Is GAP Advertisement Passively Racist?

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.

**Breotan**

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?

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35968787

BBC Trending wrote:Is this Gap advert racist?

What do you see in this picture?

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.

**Wyrmalla**

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.

**DarkTraveler777**

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.

**jasper76**

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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.

**VorpalBunny74**

I notice no Asian kids or boys in this photo. It is sexist, racist and . . . apiarist?

**Iron_Captain**

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.

**Tactical_Spam**

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.

**Nostromodamus**

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.

**Iron_Captain**

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.

**jasper76**

I see one pink shirt and one ballerina.

**d-usa**

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.

**Tactical_Spam**

jasper76 wrote:
I see one pink shirt and one ballerina.

I see no blue shirts or flamenco dancers. This is an outrage.

**hotsauceman1**

I see people looking for a reason to overreact to something children normally do to eachother.

**feeder**

d-usa wrote:
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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

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.

**d-usa**

feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
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

**Tactical_Spam**

d-usa wrote:
feeder wrote:
d-usa wrote:
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.

**cincydooley**

No. No it is not.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

Iron_Captain wrote:
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?

**Breotan**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
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?

Mostly. Upside-down yoga handstand girl seems happy though.

**Nostromodamus**

Breotan wrote:
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
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?

Mostly. Upside-down yoga handstand girl seems happy though.

She certainly does seem to have a different perspective on things.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
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.

**flamingkillamajig**

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?

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35968787

BBC Trending wrote:Is this Gap advert racist?

What do you see in this picture?

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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).

**xraytango**

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.

**Breotan**

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.

**Rootbeard**

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).

**d-usa**

Rootbeard wrote:

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.

**sebster**

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.