From the BBC we have an article about how The GAP was accused of passive racism because of an ad for kids clothes. Now, I'm not sure what constitutes passive racism and what doesn't so I'll ask the clubhouse here what you guys think. Does the ad shown in the article amount to passive racism or not? Are the claims indicative of something bubbling beneath the surface that society need address? Or is this all just a tempest in a teapot?
Four young friends posing playfully for the camera? Another forgettable marketing campaign? Or a glaring example of a type of passive racism that persists across corporate America?
That's the debate that's been playing out online in response to an advert for a new clothing line - a collaboration between Gap and Ellen DeGeneres. The advert has provoked such stinging criticism that the company has now apologised and said it will pull the image from its campaign.
It's the tall white girl resting her arm on the head of the shorter black girl that has triggered the controversy. For some it's insulting and, if not intentionally racist, at least reflective of a lack of thought on Gap's part (hence the term "passive" racism). For others, the image is harmless, and the backlash against it ridiculous.
The initial anger appeared on Twitter.
The argument soon spilled over into opinion pieces, too.
Writing in The Root, a black culture magazine, Kirsten West Savali argues that the advert compounds "the feeling that our black bodies are undervalued and positioned to serve as props upon which white bodies can be better appreciated and admired." For her the critical reaction on social media was most definitely "valid".
A black film director added a new twist to the story. Matthew A. Cherry tweeted a picture from an old Gap ad campaign that showed a tall black girl resting her arm on the head of a shorter white girl, side by side with the new image. "Does the pic on the left make the pic on the right OK?" he asked.
But the emergence of the older photo didn't stem the tide of anger. For a number of users it was the expression of the black girl in the new photo that made the difference. "No... that lil white girl [in the old photo] looks fierce. The beautiful black girl [in the new photo] looks pissed," wrote one.
Zeba Blay, writing in the Huffington Post, argued that the issue was complicated, and warranted further consideration. "My initial reaction was not 'this is racist!' " she wrote, but added that it was unfair to say those who took issue were overreacting. "It's not the pose itself that is the problem, but the context in which it is delivered." The intense reaction the advert provoked in so many people was a result of a media landscape where there are "so few powerful representations of black women and especially black girls," and so in that context it's no wonder that so many people found it offensive, Blay wrote.
As a result of the negative publicity Gap has acted. In a statement issued on Monday the company said: "As a brand with a proud 46-year history of championing diversity and inclusivity, we appreciate the conversation that has taken place and are sorry to anyone we've offended. This GapKids campaign highlights true stories of talented girls who are celebrating creative self-expression and sharing their messages of empowerment. We are replacing the image with a different shot from the campaign, which encourages girls (and boys) everywhere to be themselves and feel pride in what makes them unique."
Even that move couldn't help offending others:
However, as this article was being published the image was still on the Gap Kids Twitter feed.
I wonder if the rest of the world outside of the West actually gives a crap over petty crap like this...? China still sells the original Darlie brand toothpaste without batting an eye FFS.
Regarding the old photo versus the new photo this quote from the article stood out to me:
But the emergence of the older photo didn't stem the tide of anger. For a number of users it was the expression of the black girl in the new photo that made the difference. "No... that lil white girl [in the old photo] looks fierce. The beautiful black girl [in the new photo] looks pissed," wrote one.
Personally, I think the arm-rest white girl in the old photo has a similar bored/blank expression as the arm-rest black girl in the newer photo. Neither expression reads "fierce" or "pissed" to me.
I think a viewer will see what they want in the ad, so I understand why Gap Kids decided to pull the image given the negative reaction, but I don't necessarily think the image was racist--passive or otherwise.
I can totally see the subconsious desire for domination and the imposition of a master-slave relationship behind the eyes of Lil' Ms. "Adventure" (aka Jeffersona Davis von Hitlerstein the White). Just look at it long enough, and you'll see it, too.
Wyrmalla wrote: I wonder if the rest of the world outside of the West actually gives a crap over petty crap like this...? China still sells the original Darlie brand toothpaste without batting an eye FFS.
No. Even in most Western countries people won't give a crap, I think. Here in the Netherlands most people would probably just roll their eyes and wonder what the world has come to. In Russia people would probably respond with something that is either racist or a dig at the "depraved West". Most likely both.
My brother does that to me all the time and he is half Columbian. Is that racist? In all honesty, I think the little black girl could have been smiling. Something feels very awry with her mood.
No. No it's not. Just another case of people trying to be offended and making a stink about it on the internet to make themselves feel important.
What about the lack of blonde kids? There's also no boys in there, unless one of them identifies as such. Also nobody of Asian descent or any kind of representation for Native Americans. Were they not good enough to be in the ad? Somebody should start a hashtag campaign and remedy this injustice.
Or log off of Twitter and quit being a fething idiot.
Nostromodamus wrote: No. No it's not. Just another case of people trying to be offended and making a stink about it on the internet to make themselves feel important.
What about the lack of blonde kids? There's also no boys in there, unless one of them identifies as such. Also nobody of Asian descent or any kind of representation for Native Americans. Were they not good enough to be in the ad? Somebody should start a hashtag campaign and remedy this injustice.
Or log off of Twitter and quit being a fething idiot.
There were no Russian kids in it. This ad is russophobic and a clear example of anti-Russian bias in the West.
What a storm in a teacup. I expect the photographer only had them pose that way because of the relative heights of the two kids. If the black girl was taller, it would have been reversed.
But then that wouldn't make for a satisfactorily sensationalist story to froth people up into a rage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Utterly ridiculous.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Another case of Bettridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
My wife saw this on Facebook yesterday. She showed it to me and I rolled my eyes and went back to watching The Simpsons.
The only thing worse than armchair social media outrage campaigns are news agencies that use them for click-bait.
That and people who get armchair reactionary outrage at all the armchair social media outrage that is out there.
I just have a seething hatred for click-bait. It was bad enough when all the stupid click-bait sites were doing it, but now all the news sites are doing the same crap as well.
"You won't believe what happens to this person" is not a headline, and it's no reason for me to click a link to your damn website. If you can't be bothered to tell me what the actual story is or why I should care about the story, then I'm not clicking your fething links. Click-bait is the cancer of the internet .
Same with this story. It's not quite as horrible as others, but "GAP pulls ad after criticism about racism" would be an actual headline because it tells you what the story is about and invites you to actually read it. "Is this advert racist?" isn't a headline, it's just an "PLEASE CLICK ME I'M DESPERATE FOR TRAFFIC" link begging for you to pump up their advertising revenue.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Another case of Bettridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
My wife saw this on Facebook yesterday. She showed it to me and I rolled my eyes and went back to watching The Simpsons.
The only thing worse than armchair social media outrage campaigns are news agencies that use them for click-bait.
That and people who get armchair reactionary outrage at all the armchair social media outrage that is out there.
I just have a seething hatred for click-bait. It was bad enough when all the stupid click-bait sites were doing it, but now all the news sites are doing the same crap as well.
"You won't believe what happens to this person" is not a headline, and it's no reason for me to click a link to your damn website. If you can't be bothered to tell me what the actual story is or why I should care about the story, then I'm not clicking your fething links. Click-bait is the cancer of the internet .
Same with this story. It's not quite as horrible as others, but "GAP pulls ad after criticism about racism" would be an actual headline because it tells you what the story is about and invites you to actually read it. "Is this advert racist?" isn't a headline, it's just an "PLEASE CLICK ME I'M DESPERATE FOR TRAFFIC" link begging for you to pump up their advertising revenue.
I might have an irrational hatred for click-bait
Did you see a "Man kills son because of Sexual Orientation" headline recently? What the headline failed to mention was that the son was high and stabbed his mother and the father used self-defense. Just thought I'd stoke your hatred a little.
Nostromodamus wrote: No. No it's not. Just another case of people trying to be offended and making a stink about it on the internet to make themselves feel important.
