This five dollar bill ended up in someone’s pocket in Staten Island. It reads: “Lets (sic) keep the white house white.”
Point: Okay, so this means some guy is a real racist a-hole, no doubt.
Counterpoint: Um, yeah, but this pin was sold at the Texas Republican Convention last week:
Sigh.
Via Jezebel.
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.”
Elizabeth, over at Blog of Stench (and now a regular Soc Images blogger), brought our attention to a New York Magazine article about the Obama sock monkey doll (the company set to manufacture it has apologized and canceled production). Here is a picture of the doll:
From the article:
We were happily cruising around the Internet yesterday when we stumbled upon a link on Andrew Sullivan’s blog that gave us one of those moments Dave Chappelle joked about in Killin’ Them Softly: “Have you ever had something happen that was so racist that you didn’t even get mad? You were just like, ‘Goddamn, that was racist.’” That’s how we felt when we saw TheSockObama.com, a Website peddling an “Obama” monkey doll.
The response the author got after contacting the company:
To Those with Heartfelt Queries,
We chose twenty-two customer queries today that we believe merit a response. You touched us with either your concern, intelligence, humor, sensitivity, and/or your thoughtfulness. We thank you. There are other queries we received today as well that we chose not to respond to, because of their spewing of venom and their aimlessness.
We at TheSockObama Co. are saddened that some individuals have chosen to misinterpret our plush toy. It is not, nor has it ever been our objective to hurt, dismay or anger anyone. We guess there is an element of naviete on our part, in that we don’t think in terms of myths, fables, fairy tales and folklore. We simply made a casual and affectionate observation one night, and a charming association between a candidate and a toy we had when we were little. We wonder now if this might be a great opportunity to take this moment to really try and transcend still existing racial biases. We think that if we can do this together, maybe it will behoove us a nation and maybe we’ll even begin to truly communicate with one another more tenderly, more real even.
This is only our introductory plush toy. If we choose to move forward with a Republican candidate, we’ll begin with an elongated and slightly lumpy, fuzzy Idaho potato. Had a different Democratic candidate won the nomination, we were prepared to move forward with the cutest, fluffiest 12″ chestnut and golden-haired squirrel, with a short Farrah-like do in a brown pantsuit and call her Squirellary.
In earnest folks, we’re so sorry we offended anybody.
Best Regards,
TheSockObama Co. www.thesockobama.com
Thanks, Elizabeth!
NEW: Consider also…
Thanks to Green Ink for pointing this out in the comments!
WOW, AN UPDATE: Click here to see the TheSockObama Co. aggressively, and I mean aggressively, revoke the conciliatory words they offered in apology (thanks to Breck C. for the tip!). Some highlights:
We at TheSockObama Co. have some questions to pose. What’s really going on in America? In the good ol’ fashion spirit of entrepreneurialism ; free enterprise has been censored, and TheSockObama politically plush toy has been discriminated against in the marketplace of the United States of America…
Double standards appear to be a common thread here. It’s okay for there to be hundreds of thousands of Google sites containing references to our current president’s resemblance to a chimpanzee. However, it’s not okay to make that same association regarding our possible next president. Isn’t this the very definition of hypocrisy?
TheSockObama is no longer scheduled to go into mass production… Have the bullies won here?
…the blogging dens of resistance quickly began their fury of emails. An electronic battery of fiery darts flowed swiftly but silently through the veins of technology. Feverish fingers frantically clicking coast to coast, crashing and burning our tragically naive – yet sparkling website. A steady stream of repetitive verbal eloquence graced our Customer service inbox with tasty tidbits like, eff-ewe and every other colorul expletive you could possibly imagine. We thought we had heard it all. Hey thanks. This is America, right?
…With the number of Customers we’ve had to disappoint in our first week of business; are we saying it’s okay to take something out of the marketplace that other people want to buy? Are we now censoring one another’s liberty as Americans to freely purchase goods and services on our own terms? Is this the kind of America we want?
Lisa analyzed their “anti-apology” and what it means for U.S. race relations over at the Huffington Post. Check it out.
Also, it appears they are still selling the sock monkey, now at another website. The website has exactly the same design as the original one.
See our follow up to this post here.
Here is a video of the famous “crying Indian” anti-littering PSA from the early 1970s:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM[/youtube]
The actor, Iron Eyes Cody, was not actually Native American, he was Italian American. You can read more about him at snopes.com.
In case you didn’t know, the famous “Chief Seattle” speech about the need to honor the earth and care for the environment was written by a white guy, also in the early 1970s.
These could be interesting for discussions of environmentalism and American Indians. Why do environmental messages somehow have more authority if they supposedly come from an Indian? Would the “Chief Seattle” speech be less meaningful if we knew a white guy wrote it? Why?
They could also be used in discussions about the appropriation of Native American culture and the use of non-Indian actors to play Indian roles. It’s also interesting as an example of how American Indians are often depicted as historic throwbacks who are still living in the 1800s (and are all from plains tribes and wear big headdresses): even though it was 1971 and the guy was standing next to a highway full of cars, he was dressed in buckskin and feathers. Because, you know, that’s what Native Americans wear, all the time. Believe me, back in Oklahoma, that’s all you see.
NEW: Another fallacious Native American environmentalist was Grey Owl. Grey Owl was a Britain named Archibald Belaney who adopted an Indian identity and became famous in Canada for his conservationist stance. Here is his wikipedia entry.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
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.
Brook M. brought our attention to Al Jazeera’s English-language coverage of Arab women athletes training for the 2008 Olympics. They include a Moroccan runner, Israeli Arab boxers, a Qatar race-car driver, and Egyptian soccer players. Among other topics, the segments address opposition the women have faced being female Arab Muslims in sports, especially concerning their clothing. The first segment is about 11 minutes long; the second one is about 12 and a half.
One thing I like about these videos is they show the diversity of Arab Muslim women, a group often depicted as a homogeneous, passive, subordinate group all wearing veils. Some of the women in the clips do not cover their hair while some wear hijab. Among those who wear hijab, some cover every bit of their hair, others do not; some head scarves are lace and fairly transparent, while others are dark and solid. The women talk about how they feel about mixing religion and sports and being female athletes, and again, they differ in their perspectives.
While the sports element is interesting, seeing the diversity among Arab women, as well as Arab women actively discussing religion and resisting gender roles, may be very useful for students who usually encounter portrayals of Arab women as completely oppressed victims of a sexist culture/religion, so I can imagine using it in classes that aren’t about sports.
Thanks, Brook M.!
Soon after reading my post on “ethnic” fashion, Robin noticed an article in the New York Times about “tribal” elements in fashion. According to the article, “The tribal trend, seen on spring runways awash with ikat, batik, and African wax prints, is hot this summer.” We helpfully learn, “The specimens are rarely authentic, mind you. Rather, designers have appropriated ethnic elements and given them a modern spin.” According to one designer,
“It’s a dialogue between what’s traditional and new, and between East and West,” she said. “Our weavers in Uzbekistan find it really surprising and a real struggle to begin with. At first they don’t like the reworked designs, but over time they acquire appreciation.”
A quote from another designer:
“The enticement of ethnic dress in modern culture is like going on a guided safari,” he said. “We can enjoy the element we are familiar with and attracted to, while not giving up our daily comforts. We can wave to the lion from the safety of our S.U.V.”
So wearing “ethnic” clothing is like going on a sightseeing trip where you can look at savage animals but in a safe way that doesn’t actually bring you in contact with them…interesting. “We” (non-ethnic) people can pick and choose a few things from other cultures but without giving up “daily comforts,” or, like, knowing anything about other people or thinking through thorny issues like who that “we” encompasses and who is doing the defining of “we” and the ethnic “them.” I have to say, the “We can enjoy the element we are…attracted to…” made me think of sex tourism.
Notice here that, first, “ethnic” or “tribal” is applied to an enormous range of cultures spanning the globe that have little in common except not being from Western Europe or the U.S. Also, we see that “ethnic” fashion = traditional = non-modern = wild/animalistic = Eastern, whereas “modern” fashion = Western = non-ethnic. Because there is no ethnicity in the “West.” Except when designers use “traditional” Aztec or Mayan or Mexican or Laplander or etc. etc. prints in their “ethnic” designs.
Here are some pictures from the accompanying slide show:
This purse is $565. The weaving is what the quote from the first designer above was saying she struggled with Uzbeki producers about, since they didn’t like her reworked versions of their “traditional” patterns. I wonder how much of that $565 goes to those weavers?
The caption to the photo of these boots is “cultural gumbo.” They are $350.
These bangles come in cashmere, tweed, and cotton and are $45-125. The article does not tell me if I am being “ethnic” and going on a fashion safari every time I wear my black cashmere cardigan. Maybe it has to be brightly-colored cashmere to be “tribal.”
These shoes are $715. They are ethnic because they are silk and I guess maybe that’s supposed to be a vaguely Asian-y print on the black ones. My years of training in a rigorous sociology Ph.D. program also give me the critical thinking and analytical skills to tell you with certainty that they are hideously ugly.
These clutches are $450. They are ethnic because they use a style of dying called ikat, and also probably because they have a vaguely animal-print design.
Great find, Robin!
NEW: Katie J. sent in a link to Pepperlime (part of the Gap/Banana Republic/Old Navy empire), which features shoes that let the wearer “go tribal”:
