The racial element is also interesting, but not surprising. If we are taking "built" literally, as in physical infrastructure--which is what the ad seems to be implying--then America was/is largely "built" by POC slave labor, both women and men. Yet the model in the ad appears to be white. (And maybe not to have spent much time outdoors doing 'building' things...)

are we sure that this isn't a woman in this ad?

and the implication is not only that hippies shall set us free, but topless, skinny female hippies shall set us free?

It is a woman in this ad. So it's anti-white collar, anti-male (but not anti-white). I think this is supposed to give the ad a non-conformist, down-home, rugged American feel. Which is exactly what sells. Levi's knows it's target market.

historically, though, jeans were originally worn by farmers and manual labourers. they didn't become general fashion until, what, the 60s?

the ambiguity of the model's gender in this ad is also interesting.

Does anyone know whether this is for Levi's cheap line or expensive line? They sell jeans for about $40 at stores like Sears and JC Pennys, but they also sell $100 jeans in their own stores.

I'm very sick of classism, whichever way it's directed, and I do sense some here. And the "true Americans..." stuff is pretty awful whether it's based on classism, race, ethnicity, beliefs, sexuality, sex, etc.

As others have pointed out, the gender ambiguity is rather interesting. Not sure what I think of that.

I couldn't help but think of my dad, though, when I saw it (not the model, just his possible reactions). He would have gone into fits had he seen the flag so faded and hanging out of someone's back pocket. He was a WWII vet and took the flag VERY seriously. I remember only two times he seriously yelled at me as a kid, and one was when I was little and decided to wrap a flag around me while playing dress up.

But I also think of him because he was a rugged, down-home type who got a lot of things built in the community. And no, he didn't wear a lot of suits. He was more a cowboy hat and jeans kind of guy. Also a proud feminist and civil rights worker who was also a stay-at-home dad, lest anyone think that cowboy-types are all...well... the stereotypical "redneck".

In any case, I think America is great for its diversity and am repulsed by the idea that some people's efforts just don't count as "building" America. There are men and women in suits who do and have done a lot of good and that shouldn't be dismissed. It's so sad to see that attitude promoted by Levi's.

It's interesting what a suit says about a man in business today. You can assume he is either a lawyer or a salesman. You try to guess which one by appraising the value of the fabric, fit and finish of the jacket.

I don't know if that is a general Levi's slogan or whether it is only on this ad, but notice the "go forth" (... and multiply) line top left which feels like some sort of subliminal message, either:
1) USA was built by people having sex.
or
2) Levi's will allow you (give you permission almost) to have sex.

The connotation of men in suits (or just "suits") is interesting. I notice a lot of people allude to suits any time powerful people are making decisions.

But many people with that type of power want to avoid that connotation, so they try to seem down to earth by not wearing suits.

For example, at my last job the CEO usually wore khakis or jeans and polo shirts. I think Steve Jobs' jeans and black shirt is a similar attempt.

I am 99% certain that is a woman. Is she suppose to be riding a horse? Judging from the camera angle, her posture, the placement of her arms, and her blowing hair, I'd say yes. So.....I'm lost.

Multiplying wasn't what I thought of when I saw "Go Forth", but I suppose anything is possible. I thought it implied a pioneer spirit - just get out there and "DO" - but hey - what do I know? I guess procreating does vaguely relate to a half naked woman riding a horse. :0)

Actually, I believe it's Edgar Winter.

http://adage.com/adreview/post?article_id=137733

This might help fill in some of the blanks.

The campaign was (it was launched in 2009) in response to the economic crisis with the accompanying message "We are all workers" - so basically, we all have the capacity to do the work necessary to get us out of this crisis - and I guess Levi's are the work clothes for the job.

It includes images of shirtless men and women.

I agree with the previous comment. I first noticed this ad show up around streets in NYC when the Wall Street bailouts were dominating the headlines. I took the ad to be commenting more on a perceived problem with prioritization: A lot of people object to what they perceived as a bailout designed primarily to help the "men in suits". (I don't intend to imply that I agree.)

This is a double edged sword. It seems like people in this country often have one of two opinions: men in suits are terrible and only exist to keep down the 'Real Americans,' or men in suits are the only ones who matter and the blue collar workers are a mass of gibbering idiots. It's nice to see something that DOESN'T exclusively cater to the upper-middle class and imply than anyone with a certain job is automatically a moronic hick, but our society does need to Men In Suits, and demonizing them is not helpful either.

As for the model's ambiguity, I think it's interesting. At first glance I saw a woman, and didn't notice she was topless. Then, noticing toplessness that wasn't really overtly sexual, or even all that obvious, I thought 'man with long hair.' Tough I guess it is, in fact, a woman.

Me, I'm amused by the mixed patriotic message. It's clearly supposed to be a patriotic message, pride in the "authentic" American worker who builds with their hands, not some suit wearing good for nothing like, oh, I don't know, Ben Franklin. But what your hard core patriot it going to focus on in the image is the mistreatment of the flag.

United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1, states, among other things...

§8.d. The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

i. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

Don't get me wrong--I don't give a rat's ass about handling a flag, but this is dumb.

Could you explain in more detail? I don't think I quite understood your argument.

"This country was not built by men in suits." - sub-title should be: "But it is owned and managed by men in suits! Get back to work so you can buy these lower-quality imitations of the dungarees we sold the 49ers!"