The “war on drugs” that began in the 80s led to a dramatic increase in the number of Black, but not so much White americans in prison and jail (see here). One of the consequences of disproportionately imprisoning Blacks and Latinos, of course, is disproportionately separating Black and Latino children from their parents.
Source: Bureau of Justice statistics via Chris Uggen’s Weblog.
This website contains links to a lot of Census Bureau maps showing where different racial and ethnic groups (including White ethnics) are concentrated in the U.S. They also have “absence of” maps showing counties with less than 25 people from different racial grops, which are fascinating. They’re all available from the Census, but it’s nice to have them all collected here for easy access and comparison.
Thanks to Kelly V. for pointing it out!
Kirsten D. sent us this link to a series of Playmobil families. She notes how the families are all racially marked (using racial categories like “Asian” and “African” instead of nationality categories like “Japanese” and “Somalian”). The “Mediterranean/Hispanic” category also points to the social construction of race and the way in which social construction varies across cultures (Playmobil are made in Germany).
They families are also racially homogeneous. In the world of Playmobil (at least how it is sold, though not necessarily how it is played with) there are no interracial families and, therefore, no bi- or multi-racial people. In this way the toys reify racial categories and naturalize racial matching in relationships.
African/African American Family:
Mediterranean/Hispanic Family:
Asian Family:
Native American Family:
Notice also that all of the families are in contemporary clothes except for the Native American family. Ethnicized groups are often represented in “native” costume, but this is especially true for American Indians (at least in the U.S.). It is as if, in the popular imagination, American Indians are extinct; as if there are no American Indians alive today walking around in Nikes (there are).
So, in the world of Playmobil, American Indians are, like Romans, a historical artifact:
Also, because it warrants pointing out, all the female and male children all have gender stereotypical toys.
This is the fourth installment in a series on why and how people of color are included in advertising aimed primarily at white people. In the first installment, I argued that people of color are included in such advertising in order to associate the product with a racial stereotype (i.e., hipness, intelligence). In the second, I showed how people of color can be used to give a product “color” or “flavor.” And, in the third, I argued that people of color are used to invoke ideas of “hipness,” “modernity,” “progressive” politics and other related ideas. In this post, I suggest that people of color are used to trigger the idea of human variation itself.
In this first ad the idea that each body is different is illustrated by including women of different fitness levels, ages, and races.
In this ad, Levi’s uses a woman who appears Latina to sell their jeans, which come in various fits because there is “a style for every story.” The idea is that people are different; not everyone wants the same cut of jeans.
In this Toyota ad, the copy says “For every expression, there’s a Toyota.” People are unique and so, apparently, are Toyotas. Race is used to communicate the notion of human diversity.
This is an ad for Playtex bras with half sizes. The implication is that people’s bodies are more variable than the A, B, C etc sizes suggest, so half sizes accomodate that variety. I think this ad is particularly interesting because the model is racially ambiguous. Maybe she’s half Asian, Latina, or white, and she’s being used to sell a product that now comes in half sizes.
NEW:
Next up: Including people of color so as to suggest that the company is concerned with racial equality.
See the other posts in the series:
(1) Including people of color so as to associate the product with the racial stereotype.
(2) Including people of color to invoke (literally) the idea of “color” or “flavor.”
(3) Triggering ideas like “hipness,” “modernity,” and “progress.”
Jay Livingston over at Montclair Socioblog reports on a report by the Pew Center. First this image:
Jay writes:
When Reagan asked this question in the 1980 presidential debates, most people, according to Gallup felt that yes, they were better off – 52% vs. 25% who felt they were worse off. That’s puzzling, considering the apparent success of Reagan’s question – he won the election handily.
The interesting result from the Gallup numbers is that when Reagan left office – after the “Reagan recovery” cherished by anti-tax, anti-regulation conservatives – the numbers were identical. If you look at actual changes in median family income, you see a slight decline in the Carter years and an increase in the Reagan years. But these changes aren’t reflected in how people felt, at least not as measured by Gallup.