What about the lack of blonde kids? There's also no boys in there, unless one of them identifies as such. Also nobody of Asian descent or any kind of representation for Native Americans. Were they not good enough to be in the ad? Somebody should start a hashtag campaign and remedy this injustice.
Or log off of Twitter and quit being a fething idiot.
There were no Russian kids in it. This ad is russophobic and a clear example of anti-Russian bias in the West.
That means that it's Jingoist, not that it's racist
On topic, does anyone else think that the girls in the new photo all look like they are a lot more bored than that old picture?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Another case of Bettridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
My wife saw this on Facebook yesterday. She showed it to me and I rolled my eyes and went back to watching The Simpsons.
The only thing worse than armchair social media outrage campaigns are news agencies that use them for click-bait.
Or, the nearly as tiresome outraged about outrage camp.
And as far as Scooty said, I'm not sure if I read it here or somewhere else - probably here - but I totally agree on the headline ending in a question mark bit.
Breotan wrote: From the BBC we have an article about how The GAP was accused of passive racism because of an ad for kids clothes. Now, I'm not sure what constitutes passive racism and what doesn't so I'll ask the clubhouse here what you guys think. Does the ad shown in the article amount to passive racism or not? Are the claims indicative of something bubbling beneath the surface that society need address? Or is this all just a tempest in a teapot?
Four young friends posing playfully for the camera? Another forgettable marketing campaign? Or a glaring example of a type of passive racism that persists across corporate America?
That's the debate that's been playing out online in response to an advert for a new clothing line - a collaboration between Gap and Ellen DeGeneres. The advert has provoked such stinging criticism that the company has now apologised and said it will pull the image from its campaign.
It's the tall white girl resting her arm on the head of the shorter black girl that has triggered the controversy. For some it's insulting and, if not intentionally racist, at least reflective of a lack of thought on Gap's part (hence the term "passive" racism). For others, the image is harmless, and the backlash against it ridiculous.
The initial anger appeared on Twitter.
The argument soon spilled over into opinion pieces, too.
Writing in The Root, a black culture magazine, Kirsten West Savali argues that the advert compounds "the feeling that our black bodies are undervalued and positioned to serve as props upon which white bodies can be better appreciated and admired." For her the critical reaction on social media was most definitely "valid".
A black film director added a new twist to the story. Matthew A. Cherry tweeted a picture from an old Gap ad campaign that showed a tall black girl resting her arm on the head of a shorter white girl, side by side with the new image. "Does the pic on the left make the pic on the right OK?" he asked.
But the emergence of the older photo didn't stem the tide of anger. For a number of users it was the expression of the black girl in the new photo that made the difference. "No... that lil white girl [in the old photo] looks fierce. The beautiful black girl [in the new photo] looks pissed," wrote one.
Zeba Blay, writing in the Huffington Post, argued that the issue was complicated, and warranted further consideration. "My initial reaction was not 'this is racist!' " she wrote, but added that it was unfair to say those who took issue were overreacting. "It's not the pose itself that is the problem, but the context in which it is delivered." The intense reaction the advert provoked in so many people was a result of a media landscape where there are "so few powerful representations of black women and especially black girls," and so in that context it's no wonder that so many people found it offensive, Blay wrote.
As a result of the negative publicity Gap has acted. In a statement issued on Monday the company said: "As a brand with a proud 46-year history of championing diversity and inclusivity, we appreciate the conversation that has taken place and are sorry to anyone we've offended. This GapKids campaign highlights true stories of talented girls who are celebrating creative self-expression and sharing their messages of empowerment. We are replacing the image with a different shot from the campaign, which encourages girls (and boys) everywhere to be themselves and feel pride in what makes them unique."
Even that move couldn't help offending others:
However, as this article was being published the image was still on the Gap Kids Twitter feed.
Couldn't people say it's just as offensive to short people or the youngest child amongst a bunch of siblings (i.e. the older kids bossing around the youngest ones)? Personally I'm not offended at all but that's probably because it's not that big of a deal. Besides I don't shop at GAP really anyway. They have some nice clothes though but only when my sister forces me to buy crap from their store.
Ouze wrote: And as far as Scooty said, I'm not sure if I read it here or somewhere else - probably here - but I totally agree on the headline ending in a question mark bit.
Probably here.
I say it any time something like this comes up (which is often, unfortunately).
Quote/ "the feeling that our black bodies are undervalued and positioned to serve as props upon which white bodies can be better appreciated and admired." For her the critical reaction on social media was most definitely "valid". /quote
What the feth does this even mean? It's almost as though someone needed to string a whole lot of syllables together in order to sound more intelligent and important so as to impress their fellow academics.
Really this is a sound and fury that signifies nothing, this is a non-issue picked up by activist-academics and only serves to wind up the more easily persuaded of our civilization and dividing us further.
Nostromodamus wrote: No. No it's not. Just another case of people trying to be offended and making a stink about it on the internet to make themselves feel important.
What about the lack of blonde kids? There's also no boys in there, unless one of them identifies as such. Also nobody of Asian descent or any kind of representation for Native Americans. Were they not good enough to be in the ad? Somebody should start a hashtag campaign and remedy this injustice.
Or log off of Twitter and quit being a fething idiot.
This bears a slight similarity to the Academy Awards kerfuffle that happened last month. Some people saw what they wanted while others were oblivious to it.
It's things like these that make people think "racism is over"...
Really though, previous generations had to deal with slavery, lynch mobs, Jim Crow laws, and all of these other horrible horrible stuff. These modern "oppressions" are so benign it's ridiculous they get so much attention. Even the language used betrays how pointless this is -- it's not capital-r Racism, it's "passive racism" (whatever that even means).
Really though, previous generations had to deal with slavery, lynch mobs, Jim Crow laws, and all of these other horrible horrible stuff. These modern "oppressions" are so benign it's ridiculous they get so much attention.
To be fair, "it used to be worse" is a pretty worthless argument if you want to talk about racism. The past being worse doesn't mean we can't talk about how to make the present, and future, even better.
I saw this image last night when it showed up... somewhere, NPR maybe? I looked at the image and couldn't figure out what was wrong until I read the article. Once it was explained it seemed like a really long stretch. I guess this kind of thing comes with the turf, activists will tend to be hyper-sensitive.
BBC Trending wrote: "No... that lil white girl [in the old photo] looks fierce. The beautiful black girl [in the new photo] looks pissed," wrote one.
That beautiful black girl in the modern pic has exactly the same expression as the beautiful white girl on the far right in the modern pic. Or are we not supposed to notice that?
sebster wrote: I saw this image last night when it showed up... somewhere, NPR maybe? I looked at the image and couldn't figure out what was wrong until I read the article. Once it was explained it seemed like a really long stretch. I guess this kind of thing comes with the turf, activists will tend to be hyper-sensitive.
Part of the issue with the offended crowd. If something exists it can be considered offensive to one group or another. It's patently absurd. Gotta wonder how if at all our ancestors dealth with censorship. I mean the most I remember was men getting man boobs shown and to desensitize people to seeing them somewhat. You guys would laugh what one of my older co-workers said once. He said when elvis Presley sang and danced the way he moved his hips was censored on tv. Can you believe that? Move your hips in too sexy of a fashion and it can't be shown on tv.
Censorship has definitely found itself in interesting places sometimes.
Image doesn't look racist to me. Some of the reactions to people calling it racist do seem pretty racist. I'd say they should pull the ad, not because I find it offensive but the kind of people that would be really annoyed by them doing so are the kind of people I enjoy seeing annoyed.
In the context of the US experience of racial discrimination it's passively racist.
The whole pic clearly has been carefully posed, unlike the kind of shots used by Joules in the UK, which look far more spontaneous and natural.
As we can see, in this picture the black girl literally is being leant on. This very obviously can be construed as her being held down or suppressed by the much larger white girl. I saw that instantly myself, and I'm a middle-aged, middle-class, British white guy. No wonder the highly sensitive black community of the US has reacted negatively. Even if I had not seen the thread title first, I think I would still have gone "oh dear..." straight away.
