Ben O. forwarded this ad for Fairy Soap (found here). It plays into the idea that African Americans are dirty and either lazy or stupid (since they don’t bother to wash their children), but that enlightened, kindly, clean whites can help them. It would make a good accompaniment to the chapter “Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising” in Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest, by Anne McClintock.
UPDATE: In a comment, Brendon proposed a reading I didn’t think of:
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!
Of course, Eric points out that the “cutesy” element is undermined by the fact that the ad was made by adults who, unless we’re both totally wrong, didn’t hold such an “innocent” view of the differences between African Americans and Whites.
Also, as a commenter pointed out, given changes in hairstyles and dress for children over time, it may be those are boys, not girls.
NEW (July ’10)! Monica Y. sent along another example, this one an ad for Vinolia Soap:
Comments 20
Brendon — August 24, 2008
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!
Eric Stoller — August 24, 2008
@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.
Dubi — August 24, 2008
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).
K — August 24, 2008
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.
Bob M. — August 24, 2008
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.
Stumblng Tumblr — August 25, 2008
As to the first ad, see this: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/dec04.htm
Trevor — August 25, 2008
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.
Dave — August 25, 2008
It looks like the black kid is .5 seconds away from punching the white kid in the face.
Jane — August 25, 2008
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).
Jodi — August 25, 2008
Whoops. That last comment was me. I have no idea why the name "Jane" came up there.
Abby — August 27, 2008
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...
Racism in Bull Durham Tobacco Ads » Sociological Images — December 31, 2009
[...] 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, [...]
Miguel R. MacDonald — August 10, 2014
The adds might seem shocking but growing up, my friends and even their parents said this kind of crap to me. My brother and I were the only two black kids in a town of 400 in Northern Canada. This is a very old bad joke that is going to follow us around for a long time.
Lilli — June 5, 2016
There's no need to sugar coat it, or make excuses for it. The blatant racist aspect of these companies advertisement is just that, racist. The kids and black people were not the targeted demographic for these sellers. White adults were. Why is it so hard to state a messed up fact for what it is? America was real f***** up back then and treated black people as less than human and as property. Just for the love of humanity QUIT ACTING LIKE THIS IGNORANCE NEVER HAPPENED OR LIKE IT WASN'T AS AWFUL AS IT WAS! DAMN!
Scottiemom — March 2, 2017
Racists are VERY low I.Q.
《修辭的陷阱》導讀:言論如何侵蝕民主? – 菜市場政治學 — August 26, 2021
[…] 圖片來源:Sociological Images […]
Paok — January 21, 2022
Bolches yarboclos
Lily — April 30, 2023
may i know when was it made?
Housing storm leaves UK exposed, skews policy: Mike Dolan - Dolphin-Swim — May 15, 2023
[…] Some 10% of global fund managers polled by Bank of America this month think real estate in developed economies is the most likely source of another systemic credit event going forward. […]
Anonymous — June 30, 2023
Fuck you