This year’s numbers show optimism at its lowest ebb since Gallup started asking the question in 1964. “Better off” still tops “worse off,” but by only 41% to 31%. Even more surprising to me was the proportion of these self-identified middle-class Americans who rate their quality of life as low (five or less on a ten-point scale).
In this series, I offer a typology reflecting the ways in which people of color are used in advertising aimed primarily at whites (see the first and the second in the series). In this, the third edition, I suggest that sometimes people of color are included because the idea of “diversity” triggers the related ideas of “cool,” “hip,” “urban,” and “youth,” which also invoke “modernity” and the idea of being “global,” “cosmopolitan,” even “progressive” politics.
In this ad, a mix of races are used. Notice that the ad also happens to include, in the bottom image, photography, what looks like a dark beer, and espresso (all “upper class” “sophisticated” interests) and, in the top image, we see that the woman who appears Asian is an art dealer.
In this next ad, again, we see a mix of races enjoying what looks like a train ride (how European!) with hard liquor. The text:
The shortest distance between two places isn’t nearly as interesting.
I think it is no accident that “interesting” and racial difference are both present in this ad.
In this next ad we see a racially ambiguous male and a black woman. Notice the clothes that they are wearing (casually sophisticated) and the delicate nature of their coffee cups. This is leisure, not some working-class Joe with a cup o’ joe. Text:
3658 miles from the coffee fields of the Columbian Andes. But still the perfect climate for Colombian Coffee.
The idea of travel, of course, invokes a certain degree of cosmopolitan-ness and wealth. And the “perfect” climate refers not just to weather, but to the kind of company Colombian Coffee drinkers keep.
This ad for H&M is a bit different. Instead of invoking sophistication and cosmopolitan-ness, I think it invokes who and what is “hip” and “cool” and “diversity” is used as a signifier. The text:
H&M is Europe’s leading fashion retailer [Europe again], with over 850 stores worldwide [a reference to being “global”]. Offering high-fashion [i.e., “sophisticated?”] and quality for men, women and children at great prices.
These last two ads, instead of using people of color to emphasize being “hip” or “sophisticated,” use them to signal “youth” and what being young represents. Young people are on the forefront of “cool,” of course, and also, in some sense, define “progressive” in that they herald a more “diverse” and “tolerant” future (hello, Obama).
Next up: Including people of color so as to trigger the idea of human diversity.
Don’t miss the others in the series:
(1) Including people of color so as to associate the product with the racial stereotype.
(2) Including people of color to invoke (literally) the idea of “color” or “flavor.”
Matt W. sent us links to a whole set of very popular videos on the theme “My New Haircut.” Here is the original, which, as Matt says, is “mocking popped-collar ‘bro’ masculinity.” Note: the language is not safe for work.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5QJ9i_o5vo[/youtube]
After the first video came out, people began making other versions, such as the “Jewish edition” and the “Senior Citizen edition.” As Matt points out, “It seems to be a mix of people of different ethnicities making fun of themselves/how they’re perceived, and outsiders indulging in outright bigotry.”
Asian edition:
Mexican edition (sadly, my rural poor-white upbringing led me to think, in response to him saying he is wearing a wife-beater shirt, “That’s not a wife-beater, that’s a muscle-shirt. Not the same thing.”). His Spanish accent sounds fake to me, but I might be totally off there. Also, the video is by “Mr. Fagg” productions.
Gay edition. The actors say, “For all you haters…we’re not gay were just acting as you can probably tell by how ridiclous we act.”
Jewish edition:
Black edition, featuring drug use and general criminality:
There are tons of others, but you get the point. If you watch any of these, the sidebar will have lots of other editions.
Whether or not you could use these videos in classes probably depends a lot on where you’re at and how much trust you’ve built up with your students. They might be interesting for discussions of humor–are there things that are funny when some people say them but not when others do? Does it make a difference whether a person using stereotypes is a member of the group being laughed at or not? When is humor being used to point out and undermine stereotypes, and when does it just reinforce them? Who has the authority to decide these things?
Thanks, Matt W.!
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