Failure by GAP's ad team to imagine this possible outcome of their scenario is passive racism in the sense that they simply didn't consider the possible effect of the look and feel of the piece. They never stopped to think how it would look, or what black people might think of it. Their creative process basically ignored black people.
Chongara wrote: Image doesn't look racist to me. Some of the reactions to people calling it racist do seem pretty racist. I'd say they should pull the ad, not because I find it offensive but the kind of people that would be really annoyed by them doing so are the kind of people I enjoy seeing annoyed.
sebster wrote: I saw this image last night when it showed up... somewhere, NPR maybe? I looked at the image and couldn't figure out what was wrong until I read the article. Once it was explained it seemed like a really long stretch. I guess this kind of thing comes with the turf, activists will tend to be hyper-sensitive.
Part of the issue with the offended crowd. If something exists it can be considered offensive to one group or another. It's patently absurd. Gotta wonder how if at all our ancestors dealth with censorship. I mean the most I remember was men getting man boobs shown and to desensitize people to seeing them somewhat. You guys would laugh what one of my older co-workers said once. He said when elvis Presley sang and danced the way he moved his hips was censored on tv. Can you believe that? Move your hips in too sexy of a fashion and it can't be shown on tv.
Censorship has definitely found itself in interesting places sometimes.
Our ancestors burned people at the stake for having odd ideas.
sebster wrote: I saw this image last night when it showed up... somewhere, NPR maybe? I looked at the image and couldn't figure out what was wrong until I read the article. Once it was explained it seemed like a really long stretch. I guess this kind of thing comes with the turf, activists will tend to be hyper-sensitive.
Part of the issue with the offended crowd. If something exists it can be considered offensive to one group or another. It's patently absurd. Gotta wonder how if at all our ancestors dealth with censorship. I mean the most I remember was men getting man boobs shown and to desensitize people to seeing them somewhat. You guys would laugh what one of my older co-workers said once. He said when elvis Presley sang and danced the way he moved his hips was censored on tv. Can you believe that? Move your hips in too sexy of a fashion and it can't be shown on tv.
Censorship has definitely found itself in interesting places sometimes.
Our ancestors burned people at the stake for having odd ideas.
Meh, hanging was more common. Burning at the stake was for your less mainstream SJW type of the time.
Kilkrazy wrote: What makes you say it's not (passively) racist?
I'm just not seeing the racism. But is that because I'm white and am thus oblivious to the racist element? Or is it that there really is no racist element?
Is the picture in itself racist? No, I would say not.
Could the picture have racist connotations in a society with a culture of a deep racial divide where race is a divisive issue? Yes.
I don't think GAP intended anything by this. I do think that many of the responses have been driven themselves by racism or an persecution complex, but this picture also seems rather insensitive and ill considered.
Kilkrazy wrote: What makes you say it's not (passively) racist?
I'm just not seeing the racism. But is that because I'm white and am thus oblivious to the racist element? Or is it that there really is no racist element?
The picture, which clearly is a posed shot of models not a candid shot, shows a tall white girl leaning on the head of a smaller black girl.
Obviously being white it is more difficult, but can you see how in the background of the history of white on black racism in the USA, this picture might appear to a black audience to be racist? Taller height and position of physical dominance, being imposed by a white person on a black person. It's a pretty obvious trigger.
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
Do we know the racial make up of the team at GAP that came up with this photo? Your post seems to suggest that no black people were involved with, or saw, this photo before it went public (which I find hard to believe, as there is a black person IN the photo). I cannot find that information anywhere.
Im much more concerned about the sexualisation of the children here. I mean the girl on the right is clearly flaunting her bits and the one of the left into some sort of karma sutra nastiness.
Does anyone have an address where I can write a strongly worded letter to GAP expressing my shock and horror?
Thanking you in advance.
I think the notion that gap isn't diverse or didn't have a diverse audience in mind is laughable. If you look through their history of advertising, they're perhaps the most diverse clothing chain outside of benneton.
That's a big reason I find this whole outrage silly.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the context of the US experience of racial discrimination it's passively racist.
The whole pic clearly has been carefully posed, unlike the kind of shots used by Joules in the UK, which look far more spontaneous and natural.
As we can see, in this picture the black girl literally is being leant on. This very obviously can be construed as her being held down or suppressed by the much larger white girl. I saw that instantly myself, and I'm a middle-aged, middle-class, British white guy. No wonder the highly sensitive black community of the US has reacted negatively. Even if I had not seen the thread title first, I think I would still have gone "oh dear..." straight away.
Failure by GAP's ad team to imagine this possible outcome of their scenario is passive racism in the sense that they simply didn't consider the possible effect of the look and feel of the piece. They never stopped to think how it would look, or what black people might think of it. Their creative process basically ignored black people.
It's just a replay of the old picture with a short White girl being leaned on. The true message here is that short people, whatever their color, are nothing but props for tall people!
Kilkrazy wrote: The picture, which clearly is a posed shot of models not a candid shot, shows a tall white girl leaning on the head of a smaller black girl.
Obviously being white it is more difficult, but can you see how in the background of the history of white on black racism in the USA, this picture might appear to a black audience to be racist? Taller height and position of physical dominance, being imposed by a white person on a black person. It's a pretty obvious trigger.
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
My problem with the logic you are presenting in the post above is that it makes assumptions about motivation. You assume no black people were present during the shoot, or that they didn't have input on the production of the ad. How do you know that, and if you don't actually know the demographics of the advertising team responsible for producing this image, how can you then proclaim that this image is the result of passive racism? Especially given the precedent set by Gap with the older ad that featured a tall black girl leaning on a short white girl. It is almost identical shot-wise, down to the bored expressions on the kids' faces.
Perhaps this is just how Gap's ad team arrange and shoot groups of kids of various heights?
This kind of reminds me of the Far Cry 4 controversy. Given the exploitation of other races by white people over the centuries it's understandable why non-whites would be sensitive about that kind of pose. To them, it reinforces the concept of "mighty whitey". Do I agree with them? Not really, I think the photo is just bland marketing that happened to have a white girl leaning on a black girl. But I can understand where the offended parties are coming from.
Also, it's amazing how callous some people are towards the feelings of groups who have been exploited for centuries.
Also, it's amazing how callous some people are towards the feelings of groups who have been exploited for centuries.
It's equally amazing how some people want to make everything about race. Not everything boils down to that, but there are people who want to make it so.
There were others that were equally exploited and even murdered because of their religion.
Sounds to me like everything is offensive to someone and instead of letting it go and continuing on with our lives, it's made a big deal of.
What does the exploitation of religious groups have to do with anything? Are there pictures of a man wearing cross leaning on a man wearing a star of david? If not, I'm going to have to call that a red herring.
Pictures can have multiple meanings depending on the viewers. Someone can look at a picture of a wind mill farm and see clean energy while someone else sees a blight on the landscape. You may not see racism here (And frankly neither do I) but it's not fair to just dismiss the feelings of groups who have been the victim of centuries of exploitation as being petty.
TheCustomLime wrote: What does the exploitation of religious groups have to do with anything?
You may not see racism here (And frankly neither do I) but it's not fair to just dismiss the feelings of groups who have been the victim of centuries of exploitation as being petty.
My point was that there are many groups of people that were exploited, but you don't read about how offended they are all over the place.
I never said it was petty. What I was alluding to was that not everything is racism. By pointing at every little thing and being offended by everything, you are actually minimizing the plight of those that were exploited. It's not always about exploitation regardless of what some individuals and media outlets would have you believe. That's all I'm saying.
So basically if there was an ad where a male child is leaning on a female child with his arm over her head, should the Feminists go crazy because it's a symbol of the male dominated society according to their view?
TheCustomLime wrote: What does the exploitation of religious groups have to do with anything? Are there pictures of a man wearing cross leaning on a man wearing a star of david? If not, I'm going to have to call that a red herring.
