’mon–

    This ad is so entirely… wasted. Is their anyone who can take this as even funny? Sad, sad, sad.

    As a white guy, I’d like one ad that made fun of us. That used to be a tradition. Just give me one ad laughing at ourselves, at our own expense, in our own humor.

    Then this would be… acceptable as humor. It’s just gross caricature and disparages everyone involved at this point.

    What do you call racism, turned to shame, turned to idolatry, turned to criticism, turned to shame, turned to humor, turned to disregard, turned to pulp? Is there a word for that????

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 5:23 am ¶

27. dejamorgana wrote:

    This crap gets more irritating every time I see it. And what really drives me nuts is the sneaking suspicion that this will go down as a very successful advertising campaign. Everybody here may find it offensive on multiple levels, but I’d bet a lot of people will find it outrageously funny. And the mere fact that we’re all talking about here (and on Stuff White People Do, and on Kiss My Black Ads…) has elevated awareness of Chicago Lake as a brand nationwide. I bet that translates into sales, and both the store and the ad firm laugh all the way to the bank.

    Hopefully I’m wrong. I’ll do my part and boycott the store, but somehow I doubt they’ll miss my money much, since I live in CT.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 8:23 am ¶

28. harris wrote:

    i think the ads are very much about fear, and getting past your fear. it’s about un-ghettoizing, the very deliberate attempt to incorporate a poor neighborhood into the life of the larger city. i’m sorry that the ads are so racist, demeaning and offensive but i like them because they are also very minnesotan, very much about shy stupid white people trying to be cosmopolitan.
    i’ve lived at various places in Phillips neighborhood and along Lake Street since 1991 but i didn’t last very long living near chi-lake (in 1994). i was scared. too much gunfire.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 9:25 am ¶

29. Tracey wrote:

    Ughh, this is just disgusting to me. The whole joke is based on the premise that all blacks talk and act a certain way, as oppose to white people. The joke doesn’t work if the actors aren’t white which implies while it is out of the norm for whites to do so, not so for blacks. I get tired of hearing about how there is a way to “act black” as though black behavior is some kind of monolith.
    And WTF is up with the guy wearing a grill, and the guy who strips down to a wife beater and puts on a bandana? I forget which moderator is a Russel Peters fan, but I think he was onto something with his belief that if you remove or change the character’s race, and the joke is no longer funny, you have a problem.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:52 pm ¶

30. Laura wrote:

    Is this part of a larger trend? Look at this parody of R&B/pop culture:

    I mean, the white dancers aren’t ashamed of what they’re doing around POC, but it’s the same punchline, right??

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 5:02 pm ¶

31. Laura wrote:

    Hmm, that link was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKKsn1NDWDg&feature=rec-rn

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 5:02 pm ¶

32. Daomadan wrote:

    I live in the Wedge neighborhood of Minneapolis and saw these signs just a week or so ago.

    Offensive.

    They’re sending a horrible message and playing off the stereotypes of the Chicago-Lake area of Minneapolis. For those who live in Minneapolis? I can recommend at least 20 other liquor stores that not only have a better store but don’t use racist advertising to market themselves.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 12:52 am ¶

33. b wrote:

    if you don’t know already, liquor stores are everywhere in MPLS because you can’t even buy real beer @ grocery stores. every liquor store i’ve ever been to in mpls/st paul seems to stay busy because they’re full of people from the neighborhood. i’m sort of surprised to see advertising, although I see what Frowner was saying about trying to attract more affluent customers from the new condos nearby.

    chi-lake is the closest liquor store to my new place, and i won’t be shopping there anymore. the ads are f*cked up, but the other commenters who point out what a terrible store it is (too many security guards, fluorescent lights, security cameras) are absolutely right. this business perpetuates the police state. thank you for posting this.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 9:24 am ¶

34. E wrote:

    Thank you M sick of trying to explain to people that being ironic doesn’t make it NOT extremely racist

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 10:50 am ¶

35. Cball65 wrote:

    I would wonder if the target audience for this ad (the “white folk”) would even understand the web banners – would they need a translator?

