Comments on: Vintage Ads Depict African Americans as Dirty

By: Racism in Bull Durham Tobacco Ads » Sociological Images

Racism in Bull Durham Tobacco Ads » Sociological Images — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:43:48 +0000

[...] more historical U.S. representations of blacks, see these posts: one, twp, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, [...]

By: Abby

Abby — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:37:48 +0000

Besides feeling shocked at the bizarre racism (great point about the “but,” Jane/Jodi), I had the same reaction to the first ad that Bob M. had. Does Cream of Wheat really have no vitamins? And that would be a selling point?? So confusing…

By: Jodi

Jodi — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:02:04 +0000

Whoops. That last comment was me. I have no idea why the name “Jane” came up there.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:59:44 +0000

I get a slightly different reading from the second ad. I don’t think the advertisers care much about selling to black people. This is marketed directly at white people, and the message isn’t that the white child is so innocent it thinks the black child is just a white child covered in dirt, the message is that without this soap, your precious little white child will be no better than a black person.

Also, what’s with the wording in the first ad regarding bugs in the porridge? There are no bugs, BUT it’s good to eat. I can’t see any reason the word “but” would be used here other than to suggest that the black man is an avid eater of bugs, but Cream of Wheat is so tasty that it’s a good choice even without delicious bugs. So there’s a reference here to traditional foods of certain African countries as further evidence of this man’s less-than-human status (just to pile on even more to the ignorance of what vitamins are and the questionable literacy).

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:08:54 +0000

It looks like the black kid is .5 seconds away from punching the white kid in the face.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:17:05 +0000

I think that Brendon’s assessment is correctly what the joke is supposed to be here, but it doesn’t change the fact that the white girl is in pretty boots and a dress, and the black girl is barefoot in a dirty and ragged skirt.

By: Stumblng Tumblr

Stumblng Tumblr — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:01:33 +0000

As to the first ad, see this: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/dec04.htm

By: Bob M.

Bob M. — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:43:29 +0000

I find it interesting that the makers of Cream of Wheat were admitting in the ad that, nutritionally speaking, their product was basically worthless. You won’t find food ads today admitting that products contain no vitamins — which I think says a lot about our changing concerns with foods and health.

And on an unrelated note, there is something slightly disturbing about the manner in which the letter W is branded on the guy’s forehead.

By: K

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:06:48 +0000

There was a similar black=dirty comment in the episode “Human Nature” of the modern Doctor Who, made by a teenager in 1913 to the Doctor’s companion Martha, who is black and also (in this episode) working as a maid. Clearly this is a modern view of what white people’s attitudes were in 1913, but it came to mind instantly.

Despite the frilly collar and cuffs, I think the white child in the advert is a boy – seems to be wearing a romper suit.

By: Dubi

Dubi — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:24:42 +0000

Eric – I agree with Brendon. It’s supposed to be cutesy in that the white girl thinks the black girl is black because she isn’t washed with a good enough soap, and she could be white if only her mommy used Fairy (cue racist consumer of ad: “Oh, if only that were true, haha!”).
I can’t see why “the folly of youth argument seems to only be valid if the little girl in the ad was the one who made the ad” – you have ads with the same premise all over the place (only without the racism, most of the time).

By: Eric Stoller

Eric Stoller — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:02:23 +0000

@Brendon – the folly of youth argument seems to only be valid if the little girl in the ad was the one who made the ad. White adults made the ad which is why I concur with Gwen that the ad is implying that African Americans are dirty/lazy/stupid/etc.

By: Brendon

Brendon — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:14:11 +0000

The second ad is troubling, but my interpretation of it wasn’t that the ad was implying that African Americans are dirty – it’s implying that the young white girl believes the black girl is covered in dirt, which is the only reason why the black girl doesn’t have the white skin she does.

It’s about the ‘folly’ of youth – this girl isn’t versed in the discourse of racial difference yet!