Pictures can have multiple meanings depending on the viewers. Someone can look at a picture of a wind mill farm and see clean energy while someone else sees a blight on the landscape. You may not see racism here (And frankly neither do I) but it's not fair to just dismiss the feelings of groups who have been the victim of centuries of exploitation as being petty.
I think you pretty much have it on the way people see things differently. If someone has something on their mind, then they bring it into their interpretation in much the same way as seeing things in clouds. Some of the same people offended by the Black girl being leaned on by the White girl might well be offended by the second picture where the White girl is being leaned on by the Black girl because they'd interpret it as the company saying Blacks can't stand on their own.
It seems like an awkward shot, race aside. I don't get why either kid (old or new photo), would be posed to have their arm resting on another. It's just awkward photography.
2- the PR counter-argument "what if places were switched?" is idiotic- the entire point is cultural context. In anything with race, there's certainly the potential for it to be politically charged and "re-skinning" things to say they're the same is proving exactly the opposite point.
For example, let's take two hypothetical photos- a woman punching a man, and a man punching a woman. Are those going to be culturally loaded images that mean different and non-equivalent things? You bet your ass they will be.
People will often find something upsetting about many pictures. That doesn't mean that the people in the picture, or the people taking the picture, have any intentions of being offensive.
Pictures that I can think off that have created outrage for being offensive: soldiers breastfeeding in uniform, baby wrapped in flag that covered dead fathers coffin, Obama talking on the White House phone with his shoes on the desk, Obama not wearing a jacket in the Oval Office, a folded flag on the bleachers at a Hillary rally, Obama's kids dressing ghetto, musicians wearing confederate flag anything.
Just because you don't intend to do anything offensive, that doesn't mean that nobody will be offended by it. Passive racism is such an example, and if you fail to understand how something may be viewed by someone that could take offense then you are potentially contributing to it.
That said, it is impossible to anticipate every possible reaction, and it's a well known rule that it is easier to comply with Internet demands instead of trying to explain why those people are wrong. Example: subway making their bread crappier instead of explaining that they actually don't grind up yoga mats for their dough.
TheCustomLime wrote: What does the exploitation of religious groups have to do with anything?
You may not see racism here (And frankly neither do I) but it's not fair to just dismiss the feelings of groups who have been the victim of centuries of exploitation as being petty.
My point was that there are many groups of people that were exploited, but you don't read about how offended they are all over the place.
I never said it was petty. What I was alluding to was that not everything is racism. By pointing at every little thing and being offended by everything, you are actually minimizing the plight of those that were exploited. It's not always about exploitation regardless of what some individuals and media outlets would have you believe. That's all I'm saying.
So basically if there was an ad where a male child is leaning on a female child with his arm over her head, should the Feminists go crazy because it's a symbol of the male dominated society according to their view?
d-usa wrote: ...if you fail to understand how something may be viewed by someone that could take offense then you are potentially contributing to it.
Absolutely disagree with this statement.
So complete ignorance of the point of view of others can't ever possibly mean you do something that's a complete faux pas from that POV? Are you for real?
So complete ignorance of the point of view of others can't ever possibly mean you do something that's a complete faux pas from that POV? Are you for real?
I think I misinterpreted your initial comment. I took it to mean that you think that if you are not sympathetic, it means you are part of the problem and are a racist. My point is that just because you aren't sympathetic doesn't necessarily mean that.
My view is that of a fairly ordinary middle-class, middle-aged white British guy. As such, I am not offended by the pic. Why would I be? But I can see easily why black people might find it offensive, due to the history of white oppression of black people.
If people are offended, they are offended. You have to accept that, unless you want to make an argument that people are pretending to be offended for no reason, in order to... IDK what, have some lulz?
The earlier pic with the black girl leaning on a white girl; it's similar to this one but actually it's a mirror image, and doesn't trigger the same cultural background references.
If we lived in an alternate universe in which black people from Africa were the ones to discover and colonise the Americas, and then engaged in a slave trade of white people lasting several hundred years, and so on and so on, I think you could imagine that white people might find that other pic offensive in such circumstances.
Was there a black person on the project team? Who can say. It's certainly possible, likely even, but it's also possible that none of them were black except the young model herself. What difference does it make? Maybe several black people protested and were ignored. Maybe they kept their mouths shut because they were in positions of low power. IT is all speculation.
At any rate, however GAP managed to come up with this advert, whatever process was used, it has caused offence. I am sure that was not their intention, but the fact remains.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...that people are pretending to be offended for no reason...
I don't think it's a matter of getting offended for no reason. I think it's a matter of getting offended by EVERYTHING.
I guess if you want to live your life looking for things to be offended by, it's up to you, but for someone to look at an ad about kids wearing cute clothes and turn it into something about race...well, that's just a little excessive and unnecessary in my view.
Racism is a terrible thing to have to live with. Some understand it, some don't. That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is racist. You have to pick your battles if you want to be taken seriously.
Kilkrazy wrote: What makes you say it's not (passively) racist?
I'm just not seeing the racism. But is that because I'm white and am thus oblivious to the racist element? Or is it that there really is no racist element?
The picture, which clearly is a posed shot of models not a candid shot, shows a tall white girl leaning on the head of a smaller black girl.
Obviously being white it is more difficult, but can you see how in the background of the history of white on black racism in the USA, this picture might appear to a black audience to be racist? Taller height and position of physical dominance, being imposed by a white person on a black person. It's a pretty obvious trigger.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I just don't see it the way you describe. If the ad had kids dressed in blackface, then yes, I would agree there is racism but nothing like that is in the picture. I just don't see the taller girl as imposing some sort of dominance over the smaller girl.
Kilkrazy wrote: Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
Perhaps they didn't see it because this ad wasn't specifically targeting a black family? For example, McDonalds puts ads with white people in magazines with mostly white audiences and ads with black people in magazines with mostly black audiences. I don't see advertising like that as racist. I see it as an attempt to target a specific demographic for their product. Following that train of thought, look at the pictures below. Is there a racist element in either ad given the models were deliberately chosen to target a specific demographic? I would say no, there isn't. Deliberate, conscious choices went into making these two ads, but no racism.
TheCustomLime wrote: The second ad was created in the 1970s. What is considered offensive has changed in the last 40 years.
I don't think so. I think that the internet just gives people a lot more access to things to be offended about. Now people seem a lot more hypersensitive about these things.
Was there a black person on the project team? Who can say. It's certainly possible, likely even, but it's also possible that none of them were black except the young model herself. What difference does it make? Maybe several black people protested and were ignored. Maybe they kept their mouths shut because they were in positions of low power. IT is all speculation
I agree about the speculation, and would go further stating everything involving the nature of this photo and its passively racist (or not) imagery is speculation. Which is why I asked how you could be so certain posting:
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
You don't know if that is the case, but you are quick to label the ad as passively racist. That is problematic for me. You make assumptions, much like people outraged over the ad made assumptions, but none of those assumptions amount to any actual truth. Gap isn't a racist company, the photo itself is not racist, but it is perceived as racist because some people are choosing to see something ugly in the image and conflating it with other ills in our society.
So what was first opinion ("this ad is racist") now becomes "fact" in the public consciousness as Gap pulls the ad. Actual facts that challenge the claims of racism, like the precedent set by the older ad (i.e. that same pose and arrangement of models are used by Gap in a previous ad campaign), or that the two girls in the current photo are sisters, are brushed aside with a "yeah, but still!" type of response from those who are choosing to assume the worst about an image of a black girl and a white girl in a photograph.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: [
You don't know if that is the case, but you are quick to label the ad as passively racist. That is problematic for me. You make assumptions, much like people outraged over the ad made assumptions, but none of those assumptions amount to any actual truth. Gap isn't a racist company, the photo itself is not racist, but it is perceived as racist because some people are choosing to see something ugly in the image and conflating it with other ills in our society.
