The most racist ad in history?

Death and Taxes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am most bemused by the taking heads on the TV telling me what I'm supposed to find offensive. If they are individually offended, fine. If they have a poll showing that 75% of black men found it offensive, good to know. Places things in perspective. But comments like "how could anyone possibly not find it offensive" seem fairly holier than thou.

This was a genius marketing move by Pepsi. Everyone is taking about it.

Wait till you see their next one, the victim is going to be a little old lady and all the suspects are going to be wearing skullcaps and muutering in yiddish!

The Rad Runner

Killer Wench wrote: »

Such bravery creating an account just to post your single post towards me.

Don't flatter yourself, more like a whiskey too much on my birthday topped off with a dodgy singer and a closed account, my names not that different that I'm hiding, I'll let you work out the rest

crockholm

Oy vey/gewäldt! Does this drink taste like Lilt or something?

I googled it and it said that it's citrus based,which could mean many things. Also it seems to be popular in the Southern States (Ad might be well recieved there) and there is a false rumour that it shrinks your genitals and makes you infertile.


I have only ever seen it here only in the biggest supermarkets in the aisles that have all the food written in Cantonese/Thai/Urdu etc.

So,might anyone tell me ,is this drink indeed inferior to crab juice? What flavour is it?

smash

I'm guessing its part of a series of ads about the goat or something?

FTA69

Henlars67 wrote: »

Why? Because the cartoon character is black?

Don't be f*cking stupid.

"Crow" was a racist term used in the American South for years. It's the portrayal of the crows in that ad as blacks which is racist, they then have to crowbar in every single available stereotype going; the black washerwoman, the basketballer, the zoot suits and gait as well as lads lugging a piano.

If you can't see how that Kia Ora ad is racist I despair to be honest.

Henlars67

Killer Wench wrote: »

The reason that you fail to see how this commercial is the modern extension of the lynching fears that brought on the death of Emmett Till is the exact reason why I take exception with anyone outside of the Black American community defining when we should be offended.

You may not understand the context, but do not tell me when I should or should not be offended.

When did I say you didn't have the right to be offended? I said that just because you are offended doesn't make that ad racist.

Reindeer

http://news.yahoo.com/non-white-men-wearing-google-glass-163931273.html;_ylt=Apx4tLmLVv7sUtDuib6DNySs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTRqNm5pNDBxBG1pdANGZWF0dXJlZCBjb250ZW50IG1vZCBmb3IgTkgEcGtnA2JmMzlmODQ3LWI0NjUtM2RiMy05ZGQwLTJkMjcxOTc5N2MwMARwb3MDMwRzZWMDTWVkaWFCQ2Fyb3VzZWxNaXhlZExQQ0EEdmVyA2U3YjlmOGQzLWIzNzAtMTFlMi04Y2I2LWU4NzYwMWUxNzhhMQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3

The hot new tweetable Tumblr of the moment is "White Men Wearing Google Glass," which consists of, as its name implies, photos of white men wearing Google Glass.

woodoo

ManFromCheese wrote: »

but it irks me how this racism card is being played in todays world.

The accusation of racism is losing its potency by its misuse. The hyper PC brigade have only themselves to blame for that.

wilkie2006

My name is URL wrote: »

It's no more racist homoerotic than this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjSNrg7T0Wo

FYP

woodoo

Killer Wench wrote: »

I have a B.A. in history (primary: medieval, secondary: US Minority History), a law degree, and a Master's in sociology, emphasis on race and ethnic studies.

I may not be an "expert" but I know more than most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

"According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.[14] 1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. (according to Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)[15] The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. The statistics for whites include Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites combined. There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006.[16]

However, the report does give a note that for the percentages of white-on-black or black-on-white rape, and the estimate of total number of black victims, the statistic is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.[17] Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether; the FBI's definition for example excludes all rapes except forcible rapes of females, a significant number of rapes go unreported even when they are included as reportable rapes, and a significant number of rapes reported to the police do not advance to prosecution.[18]"

What is your opinion on this info: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=146448

'From the government:
(2006)

Table 44:
Gang rapes: 38,520 (in one year!) 89.0% male only, 0.0% female only (sorry guys, no chance of the cheerleader squad gang raping you)

Table 46:
Gang rapists: 19.1% all white, all black 58.8%, mixed races 0.0% (the balance is other and unknown, but keep in mind that our government counts Hispanics as white in crime offender statistics, to darken whites.)

Table 48:
This table shows the race of criminal vs. victim. There's an odd absence of rape on this table. I wonder why.... I know why.

