Schwarzes Gesicht ... Nie Eine Gute Idee

In case your German is rusty, the title of the article is black face... never a good idea. I'm shouting this from the roof tops to anyone who will listen (now you've been warned). This German advertisement for UNICEF is ridiculous. I'm all for pushing the envelope and for testing the comfortable boundaries most people have established for themselves so they don't have to leave their comfort zones, but I would probably drive my vehicle off the Autobahn if I passed this particular billboard.

Black face is one of the most offensive displays I can think of. Anytime I have ever seen it in print or in film it just makes me cringe. It is horribly offensive and is almost without fail never used in a way that can be used to make a point or ethically justified. The longer you look at the child in this advertisement the more angry I become. Obviously he is far from being the one to blame. You have to figure there were at least a few different people who looked at this ad and approved it running in various locals throughout Germany or German speaking Europe.

I think a more appropriate advertisement might be the UNICEF executive(s) who approved this ad with egg all over their face(s). Even corporations that are endorse an agenda steeped in humanitarian efforts need to be more than careful about the messages they are putting out into the public's conscious. I implore UNICEF to clean-up their act and to produce a less offensive ad.

Progress... Maybe

The election of Barack Obama on November 2nd as the first African-American President has been championed as a reflection of the great progress our country has made in terms of racial harmony. Certainly a compelling argument that I don't altogther disagree with can be made. I wonder however, how much we have truly progressed ? I am curious if a vote for Obama in this election was a true affirmation that he is a progressive, proactive, visionary leader or if it was simply a knee jerk reaction to the politics of perhaps one of the worst Presidents and administrations to ever infect 16oo Pennsylvania Avenue? I can fully agree that Obama is a dynamic speaker and ran a fantastic campaign and has truly inspired hope for change in our country, but again I ask... did the Obama/Biden ticket bring the country together or have we been polarized and forced to unite against eight years of Bush and Cheney?

On the same day that Obama was elected President, perhaps ushering in a new era of social and racial cooperation, the most populous state in the union, California, voted against recognizing the right of homosexual couples to be married. As a political figure, Obama is often compared to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to John F. Kennedy (two central figures in terms of the civil rights movement). In some ways his being elected to the high office is portrayed in the media and the minds of some as a sign that we have completed the journey Dr. King so eleoquently spoke of in his "I have a dream..." speech and in no way am I attempting to minimize the historical significance of the 2008 Election or the struggle for equality by African-Americans; but I would like to recognize the hipocrisy of recognizing the movement toward equality of one minority group while the rights of another a trampled.

In some ways we have progressed so far... while in other ways we have so far to progress.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

In 1967, director Stanley Kramer offered an outstanding film that cut to the heart of race issues in the United States. In case you have not seen this landmark film here is a short synopsis by Colin Jacobson...

The film tells the story of rich white girl Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) and prominent black doctor John Prentice (Sidney Poitier). They met on vacation in Hawaii and quickly fell in love. In fact, the movie begins as they come to the San Francisco home of Joey’s successful and influential parents Matt (Spencer Tracy) and Christina (Katharine Hepburn). Although the two consider themselves to be socially progressive, the prospect of this interracial marriage startles both of them - especially Matt. The situation becomes even more entangled when John tells Matt that he won’t marry Joey without Matt’s blessing, a factor that becomes exacerbated by the couple’s insistence that they get hitched immediately. That means Matt has to decide within a few hours, and the scenario gets even more muddled when John’s parents (Roy Glenn and Beah Richards) fly up from LA to meet their future daughter-in-law.

I am such a big fan of this film because of the questions it raises. From my vantage point, I think it really calls into question our deepest feelings about race and racism. For example, it is one thing to be open-minded and progressive in your thinking when you have black co-workers, black colleagues, or black friends... but for some, to welcome an African-American into your family and into your home can stir up an entirely different level of comfortableness or uncomfortableness depending on where someone situates themselves on a spectrum of racism or predjudice. This is the central question and/or struggle of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and the film cleverly takes you through this process of confronting your thinking or feelings about race. Great art is timeless and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner resonates as loudly now as when it was released three decades ago.