So what was first opinion ("this ad is racist") now becomes "fact" in the public consciousness as Gap pulls the ad. Actual facts that challenge the claims of racism, like the precedent set by the older ad (i.e. that same pose and arrangement of models are used by Gap in a previous ad campaign), or that the two girls in the current photo are sisters, are brushed aside with a "yeah, but still!" type of response from those who are choosing to assume the worst about an image of a black girl and a white girl in a photograph.
Seems like the only qualification for whether something is racist is whether enough people complain about it being racist. And the quantity "enough" seems to be shrinking.
It's a bit silly, I think. These things bubble up every now and then, nearly every group for nearly every special interest.
The discussion that we should probably have is this: to what extent does the offense of a group control what is considered generally offensive? Not all people are offended by the same things, and many people are not offended by much. But we all (or at least all of those in polite society) generally recognize that there are things that are generaly offensive, and also things that offensive to groups, and should be handled delicately.
I remember a few years back, some minor politician, a city councilman or something, used the word niggardly, and he was attacked as racist. there was also an issue with some sort of sound recorded greeting card that to most people sounded benign but some people claimed offense because they heard a racial slur. There were also people deeply offended by Michelle Obama wearing a sleeveless dress. Nothing really happened, everybody had a good laugh, and we moved on.
The key is, to think about it. Look at it. See if you can empathize. And you know what, I can. I can see somebody seeing that picture on a bad day, and wondering why the only black kid is being used as a leaning post. I'd like to think that most people, upon further reflection, would blow it off, but sometimes you just a head of steam about something ridiculous. My strategy is to change the subject, and spare the offended party any further embarrassment by arguing.
One thing to keep in mind is that for a lot of black people, they really don't see white and black kids playing together. There are plenty of black people that live in mostly black neighborhoods, and so they wouldn't have as much experience with kids playing in a color blind way.
Polonius wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that for a lot of black people, they really don't see white and black kids playing together. There are plenty of black people that live in mostly black neighborhoods, and so they wouldn't have as much experience with kids playing in a color blind way.
Manchu wrote: Seems like the only qualification for whether something is racist is whether enough people complain about it being racist. And the quantity "enough" seems to be shrinking.
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
THIS is Racism. How is this portrayed in those pictures? Because a white kid has their elbow on the head of a black kid and is leaning on them? Come on.
I can equally say that the black is helping keep the white kid up and supporting them which is very noble. Seriously?
I swear that the likes of Twitter and Tumblr are arguably the worst things to happen to news in the last few years. They seem to act as a repository for every easily offended yet publicity hungry nobody in the world.
In a sane world these people would be ignored, but Twitter outrage make for quick and easy journalism and in these days of 24 hour online news it makes for easy clickbait to have a hack monitor Twitter and knock out swift lazy articles based whatever nonsense is trending, no matter how utterly nonsensical the content may be. Sadly that just encourages more of these spurious 'outrages'. Offence for the sake of being offended.
The ludicrous 'white terrorism' article above is another example of this unfortunate trend.
Sigvatr wrote: Blacks "supporting" whites and keeping them up has had its history in the US.
Just in the USA??? That's a good one! When was Apartheid eradicated in South Africa? Waaaaaaaay after the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. Nice try, though.
Sorry if you were offended by my comment, LOL. (See what I did there????)
No idea. I think calling those pics (either new or old) racist is a huge stretch that seriously undermines the credibility of anyone making that claim.
No idea. I think calling those pics (either new or old) racist is a huge stretch that seriously undermines the credibility of anyone making that claim.
Was there a black person on the project team? Who can say. It's certainly possible, likely even, but it's also possible that none of them were black except the young model herself. What difference does it make? Maybe several black people protested and were ignored. Maybe they kept their mouths shut because they were in positions of low power. IT is all speculation
I agree about the speculation, and would go further stating everything involving the nature of this photo and its passively racist (or not) imagery is speculation. Which is why I asked how you could be so certain posting:
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
You don't know if that is the case, but you are quick to label the ad as passively racist. That is problematic for me. You make assumptions, much like people outraged over the ad made assumptions, but none of those assumptions amount to any actual truth. Gap isn't a racist company, the photo itself is not racist, but it is perceived as racist because some people are choosing to see something ugly in the image and conflating it with other ills in our society.
So what was first opinion ("this ad is racist") now becomes "fact" in the public consciousness as Gap pulls the ad. Actual facts that challenge the claims of racism, like the precedent set by the older ad (i.e. that same pose and arrangement of models are used by Gap in a previous ad campaign), or that the two girls in the current photo are sisters, are brushed aside with a "yeah, but still!" type of response from those who are choosing to assume the worst about an image of a black girl and a white girl in a photograph.
I am explaining the thought process concerning the development of the advert, by which the ad can be seen as passive racist. I have also provided an explanation of why the other advert does not correspond to and excuse this new one.
People found the racially offensive, and complained about it. That's undeniable.
I have provided an explanation for why people would be led to that point of view. If you don't accet my explanation, then at the moment we are back to the idea that some people are offended by everything because no reasons.
Is it beyond people's empathy and imagination to think that actually people complained they found this advert offensive because they found it offensive for a good reason?
I know nearly all of us are white, and that gives us a different perspective.
Is it beyond people's empathy and imagination to think that actually people complained they found this advert offensive because they found it offensive for a good reason?
What's the reason is the question. Because a white kid is leaning her elbow on a black kid's head? Seriously?
And your comment about being white is just another...what do they call it now?? "Micro aggression"?? Being white is evil now. The movement that feels that simply being Caucasian means you are racist because you can't understand what being Black is like. Just because of the color of your skin you are inherently racist. THAT'S Racism. Read the definition I posted.
Believe what you want, but constantly pointing fingers doesn't anyone's cause at all. It never will. It's just a way to deflect the fact that you aren't willing to make change within yourself.
Is it beyond people's empathy and imagination to think that actually people complained they found this advert offensive because they found it offensive for a good reason?
What's the reason is the question. Because a white kid is leaning her elbow on a black kid's head? Seriously?
And your comment about being white is just another...what do they call it now?? "Micro aggression"?? Being white is evil now. The movement that feels that simply being Caucasian means you are racist because you can't understand what being Black is like. Just because of the color of your skin you are inherently racist. THAT'S Racism. Read the definition I posted.
Believe what you want, but constantly pointing fingers doesn't anyone's cause at all. It never will. It's just a way to deflect the fact that you aren't willing to make change within yourself.
so you are denying the possibility that anybody could be genuinely upset at that. I don't mean that you agree that they should be upset, but you refuse to see a possibility that a person could find the image upsetting?
You feel the only explanation for anybody to point that out is hatred towards white people?
If people are offended, they are offended. You have to accept that, unless you want to make an argument that people are pretending to be offended for no reason, in order to... IDK what, have some lulz?
Certainly. It might be offensive to some, as everyone has their own "triggers" as to what offends them.
An empty bourbon bottle offends me, greatly.
However, just because someone is offended by something, it doesn't make that something racist, sexist, classist, etc.
It may just mean that person is too easily offended.
If people are offended, they are offended. You have to accept that, unless you want to make an argument that people are pretending to be offended for no reason, in order to... IDK what, have some lulz?
Certainly. It might be offensive to some, as everyone has their own "triggers" as to what offends them.
An empty bourbon bottle offends me, greatly.
However, just because someone is offended by something, it doesn't make that something racist, sexist, classist, etc.
It may just mean that person is too easily offended.
What if you changed the word "offended" to "upset?"
I know that things that normally don't bother me upset me more when I'm stressed, or I've had a bad day, or I'm unusually tired. I very seldom get offended, but nearly all of my interactions are with people of equal or lower social prestige, as I'm a white, male, professional front line supervisor. It's easy to have a thick skin when you're doing pretty well. However, I do get upset, or bothered, or indignant, and often about some pretty dumb stuff.