Because the government is hiding our key statistic, let's look at single-offender rape statics:

Table 42:
single offender, black on white rape: 16.7%
single offender, white on black rape: 0.0% ZERO NADA NOTHING Tawana Brawley lied. Oh, gross.
(In both cases, there a large percent is "other" and "unknown". White on white 50.6%, which is heavily date rape, which doesn't apply to gang rape. Black on black is 43%)

The best conclusion we can reach is that between blacks and whites, virtually all interracial gang rape is black on white, which is doubly stunning considering that black males make up only about 6% of the population. Virtually all interracial one-on-one rape between blacks and whites is one way. If you know of any other reasons, other than racism, that the media ignores gang rape in America, let me know. 38,000 gang rapes per year in the US, and we hear about one in India? The media doesn't mind scaring the public about India, but they want to whitewash the perception of blacks in America.'

Here's one example of gang rape in America, did you hear about it in the news? Ever?

old hippy

woodoo wrote: »

The accusation of racism is losing its potency by its misuse. The hyper PC brigade have only themselves to blame for that.

Ah, the old blame it on the left chestnut. Racism hasn't lost any of its potency, it's positively a symphony on boards.ie with some posters.

And I think it's time for Fintan

Fintan O’ Toole on the PC

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

Blisterman

woodoo wrote: »

What is your opinion on this info: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=146448

'From the government:
(2006)

Table 44:
Gang rapes: 38,520 (in one year!) 89.0% male only, 0.0% female only (sorry guys, no chance of the cheerleader squad gang raping you)

Table 46:
Gang rapists: 19.1% all white, all black 58.8%, mixed races 0.0% (the balance is other and unknown, but keep in mind that our government counts Hispanics as white in crime offender statistics, to darken whites.)

Table 48:
This table shows the race of criminal vs. victim. There's an odd absence of rape on this table. I wonder why.... I know why.

Because the government is hiding our key statistic, let's look at single-offender rape statics:

Table 42:
single offender, black on white rape: 16.7%
single offender, white on black rape: 0.0% ZERO NADA NOTHING Tawana Brawley lied. Oh, gross.
(In both cases, there a large percent is "other" and "unknown". White on white 50.6%, which is heavily date rape, which doesn't apply to gang rape. Black on black is 43%)

The best conclusion we can reach is that between blacks and whites, virtually all interracial gang rape is black on white, which is doubly stunning considering that black males make up only about 6% of the population. Virtually all interracial one-on-one rape between blacks and whites is one way. If you know of any other reasons, other than racism, that the media ignores gang rape in America, let me know. 38,000 gang rapes per year in the US, and we hear about one in India? The media doesn't mind scaring the public about India, but they want to whitewash the perception of blacks in America.'

Here's one example of gang rape in America, did you hear about it in the news? Ever?

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

Conveniently missed the asterisk which stated "*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases."

smash

Anyone remember the Vodafone Blackberry boys ad where it was basically just hundreds of Indian people singing a song? Is that racist?

Henlars67

smash wrote: »

Anyone remember the Vodafone Blackberry boys ad where it was basically just hundreds of Indian people singing a song? Is that racist?

I don't remember it but I'm sure there's loads of people on this thread who'll be only too willing to be offended on behalf of Indian people

Blisterman

While we're debating about whether he's racist or not, if anyone curious as to what the creator of the ad has said about it.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/1560547/exclusive-tyler-the-creator-talks-mountain-dew-controversy

cython

I think this one was up there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/microsofts-ad-in-poland-p_n_269366.html

Henlars67

Blisterman wrote: »

While we're debating about whether he's racist or not, if anyone curious as to what the creator of the ad has said about it.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/1560547/exclusive-tyler-the-creator-talks-mountain-dew-controversy

Well that clears that up, though I'm sure people on here will ignore what the creator of the ad was doing and insist that they no better what his motives were

Killer Wench

I think this part of his comments is very telling:

"Then again, I look at it from his perspective. He's an older black man. It's a generation gap. He's older than me. So the things that he had to experience with racism and stereotypes and being a black man in this country, is different from mine. I grew up in a generation where there's white kids listening to rap and black kids playing hockey, breaking the norms and everything. He comes from a whole different state of mind when he sees that stuff. He probably was getting f---ed with by white people when he was my age. So for him to always have to break the [stereotype] of being a "black thug" when he was growing up, and for him to see that in a commercial, it probably hurts him."