The Question of 'Real' Americans

The following is a short piece from Mariel Garza, a columnist and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Daily News...

In a much-talked-about exchange between Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and Chris Matthews in October, Bachmann suggested that there are certain "anti-American" Congressfolk. Bachmann later said that she didn't mean it. At a campaign rally, another Republican, Rep. Robin Hayes of North Carolina, told a crowd that "liberals hate real Americans." He later said he didn't mean it either. Gov. Sarah Palin has been making oblique references to "real America" as part of her stumping for the election, which seems to categorize everyone in California and other nonheartland areas an "unreal" Americans.

This raises the obvious question about who is a "real" American, and how one gets on that list. It's a ridiculous notion that any legal citizen is more "American" than anyone else.
Real Americans are a diverse and motley bunch who defy categorization. They come in all colors. They come in all ages. They come in every religious faith. They come in every political ideology. They live in the cities and the towns, the suburbs and the farms, the mountains and the swamps. In all their collective glory, warts and all, they represent the Real America. God bless 'em all.

Although Mariel Garza is moving in the right direction I would like to speak more candidly. What these Republican folks are essentially saying from my point of view is that 'real' Americans are white protestants. Plain and simple. I firmly believe they are lying through their teeth when they say they "didn't mean it". If these weren't their true feelings, why would they profess them in the first place? It is only after the fact, when slammed in the court of public opinion, that they apologize and recind their statements. Those who have come to identify themselves as 'real' Americans often seem to be whites unwilling to recognize their privilege, see themselves as conservative idealogues, ethnocentrics, or racists. 'Real' Americans have seemingly come to categorize themselves as being blue collar and anti-intellectual in thought and action and having a certain fondness for the "Rebel Spirit" of the South. Perhaps a new civil war is brewing between Americans and 'real' Americans. I emplore people to choose their side carefully, or to walk away from the battle altogether toward a space that unites people instead of divides them.

Lost in Translation

2008 brought us the Summer Olympics from Beijing, China. Although here in the United States it was swimmer Michael Phelps and his historic eight gold medals which garnished most of the media attention, a disturbing promotional photograph from the Spanish men's basketball team rather quietly showed up in the press. The depiction (seen above) shows the Spanish men's basketball team putting their fingers to the corner's of their eyes. This is symbolic of a racist expression in which the eyes are narrowed by putting the fingertips toward the back corner of the eye and pulling the skin of the face and eyelids gently toward the ears. This gives the look of a narrower eye, a physical characteristic prominent among several cultures on the continent of Asia. Although the team does not appear to pull back toward the ears, it is clear they are referencing the known gesture.

This promotional gaffe is inexcusable. Although the Spanish men's basketball team ended up apologizing to the host country and all was forgiven without national incident, I wonder who it was that deemed this as appropriate or as a "good idea" in the first place? If in the apology (as I believe it was) it was stated that the team was "only joking", I'm curious as to what is funny or what the punchline would be? Culturally it seems as if there has been a certain disconnect between the Spaniards and the Chinese. I guess it is not only unique to Americans to be culturally foolish and insensitive. Perhaps the "joke" was lost in translation.

UnINTELligent Advertising

We last took a look at print ads from decades past, but now we turn our attention to the ads of today. This Intel ad for Core 2 Duo processors is current but demonstrates a more subtle but just as disturbing presentation of racism. Although the sprinters readying in the blocks are suppose to represent the faster speed of Intel’s new Core 2 Duo Processors, a closer look reveals that they are all black sprinters and they look to be bowing down to their white master, the collared golf shirt and khaki panted, the Intel guy. This racist pitfall could have easily been avoided by simply offering a few different shades of skin in the starting blocks. Having watched the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, I saw many different colors of sprinter, which is what makes this ad so puzzling. On some conscious or subconscious level this choice was purposefully made.