So, I can see people being bothered by it, because I'm bothered by how people park, or the mushrooms my wife put in the tetrazinni, or not being thanked by name at a management meeting after a minor success.
Further, I see an accusation of racism as a career problem. It's a horrible thing to accuse anybody of. For a black person, that has no doubt experienced plenty of overt and tons of passive racism, it's a fact of life. So to you are I, an accusation of racism seems wildly disproportionate (and probably is), while to him, of course it's a representation of the racism he sees on a daily basis.
Now, it's a dumb thing to say, because it takes a non-issue and throws a grenade at it, but for me at least, it's not impossible for me to see somebody really feeling that way. But I've seen people upset over dumber things, like the time my girlfriend in law school got mad that I studied for finals instead of taking her on a weekend trip for her birthday. She really felt upset. Her feelings were real. I didn't feel they were reasonable, but I didn't assume she was pretending to be upset to get attention or pick a fight.
I don't doubt that her feelings are real. She is welcome to them. Just like the lady yesterday who wasn't allowed to board with group 1 on my United flight and had to go get in the Group 5 line "Oh, well then! I'll just go to the back of the bus!" (Yes, this literally happened yesterday)
But to take that anger and start throwing around labels like racist is wrong.
Anyhow, to answer this question: "Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?"
Was there a black person on the project team? Who can say. It's certainly possible, likely even, but it's also possible that none of them were black except the young model herself. What difference does it make? Maybe several black people protested and were ignored. Maybe they kept their mouths shut because they were in positions of low power. IT is all speculation
I agree about the speculation, and would go further stating everything involving the nature of this photo and its passively racist (or not) imagery is speculation. Which is why I asked how you could be so certain posting:
Given that point, why did GAP use such a shot? They didn't sit down and go, "Bua ha ha! What can we do to piss off black people this month?" But equally, they went through the whole process of imagining and creating the shot without considering that black people might perceive it differently to the GAP designers.
In other words, they forgot to include black people in their mental audience for the ad.
You don't know if that is the case, but you are quick to label the ad as passively racist. That is problematic for me. You make assumptions, much like people outraged over the ad made assumptions, but none of those assumptions amount to any actual truth. Gap isn't a racist company, the photo itself is not racist, but it is perceived as racist because some people are choosing to see something ugly in the image and conflating it with other ills in our society.
So what was first opinion ("this ad is racist") now becomes "fact" in the public consciousness as Gap pulls the ad. Actual facts that challenge the claims of racism, like the precedent set by the older ad (i.e. that same pose and arrangement of models are used by Gap in a previous ad campaign), or that the two girls in the current photo are sisters, are brushed aside with a "yeah, but still!" type of response from those who are choosing to assume the worst about an image of a black girl and a white girl in a photograph.
I am explaining the thought process concerning the development of the advert, by which the ad can be seen as passive racist. I have also provided an explanation of why the other advert does not correspond to and excuse this new one.
People found the racially offensive, and complained about it. That's undeniable.
I have provided an explanation for why people would be led to that point of view. If you don't accet my explanation, then at the moment we are back to the idea that some people are offended by everything because no reasons.
Is it beyond people's empathy and imagination to think that actually people complained they found this advert offensive because they found it offensive for a good reason?
I know nearly all of us are white, and that gives us a different perspective.
Not at all, I can follow the reasoning behind why people could see racism in the image, but for those people I believe they are primed to arrive at that conclusion. As others have already stated, being upset is one thing. I admit the pose is awkward. It is odd seeing anyone leaning on someone else's head, but racist? To me that is a deliberate escalation that is unnecessary and absurd. Especially when more information has come out about the image and that information is dismissed because it does not suit a racist narrative.
For that I do not have empathy.
If someone wants to doggedly believe something in spite of new information that challenges their opinion then they are closed minded and entrenched in their view. I have no respect for that mindset.
Chongara wrote: Image doesn't look racist to me. Some of the reactions to people calling it racist do seem pretty racist. I'd say they should pull the ad, not because I find it offensive but the kind of people that would be really annoyed by them doing so are the kind of people I enjoy seeing annoyed.
I can see some merit in this.
So basically your argument is clearly the people yelling racism are either seeing offensive material where there is none or being straight up offensive themselves but we should let a group of offended people and racist people that want it pulled to win because you enjoy seeing the side you normally oppose to feel discomfort at their racism or super sensitive emotions winning. Gee it's almost like it's incredibly backwards of what you say you're normally standing up for in the first place. Most interesting bit is people finding non-offensive material as offensive or being offensive themselves and saying it's the 'real' offensive material starts giving incentive towards bad motives and towards people taking things down at slightly viewed ill intent whether existing or not. Your side (the side offended by most things) basically is morally right and good even when they're doing wrong according to you. Very nice of you.
Chongara wrote: Image doesn't look racist to me. Some of the reactions to people calling it racist do seem pretty racist. I'd say they should pull the ad, not because I find it offensive but the kind of people that would be really annoyed by them doing so are the kind of people I enjoy seeing annoyed.
I can see some merit in this.
So basically your argument is clearly the people yelling racism are either seeing offensive material where there is none or being straight up offensive themselves but we should let a group of offended people and racist people that want it pulled to win because you enjoy seeing the side you normally oppose to feel discomfort at their racism or super sensitive emotions winning. Gee it's almost like it's incredibly backwards of what you say you're normally standing up for in the first place. Most interesting bit is people finding non-offensive material as offensive or being offensive themselves and saying it's the 'real' offensive material starts giving incentive towards bad motives and towards people taking things down at slightly viewed ill intent whether existing or not. Your side (the side offended by most things) basically is morally right and good even when they're doing wrong according to you. Very nice of you.
No, they were saying that people who dislike the ad are being responded to. The responses are racist, and by people that chongara and ashiraya enjoy seeing annoyed.
The pose is the same as any older kid would do to a younger kid. If anything it's something a younger, smaller, shorter kid would find offensive towards an older sibling or older person. If anything bullying would make more sense and even then in this case it's more just teasing from the older to younger kid. If you had an older sibling or younger sibling you'd understand. Often the younger is like the older one's *****. Always playing luigi instead of Mario in the Mario bros. games (though it's fitting in some ways) and always being player number 2 with the possibly crappier controller.
All that said being the kid that's picked on and a younger sibling this image doesn't create 'ZOMG!' reactions in me. A few seconds of unpleasant thoughts at most for either pic but kids are kids and kids are ***holes (at least some of em). Being bullied throughout youth has helped me come to this conclusion.
@goliath: Oh that's more understandable then. I don't exactly condone that behavior if actually true about being racist. I wouldn't doubt there are bad people in every group. I just fully expected some people in the offended group to be spouting off racist comments to the other group as their reason why this is racist. I am still very much against censorship though. I have to ask though where they found these offensive comments. Far as I saw nothing in the OP was offensive sounding by the crowd reacting to people calling the pic racist.
kronk wrote: I don't doubt that her feelings are real. She is welcome to them. Just like the lady yesterday who wasn't allowed to board with group 1 on my United flight and had to go get in the Group 5 line "Oh, well then! I'll just go to the back of the bus!" (Yes, this literally happened yesterday)
But to take that anger and start throwing around labels like racist is wrong.
That's fair. It's wrong, but it's not the sort of wrong that overly bothers me. I'm fine with it bothering you.
I wouldn't say it was racist, but definitely ill-conceived. It doesn't actually have to be racist to be an obvious trigger for backlash. Any PR department worth its massive budget should have been able to predict the fringe response. It almost makes me think they purposely courted the outrage to heighten their profile, like an inverse dog whistle that gets them free exposure all over the Internet.
As for the expressions, clothing ads often have models in neutral or slightly negative expressions so that the audience will spend less time looking at their faces rather than their clothing. At least that's the theory. To me it looks like those brands of clothing make everyone feel depressed.
kronk wrote: I don't doubt that her feelings are real. She is welcome to them. Just like the lady yesterday who wasn't allowed to board with group 1 on my United flight and had to go get in the Group 5 line "Oh, well then! I'll just go to the back of the bus!" (Yes, this literally happened yesterday)
But to take that anger and start throwing around labels like racist is wrong.
