Ghanimah A. sent us these images for Cordaid, an “international development organisation” that specializes in “emergency aid and structural poverty eradication.” We would love to know what you think.
Well everyone is in stereotypical African dress and jewelry in an empty rural area. They imply that primitive tribal people of Africa need Europeans to use their mobile phones to save them.
This ignores that a lot of problems dealing with clean drinking water and food are going to exist in high-population areas like cities.
The models also seem fine. They all look healthy and the only thing that would indicate to anyone that they needed donations is their clothing and location. It's also interesting that only 1 of the 4 is standing. And none of them look like they need "emergency aid and structural poverty eradication".
There also is a juxtaposition that implies all Africans don't want or need sunglasses, aftershave, beer or handbags. They're so underdeveloped that they need water, food and a house.
Besides showing a stereotypical African and the words "donate" and "people in need" there isn't much about what the organization does. It seems like people are just supposed to passively donate and not be involved.
I would agree with the above, except for the idea that they should look less "fine" or "healthy" in order to warrant emergency aid, or in order to fit the image of "starving African." In the same way that the creators of the image probably went deliberately out of their way to dress these people in "native" clothing and put them in "Savannah" settings (With not a single living thing in the background, I might add. It may as well be a bluescreen or backdrop, it is so generic.) should they also go out of their way to make these people seem unhealthy? Do you really need to not "look fine" to warrant "emergency aid" or, as the second ad says, "Basics for a new home"?
I do especially agree about the lying down, though. In the last ad, the person seems almost like a prop for the product, in that it brings to mind previous posts in a similar theme, like
And the one where the cactus is "adorned" with jewelry, which I cannot find right now under the "jewelry" tag.
I think these ads are brilliant because they make you re-think many of the things you take for granted, like having a white skinny girl, or a big white strong guy, to advertise things. Also, once they grab your attention, after you notice that something doesn't add up, you become "aware" that we are very prompt to spend 5 bucks on a beer but we can't give one away.
It's my impression that these are meant to reference high-fashion ads, like those in Vogue or W Magazine, which would explain the sparse (& beautiful) scenery, the beautifully colored photography, as well as the poses, to which Laura (above) seemed to object. Many (if not most) women and men in ads for such products ARE merely props, no matter their race. I would disagree about the implications Anonymous sees : it seems to me that the ads are a call to recognize the differences between the way many Western Europeans spend their money, and the way that many people in Africa don't have enough money for such basic living requirements. Not to say that they are entirely without problems--only that put in the context of fashion advertising, they make a bit more sense.
I agree with Dangger that these are ads are brilliant. They're poking fun at our stupid western fashion ads and showing that there's more to life than consumerism. If you're tired of mindless buying, here's something else you could be doing with your money.
[...] these to other interesting fashion spreads here, here, here, here, and here. tags: class, clothes/fashion, discourse/language, India, objectification| [...]
[...] chicks, PETA, more PETA, Tila Tequila cares about human rights, pro-environment = anti-immigration, juxtaposing wealth and poverty, PETA again, and again, Spanish anti-gentical cutting ads, then back to PETA, showing domestic [...]
[...] Wade, Juxtaposing Wealth and Poverty Sociological Images on the new campaign by Cordaid to highlight the difference between what we [...]
[...] check out our posts on “starving African kids,” juxtaposing wealth and poverty, the white woman’s burden, the “we are all African” campaign, making charity [...]
They really know how to exploit people, don't they? Absolutely inappropriate. And I wouldn't buy any of those products from those companies. Those poor people won't see a dime of the proceeds.
i wonder how much they pay these people for their publicity...
[...] Creative and In-your-face Advertisement: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/08/03/juxtaposing-wealth-and-poverty/ I feel the [...]
Is the last person male or female, help me out
Yes, poor peoples
This is not a very good advertisement
This ad is perfection. Just beautiful. Everyone needs to see this ad at least once in their life. That way, they can donate to these people and help them out rather than buying new handbags or aftershave.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry. Read more…
CC Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike