This clip, from the newly televised This American Life, shows what happens when (mostly) black women and (mostly) white men living in racially-segregated Chicago are brought together and the social rules of decorum are suspended. It is highly, highly disturbing. I’d love it if some social psychologists could comment on what we see happening here!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo1LPf9mnyU[/youtube]
In this nine and a half minute clip, Tim Wise describes the way in which race was invented by elites in early America in order to divide and conquer the working class… and is still used to do so.
Found here via Alas A Blog.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
I found these two Miller Lite ads in QVegas, a magazine aimed at the GLBT community.
It would be interesting to pair with these ads for Skyy vodka to illustrate how companies make different ads to target different audiences. If you find an ad offensive or dumb, it’s not necessarily an ineffective ad, it’s that you probably aren’t the target consumer and it’s not supposed to appeal to you.
NEW! Philip D. sent in a link to a post by Sister Toldja at Me, Myself An Eye about slightly different versions of ads for Crown Royal. This one is presumably aimed at a general audience:
Text: “Have you ever seen a grown man cry?”
Sister Toldja suspects that this one is targeted more specifically at African Americans:
Text: “Oh, hell no.”
Now, just to be clear, I’m not arguing these are racist ads. I just think they would provide a good example to start students thinking about the fact that a) advertisers actively market to various groups by trying to appeal to them in specific ways that may differ from an ad made for a “mainstream” or “general” audience (i.e., one that would presumably appeal to just about everybody) and b) they do this by playing on stereotypes or cultural assumptions about what different groups like (or are like). What separates these two ads into “mainstream” and “Black” ones? Simply the presence of a phrase that many people associate with African Americans (although I have to admit I mostly associate it with one of my male cousins more than anyone else). You might start with this example, which is fairly innocuous, I think, and then start asking students to think about other ways advertisers might indicate who an ad is supposed to appeal to (men or women, gay or straight, or more broadly to “everyone”). When do these efforts become problematic?
These images came to us from Dianne who saw this on BoingBoing and dug deeper to find all these great examples!
Illustrating the way in which whiteness is taken-for-granted and others are always, well, other, Plan Toys sells these doll sets labelled “Ethnic Family,” “AsianFamily,” and, “Doll Family.”
They also sell a “farmer” and a “farmer’s wife.” Dianne notes: “Women don’t farm, apparently, they just marry men who do.”
They also sell this generic “Native American set” of which they write:
“Children can create imaginary stories with the Indian figures, camp, teepee and authentic accessories. They can learn about the traditional American tribe and their lifestye.”
Notice how American Indian tribal difference is erased with the phrase “the traditional American tribe.” Diane pointed out that the set actually combines teepees and totem poles which were traditions of tribes in the plains and on the west coast respectively.
In the “How to Play” section, it says:
“Children can imagine and tell stories about Red Indians, helping to stimulate their imagination and expanding their horizon.”
Yes they really do say “Red Indians.”
Diane notices that, just like the doll family is obviously white, “here again, apparently the default child is white, who can ‘imagine… stories about Red Indians.'”
Ironically, the company claims that they are “socially & environmentally responsible” and promote “good values.”
Thanks so much Diane!
NEW: Kirsten D. sent us this link to a series of Playmobil toys. All of the non-white characters are given racial designations, but the white characters are not. I included some examples below.
African/African American Family:
Asian family:
Grandparents:
Medical Team and Patients:
Prince and Princess:
Also in the neutral and the marked: men are people and women are women and from pale to pumped with racial stereotypes.
This commentary by Dan Charnas on Obama’s speech and the public reaction (found here) might inspire an interesting class discussion on race, politics, and getting along:
[vimeo]http://www.vimeo.com/808451[/vimeo]
White People, Get Over Yourselves from Dantrification on Vimeo.
Thanks to Lawgeek for sending this our way!
.
This 3-page ad for Brooks Brothers uses the tagline “Generations of Style.” I think it’s useful because the ad naturalizes the passing down of class (both economic class and classiness) from generation to generation, thus justifying class inequality. Also notice the racial segregation in the images.
Text:
With Tactel you can make a statement for all to see. The incredible range of tactel fabrics create imaginative, distinctive fashions. All with a luxurious soft touch and feel. Look for Tactel in today’s leading designer collections.
We don’t get it. Is there even something to get? Discuss.
This is a cover of Vogue featuring LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen. Notice the postures: LeBron as the hulking, angry black man, and Gisele as arm candy. Apparently this issue has a whole section on “the World’s Top Models and Star Athletes.” Hmmm, I wonder what the gender breakdown is?
Notice also the way in which the image reproduces the famous King Kong imagery:
Here is a link to an MSNBC segment on the cover.
Thanks to Carmela Z. for sending this image along!
NEW (Jan ’10)! Ruth D’R. and a reader-who-wishes-to-remain-anonymous sent us this (highly photoshopped) photo of Kanye West and Lady Gaga, one of the images in her “Fame Monster” CD liner notes. Some argue that it, too, reproduces the racialized King Kong imagery in which a black man (threatens to) ravage a white woman:
Some may think that this is a reach. But I think her nudity, plus the symbols of primitivity (the plants, the erupting volcano, and even the khakis) clearly invoke animalism.
