Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/07 22:07:15
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.
It devalues the term itself.
2016/04/08 07:20:57
Subject: Re: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.
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.
2016/04/08 13:34:54
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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?
2016/04/08 13:47:29
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2016/04/08 14:52:18
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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?"
My answer is no.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 15:36:25
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2016/04/08 16:02:00
Subject: Re: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.
2016/04/08 16:20:46
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 16:21:48
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/08 16:39:54
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.
2016/04/08 17:31:36
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 18:03:05
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...
2016/04/08 17:56:49
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively 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).
Amiright?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 18:22:01
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2016/04/08 18:32:03
Subject: Re:Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?
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.