Death and Taxes

Henlars67 wrote: »

Well that clears that up, though I'm sure people on here will ignore what the creator of the ad was doing and insist that they no better what his motives were

His motives are irrellavent, all that matters is the oputcome, in this case a highly racist and inflammatory sterotypical advert.

WayneMolloy

WileyCoyote wrote: »

His motives are irrellavent, all that matters is the oputcome, in this case a highly racist and inflammatory sterotypical advert.

Ever see an advert for the Lucky Charms breakfast cereal? Are they racist and stereotypical adverts, too?

WayneMolloy

Killer Wench wrote: »

Unless you are also a member of the Black American community then I dont give two ****s if you think it isnt racist.

Then why discuss the issue on a predominantly Irish message board.

Ffs your average hip hop music video reinforces more black American stereotypes than any advert ever could.

Chloris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU9vpRiPN1Q

Death and Taxes

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Ever see an advert for the Lucky Charms breakfast cereal? Are they racist and stereotypical adverts, too?

Check out the thread title we are not discussing weetbix,cornflakes or lucky charme, trite response tbh

Killer Wench

smash wrote: »

Anyone remember the Vodafone Blackberry boys ad where it was basically just hundreds of Indian people singing a song? Is that racist?

This is the thing. You let the group affected by the stereotype determine whether or not the image/commercial offends them. Let the group decide if it positively or negatively represents them. Let the group decide who or what resurrects bad memories of painful eras.

WayneMolloy

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Check out the thread title we are not discussing weetbix,cornflakes or lucky charme, trite response tbh

Both products are junk food. One advert takes the p*ss out of blacks, one, us micks. Two ethnic groups, that historically, got played a rough hand.

One causes a furore, another doesnt.

My comparison is far from trite - I am comparing like with like.

Henlars67

WileyCoyote wrote: »

His motives are irrellavent, all that matters is the oputcome, in this case a highly racist and inflammatory sterotypical advert.

I disagree.

Lux23

marwelie wrote: »

Its not racist, its taking the racist stereotype and turning it on it head. If it was part of a film like Scary Movie or Airplane people would think its hilarious (like I do) BTW I don't have a racist bone in my body. People are far too sensitive. l[/url]

How does it take racist stereotype and turn it on it's head?

WayneMolloy

Killer Wench wrote: »

This is the thing. You let the group affected by the stereotype determine whether or not the image/commercial offends them. Let the group decide if it positively or negatively represents them. Let the group decide who or what resurrects bad memories of painful eras.

What happens if that group is perpetually offended by the smallest of things?

Killer Wench

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Then why discuss the issue on a predominantly Irish message board.

Ffs your average hip hop music video reinforces more black American stereotypes than any advert ever could.

I actually agree about the stereotypes in rap (difference between hip hop and rap) videos and trust me, there are long standing discussions about how those videos reinforce the perception of Black women as sexual playthings. Especially since the largest purchaser of rap and Hip Hop music are White men, some view as Black men selling out Black women for money.

Here are are a few more questionable campaigns:

http://rollingout.com/culture/mary-j-blige-and-burger-kings-race-dilemma-20-ignorant-ads-that-reinforce-racial-stereotypes/

Blisterman

WileyCoyote wrote: »

His motives are irrellavent, all that matters is the oputcome, in this case a highly racist and inflammatory sterotypical advert.

I couldn't disagree more. Context and intention is absolutely everything. An ad or any creative endeavour can't be racist in itself, but racism can be expressed through it. A subtle, but important distinction.

WayneMolloy

Killer Wench wrote: »

I actually agree about the stereotypes in rap (difference between hip hop and rap) videos and trust me, there are long standing discussions about how those videos reinforce the perception of Black women as sexual playthings. Especially since the largest purchaser of rap and Hip Hop music are White men, some view as Black men selling out Black women for money.

Here are are a few more questionable campaigns:

http://rollingout.com/culture/mary-j-blige-and-burger-kings-race-dilemma-20-ignorant-ads-that-reinforce-racial-stereotypes/

Liking fried chicken reinforces negative stereotypes about black Americans? Really?

Everyone who eats meat likes fried chicken. Pat McDonagh become a multi millionaire selling us white micks fried chicken.

If you look to be offended, you invariably will be.

tfitzgerald

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The ad was written by a black guy. If other black guys have sandy knickers over this, they should go talk to the guy who wrote it. Maybe it's offensive to some, maybe not. But it's not racist, and this is just another example of people reaching for the race card for the most negligible of justification.

"Sandy knickers " made me laugh did not hear that before. And yes the ad is racist .