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶

36. etymon wrote:

    I think they’re trying to make the ads work two ways. I honestly believe the more racist whites will see it as disparagement of black culture because they do think it’s ridiculous themselves and also know the “mainstream” is with THEM on that. And they’re hoping those of black culture (or anything akin to that–different/Other) will get a chance to laugh at the absurdity of whites trying to steal from a culture they don’t even understand in the most rudimentary way.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 2:38 am ¶

37. Rodrigo wrote:

    toki wright, a mpls mc, wrote a line that states “F*CK them gringos that own Chino Latino” another MPLS business that used the SHOCK advertising to sell. i like to apply that line here.

    the advertising is offensive, racist not really, prejudice yes!

    but my question, does not lie with the business it self but with the ad agency that thought this up. would not be surprised if it was the same as chino latino.

    all i know..is i am not shopping there and i am telling all my friend that live in that area to do the same.

    rsc

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 7:54 am ¶

38. lindsey wrote:

    in case anyone else wants to yell at the racist idiot who owns the place, his email is john@chicagolakeliquors.com
    i happen to live about a block away and buy most all my beer there, but not anymore.
    stupid fucker.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶

39. Frowner wrote:

    Ad agency is Brew Creative (http://www.brew-creative.com/#chicagolakeliquorsprologue)

    They also did an ad campaign for Target when Target was opening stores in Alaska–they pride themselves on using “native” imagery to make Target seem right at home. Creepy creepy creepy. Seriously, my politics do not make me think that “hey, buy sweatshop products from our store because we print images of native art and places on our brochures!” is awesome.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶

40. Nicholas wrote:

    1) I’m socially- conscious, white, and I am never buying anything from Chicago Lake Liquors again.
    2) The last time I was in there I noticed fliers posted by Chicago Lake Liquors asking customers to call their politician (State House and Representative, I think) regarding a political issue: whether to further raise MN state taxes on sales of alcohol… this suggests to me the owner/ management is politically astute, regardless of what one feels about alcohol taxation and liquor stores trying to influence public policy. The advertisements featured in this article I think show Chicago Lake Liquors is consciously is trying to add perceived white, middle- class, office workers as customers. Sorry, we won’t buy it. Its a choice not a mistake upon their part.

    Posted 18 Jul 2009 at 5:17 am ¶

41. b wrote:

    The synopsis for the Chicago Lake Liquor campaign on the Brew Creative’s (ad agency) website?

    “When a friend asked us to create a campaign to attract suburbanites to a quirky liquor store in the very urban neighborhood, we couldn’t resist. The message is simply that you don’t need to act like you’re from there to save there.”

    http://www.brew-creative.com/#chicagolakeliquorsprologue

    (Click to slide #17 of the “Our Work” section)

    Posted 18 Jul 2009 at 11:07 pm ¶

42. Jennoschmello wrote:

    Marketing fail. These advertisments are cashing in on a stereotype.

    Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 9:39 am ¶

43. Tessa Stewart wrote:

    Speaking of racist, what do you all think of this? Most of the comments are positive, yet they are totally playing off black culture:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkdcYlOn5M

    Posted 31 Jul 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶

44. J wrote:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t see these, or Jeff Simmermon’s act, as patently offensive? I am African-American, grew up in predominately White suburbia, and see this all the time, but like the problematic weird-jokey-uncomfortableness of Judd Apatow characters with homosexuality, this looked to me like an outgrowth of authentic, if pathetic, attempts to incorporate aspects of “the other.” It *can* be negative, and I find it off-putting that the ad is for a liquor store (where authentic black people go?), but the first ad expressly made the point that the White Guy at the checkout wasn’t acting authentic. That’s why they had to be office stiffs and other tight-assed folks; I think the commercial would work equally well with a Carleton-type character (not that that character was unproblematic). It plays off of assumptions of “otherness” indeed, and off of the co-optation of the parts of black culture white America deigns to find worthy, but the mockery here comes from the fact that it is obviously an act, obviously something these White folks have picked up, even “stolen” from some black people they’ve (apparently) heard in the liquor store. The joke is specifically that they’re not authentic. Perhaps I’m being too lenient on mainstream culture, something I’ve rarely been accused of, but it seems to me the message isn’t even “all black people talk this way.” Obviously, the guys in the office when the black woman show up feel called out because, assumedly, not only does she know that they are imitating blacks (badly), but likely she doesn’t talk that way. Like someone commented, the POV of the audience is with the “judgemental” characters who are deeming these jivin’ white folks as inherently inauthentic and foolish, trying to be cool by imitating one of the main drivers of new culture in the US, African American culture.

    There is a problematic inherent with the “otherness”, and the idea of “Whites are uptight, blacks are earthy” is played out and not productive, but to me the black woman in the office that stumbles past them easily could’ve been turned into a black boss in one of those ugly white-color-blue-striped shirts with a red tie (think the white boss from Office Space). It would’ve been better served by doing so, actually, by making the black presence more diverse.

    I don’t know, these just struck me as a tired, but (ashamed to admit) to me, still funny rehash of “the only authentic American culture comes from Black Culture” and it loses its authenticity once appropriated by whites, who here could not be more Establishment in their representation. Perhaps it’s not funny because it’s too true, but I dunno, it rates very low to me on the level of minstrelry one can see in pop culture. (One of the all-time worse offenders in my book is Reitman’s movie Evolution, a gem of misogyny and racism.)

    Posted 27 Aug 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