Beyond the apparent slave/master comparison, the phrasing at the top of the ad is also created in a framework of cultural bias. The phrase, “and maximize the power of your employees”, in particular, creates the typical stereotype of African-Americans being in a subservient position as ‘workers’ and a Caucasian being in a position of power as the ’boss’. It furthers the point of characterizing what research suggests to already be true, that African-Americans are at a disadvantage, not because they are proportionally less intelligent or hardworking than whites, but because the system is designed to keep blacks (as well as other minorities) at a disadvantage. It is a flawed system created ultimately with the interest of a few at heart. It is a system which protects white cultural beliefs, values, morals, and wealth directly in opposition of upward mobility of minorities, poor, and undereducated.

Flavored Drink Targets North American Indians and Chinese

Often when we think of Pillsbury we think of great tasting, flaky biscuits or the unmistakable laugh of their mascot, the Pillsbury Dough Boy, but as the packets for their flavored, dietary drink mix show above, Pillsbury has not always put a happy face on things.

The stereotypes are quickly apparent when analyzing the above drink packets. Curiously the ad wizards who came up with the Funny-Face line of flavored drink mixes forgot to mention to add water, but in their subtle wisdom they definitively added the racism. The name Injun Orange is decidedly more offensive than Chinese Cherry, but the funny faces on each packet quickly balance things out in terms of their offensiveness. Feathers, war paint, and crossed eyes highlight the greater exploits of the orange flavored drink, while the cherry drink plays up stereotypes like slanted slits for eyes and large, jagged teeth.

The Funny-Face line of drinks was introduced by Pillsbury in 1964. I found this to be unbelievable, but probably a greater representation of what was truly happening in that time period rather then the happy nostalgia that is usually propagated by our history texts. As the struggle for civil rights, racial equality, and any semblance of harmony between African Americans and whites is being broadcast across America with cultural icons such as John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X at the forefront, Pillsbury was introducing a terrifically racist line of fruit flavored drinks marketed to moms and children. I am reminded of (Medicine Grizzlybear) Robert Lake’s comments from an Indian Father’s Plea, in which he speaks of his son stating, “let him share his knowledge, heritage, and culture with you and his peers”. I don’t think Wind-Wolf drinking Injun Orange with his grade school pals at lunch is exactly what (Medicine Grizzlybear) Lake had in mind.

Language Says It All... Again

Racism is a prevalent part of society. Sometimes deep in the bowles of the citizenry, other times out in the open, ugly and in our face. Often recognizing racism can push us beyond our comfort zone. Other times it is so blatant it is almost beyond belief.

If we look at Uncle Remus, portrayed in the ad, he looks friendly, smiling at us; but a closer examination reveals a tie cocked to the side and a vest mostly unbuttoned. He appears curiously disheveled, type cast as impoverished perhaps or simply lacking in terms of societal standards of what looks presentable. It is not immediately clear as to why Uncle Remus’ clothes look unkempt, but further reflection suggests that, despite his best efforts to the contrary and his tasty syrup, he is inferior. Inferior in his socio-economic class, inferior in his language, inferior in his appearance, and inferior in his dress. Inferior in almost every way to his unparalleled savior; the master of a language he cannot seemingly master… the white man.

Language Says It All

Saying that the language maintained in the Cream of Wheat advertisements at right reinforces stereotypes is the equivalent of saying that water is wet and the sky is blue. The broken or slang English contained within the ad is a clear attempt at building a negative image of African Americans (I can almost here the faithful readers of the Media Log crying out in unison… thank you Captain Obvious). The ads delve deep in offering the inaccurate portrayal of African Americans as less intelligent than whites and uneducated. I have heard this linguistic cultural stereotype referred to before as “lazy language”. That phrase alone is bothersome because of its proclivity to further implicate those who use “lazy language” (in this case the ’Cream of Wheat’ man) as being lazy themselves.