Killer Wench

WayneMolloy wrote: »

What happens if that group is perpetually offended by the smallest of things?

What may be small to you may not be small to members of that group. This discussion reminds me of that thread about women needing to accept certain forms of harassment as flattery. There were comments about how an ass-grab wasn't such a big deal, well, it is to someone who has experienced sexual trauma in the past.

twinQuins

WayneMolloy wrote: »

What happens if that group is perpetually offended by the smallest of things?

Why don't you tell us, seeing as you've plenty of experience in being perpetually outraged.

WayneMolloy

Killer Wench wrote: »

What may be small to you may not be small to members of that group. This discussion reminds me of that thread about women needing to accept certain forms of harassment as flattery. There were comments about how an ass-grab wasn't such a big deal, well, it is to someone who has experienced sexual trauma in the past.

Its not for me to tell a community that I am not a member of what not to get offended by. But if that group complain about every perceived slight against them, no matter how trivial, outsiders eventually become sceptical. A case of the boy who cried wolf.

Your last statement is undeserving of a response.

WayneMolloy

twinQuins wrote: »

Why don't you tell us, seeing as you've plenty of experience in being perpetually outraged.

I think you have me mistaken with some other chap.

jaffacakesyum

It's only racist when it's against non-whites, it's only discriminatorty when it's against women or LGBT minorities.

White men, please leave your opinions out of it :rolleyes:

Killer Wench

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Liking fried chicken reinforces negative stereotypes about black Americans? Really?

Everyone who eats meat likes fried chicken. Pat McDonagh become a multi millionaire selling us white micks fried chicken.

If you look to be offended, you invariably will be.

Actually it does.

During slavery, the prime cuts of beef and pork were reserved for the master and his family. Undesirable portions of those animals were given to slaves for consumption. Eating chittlins (pork guts) or pig feet remain part of many Black folks diets. My family still eats chittlins at get-togethers.

Slaves were permitted to own as many chickens as they wanted. Chickens were viewed as a lesser quality meat. Slaves would slaughter the chicken, cut it into portions, and fry it. The Scottish immigrants brought over the concept of the 'fritter' so slaves incorporated the breading of chicken, and that is how fried chicken was invented. Later on, frying chicken became a staple with other members of the lower classes.

However, consuming fried chicken became synonymous with Black people in spite of the many groups electing to cook chicken in that way. Chickens were cheap animals to raise and frying chicken was a good way of cooking them when you didn't have access to a stove.

Like images of little Black sambos eating watermelon,there were images of Black folks chomping down on fried chicken. Now this love hate relationship exists.

Killer Wench

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

It's only racist when it's against non-whites, it's only discriminatorty when it's against women or LGBT minorities.

White men, please leave your opinions out of it :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Please. White people, and non-White people, have their moments of offense, too. A school up here in the Seattle area were going to have a spirit week for the teachers. This past Wednesday was supposed to be "White Trash Wednesday". A whole hell of a lot of people complained about it.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Schools-White-Trash-Wednesday-angers-Federal-Way-parents-205491181.html

WayneMolloy

Didnt know that. Cheers.

Killer Wench

The Rad Runner wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself, more like a whiskey too much on my birthday topped off with a dodgy singer and a closed account, my names not that different that I'm hiding, I'll let you work out the rest

And your second post.

Henlars67

Killer Wench wrote: »

Actually it does.

During slavery, the prime cuts of beef and pork were reserved for the master and his family. Undesirable portions of those animals were given to slaves for consumption. Eating chittlins (pork guts) or pig feet remain part of many Black folks diets. My family still eats chittlins at get-togethers.

Slaves were permitted to own as many chickens as they wanted. Chickens were viewed as a lesser quality meat. Slaves would slaughter the chicken, cut it into portions, and fry it. The Scottish immigrants brought over the concept of the 'fritter' so slaves incorporated the breading of chicken, and that is how fried chicken was invented. Later on, frying chicken became a staple with other members of the lower classes.

However, consuming fried chicken became synonymous with Black people in spite of the many groups electing to cook chicken in that way. Chickens were cheap animals to raise and frying chicken was a good way of cooking them when you didn't have access to a stove.

Like images of little Black sambos eating watermelon,there were images of Black folks chomping down on fried chicken. Now this love hate relationship exists.

So let me get this straight, it would be ok for a company to show an ad with white people eating their fried chicken, but it's racist if it shows black people eating it?