That's fair. It's wrong, but it's not the sort of wrong that overly bothers me. I'm fine with it bothering you.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I wouldn't say it was racist, but definitely ill-conceived. It doesn't actually have to be racist to be an obvious trigger for backlash. Any PR department worth its massive budget should have been able to predict the fringe response. It almost makes me think they purposely courted the outrage to heighten their profile, like an inverse dog whistle that gets them free exposure all over the Internet.
I toyed with the idea, but I eventually rejected it. I think this was a pretty off the wall response to a picture that really just shows kids being kids. I think if the picture had been a group of professionals, with one leaning on the only minority, it'd be different, but kids play like that. I will say that the Gap got a ton of free media out of this, in a situation where they really aren't seen as bad guys.
Chongara wrote: Image doesn't look racist to me. Some of the reactions to people calling it racist do seem pretty racist. I'd say they should pull the ad, not because I find it offensive but the kind of people that would be really annoyed by them doing so are the kind of people I enjoy seeing annoyed.
I can see some merit in this.
So basically your argument is clearly the people yelling racism are either seeing offensive material where there is none or being straight up offensive themselves but we should let a group of offended people and racist people that want it pulled to win because you enjoy seeing the side you normally oppose to feel discomfort at their racism or super sensitive emotions winning. Gee it's almost like it's incredibly backwards of what you say you're normally standing up for in the first place. Most interesting bit is people finding non-offensive material as offensive or being offensive themselves and saying it's the 'real' offensive material starts giving incentive towards bad motives and towards people taking things down at slightly viewed ill intent whether existing or not. Your side (the side offended by most things) basically is morally right and good even when they're doing wrong according to you. Very nice of you.
Sensitive Susan Says: I find this ad racist.
Skeptical Samuel Says: There's no way you could find this racist! You're just looking for things to be mad about
Rational Randall Says: I don't think the ad is racist, but I can kinda see where susan is coming from. I think it's a huge a stretch to say susan is acting in bad faith. However I don't think they should take down the ad.
Racist Rick Says: All these racist black people are ruining america! They're just complaining to keep white people down! I can't belive how they get away with this PC SJW is going to be our undoing.
Chongara Says: You've got point there Randall, but feth rick. I hope they take the ad down just because it would bother him.
I think a lot of the problem is when people think of racism, they only think of it as being something intentional. Racist stuff done because of privelledge is not really racism because they didn't mean to be racist...
so you are denying the possibility that anybody could be genuinely upset at that. I don't mean that you agree that they should be upset, but you refuse to see a possibility that a person could find the image upsetting?
You feel the only explanation for anybody to point that out is hatred towards white people?
No, no. You can be as upset as you want. However, to start shouting "RACISM" to the point where the company feels the need to remove the ad is absolutely ridiculous. In my view, it diminishes what racism actually is and how it effects people.
Also, to scream RACISM for something like that ad and then get into the whole "You're white, you wouldn't understand" argument is equally ridiculous.
Why is that ridiculous? I've experienced that same dismissive attitude from Christians when I've tried to explain how something they said is offensive to someone who isn't Christian. Many times, they simply can't see any point of view other than their own, so they dismiss any complaint no matter how justified it is or isn't.
It should not be solely up to the people who never have to experience bigotry to define what is or is not valid to describe as bigotry to those who experience it every day. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean others can't.
"racism" is a loaded word, sure, but it still applies to things other than lynchings and segregation. "Passive racism" seems to be a term people are trying to use to describe a situation or someone who isn't racist does or says something that has racist undertones to many other people. For example, George Lucas probably wasn't racist when he made The Phantom Menace, but he probably should have known better...
Oh, I forgot to add: Who here actually buys clothes from the GAP? I get my work clothes at either Sears or Bass Pro Shop (manufacturing plants are dirty, dusty places).
Sure.. but what did she win? Talking of winning and losing is very zero sum thinking, which is actually one of the factors that leads to racism.
GAP replaced the image with a different one, but what's the cost there? Is GAP worse off than prior to this? How is this not good for GAP, between the free media of the discussion, and the fact that, and I know I'm stereotyping here, but I somehow doubt black shoppers were a big part of the GAP's revenue stream. They tend to be pretty overtly bland clothing.
We buy Gap for our daughter, but they still have our business.
We are in the "I can see what some people are having a problem with" as well as the "I can see why Gap didn't see a problem approving the picture" camps.
They released it without malice, they responded to complains, story over.
No, people will just change track and start complaining about how racist it is for a white family to adopt a black child.
True, there are still a lot of white people who think blacks should be kept in their own communities and shouldn't mix with whites and that interracial families are a horrible idea.
No, people will just change track and start complaining about how racist it is for a white family to adopt a black child.
True, there are still a lot of white people who think blacks should be kept in their own communities and shouldn't mix with whites and that interracial families are a horrible idea.
And a tiny minority of black people who think the same. Like the white people, they're idiots. They're all idiots.
People who make claims like this don't care for facts. They don't want facts. Ideologists / leftists don't care for facts, they hate them. With a passion.
Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
I logged in for the first time in years just to tell you that this is by far the dumbest thing I have ever come across. What you are arguing for is essentially Seperate But Equal, 'No Whites Allowed' signs, and the entire and total establishment of the 14th amendment.
MLK, Lincoln, and JFK are spinning in their respective graves so fething hard we can hook wires up to them and generate enough electricity to power the world. Congrats on being both this dense and creating a new form of sustainable energy.
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
I logged in for the first time in years just to tell you that this is by far the dumbest thing I have ever come across. What you are arguing for is essentially Seperate But Equal, 'No Whites Allowed' signs, and the entire and total establishment of the 14th amendment.
MLK, Lincoln, and JFK are spinning in their respective graves so fething hard we can hook wires up to them and generate enough electricity to power the world. Congrats on being both this dense and creating a new form of sustainable energy.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm. At least, I hope it is. That or Patsy02 is actually Spike Lee (who is notorious for his anti-white/anti-interracial ideals)
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
4/10
Nice try.
You get points for playing the black militant angle instead of the tired old Stormfront approach.
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
Don't they already do that? There are lots of racially segregated ghettoes in Europe and America...
Patsy02 wrote: Personally, I think all proud Persons Of Colour should throw off the shackles of white imperialism and start co-habitating in coloured-only communities. This is the only way to escape centuries of oppression, and eventually overthrow society-wide white supremacy.
Don't they already do that? There are lots of racially segregated ghettoes in Europe and America...
There are also plenty of nice middle-class and upscale black communities in the United States without drug and gang problems. Your point?
Ghettos like that only exist because of institutional racism and the negrophobes who like to see us locked in a pig pen like animals. The more you deny this fact, the more you just prove my point. And by the way, invalidating my experience is gross and racist.
No, people will just change track and start complaining about how racist it is for a white family to adopt a black child.
True, there are still a lot of white people who think blacks should be kept in their own communities and shouldn't mix with whites and that interracial families are a horrible idea.
And a tiny minority of black people who think the same. Like the white people, they're idiots. They're all idiots.
True, and I would argue against that.
Just wanted to point out that interracial families are not just a problem for some black people.
I also wanted to point it out since I am a recipient of this criticism from white people on a regular basis.
2 things. 1) don't paint an entire side of the political spectrum as X or Y, that's a certain path to a warning. 2) please ensure your posts are relevant and on topic, thanks
I guess it'll never be eliminated, but it should get better as time goes on. As an aside in my earlier post I actually put in stats on interracial marriage approval for some reason I then edited out.
Think it was 84% white approval and 96% black approval in 2013. Unsurprisingly it was more likely for older people to disapprove.