After getting past the initial shock of phrasings such as “if they’s bugs they ain’t none in Cream of Wheat…” we can focus in on the other less pronounced, but equally as effective racial bias’ of the advertisement. The other thing that seems out of place is the ear-to-ear smile the man has. In pop culture there is a strange sense of coincidence in that many minorities (as depicted by whites) seem to have a similar, sprawling smile. It seems as if African Americans will forever be shown as the smiling, dutiful servant or the happy, enthusiastic entertainer.

I am again reminded of Cornell West’s Race Matters excerpt in which he says, “we have created rootless, dangling people with little link to the supportive networks--family, friends, school--that sustain some sense of purpose in life”. Although West is speaking of modern day racial relations, I think this thought is closely related to the plight of African Americans in the decades after slavery. Blacks in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s did not have any support networks and as a result were most likely last centuries version of the “rootless, dangling people” West describes in his quote.

Fairy Soap Ad Far From Clean

To attempt to gain perspective and perhaps begin to understand the long existence of racism, sexism, and inequality that has been such a profound part of the fabric of so many global societies, I decided to start by looking at some early advertisements in print media. The first advertisement we will take a look at is a print advertisement for Fairy Soap from the N.K. Fairbank Company. As you can see, the ad above portrays two children, one black, one white standing face-to-face with one another. The white child is holding a bar of Fairy soap in her left hand, while the black child stands holding only her dress in her hand. A question is posed by the not-so-innocent white child. Below the children in quotes reads, “why doesn’t your mamma wash you with Fairy soap?” The racist elements of the question are far from vague. The intent of the producer of the ad is understood. Somewhat subtler racist views also preside in the ad. The white child is wearing shoes and socks, while the black child is barefoot. One could easily interpret this as an acknowledgement that the white child comes from a family with at least some amount of money and wealth. The black child being barefoot is a clear indicator that she is in fact poor and comes from more than humble beginnings. Another element of racism is the positioning of the children’s legs. The white child is stout, her legs slightly bent at the knee, but for the most part straight and firmly planted on the ground. The black child appears to be bowlegged, her legs angling out from her hips to her knee and angling back in from the knee to the ankle. Furthermore, the suggestion that the African American’s skin is dirty because it is darker in color than the white child’s skin is a strong indictment that although the ad attempts to sell soap, there is a more powerful, socializing message omnipresent at the advertisement’s core. These stereotypes send a simple and compelling vision to those who wish to interpret them as truth.

Although I was not able to pinpoint the exact year that the advertisement surfaced my contention, based on the years of existence of Fairy Soap and the N.K. Fairbank Company, is that the ad is from somewhere between 1865 and 1916. With slavery being abolished in 1865, the creators of this ad were far from recognizing African Americans as “created equal”. The ad offers a rare look back (for those of us born in the mid to late 1970’s) at a time of blatant, no-holds-barred racism. Although racist acts are far from rare in the 21st Century, my background in history always seemingly leads me to conclude that there is tremendous accuracy in the old adage, in order to look forward, we must look back.

Race Runs Deep in Chapelle's Comedy

Dave Chapelle is an astounding comedian, famous from his now defunct Comedy Central sketch comedy extravaganza, The Chapelle Show. A deeper investigation of much of his stand-up and sketch comedy reveals a sharp satirical wit, offering a number of comedic bits rooted in poignant investigations of race relations, racial interactions, and racism itself. Chapelle asks powerful questions through his musings and attempts to turn the status quo on its ear.

In our overly sensative, uber-polictically correct culture, it seems like comedy has become the last bastion for open discourse about race. It is in this spirit, without fear, that Dave Chapelle seemlessly intertwines comedian and sociologist, comedian and political analyst, comedian and social theorist, comedian and teacher. In his many comedic endeavors Chapelle has an uncanny ability to capture us with laughter but to offer a powerful, sometimes scathing critique of how ridiculuos racism looks when openly portrayed. He is brillant in holding a mirror up to American culture and asking it to please look at itself. I for one commend him for his courage and emplore him to continue; because at least a few people are listening. For examples of the kind of thought provoking comedy discussed, please view some of Dave Chapelle's work at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCbD9o948ec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU28Pv26nNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fndMa0HHvVU