WayneMolloy

Killer Wench wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Please. White people, and non-White people, have their moments of offense, too. A school up here in the Seattle area were going to have a spirit week for the teachers. This past Wednesday was supposed to be "White Trash Wednesday". A whole hell of a lot of people complained about it.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Schools-White-Trash-Wednesday-angers-Federal-Way-parents-205491181.html

The only quoted complainer was a mixed race parent.

Is white trash a racial term or just our version of the term knacker(chav)?

jaffacakesyum

Killer Wench wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Please. White people, and non-White people, have their moments of offense, too. A school up here in the Seattle area were going to have a spirit week for the teachers. This past Wednesday was supposed to be "White Trash Wednesday". A whole hell of a lot of people complained about it.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Schools-White-Trash-Wednesday-angers-Federal-Way-parents-205491181.html

Ssssh you're not allowed have your opinion on White Trash Wednesday. Yknow, seeing as we're not alllowed have an opinion on this crappy ad. :rolleyes:

It's one story. I wonder how many people in America have heard of it. You say "a whole lot of people complained about it". How many? It seems to be a very strange school anyway with Muffin Top Monday and Tempt Me Tuesday...don't know why they have all these 'perks' with strange names for the teachers. Seems a bit inappropriate but meh. Guarenteed, if it was an equivolent "Black trash" or whatever stereotype you'd give it, there would be protests on the national news.

If there was an ad stereotyping 'typical' stupid Paddy, eating potatoes and drinking all day, no one would bat an eye lid.

If an ad has black people in it at all it's scrutinised.

Killer Wench

Henlars67 wrote: »

So let me get this straight, it would be ok for a company to show an ad with white people eating their fried chicken, but it's racist if it shows black people eating it?

Like I said. A love hate relationship exists and context is very important.

What's your perception about this?

http://static02.mediaite.com/styleite/uploads/gallery/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/0-irish2.png

http://www.styleite.com/media/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/#0

Killer Wench

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Ssssh you're not allowed have your opinion on White Trash Wednesday. Yknow, seeing as we're not alllowed have an opinion on this crappy ad. :rolleyes:

It's one story. I wonder how many people in America have heard of it. You say "a whole lot of people complained about it". How many? It seems to be a very strange school anyway with Muffin Top Monday and Tempt Me Tuesday...don't know why they have all these 'perks' with strange names for the teachers. Seems a bit inappropriate but meh. Guarenteed, if it was an equivolent "Black trash" or whatever stereotype you'd give it, there would be protests on the national news.

If there was an ad stereotyping 'typical' stupid Paddy, eating potatoes and drinking all day, no one would bat an eye lid.

If an ad has black people in it at all it's scrutinised.

Read my post below, because there was a clothing line stereotyping the 'typical' drunken Irish person and many Irish-Americans did bat an eye.

Killer Wench

WayneMolloy wrote: »

The only quoted complainer was a mixed race parent.

Is white trash a racial term or just our version of the term knacker(chav)?

The story went viral up here on Facebook accounts. Many parents, from that district and across the south Sound area, were commenting on it.

I think White Trash is equivalent to your version of knacker. I do not know what a chav is.

Henlars67

Killer Wench wrote: »

Like I said. A love hate relationship exists and context is very important.

What's your perception about this?

http://static02.mediaite.com/styleite/uploads/gallery/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/0-irish2.png

http://www.styleite.com/media/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/#0

Neither of those bother me. I saw a few of those t-shirts around on Paddy's Day.

Some people found them funny, I didn't but then again it takes more than a slogan on a t-shirt to humour me.

Definitely wasn't offended by it though.

Killer Wench

I think ultimately what makes these types of ad campaigns offensive is that they are remnants of a period when the dominant structure owned the identity of the oppressed group. A few generations ago, the oppressed in American included Blacks, American Indians, Asians, Irish, and Italians (more like Catholics). Through different paths, these groups have acquired power thus altering the paradigm; now empowered, these groups are taking control of their identity and how it is portrayed by the dominant structure. These 'PC' moments are reminders to the dominant structure that it is no longer permissible for it to define how these groups are to be portrayed or seen.

Keep in mind that the dominant structure does not have to be about white-black. It could be the power differential between men and women. Irish and English. Catholics and non-Catholics. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals/Bisexuals.

It is about one group who previously defined what the 'norm' is, having that power taken away, and now struggling to understand just far their influence still exists.

laoch na mona

Killer Wench wrote: »

What's your perception about this?

http://static02.mediaite.com/styleite/uploads/gallery/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/0-irish2.png

http://www.styleite.com/media/urban-outfitters-irish-merchandise/#0

racist but not enough to get even slightly annoyed over