Patsy02 wrote: Ghettos like that only exist because of institutional racism and the negrophobes who like to see us locked in a pig pen like animals. The more you deny this fact, the more you just prove my point. And by the way, invalidating my experience is gross and racist.
Hey I never said they do that out of choice. You're projecting quite a lot there.
Looks like 7% of marriage in the US are interracial marriages right now (I think that is both old and new marriages, new marriages are higher of course):
Of course the US is pretty big, and it also varies from state to state with some states being more accepting of it in general.
I know it's anecdotal, but my personal experience is that a large number of people still have problems with it here in Oklahoma. My wife and I still get disapproving looks when we are out and about together, constantly get asked "separate checks", I have had numerous people around me (who don't know I am in an interracial marriage and have a mixed-race child) talk about how people need to stick to their own races and that being a mixed race child is worse than having a physical or mental disability. Some of those people were the reason I felt compelled to quit volunteering for the fire department that I was with for 5 years.
But I also have a large circle of friends who are also in interracial marriages (white/Hispanic, white/African, white/native, white/Filipino) as well as one of my brothers and a fair number of cousins. So even though I am still reminded that bigotry is real, I am also reminded that progress is happening as well.
My daughter looks very white, but if she is playing with her cousins on my wife's side she could end up in a similar picture at some point in time. I honestly don't think Gap had any racist intentions, and they probably didn't anticipate that anybody could view it in that way. Walking away from the picture and changing it was probably the smart thing to do. No company survives an internet argument without any damage, and by the time they explain that they were sisters it wouldn't change that some people feel that looking at that picture shows oppression. They have to pick their battles.
kronk wrote: I don't doubt that her feelings are real. She is welcome to them. Just like the lady yesterday who wasn't allowed to board with group 1 on my United flight and had to go get in the Group 5 line "Oh, well then! I'll just go to the back of the bus!" (Yes, this literally happened yesterday)
.
Similar thing happened to me today while running into a gas station to get a drink. An enormously fat lady was standing directly in the doorway and I had to sidestep around her. She starts screaming "Oh it's like Birmingham in the 60's!" It took me a minute to figure it out, as I just thought she was a fat lady blocking the door, but apparently I was a racist. The funniest part was the South Asian clerk who was way darker than her laughed in her face and said "Maybe he couldn't see you." That sent her into more of a huff, calling everyone racist etc. Pretty funny to me at least.
Not the first time I've seen things like this, and it saddens me the GAP would cave to such bullcrap. They should focus on selling overpriced sweatshop made clothes, not catering to whiny racists online.
In America, there is a large contingent of Black culture that blames White America for all the ills of the world. They get raised from an early age being told that the White Devil hates you for being you, and that racism is the reason why things aren't going their way.
The fact that there is a roughly equal proportion of White Americans that believes that gak and actually are outspoken racists reinforces that attitude and makes things gakky for regular people. Like I've actually met a guy that was so proudly racist he refused to admit Beyonce was hot. fething Beyonce.
Sure.. but what did she win? Talking of winning and losing is very zero sum thinking, which is actually one of the factors that leads to racism.
So I don't see winners or losers.
I guess I see it this way. You scream RACISM, you are doing it for a purpose. The purpose in this case is to show awareness to a cute ad about kids and your idea that a white kid shouldn't lean on a black kid like that. You get enough support and there is enough of an outcry, the ad is pulled. Mission accomplished. When mission is accomplished, there is a winner.
In fact, we are all losers in this case. Get upset about the ad all you want. When it gets to the point of calling it blatant racism to such a degree that the ad is pulled...well, I'm downright sad about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That still answer the question however of why is it racist to move past somebody blocking a doorway?
That's a gigantic stretch in !ogic even for the usual race baiters.
Lol I've never seen that picture.
The answer to your question is that I was a White male and therefore an excuse to get mad at. There was nothing even remotely racial about the situation, some people just need to get butthurt about something.
Was she moving veeery slowly towards the door to go into the store? I've been behind extremely fat people going into a store and been tempted to make the trek around them as well. Maybe she thought you should wait for her since she was there first or hold the door for her?
Not saying you should have (I've seen people actually hit their head on a door's edge in efforts to only open the door enough to slip their own body into the opening so as to not exert any more effort than completely necessary) but you may have not noticed her glacial progress and thought she was just standing there.
Or maybe you're just the Flash and don't know it...
d-usa wrote: Looks like 7% of marriage in the US are interracial marriages right now (I think that is both old and new marriages, new marriages are higher of course):
Of course the US is pretty big, and it also varies from state to state with some states being more accepting of it in general.
I know it's anecdotal, but my personal experience is that a large number of people still have problems with it here in Oklahoma. My wife and I still get disapproving looks when we are out and about together, constantly get asked "separate checks", I have had numerous people around me (who don't know I am in an interracial marriage and have a mixed-race child) talk about how people need to stick to their own races and that being a mixed race child is worse than having a physical or mental disability. Some of those people were the reason I felt compelled to quit volunteering for the fire department that I was with for 5 years.
Even here in the Netherlands (which I like to think is one of the most liberal and progressive places in the world) interracial marriages are still seen negatively by a lot of people. I had a black girlfriend, and people virtually always reacted weird when they saw her for the first time ("oh, you hadn't told me she was black..."). The local Russian community was of course... a lot more clear about their dissapproval. But at least that was expected.
I cant believe this is still a topic lol. It is not raciast but what ever it is a bunch of kids trying to look cool.
But more importantly screw the people offended by this big time screw them. If these two girls are sisters what is it doing to them? Two sister choosen for a big photo shoot get their pictures taken then people start one is white one is black your not the same. It is two little girls told they are in the middle of a racist disbute....god love them and hope they are ok.
Btw I get it some people are treated racest and it is not cool but seriously this is a strech. Stop being offended FOR other people.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between someone being a racist and someone doing someting racist. Just like one can stretch one's arm and inadvertently punch someone in the face, I'd argue that it's entirely possible to do or say something racist without believing in racist ideals.
As an example, take Iron_Captain's anecdote: people assume his girlfriend is white. The people doing so probably aren't racists in the sense that they believe in major differences in the genotype between different "races" of humans, but the assumption is still one based in racist assumptions.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think it's important to draw a distinction between someone being a racist and someone doing someting racist. Just like one can stretch one's arm and inadvertently punch someone in the face, I'd argue that it's entirely possible to do or say something racist without believing in racist ideals.
As an example, take Iron_Captain's anecdote: people assume his girlfriend is white. The people doing so probably aren't racists in the sense that they believe in major differences in the genotype between different "races" of humans, but the assumption is still one based in racist assumptions.
That's prejudice, not racism, AW. Very big difference between the two.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think it's important to draw a distinction between someone being a racist and someone doing someting racist. Just like one can stretch one's arm and inadvertently punch someone in the face, I'd argue that it's entirely possible to do or say something racist without believing in racist ideals.
As an example, take Iron_Captain's anecdote: people assume his girlfriend is white. The people doing so probably aren't racists in the sense that they believe in major differences in the genotype between different "races" of humans, but the assumption is still one based in racist assumptions.
That's prejudice, not racism, AW. Very big difference between the two.
It's prejudices grounded in racist ideas. We all have them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't reflect over what we're doing and why we believe what we do. We're Homo Sapiens Sapiens for a reason. Trying to separate these types of prejudices from racism is a fool's errand; they're intimately linked with each other.
No it's not racist, but I'm sure a few frothy social media postings about it is indicative of the imminent collapse of our civilisation because of namby-pamby liberul sekrit-commie SJWs or whatever.
That's prejudice, not racism, AW. Very big difference between the two.
That depends on what way you use the words. Some people use racism to mean only conscious and direct hatred whereas others use racism to mean power structures giving real bite to what would otherwise be mere prejudice. It's fully possible to follow patterns of thought and behaviour that support a racist system without it being an actual choice. Some things get ingrained deeply while we grow up and are reinforced daily by merely existing within a particular culture. That's what culture does.
.
